Originally Posted by Hambo
I’m asking questions. I haven’t yet begun an argument.
Who in this thread suggested that a WML is a stand alone light?
What if you don’t have a HH light but you have a WML. Are you precluded from searching?
All that aside, I’m certain that JBP55 can speak for himself.
And that can net you some serious jail/prison time in most places.
It's 2019, we've gone over this topic ad nauseam on this forum in at least 2-3 previous topics and yet it has somehow sprung up again.
A WML on a CCW has pretty limited practicality for the average Joe Schmo carrying to prevent himself from getting mugged leaving the localWal-MartKrogerDollar General. As has been stated, crime generally does not happen in some pitch-black vacuum. I suppose if you're being targeted by some foreign black-ops wetwork team and they set off an EMP while you leave your office and have NVGs to help see you in the resulting blackout then yeah you might need a WML (or a miracle).
Having a light to illuminate things without pointing a gun at them is a great thing because it keeps you out of legal trouble and from pointing a gun at things that don't need guns pointed at them (yet).
Randy Harris's post in the linked thread articulates this line of thought exceptionally well.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
Well first. Name a topic that hasn’t been covered in detail numerous times.
Really I suppose we only need 3 locked/sticky threads
You don’t know what you don’t know
It depends
Move only the trigger.
Last to your jail time quip - Blanket generalizations and assumptions are something else typically seem “ad nauseam”.
If you were my attorney...Or my prosecutor...or my judge speaking directly to an incident you had full knowledge of I’d hear your statements and accept is well informed. But that’s not the situation here.
Truthfully I very closely know a guy who used a weaponlight pistol to not shoot 1 of 3 folks who stopped doing shoot worthy actions as he worked on the other 2. The weapon light in that sample of one - was very much a saving element.
From the op all your statements about handhelds were already stated.
Last edited by Duke; 09-08-2019 at 09:02 AM.
Bam! This^^^^
Which is why the WML goes on my pistol at bedtime. If someone is in my house, I can easily articulate the threat to get them the fuck outta my house by pointing a gun at them. Outside my house? Not so much. If I have a reason to take a long-arm outside of my home in an offensive/defensive scenario (exceptionally unlikely) - I'll likely be able to articulate the legal justification I had to point a gun at someone and using a WML.
Using a WML to determine if someone is/is not a threat is fallacious thinking. It's simply unrealistic for the vast majority of scenarios in civilian self-defense encounters. You either KNOW someone is a threat OR you don't point your gun at them.
One of the few advantages to a WML is that in close to pitch black it can help you see your sights. So can a neck index hand-held light. This is why we practice shooting one-handed at night.
You work with what you have. Some loadouts are more optimal than others but that doesn't mean you can't otherwise accomplish your goal.
A cool head and discipline will almost always trump more gear in lesser hands.
The spill from a WML can be completely adequate to the job of identifying whether a person or bump in the night presents a threat or not. It might also be a link in a chain of unfortunate events.
It is best to try to mitigate the things that might go wrong beforehand if possible...but when the whistle blows it's time to use what you've got.
Clarity of mind and focus will often carry the day absent perfect circumstances and equipment. But if you have your druthers...
There's nothing civil about this war.
Duke,
That's not the same assertion as in your OP, with "assess they are not a threat and stop pointing my weapon at them". That's "assess that they stop being a threat and stop pointing my weapon at them."
A WML used in the scenario above worked, because your friend already could articulate that said 3 individuals were up to nefarious things and thus he likely had justification to point a weapon at them. That they stopped doing nefarious things as a function of him being armed is excellent. That he was able to maintain hands on a firearm and use his WML to continually assess the scenario is the main use of WMLs in an LE context.
In other words the WML is not useful for initial determination of threats, only the ability to continue determining if those threats are threats. That's a distinction worth drawing and noting.
Bear in mind when we review video of LE utilizing weapon lights, either in a search role or in a felony stop role. Those officers can already articulate that a serious threat is present. The average concealed carrier does not have that luxury.
And here’s where worlds collide and where experienced people talk past each other.
