Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 120

Thread: Question about pointing pistol at someone

  1. #11
    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?

  2. #12
    Member Zhurdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    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.

  3. #13
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    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.

  4. #14
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    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.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  5. #15
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    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.

  6. #16
    Member Zhurdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    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.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    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.

  8. #18
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhurdan View Post
    Not sure if you are referring to me
    Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    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.
    Last edited by TGS; 03-06-2012 at 02:40 PM.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fairfield County, CT
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    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...

  10. #20
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchell, Esq. View Post
    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.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •