When do you draw?

[AKElroy]

Scream at the top of your lungs OOOOOWWWWWWW! and say "C'mon Beeyatch! Make my day!" Then start dancing around, alternating pointing your barrel at each of their heads. Keep laughing, but this time in a more demonic way.

That's an option I honestly had not considered.

 

[expvideo]

Scream at the top of your lungs OOOOOWWWWWWW! and say "C'mon Beeyatch! Make my day!" Then start dancing around, alternating pointing your barrel at each of their heads. Keep laughing, but this time in a more demonic way.

umm... wait, what?

 

[X-Rap]

Yesterday 06:46 PM
Tamlin
You know, I've thought about this scenario a lot. Crazy things go through your mind when you replay "what-ifs" in your head. Part 1: Yes, I draw. Part 2: (they think I'm bluffing and won't shoot them) - here's where you can have some fun. Because - I'M holding the gun and am capable and willing to pull the trigger if need be. Do I want to? No. So what to do . . . start shaking your head like you have a nervous tick . . . start laughing in short bursts (hehe...hehe....hehe.....) Scream at the top of your lungs OOOOOWWWWWWW! and say "C'mon Beeyatch! Make my day!" Then start dancing around, alternating pointing your barrel at each of their heads. Keep laughing, but this time in a more demonic way. A good impression of "Warriors . . . Come Out to Play . . ." should be just enough to convince them that you just escaped from the state hospital and are capable of ANYTHING at this moment. If they don't back away, I'd advance, licking my lips the whole time, trying to do my best Hannibal Lecter impersonation. If they still don't back away, then you can back away, laughing all the way, and they will be standing there not knowing what to do or think!

The witnesses to that trial would be interesting to hear. Perhaps a Priest to exersize the demons would be in order.
Maybe some props from the Magic Store would be useful too.

I still say that two men advancing toward you after demanding your wallet and a defensive gun was pulled and reasonable effort to move away from the robbers/danger fulfills the obligation of the victim.
This is strong arm robbery and a felon by any count, with two against one any thought of unarmed defense is foolish. This is the reason we go armed.

 

[SrDedosRapidos]

i would draw, and if they didnt sh*t from the 7inch .500 SW Barrel trained on their chests and run in fear, id be calling the cops

Not really though. I would probably threaten to call the police first, and if they continued to demand my wallet, my hand goes to the Springfield.

If they run off, i give the police a detailed description and hopefully get picked up.

If they stay and decide to reach for something in a threatening way or make any sudden movements tword me, the 1911 speaks. Mugging is a felony, and the castle doctrine (as i understand it... i havnt been to my CCDW class and am no lawyer, so feel free to rip me a new one) i believe says that deadly force is justified when the perpetrator shows intent to commit grievous bodily harm or a felony... but that probably only applies to your house or car...

 

[X-Rap]

Some of you guys are really quick, and multitaskers too.

 

[Tom Servo]

I hope everyone has done some training with these senarios. Good luck making your brain work when adrenalin and stress are causing the short circuit. This is why solders rountinely train, so they do not have to think.

And we have a winner! I've had to draw. Adrenalin does some goofy stuff to the higher brain functions.

Knowing WHEN to draw...well, hopefully, you'll know. One thing I'm not doing is allowing anyone to get within arms' length. If they are threatening me for my wallet, they are threatening me, period.

It'd be a real tactical compromise to be fumbling for my wallet, much less holding out my hand to someone who's threatening me. My first priority is getting away from a toxic situation, and doing what it takes to do so. Hopefully, that means walking (or running) away. I'm not a brave person; I just want to get home.

As far as people getting intimidated by the gun, don't count on it. If it's dark, they may not even see it. This stuff happens fast. Same goes for the stupid idea that starts with, "when they see the laser on their chest, they'll soil their pants." Do not count on the gun as a deterrent.

Practice retention. Learn to keep the gun close to the body. Do NOT straighten your arms if someone's within six feet of you, and watch yourself on all sides. Someone could be trying to flank you.

There's no cut-and-dried rule as to when you should draw. You'll just have to apply judgment and training to the situation as it presents itself.

