Closing on attacker

[BoppaBear]

An additional thing: one really interesting thing I learned a few years ago from a Gabe Suarez video (yes, I'm not a fan either) was regarding change of angle for the attacker. If you are about one to five arms length from an attacker (let's say 3 to 15 feet), then think of it this way from the attacker's perspective...If you move rearward and laterally while shooting, the attacker has very little change from your first position to follow you to your second, even if the movement is large, rapid and dramatic. However, if you move forward and laterally, now from the attacker's perspective, the change of angle from where they first had you in their sights to the second location is quite significant. It could disrupt the attacker's OODA loop and give you a temporary advantage.

Obviously this is a minor tactic to be kept in the toolbox, not at all a one-size-fits-all type thing. Also, to say that I take everything that instructors says with a grain of salt would be an understatement. However, I have "blue gunned" this with a friend and I do believe it to be significantly true and valid in the rare case where one might use it.

Good point, and I'm about to sound like the most agreeable guy around....but, I agree, and also think that closing is probably the last thing an attacker would expect. After all, most attackers expect retreat and chaos, not someone drawing down on them and actually lighting them up while moving...I would think, psychologically (assuming the BG is of a state of mind to actually think) that this would be a surprise.

[BoppaBear]

Good point, and I'm about to sound like the most agreeable guy around....but, I agree, and also think that closing is probably the last thing an attacker would expect. After all, most attackers expect retreat and chaos, not someone drawing down on them and actually lighting them up while moving...I would think, psychologically (assuming the BG is of a state of mind to actually think) that this would be a surprise.

Given your scenario, the other set of events that would justify closing would be to protect innocents as a last resort measure. If you were with your family or folks you are responsible for and you were convinced that the killing was about to start and that no other options existed, then moving forward is viable, especially against a singe opponent. You are basically volunteering to be bullet sponge in order to safeguard those you love. One of those situations where you are choosing the option that sucks less to the point of desperation. I would not discount the psychological impact of closing with someone while screaming and filling their face with fire.

Absolutely. Throw innocents, especially those we are "tasked" to protect, in the mix, and that's a different story. Self-preservation, while still a variable, isn't the top priority in this scenario. Kind of like diving on a grenade, but hopefully one that has stopped cooking with no "boom" at the end.

[Alpha Sierra]

Is a threat a threat if you retreat or advance? Does one position offer an advantage in safety or offer a better means to stop said threat?

None of this can be answered other than to say "it depends"

[John Hearne]

None of this can be answered other than to say "it depends"

"It depends" is so modest. Try "dynamically situationally dependent"

[BoppaBear]

None of this can be answered other than to say "it depends"

True. The question was more to spur conversation about the "when".

[David Armstrong]

I obviously agree that one should be well aware of the laws beforehand, however, the time period DURING a self-defense encounter is not the place to be considering those things. Self-defense is a last resort that implies that one had no choice but to defend themselves. If your actions are the result of a "last ditch effort" where you were left without choices, then how can you be making choices regarding self-defense DURING an encounter? It literally stands in opposition to the idea that self-defense was necessary in that situation.

But that is the entire problem. Unless one is considering those things during the encounter one makes mistakes. A self defense encounter is not a static event, it can be quite dynamic and changing. Heck, deciding if it is a last-ditch scenario is part of that process, and if one decides that one better continue to verify that scenario as it develops.

[David Armstrong]

Knowing the law and carrying on an internal debate about its applicability to life and death situation you are engaged in is not a good idea in my non professional opinion. Know the law; understand the constraints (as best as possible) it places upon your use of force BEFORE the fecal matter hits the impeller.

Sure, but your brain shouldn't be taken out of gear just because you have started something. Understand the constraints before AND during the incident. Shouldn't take much, if any, internal debate outside of "is there a deadly threat to me now."

[TAZ]

Sure, but your brain shouldn't be taken out of gear just because you have started something. Understand the constraints before AND during the incident. Shouldn't take much, if any, internal debate outside of "is there a deadly threat to me now."

Get what you're meaning was now. I think of what you're saying part of situational awareness. For me, based on my laws, I have a threshold that when crossed I'm willing to use deadly force. If and when the attacked retreats to the other side of the threshold I need to stop. It's the don't get stuck in the this guy was a threat mode but rather understand what is happening now.

[Josh Runkle]

But that is the entire problem. Unless one is considering those things during the encounter one makes mistakes. A self defense encounter is not a static event, it can be quite dynamic and changing. Heck, deciding if it is a last-ditch scenario is part of that process, and if one decides that one better continue to verify that scenario as it develops.

If the decision making is on one side my survival, having broken all laws known to mankind, and on the other side my death or serious bodily harm, yet I have obeyed the laws, I am left without choice. If I have no choices, I have no decisions.

If you are referring to decision making like, "Don't shoot the bad guy's unarmed friend", then I would propose that the unarmed friend either is or is not a threat to my survival. If he is a threat to my survival, the law is irrelevant, if he is not, the law is relevant, but I would have broken no laws, having not shot the person, so it is still, in essence, irrelevant.

[Keltyke]

Lately, I've been wondering about when/if it is appropriate to close the distance on an attacker. To disarm after they are down, etc.

I can't imagine where it would ever be wise for a civilian in a self-defense situation to close with an attacker. Distance is your friend. Even if he seems down and out of the fight, don't get within grabbing range. If he's not moving - holster your weapon, keep your distance, observe his actions, and wait for the cops to arrive. If he's still moving, keep your weapon trained on him, especially if his weapon is within his reach. "Don't move or I will shoot again!" If he's not threatening, you can't shoot. But if he makes a move towards you or attempts to use his own weapon, well...

Never approach the attacker to render first aid! If he dies anyway, you may be accused of "moving in to finish him off". There's very little an amateur first aider with no equipment can do for a gunshot victim, anyway.