Use Of Force - Shoot/No Shoot

[DHJenkins]

I'm simply asking, if going home means doing nothing, will that be the road you take?

Nope. That armed felon has my name and address and I would consider them to be a continual threat even if they were walking away.

After all, this only just occurred. Sure, "nothing happened" right then, but who's to say said BG won't show up at that person's house this weekend at 3am with some friends? The victim has already proven a gun in his face will get the BG whatever he wants.

 

[COMPNOR]

I'd never let it get to the point of him robbing me without a deadly force response.

And really, that's all you need to say. For the rest of us, working in the context of this situation, we'll continue.

The whole point here, is we KNOW what happens. The question being asked, is what would happen if the victim had been carrying? What would happen next?

That is what a lot of us are talking about. We're not saying we're going to trust the guy not to shoot. We're saying we're still alive, he's leaving. Any further action on our part may make the situation worse. We might not be able to go home if we decide to do anything.

 

[COMPNOR]

After all, this only just occurred. Sure, "nothing happened" right then, but who's to say said BG won't show up at that person's house this weekend at 3am with some friends? The victim has already proven a gun in his face will get the BG whatever he wants.

So then what is your course of action? ( I apologize if you've already said what you've done, I don't feel like going back through 3 pages).

 

[DHJenkins]

So then what is your course of action? ( I apologize if you've already said what you've done, I don't feel like going back through 3 pages).

Since I'm legally allowed to shoot, I probably would. I posted the relevant TX penal code on page 2 (just so you don't have to go back, it deals with deadly force for the protection of property).

 

[COMPNOR]

The situation is what was given. Nothing more, nothing less. We can speculate all we want, but that is not the situation that was given. If thinking about what might happen afterwards is enough justification to shoot him in the back, I'd be interested to see how that would play out.

 

[DHJenkins]

Sorry, I changed my previous post to answer your direct question...

Also, I wouldn't be using "what might happen" as justification, just the relevant PC's on property protection.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Jeff White: Too many people who have never seen violence up close and haven't been in an altercation more serious then a shoving match on the playground in the third grade think that they are so skilled that they can draw from concealment and shoot an assailant who already has a gun pointed that them before that assailant can shoot them. I don't know if it's hollywood, video games or misplaced machismo and it really doesn't matter. If you want to gamble your life that you can draw from concealment and fire on someone who already has his gun pointed at you, and disable him before he shoots you, just go right ahead and take that chance.

Well said.

In many Hollywood movies, two men face each other with hands held over guns in holsters designed for "fast draw" competitions. The 'good guy' is not allowed, under the fictional legal constructs of the dramatization, to reach for his gun until the other guy has started reaching for his gun. Of course, the good guy always wins. All fiction.

I no longer have my copy of Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting by the late Ed McGivern, but if memory serves, Ed proved conclusively that, if one man had started to reach for his gun, the other man would never beat him to the draw. This was back in the 1930s.

There are some people who say that Bill Jordan later did demonstrate doing that.

I seriously doubt that any of us have Jordan's skills--or anything even close.

Why anyone would ever think for a moment that he would stand a chance of drawing from concealment and getting the drop on a man who is already pointing a gun at him, I just cannot fathom.

Maybe Bob Munden, with a Colt SAA and a special rig designed for the purpose, and with his hand poised for the purpose, could get a wax bullet onto a dim-witted thug now and then, but for anyone else....well, I think you are right, it's his funeral.

 

[DHJenkins]

It's well said, but off point. The question, all along, has been 'would you shoot the BG as they walked away'.

 

[rainbowbob]

The question, all along, has been 'would you shoot the BG as they walked away'.

[From the OP] Yes...that IS the question. Thank you.

 

[BullfrogKen]

It's discussions like this that have caused me to stop participating in open-forum, on-line conversations about this study.

Like Jeff points out, there are far too many people who really have no realistic frame of reference to draw upon when we begin to talk about these subjects.

