What would you do?

[mscott327]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WfFd4mlf5RQ

I just copied this from the Florida Concealed Carry Forum

I'm asking you answer two questions:
1) If its you in the car what do you do?
2) If you're in another car and witness this, what do you do?

Any LEO feedback is also appreciated.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I'm asking you answer two questions:
1) If its you in the car what do you do? Drive Away. Maybe a bit more agressively, maybe lay on the horn for the asshole in front of me, but drive away. Being ready to shoot the fucker if he comes to try to get me out of the car or go in after me...but drive away.


2) If you're in another car and witness this, what do you do?

Drive away without attracting any attention to myself what-so-ever...and call 911.



Me. In bold. Above.

[Ga Shooter]

At the point he breaks the right rear glass where my children sit he is DRT.

[Chefdog]

At the point he breaks the right rear glass where my children sit he is DRT.

I was thinking the same thing. I'd probably drive away aggressively without much regard to if he was in the way or not. But the moment he gains access to the vehicle, especially if my wife or son are in the car, he's done.

[Zhurdan]

I'd probably have "gently nudged" him after the first couple of whacks as he passed in front of the car, given the situation was exactly the same, and then gotten the hell out of there and call 911. Your vehicle is a formidable weapon in and of itself.

The thing that blows my mind is the car in front of the blue car just sat there. I'd have ran the red or at the very least, gotten the hell outta the way. They were probably watching it all unfold in their mirrors in stunned amazement.

[JeffJ]

The thing that blows my mind is the car in front of the blue car just sat there. I'd have ran the red or at the very least, gotten the hell outta the way. They were probably watching it all unfold in their mirrors in stunned amazement.

You're assuming they even noticed what was going on and that it wasn't all drowned out by Taylor Swift at max volume

[Zhurdan]

You're assuming they even noticed what was going on and that it wasn't all drowned out by Taylor Swift at max volume

Of course I'm assuming. These scenarios are wrought with assumptions. That's why I clarified what I thought was the most important assumption with "given the situation was exactly the same".

As far as other people not being aware of what is going on, I fell into the trap of assuming others keep their heads on a swivel like I do.

[TGS]

As soon as he started I would have driven away. If he was in front of the vehicle then it wouldn't change my decision, he would have been ran over. At least, that's what I've done before.....

If I couldn't drive away due to obstacles, I would have brandished, but not fired unless he projected a threat onto my person or party. The insurance will take care of the damage, so no use slinging bullets unless he's threatening a human.

If it got to the point that he's putting shit through the window, or about to, I would have shot him since he's now projecting deadly force into my personal space.

If I was watching, I'd call the cops and standby. I probably wouldn't leave since the people could use a 3rd party witness for the police report, not to mention I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I left and he then proceeded to rape or kill people. Leaving might be the smart thing to do in terms of self-preservation, but I'd already have been aware of the threat and had a hand up in the situation with being strapped and ready to escalate if he then approached me, so call me reckless. Given the laws in Florida(the scenario) and where I actually carry(Pennsylvania), it would also be lawful for me to do such(no duty to retreat from a public place in either state). Now, if someone I felt responsible for such as my girlfriend, mother or sister were present, then I might leave. Gotta protect them first, but I'd be pretty confident in being able to defend my party against that guy if we had ample warning.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

...I would have brandished...

NO. No Brandishing.

You would have preemptively established grip on the weapon &/or drew the weapon in legitimate & reasonable fear of death or grave harm.

You would not have brandished. Brandishing is a crime.

Self defense is not a crime.

50 lashed for the mistake.

[SecondsCount]

NO. No Brandishing.

You would have preemptively established grip on the weapon &/or drew the weapon in legitimate & reasonable fear of death or grave harm.

You would not have brandished. Brandishing is a crime.

Self defense is not a crime.

50 lashed for the mistake.

Good catch. I'm not certain about all states but In Utah it is legal to draw your gun to stop a crime as you describe and is not considered brandishing.

[TGS]

NO. No Brandishing.

You would have preemptively established grip on the weapon &/or drew the weapon in legitimate & reasonable fear of death or grave harm.

You would not have brandished. Brandishing is a crime.

Self defense is not a crime.

50 lashed for the mistake.

Thank you, brother! May I have another! :D

Thanks for the correction, duly noted!

[JConn]

Good catch. I'm not certain about all states but In Utah it is legal to draw your gun to stop a crime as you describe and is not considered brandishing.

Gotta move to Utah...

[mscott327]

I've been thinking about it all day since I posted the thread. I personally think it makes a big difference if my wife and kids were in the car with me. My wife also carries and she would never let some scumbag hurt our children, then on the other hand if one of us shoots him how bad are we traumatizing our kids? I would have probably run his lame ass over in an attempt to escape. If he pursued and gave me no other option, he would have been carried away by the coroner. Here in Florida you don't have to flee from your vehicle.

