PDA

View Full Version : Question about pointing pistol at someone



GJM
03-06-2012, 07:56 AM
I was perusing the closed thread and saw the following post by South Narc:

I'm curious about the experience base of everyone posting. Who has ever actually pointed a gun at another human being with the intention of shooting them if need be?

I have a question about this statement, completely different from the closed thread. Is this just a manner of speaking, or are there scenarios where a citizen would point a firearm at a person without first having decided to shoot them? Bill Rogers makes both a physiological and legal/moral argument that a muzzle never covers another person until you are going to shoot them. The physiological part being you are just as fast to hit them from a confirmed, extended ready with the muzzle depressed below the threat as with the muzzle on them, and even faster from the ready as opposed to on them if they move. The legal/moral argument being that rule two is the primary safety rule, and we don't cover people with a muzzle until we have decided to shoot. While I am not LE, apparently that is the same philosophy as to not covering people with the muzzle that they teach to LE.

I haven't had a chance to take a course with South Narc yet, so perhaps this is something he covers there.

Sparks2112
03-06-2012, 08:42 AM
Sometimes people stop their aggressive actions in the space between deciding to shoot them and actually doing so. It's amazing how quickly the situation can change.

Jay Cunningham
03-06-2012, 08:46 AM
All I'm going to say on the subject is that if you are pointing a gun at a person, you had better be willing to shoot them at that time. That doesn't mean you must shoot them. If and when you reach a point where you are no longer willing to shoot them, the muzzle should come off them.

edited to add: I've never been in the situation where I felt threatened AND was armed with a firearm. I've never had to make the decision. I don't want to. I want a nice quiet life and I want to see my daughters grow up. I am not a tough-guy; I have absolutely no illusions about it.

David Armstrong
03-06-2012, 10:00 AM
Is this just a manner of speaking, or are there scenarios where a citizen would point a firearm at a person without first having decided to shoot them?
Depends on the citizen. I've talked with some that took the view that they pointed the gun at someone because they hoped it would prevent a shooting. I don't necessarily agree with the concept, but I understand it. I've had occassion to point with the hope that would cause a change of heart in the other person, but I was ready and willing to shoot if it didn't.

JeffJ
03-06-2012, 10:52 AM
All I'm going to say on the subject is that if you are pointing a gun at a person, you had better be willing to shoot them at that time. That doesn't mean you must shoot them. If and when you reach a point where you are no longer willing to shoot them, the muzzle should come off them.

That's the most concise, sensical way of putting that I've ever heard.

SouthNarc
03-06-2012, 11:02 AM
GJM If I'm reading you right you're asking if muzzling someone is or can be independent of the shooting cycle correct?








I was perusing the closed thread and saw the following post by South Narc:

I'm curious about the experience base of everyone posting. Who has ever actually pointed a gun at another human being with the intention of shooting them if need be?

I have a question about this statement, completely different from the closed thread. Is this just a manner of speaking, or are there scenarios where a citizen would point a firearm at a person without first having decided to shoot them? Bill Rogers makes both a physiological and legal/moral argument that a muzzle never covers another person until you are going to shoot them. The physiological part being you are just as fast to hit them from a confirmed, extended ready with the muzzle depressed below the threat as with the muzzle on them, and even faster from the ready as opposed to on them if they move. The legal/moral argument being that rule two is the primary safety rule, and we don't cover people with a muzzle until we have decided to shoot. While I am not LE, apparently that is the same philosophy as to not covering people with the muzzle that they teach to LE.

I haven't had a chance to take a course with South Narc yet, so perhaps this is something he covers there.

TCinVA
03-06-2012, 11:17 AM
1. Are there scenarios in which a citizen would point a gun at a person they didn't immediately intend to shoot?

IMO, Yes. If, for instance, someone breaks into my home tonight, I will probably have a firearm aimed at them before I've made the final decision to shoot. If in the process of investigating I decide that lethal force is probably not going to be immediately necessary, I'll bring the gun to a ready position and handle things from there.

Outside my home if I'm clearing kydex it's probably something I'm doing in response to a direct threat...like, say, a dude with his hand in his pocket demanding some ***CENSORED*** money. I wasn't drawing because I wanted to scare him with my gun. I started my draw because I thought use of force was going to be immediately necessary since every non-aggressive attempt had failed. Thankfully it wasn't necessary as he buggered off before things could get worse.

2. Legal issues

Not a lawyer, but pointing a gun at someone is a use of force. A significant one. My goal is to avoid the use of force...any level of it...if at all possible. I'm interested in avoidance and deescalation if at all possible.

I'm not going to say that if I pull a gun somebody is getting shot because things just don't work like that in real life. It's not bad to have a mindset that the pistol only comes out if you really intend to use it...but in the moment you're going to be making a lot of complex judgments while your brain is scrambling desperately to figure out what's happening around you. It seems to me that most bad guys like to get in close and move fast. As much as we like to have plans for how you attack a particular situation, when it really comes down to it you're going to have to react to the circumstances you're presented in the moment. It's not bad to have a repository of general rules and best practices to pull from in that moment, but like with any other bad situation in life you're going to have to sort through that catalog of information and apply the appropriate techniques/concepts to the situation in front of you in real time.

That is a skill unto itself...typically one that isn't well understood or trained for no matter what world you come from (In general. Guys who spend their time in SF/SOF units or on SWAT teams or doing the dirty work on mean streets get plenty of experience doing that sort of thing either in quality training or in real time when the consequences are death) but especially in the civilian sector.

I haven't made anything approaching a comprehensive study of street encounters by average joes, but the ones I've seen tend to have some common features. Generally the average joe on the street is pulling a pistol after the trap has been sprung either because they missed the warning signs of an impending attack, noticed the signs but didn't react proactively to avoid the problem (possibly because they didn't know how to handle it) or because it happened so fast they didn't have time to do anything but react off of blind instinct. While it's not pleasant or desirable, if some bad dude walks in the door of a convenience store firing a pistol at you, the decision tree for that particular situation is at least simple: Shoot the bastard. Now. The decisions become more complicated when the threat is not as immediate or obvious.

Because pointing a gun at someone is a significant use of force (and if done without justification a felony in many states) it's not a bad idea, IMO, to think about it in a use of force continuum as being just below actually pulling the trigger...to be used only when you think there is an imminent need for violence to defend yourself. I know Ken Hackathorn teaches that if you're pulling a gun to pre-empt the need for violence that keeping the muzzle aimed at the ground is advised so you avoid opening yourself to a potential felony charge for pointing a gun at someone should it turn out that level of force wasn't necessary/justified...but I also know he doesn't teach whipping the pistol out willy-nilly, either.

If you understand that pointing a firearm at someone is a use of force and brings with it the questions of accountability and reasonableness that actually pulling the trigger bring, that's probably going to serve you well as a guide for figuring out whether or not it's a good idea to do in any particular situation...but hard and fast rules are difficult to prescribe in what tend to be difficult and highly dynamic situations where even small subtleties in body language can make worlds of practical difference.

YMMV.

3. LE and pointing guns

Law enforcement officers get a little more leeway on pointing firearms at people, generally speaking, all traceable to the nature of their job. It's fairly easy for them to articulate dangers that a particular situation poses which justify preemptively having a weapon in hand and even pointing it at people whom they may not have made the final decision to shoot yet. They'll also be guided by a department's use of force continuum, use of force policies, and relevant training provided by their department. They'll have to apply all of that in real time as well, but are likely to have had more exposure to applying the concepts at speed in training and through the mentoring of more experienced officers.

karmapolice
03-06-2012, 11:25 AM
Having the pistol or rifle at the low ready isn't pointing it at someone, though that's coming up for debate which is going to make leo's jobs even more dangerous. To me that definition of low ready vs pointing it at them is semantics but it is the semantics that makes my job safer because again if they ever decide to say having them with the sights lined up at a full press out and or at a low ready covered position is the same than my job will be even more dangerous. On the basis of having the intention or willingness to shoot the person, I have that with everyone I come in contact with for the most part. Not out of hate or fear but preparedness because in the blink of an eye a friendly encounter can turn into a deadly force situation. I am not a cop that wants to live in a police state, far from it. I am glad there are things like the fourth amendment, probable cause, etc. I am not trying to mess with anyone who doesn’t need to be or take anyone to jail that doesn’t need to go. At the same time though every call I show up on I am at a disadvantage because I am called there so others are informed of my coming. Even in the other arena were you might be doing more proactive crime suppression stuff we have to take the tactical advantage because all it takes is half a second for a bad guy to get the upper hand, we are still the outsiders to the area, house, etc. If in the course of my duties you are an innocent citizen and my weapon is covering you or pointed at you I apologize but until I can finish my investigation and determine that you are not a threat it’s going to happen in some situations and not for a super prolonged time. That’s my two cents which are worth less than their posted value.

GJM
03-06-2012, 11:54 AM
I will try to respond to multiple posts and questions together.

Bill Rogers has proven to me why there is no speed disadvantage in hitting a target by starting at an extended, confirmed ready rather than pointing in at the target, and there may actually be a speed advantage starting from the extended ready, rather than pointed in, if the target moves. Further, he argues that rule two is paramount, and anytime the muzzle covers the target, there is the risk of an negligent discharge hitting that target. Finally, covering someone with the muzzle constitutes a different legal standard than having the muzzle depressed.

While I am no SME on this topic, and haven't yet had the opportunity to train with the true SME on this matter, South Narc, subject to being educated, and to circumstances which I have not contemplated, I have decided that I am not covering a threat with the muzzle until such time as I am in the act of shooting that target. While it is possible that I might discontinue breaking the shot, between the extended ready or draw and the shot, that would be unlikely given the short time it takes for the physical process of shooting.

What caught my interest was South Narc's question about who had pointed a pistol at a person with the willingness to shoot (my paraphrasing), and how that was at odds with what I thought was best practice, in not indexing he target until it happened in the process of breaking the shot. Since the point of reading threads like the one on line in the sand, that might not ordinarily interest me, is to challenge my assumptions, I wanted to raise this in a separate thread so that I could learn more.

Zhurdan
03-06-2012, 12:03 PM
As I'd relayed in the aforementioned thread, I had the gun at low ready as the threat developed. As the threat closed on me, the gun moved to a more advantageous position (pointing at the turd). As he continued to close distance, the safety came off as the situation was becoming more and more critical. Finger went to the trigger as he got closer. Luckily for me, he saw the gun at this point and changed his mind. During all of this, once the gun cleared leather, I had every intention of shooting him IF he did not change his behavior.

As I see it, in a case where there's a weapon other than a gun, the danger increases as the threat closes distance, in increments so to speak, so the response increases. He could have easily thrown the lug wrench at me at any of those distances so having the gun trained on him was prudent, IMO. I'm also not a lawyer but it made the most sense at the time. (also after much hindsight).

That being said, if you are waiting for the threat to reach a "completely justifiable" place, you're probably behind the curve and are going to get hit.

In regards to there being another gun in play, all bets are off. If it looks as though that person is bringing the muzzle my way, I'd think it's justifiable to think that he means to do me harm with said gun. Stuff would happen a lot faster than the above mentioned scenario.


I'll say this in closing, having pointed a gun at someone with the full intent of shooting them if required to do so, it is NOT a fun place to be. It is not glamorous, it is not "tough", it is not a desirable position to be in. I often relate this next part to folks to come to me about wanting to carry. When that trooper put me in the car and the adrenaline started to wear off, my back seized up, I cried like a baby because of what was going thru my mind, and dammit, I pissed myself. This may catch me some teasing, but it's the truth. It's a very VERY unnerving position to be in, either during or after. Luckily for me, my body responded properly during the incident. It was the aftermath of the situation were I freaked out, and I didn't even have to drop the hammer on the turd! Each persons body will react differently to stress induced in a compressed time frame. Lucky for me, I was calm and collected when the gun was out and it hit me later. Imagine if it had hit me when he was closing on me and going to bludgeon me to death.

GJM
03-06-2012, 12:29 PM
Zhurdan, I would argue that the most advantaged position, would be the extended, confirmed ready, where you could place an accurate hit in .50 seconds without the legal/moral issues and possibility of a ND striking the target that came with covering someone with the muzzle prior to the decision to break the shot?

Zhurdan
03-06-2012, 12:32 PM
Zhurdan, I would argue that the most advantaged position, would be the extended, confirmed ready, where you could place an accurate hit in .50 seconds without the legal/moral issues and possibility of a ND striking the target that came with covering someone with the muzzle prior to the decision to break the shot?

I agree with you... now. At the time, I had no formal training. It really was a surreal situation.

ToddG
03-06-2012, 12:59 PM
Like with so many other things, it's silly to suggest that there is one correct, universal answer.

All else being equal, pointing a gun at someone should be avoided. But any number of things can start to change the balance toward putting a muzzle on or near someone. I'm not a big fan of the extended low ready, but I think GJM's point is well made. Most people, if they actually tried it, would find that bringing the gun from a good ready to the target takes less time than is worth worrying about. This is especially true if you and/or the target are moving. Add a cognitive task as part of the shoot/don't shoot equation and I'd be willing to bet few of us would notice any meaningful difference.

