Question about pointing pistol at someone

[GJM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.