Was this a BG or a dunce ?

[LightningJoe]

I'll take my chances in front of a jury thank you very much

True.

So, all those police officers who carry guns on a daily basis don't ever use them to create a safe distance between themselves and the individual that they have at the other end?

That only works if the officer gets compliance. And if he doesn't, he shoots the guy? *sigh*

Joe with all due respect I don't think you have ever been in a real fight of desperation where the winner comes away with portions of his body bitten off (I actually beat that charge though)

Well, you do seem to be a reliable authority on self-defense laws and ethics.

I'm still waiting for statistics from anything resembling a reputable source. I'd expect no less from someone that suggests OUR failure to grasp the concept of large numbers.

That was an illustration. And all humans (or at least the great majority) don't intuitively grasp large numbers. Quick. Visualize 10431 bananas.

 

[joab]

Well, you do seem to be a reliable authority on self-defense laws and ethics

.Huh?

I give up, at least the hopeful one has an excuse for acting and thinking as a child

 

[kingpin008]

That only works if the officer gets compliance. And if he doesn't, he shoots the guy? *sigh*

If the officer doesn't get compliance, he has the option to try again. If the suspect is still behaving in a violent or threatening manner, yes, the officer has the option of shooting them, just as a private citizen would in the same situation.

Let's put it another way - I'm a thug, approaching you with the intent to do you harm. You have the option of pointing a pistol at me and telling me to get away from you, or putting up your dukes and telling me to back off. Which do you think would be more effective at convincing me that attacking you isn't a great idea? For your fists to be effective, I have to get close enough to you to actually be in range of those fists. For the gun to be effective, well, it already is at the distance I am from you. That right there is DISTANCE. Created by the use of a ranged weapon (the gun) as opposed to an up-close weapon (your fists). See the difference?

And further - for a badguy to be in range of your fists generally means that you're in range of theirs as well. This is problematic, as they may be able to get the first blow in, and if they have a powerful punch that may be all she wrote. This is also a concern should the badguy have a knife or some sort of bludgeon. Even if you were Muhammed Ali junior, there's not much you can do with bare hands against a knife or brick when the person wielding it already has the drop on you.

With the gun, you have the ability to keep the attacker at a distance, yet retain control of the situation. You have the range, and anything short of the badguy having his own gun are of no concern to you. His fists won't reach, nor will a knife or any sort of bludgeon he may have. Sure, he could throw stuff at you, but then you could give him bullets back. Either way you retain control. And if the badguy has his own gun, at least you're on level ground. Who comes out on top of that will come down to reaction time, performance under stress, and luck. But how do you win a gunfight when all you brought was your own two hands?

 

[LightningJoe]

Kingpin:


So if a disheveled guy with a weird light in his eye walks toward you empty-handed, you're going to draw on him and if he doesn't stop advancing, you're going to shoot him?


I don't think you will. I think you'll keep commanding him until he gets closer than your comfort distance and then you'll start walking backward. You think you can just pull that trigger whenever you want? Easier said than done.


Once he's got you retreating, how will it end?


Also, do cops often shoot unarmed guys who fight them but who don't grab their weapons?

 

[poor_richard]

Is this what's meant by "circular logic"?





I read the whole thread, and the OP did everything right except leave the carry piece at home. Drawing the knife while not brandishing it was the perfect call. He didn't threaten the person, but was prepared to defend himself.

If the person was really lost, and somewhat foolish, then no harm no foul. No one was hurt, and no one was threatened. If he wasn't foolish, then he was up to no good.

If you think you have the skills to escalate the force continuum after the fight has started, then good for you. Personally I think it is foolish when dealing with an unknown person who is assaulting you (no matter how skilled you are), but that is your choice. I'll not take that chance thank you very much, and it is immoral to demand that others put themselves at such a risk just because of your views on the subject.

It's amazing how many people come on gun boards, and demonstrate how much they are against people defending themselves without giving the criminals an even chance. The criminals had their chance before they decided to prey upon their fellow man.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Also, do cops often shoot unarmed guys who fight them but who don't grab their weapons?

Apples / Orangutan. Poloce have a great many advantages that a common citizen doesn't have. The day I get, as a normal citizen, a button I can push that will summon every police officer in five miles to my location then maybe I'll rethink my self defense policies. I'd also like the laws changed so that citizens can carry ASPs, tazers and OC openly. While we're making citizens into patrol offcers, I'd like every tenth citizen issued a highly trained K-9 and an airship on call for every fifty citizens. I'd also appreciate it if when citizens find themselves in certain high threat locations, no fewer than two citizens are allowed to go at any given time. Most of the city we will still use single citizen vehicles, but double citizen units are a must in some places.