Florida statute 776.013
(1)**A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(4)**A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

[DocGKR]

Given this exact scenario, until the window is broken out, my main desire and goal is to egress the area in my vehicle as rapidly as possible. I would be continually activating my vehicle horn to alert bystanders what is going on and to attempt to open up an exit path. I would also be trying to contact law enforcement authorities via cel phone to request emergency assistance. Once my vehicle window is breached by the violent attacker's club, especially if my family is in the back seat, the assault has now reached a stage where lethal force is justified to stop the threat to our lives. If an immediate escape from the danger zone cannot be made at that point, including driving through/over the assailant if necessary, then I would likely be forced to use a lawfully carried firearm to stop the attacker. If I did not have a clear shot at the attacker due to the proximity of the innocent rear seat vehicle occupants, I might be compelled to exit the vehicle to safely engage the criminal and rapidly stop their illegal life threatening assault by using defensive shots from an legally authorized firearm.

[Tamara]

NO. No Brandishing.

You would have preemptively established grip on the weapon &/or drew the weapon in legitimate & reasonable fear of death or grave harm.

You would not have brandished. Brandishing is a crime.

You strange east coasters and your "brandishing". No matter how hard I squint at my Indiana Criminal Code, I can't make the word appear. Closest I got is ICC § 35-47-4-3 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/47/4/35-47-4-3), "Pointing a firearm", which is a D felony unless you have a darn good reason (or an A misdemeanor if the gun wasn't loaded.)

Virginia has a "brandishing" statute, and the NRA is in Virginia, and so they use the word in all their training materials, and now every gun forum on the internets talks about "brandishing"...

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Good catch. I'm not certain about all states but In Utah it is legal to draw your gun to stop a crime as you describe and is not considered brandishing.

That would be because it's a legitimate response to the percieved threat of force, not an attempt to unlawfuly put someone in fear from the display of your gun...

It's actually a legit use of force just about any place if used in the proper context.

For those of you who did the phone SD & 'D Law thing back in August, you will note a lot of the jury instructions I poached were from NJ & NY.

The use of force is not the issue - WHY you used the force is the issue. Part of the use of a firearm in self defense is drawing it and putting the front sight on something you want to shoot...does this automatically mean you have to shoot them?

No...just that your justification for getting the sight picture has to be present - same as the judtification for the trigger press.

If it's justified, it's not brandishing, threatening or any of that shit.

If it's not, then it is.

It's not what you do, it's why you did it, and if you can articulate it.

[joshs]

Just to clarify, some jurisdictions consider the pointing of a firearm to be per se lethal force, so you must be able to articulate the same reasonable belief of death or great bodily injury before pointing a firearm at someone in those jurisdictions.

I can't watch the video right now, but I remember thinking that there was an opportunity to solve the problem with judicious application of the skinny pedal the last time I watched it.

[TGS]

You strange east coasters and your "brandishing". No matter how hard I squint at my Indiana Criminal Code, I can't make the word appear. Closest I got is ICC § 35-47-4-3 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/47/4/35-47-4-3), "Pointing a firearm", which is a D felony unless you have a darn good reason (or an A misdemeanor if the gun wasn't loaded.)

Virginia has a "brandishing" statute, and the NRA is in Virginia, and so they use the word in all their training materials, and now every gun forum on the internets talks about "brandishing"...

Sorry to pee in your wheaties and ruin the gun forum experience for you.

I had never heard of it from the NRA.......I've never even taken an NRA course. I read about it in Virginia from when I lived there, and I think the word may have been in my vocabulary from childhood due to that education thing we have out here in the east coast. Definition of brandishing: To exhibit aggressively. That happens to be what establishing a master grip on a visible pistol is while yelling "Get the fuck back!", whether or not it's what the NRA has been spreading or what the peculiarities of the law are. Thanks again to Mitchell for correcting me on the legal meaning of the term, I had used it for it's denotation. Probably not a word to throw around due to it's criminal-activity connected connotation.

[Tamara]

Sorry to pee in your wheaties and ruin the gun forum experience for you.

I'm eating corn flakes, so I don't know whose Wheaties those were that you peed in. My gun forum experience remains no more tainted than usual. ;)

I'm truly sorry if that came across as me sounding peevish, but it IS a good example of people taking state-specific caveats and no-nos and applying them as though they were universal laws. (No doubt you grow weary of people telling you that it must suck for you not to be able to buy hollowpoints...)

In some states it is obviously illegal, even "brandishing", to indicate to Joe Crackhead that you have a firearm by so much as raising the hem of your cover garment. In others, you can wave your gat in the air like you just don't care, so long as you are not pointing it at him.

[joshs]

You strange east coasters and your "brandishing". No matter how hard I squint at my Indiana Criminal Code, I can't make the word appear. Closest I got is ICC § 35-47-4-3 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/47/4/35-47-4-3), "Pointing a firearm", which is a D felony unless you have a darn good reason (or an A misdemeanor if the gun wasn't loaded.)