 

[X-Rap]

Now there is someone who makes sense. No multi layered strategy using non and less than leathal force first. Just plain simple keep distance and pay attention.
The lady with the monkey knows how fast an attack can happen

 

[wankerjake]

I would like to think that I would do like I practice, which is to put my hand on my gun and get ready to draw, while telling them to back off. If they don't back off, the gun comes out. If they keep advancing, and I can't retreat, I'm basically out of options. Like others have said, if you knowingly engage someone who is armed and ready to fight, you mean business. And that is just what they would get from me. Why carry a gun if you aren't going to use it to defend yourself when you need to? Also I haven't ever had to draw but I know that adrenaline is a serious x-factor. It's easy to archair but in real life it really is up in the air. I really do think it helps to practice doing the right things.

I would whip out my revolver, tell them it's the most powerful handgun in the world, and ask them if they feel lucky.

Punks.

I don't care who you are, that's funny!

 

[expvideo]

I hope everyone has done some training with these senarios. Good luck making your brain work when adrenalin and stress are causing the short circuit. This is why solders rountinely train, so they do not have to think.

And we have a winner! I've had to draw. Adrenalin does some goofy stuff to the higher brain functions.

Good advice, but bear in mind that adrenaline affects different people differently. I've had to draw as well, and I was surprised to find that adrenaline helped me until the event was over, and then I was shaky and felt sick. I think that for the most part though, you are right about wanting to train with the understanding that you will not be able to think clearly. I just think it is important for anyone who hasn't been in a situation like that to know that adrenaline is unpredictable, and it doesn't affect everyone the same way.

Knowing WHEN to draw...well, hopefully, you'll know. One thing I'm not doing is allowing anyone to get within arms' length. If they are threatening me for my wallet, they are threatening me, period.

Too many people don't realize that. You are absolutely right.

It'd be a real tactical compromise to be fumbling for my wallet, much less holding out my hand to someone who's threatening me. My first priority is getting away from a toxic situation, and doing what it takes to do so. Hopefully, that means walking (or running) away. I'm not a brave person; I just want to get home.

Also very sound advice.

As far as people getting intimidated by the gun, don't count on it. If it's dark, they may not even see it. This stuff happens fast. Same goes for the stupid idea that starts with, "when they see the laser on their chest, they'll soil their pants." Do not count on the gun as a deterrent.

This is something that is really important to understand. Never count on the intimidation factor of a gun. That is not what it is for, and it is extremely unreliable, regardless of what Crimson Trace would have you believe.

Practice retention. Learn to keep the gun close to the body. Do NOT straighten your arms if someone's within six feet of you, and watch yourself on all sides. Someone could be trying to flank you.

That is the hardest part. This is where you want to train, because no matter how well you handle adrenaline, it is really easy to not pay attention to what is going on around you and get tunnel vision. It's also really easy to forget retention, since most firearms practice utilizes holding the gun up and out. If someone is within about six feet, like you said, they can take your gun if you aren't actively retaining it. Taking a gun from someone is easier than you might think, and this might not be these guys' first rodeo.

There's no cut-and-dried rule as to when you should draw. You'll just have to apply judgment and training to the situation as it presents itself.

Absolutely true.

Sorry to break up your post, but you made several excellent points and I wanted to address them all.

 

[Mello]

AKElroy

When do you draw?
Scenario:

Part 1---Dark, empty parking lot. Two 17 year old bangers demand your wallet. They are not brandishing weapons, but they are intimidating, street tough kids and you do not know if they are armed or not. You have $300 in the wallet, pictures of the kids, credit cards & your CHL. Under your jacket you have a C&L 1911 in an open top high ride. Do you draw?

Part 2---You draw, but they still demand the wallet, taunting that you would not shoot them over a wallet. Do you give them the wallet & see if they retreat, or do you hold your ground and fire to protect your property?

I will assume that you (the victim) are in the empty parking lot for a legal reason. I also assume that you have been in condition yellow and saw the two at a distance of 100' had time to observe their behavior and make an assessment of thier threat level.

I would draw my concealed weapon after 1) shouting to the two bangers to stay away and 2) if they continued to be a threat demonstrated by continuing to close the distance on me.

I would argue that to split your attention from dealing with a serious threat by giving them your wallet places you at greater risk. You are not deciding to use deadly force over a issue of property but over the issue of personal safety. If the two continued to move closer after seeing your gun, they have demonstrated their intent to do you great harm.

It is a life or death situation for you. Two 17 year old males could easily over power me and take my gun and kill me with it.

I was in New Orleans one morning waiting for the courthouse to open. I was alone on the street when I noticed a man walking in my direction. The streets were empty except for this guy and me. I crossed the street so that he would not pass near me. He crossed the street. I recrossed the street to stay away from him. He recrossed the street too and continued to get closer. Since I was going to go into the courthouse I was not able to carry my handgun. Again, I crossed the street, so did he. I placed my hand into my briefcase as if I was placing my hand on a gun and looked him in the eye and took an aggressive stance. He crossed the street and left me alone. He never got closer than 40 feet.

I do not know what he wanted. I just wanted to be left alone. I did nothing overtly threatening to him.

 

[chuckusaret]

I am a senior citizen with a CCL and I carry 99% of the time. Why? for SD. What would I do, warn the two that I will shoot, and if they continue their attack, two tap the nearest BG and prepare to engage the second if necessary or restrain him if possible. Then dial 911 and my attorney. There are no other options when a BG attempts to harm my family or me.

 

[effengee]

what to do...

Draw, point it at the ground between you and them, recite movie line:
"Are you feeling lucky, punk?"
If they make aggressive gestures or still step towards me menacingly, shoot-to-kill without hesitation.

I'm a law-abiding citizen minding my own business, the bad guys (even most teen thugs) generally have a rap sheet longer than my arm... Who's a jury gonna believe if the assailants are dead, and I'm a father, a husband, and a productive member of society?

Besides, anybody stupid enough to advance on an armed person who has no intention of becoming a victim deserves a new A-hole right between their eyes.

Before you berate me for my Clint impression or delusions about a gunfight remember this:
I'd hate to have to kill somebody, but I'd hate being dead myself even more.

 

[Tom Servo]

Sorry to break up your post, but you made several excellent points and I wanted to address them all.

Thanks! I also used the word "tactical." Did you see?

The young people will think I'm so cool

Something else I forgot to mention: I live in a state with a Castle Doctrine and a passing respect for the right to self-defense. You may not.

What's legal in Pensacola may not fly in Baltimore. Check your local laws to see how much of the right to self-defense you can exercise before it ends you in jail.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't take all necessary measures; I'm just saying, know what you could be getting into. In a state that allows (and respects) concealed carry, I'd call the police at the earliest possible opportunity and make sure a report was filed.

In a place like Chicago, I may be carrying in violation of the law (*). If something did happen, I'd make sure to get the heck off the scene as soon as possible, avoid any potential witnesses, and never discuss the matter with anyone.

(*) Purely hypothetical. Never carried a gun in Chicago. Never been in Chicago more than a few hours at a time.

 

[rbernie]

I'd hate to have to kill somebody, but I'd hate being dead myself even more.

I'd also hate to be in jail or impoverished because I made a bad serious of assumptions about what was legal (or not) in my state, when I could have potentially resolved the situation without risking jail time or civil suits had I only taken the time to learn the laws in my jurisdiction.



Folk always want to make this into a binary issue, when in reality the issue is NEVER binary.

 

[expvideo]

I'd also hate to be in jail or impoverished because I made a bad serious of assumptions about what was legal (or not) in my state, when I could have potentially resolved the situation without risking jail time or civil suits had I only taken the time to learn the laws in my jurisdiction.

had I only taken the time to learn the laws in my jurisdiction... and been a good little citizen and died without hurting anyone? ***? How does the law change whether or not you want to die or live? If you don't shoot them, they will kill you. If you think that living and dieing is not a binary issue, then you need to stop watching zombie movies. Two people closing in on an armed person will only end one of two ways, regardless of the law.