Ask an LEO what they think about when they think “search”. Now ask a regular Joe what he thinks of when he thinks “search”.
You get some experienced LEOs who go berserk because they’ve seen all kinds of admin use of WMLs. I get it.
But that’s not the reality of the average citizen. It’s great advice, but normal people do not look for their keys under their couch with WMLs.
Let me throw this one out there: Is it only okay to point a muzzle at a KNOWN threat? Is it ever okay to point a muzzle at a PERCEIVED threat until clarity is achieved?
I would say yes...both from the POV of an LEO and civilian. It may or may not be optimal...but it can be justifiable.
There's nothing civil about this war.
For pro active door kickers- Yes
For unplanned reactive engagements- NO
I suppose that's an almost philosophical distinction, Jay. If you can perceive someone as a threat does that not make them "known"? Or are all threats merely unknown with varying layers of perception?(I'm kidding here...kind of)
Pointing a gun at someone you perceive as a threat could well be perfectly okay. You definitely need to be able to legally articulate your line of reasoning and rationality behind such choices, though. A handheld light can be used in both scenarios (a "known" vs. "perceived" threat) without any legal ramifications (well until California decides shining bright lights at people is assault). Where I think things get murky is the difference between potential threat and perceived threat. If you can articulate why you perceived someone was a threat to you, you'll generally be okay. If you view someone as a potential threat, it's important to know what actions individuals must take to move from potential to perceived to imminent.
I've drawn weapons that constitute lethal force against threats twice in my lifetime. Only once did I point the weapon at a threat.
In one situation, it was clear the individual was an imminent threat, because said individual went to his car and removed a tire iron with which he clearly meant to assault me. When he turned around and saw my knife (no handgun on my person), he recognized that his lethal force would be met with lethal force and decided he had some where else to be. I can still, to this day, articulate all of the reasons and moments where I felt the scenario turn from potential, to perceived, to imminent threat. It's been 20 years since that happened.
About 7 or 8 years later. I was working on a job sight in a very sketchy neighborhood. My father and I were both well armed (two handguns each). I went to our work van to get some tools. As I did so I noticed a dark blue sedan (Cadillac) drive past me. This car circled me twice, before parking in a parking space nearby. The occupants began talking, motioning towards me and the van. Now, at this point I could articulate that I was perceiving a potential threat, but not an imminent one. After about 20-30 seconds of discussion, the passenger began digging in the glovebox of the car. At this point, I felt that my threat level was going up and I was in imminent danger of being robbed, likely at gun point. I didn't have an easy escape route. So, I reached under my shirt and drew the revolver I had in a shoulder holster. into a low ready position. This resulted in the immediate cessation of furtive movements and discussion by both individuals in the car and they drove off, presumably to attend choir practice.
___
In those two scenarios - I think my actions were completely legally justified. If I had pointed my gun at the two guys in the car, I believe I would have stepped over the line. It's a difficult line to walk, but we have to be careful in doing so. Those are just my anecdotes. I hardly think they are the sum total of potential scenarios out there, but they are what I have personally experienced and thus have influenced my own decision-making tree.
___
PS: Just in case anyone is wondering, I have no problems with people packing WMLs on their personal weapons. I don't, but I've taken the time to assess the sum total of my circumstances. Given the times of day and locations that my most likely threats occur, a WML would be near useless. I live in an area with tons of ambient lighting. To the point where a light with less than 500 lumens of output is pretty useless.
If I lived in a place without lots of ambient lighting and/or I moved about during times of day where it was more dark than light, I would reconsider. If I traveled frequently to unknown places, I almost certainly would opt for a WML. I've carried weapons with WMLs mounted to them and see value in both sides. For me, it's extra weight and bulk at this point for the majority of my circumstances. However, a WML on my bedside gun is a YES and when I travel I mount a WML on my handgun and carry it in that way. Why? Because Duke makes a valuable point, I don't know what I don't know. When traveling in a strange land a hand-held, a WML, some arty support, maybe some close air support are all nice to have.
Last edited by RevolverRob; 09-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