Virginia has a "brandishing" statute, and the NRA is in Virginia, and so they use the word in all their training materials, and now every gun forum on the internets talks about "brandishing"...

Just because "brandishing" isn't specifically criminalized in the Indiana statutes, doesn't mean that the act of brandishing a firearm is legal in Indiana. For example, a quick search turned up twenty cases from Indiana where "brandish!" occurs within one sentence of "firearm." Most of the cases seem to be prosecutions under a general criminal recklessness statute.

[TGS]

I'm eating corn flakes, so I don't know whose Wheaties those were that you peed in. My gun forum experience remains no more tainted than usual. ;)

I'm truly sorry if that came across as me sounding peevish, but it IS a good example of people taking state-specific caveats and no-nos and applying them as though they were universal laws. (No doubt you grow weary of people telling you that it must suck for you not to be able to buy hollowpoints...)

In some states it is obviously illegal, even "brandishing", to indicate to Joe Crackhead that you have a firearm by so much as raising the hem of your cover garment. In others, you can wave your gat in the air like you just don't care, so long as you are not pointing it at him.

Shit.......I ate wheaties this morning........damnit! Not again!

Even if it's not specifically enumerated as brandishing, you're still showing hostile intent with deadly weapon. That's what would allow you to shoot the 2nd henchman in the other thread about the guy getting robbed at lunch.....he's showing hostile intent with a deadly weapon and has opportunity, ability and jeopardy, which are three words I'm confident you're familiar with. I'm sure it's still quite illegal to wave around a gun or make a menacing gesture with a gun in states that don't have legislation against "brandishing" since it gives someone the right to shoot you.

In whatever state you're referring to that it's illegal to "brandish" to Joe Crackhead,(I'm guessing you're referring to Virginia), it would still be legal to "brandish" in Virginia if you're in reasonable fear of your life/limb, just like it'd be legal to shoot Joe Crackhead if he were endangering life or limb even though killing someone is against the law.

It's simply a law to prevent idiots from using lethal force as a non-lethal alternative, because that's retarded. In any case, try waving your gun in the air, establishing a master grip in a threatening manner, or pumping up your chest like a thug-fo-life while showing your piece and see how that works out for you in a state without brandishing laws.....your ass is still going to jail if it's not warranted, just not on a brandishing charge.

WRT hollow-point/NJ thing, at least people are partially correct when they spread that. It is completely illegal to possess hollowpoints.....we're only allowed to possess them through specific exceptions(granted, those exceptions cover everything except concealed carry or leaving them in your car/pocket for no reason). Thus, I don't really get tired or grumpy about people who say that, because they are correct.

[Zhurdan]

I was charged with brandishing recently, but for some reason they wrote it up as indecent exposure.

Too small a caliber? Juuuust joking. Sorry couldn't resist.

[jar]

I'd use the car to get the hell out of there, not worrying much about whether the guy was in the way or not. The car is good protection, a powerful weapon, and a tool to get the hell out; giving this up is a last resort. It's hard to tell everything about the area and what's going on around and where the obstacles are from the video. The car at least has space to keep moving, which is enough to keep me in the car. The driver in this situation did reasonably well, though I probably would have ran the guy over at some point. Maybe not the first time he got in front of the car, but definitely the later one.

When you're totally boxed in and moving the car isn't an option, there are a bunch of different possibilities, most of them bad. Southnarc's VCAST class was hugely eye opening. Hopefully he'll see this thread and add some thoughts. One of the evolutions we did involved someone walking up while we were in a car considered for the scenario to be boxed in. In mine, the BG jumped in the backseat with gun in hand. Let me tell you, there's no good way out of that one.

[digiadaamore]

Now heres a question. i ride a bike, had i seen him coming i could have gotten out very quickly whether the car in front of me moves or not, but if i dont see him coming and i get any physical gesture towards myself or the bike(which are probably one and the same in this case) am i within the law to present my weapon? fleeing through the suspect isnt a good idea as i could be injured being thrown from bike etc... i know i would have my weapon drawn, but would it be legal?

[TGS]

Now heres a question. i ride a bike, had i seen him coming i could have gotten out very quickly whether the car in front of me moves or not, but if i dont see him coming and i get any physical gesture towards myself or the bike(which are probably one and the same in this case) am i within the law to present my weapon? fleeing through the suspect isnt a good idea as i could be injured being thrown from bike etc... i know i would have my weapon drawn, but would it be legal?

This is a question you should be able to answer with certainty on your own if you decide to carry a firearm. Ask yourself these questions:

Does he have an ability to use lethal force?
Does he have the opportunity to use lethal force?
Is he presenting the intent to use lethal force?

Those are three questions which will make it easy to figure out if he's presenting an immediate threat to your life or limb(depending on your locality, it may also have to be an unavoidable threat).

[digiadaamore]

thats the thing i am dead certain at that point he is a lethal threat(having ansered yes to the questions above). what i mean is does the law agree with me

[TGS]

thats the thing i am dead certain at that point he is a lethal threat(having ansered yes to the questions above). what i mean is does the law agree with me

If you answered YES to all three questions, then yes the law would agree with you....that's the point of those three questions. If he's not actually committing a hostile act, then that third question often involves the "reasonable man" standard in order to establish whether he was presenting hostile intent.

That's where the "reasonable man" part comes in. You cant just go blasting any fool walking down the sidewalk in your general direction who's carrying a tire iron(or whatever he was holding). Until he actually starts threatening you, it would not be within reason to shoot him since while he has the capability and ability to cause grievous bodily harm, he either 1) Hasn't committed a hostile act against you or 2) Hasn't shown hostile intent. The second he shows intent, such as saying "Muthafuckin honey badger don't give a shit! I'm gonna bust your shit up!" then you can argue that he's now presenting the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Since "the fear of a reasonable man" is an imperfect science, it will come down to the police or a jury deciding whether or not you acted reasonably.

In short, whether a hostile act or hostile intent, you could still spend time in jail/go to trial even with you acting inside the law(whether you acted inside the law is established by a jury or by the police on scene). Look up the case of Gerald Ung....he even had surveillance video clearly showing he was attacked with a disparity of force and it still went to court.

If this doesn't help answer your question, I'm not sure what you're asking. Forgive me if what you're asking is going over my head. You should really understand what the legal standard is, which from all I can tell from your questions you haven't the faintest idea. I don't mean to talk down to you, but this is a very basic question (does the law agree with me) that you should have fully understood before you EVER carried a gun.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

thats the thing i am dead certain at that point he is a lethal threat(having ansered yes to the questions above). what i mean is does the law agree with me



If you answered YES to all three questions, then yes the law would agree with you....that's the point of those three questions. If he's not actually committing a hostile act, then that third question often involves the "reasonable man" standard in order to establish whether he was presenting hostile intent.
.

In response to these points, I'm going to my Self Defense & D'law material:

IV How can we determine what is reasonable when it comes to injuring or killing other people?

There are 2 standards for the use of force which operate concurrently.

#1 Ability/Opportunity/Intent to injure you + you being precluded from leaving/de-escalating the situation = you being in danger and allowed to use force.
When people say "I was in fear for my life!!" the answer to "why" is found in articulating these points.

#2 Subjective/Objective reasonability test. Are your actions reasonable to you in that you honestly believed you were going to be injured, and as such the right thing for you to do was to injure another person; and if so, will the trier of fact (judge or jury) find your actions reasonable, even if not 100% factually correct?
These standards operate simultaneously, with AOI being the basis of your reasoning for the Subjective portion of the S/O reasonability test, and the basis of reviewing your actions for the Objective portion of the S/O test.
You can also think of them as the first is the standards for action, the second is the standard of review.

A) The standard for action in determining when to use force:
Ability: Does the person have the ability to attack you? Could this person successfully assault you, whether through physical prowess, a weapon or numerical superiority? Many women underestimate male upper-body strength and how vulnerable they are to being physically overwhelmed.
Opportunity: Does this person have the opportunity to attack you? Are you alone with him or even in an area beyond immediate help? Could anyone come to your assistance within twenty seconds or less? As many victims have found, you can be robbed in plain view or raped with people in the next room.
Intent: Is he in a mental place where using violence to get what he wants makes sense to him?

AOI is subjective to the people involved. What is a threat to you or I may not be a threat to someone else due to his size, skill, positioning…or, because of training, you may be able to recognize AOI earlier than someone without your training.

a) Reasonable Belief/Assumptions:

People almost never have 100% clear information about AOI until the attack is in progress, and that’s too late; however, you are not required to have positive confirmation you are being attacked before acting.

Your decision making process must be grounded in solid, observable details and your thought process must be…REASONABLE.

A reasonable belief is one which would be held by a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence situated as this defendant was. Self defense exonerates a person who uses force in the reasonable belief that such action was necessary to prevent his, her's or a third party's death or serious injury, even though this belief was later proven mistaken. Accordingly, the law requires only a reasonable, not necessarily a correct, judgment. (Language slightly changed - NJ Jury Instructions, http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/charges/jury/justif001.htm)

An example would be a person approaching you in an aggressive manner making a sudden movement toward his waistline.

The person may be reaching for his cell phone (which was on vibrate); however, if under the circumstances he had shown intent to harm you, had opportunity to do so, you may afford his movement toward the waistline the reasonable belief he is armed and that he has the ability to harm you.

Under the cold light of someone examining the situation with the luxury of safety, time and the actual facts, you may not have been correct in your judgment, but under the circumstances, you didn't have to be right - just reasonable. That is the standard of judgment.

b) Preclusion/Retreat:

In some states you must be precluded from escaping the situation before using force.
This is the infamous rule of retreat. It does not require you to get shot in the back.

