Civilian CCW: Pulling the Trigger

[NH Shooter]

As to not derail this LEO oriented thread, a quote from it;

For the average ccw citizen, there is also a moral/ethical angle to getting involved which needs to be resolved individually. This has to be done logically and that can only be done by a person inside their own minds. You have to set your own moral and ethical guidelines and boundaries (protocols) which you follow at all times. Most LEO's have done this already, some have flushed them out with repeated actions throughout their careers, others not so much. The average ccw citizen needs to really consider all the above before doing anything of this sort. All actions, as well as inactions, have their own consequences and they are not always immediate, physical or obvious. That is a totally different topic, however.

Though the circumstances will differ for a civilian, the questions still remains - at what point does one make the decision to use deadly force?

In my mind - and the way I've tried to program my mind - is that all aspects of AOJP must be satisfied. Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy should all be fairly easy to ascertain in an encounter, but it's the Preclusion aspect that IMO requires the most thought and judgement at the time, and thus where there is potential for a freeze.

I believe the justifiable use of deadly force is a much more narrow band for a civilian than for a LEO. But at some point after the A, O and J have been satisfied, I can envision getting stuck in the same kind of loop being discussed in the linked thread: has everything reasonable been done to avoid using deadly force?

For a civilian, is any verbal engagement such as taught by SouthNarc ("that's close enough", "don't make me shoot", etc.) required to satisfy preclusion? Once a potential assailant is engaged verbally, where does the line get drawn to avoid "getting stuck in the loop" and perhaps seriously injured or killed as a result of it?

Great discussion in the linked thread, I hope creating a new one here with a "civilian CCW spin" makes sense.

[voodoo_man]

Just to help round out the conversation...

For the average CCW citizen who is involved in a deadly force contact, there will be similar questions asks, but given slightly more scrutiny than to a LEO.

A good example is that guy who went to a left leaning rally and after getting attack felt "threatened" without actually being seriously injured and then discharged his weapon in "fear for his life".

We're his actions reasonable? What possible verbal commands could have been used to stop from occurring?

The answer is he messed up the moment he decided to go the rally and leave his house, which likely means his priorities were all messed up to begin with.

We have a member currently with a thread asking about what he should have done in a bad area, without a firearm, and he did not want to hear that not going there in the first place was the answer. Well it is.

We create these circumstances ourselves and then do not understand why certain things happen. If you go to a known high crime area in the evening and you are not from around there, why would you expect to have a peaceful experience​?

As far as verbal commands/statements are concerned, I would caution anyone to stay away from if/then statements. "If you come and closer I'll shoot!!" "If you don't stop I'll shoot!!" "If you reach for you move I'll shoot!!"

First, you are giving that person a clear indication of your "shoot threshold" and they now know exactly what they can and can't do. As long as that person follows your instructions but continues to do other things (like not comply) you won't shoot them. Furthermore you just pigeon holed yourself into a finite action point which is now solely dictated by that person. What happens if that person goes into their waist band or their pocket or doesn't stop moving, are you going to shoot them?

[BehindBlueI's]

No requirement for verbal warning here. I've had a bad guy shot in the back of the head at near contact by Employee A while said bad guy was pointing a gun at Employee B. Prosecutor declared it a good shoot on the scene, shooter hadn't even been asked to make a statement yet.

So, at least here, no warning required.

[Hambo]

-Know the law in your state.
-Get quality training beyond the minimum required for CCW.
-Based on those two, have a clue what you might do when you can't/shouldn't shoot.
-Be willing to shoot when you need to.

[NH Shooter]

We create these circumstances ourselves and then do not understand why certain things happen. If you go to a known high crime area in the evening and you are not from around there, why would you expect to have a peaceful experience​?

Absolutely! Avoidance of stupid places filled with stupid people doing stupid things is the first line of defense. As you state, going to such places has the potential of ending badly.

The scenario that comes to my mind is restaurant parking lot (not in the bad part of town) where a potential assault on me and my wife is unfolding. In other words, a perfectly reasonable place to be...

[GJM]

How about this -- shoot because you have to, not because you want to.

[NH Shooter]

How about this -- shoot because you have to, not because you want to.

Yes, absolutely!

IMO, it boils down to satisfying all of AOJP to clearly make a case of "had to." In many scenarios the Preclusion aspect is pretty clear but in other cases maybe not so much. I think the P aspect is one that is not well defined and as such can create indecisiveness at the moment of truth.

Because of this I believe the preclusion aspect is entirely situational. I can "warm game" A, O and J and establish in my mind when those conditions are met, but no so much with P. Stand Your Ground laws can define a situation legally but as voodoo man states in the quote above, it cannot define a universal moral/ethical solution that can only be set individually.

Back to my point, what "pre-programming" can a civilian do to better define that preclusion is met?

[JohnO]

How about this -- shoot because you have to, not because you want to.

Good point.

When things often go into the quagmire is when you hear (or see) people discussing situations where they may or may not involve themselves. Keyboard commandos write about scenarios of being in a Stop & Rob when a "upstanding citizen" is making a withdrawal. Other more level headed folks contemplate what it would take to get then to act if they witness a heinous act. Ayoob refers to the criteria as something that "shocks the conscience" as well as the "reasonable man doctrine".

The average guy carrying a gun needs perspective and a good amount of common sense. They didn't get that gun and permit to play Johnny LEO, there is a different route for that, they got it to defend themselves or their loved ones. If they were to extend the umbrella of their protection to an unknown party they had better be ready for the consequences.

Some people could easily look at something happening and think, that person could have gotten a gun and carried it like I do and think, they chose poorly. I've trained with Kyle Defoor multiple times and have heard his mindset brief. Kyle talks about, "if not you who?".

I know people who carry in non-permissive environments. They have an attitude that they have what they have only to protect their life. They have previously decided that no matter the circumstance they are not going to intervene for example to save a coworker and then loose their job and put their family in financial jeopardy. They will take unemployed over deceased for themselves but that's it.

[NH Shooter]

As a civilian it would take a truly extreme situation (like a terrorist attack) to get me involed. I'm far more inclined to be a witness vs. an active participant.

To clarify I'm speaking strictly self defense, not intervening in with unknown parties.

[NH Shooter]

Scenario

I am in a parking lot walking to my car. I am being approached by a man holding a hunting knife, his eyes locked on mine, muttering something about cutting me up. He is quickly approaching the 21 foot thresh hold.

Freeze action...

At this point A, O and J are pretty well covered. However, I am not trapped and could take evasive action and get a parked car in between me and the apparent assailant. This to me would be something a reasonable person might do, plus it might give me another few seconds to assess the situation.

Now let's change the scenario slightly - my not-so-nimble wife is by my side. IMO this now changes the thresh hold for meeting preclusion, but does it meet it?

This is what I believe warrants discussion.