Closing on attacker

[David Armstrong]

If you ever have to shoot someone, you should not be actively engaged in the mental speculations of self-defense law during a self-defense scenario. You should do WHATEVER is necessary to prevail (yes, this includes breaking the law, but it also includes living). Then, you should hire the best attorney possible (hopefully someone you have contacted ahead of time if you carry a gun for self-defense), then you should keep your mouth shut. You should leave the "claims" of self-defense to your attorney.

I'm certainly going to disagree with that. One should be aware of the laws of self defense when exercising them. That is why we teach people about those laws. Failure to follow the law when involved in a DGU can lead to unneccesary problems.

[Josh Runkle]

I'm certainly going to disagree with that. One should be aware of the laws of self defense when exercising them. That is why we teach people about those laws. Failure to follow the law when involved in a DGU can lead to unneccesary problems.

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.

If, on the other hand, you simply mean that people should be well pre-planned and well pre-educated should they find themselves in a variety of "last ditch effort" scenarios, where they simply respond based upon available data, rather than making choices, then we can easily agree upon that point. I simply mean that self-defense implies scenarios without choices but to defend yourself, otherwise, when faced with choices, and therefore options, you would try to escape or evade.

[orionz06]

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?


Probably about as close to an answer as I can ponder that is not "it's a good idea when it's a good idea..."

[John Hearne]

I can think of few situations in which closing with a threat would be wise. Most street crimes are already taking place at fairly intimate distances to begin with. One of the few situations where closing might make sense was in a super chaotic environment with lots of no-shoots. I like to think that had I been in the theater in Aurora, CO when the shooting started that I would have closed with and engaged the bad guy.

[TAZ]

I'm certainly going to disagree with that. One should be aware of the laws of self defense when exercising them. That is why we teach people about those laws. Failure to follow the law when involved in a DGU can lead to unneccesary problems.

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.

As for when to close with an adversary: when it offers you an advantage. Better cover, more accurate shot placement, offers a cleaner field of fire that sort of thing. I'm no cop so I'm not concerned with cuffing a downed attacker. If the threat is stopped I'm calling the cops if my wife hasn't already done so and making sure nobody including me has extra holes where God didn't put them.

[jumpthestack]

Not necessarily endorsing this video, but for your consideration, a scenario by former Navy SEAL in which he suggests moving forward:

[BoppaBear]

Not necessarily endorsing this video, but for your consideration, a scenario by former Navy SEAL in which he suggests moving forward:

Thanks for the post. I've seen this here at P-F, and think there is a lot of fail in his suggestions, as far as shooting at the ground while advancing. That kind of kills this vid for me.

[BoppaBear]

I can think of few situations in which closing with a threat would be wise. Most street crimes are already taking place at fairly intimate distances to begin with. One of the few situations where closing might make sense was in a super chaotic environment with lots of no-shoots. I like to think that had I been in the theater in Aurora, CO when the shooting started that I would have closed with and engaged the bad guy.

First off, I've finally figured out how to multi-quote on an iPad!

Thank you John, I definitely agree with your situation. My "situation" is more of a no cover, within 21', interaction with the BG, and closing as you shoot.

While I will first and foremost want to break contact, there is somewhat of a natural reaction for some to move forward. I know there are so many variables, but am looking for exactly what you provided....your thoughts on when it MAY be appropriate.

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?


Probably about as close to an answer as I can ponder that is not "it's a good idea when it's a good idea..."

Thanks sir. I knew when I posted this that there would be some questions, and some good ones. So many things to consider.

To answer your first question, as a NON-SME, I would say retreat or advance doesn't matter. That will be sorted out on the back-end, with the legal representation. I think, that at the end of the day, it does not (almost wrote "should not", but that's a fairy tale) matter. The basis is "do you feel threatened". After the fact, it's "can your attorney prove it".

None of this is to discount the fact that we all need to know and understand the ROE for our states.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Josh Runkle]

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.

[John Hearne]

your thoughts on when it MAY be appropriate.

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.