PS: As an officer, I've had my weapon drawn a great many times on people that didn't have weapons.

 

[RLsnow]

I would think for a lot of people, coming into hand to hand ranges would equall a "game over" (no im not saying nobody could win such a fight, im saying i dont think anyone would want to rely on their hand to hand fighting skills...ever)

OP did good, lots of good posts in this thread pertain use of deadly force and i tend to agree that the threat of deadly force justifies taking steps to defend oneself. (be it pulling a gun, knife or anything really)

 

[Jamie C.]

I wouldn't be able to shoot him either if he blindsided me or caught me off guard. Duh.

Well with your gun all stuffed down in your pocket and you thinking you can whup anybody your size that comes along, no, I don't suppose you could. So "duh" right back at ya.

Now, for those of us that realize all assaults, robberies, or other violent crimes are by definition unexpected or "blind-sides" ( If they weren't, and we knew they were coming, we would just stay home and skip the whole affair ), and more or less prepare for being "behind the curve" and to possibly (probably?) be out-matched either physically, or at least in the mind of the assailant, "out-gunned"... well, we might just get a shot or two off before we get our skull caved in or our neck broken.

But then that does take being able and willing to shoot an unarmed attacker if required.

But if you can testify that the unarmed guy your size had you so scared you had to shoot him, more power to ya.

You seem to be all hung up on the word "fear".... Try substituting "reasonably believe" or possibly even "know" and you'll probably be closer to what both the law means/intends and what must of us that have commented here think.

I am not a "fearful" person, who's afraid every person I meet is going to want to kill or rob me. I do, however, know that someone my size... or possibly even smaller.... is quite capable of killing or seriously injuring me or someone else in a bare-handed fight.

I've seen it too many times over the years, and I believe I can easily explain or demonstrate it to a judge, jury, or prosecutor.

And once again, the laws here and in other places agree with me.

David vs Goliath is one thing, but in my experience Goliath-sized guys don't cause problems. It's always the regular-size guys with the Goliath-size attitudes.

And what exactly is your experience? How old are you, and what have you been involved in?

Me, I've been a soldier, cop, bouncer, security guard, and a few other things that require physical conflict. I've spent more than 25 years involved in various martial arts, and have both military and LE training.

I also realize that I'm almost 45 years old, and not as physically capable as I was when I was 25 or 30, and that no one is going to attack me unless they believe, either correctly or incorrectly, that they have a high likelihood of success.

In short, I have sufficient experience to know what one unarmed person can do to another, especially when they have the element of surprise.

I also know that advantage can be nullified to some degree or the other by the victim of the attack having a weapon they are prepared to use.

So again... tell us a bit about yourself, and what leads you to the conclusions you've voiced here.

( For the record, you sound pretty young and inexperienced to me. Possibly someone with a martial arts background but little or no "real world" encounters.)

And by the way, a person that's 5 ft 10 inches tall and weighs 165lbs, but has made a career of violence and maybe even has spent time in prison, probably is a "Goliath" when compared to someone the same size, who works a 40-60 hour a week desk job, and only occasionally gets out to the gym and/or shooting range.

Again "same size" doesn't mean "same abilities or skill sets".



J.C.

 

[PcMakr]

Spent 7 1/2 yrs in LE and 6 yrs in private security. Not nearly as experienced as some of the other posters here. (Would be interesting to learn more of some of their exoeriences) That short time of my experience showed me that in a large number of cases that "he who gets in the first blow, usually wins." This is especially true in a surprise attack. The victim is usually stunned enough, or worse, that it is hard for him to muster the mind and muscles to react efficiently.

I am now over 50 yrs. old, with a heart condition, and a disease that most people have never heard of (I hadn't until diagnosed), that affects the neuro-muscular system. There's not much I can't do, I just can't do it very long due to little stamina, and a weightlifting restriction. I would not last long in a physical confrontation. That is why I will do whatever I have to do to protect myself and God's gift to me, my wife and family.