This rule requires a defendant to retreat instead of using deadly physical force whenever two conditions are met:
1) a completely safe retreat is in fact available;
and
2) it is known to the actor that they can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by making that completely safe retreat.
(language slightly changed, CT jury instructions, www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/Part2/2.8-3.htm)

This is not such a big deal, as usually lethal force situations happen when:
a) completely safe retreat isn't possible because most lethal force situations happen suddenly from ambush
&
b) most people are scared shitless when they have to use lethal force, and don't know their own name, let alone that they can run.

If someone didn't start the fight, and can't escape it in the 1/4 second warning they get before it's on, don't worry about it.

If you can see it coming, know you can just leave and don't leave, or leave your house to go out to meet the threat when you have the option of staying inside your dwelling (safely behind hard cover, with a shotgun, 911 on the phone and cold beer on hand...) this applies to you and you should start worrying.

I) Case law – Complete safety:

1) The statute requires both that the retreat was completely safe and available and that the defendant knew of it. Complete safety without any injury whatsoever to him or other people.
“Self-defense focuses on the person claiming self-defense. It focuses on what he reasonably believed under the circumstances and presents a question of fact as to whether a safe retreat was available and whether the defendant subjectively knew of it. Retreat is only required where the defendant ... himself knows that he can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety, did the defendant subjectively know he could retreat with complete safety.“If you find ... [that] the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a safe retreat was available and that the defendant knew of it, and you find so unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt, you should reject the self-defense claim. The law stresses that self-defense cannot be retaliatory. It must be defensive and not punitive. So you must ask yourself did the defendant know that he could avoid the use of deadly physical force by retreating safely? If so, and yet he chose to *685 pursue the use of deadly physical force, you should reject the self-defense claim.”24 (Emphasis added.)

State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 684-85, 975 A.2d 17, 35 (2009)

[David Armstrong]

To piggyback on Mitchell's post a bit, since it is one of those things that comes up regularly in my CCW classes, whether YOU find it reasonable isn't the main thing; it is if your actions are considered reasonable by others, that "standard of review" he mentioned. YOU may think it was perfectly reasonable to assume the guy might punch you and knock you down and that might give you a head injury which would kill you, so shooting him was justified. Whether the court would agree with that is a different question.

[cdunn]

I would have used my less lethal alternative by juicing him with my kimber guardian,( and hoped if fired)and/or nudged him with my jeep.and been trying to call 911 asap.this is just if I'm by myself,it would be a little different if my girls were with me.

[digiadaamore]

If you answered YES to all three questions, then yes the law would agree with you....that's the point of those three questions. If he's not actually committing a hostile act, then that third question often involves the "reasonable man" standard in order to establish whether he was presenting hostile intent.

That's where the "reasonable man" part comes in. You cant just go blasting any fool walking down the sidewalk in your general direction who's carrying a tire iron(or whatever he was holding). Until he actually starts threatening you, it would not be within reason to shoot him since while he has the capability and ability to cause grievous bodily harm, he either 1) Hasn't committed a hostile act against you or 2) Hasn't shown hostile intent. The second he shows intent, such as saying "Muthafuckin honey badger don't give a shit! I'm gonna bust your shit up!" then you can argue that he's now presenting the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Since "the fear of a reasonable man" is an imperfect science, it will come down to the police or a jury deciding whether or not you acted reasonably.

In short, whether a hostile act or hostile intent, you could still spend time in jail/go to trial even with you acting inside the law(whether you acted inside the law is established by a jury or by the police on scene). Look up the case of Gerald Ung....he even had surveillance video clearly showing he was attacked with a disparity of force and it still went to court.

If this doesn't help answer your question, I'm not sure what you're asking. Forgive me if what you're asking is going over my head. You should really understand what the legal standard is, which from all I can tell from your questions you haven't the faintest idea. I don't mean to talk down to you, but this is a very basic question (does the law agree with me) that you should have fully understood before you EVER carried a gun.

this helps.i definitely know the law but i have never read anything regarding a bike as a vehicle.i know the law if im in my car, and i definetly wouldnt have fired unless i couldnt evade, use the vehicle the vehicle to push away the threat etc... but on the bike i didnt know if the law would arcanely require me to do the same thing before i was justified.

[Zhurdan]

To piggyback on Mitchell's post a bit, since it is one of those things that comes up regularly in my CCW classes, whether YOU find it reasonable isn't the main thing; it is if your actions are considered reasonable by others, that "standard of review" he mentioned. YOU may think it was perfectly reasonable to assume the guy might punch you and knock you down and that might give you a head injury which would kill you, so shooting him was justified. Whether the court would agree with that is a different question.


Introduce the fact that YOU know that you have a gun on your person, legally, and if the assailant were to overpower you... what then? Is carrying a gun introducing a threat to the situation? *cough* devil's advocate *cough*.