Very few gun owners avail themselves of a training class. Even fewer have participated in Force on Force exercises to test out their theories on how their favored tactic will actually work out in an interactive environment. Even fewer are exposed to the mindset, tactics, and pure violence that criminals use when they work their craft.

When I see conversations like this play out, it doesn't take too long to recognize the backgrounds and experience levels of the participants involved in the discussion. A huge amount of speculation exists about how a fight is going to look, or how a robbery begins, unfolds, and resolves.


We live in a relatively peaceful society. Most of us never see the business end of a gun, or are exposed to criminals in action. The conjecture that there's going to be an opportunity to make something happen in a situation like this is just that - conjecture and speculation. Criminals often operate in teams; even if you don't see his cohorts they are there. It's far more valuable to spend some of our training efforts on reading the environment, developing good social skills so we can read the people in it, and getting a healthy exposure to how criminals ACTUALLY work than to invest hundreds of hours reducing our draw times so we can beat a drawn gun.


Those who think that the law in your state will insulate you from the consequences of shooting someone who just robbed you in the back . . . let's just say there are some really naive views on how the criminal justice system actually works.

 

[catspa]

Bob, I'd like to apologize for posting a response that wasn't an answer to your question. I don't really have an answer to your question, because I've determined that I won't get to the last two sentences of the news story. Truly, that disqualifies me from discussing what you wanted to discuss (shooting him in the back).

However, now that I'm posting...

Jeff, Kleanbore, try this with your best friend (I did, and do, fairly often). Do it for a $20 bill, or who buys lunch. Standing within arm's reach, one of you holds a single-shot paintball gun, cocked and ready to fire, pointed at the "victim". If the "shooter" fires before the "victim" moves, he loses (presumably, if the robber in the news story was looking to commit murder, he would have shot the victim first and then taken his stuff). The "victim's" job is, with hands up and looking the shooter in the eyes, to knock the gun away and slap the "shooter" across the face.

Get back to me with what you find out. Hint: your buddy is expecting it...

Parker

 

[rainbowbob]

Bob, I'd like to apologize for posting a response that wasn't an answer to your question.

I don't mind a little thread-drift if it's at least related to the topic and doesn't cause thread-lock.

The "victim's" job is, with hands up and looking the shooter in the eyes, to knock the gun away and slap the "shooter" across the face.

I'm not sure how knocking the gun off target and slapping the shooter is going to make it possible for you to draw and fire your weapon?

Unless you sent the gun flying out of his hand (unlikely if he has a decent grip on it) and incapacitated him with a blow to the face (also unlikely) - he is still probably going to be able to bring the gun back on target and shoot you before you can draw from concealment and fire.

If you are going to do the "experiment" you suggest, I would suggest taking it a step further. Add a concealed weapon with snap caps (or perhaps airsoft) and see who gets shot first.

 

[Deanimator]

Unless you sent the gun flying out of his hand (unlikely if he has a decent grip on it) and incapacitated him with a blow to the face (also unlikely) - he is still probably going to be able to bring the gun back on target and shoot you before you can draw from concealment and fire.

Simultaneous kaishin to the left, left uchi uke and a draw from concealment place the assailant to the right of the victim, unable to engage and in position for a contact shot to the right abdomen.

 

[DHJenkins]

Those who think that the law in your state will insulate you from the consequences of shooting someone who just robbed you in the back . . . let's just say there are some really naive views on how the criminal justice system actually works.

A little over a decade ago, 2 men attempted to rob a convenience store in a rather bad neighborhood. They were both shot by the proprietor, both COM & in the head. Under the head of each perp they found a crater, and the bullet along to go with it.

It didn't even make it to a grand jury.

The criminal justice system works different depending on where you are.

EDIT: as a matter of fact, about a month ago there was a news tease about a man who attempted to rob a drug store. The tease was "A would-be robber who attempted to hold up a local drug store got his prescription filled with hot lead". The ensuing story was about an 'alleged' criminal attempting to rob a drug store.