One of the posters mentioned fear of being attacked. Damned right I'm afraid of being attacked. I have seen what people can do in honest to God street fighting, not on the boob tube, or in the ring. In the ring, there are controlled conditions, no surprise brass-knucks, knives, etc. Nothing is real on the tube or cinema. It can all be faked and everyone goes home feeling good (and being well paid) about having given the audience a thrill and adrenaline high. However, I don't let that fear drive me into irrational behavior, or burying my head in the sand. I channel that fear into useful ways, such as trying to be aware of the surrounding situations, and doing the best I can to be prepared for whatever may arise.

The OP did a good job of situational awareness, and being prepared as much as the situation allowed.

 

[kingpin008]

So if a disheveled guy with a weird light in his eye walks toward you empty-handed, you're going to draw on him and if he doesn't stop advancing, you're going to shoot him?

Once again, Lightning seems to have missed quite a bit of what I said. What I AM saying, is that if I feel threatened by an individual who has already had his question answered by me, and has no other business coming closer to me, I will order him away. If he persists, the order will become a command. If he persists, then and only then would a gun come out and shots fired if necessary.

I don't think you will.

I don't think you've been in enough fights to know for sure that dealing with violent badguys bare-handed is a good idea. I guess we're even, huh?

You think you can just pull that trigger whenever you want? Easier said than done.

Run that past me one more time? It didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Once he's got you retreating, how will it end?

If I'm able to retreat, I have obviously found a safe way to do so without getting myself (or anyone with me) involved in any more trouble. I retreat, badguy hopefully retreats, no shots fired. However - if I am forced back by the attacker, that would mean that he has refused to stop approaching, and very possibly means to do me harm. That's why I have a gun in my hand. Did I miss something, or was that a rhetorical question?

Also, do cops often shoot unarmed guys who fight them but who don't grab their weapons?

Sure. if the officer is in fear of their lives, shots can and have been fired to stop the threat. I have a question though - why is it that every time we've commented back to one another, it's you who can't get past the "shooting" part of the question? I mean, if you go back through my posts you'll see that I mention opening fire on a potential badguy only as a last resort. You, on the other hand, seem to consistently talk about it as if I were whipping a gun out and blasting away. Could this be the reason that you insist so heartily on going fists-only with a potential attacker? You don't trust yourself to use a gun properly in a stressful encounter? Because barring that, I simply cannot see a reason for you continually return to that one aspect of the commentary.

There is a good bit between drawing a gun in response to a threat and actually firing it, Lighting. I think that if you recognized that it would help to understand where I (and many others) are coming from.

 

[OAKVILLE SHOOTER]

Firearms don't create distance; they create holes.

Not! Bullets create holes, not guns.

 

[kingpin008]

Not! Bullets create holes, not guns.

Correct!

 

[Jamie C.]

Y'know, guns really don't create distance. They simply maintain it, if properly applied, by keeping the attacker from closing.

One way or the other, you've gotta have the distance to begin with though.



J.C.

 

[kingpin008]

Fair enough. I think my point stands either way, though.

 

[Jamie C.]

Kingpin, I'm not disputing what you said earlier, just pointing out that a firearm is the "nail" that anchors the BG in place, at worst. ( This is generally the plan, anyway... ) And this anchoring provides the person with the gun the ability to open the distance/leave the scene/survive.

However, if the BG decides he don't wanna get "nailed" and expands the distance between you and him, that's just a bonus.

Then again, I suppose if you have a large enough caliber gun, it could literally "create distance" between you and the person you shoot...


J.C.

 

[RLsnow]

Remember to write cool quotes to say in such a situation on your hands or something... make it good, none of the overused ones like "do ya feel lucky punk?"

 

[Jamie C.]

Remember to write cool quotes to say in such a situation on your hands or something... make it good, none of the overused ones like "do ya feel lucky punk?"

How 'bout "You just bought a ticket for a one-way trip on the magnum express"?

Edit: Yes I'm bored. And yes, I can visualize 10431 bananas... and 10431 monkeys eating those bananas while typing on 10430* computer keyboards.

*One monkey is too busy eating to type.


J.C.

 

[LightningJoe]

And what exactly is your experience? How old are you, and what have you been involved in?

Well, as I stated earlier, I'm no secret agent etc. I also have undoubtedly bitten off fewer body parts than Joab.


Professionally, I've been an Air Force Security Policeman, a Sheriff's deputy, and a security guard at a hospital in a "post-nuclear-war" section of San Antonio. That was back during my adolescence. Nowadays, I enjoy the rugged, manly life of an electrical engineer.


The Sheriff's department job and the security guard job were undoubtedly the most applicable to what we're talking about here. I worked in a podular, direct-supervision jail which meant that they put 100 criminals in a big room and locked me in there with them. I didn't have any of the equipment ClickClick talks about. All I had was my body, my cowboy boots, and my winning personality. And a blue shirt.


Anyway, you guys can shoot anybody you want. Somebody's going to sort it all out. You can point them to this thread, I guess. I suppose they'll say, well, OK then.


Me, I'm only shooting people with weapons in their hands. Never was too bright about that kind of thing. Testosterone poisoning, you know. Oh, and I'm 44.

 

[AZ_Rebel]

Put ihopewewin on your "ignore" list as it is obvious that he "knows it all" and has no capacity or interest in learning.

No, no, no
Don't give up on him, this is the age where they are learning to think outside of the Simpsons
Look to another poster in this thread for an example of what he will be like if he doesn't learn now

You gotta know when to hold-em, and know when to fold-em... (Hmmmm... BSTT = Bart Simpson Tacticool Training... I Like It!!! Explains a lot!)

There has been a lot of dialogue in this thread. Some good sense and some non-sense. Most Interesting!
It does become obvious that there are a number of people out there (and in here) who really have no solid grip on what a street fight is - and how unpredictable and dangerous they can be. The idea of choosing to go toe-to-toe with an unknown individual when there are safer choices is so ludricous to be beyond discussion - yet some are on their soapbox espousing just exactly that. Your assailant does not need a weapon to you you serious harm. People are beaten to death with fists and feet frequently enough to make that a moot point.

I'd rather fight barehanded against somebody who's unarmed than risk shooting somebody who doesn't need it. Not a universal viewpoint seemingly.

Nope... sure is not!

I will pull my carry weapon to keep from being attacked, I will then defend myself with it if need be.

That's exactly the point and exactly correct. You do not need to fire in order to extricate yourself from a potentially dangerous situation - but you must be prepared to fire if the situation does not de-escalate - an empty threat can result in a steel suppository!
This is also the reason why good training and (good) practice is essential to prepare for a situation such as this. You must be thoroughly familiar with your weapon and its mechanical operation to the extent that you can use it without having to think about the actual steps. That way your mind can focus on the situation at hand and on the "shoot - no shoot" decision. Preparations like that will make it much more likely that you will fire when necessary and NOT fire when there is still a chance of de-escalation.

 

[JWarren]

LighteningJoe wrote:

Anyway, you guys can shoot anybody you want. Somebody's going to sort it all out. You can point them to this thread, I guess. I suppose they'll say, well, OK then.


Me, I'm only shooting people with weapons in their hands. Never was too bright about that kind of thing. Testosterone poisoning, you know. Oh, and I'm 44.

This may be one of the more sensible things you've said.

You see, it DOES become a decision made individually. And the consequences of that decision become a matter of the laws of your jurisdiction.


But that wasn't how this started. It started with the suggestion that you would go to jail if you had to shoot a person with no visible weapon. Period.

LighteningJoe wrote:

"Could an unarmed guy kill you? Yes. 0.000001. Could you become a murderer and go to prison? Yes. 99.99999."

And you have been shown repeatedly that this just ain't so.

I have been browsing the internet a few times today looking for where I can order one of those crystal balls that will tell me for absolute certain that the person charging me isn't also carrying a weapon that he can draw in a "fair" fight.


Editoralizing:



Threads like this really anger me. I have run into people (even on THR) who allow their own personal ethical set to supercede reality. Repeatedly people have stated in absolute terms what you can and cannot do-- REGARDLESS of what the law says.

I got in a debate over defense of property not too long ago with a person who actually suggested that I was "irresponsible" for telling a person to determine within their own soul what they are willing to do in such cases, and then act within the laws of your jurisdiction."

There are some people who seem to just not be able to stand that the laws and the world doesn't work exactly like they would like it to. And they try to hide the ugly little fact that some places have laws regarding such matters that are opposed to perhaps their own ethos.

Those peope often try to tell people on forums, in absolute terms, what is legal and illegal and make no mention of variances in laws across jurisdictions.

And some of these people-- such as one I debated with recently-- call themselves experts.

Beware of "expert" advice-- especially from those who seem to have difficulty with objectivity.

Do your own research.