TGS
03-06-2012, 01:50 PM
I'm not a lawyer. Caveat emptor:

I don't think that keeping the gun at the low-ready is any different than pointing a gun at someone. You're still presenting a hostile intent to use lethal force, which is a big reason I'm not for using a gun as a non-lethal alternative.....because it doesn't exist as a concept. It doesn't matter whether you aren't intending to shoot them...you're still presenting a hostile intent with lethal force. If you pull a gun, then you better have the reason to shoot them, too. If you don't, then you are giving HIM the right to shoot you. The lethal force continuum applies to everyone.

How familiar does this sound:

"You can't read a persons mind, so if they are presenting OAJ then you shoot them. You can't tell if they are actually meaning to stop short of killing you and just beat you up, humiliate you, ect. They might be wanting to kill you, they might not be, but they're still presenting OAJ to kill you...so kill them."

That applies to us as well......no one knows what we're thinking, either. You can not use a lethal weapon as a non-lethal alternative.

If they happen to stop upon seeing my gun before I shoot, then all the better.......that is a good day. A great man once said, "Today I didn't even have to use my AK, I got to say it was a good day." True that. A gun is not a bargaining chip, it's a problem solving tool.

ToddG
03-06-2012, 01:57 PM
You're confusing justification with criminal action. I can be justified in shooting someone before he's committed a criminal act. I don't have to wait for you to shoot at me or point your gun at me before I can say I was in reasonable fear for my life.

Zhurdan
03-06-2012, 01:59 PM
I'm not a lawyer. Caveat emptor:

I don't think that keeping the gun at the low-ready is any different than pointing a gun at someone. You're still presenting a hostile intent to use lethal force, which is a big reason I'm not for using a gun as a non-lethal alternative.....because it doesn't exist as a concept. It doesn't matter whether you aren't intending to shoot them...you're still presenting a hostile intent with lethal force. If you pull a gun, then you better have the reason to shoot them, too. If you don't, then you are giving HIM the right to shoot you! The lethal force continuum applies to everyone.

How familiar does this sound:

"You can't read a persons mind, so if they are presenting OAJ then you shoot them. You can't tell if they are actually meaning to stop short of killing you and just beat you up, humiliate you, ect. They might be wanting to kill you, they might not be, but they're still presenting OAJ to kill you...so kill them."

That applies to us as well......no one knows what we're thinking, either. You can not use a lethal weapon as a non-lethal alternative.

If they happen to stop upon seeing my gun before I shoot, then all the better.......that is a good day. A great man once said, "Today I didn't even have to use my AK, I got to say it was a good day." True that. A gun is not a bargaining chip, it's a problem solving tool.

Not sure if you are referring to me, but I never said or intended to use the gun as a "bargaining chip" or a deterrent. I saw a situation that was going bad. When the focus of that rage turned away from the woman he said he was going to kill on to me, I put my hand on my gun. When it continued towards me, I took action. When it got to the point where I was fairly certain that he wasn't going to stop, I escalated. In this situation, the turd was the one expressing intent to harm from the get go. Even with my pleading with him to stop (which fell on rage deaf ears apparently) he did not and closed distance. I escalated according to the distance and perceived threat level until it was damn near the point of no return. Probably not the best situation, but better than waiting to draw until the last minute. (again, single scenario)

I also, as I said before abhor any situation where clearing leather/kydex is the last option, and believe that a gun is most definitely NOT a deterrent and should not be used as such, so please, if you took that away from what I said, I apologize.

GJM
03-06-2012, 02:21 PM
I'm not a lawyer. Caveat emptor:

I don't think that keeping the gun at the low-ready is any different than pointing a gun at someone. You're still presenting a hostile intent to use lethal force, which is a big reason I'm not for using a gun as a non-lethal alternative.....because it doesn't exist as a conceptl.

TGS, I am not a lawyer, and is has been some months since I heard it, but Bill Rogers said that in many states pointing a weapon at someone is legally distinct from the low ready, and gives rise to many possible "bad" things for the weapon pointer.

TGS
03-06-2012, 02:34 PM
You're confusing justification with criminal action. I can be justified in shooting someone before he's committed a criminal act. I don't have to wait for you to shoot at me or point your gun at me before I can say I was in reasonable fear for my life.

I never meant to say otherwise, but if something I wrote conveyed otherwise could you send me a PM so I could clarify it?


Not sure if you are referring to me

Nope.


TGS, I am not a lawyer, and is has been some months since I heard it, but Bill Rogers said that in many states pointing a weapon at someone is legally distinct from the low ready, and gives rise to many possible "bad" things for the weapon pointer.

I'd be very interested to hear more about this. Both options are presenting a hostile intent with lethal force, just as someone reaching for a gun or knife does. It still gives you the justification to shoot them (or they shoot us) if you/they feel life or limb is threatened by doing so.

The point I'm revolving around is that any option involving pulling a gun on someone, whether establishing a preemptive grip, drawing to the low ready, point it at them, waving it at them, ect, all require you to already have a justification for shooting them. You're still bringing lethal force into the situation, so the same justifications have to be met. That, at least, seems to be a safe way of conducting business to CYA and simplify your options in a complicated and/or stressful situation.

Mitchell, Esq.
03-06-2012, 03:45 PM
TGS, I am not a lawyer, and is has been some months since I heard it, but Bill Rogers said that in many states pointing a weapon at someone is legally distinct from the low ready, and gives rise to many possible "bad" things for the weapon pointer.

I'd disagree for CT based on my experience.

If it was unjustified, you would be charged the same way: threatening in the 1st degree, which is a felony.

The CT courts would consider the display of a firearm the use of a firearm.

If you are justified, it doesn't matter, if you aren't... :(

TGS
03-06-2012, 03:47 PM
would consider the display of a firearm the use of a firearm.

If you are justified, it doesn't matter, if you aren't... :(


Just to be clear, my point.

Mitchell, Esq.
03-06-2012, 03:49 PM
i'm not a lawyer. Caveat emptor:

I don't think that keeping the gun at the low-ready is any different than pointing a gun at someone. you're still presenting a hostile intent to use lethal force, which is a big reason i'm not for using a gun as a non-lethal alternative.....because it doesn't exist as a concept. It doesn't matter whether you aren't intending to shoot them...you're still presenting a hostile intent with lethal force. If you pull a gun, then you better have the reason to shoot them, too. If you don't, then you are giving him the right to shoot you. The lethal force continuum applies to everyone.

How familiar does this sound:

"you can't read a persons mind, so if they are presenting oaj then you shoot them. You can't tell if they are actually meaning to stop short of killing you and just beat you up, humiliate you, ect. They might be wanting to kill you, they might not be, but they're still presenting oaj to kill you...so kill them."

that applies to us as well......no one knows what we're thinking, either. you can not use a lethal weapon as a non-lethal alternative.

If they happen to stop upon seeing my gun before i shoot, then all the better.......that is a good day. A great man once said, "today i didn't even have to use my ak, i got to say it was a good day." true that. A gun is not a bargaining chip, it's a problem solving tool.

yes.

Yes!!!

peterb
03-06-2012, 04:08 PM
A possibly related point...

In my training for dealing(unarmed) with combative patients, we were told things like "It should be clear to someone across the street that you're the good guy" and "It should be obvious to someone who can't hear what you're saying that you're trying to help." For us that meant body language -- the stance and gestures for "easy, big fella", not "bring it on".

Being at the low ready instead of actually pointing your weapon might make a huge difference in the eyewitness accounts of what happened.

TGS
03-06-2012, 04:13 PM
A possibly related point...

In my training for dealing(unarmed) with combative patients, we were told things like "It should be clear to someone across the street that you're the good guy" and "It should be obvious to someone who can't hear what you're saying that you're trying to help." For us that meant body language -- the stance and gestures for "easy, big fella", not "bring it on".

Being at the low ready instead of actually pointing your weapon might make a huge difference in the eyewitness accounts of what happened.

Yes, you should try to present yourself in a professional, "good guy" manner.

Respectfully, I think relying on that to shape the outcome of the situation is relying on reality to conform to a utopian concept and grossly dangerous. Enter the case of Special Agent John Capano.

peterb
03-06-2012, 04:33 PM
Respectfully, I think relying on that to shape the outcome of the situation is relying on reality to conform to a utopian concept and grossly dangerous. Enter the case of Special Agent John Capano.

I'm not suggesting that it will shape the outcome, or that it should be a high priority in a dangerous situation. It's just another element to consider.

On the other end of the force scale, we had a high-profile case last year in NH of a homeowner who received a felony conviction and jail time for "brandishing" a pistol at a trespasser. The law as then written made "displaying" legal but "brandishing" illegal. At trial, the accuser testified that he pointed the gun towards her.

Mitchell, Esq.
03-06-2012, 05:07 PM
I'm not suggesting that it will shape the outcome, or that it should be a high priority in a dangerous situation. It's just another element to consider.

On the other end of the force scale, we had a high-profile case last year in NH of a homeowner who received a felony conviction and jail time for "brandishing" a pistol at a trespasser. The law as then written made "displaying" legal but "brandishing" illegal. At trial, the accuser testified that he pointed the gun towards her.

The difference between "display" and "brandishing" is likely that displaying a firearm is a justified use of a firearm when circumstances permit...but brandishing is the unlawful display of a firearm when circumstances do not justify it.

The action is the same, the circumstance is not.

Think of it like getting falling down smashed and acting like a fool.

Perfectly acceptable on the beach at a keg party with a crowd of strangers...not acceptable at the same location when it's a company cookout with the boss attending.

In both cases, you may do the same thing - but only one situation seems to believe that behavior is acceptable.

Bringing a gun into play isn't a minor thing.

It's just not.

We can debate the fine points of aiming in vs. low ready...doing that in the office behind Courtroom 3B at 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT before the Honorable - I should probably not mention Judge's names online - and whichever State's Attorney happens to be doing felony matters that day...

Rather another thing.

The people you will be justifying your actions do see a lot of people do a lot of bad things, and they aren't adverse to referring to some of the "Frequent Flyers" as "The Late, Unlamented..." - BUT... understand you are effectively doing the same thing to those people as they'd do to you, and it looks a lot like you threatened someone, assaulted someone, or killed someone.

This reminds me of when people used to ask on another forum "Where can I cut someone so the prosecutor will know I was just defending myself?"

You can't!

The actions of defending yourself are not distinguishable from the actions of someone assaulting another person!

Only the situation matters. Only the Pre-Fight & Post-Fight make the matter different.

Head shooting someone is still headshooting someone.
Stabbing someone is still stabbing someone.

Pointing a gun at them?

Pointing a gun at them.

Actions don't really change that much, circumstances do.

Nephrology
03-06-2012, 05:53 PM
Bridgeport, CT

Fun place to be! Speaking of lethal force....

GJM
03-06-2012, 06:20 PM
I'd disagree for CT based on my experience.

If it was unjustified, you would be charged the same way: threatening in the 1st degree, which is a felony.

The CT courts would consider the display of a firearm the use of a firearm.

If you are justified, it doesn't matter, if you aren't... :(

Having previously been a CT resident for near 30 years, I understand that CT's laws may be neither logical nor representative of other locales. However, I spent many hours hunting in CT with a long gun, and I can tell you that there is an enormous difference between carrying a long gun in what might be considered a ready position and pointing that same long gun intentionally at another person.

Here is Alaska's law: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter81/Section900.htm

(16) "deadly force" means force that the person uses with the intent of causing, or uses under circumstances that the person knows create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious physical injury; "deadly force" includes intentionally discharging or pointing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction in which another person is believed to be and intentionally placing another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument;


Leaving aside your interpretation of CT's law, or for that manner any law, given the risk of a negligent discharge hitting a person, and understanding the mechanics of hitting your target as described above, should make pointing a weapon at another person something to be avoided, in favor of an extended, confirmed ready with the muzzle below the threat?

Mitchell, Esq.
03-06-2012, 06:43 PM
Fun place to be! Speaking of lethal force....

Don't be hatin, homes.

Be coo, yo. Be coo. S'all good.

Word.

Mr_White
03-06-2012, 06:43 PM
I'd disagree for CT based on my experience.

If it was unjustified, you would be charged the same way: threatening in the 1st degree, which is a felony.

The CT courts would consider the display of a firearm the use of a firearm.

If you are justified, it doesn't matter, if you aren't... :(

I’ve been advised that Oregon law is similar – that having a gun in hand and pointed in the general direction (almost think of a 180 rule) of a person, without justification for the use of deadly force, may be a criminal act. Some of us here believe that there will be no legal difference between having a gun pointed/aimed directly at a person without justification, and having a gun pointed in their direction, but not directly at them, without justification. Ditto if justified in both cases – no legal difference. Both are likely to be seen as deadly force directed at someone, even if not precisely enough ‘at’ them to have a bullet strike them if a shot were fired without further refinement of the muzzle orientation.

This reduces the legal utility of most high ready and low ready positions. A muzzle buried (SUL) or muzzle up position (straight up, like Norte) might improve legal standing. Maybe. I think even a fully muzzle-averted ready position might still be adjudicated as an unjustified threat of deadly force though, depending on the specifics of the human interaction in the situation.

My personal calculus for when to put someone at gunpoint is essentially that AOJ must already be present, but modified for the human performance factors (distance, obstacles, time, action vs. reaction, etc.) that necessitate having the gun closer to the position from which I can immediately engage than the holster, or I risk being unable to act in time to keep myself from being killed or seriously injured. It boils down to AOJ modified by the necessities of time.

This gives rise to an approximation of the old and oversimplified adage ‘don’t draw the gun until you are going to fire immediately.’ There are situations where I might draw the gun and point it toward someone but not yet fire it, however, that span of situations is narrowed compared to what it might be in another state with a different legal situation.

When ready positions are legally weakened, the importance of a fast draw increases, but active awareness, and manipulation of environmental and interactive factors to allow us more time to evaluate the potential threat or give us additional or clearer information with which to evaluate the potential threat, or might even allow the luxury of disengagement, are still the most important (creating distance, using obstacles, adding artificial light, verbal interactive skills, recognition of threat cues, etc.)

The above mostly references the legal aspects, as this non-lawyer sees it, of ready positions. I absolutely concur with the human performance/mechanical assertions of Bill Rogers re: ready positions vs. trying to get ahead by having muzzle on target, sights on target, and trying to look past the visual input-blocking or visual input-reducing hands and gun.

TGS
03-06-2012, 06:47 PM
Having previously been a CT resident for near 30 years, I understand that CT's laws may be neither logical nor representative of other locales. However, I spent many hours hunting in CT with a long gun, and I can tell you that there is an enormous difference between carrying a long gun in what might be considered a ready position and pointing that same long gun intentionally at another person.

Here is Alaska's law: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter81/Section900.htm

(16) "deadly force" means force that the person uses with the intent of causing, or uses under circumstances that the person knows create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious physical injury; "deadly force" includes intentionally discharging or pointing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction in which another person is believed to be and intentionally placing another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument;


Leaving aside your interpretation of CT's law, or for that manner any law, given the risk of a negligent discharge hitting a person, and understanding the mechanics of hitting your target as described above, should make pointing a weapon at another person something to be avoided, in favor of an extended, confirmed ready with the muzzle below the threat?


Whether or not you're threatening someone who may or may not be interacting with you, by carrying a long arm at the ready position in the wilderness of Alaska, is entirely situation dependent.

You can still be threatening a person with a long arm at the ready. Or you might not be.



(16) "deadly force" means force that the person uses with the intent of causing, or uses under circumstances that the person knows create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious physical injury; "deadly force" includes intentionally discharging or pointing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction in which another person is believed to be and intentionally placing another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument;

The low ready is pointing a firearm in someone's direction, or where you believe another person to be.

Thus, if the person has doubts as to your friendly disposition, and he believes you're in the low ready with a gun to harm him, he would very well be within his rights and logical reason to blast you. It's pretty cut and dry.

GJM
03-06-2012, 06:59 PM
The low ready is pointing a firearm in someone's direction, or where you believe another person to be.


Actually, it is not pointing a firearm in someone's direction, which is precisely the point of depressing the muzzle so that it does not cover them.

You can tell me, with a straight face, that you believe there is no difference between me pointing my shotgun or handgun at your chest, and holding that same weapon depressed so as not to cover your body?

Mitchell, Esq.
03-06-2012, 07:16 PM
Actually, it is not pointing a firearm in someone's direction, which is precisely the point of depressing the muzzle so that it does not cover them.

You can tell me, with a straight face, that you believe there is no difference between me pointing my shotgun or handgun at your chest, and holding that same weapon depressed so as not to cover your body?

Depending on the situation, it doesn't matter.

If you are doing pistol drills on a range in the woods and I, dumb hiker that I am, stumble out of the woods downrange of you and you go from aimed in at the target to dropping the pistol to low ready, and look at me like the idiot that I am and inform me I am in a bad spot, and should get off the firing line post-hast...

No.

If you are investigating a bump in the night outside your house thinking you are going to FINALLY bag that raccoon which has been messing with your cat's food, and you turn the corner, and see me standing their...and you, holding the gun in low ready inform me I am in a bad spot, and should get on my knees post-hast...

Probably.

TGS
03-06-2012, 07:27 PM
You can tell me, with a straight face, that you believe there is no difference between me pointing my shotgun or handgun at your chest, and holding that same weapon depressed so as not to cover your body?

No, there is not. 100% straight face.

As long as I still believed you had intent to use it against me, it would still be justification for me to shoot you, just as it would be if you reached for a pistol while confronting me.

Being that I have professional education and training on the use of force, and the definition and purpose of low-ready, I'll be bold with this:

Pro Tip: Don't bring guns into the mix unless you're already willing to shoot or be shot at. Once you bring a gun into the mix, it doesn't matter how you're holding it. A gun gives you the opportunity and ability to project lethal force on me, and whether you are flashing it at me, waving it, holding it at the low-ready or pointing at me is not going to change whether or not I feel there is jeopardy (intent)......your intent is decided by other factors. If you have really bad muzzle discipline while showing off your BBQ gun, I'm not going to think you have intent to harm me. If I believe you are using that gun to project your will on me.....yes, you're getting shot, and it's not going to make a difference whether you're pointing it directly at me or not.

David Armstrong
03-06-2012, 07:51 PM
Actually, it is not pointing a firearm in someone's direction, which is precisely the point of depressing the muzzle so that it does not cover them.

You can tell me, with a straight face, that you believe there is no difference between me pointing my shotgun or handgun at your chest, and holding that same weapon depressed so as not to cover your body?
It's a big difference to me. In the latter we are about to engage in a spirited negotiation to attempt to resolve the situation with the minimal loss of resources to each party. In the former you have committed suicide.;)

GJM
03-06-2012, 08:44 PM
No, there is not. 100% straight face.

As long as I still believed you had intent to use it against me, it would still be justification for me to shoot you, just as it would be if you reached for a pistol while confronting me.

Being that I have professional education and training on the use of force, and the definition and purpose of low-ready, I'll be bold with this:

Pro Tip: Don't bring guns into the mix unless you're already willing to shoot or be shot at. Once you bring a gun into the mix, it doesn't matter how you're holding it.

Wild guess, you currently and have for your life lived in the east? Out west and in Alaska, virtually everyone has firearms, so guns are already in the mix. Your rationale regarding intent may sound good now, but may not jive with law and practice in much of the country.

That is the easy part of a definition, like I posted from Alaska, that rests on where the muzzle is pointed. This is the same reason that the Rogers School focuses on rule two so hard, where the muzzle is pointed, since you can't be shot without the muzzle covering you. Frankly I could care less what the guy's intent is, since a bullet fired with no bad intent can kill me just as quickly as a bullet fired with malicious intent -- my objective it to avoid having a muzzle pointed at me. Since I spend so much time in the field hunting, and around people with long guns, I am extremely vigilant about being covered with a muzzle, and covering anyone else with a muzzle. I am sure TLG and other instructors worry more about being covered by a student's muzzle than one from a bad guy.

TGS
03-06-2012, 09:01 PM
Wild guess, you currently and have for your life lived in the east? Out west and in Alaska, virtually everyone has firearms, so guns are already in the mix. Your rationale regarding intent may sound good now, but may not jive with law and practice in much of the country.

Wrong.

And by now, it sounds like your just projecting straw man arguments just to make yourself sound correct with absolutely zero relation to your original question, so I'm done.

98z28
03-06-2012, 09:11 PM
What caught my interest was South Narc's question about who had pointed a pistol at a person with the willingness to shoot (my paraphrasing), and how that was at odds with what I thought was best practice, in not indexing he target until it happened in the process of breaking the shot. Since the point of reading threads like the one on line in the sand, that might not ordinarily interest me, is to challenge my assumptions, I wanted to raise this in a separate thread so that I could learn more.

I haven't seen this question addressed yet, so I'll chime in.

As far as I know, the idea of not pointing a gun at someone you might have to shoot is pretty new in law enforcement. I'll set up an example of what I mean by "someone you might have to shoot" so there is no confusion.

Suppose you are an officer on patrol and you receive a report of a robbery in progress. The caller (a witness across the street from the robbery) gives a good description of the suspect (height, weight, clothing, and skin tone). The caller also reports that the suspect displayed a black handgun. The caller reports that after the robbery, the suspect ran away on foot and gives a direction of travel.

You, the brave officer, are two blocks away and rush to the scene, approaching from the direction the suspect supposedly ran towards. Lo and behold, you see someone that matches the description of the suspect running away in the direction you expect to see him running. You do not see a weapon. You quickly exit your patrol car, draw your weapon, and start issuing commands to stop (hopefully from a position of cover). For the sake of the example, let's suppose the suspect does stop. He is now about 15 yards away from you, standing with his hands in the air, facing away from you.

This is an example of someone that you very well might have to shoot, but he does not need to be shot right now.

I went through the academy in 2005. We were trained that the above suspect should have a weapon pointed at him with the sights aligned as close to center mass as possible while still keeping the hands in view. No one ever questioned that it might actually be faster, not to mention safer, if we hold the gun at extended ready with the muzzle pointed at the dirt rather than at the suspect's chest. Since his hands are in the air, they are still visible even with the sights on his chest.

I didn't hear any noise about this until around 2009 when I went through the FBI's firearms instructor school. It was not part of the class. Another student mentioned that he had read about it. I could understand how it is safer, but I couldn't believe that it might be faster to work from an extended ready if you actually wound up having to shoot.

We went back to our department and ran a few officers through scenarios on a FATS machine. Sure enough, the guys that used the extended ready were faster to fire a shot when needed than the guys that aligned the sights on the suspect from the get-go. Almost invariably, the officers that had their sights on target would drop to an extended ready to see the suspect's entire upper torso before firing. The guys that started at extended ready could see everything they needed to see and didn't take this extra step. Pretty surprising at the time. Of course it seems like common sense now. Hell, maybe it was common practice and it just didn't get around to my part of the world until a few years ago.

I have heard from several other trainers that conducted similar experiments and found the same results.

I will also say that you might be surprised how quickly things can change and what you are capable doing in a short amount of time in a dynamic, dangerous situation. I have made the decision to shoot someone, started pressing the trigger, and wound up not firing a single round. This happened not once, but twice in my short seven years in LE. From talking to other officers, my experience is not unique.

Most officers I talk to these days say they are taught to keep the muzzle pointed in as safe a direction as possible not only so that they do not mizzle the suspect, but also so that they can see the suspect's entire body. That is a pretty radical departure from what I was taught just a few years ago.

That said, it is still possible to muzzle someone and end up not shooting them even with this policy in place (see my experience above).

Mitchell, Esq.
03-06-2012, 09:33 PM
We need to seperate law enforcement display of a firearm, and a non-law enforcement display of a firearm.

For law enforcement, it can be a situational management tool, effectively "You better do what I say, because if you don't the consequences are going to be severe..."

Police officers are commissioned by the state to be allowed to enforce laws, and to use force or the threat of force as appropriate to do so.

Private citizens have a much narrower scope of permissable displays of a weapon.

GJM
03-06-2012, 09:38 PM
Wrong.

And by now, it sounds like your just projecting straw man arguments just to make yourself sound correct with absolutely zero relation to your original question, so I'm done.

My original question was to learn what scenarios might cause a person to point a weapon at someone prior to commencing the shooting sequence. In support of that position, I have explained why starting from the extended, confirmed ready, with the muzzle depressed is at least as fast, and possiby faster than starting pointed in, that it minimizes the chance of a negligent discharge hitting the target, and it better legally where I have been able to identify specific state statutes.

I am still waiting for someone to give me a good reason to point a weapon at another person prior to commencing the shooting sequence?

YVK
03-07-2012, 12:29 AM
Actually, it is not pointing a firearm in someone's direction, which is precisely the point of depressing the muzzle so that it does not cover them.


G, you're pointing a firearm towards general direction of an alleged offender. Say, no shooting happens and things end up in a court. Without even going into state-specific legal technicalities whether a mere presence of firearm pointed somewhere into a direction of a bad guy constitutes an offense, it is your word against his if your muzzle covered him or not. You are going to say, yes your honor I had my gun in extended low ready as I was taught by Bill and I never covered him. He is going to say, your honor, I could see that big hole looking right in my eyes.
Suppose there are eye witnesses. Do you think they'd be capable to definitively state that your muzzle never covered him? Maybe you were aiming at pelvis, you know, like some "experts" say?

Even accepting a theoretical consideration that extended low has legal advantages, I think the burden of proof will be on you to convince everyone that you were not covering him, and it may become an impossible task. That would be my reason not to take these theoretical legal advantages into consideration.

98z28
03-07-2012, 02:45 AM
G, you're pointing a firearm towards general direction of an alleged offender. Say, no shooting happens and things end up in a court. Without even going into state-specific legal technicalities whether a mere presence of firearm pointed somewhere into a direction of a bad guy constitutes an offense, it is your word against his if your muzzle covered him or not. You are going to say, yes your honor I had my gun in extended low ready as I was taught by Bill and I never covered him. He is going to say, your honor, I could see that big hole looking right in my eyes.
Suppose there are eye witnesses. Do you think they'd be capable to definitively state that your muzzle never covered him? Maybe you were aiming at pelvis, you know, like some "experts" say?

Even accepting a theoretical consideration that extended low has legal advantages, I think the burden of proof will be on you to convince everyone that you were not covering him, and it may become an impossible task. That would be my reason not to take these theoretical legal advantages into consideration.

I can tell you from experience that the person you are pointing a gun towards can't tell if the muzzle is pointed between his nipples or at the dirt just in front of and slightly to the side of him. A witness sure as hell couldn't tell.

If you are talking about just displaying a gun without pointing it anywhere near the suspect (so that it would be obvious that it is not pointing right at him), you'll have to go into a specific example of why you might need to do this. In my experience, most people are faster to the first shot starting from the holster than they are starting with a weapon in hand that is hanging down by their side (another common practice in LE that isn't a great choice in most cases).

I'm not saying there could never be a reason to have your gun out without orienting it toward a potential target. I'm saying that "I just wanted to have my gun in hand so I could use it faster if I had to shoot" isn't a great reason. Starting with your hand on the gun, but leaving the gun in the holster, tends to be faster. It's also a good bit safer if you suddenly find yourself with a problem that needs to be solved with your hands, which is more likely than suddenly finding yourself with a problem that needs to be shot. Again, that's in my experience. YMMV.

Mitchell,

You're right. LE officers displaying weapons while acting under the color of law is a little different than the typical permit holder displaying a weapon. It seemed that the OP was asking about SouthNarc's statement. SouthNarc suggested that he had pointed a weapon at someone that might need to be shot, but he had not decided to shoot just yet. The OP rightly pointed out that this runs counter to what is taught by many instructors. This wasn't always the case. Until recently it was common practice to muzzle someone that you might have to shoot, at least for my outfit. I would imagine that SouthNarc's training was similar. Even if it wasn't, it is still somewhat common to make the desicion to shoot, point your weapon at someone, and then suddenly not need to shoot.

Joseph B.
03-07-2012, 03:05 AM
G, you're pointing a firearm towards general direction of an alleged offender. Say, no shooting happens and things end up in a court. Without even going into state-specific legal technicalities whether a mere presence of firearm pointed somewhere into a direction of a bad guy constitutes an offense, it is your word against his if your muzzle covered him or not. You are going to say, yes your honor I had my gun in extended low ready as I was taught by Bill and I never covered him. He is going to say, your honor, I could see that big hole looking right in my eyes.
Suppose there are eye witnesses. Do you think they'd be capable to definitively state that your muzzle never covered him? Maybe you were aiming at pelvis, you know, like some "experts" say?

Even accepting a theoretical consideration that extended low has legal advantages, I think the burden of proof will be on you to convince everyone that you were not covering him, and it may become an impossible task. That would be my reason not to take these theoretical legal advantages into consideration.


I think this is a pretty intelligent post.

The problem with drawing your pistol as a civilian is the true justification and the following burden of proving the justification is within the legal limits of the law. Not the technical wording of the law, but the interpretation of the law.

I had this long drawn-out discussion about this very subject on another forum, and was pretty amused at the lack of consistency in knowledge of the actual law, as well as the lack of understanding of case/tort laws, coupled with the wild card aspect of interpretation of the laws. Not that I am any kind of expert on any legal issues, my advice has always been to seek professional legal advice (i.e. a defense or prosecution attorney in the local area that has experience in UoF or deadly force trials, etc).

Even though I understand many individuals believe they “know the law” I have found that most of the time the prosecution of a charge will be based on the LEO’s and the prosecutor’s interpretation of the law. Meaning that depending on how the legal system works in your A/O, the laws may not be enforced technically as they are written in black and white (i.e. it can and normally is a very gray issue).

Getting to the topic at hand “pointing a firearm at a person” in the state of Texas you can be justified in doing so if you can reasonably prove that you were in fact justified in using deadly force. The key here being that you can reasonably prove, because this is in fact a gray issue. You can also be prosecuted for deadly conduct and terroristic threat in the state of Texas for pointing a firearm at a person, if you cannot reasonably prove that you would have been justified in using deadly force. Now if you read the law “technically” you would probably believe that you are justified in drawing down on someone who is threatening you with bodily harm or death (i.e. a road rage incident with a guy walking up to your car with a baseball bat). However, the individual decides to disengage from the situation and gets back into his car and drives away.

Now you report the incident to the police because you are a good law abiding citizen. However, the same individual has called the police and stated you pointed a gun at him and he did nothing to you, but you have already admitted to pointing the pistol. There is no witness, no additional callers, and it is his word against yours. What could happen here? It could be a wash, it could be a simple incident report, or it could be that the local LEO decides to charge you with deadly conduct and terroristic threat. It could be a long drawn-out legal process where the only evidence if your admission of pointing a firearm at the individual and that individuals report of being threatened. Needless to say you can see where this is going.

This is just an example, and does not fit all scenarios. The overall point is that you should seek professional legal advice on these types of specific questions, and should truly understand that even the threat of deadly force (pointing a firearm at someone) can become a just as nasty of a legal problem and you should be fully prepared for such.

My personal thoughts are that if I have a justified reason to draw my pistol and point it at another individual, I need to either fire it to protect my life or the life of another, or if that individual attempts to disengage I need to detain the individual until LE can respond to the incident. My immediate actions after informing local LE, will be to contact my attorney and keep my mouth shut until my attorney can advice me how to give a statement, etc.

Sorry for the long post, can't sleep...:o

GJM
03-07-2012, 07:25 AM
My original question was why would someone choose to point a handgun at a person, rather than keep the muzzle depressed, and I have yet to hear a valid reason why you would want to do so.

Seems like we now have a thread shift as to whether it makes sense to ever have a firearm in a confirmed, extended ready prior to commencing the shooting sequence? The obvious shooting reason to do so is so we can break the shot in +/- .5 second rather than whatever your draw time is. If the reason not do so is someone may lie about what you did, it is hard to have a discussion, since there is no telling what one needs to do to defend against a lie.

My belief is the reason to draw to an extended, confirmed ready is the situation legally and morally warrants the use of deadly force, you have made the decision to use deadly force if required, and you believe the shooting advantage of being in an extended ready offsets any disadvantages of displaying a firearm. Happens to me every year -- with grizzly bears and moose.

Joseph B.
03-07-2012, 07:48 AM
My thought on a “low ready” is that it really only serves a purpose when dealing with a CQB or “room clearing” situation where you would want to have the gun ready, but not flagging a possible non-combatant. I would say my thoughts remain the same for being in a retention position, only adding the contact distance or reactionary gap theory to reasons of maintains a gun at retention. The other aspect is having the gun out for long periods of time where fatigue may set in, in which case retention or low ready may be used. However, I don’t see this being something that would be common to an armed citizen.

I personally feel that if I am dealing with a defensive situation and I have identified what I consider to be a threat of serious bodily harm or death. That I will draw and immediately fire on the posed threat until the threat stops being a threat. I personally do not believe that it is a good idea to draw, get sights on the threat, or be at a retention or low ready position and wait for the threat to cross that “last line in the sand”. I believe that if my gun is coming out, the line in the sand has been crossed and I am going to not threaten the use of deadly force, I am going to use it.

This is not legal advice; I am not saying this is the right action or thought process to take for an armed citizen. It is purely my own personal beliefs and feelings on the topic, and I fully realize that it does not fit well for all situations or occupation (i.e. LE, MIL, Security, etc). I recommend each individual seek proper legal advice on specific questions, from a qualified legal counselor.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 07:54 AM
I can say with certainty that "ready positions" with a handgun as taught doctrinally in law enforcement, have NOT historically emphasized that one shouldn't muzzle someone. The way they have been and are still taught in most academies and within agencies, is that the muzzle is low enough that one can see the hands and waist of a subject. That was the driving theory regardless of whether the preferred position was extended or compressed.

NOT muzzling someone but still having the gun in hand is a relatively new occurence in LE as is having a defined register position for the trigger finger like hooking the ejection port. These developments have been driven by the number of "oopsie" shootings nationwide particularly with WMLs and various shit hanging off handguns. Bill Rogers and some west coast agencies are the few that having been teaching NOT to muzzle people when at ready for quite some time.

It's debateable about whether one should or should not point a gun at someone before they initiate the shooting cycle. In a perfect world the muzzle stays off someone literally until a pistol is driving up or to the target and the round breaks. Real life is not that clean and motor skills are driven by decision making that may be changing quarter second by quarter second.

GJM to answer your specific question ideally we don't point guns at people before we shoot them and our ready positions support not muzzling people AND give us the ability to see and discriminate information about the person we might be shooting in a split second. Also whatever "ready" positon we use allows us to break a fast and accurate shot on a low probability target. So there are three things that a ready position should accomplish.

I will say that I think Bill's version of extended low ready works great in many cases but doesn't factor in people in close proximity or a confined environment. Having a compressed position that accomplishes the same three things noted above, is probably worthy of incorporating.

98z28 do we know each other? I just retired recently but was an active LEO here on the coast for 21 years.

LSP972
03-07-2012, 08:29 AM
Real life is not that clean and motor skills are driven by decision making that may be changing quarter second by quarter second.

.

And THAT sums it up. Theory and doctrine are fine, and necessary. They also must be flexible.

Some trainers don't buy into this; especially when it goes against their thinking.

The man who has been in the arena knows that things are rarely; if ever; set-piece and uncomplicated.

.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 08:37 AM
My original question was why would someone choose to point a handgun at a person, rather than keep the muzzle depressed, and I have yet to hear a valid reason why you would want to do so.


GJM I'll give you a valid reason for doing so. It may not be valid enough for you to want to think about doing it but I'll speak from my opinion based on my experiences.

If we think about the presentation of a handgun into a problem that's ambiguous and rapidly evolving then we may very well want to consider that the motor skills involved are measured. Now we already have some degree of a measured response by going from a low "ready" position into a shooting cycle. But what if one last handbrake on the use of lethal force was actually muzzling someone before we shot them? One last chance at solving the problem without killing them? Is it dangerous? Most assuredly. Is it less dangerous then squeezing one off? Most assuredly.

I can say with confidence that muzzling someone has probably kept me from having to shoot someone on more than one occasion. People DO respond to "looking down the muzzle".

Now I know everbody is gonna' jump in and say "Well I'm not a cop and MY shooting problems are much more clearly defined than a LEO". All I will say to that response is if you think that's true more often than not, then you probably have very little or no experience in practice. My opinion YMMV.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 08:55 AM
You know I'm developing this mentally as I interact with everyone in the thread and it's interesting to see where the thinking has gone. Let me ask everyone a question:

Have we come to a point where we believe that we can't point a gun at someone unless we shoot them? Really?

HCM
03-07-2012, 09:00 AM
I haven't seen this question addressed yet, so I'll chime in.

I will also say that you might be surprised how quickly things can change and what you are capable doing in a short amount of time in a dynamic, dangerous situation. I have made the decision to shoot someone, started pressing the trigger, and wound up not firing a single round. This happened not once, but twice in my short seven years in LE. From talking to other officers, my experience is not unique.



Not unique - I've had this happen twice in 15 years. Staring down the muzzle caused the suspects to change their actions.

Jay Cunningham
03-07-2012, 09:06 AM
I'm willing to point a gun at someone who I consider a potentially lethal threat that I can't safely retreat from. I'm willing to point a gun at someone that I discover in my home. That doesn't mean I'm committed to shooting them - or that my finger is anywhere but along the frame in register - but I'm committed to the idea of shooting shooting them at that moment. If I later decide that they no longer pose a potentially lethal threat to me for whatever reason, my muzzle will come off them.

I've thought about this a bit, and this is where I'm at. I ask my students to carefully consider this. I tell my students to "avoid allowing your muzzle to cover anything that you're unwilling to shoot". Some have an issue with my word choice, but I think it is cognitive dissonance to suggest people don't sometimes get accidentally muzzle swept OR that people don't intentionally have guns pointed at them without ultimately winding up shot.

GJM
03-07-2012, 09:10 AM
As to your thinking out loud, I think the point of this thread is to test assumptions, and refine our own thinking. (Before going further, TGS, I wasn't trying to insult you by asking if you were an easterner, although I see how it could be construed that way. Sorry.)

I don't have experience pointing weapons at people, and hope to keep it that way. However, I agree that the objective is to stop the threat, without injury to you or anyone else. If the situation allowed for it, it seems muzzling would certainly be preferential to shooting the person. Along those lines, I have stopped one moose charge and two bear charges by firing a warning shot in the dirt in front of the animal at close range. In each instance, I was legally able and morally willing to use lethal force, but I chose to try one last thing prior to using lethal force.

It does seem that muzzling someone would be the rare exception as opposed to SOP, although I may hang out in different places and with different type folks than some that may be forced to be in places on account of their profession.

HCM
03-07-2012, 09:21 AM
You know I'm developing this mentally as I interact with everyone in the thread and it's interesting to see where the thinking has gone. Let me ask everyone a question:

Have we come to a point where we believe that we can't point a gun at someone unless we shoot them? Really?