This was within a week of the attempted robbery of a drug store up north in which the owner supposedly shot the off-camera gunman while he was on the ground; the media up there had plenty of pro-criminal quotes from the mother & friends.

Therein lies the difference in the attitude on crime. The media down here treated 'our' robber like a criminal. No statements from the mother or friends, no "he was basically a good kid" BS.

It's all about where you live.

 

[mljdeckard]

I think COMPNOR pointed it out in a very critical way.

You don't shoot someone based on what you THINK they are going to do. When you start the high-velocity distribution of JHP, you had better KNOW. The possibility that he MIGHT use the address in your wallet to cause you further harm is neither definite nor imminent danger. If he's walking away, this event is OVER. Just because you can be imaginative and come up with ways that it's possible you could still be harmed doesn't justify homicide.

AGAIN, you shoot when you have NO OTHER OPTION. If he's walking away, the option clearly exists.

 

[DHJenkins]

You don't shoot someone based on what you THINK they are going to do. When you start the high-velocity distribution of JHP, you had better KNOW.

So basically what you're saying is, wait until they actually start shooting at you to react; that way you KNOW they mean to kill you.

Sounds like a great strategy.

 

[n00bish]

I'm going to admit I did not read all 4 pages of this thread. But if no one has mentioned it already, I will say so now. If you have a gun drawn on you, the likelihood of you being able to draw and return fire without being shot is very slim. As in, virtually not happening. Any professional trainer will tell you the same.

 

[DHJenkins]

You could have at least read the first post - the question is, yet again, would you shoot AFTER the perp is walking away.

 

[mljdeckard]

When they are positioned to kill you, or preparing to do so, YES. You know. When they are walking away from you, NO, YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT.

 

[Kleanbore]

You could have at least read the first post - the question is, yet again, would you shoot AFTER the perp is walking away.

Yes.

But a number of respondents opined that they would not have let it get that far.

 

[TheElyrian]

I think drawing at the first opportunity that you think you can without being immediately shot and keeping the gun on him until he is out of sight would be my course of action. His walking away doesn't necessarily mean that for some reason he won't get the urge (for whatever reason) to change his mind and take your life. The guy just let you know that he was willing to take your life for whatever is in your pockets. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to me to assume to know his mindframe and that it for some reason operates logically (ie "I have his stuff, I don't need to kill him for some reason).

I wouldn't attempt to fire upon the guy unless he turned towards me again, therefore putting my life in jeopardy once again. It's just "stuff" the guy stole. I also can't buy into the "he has my info" theory either. Is his having your info that much more of a threat than say, shooting him? What about his family? Friends? Would you not have to worry about them gunning for you in a similar fashion?

I don't know. To answer the original question I would do whatever I thought necessary to keep my body breathing. That could entail running like hell after he's got my stuff, say if he starts running off and I don't think I'm in immediate danger any longer. However, if he's walking off slowly and I think I can more quickly draw and have him in my sights than to be out of range then I think it would be appropriate to have the drop on him and keep him in my sights until he was out of view/range.

JMO.

 

[BullfrogKen]

So basically what you're saying is, wait until they actually start shooting at you to react; that way you KNOW they mean to kill you.

Sounds like a great strategy.

No one is saying any such thing.


There's a difference between doing something that's necessary in the immediacy to protect yourself and stay ahead of the curve, and doing something that really can't quite be justified as necessary.


Jenkins, you may not like it, but the concept of the justifiable use of force in Western society does not permit you to pre-emptively kill, or attempt to kill, someone because of they might come after you in the future. You cannot go kill someone because they have issued you a direct threat that they will come kill you on Friday morning. Only the military enjoys that luxury.

As I mentioned in post #21, the only change from the position in the judicial system has been in cases of battered women. As far as I'm aware of them, even those cases haven't yet gone through the judicial system to the extent of establishing new precident in case law.

 

[catspa]

Hey, Bob.

I slap my friend in the face because he's my friend, and I don't want to bust him up before he buys my lunch.

At arm's length with a gun on me, I'm not saying I can outdraw this robber, but maybe I don't have to. I'm saying I can knock his gun away from me and damage him so badly that he doesn't shoot me. If he was there to fistfight, he wouldn't be drawing the gun. I think he wants the gun to scare me enough that he doesn't have to fight.

It's what I thought up after deciding against giving up my stuff. I'm not the strongest good-ol'-boy in my county, and I might get shot anyway, but it's what I've decided to do if the situation arises. And I'd feel pretty confident telling a jury, "When this scumbag pulled a gun on me, I defended myself with my bare hands, even though I was carrying a gun and a knife at the time. So who was the aggressor again?"

Whatever the stuff was that Dean mentioned, or just plain steer-wrestlin', once the gun is off me, I'm in action. The rest is in the hands of fate. But I think the quote was attributed to the late Col. Cooper, "Evil is not overcome by running from it."

Parker

Sorry again for side-tracking your thread.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Jeff, Kleanbore, try this with your best friend (I did, and do, fairly often). Do it for a $20 bill, or who buys lunch. Standing within arm's reach, one of you holds a single-shot paintball gun, cocked and ready to fire, pointed at the "victim". If the "shooter" fires before the "victim" moves, he loses (presumably, if the robber in the news story was looking to commit murder, he would have shot the victim first and then taken his stuff). The "victim's" job is, with hands up and looking the shooter in the eyes, to knock the gun away and slap the "shooter" across the face.

Action tends to beat reaction, up to a point . . . but if he's close enough to land a strike on, I'm guessing you're getting shot before gun clears leather even in a duty holster if you try to draw on him after slapping his gun aside.

 

[rainbowbob]

I think drawing at the first opportunity that you think you can without being immediately shot and keeping the gun on him until he is out of sight would be my course of action. His walking away doesn't necessarily mean that for some reason he won't get the urge (for whatever reason) to change his mind and take your life. The guy just let you know that he was willing to take your life for whatever is in your pockets. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to me to assume to know his mindframe and that it for some reason operates logically (ie "I have his stuff, I don't need to kill him for some reason).

I wouldn't attempt to fire upon the guy unless he turned towards me again, therefore putting my life in jeopardy once again. It's just "stuff" the guy stole. I also can't buy into the "he has my info" theory either. Is his having your info that much more of a threat than say, shooting him? What about his family? Friends? Would you not have to worry about them gunning for you in a similar fashion?

I don't know. To answer the original question I would do whatever I thought necessary to keep my body breathing. That could entail running like hell after he's got my stuff, say if he starts running off and I don't think I'm in immediate danger any longer. However, if he's walking off slowly and I think I can more quickly draw and have him in my sights than to be out of range then I think it would be appropriate to have the drop on him and keep him in my sights until he was out of view/range.

JMO.

It usually annoys me when someone cuts and pastes an entire post and then adds, "+1" - but I'm doing that here.

In my opinion, TheElyrian's answer to the original question in his (her?) 15th post on THR (# 96 in this thread) was more on point and tactically and legally sound than any other.

Since I'm the OP, I get to say...

Bullseye! Give the man (woman?) a cigar!


I posted this question because I didn't know the answer.

I do not dismiss the possibility that your chances of surviving such an incident might be increased by fighting back before giving up your stuff in the event you are convinced the predator is going to shoot you. This choice depends on your gut instinct in the moment.

It has nothing to do with honor or some kind of ludicrous social contract with a violent sociopathic predator.

It has to do with what you decide is your best chance of immediate survival and survival of the aftermath.

But given the circumstances of the original question...

TheElyrian's nailed it.

I wonder what an Elyrian is?