To muzzle or not to muzzle

[23JAZ]

I've pointed my gun at someone trying to break through a window, but not shot them.

I would do such again .

In a situation like you discribe I do not think I would do that. What if nerves kick in and what nobody thinks is going to happen happens, the gun goes off, guy dies and turns out he was unarmed? Not trying to be a douche just trying to get your justification on pointing a gun at someone. (I am assuming you knew he wasn't armed or at least had no gun in hand, that is why you didn't shoot).

[Dropkick]

this time with an apparent mental case with a knife in hand, relatively close ... threatening with the knife, but not presently commencing the attack and closing distance. Justification for the use of deadly force is present in my view ... there might be some argument about justification when the attack is not presently underway.

I was in a training scenario very similar to this example, so I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the topic, because it was anything but clear in the moment.

[TGS]

In a situation like you discribe I do not think I would do that. What if nerves kick in and what nobody thinks is going to happen happens, the gun goes off, guy dies and turns out he was unarmed? Not trying to be a douche just trying to get your justification on pointing a gun at someone. (I am assuming you knew he wasn't armed or at least had no gun in hand, that is why you didn't shoot).

Yelling "Go away, I have a gun and I will shoot!" did not stop his actions.

I do not know if he was unarmed or not. What I do know is that he was trying to gain access to my house at night when I was verbally commanding him not to, and that I would use deadly force to protect myself. So I pointed my gun at him, changed the tone of my voice, and he decided to leave.

Should I have waited until he busted through to actually present my gun? I KNOW he's trying to break into my house against my commands, presumably to do me harm. I was in fear for the safety of myself and my family, who could not vacate the premises without exposing themselves to danger.

I will not hesitate to have the front sight, red dot, or bead on your face if you do such, and the second you actually break through will result in a volley of fire until I feel you're no longer trying to forcefully enter my residence. If I actually see you're armed and feel you can hurt me, I will fire before you actually break through.

[23JAZ]

Yelling "Go away, I have a gun and I will shoot!" did not stop his actions.

What I do know is that he was trying to gain access to my house at night when I was verbally commanding him not to, and that I would use deadly force to protect myself. So I pointed my gun at him, changed the tone of my voice, and he decided to leave.

Now knowing further details I completly agree with your reaction and (at least in my state) I do not believe you would have had any trouble with law enforcement.

Thank you for the further explination.

[rsa-otc]

Under testing by Kapohlsohn, Ayoob and the S&W Academy, the difference between breaking an aimed shot while pointing the gun at the suspects feet or center of their chest is negligible.

Yelling "Go away, I have a gun and I will shoot!" did not stop his actions.

I do not know if he was unarmed or not. What I do know is that he was trying to gain access to my house at night when I was verbally commanding him not to, and that I would use deadly force to protect myself. So I pointed my gun at him, changed the tone of my voice, and he decided to leave.

Should I have waited until he busted through to actually present my gun? I KNOW he's trying to break into my house against my commands, presumably to do me harm. I was in fear for the safety of myself and my family, who could not vacate the premises without exposing themselves to danger.

I will not hesitate to have the front sight, red dot, or bead on your face if you do such, and the second you actually break through will result in a volley of fire until I feel you're no longer trying to forcefully enter my residence. If I actually see you're armed and feel you can hurt me, I will fire before you actually break through.

This is not a criticism just a couple of things to keep in mind, residing in our fair state.

1. If justified, pointing a gun at someone by NJ case law is not in itself an act of "Lethal Force". Although under the right circumstances it could be aggravated assault.
2. In NJ the act of pointing a weapon at someone is considered "Constructive Authority" on the same level as "Verbal Commands" or "Hand Jesters" in other words the lowest level of force.
3. In NJ the castle doctrine only extends to your outer walls. Someone still on the outside doesn't yet fall under the NJ castile doctrine. The castle doctrine in NJ DOES NOT extend beyond your homes exterior walls to the property line as it does in many other states.
4. Once inside if they fail to leave when directed or fail to drop what is in their hands upon command, you may use lethal force on an uninvited visitor.
5. There is no duty to retreat inside your own home.

And yes in a few years I'm getting the hell out of this god forsaken state.

[imp1295]

I want a general ready position that allows the muzzle to be averted while maintaining unobstructed vision and an extremely efficient engagement. I want a ready position that allows unobstructed vision and protects the gun better when there is, or could be, a proximate threat. I want a ready position that allows unobstructed vision and does not explicitly project deadly force in the forward direction. And I think it's worth considering establishment of master grip on the holstered pistol as a form of ready position (the essential characteristics are there - unobstructed vision and gun in hand, but the gun can remain protected by the holster even if we simply let go of it.)

Gabe or anyone.

So, with these articulated parameters would a thumb-pectoral indexed #2 as Craig teaches meet these criteria? In that, it will allow a fairly quick transition to #3 and #4 as required by proximity of the target.

I will say that after attending Wayne and DB's First Responder Pistol, it was one of the first times I've heard it articulated as well as they do with regard to treating the muzzling of a person as Aggravated Assault/Threat of deadly force when looking to transition from engagement, across a no shoot, to another engagement.

Thanks for the consideration.

[nycnoob]

In Bill Rogers Classes he discusses his preference for the low ready because he says its just as fast to get a hit starting
from the low ready as aimed at the target and also because he has done some experiments and if the target moves (left/right)
people tend to miss when they were pointed in but if the target moves people tend to track from the low ready and get hits.
I have not heard any other instructors mention this. Is it true? is there disagreement over this belief?

[Mr_White]

In Bill Rogers Classes he discusses his preference for the low ready because he says its just as fast to get a hit starting
from the low ready as aimed at the target and also because he has done some experiments and if the target moves (left/right)
people tend to miss when they were pointed in but if the target moves people tend to track from the low ready and get hits.
I have not heard any other instructors mention this. Is it true? is there disagreement over this belief?

I have not done the moving target experiment, but I most definitely agree about the speed part. With regard to the speed part, I think there is a pervasive belief out there that a gun aimed at the target is a lot faster to employ than a gun not aimed at the target. I think that belief is wrong and hugely dangerous, and people are likely to have that belief until they learn through dedicated training that they are quite ironically likely to have a faster engagement process starting off the target (by using a ready position that allows unobstructed vision, which enables fast and accurate decisionmaking) than if they were already aiming the gun.

[Mr_White]

I was in a training scenario very similar to this example, so I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the topic, because it was anything but clear in the moment.

That's a sticky and difficult situation for sure, and I'm interested in people's thoughts as well, and in yours about that training experience.

[Chuck Haggard]

I concur with Mr. White ref being on target does not equal faster when one has not gathered enough information to be making a shooting decision.

I also note that the vast majority of people I have seen on the range, in simulations and on the street that go for being "extra ready" tend to slap the shit out of the trigger if it does go to shots fired and then miss. I would respectfully submit that the purpose of shooting is to hit, and as Col. Cooper noted, bad guys that need to be shot need to be shot soon and often. Missing with the first round isn't the best way to win a gunfight.