-- John

 

[ihopewewin]

A. I love how people are talking down to me because of my age yet they have no idea what my age is. B. I didn't claim I was an expert. C. I do belive that you have a good chance of going to jail for shooting an unarmed man and I bet someone on this forum with more time then me could go and look up dozens of these cases. If you can prove to a jury that you were so scared of an unarmed person when you're a perfectly fine not disabled man then congratz to you because you must be a pretty good actor. If you're that scared of other men then how do you manage to walk around and do every day task with this fear. Please do not try and belittle me with name calling because that just shows how immature your "half developed" brain must be.

 

[JWarren]

ihopewewin wrote:

I love how people are talking down to me because of my age yet they have no idea what my age is.

They are taking you at your word:

Date of Birth:
April 15
Biography:
I'm a student currently trying to get through high school and on to college. I'm huge on 2A and have always enjoyed shooting. Can't wait to get to the age to CCW in florida, but hope I never have to use it.
Location:
Orlando Florida
Interests:
Gaming, plinking, and putting holes in paper.
Occupation:
School
What I do for the RKBA and other civil liberties:
So far i'm only able to spread my own opinion to peers.

Your own words put you in your teenage years.

If you can prove to a jury that you were so scared of an unarmed person when you're a perfectly fine not disabled man then congratz to you because you must be a pretty good actor.

So I suppose you'd suggest that when I was your age, I should have wadded in and duked it out with the two UNARMED men who were attempting to rape my sister in our front lawn.

If you're that scared of other men then how do you manage to walk around and do every day task with this fear.

Not fear of other men-- fear of the unknown variables that get you when you don't see them coming. As I said before, you'd be shocked at how any men carry a folding knife. Some have mentioned it on this thread. And once it's pulled in your "fair" fight, you get to be the victim. Have fun.

And it has nothing to do with fear or inability to "fight." I can fight with the best of them, but I've yet to meet an invincible man. But I've met PLENTY of people who drastically over-estimate their own prowess.

I do belive that you have a good chance of going to jail for shooting an unarmed man and I bet someone on this forum with more time then me could go and look up dozens of these cases.

And can look up dozens of cases otherwise. You opened the door, and it got closed for you by those on this thread who TOOK the time to demonstrate the actual laws surrounding this rather than operating from your "belief."

My grandfather used to tell me "Truth doesn't care whether you believe or not."


-- John

 

[LightningJoe]

JWarren:


Somebody on this BBoard asked me for my experience and age and I tried to give it briefly. What are your background, experience, and age?



ClickClick:


I've been trying to understand how this all works. Please walk me though it.


So the citizen draws his gun on some guy and says "Halt" or whatever. The guy steps forward so he shoots him. Well, he should have known better, I guess.


So what then? Does the citizen pick up his brass and leave? I mean, if he calls the cops, they're going to show up and find him there with a dead guy and they're naturally going to wonder what happened.


So they ask, "How'd this guy end up dead here?"

"I shot him."

"Why?"

"He tried to kill me."

"Did he have a gun?"

"No."

"A knife?"

"No."

"Well, how did you know we was going to kill you?"

"Well, look at him. I mean, he looked at lot tougher when he was alive."

"I guess we'll never know."

"Nope. I guess not."

"Well, here's the medal we hand out to citizens like you. Have a nice day."

 

[TCB in TN]

So the citizen draws his gun on some guy and says "Halt" or whatever. The guy steps forward so he shoots him. Well, he should have known better, I guess.

So what then? Does the citizen pick up his brass and leave? I mean, if he calls the cops, they're going to show up and find him there with a dead guy and they're naturally going to wonder what happened.

So they ask, "How'd this guy end up dead here?"
"I shot him."
"Why?"
"He tried to kill me."
"Did he have a gun?"
"No."
"A knife?"
"No."
"Well, how did you know we was going to kill you?"
"Well, look at him. I mean, he looked at lot tougher when he was alive."
"I guess we'll never know."
"Nope. I guess not."
"Well, here's the medal we hand out to citizens like you. Have a nice day."

Seems some folks lack reading comprehension skills.

 

[Avenger29]

So I suppose you'd suggest that when I was your age, I should have wadded in and duked it out with the two UNARMED men who were attempting to rape my sister in our front lawn.

JWarren, were you the one that posted in a thread a while back that you were cleaning an AR on the front porch when those two scumbags were trying to get your sister?