 

[GregGry]

Draw, point it at the ground between you and them, recite movie line:
"Are you feeling lucky, punk?"
If they make aggressive gestures or still step towards me menacingly, shoot-to-kill without hesitation.

I'm a law-abiding citizen minding my own business, the bad guys (even most teen thugs) generally have a rap sheet longer than my arm... Who's a jury gonna believe if the assailants are dead, and I'm a father, a husband, and a productive member of society?

Besides, anybody stupid enough to advance on an armed person who has no intention of becoming a victim deserves a new A-hole right between their eyes.

There is a survivalist mentality as written above, and then there is what is called legal justification. Always remember that survivalists are not exempt from prosecution.

When you shoot and kill someone in self defense you have just fulfilled the requirements for first degree (or the highest murder level in your state) intentional homicide. You did intend on shooting them (in self defense), you used a tool that could easily cause death or great bodily harm. You have to invoke the privilege of self defense (justifiable homicide) which makes an illegal act legal.

That sounds easy, but most states require that you only use deadly force in public when you’re at a reasonable risk of death or great bodily harm. Simply put that the laws are trying to hold people accountable who decide to use deadly force as a means to stop a situation that could have been solved other ways. The fact a bad guy has a 20 page long rap sheet wont really help you in trial, since the trial dealing with the justification of you shooting them is going to be based on what happened (not outside information such as past records).


You can believe that you couldn't punch through a wet paper bag, can't outrun a 100 year old in a wheel chair, and that everyone is a ninja warrior. All that is fine and dandy but other people (a jury) might look at you and think that you actually aren't as weak as you think, and that will lead them to thinking you really weren't at risk of death or great bodily harm (again great bodily harm is more then a broken nose).

When the bad guy clearly had a gun, a knife, or something like that it’s more clear cut. Fists only like the OP suggests becomes a disparity of force case. Were the bad guy(s) reasonably capable of causing you death or great bodily harm? You used deadly force against them, and if they were incapable of reasonably causing you death or great bodily harm, you just used deadly force against a non deadly threat. That means jail time in most cases. Again statistics that show criminals carry guns, are black belts in 10 martial art theories, and so on won’t do anything to prove that you are justified. Only what evidence makes it into court will prove that.

Who's a jury gonna believe if the assailants are dead, and I'm a father, a husband, and a productive member of society?

Just to further try to get a point across I have this to say. If the bad guy is dead, it is going to be your testimony vs evidence collected and witness statements. The fact that your a upstanding member of society and that the guy that was killed was a 20 page rap sheet long offender, isn't going to be debated/tried/etc in court. You will be fighting your case against a dead guy that you admit to killing with intent. You really can't get more serious then that. Your statements will have to paint a picture that shows you acted in a manner that is consistent with what the law requires for self defense. That means if you shoot an unarmed person you better have been at a reasonable risk of being killed or of great bodily harm. Disobeying orders to stay back is not justification to use deadly force.


On a final note I would like to say that there are way to many people on here that are willing to buy and carry a gun, but never actual seek some legal training so you have an idea of what your into if you use your gun. Carrying a firearm and protecting yourself is serious business. Having a survivalist mentality of "kill any threat" might keep you alive, but don't expect to woo over a jury with that mentality. This mentality would be extremely dangerous if it wasn't for the fact that people will often run when faced with the choice of fighting a person with a gun or running away. There simply aren't many circumstances where a criminal will try to stick around and fight after you draw on them.

 

[GregGry]

***? How does the law change whether or not you want to die or live? If you don't shoot them, they will kill you.

In the case of a unarmed man as in the OP you will have to prove that they were capable of killing you or causing great bodily harm. That isn't clear cut when a knife or firearm wasn't used. In most states a group of people will be deciding on your fate based on if your threat assessment (Aka that the bad guy(s) could have killed you or caused death/great bodily harm) was reasonable. You are making a assumption that they could kill you/cause great bodily harm with fists alone. Sure 2 guys vs 1 gives them the disparity of force. However if they never motioned for/ mentioned potential weapons, you saw their fists the entire time, and they never came close enough/motioned like they were going to attack you, were you really at risk of death/great bodily harm when you pulled the trigger?

Knowing state laws on self defense is just as important as knowing the rules of firearms. CCWing and planning for self defense is meaningless if you have no idea what you legally can and can't do. Why would you want to risk your life being thrown away in jail for a unjustified shoot? Your lawyer can't change what you did, he/she can only present a case to show that what YOU did was legal. Learning about the legality of using force after you’re on trial for murder doesn't make any sense. Not to mention when your case busts your lawyer still gets money and they go home.

In some states you can legally shoot someone that is trying to rob you (regardless of their ability to cause death/great bodily harm), even if they don't have any weapons, just fists. In such cases the use of deadly force is legal to use against a non deadly force threat. In most states if you have a 3 foot tall man come up to you and say "I am going to beat you to death if you don't give me your wallet" you would not be justifiable in shooting them.

Pleading ignorant of the laws won’t save you. That’s why its best to know what you can and can't do.


EDIT: Think of this. You don't know how to drive a car or the rules of the road. You get a car, and just drive around all day. You will be ignorant of many laws because you don't have a clue when it comes to what they are. Eventually be it a year or 1,000 years you will be in a situation where you might make a illegal manuver that caused a crash where someone died. The rules of the road/laws don't prevent anything from happening, they only give legal justification to hold you accountable for what happens. Since someone died during your breaking of the laws you are sentenced to prison.

This is avoidable had you just got training and understood what is expected of you. The legal aspect of using deadly force has little to do with a survivalism mentality. In a survivalism mentality it is kill or be killed, and as long as you kill first, you will live. This might keep you alive but its not going to make the laws go away. If you can't grasp that society expects people to keep surivalism when it comes to kill or be killed in check, then maybe a trip to a desolate place with no laws or rules will allow the freedom you desire.

 

[housedad]

simple. In both scenarios, they have initiated aggressive and criminal behavior. End of story. Anything else is a reaction to that behavior.

reference cenario 1:

Say no first. If they make even the slightest move toward you, or act like they are going to pull out a weapon, draw and fire instantly.

Reference scenario 2:

If you have made a mistake and drawn and not fired, tell them to leave. If they make even the slightest move toward you, or act like they are going to pull out a weapon, fire instantly.
If they stay there without any further aggressive behavior, try to leave while covering them with your weapon.


premise: Don't draw unless you are going to fire. This ain't the movies.

 

[Blacksmoke]

I will leave the legal interpretations to the lawyers. I have a definite view of deadly force that I have been trained on and this scenario does not meet it for me.

There is no way I am going to draw and shoot two teenage boys who are not brandishing weapons. Not to be sanctimonius about it but there life is worth more than my wallet. BTW, I carry two wallets- one has a DL, gas card, debit card, supermarket club cards and a few bucks. The other is credit card hard case containing my CCW license, another gas card, another debit card and more cash. If I am carry a large amount if cash it goes into my boot.

I am not killing anyone over $20, two gas cards and an ATM card. Period.

Where I live in Nothern NM, you shoot a kid or any family member and the rest of their family members will hunt you down, burn your house and barn, shoot your animals and then kill you. The guilt of their relative is of no moment. Here, you do not kill over property. period. end of story.

Something you might want to think about if ever in this part of the world.

 

[rbernie]

had I only taken the time to learn the laws in my jurisdiction... and been a good little citizen and died without hurting anyone? ***? How does the law change whether or not you want to die or live? If you don't shoot them, they will kill you. If you think that living and dieing is not a binary issue, then you need to stop watching zombie movies. Two people closing in on an armed person will only end one of two ways, regardless of the law.

Expvideo - you missed the point I was trying to make. Effengee stated:

Draw, point it at the ground between you and them, recite movie line:
"Are you feeling lucky, punk?"
If they make aggressive gestures or still step towards me menacingly, shoot-to-kill without hesitation.
....
Before you berate me for my Clint impression or delusions about a gunfight remember this:
I'd hate to have to kill somebody, but I'd hate being dead myself even more.

To which I responded.

I'd also hate to be in jail or impoverished because I made a bad serious of assumptions about what was legal (or not) in my state, when I could have potentially resolved the situation without risking jail time or civil suits had I only taken the time to learn the laws in my jurisdiction

Why did I say this? Because nowhere, for example, did Effengee indicate that he would take a single step backwards and nowhere did he indicate that he would actually tell the kids, "Stop! I have a gun and I'll shoot if you don't stop!". Had he done those things, in many jurisdictions he would be far better off legally than had he not. Showing a effort to retreat and clearly articulating a REASONABLE fear or death or serious bodily injury may be the difference between a good shoot and a bad shoot.

I was not advocating that anyone refrain from the use of deadly force when in fear of death or serious bodily injury. I was advocating knowing the laws that govern the use of deadly force such that you can conduct yourself in accordance with those laws.

 

[Southern Rebel]

Theory of Relativity

Quote:
[Even though this would probably be ruled a "good shoot," I'm not sure it would sit right with me that I had fired a gun at two unarmed people over a wallet. Granted, they made the choice to place themselves in that situation by breaking the law and attempting to exploit me, but I would do my best to escape without shots fired, while also keeping what property rightfully belongs to me. This probably means drawing but not firing unless they took further threatening actions.]

In the broader perspective, I am NOT defending a wallet - I am defending my way of life. My way of life does not envision allowing you to take whatever you want from my life merely because I fear taking your life. At what point do you stop being so generous - your car, your house, your wife, your kids, your grandkids?

No, if I must put a limit on what I will defend then I will start on the bottom rung of value before it is escalated higher at a later point of engagement with "two young thugs".

 

[housedad]

It is interesting that some make assumptions that the kids will just leave if you give them your wallet and valuables.. That is nieve.

Fact is that you don't really know what they may do once they have it. The only reasonable assumption you can make is that they may not stop at the theft.

No way a female would assume that that would be all those boys want. Fear of rape would be very real.

It is common for a mugger to beat the victem mercilessly after valuables are handed over to make the victim unable to recognize them. The fear of being recognized is enough justification for them to harm you, and should be part of your mindset.

If they are close enough for them to take the valuables, then they are close enough to physically hurt you, visible weapon or not, and your threat level increases exponentially just because of that.

Again, they have initiated aggressive, criminal behavior just by demanding your wallet. There is a clear implication of the use of harmful force if you do not.

I guess you just have to be violently mugged before to understand that they just don't always walk away after getting the money.

 

[rbernie]

It is common for a mugger to beat the victem mercilessly after valuables are handed over to make the victim unable to recognize them.

Based on what data do you make this statement?

 

[Deadeye Keith]

I draw when the range officer yells, "Stand by!" BEEEEEEP!

 

[ijosef]

Also, yes most states laws require someone to be at a reasonable risk of death or bodily harm before a person can use deadly force. This means that when your dealing with unarmed people it becomes a very slippery slope. Thats were disparity of force factors are very important, because they are about the only things that will save you. If the perp's capability of generating force that could reasonably cause death or great bodily harm is non existent, you have a problem using deadly force. In most states deadly force is legally allowed to be used to combat potentially deadly force/great bodily harm threats only. If you aren't at risk of death or great bodily harm (Great bodily harm varies from state to state, however its a lot more then just a broken nose) then you better not shoot or you will likely be found guilty.

This is very true, although I wish it wasn't so. Being a Correctional Officer (aka prison screw), I have an innate hatred for gangbangers since I have to deal with their idiocy every single day. I wish Minnesota laws and political climate were different, because I don't doubt for a minute that one would be prosecuted for shooting someone in self-defense unless the justification was ironclad.

Speaking of prison, there's a guy in my block serving 7 years for manslaughter. An estranged boyfriend of one of the females in the house showed up one night. He banged on the door, then on the windows. He was told repeatedly to leave. The cops were called. Before the cops got there, the estranged party broke a window and crawled into the house. The perp was shot dead with a hunting rifle. The shooter is now in a maximum security prison.