Only reason I bring it up is because I had an incident where I had to draw my gun and NOT fire. Situation changed rapidly. No need to fire existed after the change. Either way, it's moment to moment. People don't think in "legaleze", they think in "OMFG,IATD" (ohh my fu@#king God, I'm about to die!!) moments. The thing that differentiates it all is stress. Talking about it vs. being there. You aren't going to think about all the little bits while it's happening... hence the goodness of hashing it out before hand.

I consider it the one in a million scenario. I've carried a gun for about 15 years as a civilian. There are 999,999 other scenarios out there where steel never left leather, but the gun was still there. Do you feel more "bold" or do you feel more "avoidance" in our everyday attitude? (I'd guess avoidance, but the situation I had was early on in my carry experience). Either way, I learned from it. It taught me to get the frak outta any situation that might cause me to draw my gun before it was necessary. Sometimes that's not possible. In the case of the OP's video... I'd have ran that piece of shit down with my car at the moment he showed aggression to me and mine. Guns aren't the only weapons available to us on any given day. In my incident... I should have drove away. The problem is... could I have lived with the news report of what the crazy fucker did later on the news? ( In absolute hindsight, I'd have been much better in my life having driven past like the other eleventeen drones that did before me. Kinda sad, isn't it?)

[Shellback]

If anybody's interested this incident actually happened in Las Vegas on the corner of Sahara and Las Vegas Blvd (The Strip) which is a VERY busy intersection. The lady was in the far right lane and attempting to turn west bound on Sahara, right by Circus Circus. Not a great area of town but definitely not the worst.

Watching the video I think she actually did a pretty good job of trying to go back & forth and avoid the guy. She was probably in complete shock and had absolutely no idea of what was going on. Me personally, I'd have ran him over, smashed him between the cars or shot him. As a 3rd party witness... That I'm not so sure of. If he would've penetrated the driver side window and gone to town on the woman than he'd be 6 ft. deep.

[JRas]

I wouldn't of attempted to drive away because my path wasn't clear and I would of likely ended up in the same situation the lady was in. I wouldn't be afraid to hop a curb if I had too though.

one thing right as he started beating my vehicle I would of had a hard time staying in the vehicle, so i would of likely got out right then.

when he stepped in front of the car, he made a mistake... wouldn't think twice about running his ass over. I wish in the video they did, I would of laughed about it :D

I don't know this guys intentions but already I'd be in fear for my life and others in my vehicle, how easy would it be for him to break a window and start beating you or someone else in your vehicle?

It's a risk I wouldn't be willing to take, I'm going to protect myself and others in the vehicle and take control of the situation.

[JF5000]

One of the key elements to being a very good driver is knowing where your wheels make contact with the road. This is done with a sense of feel. Race car drivers refer to this (in part) as becoming one with the car. It just so happens i'm pretty good it this. There were a couple of opportunities where I would have parked the car on his foot and called the police. There have been stranger accidents, trust me I worked in a booking room for three years. That's just me..... and that's the way I roll!:D

[TGS]

One of the key elements to being a very good driver is knowing where your wheels make contact with the road. This is done with a sense of feel. Race car drivers refer to this (in part) as becoming one with the car. It just so happens i'm pretty good it this. There were a couple of opportunities where I would have parked the car on his foot and called the police. There have been stranger accidents, trust me I worked in a booking room for three years. That's just me..... and that's the way I roll!:D

Right.

[David Armstrong]

Introduce the fact that YOU know that you have a gun on your person, legally, and if the assailant were to overpower you... what then? Is carrying a gun introducing a threat to the situation? *cough* devil's advocate *cough*.
I would say no. Like you said..."what then?" "What then" really isn't much evidence of threat.


Only reason I bring it up is because I had an incident where I had to draw my gun and NOT fire. Situation changed rapidly. No need to fire existed after the change. Either way, it's moment to moment. People don't think in "legaleze", they think in "OMFG,IATD" (ohh my fu@#king God, I'm about to die!!) moments. The thing that differentiates it all is stress. Talking about it vs. being there. You aren't going to think about all the little bits while it's happening... hence the goodness of hashing it out before hand.
Another good thing about hashing it out is that it gives one the chance to explore some of these thoughts/ideas ahead of time and hopefully identify areas where one has been given bad advice, or misunderstands the law, and so on.


In the case of the OP's video... I'd have ran that piece of shit down with my car at the moment he showed aggression to me and mine. Guns aren't the only weapons available to us on any given day.
Nor is aggressive counter-attack the only (or always the best) response. I realy advocate whenever possible that preclusion that Mitchell talked about.


In my incident... I should have drove away. The problem is... could I have lived with the news report of what the crazy fucker did later on the news?
I'd question doing much of anything based on what someone might have done later on without a really strong base of support for that conclusion.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

The problem is... could I have lived with the news report of what the crazy fucker did later on the news? ( In absolute hindsight, I'd have been much better in my life having driven past like the other eleventeen drones that did before me. Kinda sad, isn't it?)

You are resppnsible for you and can't base your choice to use force on what someone MAY do...

But it doesn't mean you can't make distance, call 911 and stay the fuck out of his danger zone in a mobile steel box with impact weapon protection, ramming ability and the potential to use a firearm if you want to make observe and report from a safe distance.

Options. You haz them.

You haz mo of dem when at distance, using a phone from behind barriers, mobile and armed with something that can reach out and crush someone (even if it is an insignificant, ineffective, barely lethal handgun round...)

[Zhurdan]

You are resppnsible for you and can't base your choice to use force on what someone MAY do...

But it doesn't mean you can't make distance, call 911 and stay the fuck out of his danger zone in a mobile steel box with impact weapon protection, ramming ability and the potential to use a firearm if you want to make observe and report from a safe distance.

Options. You haz them.

You haz mo of dem when at distance, using a phone from behind barriers, mobile and armed with something that can reach out and crush someone (even if it is an insignificant, ineffective, barely lethal handgun round...)

As mentioned earlier, this was early on in my venture into carrying a gun on a daily basis. Much was learned then and more learned since. Only posted it in the hopes that others who haven't had something similar could gain from it. Even with all I've absorbed over the years, it still makes me sick to think that people wouldn't help others if they are capable, even if it's something as simple as making a phone call, because they don't want to have to deal with the end result (witness).

[Mitchell, Esq.]

One-way History!
20 Sept 11

"... what would I have done?"

In the wake of the IHOP restaurant shooting in Carson City, NV on 6 Sept 11, as expected, much has been made of the fact that apparently no one in the restaurant at the time had a gun with which to repel/engage the criminal murderer.

Many have asserted that, "If I had been there, I would have ..."

With any luck, none making that speculative statement will ever know!

When one is armed and finds himself in, or on the fringes of, such a situation (as was actually the case with a person in a restaurant across the street), he has a choice of voluntarily inserting himself (perhaps with lethal force), or not. The person in this case chose not to become personally involved.

When it is your turn, it will be your call, of course.

When directly, personally threatened, you may well have no choice. That, of course, makes the deadly-force decision easy!

But, when you find yourself on the fringes, and not personally threatened (at least for the present), what is the "correct" thing to do?

There is no good, nor even satisfactory, answer!

Being armed, of course, provides you with more options than are available to the willfully unarmed. Being armed thus represents a heavy responsibility. Once you decide to "go forward," voluntarily inserting yourself into a situation in which you were not otherwise involved, the results cannot be undone!

Understand that a situation like this will not have any species of "happy ending," and, by your voluntarily participation, you will unavoidably inherit some responsibility for the dependably bad outcome.

Still, your inner sense of right and wrong may demand that you take some action.

So, you have to ask yourself, "What do I really know? What have I personally witnessed? Is it possible that what is really taking place is not what it outwardly appears to be? With what I have on me, and with were I am, can I reliably make this shot, and stop this apparent evil decisively?

Once you shoot someone, saying "Oops!" immediately afterward will not suffice to undo your decision! While we never have all the information we would like, such a deadly-force decision still requires a heavy preponderance. That is why police officers, responding to gunshots, usually hesitate before shooting the first armed person they see. And, we are routinely criticized for not taking action sooner. When we do take immediate action, we're criticized for not hesitating!

Again, "happy endings" have a thousand proud fathers, while bad outcomes are invariably orphans! As mentioned above, the latter is, by far, the more likely of the two, no matter what you do, or chose not to do.

Either way, you'll likely second-guess yourself for the rest of your life, which we all sincerely hope is long and prosperous!
Pray you never have to test that theory!

"'One, with God, is always a majority,' or, so goes the platitude, but many have been burned at the stake while votes were still being counted!"

TB Reed

/John

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/20Sept11.html

[wrmettler]

First Scenario: Well officer, the shooting went like this. I had the day off. I wanted to go shooting at the range, so I took my AK and my M17 to the range. Since I rode my Harley, I put the AK in a scabbard and my M17 in a belt holster. I had a nice morning. After getting about half way back to my apartment, I had to use the bathroom and figured I’d kill 2 birds with one stone. So, I stopped at the local IHop to get some lunch and use the bathroom. Since I didn’t have any way to secure my AK, I took it in the IHop with me. As soon as I entered the place, some mope jumps up, pulls his pistol, and starts screaming at me. I couldn’t understand him, but he started to rush me with his pistol pointed at me. He was obviously really upset.

Being afraid for my life, I dropped my AK which was obviously without a magazine. But he kept screaming at me and waiving his gun around. I was in danger, if not the rest of the folks in the IHop. So, I pulled my M17 and shot him. He died while we waited for you folks to arrive. I’m sorry I had to do it, but I was afraid for my life, and I believed he was going to shoot me. I think any person in the place would agree with me. Sorry I had to shoot him in front of his wife and kids, but you know, I have a wife and kids too.
OK officer, I’ll talk to my lawyer and wait for the prosecutor to contact me or my lawyer.

Second Scenario: Well officer, the shooting when like this. I was having lunch with my wife and kids when this big sloppy looking guy came into the IHop with an AK. You know an AK is a damn big rifle and can kill a lot of people. So, I pulled my CCW left the booth and approached him. I yelled at him to drop the gun, and when he didn’t, I shot him.
Of course, I had the right to shoot him. He had the means to inflict harm, a rifle, he had the opportunity to inflict harm, he had a rifle in a crowded room and the intent to inflict harm because he brought a rifle in an enclosed, crowded room. Yes, I felt threatened because he could have shot everyone in the room. No he didn’t point the rifle at anyone. Yes, I shot him before he had to opportunity to move the barrel of his gun. I don’t know why he brought it into the IHop, or what he was doing with it in the store. I didn’t know if it was loaded. And no I don’t know how long it was from when I gave the command to drop the gun until I shot. No, I didn’t know he was an office duty Reno SWAT officer. Wow. Maybe I said too much.

So, is either shooting justified under Nevada law, or under the laws of your state? Do you know what the laws regarding justification are in your state?

Whether to intervene in any fact situation is a hugely difficult decision, and one that a person will pay for in many different ways. Be very careful.

[peterb]

"When you pull and use a gun, you are gambling literally everything you have on getting it right during the event and being legally justified afterward. You are gambling your physical life. You are betting your job, your home, and every penny you have in the bank. At risk is your marriage, your ability to share a bed with the person you love, and your ability to watch your children grow up in person instead of from jail. You place on the table every friendship you've ever made, every dollar you've ever earned or will earn, and your family's future happiness. You are risking sleep disturbances, flashbacks, nightmares, impotence, anorexia, alcoholism, drug reliance, and a long and bitter lifetime of regret if you get it wrong. That is the gamble you take when you use a firearm against another human being.

To take a gamble that big, it's a good idea to be overwhelmingly certain there's no other way out.

Is the life of a stranger worth a gamble that size? Depending on your personal morals, maybe he is. But never ever ever in an ambiguous situation, especially when you didn't see the prelude and don't know the players."

-Kathy Jackson

[Zhurdan]

"When you pull and use a gun, you are gambling literally everything you have on getting it right during the event and being legally justified afterward. You are gambling your physical life. You are betting your job, your home, and every penny you have in the bank. At risk is your marriage, your ability to share a bed with the person you love, and your ability to watch your children grow up in person instead of from jail. You place on the table every friendship you've ever made, every dollar you've ever earned or will earn, and your family's future happiness. You are risking sleep disturbances, flashbacks, nightmares, impotence, anorexia, alcoholism, drug reliance, and a long and bitter lifetime of regret if you get it wrong. That is the gamble you take when you use a firearm against another human being.

To take a gamble that big, it's a good idea to be overwhelmingly certain there's no other way out.

Is the life of a stranger worth a gamble that size? Depending on your personal morals, maybe he is. But never ever ever in an ambiguous situation, especially when you didn't see the prelude and don't know the players."

-Kathy Jackson

Without getting too far into the incident I was involved in as to not bore anyone to death, I'll say this... There was absolutely NO DOUBT that the situation was to the level of "life and limb" for the lady and her child. My brother got on the phone and called it in while I tried to just get the guys attention away from the woman and child.

It'd been going on for well over a few minutes and it was the first call into the dispatch regarding the issue. No one bothered to call, no one bothered to help. I guess you could say I was compelled to help, whether that be due to morals or just basic human decency. The situation escalated quickly and deescalated just as fast. All ended well, but it was about 4.5lbs of pressure away from changing my life forever.

Certain that it was the right thing to do... absolutely. Certain that I was ready to accept the consequences... not so much. Many years later and lots more to live/care for, I'd probably do it differently. That's the benefit of time and thought.

[David Armstrong]

Many years later and lots more to live/care for, I'd probably do it differently.
And that is a really good point that some miss. When it is just youthata is one thing. But when you have to figure out the impact of your actions for you, your spouse, your kids, perhaps your parents, and so on sometimes it doesn't seem quite so important.

[KeeFus]

And that is a really good point that some miss. When it is just youthata is one thing. But when you have to figure out the impact of your actions for you, your spouse, your kids, perhaps your parents, and so on sometimes it doesn't seem quite so important.

^^^THIS^^^

I played mind games for a while after my shooting. Sleep deprived & playing mind games after such a situation is, from my reading, common place. It all fell into place for me the following week when I was taking my kids to school.

You will never be fully prepared for the event when it happens. You can not simulate the stress and what your bodies reaction will be when it hits the fan. Prior to and since my event I play those "What if" mind games just to keep a perspective on things but I'm now fully aware that there is no perfect self-defense situation and the most well thought out "proper response" will surely go to hell in a hand basket. I do it though to keep my mind thinking about tactics. Hopefully, should a situation require that type of response again, I will have some sort of pre-programmed thought process to at least start defending myself versus being flat-footed and hung on vapor lock.