No, I believe you are spot on about "People DO respond to "looking down the muzzle"." - My experience has been more force sooner = less force later....

Though it may be drifting away from the OP's original question, it comes back to Lt Col. Dave Grossman's argument that the old "Fight or Flight" model is flawed and should include two other options: "Posture" and "Submit".

Pointing a weapon at someone is a form of posturing indicating a willingness to fight.

Joseph B.
03-07-2012, 09:45 AM
In what circumstance would an armed civilian need to point a weapon at a perceived threat and not press the trigger? I think this is where lines start to get crossed, when dealing with LE or Mil types vs the armed citizen. You have no duty to act as a civi, you have no purpose to threaten or use deadly force unless you are protecting yourself, a third person or personal property. If you have a reason to threaten deadly force, it is because you are justified in using deadly force, which means you are in fact in danger of being seriously injured or killed. So if that is the case, why on god’s green earth would you give a person (or animal being that it has been brought up) a second chance to change their mind?

I would agree that it is very different for both MIL & LE, however, the context of a armed citizen protecting one’s self, family or property, the reality is that the threat has already committed to attacking, robbing you. That type of a threat should not be given a “.5 second to change their mind” that threat should be dealt with as quickly as you effectively can.

I have actually pointed a weapon at a few people and not fired, as a soldier and a civilian. I once over reacted with an Iraqi and was pointing a weapon at him with no real justification to shoot him, and what made it worse was that the Iraqi knew it. More or less made me look like a fool and rightfully so, I was being a fool attempting to use the threat of deadly force when it was not warranted. I had a similar situation happen here in San Antonio, helping a buddy run a firework stand during the New Year. Had a group of dipshits pull up and start tossing fireworks at the stand. So I draw down on the shit heads and tell them to leave. They sat there and antagonize me telling me to “shoot then”. Both times, I was totally shocked at the flagrant disregard people from two different geographical areas could have towards having a loaded weapon pointed at them.

Are there going to be times the gun comes out and you don’t have to fire? Sure! Is it something you should plan for (draw than assess for further threat at a low ready or ready position)? In my personal opinion, no way! Should you think that a threat is going to all the sudden stop and give in, once you have pointed a weapon at him? I think that could end up being a fatal mistake if you were wrong.

But again same disclaimer, seek real legal advice…

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 10:22 AM
In what circumstance would an armed civilian need to point a weapon at a perceived threat and not press the trigger? I think this is where lines start to get crossed, when dealing with LE or Mil types vs the armed citizen.

I think you provided your own example.


I had a similar situation happen here in San Antonio, helping a buddy run a firework stand during the New Year. Had a group of dipshits pull up and start tossing fireworks at the stand. So I draw down on the shit heads and tell them to leave. They sat there and antagonize me telling me to “shoot then”. Both times, I was totally shocked at the flagrant disregard people from two different geographical areas could have towards having a loaded weapon pointed at them.



So........was this a poor decision in retrospect? And your "shock" at having someone ignore your gun doesn't "shock" me in the least. BTDT more than once.


...however, the context of a armed citizen protecting one’s self, family or property, the reality is that the threat has already committed to attacking, robbing you

What if they haven't already committed to attacking/robbing you? Are you saying that one should wait until they do BEFORE a gun is drawn from the holster?

digiadaamore
03-07-2012, 10:24 AM
With the discussion of laws pertaining to pointing a gun at someone without actually aiming it at them etc... would any of the instructors here testify on behalf of a student who was being charged with something ridiculous for a well handled lethal force incident. stating that the low ready position was the correct thing to do as trained etc...

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 10:34 AM
I'm willing to testify on ANYTHING I teach someone. Haven't done it for a citizen yet but have on more than one occasion as an academy instructor.

98z28
03-07-2012, 10:54 AM
With the discussion of laws pertaining to pointing a gun at someone without actually aiming it at them etc... would any of the instructors here testify on behalf of a student who was being charged with something ridiculous for a well handled lethal force incident. stating that the low ready position was the correct thing to do as trained etc...

Sure would. I have never trained non-LE, but would testify in a heartbeat for any of the guys I have trained. I can't imagine a decent instructor that wouldn't.

TGS
03-07-2012, 10:55 AM
You know I'm developing this mentally as I interact with everyone in the thread and it's interesting to see where the thinking has gone. Let me ask everyone a question:

Have we come to a point where we believe that we can't point a gun at someone unless we shoot them? Really?

I didn't see anyone, or myself, state that. I understood the conversation was:

You don't point a gun in someone's direction unless you've already satisfied conditions for shooting them. You don't have to shoot them, but you already need the conditions set for the lawful use of lethal force...because a gun, whether point at them, in the holster with a grip/flashing it at someone, waving in the hand, whatever, is still giving you the ability to project lethal force. Muzzle orientation does not in itself determine a person's intent to use lethal force.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 11:01 AM
You don't point a gun in someone's direction unless you've already satisfied conditions for shooting them. You don't have to shoot them, but you already need the conditions set for the lawful use of lethal force...because a gun, whether point at them, in the holster, waving in the hand, whatever, is still giving you the ability to project lethal force. Muzzle orientation does not in itself determine a person's intent to use lethal force.

Totally in agreement here. Where I disagree is that the conversation wasn't trending that way. If I'm wrong.....hey it's the internet.

And I completely understand your perspective on the inverse that weapon orientation doesn't change one's perceived level of threat. I've been teaching cops from that perspective since the mid-90s and it was VERY controversial back then. Not so much now.

TGS
03-07-2012, 11:05 AM
hey it's the internet.


And that's why I'm in ECQC in 2 weeks :D Because learning never stops.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 11:17 AM
This is actually a pretty timely thread for you then dude, because one of the evolutions on Sunday in particular has alot of what we're talking about underscoring it.

TCinVA
03-07-2012, 11:19 AM
In what circumstance would an armed civilian need to point a weapon at a perceived threat and not press the trigger? I think this is where lines start to get crossed, when dealing with LE or Mil types vs the armed citizen. You have no duty to act as a civi, you have no purpose to threaten or use deadly force unless you are protecting yourself, a third person or personal property. If you have a reason to threaten deadly force, it is because you are justified in using deadly force, which means you are in fact in danger of being seriously injured or killed.


Lots of police officers who have never pulled the trigger have been faced with situations where lethal force is authorized.

Use of lethal force is a judgement call and it's generally one that normal people are hesitant to make. I mean, I don't really know a whole lot of people who are just itching for the chance to go through a gunfight on the street.

Here we're veering into the lane of people who have considerable experience dealing with bad guys and watching the aftermath of shooting incidents but I'll offer my 3 drachmas:

An interaction with a bad person is an interaction. The quality of the interaction can determine the ultimate outcome. Speaking personally, if I can get out of a situation without having to actually pull the trigger, I'm all for it. If in my interaction with the bad guy I can convince him that what remains of his existence will be blood-soaked agony before cold death and he decides he'd rather not gurgle out his last breaths at my feet, huzzah. If it takes pointing a gun at his face to make him believe he's about to meet Jesus, then so be it. I'll point the gun at his face. If he insists on pressing the matter past that point then he's insisting on oblivion and I'll oblige.

While there are some situations where there is absolutely no doubt about the correct course of action and immediate use of lethal force is the only answer, there are also situations where a display of the means and willingness to use lethal force can put an immediate end to the hostile actions without gunfire. People can argue about how representative the data set is, but it's absolutely clear that a significant number of defensive uses of firearms every year do not involve actually pulling the trigger. There are many factors that can contribute to a situation going down that way, but chief among them is the fact that introducing a gun into the situation significantly changes the dynamic for some bad guys. (Others may not give a rip)

If I'm making the final decision to shoot, I'd much rather make it with the pistol already in my hand than with it sitting in my holster. Now I may not have a choice in the matter due to circumstances...but if I've got enough situational awareness to spot a potential attack coming and I've taken some proactive actions to put myself into a better position as it's in the initial stages I may well be able to have my pistol out before the other guy has me completely in his trap. In that situation I'm pulling the pistol because I've recognized a criminal assault in progress and I expect that in the next couple of seconds I will probably need to pull the trigger to stop the other guy's hostile actions. I may not yet have made the decision that I need to shoot, but I'm in a position where I think that decision is literally a heartbeat away...and even though my draw is decent I'm not about to wait until I have the compulsion to pull the trigger to get the gun into a position where I can use it.

When the gun comes out I have every intention of using it should the bad guy force the issue. If it happens that when I start to pull the gun or that when I cover him with my muzzle that he decides he's had enough and runs, fantastic. Saves me a lot of headache. If producing the firearm causes him to pause for a second because his plan just went to hell, well, Ok. I'll improve my position as best I can and do whatever I think I need to do to convince him that yes, I really will end him on the spot. If I start to pull the gun and he isn't dissuaded at all from his course of action...well...I'm better off with the gun in my hand than with it in my holster.

What I think is being missed here is the recognition that criminal assaults are not binary events. They are highly dynamic. If you can spot one forming and do something about it before it gets to the point where you are facing incoming gunfire/stab wounds, then by all means do so. We're not taking about pulling the gun willy nilly just because somebody gives you the creeps, here. You've recognized a criminal assault and you're taking legitimate defensive measures to protect yourself.

I utterly loathe to use myself as an example, but I'm kind of forced to in order to make the point:

When the dude tried to rob me at the gas station I understood from the moment I saw him change direction to intercept me that he was going to rob me. I've mentioned previously that as soon as I saw him change direction I immediately thought I was going to have to shoot him. I didn't pull the gun then because at that point he was just a dude walking across a parking lot and it wouldn't have been a justifiable use of force. I watched the guy like a hawk as he closed distance on me and picked a spot at which I knew for a fact he was coming after me. When he hit that point I spun on him, dropped my stuff, and got into an interview position and started with verbal challenges. Mild at first, while I continued to make distance. He continued to encroach on me and got frustrated enough to drop the ruse and demand the money. When he did that he'd initiated a criminal assault and that was all the justification I needed to go from avoidance and attempts at deescalation to aggression. I stopped moving backwards, started moving AT him, and started to draw. As I was doing this I told him to back the ***CENSORED*** up at maximum volume. On top of all that, I'm watching his hand which is still in the pocket of his peacoat. I expected him to produce a weapon and try to kill me with it. I intended to stop him. I hadn't yet come to the conclusion that I had to shoot him...but I expected it to get to that point in literally a matter of a couple of seconds and I wasn't about to spot him those couple of seconds.

Now it so happens that somewhere in that process he decided to break off the attempt. I don't know exactly why he chose to break off the attempt because he fled into the darkness never to be seen again. The best read I can give is that he figured out I was pulling a gun and flight took precedence over fight.

If he had merely paused his attack out of shock or to regroup, I would have continued to draw and I would have pointed the gun right at him, started giving commands, and tried to put at least an obstacle (as much of the gas pump as I could get without loosing situational awareness) between us.

Had he approached with a drawn gun, things would have been different...but bad guys tend to wait to spring the trap until they're close. I was confronted with an unmistakable robbery attempt but the guy didn't have a weapon visible. He had a hand in a pocket concealing Heaven only knows what. Shooting him in the face wouldn't have been appropriate. Using absolutely no force wouldn't have been a good idea either. When it hit the point where I felt he was about to pull a weapon on me, I immediately started working on getting mine into play.

In a situation like that I'd argue it would have been a bad idea for me to wait until I needed to shoot the guy to begin putting myself in a position to offer a successful defense against his actions.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 11:43 AM
Nice job on that Tim.

Zhurdan
03-07-2012, 11:53 AM
Agreed TCinVA and you put far more eloquently than I did. Having a lightning fast draw to first shot is awesome, but that precludes any deescalation. Again, I won't and don't advocate the gun as a deterrent, but as you put it, the dynamic nature of incidents like this aren't like a draw stroke count.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 11:59 AM
The dynamic nature of incidents like this aren't like a draw stroke count.

That's a great statement.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 12:24 PM
So just in a couple of threads in the past couple of days we have a story from TCinVA, Zhurdan, and one other poster (the story of the "maintenance" guys coming into his house) about managing potential problems with the presence of firearms at various levels of "touching the gun" and "out of the holster" that did not involve a ballistic ending. That's in this one....internet.....gun-forum.

Does anyone still believe that the "vast majority" of "citizen" firearms application will be a decisive draw and fire from the holster?

Prove it. Not saying someone can't. Just want to see it.

peterb
03-07-2012, 12:36 PM
Does anyone still believe that the "vast majority" of "citizen" firearms application will be a decisive draw and fire from the holster?

So are you saying that managing unknown contacts is more complicated than that? :)

jetfire
03-07-2012, 12:42 PM
I've only pointed a gun at someone as a civilian once, and I had every intention of shooting him. The short recap: dude came around the corner of my office with a knife/stabbing implement in one hand demanding my car keys and wallet, I threw a latte at him because it was in my hand and then went for my gun. I didn't end up shooting him, because the situation went from "shoot this guy" to "oh, he's running away" in the time it took me to get my gun out of the (shitty) pocket holster. I was running behind the curve because the guy caught me completely flatfooted outside my office; everything I did was a reaction to his actions from throwing my coffee to drawing my gun to not shooting him.

