Your own ccw = deadly threat = justified draw/shooting?

[Carbonator]

In an altercation where you would not normally draw your gun but the mere act of you LAWFULLY carrying CONCEALED presents you with a situation where you have reason to believe that the person will or might try to take your gun away from you and will or might use it to shoot you or will or might try to steal your gun...

To what extent can you draw your gun for the sole reason of preventing someone from gaining access to that gun? Does carrying concealed in itself ever present a legal justification for drawing your concealed gun when you would not otherwise draw that gun? Can you draw or even use deadly force to prevent someone else from using or possibly using deadly force (deadly force made possible by your gun only) before he even has possession of your gun? Can your own legally concealed gun be considered a deadly threat to yourself even before another person gains possession of your gun simply because you think that person will or might try to take your gun away from you? Can you draw or use deadly force solely to keep someone from gaining access to your gun and thus threatening you or using deadly force against you with your own gun?

This is a situation where the person knows or will know that you have a concealed gun, a past friend perhaps or spouse, or possibly from a relatively minor physical altercation with a stranger where your shirt was grabbed exposing your gun or them feeling the gun. For instance during a pushing match or wrestling scuffle (that would by itself not justify drawing your gun) your shirt gets pulled up and reveals your previously concealed gun. You now know that the guy is going for (or might go for) your gun and he will definitely physically overpower you because of his size or he has his buddies with him. In this situation there is no deadly threat other than the threat of the person taking your own gun away from you and using it against you. Can your own legally concealed gun create a deadly threat that is the sole reason to necessitate drawing that gun to prevent that gun from falling into the wrong hands and creating a deadly threat that is used against you with your own gun?

 

[mgkdrgn]

If I perceive someone as a "deadly threat", they aren't going to get close enough to "steal" my CCW before my CCW is drawn.

Other than that ... I don't understand your question.

 

[wep45]

If I perceive someone as a "deadly threat", they aren't going to get close enough to "steal" my CCW before my CCW is drawn.

Other than that ... I don't understand your question.

exactly

 

[Reloaderharry]

In MO, where I have my CCW, the law says nothing about "deadly threat". You do not need to be presented with "deadly threat" to draw and/or shoot.

You, or another person you are defending, must be in danger of being physically harmed (not necessarily killed). For instance, you can be walking down the street and see a woman being attacked/raped, and shoot the offender. There doesn't have to be a knife at her throat/gun present, etc etc.

So far as your example of someone pulling up your shirt etc, or a shoving match, I have found that having your gun on you will prevent this sort of thing in the first place. Simply because you have a gun, you should not be putting yourself in the position of getting into a shoving match etc (and this could mean backing down from an aggressive guy at fault and loosing face). If someone is hell bent on attacking you, and you cannot do anything to prevent it (such as walking away) you are making a serious mistake not already having the gun out and encouraging them to leave immediately, well before anything happens physically.

If you start a barfight with a guy because he hit on your girlfriend, then pull your carry pistol out and start installing holes in him, your going to jail. Simply having your gun on you when getting into a fight (ala, your not being attacked, your having a 2 sided dispute) is not proof of any threat, deadly or otherwise. If your being attacked by someone/group of someones and you can do nothing to stop it, you need no other justification.

 

[Claude Clay]

the situational awareness necessary to carry a gun
and your scenario never happens.

but suppose some one in a crowd bumps into you and makes contact with your gun through your cover garment.
he happens to be a opportunistic BG and moves on you...

to anticipate all the what--ifs you have to think and train for them.
local IDPA shoots are a good start.

 

[Ghosty1]

depends also on local laws.... castle doctrine? peacable journey?

-G

 

[geekWithA.45]

What the OP has described is a preemptive escalation from "verbal altercation", jumping over "force" to "presentation of deadly force", which is a rationale the arresting officer, prosecutor, and jury will not find much sympathy for.

What is needed are two classes: one on the laws governing the use of force in that state, and the other on tactical proficiency topics including gun retention. Retaining a gun in its holster can be achieved without drawing it.

Don't get into avoidable physical altercations. Period.

 

[mljdeckard]

The opening statement of my retention class is; "Anyone who tries to disarm you is to be considered a deadly threat." What possible good can come from someone taking your gun away from you?

It also says something about the company you keep, if people you know know you carry, and then would later try to disarm you.

 

[Reloaderharry]

What the OP has described is a preemptive escalation from "verbal altercation", jumping over "force" to "presentation of deadly force", which is a rationale the arresting officer, prosecutor, and jury will not find much sympathy for.

What is needed are two classes: one on the laws governing the use of force in that state, and the other on tactical proficiency topics including gun retention. Retaining a gun in its holster can be achieved without drawing it.

Don't get into avoidable physical altercations. Period.

+1 You don't get into a shoving match etc when you are armed (and shouldn't when you are not). Shoving and fighting are for highschool kids, in the real world not walking away can only result in you doing time for either an assault charge or shooting someone. Let the other guy feel good that you walked away while you feel good that your not a moron with a felony.

 

[Carbonator]

The opening statement of my retention class is; "Anyone who tries to disarm you is to be considered a deadly threat."

Thanks mljdeckard this is what I was looking for. That quote succinctly describes what I was trying to convey in my post. I have never taken a "retention class" so I am not sure if the class is for LEO's or CCWers, or if your above quote applies to CCWers as well as LEO's. Can you please expand on what they taught you in class? Were you taught that anyone who tries to disarm you is to be considered a deadly threat regardless of "disparity of force" or how they tried to disarm you?

 

[Nushif]

I go through escalation of force, personally, as long as there are no weapons involved I won't involve one either. Unless of course I don't have time to make a call like that.

For example, let's say a fight goes from shouting, to shoving, and there is no reason to believe suddenly deadly force is involved the likelihood of me drawing a gun is zero.
If the fight goes to well, punching, wrestling and the like I'd resort to the same. I'd go to Combatives...
Now, the moment a weapon gets involved, this being a club, knife or whatever I present my weapon, which unless the guy has a handgun too means I am way more armed than him or her. If they have a rifle I'd say I'm still on the winning side at those ranges.

I guess that's the answer to your question, but I'm not sure.

 

[TexasRifleman]

A few posts have been removed or edited. Please remember the rules concerning bloodlust types of postings.

 

[o Unforgiven o]

I would think that someone trying to take your gun would give you justification to draw so he cannot get to it, and depending on what happens after that you could be justified with using deadly force.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Can your own legally concealed gun create a deadly threat that is the sole reason to necessitate drawing that gun to prevent that gun from falling into the wrong hands and creating a deadly threat that is used against you with your own gun?

No. Any threat sufficient for you to draw your weapon (choke hold, brandishing knife/gun, being almost being knocked out by a surprise blow to the head) would allow you to draw your weapon weather the perp. knew you had it or not. Any insufficient treat would not.

There may be some hazy borderline example such as a huge guy stating in command voice "give me your gun so that I can commit a forcible felony" where the initial treat is not a forcible felony justifying the use of deadly force, but it would clearly lead to one. However, situations like that are too complicated by the details of real life to think about. Hopefully your lawyer will think of a better simpler argument, or otherwise you are in deep do do.

 

[huntinggamo]

Thanks mljdeckard this is what I was looking for. That quote succinctly describes what I was trying to convey in my post. I have never taken a "retention class" so I am not sure if the class is for LEO's or CCWers, or if your above quote applies to CCWers as well as LEO's. Can you please expand on what they taught you in class? Were you taught that anyone who tries to disarm you is to be considered a deadly threat regardless of "disparity of force" or how they tried to disarm you?

retention classes are fun, when i did mine there was of course a crawl, walk, run phase but it all culminated in me standing on the mats talking to the instructor and geting jumped by 3 dudes all trying to disarm me....fun times!!!!!!!!!

 

[mljdeckard]

Look at it this way. What reasons exist for this person trying to disarm you? Why do they want to make you unable to defend yourself? What interaction are they trying to have with you, which they cannot do knowing you are armed? There is no good answer to any of these questions.

 

[mljdeckard]

Oh, and I believe I paraphrased the line from "The Book of Two Guns", by Tiger McKee.

 

[Carbonator]

I guess it boils down to...

If a reasonable person would expect to be overpowered by one or more persons who had intent to disarm that individual, drawing to retain the gun would be protecting oneself from a deadly threat even though that threat is not in the hands of the attacker(s). What a concept to consider! Either be powerless and possibly shot with your own gun, or draw and retain your gun. Again of course, "disparity of force" would most likely be a consideration in court.

Waiting until being presented with "force" or "presentation of deadly force" means that your gun will or has already changed hands and you are now unable to defend yourself against your own gun.

 

[Erik]

I don't think that's what it boils down to.

Someone trying, actually trying, to take your gun is one thing. Your expectation that they might try to do so is another thing altogether. Given the scenario presented in the threads opening, yes, you'll have to wait. Yes, that may entail taking some lumps. After all, you've entered into "an altercation where you would not normally draw your gun." The best course of action? Not entering into it in the first place. But of course that isn't always possible.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Actually, the original post sounds similar to the Mark Abshire shooting case. In that case, he waited until he had been attacked by multiple men, had his teeth cracked and was rolling around in a ditch on the side of the road before shooting. He also attempted to use lesser levels of force first such as pepper spray.

Despite this happening on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal grinder before finally being acquitted.

Or there is the Larry Hickey case out of Arizona. Again, standing in his own driveway, attacked by three people (two women and one man). Waited until he he had been hit so hard he saw stars before drawing - again, arrested, spent 71 days in jail, two different trials, forced to move from his house, etc., before eventually being acquitted.

I think both of these real life incidents show the very difficult challenges you are going to face if you are forced to shoot an unarmed person (even when there is clear disparity of force). If your only option is to draw in order to save yourself, then save yourself; but understand that you've still got some big problems ahead of you.

 

[Carbonator]

Thanks for the replies, and for the case links Bartholomew.

This subject is quite interesting in my opinion. I have begun to think about open carry vs concealed in this situation, open carry likely being more of a factor of course regarding retention issues. Something to think about anyway.

 

[NMGonzo]

Hope I'll never find out.

Hope aggressive types never find me!

 

[sniper5]

There are four S's which along with situational awareness and politeness will prevent these types of incidents:

1. Don't hang out with STUPID people.
2. Don't go to STUPID places.
3. Don't be out at STUPID times.
4. Don't do STUPID things.

For the younger crowd substitute the word "COOL" for "STUPID" and you'll have it covered.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

From my CCW class:
Avoid conflict.
Avoid/stay away from potentially dangerous neighborhoods.
Back down, disengage from an escalating argument (back to avoid conflict).
In Michigan it is not allowed to carry a handgun into a bar.
In Michigan, defense with a handgun justified by imminent threat of death or rape only.
In Michigan, if you witness a crime call 911; you cannot draw a weapon to save someone else that is police business. Drawing a handgun is only for an imminent threat of death to oneself or threat of rape to oneself.
In Michigan, you cannot draw a handgun against looters-property is not considered license to draw a handgun and shoot a thief. Call 911.

 

[2WheelsGood]

you cannot draw a weapon to save someone else that is police business. Drawing a handgun is only for an imminent threat of death to oneself or threat of rape to oneself.

Though it's a pretty gray area, according to Michigan's castle doctrine that's not true:

“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).”