I swore off pocket carry after that day.

JHC
03-07-2012, 01:06 PM
I swore off pocket carry after that day.

Amen. Just as I had to swear off glovebox carry. There a myraid of scenarios where overt and clear intent to do harm to you or another has been demonstrated that may justify producing the weapon, including covering the BG with it and not firing. From my limited experience, even with alertness providing some warning, things happen very very quickly. Then change even faster. With training and developed skills, you may find you have confidence because you are mentally able to keep up with the speed of it; pulling 3Gs in your OODA. I have to imagine poorly skilled folks without mental prep must go into blind panic.

GJM
03-07-2012, 01:18 PM
So, subject to the range of different possible interactions, is it possible to define best practice, starting at the beginning of the continuum and progressing all the way to pressing the trigger?

Mr_White
03-07-2012, 01:20 PM
Does anyone still believe that the "vast majority" of "citizen" firearms application will be a decisive draw and fire from the holster?

Prove it. Not saying someone can't. Just want to see it.

I'd be curious if the Rangemaster data set has anything to offer on this point one way or the other. I'm not privy to the whole data set; I've only seen the ten summary incidents in the Rangemaster PDN video so I don't know.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 01:54 PM
I seriously doubt that Tom has tracked the number of his students who have pointed a gun at someone but have not shot that person.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 02:07 PM
So, subject to the range of different possible interactions, is it possible to define best practice, starting at the beginning of the continuum and progressing all the way to pressing the trigger?

IMO yes. Here's an interesting way to look at a drill. How many times have you drawn your pistol in training, begun a press-out and then halted the shooting cycle? Literally stopped pressing through, and come off the trigger? That's probably something to think about and something that would benefit a person if their judgement came into question. "Your honor my client here has a training document from his regular training regimen that's co-witnessed by a fellow shooting buddy that he completed ten repetions of draw and fire followed by ten repetitions of draw and almost fire but decided not to." Has anyone thought about possibly showing documentation that you spent at least HALF of your training time trying to stop from shooting someone as you did in shooting them?

I've been deposed four times in Federal lawsuits regarding shootings and trust me attorneys will ask questions like these. My current attorney for civil issues happens to be the same guy who sued the shit out of my agency for a college kid one of our reserves shot the piss out of in '04. Before I was a client of his we went toe-to-toe for over 40 HOURS of deposition. Fortunately, the insurance company settled with his client and it never went to trial but I can assure you that that would have been a tough case.

JV_
03-07-2012, 02:12 PM
How many times have you drawn your pistol in training, begun a press-out and then halted the shooting cycle? Interesting point; It happens to me often, usually when I'm working on my press-out. If I get to the end of my press-out without enough trigger prep, I start over.

TCinVA
03-07-2012, 02:13 PM
I seriously doubt that Tom has tracked the number of his students who have pointed a gun at someone but have not shot that person.

Based on your experience, let me ask you a question:

Acknowledging that there are no absolutes in regards to human behavior or gunplay, do you think that the majority of people who do pull the trigger are doing so because they've tried lesser uses of force and have failed, or that either through inattention/paralysis or just because of the speed of the ambush sprung on them that they're pulling the trigger because it's the only level of force that's left to them in the moment when they realize they're under attack?

David Armstrong
03-07-2012, 02:19 PM
You know I'm developing this mentally as I interact with everyone in the thread and it's interesting to see where the thinking has gone. Let me ask everyone a question:

Have we come to a point where we believe that we can't point a gun at someone unless we shoot them? Really?
Not for me. I believe and teach that the decision to shoot is separate from everything that has led up to that point. All the other factors may have some impact on it, but the "go button" is pushed by itself.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 02:25 PM
That's a tough one to answer Tim and this is strictly an anecdotal WAG, but I would trend towards the latter; Inattention and the violence of action on the aggressor's part being a key issue that disallowed a preemptive draw.

jetfire
03-07-2012, 02:39 PM
I'd add my additional anecdotal experience to SN's, because that's what happened to me. I drew because I was so far behind the reaction curve that "oh shit he's gonna stab me" was all I was thinking. If I'd been more aware of my surroundings, it's quite likely I could have avoided the whole situation to begin with. Something as simple as looking out the door of my office before I left and going "oh look, a shady dude loitering in my empty parking lot for no reason, I shall stay inside until he leaves" would have prevented the whole situation.

Tom Givens
03-07-2012, 02:46 PM
I agree with Southnarc. Awareness and acceptance that a subject may be about to do you harm can easily trigger a pre-emptive draw, and that often resolves the situation.

Our building is quite large, but 25 feet away is a small, unoccupied building. I came out of my building a couple of years ago and there was an adult male, 20's, standing by the door of the small vacant building, up on its porch by the door, at 10pm. There is no legitimate business he could have there at that hour. His hands were empty, so I simply told him to come down on to the parking lot, to speak with him and order him off the property. Instead, he bent down and picked up a 3" diameter, six foot long steel pipe and indicated a willingness to use it to rearrange my head. He was treated to a demonstration of the concealed presentation. At that point he dropped the pipe and we finished our conversation. Had he advanced on me with that pipe I would have shot him down, but I did not have to. Presenting to the ready was enough force to end the situation.

I get similar reports from students frequently. If you look like you know what you're doing, and you look like you will use the gun if you have to, you will often not have to.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 02:52 PM
Did he look at his watch and remark that he had somewhere else to be Tom?:D

jetfire
03-07-2012, 03:11 PM
"Oh my, look at the time, I'm late for choir practice!"

Mr_White
03-07-2012, 05:09 PM
Has anyone thought about possibly showing documentation that you spent at least HALF of your training time trying to stop from shooting someone as you did in shooting them?

Sort of. I can’t claim 50% non-firing repetitions.

But, along these lines...

In addition to more standard shooting drills, our training group also practices:

Draw to a ready position and verbalize
Draw to a ready position and wait silently
Acquire master grip and verbalize
Acquire master grip discreetly and wait silently
Shoot to slidelock, reload, go to ready position and verbalize
Attempt to fire, clear malfunction, go to ready position and verbalize

Sometimes we also use unknown time limits to represent a sudden change in the situation that requires the practitioner to stop shooting unexpectedly. I blow the whistle as a start signal. I blow the whistle as a stop signal. They do not know if or when the second whistle will come. The second whistle represents that the situation has changed and shooting is no longer necessary and justified. Sometimes everyone has time to finish the string. Sometimes some do and others don’t. Sometimes no one has time to finish the string, or even get started in the first place. With unknown time limits, people frequently have to halt in-progress trigger presses.

It is not documented as well as it could be, but between the documentation that I could come up with and the testimony of the various participants in those drills, I think we could get it established that we’ve practiced the above.

Joseph B.
03-07-2012, 06:32 PM
I think you provided your own example.

Both examples I was in fact not justified in using or threatening deadly force, again the point of my “legal ramifications” from pointing guns at perceived threats prematurely. I could have very easily been charged with both deadly conduct and terroristic threat for the firework incident. Luckily it did not go that way, but it was a lesson well learned.

So........was this a poor decision in retrospect? And your "shock" at having someone ignore your gun doesn't "shock" me in the least. BTDT more than once.


Yes it was a poor decision, and faced in the same situations I would not have pointed the weapon prematurely. One it left me with very little recourse in that I could shoot or not shoot and two I but the decision “ball” into the perceived threats making “court”. Not only that, I opened myself up to both civil and criminal liability once the perceived threat disengaged.


What if they haven't already committed to attacking/robbing you? Are you saying that one should wait until they do BEFORE a gun is drawn from the holster?

No, what I am saying is that you should not point a firearm as a civilian towards another person unless you are in fact justified in using deadly force, and if you are in fact justified in using deadly force there is no requirement to “wait” as the justification is made and any time given to allow the threat to change their mind leaves you in a reactionary situation. Not what I would recommend, but as I have stated people should seek proper legal advice on these types of questions.

SouthNarc
03-07-2012, 06:42 PM
Roger that and I really don't think we're divergent on the issue. I guess my underlying theme that I'm trying to get across in all my posts has been that real life isn't a video game and that when we look at something like feeling like we need to get a gun in hand, it may not be just as simple as shooting them.

OR..............it may very well be that simple!










No what I am saying is that you should not point a firearm as a civilian towards another person unless you are in fact justified in using deadly force, and if you are in fact justified in using deadly force there is no requirement to “wait” as the justification is made and any time given to allow the threat to change their mind leaves you in a reactionary situation. Not what I would recommend, but as I have stated people should seek proper legal advice on these types of questions.

Joseph B.
03-07-2012, 09:07 PM
I am tracking on your perspective and really do not disagree with anything you posted, I am more or less playing devil’s advocate with the legal aspects of the question of pointing guns at people. I do everything I can to avoid discussing UoF or legal issues in my POI’s/training mainly due to the spin-off that can take place. Too many theories, opinions, interpretations and changes to the laws to contend with and stay current on, I prefer to point people seeking that information towards UoF specialist or legal counsel.

Mitchell, Esq.
03-08-2012, 11:05 AM
Sort of. I can’t claim 50% non-firing repetitions.

But, along these lines...

In addition to more standard shooting drills, our training group also practices:

Draw to a ready position and verbalize
Draw to a ready position and wait silently
Acquire master grip and verbalize
Acquire master grip discreetly and wait silently
Shoot to slidelock, reload, go to ready position and verbalize
Attempt to fire, clear malfunction, go to ready position and verbalize

Sometimes we also use unknown time limits to represent a sudden change in the situation that requires the practitioner to stop shooting unexpectedly. I blow the whistle as a start signal. I blow the whistle as a stop signal. They do not know if or when the second whistle will come. The second whistle represents that the situation has changed and shooting is no longer necessary and justified. Sometimes everyone has time to finish the string. Sometimes some do and others don’t. Sometimes no one has time to finish the string, or even get started in the first place. With unknown time limits, people frequently have to halt in-progress trigger presses.

It is not documented as well as it could be, but between the documentation that I could come up with and the testimony of the various participants in those drills, I think we could get it established that we’ve practiced the above.


You just hit on the article, AN EXAMINATION OF POLICE OFFICER MENTAL CHRONOMETRY:
“I SWEAR...I DON’T KNOW HOW I SHOT HIM IN THE BACK”
by
Jeffrey B. Bumgarner, Ph.D.
Texas Christian University
William J. Lewinski, Ph.D.
Minnesota State University
William Hudson, Ph.D.
Minnesota State University
Sgt. Craig Sapp
Tempe Police Department

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/mentalchronometry.pdf

Also see: http://da.countyofventura.org/documents/barrera_thomas_ois_111108.pdf
Detailing the shooting investigation by the Ventura County DA dated 11/11/08 heavily referencing this issue.

The operable time to look at the justification for shooting is at the time the decission to shoot is made, and then the events occuring during the period of time in which stopping action based on said decission is not possible.

If you recieve a threat stimulius, make the decission to daw and shoot, and in the process of acting on that justifiable choice the situation changes faster than you can react...

It's still a justified shooting.

It takes explaining, reconstruction and investigation...but life is fluid like that.

The core of self defense is reasonable actions under the situation at hand.

Expecting someone to be able to stop on a dime after having recieved a threat stimulius is no more reasonable than expecting someone to be able to shoot a gun out of somoene's hand on demand.

Training and review of incidents needs to take human reaction time & mental chronometry into account, or the training and the incident review are looking at the event from a flawed point of view.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are trying to make sure the people on the unknown time limits drill have faster reactions to stimuli so that they can be prepped to either shoot quickly or stop quickly, and keep a decission making process open right up to the point of BANG?

Mr_White
03-08-2012, 02:23 PM
You just hit on the article, AN EXAMINATION OF POLICE OFFICER MENTAL CHRONOMETRY:
“I SWEAR...I DON’T KNOW HOW I SHOT HIM IN THE BACK”
by
Jeffrey B. Bumgarner, Ph.D.
Texas Christian University
William J. Lewinski, Ph.D.
Minnesota State University
William Hudson, Ph.D.
Minnesota State University
Sgt. Craig Sapp
Tempe Police Department

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/mentalchronometry.pdf

Also see: http://da.countyofventura.org/documents/barrera_thomas_ois_111108.pdf
Detailing the shooting investigation by the Ventura County DA dated 11/11/08 heavily referencing this issue.

The operable time to look at the justification for shooting is at the time the decission to shoot is made, and then the events occuring during the period of time in which stopping action based on said decission is not possible.

If you recieve a threat stimulius, make the decission to daw and shoot, and in the process of acting on that justifiable choice the situation changes faster than you can react...

It's still a justified shooting.

It takes explaining, reconstruction and investigation...but life is fluid like that.

The core of self defense is reasonable actions under the situation at hand.

Expecting someone to be able to stop on a dime after having recieved a threat stimulius is no more reasonable than expecting someone to be able to shoot a gun out of somoene's hand on demand.

Training and review of incidents needs to take human reaction time & mental chronometry into account, or the training and the incident review are looking at the event from a flawed point of view.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are trying to make sure the people on the unknown time limits drill have faster reactions to stimuli so that they can be prepped to either shoot quickly or stop quickly, and keep a decission making process open right up to the point of BANG?

Sorry if I gave the impression that they are supposed to stop firing instantly upon hearing the stop signal. That is not the case. They are supposed to stop firing as soon as they are able to, after hearing the stop signal, and we are well aware that that takes time.

Using unknown time limits in shooting drills has the goal of people practicing to abort their string of fire when the situation changes and shooting is no longer required (in this case, the second whistle ham-handedly indicates that change.) People are simply supposed to stop shooting when they are physically able to, rather than mindlessly shoot an entire preplanned string of fire, every time.

MDS
03-08-2012, 06:43 PM
Using unknown time limits in shooting drills has the goal of people practicing to abort their string of fire when the situation changes and shooting is no longer required (in this case, the second whistle ham-handedly indicates that change.) People are simply supposed to stop shooting when they are physically able to, rather than mindlessly shoot an entire preplanned string of fire, every time.

This is a phenomenal idea, I'm going to work that into some bill drill runs and see what happens...

LtDave
03-09-2012, 10:20 PM
TGS, I am not a lawyer, and is has been some months since I heard it, but Bill Rogers said that in many states pointing a weapon at someone is legally distinct from the low ready, and gives rise to many possible "bad" things for the weapon pointer.

In CA pointing a loaded gun would be assault with a deadly weapon, the low ready could be charged as brandishing a weapon.

Johnkard
03-10-2012, 06:24 AM
Hmm, I'm of the "respond with equal force" school.

Just drawing my weapon instantly escalates the situation and puts somebody's life on the line. If somebody's life wasn't already on the line, that's a very big step to take. I thnk it is our responsibility to resolve as many situations as we can without necessitating the use of a firearm.

Take some self defense classes, learn how to be articulate under pressure, or move to a different part of town. Keep your gun in reserve for moments when it's "equalizing" power are actually necessary.

zacbol
03-13-2012, 03:54 PM
Can't really add anything substantive to the discussion, but I'll answer anyway since the question was posed. I will also qualify this by saying I've never been in a situation where I truly thought someone was about to kill me or a loved one (in a fight? Sure) and I've never pointed a weapon at someone.

I will not draw my weapon unless I am immediate fear of my life and think shooting is the best/only solution. That means, the gun is not coming out unless I have every intention of firing. I might take grip and short-circuit the first part of the drawstroke if something is developing about which I'm unsure or have the gun in a low-ready if I heard glass crashing at 2am and the dog barking. But if I'm pointing the weapon at someone, my *plan* (and we all know what they are worth) is that I've made a shoot/no shoot decision, I'm prepping the trigger as the gun comes to extension and I'm not going to be trying to decide if I should short circuit that decision. My decision is made and I will live and die with the consequences of that choice. Could something happen where I suddenly go 'Oh, shit! I fucked up. Dontshootdontshootdontshoot." Hopefully I have the ability to stop it at that point, but that is not my *plan*. Hopefully my plan never is tested. I have no illusions about being any kind of tough guy.

Tamara
03-14-2012, 06:26 AM
But if I'm pointing the weapon at someone, my *plan* (and we all know what they are worth) is that I've made a shoot/no shoot decision, I'm prepping the trigger as the gun comes to extension and I'm not going to be trying to decide if I should short circuit that decision. My decision is made and I will live and die with the consequences of that choice. Could something happen where I suddenly go 'Oh, shit! I fucked up. Dontshootdontshootdontshoot." Hopefully I have the ability to stop it at that point, but that is not my *plan*.

I swear I had my finger on the trigger, and I was trying to find the front sight (or at least a rough idea of where it was, because I was acutely aware of what a crappy shot I was), and my memory says that I was actually pressing the trigger, (but I don't entirely trust my memory on that,) when the dude realized he was running onto the muzzle of a gun and sat down hard on the hardwood floor and I thought I had shot him for a fraction of a second there (in amongst all the other stuff running through my head I distinctly remember thinking "Huh, you really don't hear the shot,") until he started scrambling and sliding on his butt towards the door and I realized the gun hadn't gone off.

Wondering Beard
03-15-2012, 05:11 PM
I swear I had my finger on the trigger, [...] .


Similar for me but while learning to move indoors.

Target (they were all clothed and had objects such as fake guns, cameras, badges etc..) was almost shot; the little amount of takeup in my 1911's trigger gave me that fraction of a second to stop in time. About a minute later, still in the same scenario, I shot a target with a badge.

I don't have an answer to the original question, situations are fluid and dynamic and I'm certainly not going to say I'll do X when I have no idea what the future will bring.

Madnik
03-16-2012, 01:53 AM
Interesting discussion.

"I can say with confidence that muzzling someone has probably kept me from having to shoot someone on more than one occasion."

Twice for me, and once more where I witnessed it. In each event, lethal force would have been justified the instant that the muzzling occurred. However, brief, intentional delays allowed the targets to observe the cycle of events and modify their behavior. And with that, lethal force was no longer justified or necessary. I've had some comment that I allowed people who could have been shot to have not been shot. I prefer to think of it as allowing someone who didn't need to be shot to not have been shot. And off to jail they went.

"People DO respond to "looking down the muzzle"."

Yes, they do. Not everyone all the time, but they do. And while it is not appropriate in every or even most circumstances, where it is, why not present the opportunity for people to realize the time for a positive response is right now? Oh, and while I understand that some people have more latitude in such matters, such as LEOs, I believe the logic holds true for LEOs and non-LEOs alike, so long as local laws aren't unreasonable.

SouthNarc
06-12-2015, 07:19 AM
Bump. Same discussion from three years ago we're having now. Lot's of relevant points in this thread that really don't need to be re-hashed.

Jay Cunningham
06-12-2015, 07:22 AM
Bump. Same discussion from three years ago we're having now. Lot's of relevant points in this thread that really don't need to be re-hashed.

I've seen this same discussion four or five times over the last few years... such is the nature of the beast.

:cool:

Mr_White
06-12-2015, 01:17 PM
Thanks for the bump Craig! I went back and reread the thread and it was very worthwhile.

SouthNarc
06-12-2015, 01:45 PM
Thanks buddy!

TCinVA
06-15-2015, 10:01 AM
That's a tough one to answer Tim and this is strictly an anecdotal WAG, but I would trend towards the latter; Inattention and the violence of action on the aggressor's part being a key issue that disallowed a preemptive draw.

I actually asked Tom Givens about this Saturday (remembering this thread, oddly enough) after class and he said something interesting I wasn't expecting. He reports that a number of his students who went on to press the trigger on a bad guy had their gun out preemptively and some even verbally warned the criminal attempting to assault them with gun in hand. As an example, he used a dude who had his draw fouled and was fussing with his weapon while the Rangemaster student made a clean draw, aimed right at the bad guy, and said "Don't do it!" but the bad guy kept trying to produce his gun. At that point the student became one of Rangemaster's ballistic success stories.

Tom said that a lot of bad guys are drunk, high, and/or just plain stupid and a chunk of the Rangemaster students produced a firearm preemptively but had to continue on to firing the weapon because the bad guy didn't stop his obnoxious behavior.

If I'm getting any of that wrong, Tom, please correct me.

I've been pondering that and drunk/high/terminally stupid seems like a pretty good explanation. Then if we consider the possibility of diminished sensory perception, task fixation, and the human animal's ability to completely miss great big chunks of what's happening while under extreme levels of stress that might round out the answer to the why question.

fixer
06-16-2015, 06:59 AM
In what circumstance would an armed civilian need to point a weapon at a perceived threat and not press the trigger? …

I think a year ago I was in a situation that could have ended sooner, with less overall risk to my personal safety, if I had drawn my weapon...and done so early in the encounter.

Out for a jog. I was on the tail end of my run. Totally gassed out. I spotted the dog laying in the yard. Stupid large dog starts following me. The dog's owners were present in the yard.

I stop about half block down to manage the situation with the dog that had body language I didn't like (no tail wagging and stern looking eyes). I wave my arms, and shout. The dog doesn't back away.

Female owner drives up the block (yeah...half block away) and corrals the dog while telling me "oh he just got out...sorry about that" with all the genuine sincerity of someone who feels bad about steeping on an ant. I respond and tell her the dog didn't get out, it was loose in the yard, and you guys were watching the dog chase me down the street. I'm not cool with that, and you need to keep the dog under control.

She then goes in to ghetto mode. Male dog owner sees the exchange going on and immediately starts walking briskly up the street offering menacing body language in the all too familiar "I'm ready to fight gestures.' I see this and know a fight is coming. I raise my voice and shout "go home!".

I leave. I continue jogging down the block. I stop about another block away to turn around and see what these people were up to...to see if the were disengaging or planning/plotting. It turns out they were still in the same spot, looking at me, pointing and having a discussion. I put my hands straight in the air in the 'I surrender' gesture. I then shout "we're done here...go home."

Male dog owner takes off after me in a dead sprint. Female dog owner floors the gas and comes after me. I start jogging as fast as I could to get away. I hear tires screech around a corner. They are closing in on me. Do I draw?

Car catches me first and makes a maneuver to cut me off. I stop to again handle the situation. Male dog owner is now coming fast (and totally gassed out himself after sprinting 200 yds).

I also see a teenager running with the male dog owner. I'm at this point technically outnumbered 3 to 1.

Male dog owner is within talking distance and starts shouting at me threats of various ass beatings, racial slurs, and promises of pain and suffering.

I said " you want to handle this in a professional manner?"

"eff you puto...blah blah blah"

He closes in to where drawing my weapon would have been difficult to impossible. I could feel his breath. My feet were right at a curb so walking backward would have been tricky.

I said, " you are making me uncomfortable and threatening me. Move back." He responds "ain't a threat puto I'll kick your ass right now." Just then I notice the teenager moving in towards me. He looks ready to fight.

I put my hands out and move the guy backwards. He slaps my hands down.

I said " I'm standing right here until you leave. You do what you have to and I'll do the same."

Then I stood there looking at him.

He calmed down after 5 minutes and left with his entourage.

So in hindsight...I think I was more lucky than good. The possibilities of this situation turning out badly for me were substantial. A large part of me thinks the sight of a pistol in any ready condition would have turned all three adversaries around--fast.

However, I was super hesitant to draw my pistol. I really really didn't want to ruin my day, get into he-said-she-said, deal with the local PD, etc...I remember calculating that my line in the sand was if/when the guy throws a punch at me or worse.

BobM
06-16-2015, 07:26 AM
Might be regional but around here throwing the hands in the air would be taken as a challenge

Mr_White
06-16-2015, 12:47 PM
These are just some impressions and thoughts from reading your account.


I respond and tell her the dog didn't get out, it was loose in the yard, and you guys were watching the dog chase me down the street. I'm not cool with that, and you need to keep the dog under control.


Male dog owner sees the exchange going on and immediately starts walking briskly up the street offering menacing body language in the all too familiar "I'm ready to fight gestures.' I see this and know a fight is coming. I raise my voice and shout "go home!".


I then shout "we're done here...go home."

The above reads to me like a series of unenforceable commands. If they don't want to control their dog, you can't make them. You also can't make them go home and not move about in a public area. I get that you want to use verbalization to get them to leave you alone and that may be a good idea. But I would be inclined to phrase it more tightly, in a way that doesn't put you in the precarious position of ordering them to do things that you aren't really going to be able to make them do.


Male dog owner takes off after me in a dead sprint. Female dog owner floors the gas and comes after me. I start jogging as fast as I could to get away. I hear tires screech around a corner. They are closing in on me. Do I draw?

Car catches me first and makes a maneuver to cut me off. I stop to again handle the situation. Male dog owner is now coming fast (and totally gassed out himself after sprinting 200 yds).

I also see a teenager running with the male dog owner. I'm at this point technically outnumbered 3 to 1.

Male dog owner is within talking distance and starts shouting at me threats of various ass beatings, racial slurs, and promises of pain and suffering.

I said " you want to handle this in a professional manner?"

"eff you puto...blah blah blah"

He closes in to where drawing my weapon would have been difficult to impossible. I could feel his breath. My feet were right at a curb so walking backward would have been tricky.

I said, " you are making me uncomfortable and threatening me. Move back." He responds "ain't a threat puto I'll kick your ass right now." Just then I notice the teenager moving in towards me. He looks ready to fight.

I put my hands out and move the guy backwards. He slaps my hands down.

I said " I'm standing right here until you leave. You do what you have to and I'll do the same."

Then I stood there looking at him.

He calmed down after 5 minutes and left with his entourage.

So in hindsight...I think I was more lucky than good. The possibilities of this situation turning out badly for me were substantial. A large part of me thinks the sight of a pistol in any ready condition would have turned all three adversaries around--fast.

However, I was super hesitant to draw my pistol. I really really didn't want to ruin my day, get into he-said-she-said, deal with the local PD, etc...I remember calculating that my line in the sand was if/when the guy throws a punch at me or worse.

That sounds really uncomfortable. And vulnerable. For a long time. And like an actual assault maybe, and/or act of self-defense - you pushed him back with your hands, he slapped your hands down?

Again, only from reading what you wrote - I wasn't there and don't know your locale - what I wonder is what would have happened if you had not told the female what she should have been doing with her dog. I wonder if the situation would have progressed no further than her collecting the dog had you said nothing and continued on your way. I'm not saying you are morally or socially wrong to assert yourself that way. But it may not have been a very practical course of action. There are a lot of people out there who will latch on to literally anything that you say, to work themselves up and get more and more angry and irrational.

KevinB
06-16-2015, 06:53 PM
Drawing your pistol in your case would have likely ended poorly for you. As Mr. White pointed out based on your articulation of the event above, I'm pretty sure it could have been handled a lot better on your end by reeling your neck in a tad.

IF you draw your gun as a non LEO - you better 1) be prepared to use it 2) articulate why you did what you did.

Dropkick
06-16-2015, 08:24 PM
fixer - it sounds like that was a series of problems with: social interaction, communication, distance, tactical positioning & dominance... before it was ever a pistol problem.

It might be worth seeking out training on the former topics as opposed to just the latter.

ssb
06-16-2015, 09:47 PM
IF you draw your gun as a non LEO - you better 1) be prepared to use it 2) articulate why you did what you did.

This dovetails into a question I've got from this week's DOTW: what about getting your strong hand grip on the gun but leaving it in the holster as an alternative "I may need a gun shortly" position to a ready position? From a retention standpoint I think it has great value, but my thoughts would be that I'm cutting my draw time almost in half (quicker to bring into play) and I'm not whipping the gun out (brandishing, perhaps assault by pointing). I view both of those things as a positive. Is this a viable alternative to holding somebody at, say, the low ready?

fixer
06-17-2015, 05:46 AM
Thanks for the feedback guys. I appreciate your time giving me some advice.

ford.304
06-17-2015, 05:48 AM
So what's rumbling around in my head reading this makes me think of the "Ability Opportunity Intent" framing of force justification, and just how sure you are of those three.

1) Low ready -- they meet 2/3 criteria, but you're not sure about the third one. Or they're all right on the edge of all three.

2) Sight picture -- They meet all of the three criteria, but there's still time. You *could* shoot them and be completely justified, but your intuitive sense of the situation says you don't need to for maybe another second or half a second. At this point the dude at the end of the barrel has about 2-3 quanta of human reaction to re-evaluate his life choices and deescalate. As several of the examples here demonstrate, this *could* just be your brain catching up with your reactions after executing your draw.

3) Firing - no more time left.

fixer
06-17-2015, 06:31 AM
what I wonder is what would have happened if you had not told the female what she should have been doing with her dog. I wonder if the situation would have progressed no further than her collecting the dog had you said nothing and continued on your way. I'm not saying you are morally or socially wrong to assert yourself that way. But it may not have been a very practical course of action. There are a lot of people out there who will latch on to literally anything that you say, to work themselves up and get more and more angry and irrational.

Thanks Mr. White.

Your exact hypothetical is what has bothered me since the incident.

The area I am in has an--no exaggeration--epidemic loose dog problem. Jogging or walking is quite literally a sure fire way to get entangled with a loose dog or pack of dogs. It has gone far, far beyond an annoyance and has frequently turned dangerous. Their dog's behavior wasn't annoying, it was giving signals off that indicated something more sinister. I needed to clearly articulate that I'm not cool with their dog chasing me down the street. I was absolutely, 100%, not looking for a fight from either the dog or their owners. Then the whole thing exploded and my own inexperience managing situations more than likely made it worse than it could have turned out.

Hypothetically if I went on my way it may have ended with much less drama. However, the male in this situation was already making fight signals as soon as he saw me talking to the female--a half block away. He could not have heard me. So I could have been saying anything to the female, but he was all geared up for a fight.

I'm not so afraid to admit that in this instant, I was afraid. I had a large dog that was still not 100% under control and another male obviously coming up the road to fight. My actions after that were based in fear and intended to de-escalate the situation. However poorly they were received by the adversaries, that is what my intent was. I can't help if people are going to ignorantly or intentionally misinterpret my intent.

Things I learned:

Keep a less lethal option handy for dispatching dogs.
Be aware that dog owners are often more aggressive and troublesome than their pet.
Get training managing unknown contacts
Don't over-engage. Don't give folks a reason to continue engaging you into a possible altercation.

KevinB
06-17-2015, 10:17 AM
Keep a less lethal option handy for dispatching dogs.
Be aware that dog owners are often more aggressive and troublesome than their pet.
Get training managing unknown contacts
Don't over-engage. Don't give folks a reason to continue engaging you into a possible altercation.

Good gains.

I'm not in your AO - but all those point are good for anyone - anywhere.

Dogs generally smell fear (they actually sense the pheromone that is exuded by fear/anxiety) - so I generally ignore dogs or exhibit dominance to them if required.
Pepper Spray often works for dogs - and if not, it is another point to have TRIED a LL option before having to resort to lethal.

People are always more problem that animals (we've usurped the Mathusian checks and Darwinism)

Unknowns are always an unknown, be polite, respectful but firm.

Engagement - keep to lowest level possible. Deescalate and disengage.

Chuck Haggard
06-17-2015, 10:22 AM
OC spray quickly trains dogs that chasing people is a bad idea.

It also quickly trains possums that your trash cans are not a buffet, but that's another topic really.

Beat Trash
06-17-2015, 10:27 AM
OC and possums in the trash? Learn something new everyday! Thanks for the tip.

Chuck Whitlock
06-17-2015, 01:03 PM
OC and possums in the trash? Learn something new everyday! Thanks for the tip.

Ditto. Much better and cheaper alternative than the tax stamp for a .22 suppressor.

MickAK
06-17-2015, 02:54 PM
OC spray quickly trains dogs that chasing people is a bad idea.

It also quickly trains possums that your trash cans are not a buffet, but that's another topic really.

It's unfortunate, but pepper spraying somebodies dog is a really great way to get in a fight. I can't see the people in question being any nicer about the situation if they watched their dog get a face full. Like somebody mentioned, handling yourself properly around aggressive dogs eliminates most issues, although they're still a danger to small children and other dogs.

Goes back to community. Talk to your neighbors, the ones not letting their dogs run loose. Maybe people you see jogging. Get a bunch of folks together, and all call/write/e-mail animal control/local PD. One dude angry about dogs is something they deal with all the time, a combined effort will probably get a swift response. Eliminate the conflict before it's a conflict again and ends worse. Worth a try, at any rate.

KevinB
06-25-2015, 02:23 PM
It's unfortunate, but pepper spraying somebodies dog is a really great way to get in a fight. I can't see the people in question being any nicer about the situation if they watched their dog get a face full. Like somebody mentioned, handling yourself properly around aggressive dogs eliminates most issues, although they're still a danger to small children and other dogs.

Spraying a dog that is attacking, or menacing you is totally legit - spraying a dog that is walking around is not.




Goes back to community. Talk to your neighbors, the ones not letting their dogs run loose. Maybe people you see jogging. Get a bunch of folks together, and all call/write/e-mail animal control/local PD. One dude angry about dogs is something they deal with all the time, a combined effort will probably get a swift response. Eliminate the conflict before it's a conflict again and ends worse. Worth a try, at any rate.
agreed

OnionsAndDragons
06-28-2015, 01:33 PM
I've used OC on dogs a good number of times, at least half a dozen. When we lived closer to the center of town there were more free roaming dogs than I was comfy with.

4 of them, didn't get sprayed. A good shot on the ground right ahead of them turned em straight away. The other two got a serious noseful.

I would also urge you to make friends with the other jiggers/walkers in your area and use the group to pressure the local authorities to get some control over the situation. At least get a good number of complaints filed and on record, in case you are ever put in the position where you are forced to act against one of these loose animals.

I may be out of line in some jurisdictions, I'm out in the county where I live; but here if someone chases you down in a car and they aren't trying to hand you a piece of misdelivered mail, they are not going to be looked favorably upon if action is taken against them. It's likely a good bit different in more urban locales, and by region. But there have been at least a couple times where teens/young men have filed a complaint with the sheriff about having a gun drawn on them, and then being slapped with harassment because the lady they were following had already reported the incident to the sheriff.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

fixer
06-28-2015, 02:41 PM
I've used OC on dogs a good number of times, at least half a dozen. When we lived closer to the center of town there were more free roaming dogs than I was comfy with.

4 of them, didn't get sprayed. A good shot on the ground right ahead of them turned em straight away. The other two got a serious noseful.

I've abandoned the use of sprays. In W. Texas you will likely get a nice 50 mph gust of spray in your face. I use the telescoping baton.


I would also urge you to make friends with the other jiggers/walkers in your area and use the group to pressure the local authorities to get some control over the situation. At least get a good number of complaints filed and on record, in case you are ever put in the position where you are forced to act against one of these loose animals.

I'm the only jogger. lol. but there are a lot of kids, and some old folks who try to make it around the block. It is those who I worry about with our dog problem.

I've complained to the animal control dept so many times I'm on first name basis. I think I've personally made the problem visible enough. Anecdotally I can say the problem has been a bit better in the last month or so. But that means I've only had 1-2 instances of a loose dog or pack of dogs menacing me on a walk or jog. It used to be over 10-15 times a month.

The local PD is responding faster and better as well. I call when I see a loose dog that I know for a fact has a aggression issues. They respond fast and will personally take the dog to the pound.

I don't know if the improvement is due to better policing or...low oil prices. There are a lot of vacant RV lots around here now. Before they were jam packed and everyone had a dog and a good portion of them ran loose.



I may be out of line in some jurisdictions, I'm out in the county where I live; but here if someone chases you down in a car and they aren't trying to hand you a piece of misdelivered mail, they are not going to be looked favorably upon if action is taken against them. It's likely a good bit different in more urban locales, and by region. But there have been at least a couple times where teens/young men have filed a complaint with the sheriff about having a gun drawn on them, and then being slapped with harassment because the lady they were following had already reported the incident to the sheriff.


More than likely this is a probable way things would have played out. However, I really don't want to test the waters.

Chance
06-28-2015, 04:55 PM
Car catches me first and makes a maneuver to cut me off. I stop to again handle the situation. Male dog owner is now coming fast (and totally gassed out himself after sprinting 200 yds).


IF you draw your gun as a non LEO - you better 1) be prepared to use it 2) articulate why you did what you did.

Say things escalated to the point where police officers got involved. The dog owners' home is now several hundred yards away, a detail which is verifiable. How is a cop going to look at that? Would that not lend credence to fixer's version of events - that he tried to leave and was being pursued?

fixer
06-28-2015, 09:23 PM
ehhhh...if I drew on this guy and his entourage it would be he said-she-said. If I was a cop I would have some pointed questions for the CHL who is drawing a gun on people over an argument about a dog. I wouldn't want someone on my beat who is too cavalier about letting hardware solve a software problem. All I would know as a cop is there is an argument taking place and there is a 'man with a gun'. In short, this is a "I'd beat the rap, but I wouldn't beat the ride" kind of thing. I'm totally into beating the rap AND the ride.

However, I could easily articulate: My singular goal was to get this guy away from me. I left the original scene of the confrontation. No matter how bad I was at trying to de-escalate, this guy lost it and chased after me. I was still running in the opposite direction when he caught me (damn I'm slow). His re-escalation and in the course of this, two extra physically capable people joining the fracas, would have given me a technical green light. When I heard the car engine revving to redline coming after me I was really worried. Really, effin, worried. It was at that point that the pistol became a plausible option. I decided to try to handle the situation one more time with words. He wasn't having it. I drew my line at the point where I saw him either draw a weapon of his own or started with the haymakers. I don't know if this was a smart move or not. It potentially put me in a huge risk. But yeah there is credence to this situation being brought on by 'some dood' with a bad attitude using any little disagreement to start a fight. This guy was ready to fight before he could even hear what I was saying to the female adversary.

So the conundrum is the point of posting this--would a pistol deployed earlier (like when I saw the guy running me down-- cursing at me an threatening me-- with another person, and heard the car coming) defuse the situation and reduce my risk? To this day I still feel lucky that I had a fortuitous outcome here. I freely admit I didn't handle this as well as I could have.

Malamute
06-28-2015, 11:46 PM
Would a go-pro or cell phone video, and audio of the verbal exchange be of benefit? Having vid of the dog acting aggresively and chasing would probably go a long ways towards backing up your position. I understand some phones can be simply left on to record audio. Having it in your shirt pocket, or a bluetooth mic on might work.

OnionsAndDragons
06-29-2015, 02:51 AM
Fixer,

Yeah. I wasn't proposing that in your exact situation I would have gone to the gun, but more speaking to it being even more justifiable considering someone chased you down in a car. That just doesn't happen unless the pursuer is crazy or has ill intent. Coupling that with multiple possible assailants, you have a very threatening situation.

Your scene sounds suburban-ish, with reasonable possibility for bystanders. In a slightly more isolated location, I see the going to the gun earlier as being prudent. I'm not going to et in a situation where I'm being gang-beaten by three people with no one else in earshot to at least call the cops.

It's a tough spot. I'm glad things ended well for you, and that you've been able to give me something like this specific situation to think about.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk