Almost Drew My Gun Today

[Sam1911]

Is there any variance from one state to another?

Yes, a few. Some states allow the use of "force" but not the use of "deadly force" in certain instances. A taser or OC might be allowed under those circumstances, but I couldn't say for sure.

From another thread:

In a few jurisdictions, force, but not deadly force, may be used when necessary to terminate trespass. In others, force may not be used at all. In at least two states, the threat of deadly force is now lawful under some circumstances if force is justified, but in most, producing a weapon is only lawful if deadly force is justified.

Does anybody know of any specific cases involving a less than lethal device?

None that I can immediately call to mind, but I'm certain there are many. Hopefully someone has a few to share.

One could also argue though that for a "gray area" threat the risk of an assault conviction is far better and cheaper in court than manslaughter or murder. It does seem probable that if a man were verbally threatened by a male of roughly equal size, as in "i'm gona beat your ass", he could argue the use of pepper spray or a tazer was self defense much easier than the brandishing or firing a gun.

Maybe. The penalties are generally pretty close to the same -- felony record, jail time, loss of job/friends/relationships/money, etc. -- only the length of sentence really changes. And, the results are not as assured. Pepper spray is not terribly easy to use and requires very close range, and is often a one-shot deal. Miss and your chances of an effective second strike aren't good. Most tazers (except maybe some of the newest models) are effective ONLY while you're actively engaging the target. When the juice stops flowing, your attacker is right back in the fight, and you've only "paused" the action for a moment. You can't leave while he's twitching. ASPs and other batons require VERY close contact and are only somewhat less-lethal. Plus, they're heavily technique-dependent and require some training to use effectively.

So, yes, there could be benefits if a case goes to court, but those aren't guarantees and the detriments seem to outweigh them.

The biggest benefit seems to be in those few jurisdictions which prohibit carrying a firearm but which do allow OC or a Tazer -- or for those individuals who are unlicensed or unwilling to carry a firearm for self-defense for whatever reason.

 

[Sam1911]

In NC chemicals are listed below lethal force in the use of force continuim.

In NC, the use of force continum is codified into law?

Soft Hands, Hard Hands, Chemical, Electrical, Blunt, Lethal Force

Usually that's a law-enforcement training aid rather than a legal construct which defines a citizen's lawful responses.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: I've considered acquiring a tazer or OC spray specifically for situations where someone is being threatening but not blatantly enough to draw on.

Here is a pretty good writeup on the civilian use of pepper spray.

The gist is that (1) pepper spray may lawfully used by civilians only for lawful self defense against persons or animals; (2) as in the case of justifying the use of deadly force,

You can’t spray someone just because he threatens or scares you. He can not injure you with words. You must be in some jeopardy. You must reasonably believe that you are about to be attacked, or you are already under attack.

and (3) justification will depend upon the reasonable person test, and pepper spray may well be considered reasonable force in instances in which deadly force may not. That is, pepper spray may be considered reasonable when deadly force may not pass the test of having been immediately necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.

On the third item, we occasionally have people point out correctly that a punch can kill, and then conclude that drawing a gun would therefore be justified if one believes that he is about to be beaten. As was discussed in the recent thread on defending a disparity of force case, that belief is most unlikely to lead to a very good outcome for the defender. Pepper spray could come in very handy if a violent assailant is not armed, as long as we do not overlook the second item above.

There is one other thing to keep in mind: different states have different rules on the strength, range, and capacity of pepper sprays that can be lawfully purchased, possessed, and/or carried by civilians.

Personally, I think that carrying OC and keeping it handy in the car is a good idea, but I would not want to bet everything on its effectiveness.

By the way, the "use of force continuum" has been mentioned. That has to do with the levels of force that a police officer may use to control or restrain an offender under different levels of resistance. As civilians, we do not have the need to "control" anyone. We are only concerned with survival.

 

[Fred Fuller]

"No reasonable responsible person WANTS to ever have to draw, or worse, fire their sidearm."

This isn't exactly true. There is a little discussed phenomenon in which a part of a person wants and fantasizes about getting to use their weapon. They will actually start to wish and look for a reason to.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to include people who fantasize about "getting to use their weapon" as what I define as reasonable responsible persons. People who run Taxi Driver as a mentally viewed training film are not by my definition reasonable or responsible.

I fully agree that there are indeed people out there who think that way, perhaps even a lot of them. That does not change my definition of reasonable or responsible. Of course, your definition might vary...

lpl

 

[Kleanbore]

I agree with Lee Lapin, as usual, and my reaction about calling people who look for a reason to draw as "reasonable and responsible" was the same.

There may be another side to the coin. Otherwise reasonable people who do not realize the seriousness of the act of drawing a firearm may not understand that the decision to draw is not to be taken lightly.

That may come in part from having watched too much television. Back in the day, Gene, Hoppy, Roy and Dale, and the Masked Man drew their guns several times during each half hour episode, and even pointed them at the sheriff from time to time, without consequence, and were presented to us as "good guys." Later on, Ben, Hoss, and Little Joe carried on in the tradition.

That it doesn't work that way in real life may not have been considered by some people until they have drawn. There has to be real justification, there may be severe consequences, and there is always the risk of being shot by a third party.

Once any responsible, reasonable person has given it a little thought, he or she will not want to draw a firearm unless he or she is in a most dire situation in which he or she does not want to be in the first place.

 

[MikeNice]

In NC, the use of force continum is codified into law?

Usually that's a law-enforcement training aid rather than a legal construct which defines a citizen's lawful responses.

The use of force continuim is taught in concealed carry classes. Well, I should say the ones that actually use the state issued manual to teach the class. Some of the wild tales I've heard about teachers leaves me doubting how may use it.

Yes the use of force continuim is listed on the bottom of page 12 and continues on to page 13. The book is written by the North Carolina Justice Academy (the guys that set minimum standards for LEOs and train 8,000+ per year for in service training) and approved by the staff of the Attorney General of North Carolina. It constitutes legal advice from the state on what is and isn't permissable with firearms and other uses of force.

That portion is based on codified law, common law, and court precedent. In North Carolina it is seen as permissible to use as much force as necessary to end an imminent or on going attack. Lethal force requires the fear of imminent loss of life, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault. A punch to the face (and some times mace) can be justified by simple assault.

Basically, if you are being attacked use the level of force necessary to stop the attack. Just avoid excessive force. Don't shoot a guy for simple assault. Try to not go more than one level above the force being used against you (advice from cops I work with) and stop when the threat stops. That "insurance" kick to the ribs may be the one that lands you 90 days in jail.

North Carolina is still a duty to retreat state. So, If you use mace to stop an attack you must flee if possible and call 911.

After reviewing the CCH manual I would like to corect one thing. The use of an electrical weapon is not coverred in the use of force continuim.

 

[Sam1911]

Thanks Mike! So that's a great example of a state that does differentiate between use of force and use of deadly force, with specifics on thresholds. Good to know, and another example of why you really need to know your local laws on use of force.

 

[Vermonter]

In VT pepper spray WITHOUT justification would be a misdemeanor simple assault, unless the person hit with it had some adverse reaction that required hospitalization, and even then the intent of doing harm would be lacking. It's far easier to defend use of pepper spray than a knife, gun, etc IMHO. I carry it often.

 

[MidWestDisappearance]

As the situation was set up, I couldn't back away. I was on the side of the car that the guy was coming from and i was standing in front of my daughters open window. I couldn't have moved until the windows were up and the situation moved very fast.

By the time my wife had the windows rolled up the situation was already beginning to climax, and by the time I could have moved the guy was turning away and I was diving into my car and getting out of dodge.

It may have been "just a tense situation" but the fact of the matter is that my wife and daughter were there, my body literally standing in front of my daughter. There was an individual that refuse a polite request, then a firm request, then the act of reaching for my gun stopped the situation dead in its tracks. It allowed me enough time to exit the situation with no harm done.

I did almost pull my gun. I was beginning to apply upward pressure but stopped myself when the guy stopped. Would it have been the wrong thing to draw my gun in this situation, perhaps, but I feel I did the right thing and I can make no honest apology for that.

Thanks,
MWD

 

[JustinJ]

"I'm sorry, but I refuse to include people who fantasize about "getting to use their weapon" as what I define as reasonable responsible persons. People who run Taxi Driver as a mentally viewed training film are not by my definition reasonable or responsible."

Fantasizing about mowing down former classmates who teased someone growing up is not what i was reffering to. Fantasizing or wondering about using a firearm to stop a bad guy or playing some silly hero role are not indicative of being irresponsible. A gun does in fact give most people a sense of power which is normal and okay so long as they recognize the responsibilities that go with it and let reason dictate their decisions.

 

[Ben86]

Fantasizing or wondering about using a firearm to stop a bad guy or playing some silly hero role are not indicative of being irresponsible.

Agreed. Its not necessarily a bad thing to want to fantasize about using your gun to stop a violent cretin, terrorist, zombie, alien, or zombie terrorist. Dreams I have where I am well armed and up against hordes of violent evil doers are among my favorite dreams. I've been this way sense I was a kid and it probably won't go away.

But, I, like most sane gun owners, realize the difference between fantasy and reality. Most importantly the consequences, legally and emotionally, of having to shoot someone and think best to avoid it if possible.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MidWestDisappearance: As the situation was set up, I couldn't back away. I was on the side of the car that the guy was coming from and i was standing in front of my daughters open window. I couldn't have moved until the windows were up and the situation moved very fast.

The facts that no weapon was produced and that the encounter was resolved without complications make this a story with a good ending.

Without a diagram and the ability to ask for clarification of each point of a description of the incident, there is no way for any of us to judge whether drawing would have been appropriate.

There was an individual that refuse a polite request, then a firm request, then the act of reaching for my gun stopped the situation dead in its tracks.

It is important for everyone who carries a firearm to understand two things very clearly: (1) one may not lawfully draw a firearm simply because one "feels threatened", even if verbal threats have been made, and (2) a request that someone in a public place stop walking or go the other way is not one that can be enforced.

The question that come to mind is, what would have happened if a weapon had been drawn? If the layout of the scene were such that the man's direction of approach clearly indicated a likelihood that his intention involved a violent encounter, if one were able to convince others that the man's actions indicated the probable possession of a weapon, and if it could be convincingly argued that drawing the firearm had been the only safe alternative, it is quite possible that drawing would have been found justified.

Fortunately for all, that did not have to be tested.

 

[Kleanbore]

Fantasizing or wondering about using a firearm to stop a bad guy or playing some silly hero role are not indicative of being irresponsible. A gun does in fact give most people a sense of power ....

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Ben86: Its not necessarily a bad thing to want to fantasize about using your gun to stop a violent cretin, terrorist, zombie, alien, or zombie terrorist. Dreams I have where I am well armed and up against hordes of violent evil doers are among my favorite dreams.

I would suggest that that statements such as that are not the kind of thing that one would want to have read in court after a shooting in which the evidence supporting justifiability is sparse or otherwise not convincing.

Let's not forget this from the rules of the forum:

Everyone who posts here or anywhere else on the Internet should understand that such posts are permanent, and they may be subject to discovery in legal proceedings at any time in the future. Should any member ever find himself or herself involved in such proceedings, posts containing comments that could be interpreted unfavorably could prove damaging.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Quote:
Fantasizing or wondering about using a firearm to stop a bad guy or playing some silly hero role are not indicative of being irresponsible. A gun does in fact give most people a sense of power ....

I respectfully disagree.

Kleanbore,

With respect I have to more than disagree...that is a scarey statement. And if it gets read in open court, it may well be the difference in Guilty and Not Guilty.

Guys,
We are discussing tactics for life threatening incidents with the potential for fatal outcomes. Not how or when to control other people. If you add a firearm to an already tense situation you are probably going to escalate that situation. LEOs pull weapons on felony stops etc but we aren't the police. We are private citizens excercsing our 2nd Amendment right, and hopefully are doing so for the purpose of our own self defense.
When you put on a gun you have to take your ego off. Simple assault? Remove yourself from the situation...CCW does not give you the right or even necessarily the ability to win all confrontations. It gives you the ability to defend youself and your loved ones...and yes maybe others during a LEATHEL FORCE situation.
In my mind choosing to CCW gives you the obligation to avoid confrontations...maybe you do have to back down from a drunk...maybe you don't get the good parking spot you wanted (even if you were there first and in the right)...maybe you have to leave to avoid hearing foul language instead of forcing someone to clean it up...but if you pull a weapon you must be prepared to use it and that means potentially taking a life...fantasizing about situations, depending on the weapon to get you out of trouble you could have avoided if the weapon weren't there- are not acceptable when you have the ability to take another person's life.
In all of these "I almost got to draw my weapon" scenerios, ask yourself would you have really ended the other person's life over the confrontation?

 

[JustinJ]

Flfiremedic, no offense but your comments seem to read alot into my posts that just isn't there. Who here is talking about how or when to control people? Yes, ego absolutely should be left at home when carrying. But a feeling or sense of power is there for many people wether or not it is wanted and it isn't a conscious decision to have. But ignoring something i believe is the worst way to deal with it effectively. People who carry, ecspecially when they start, should realize that the associated sense of power is there specifically to ensure it does NOT influence their decisions. There is a part in almost every male's mind that wants to pursue other women besides his partner but that does not make him unfaithful just as a part of a person's mind wanting to use his gun to save the day does not make him irresponsible. Responsibility comes from being able to make wise decisions in situations.

"When you put on a gun you have to take your ego off. Simple assault? Remove yourself from the situation...CCW does not give you the right or even necessarily the ability to win all confrontations."

I agree completely. But its wise to recongize that emotions might make someone feel like doing different in the situation so i advocate recognizing this in advance to help ensure reason is used to make wise decisions.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Flfiremedic: With respect I have to more than disagree...that is a scarey statement. And if it gets read in open court, it may well be the difference in Guilty and Not Guilty.

I thought I would try understatement.

I do not fantasize about using a gun for anything.

A gun does not give me a feeling of power. Carrying one instills in me an awareness of great responsibility, and, if something happens to cause real alarm, it gives a bit of assurance. That's it.

And I agree that I would most certainly not want to have to answer questions about my having said anything to the contrary.

I knew someone who entered the police academy. It was clear to them that the idea of carrying a badge and a gun gave him a feeling of power. Fortunately they made the right decision.

Frankly, if someone were to sense that carrying a gun gave someone else a feeling of power, they would undoubtedly be most uneasy about being in that person's presence.

Power, or responsibility? Fantasize, or contemplate? We may be hung up on a matter of semantics, but in something this serious it is essential to avoid giving anyone the wrong idea.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Justin,

I was by no means picking on you or your posts, you have some well thought out posts and have brought some good ideas out. There have been posts recently that mention almost drawing on persons who failed to comply with orders I.E. ordering an unarmed person to stop approaching you et al.
You are completely correct in that a weapon can give one a sense of power, and correct that this must be recognized and dealt with. I would advocate ensuring you deal with this prior to leaving home with the ability to end lives.
The desire to save the day can also be common, but must and I repeat must be dealt with- prior to picking up a weapon...there have been off duty LEOs, militrary, body guards, home owners etc killed by well meaning people who didn't know the full story before stepping in. The 2nd amendment and CCW laws are not there to allow one to indulge in fantasies...sorry...and stating or bringing these fantasies up in an open forum could have devestating results in court.
I completely agree with your point that emotions may change ones reaction. One should be prepared to deal with that prior to choosing CCW. As I said, I have no problem with your posts, and was not directly addressing anything you'd said.

 

[JustinJ]

Flfiremedic, i did not take any offense from your posts either and hope my comments did not come across that way.

"and stating bringing these fantasies up in an open forum could have devestating results in court."
Although others have done different my posts have all been written in general of a phenomenon that can occur with no mention of personal experience. I do however recall reading a discussion of this though in a book about handgun use that i think was written by Massad Ayoob but i could be mistaken as to the author.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: ....my posts have all been written in general of a phenomenon that can occur with no mention of personal experience.

The risk is that someone who does later become involved in something that warrants even a cursory investigation may have posted, written, e-mailed, or placed on his property messages that can be used as an indication of mens rea, or state of mind.

In the case of an incident involving the use of force, a statement that one has fantasized about such happenings (you did not say that you do, but others have) or a statement that one believes that guns naturally give people a sense of power can easily be used to portray the actor as a person who had been predisposed to the use of deadly force.

From the ST&T Rules Sticky:

Everyone who posts here or anywhere else on the Internet should understand that such posts are permanent, and they may be subject to discovery in legal proceedings at any time in the future. Should any member ever find himself or herself involved in such proceedings, posts containing comments that could be interpreted unfavorably could prove damaging.

We do not want to commission as law enforcement officers persons who fantasize about using their guns or who feel that their badges and guns give them power over others. Nor does the general populace want citizens with the same feelings to be carrying guns. It is imporant that we always come across responsibly in that regard.

Again, from the rules sticky:

In a very real sense, we are all ambassadors for responsible firearms ownership to the world at large. That world includes a large number of people who do not support the right to keep and bear arms and who may hold negative opinions of those who own guns, as well as those who believe that the appropriate civilian use of firearms should be limited to the hunting field or the trap range. Many believe that the protection of citizens is solely the responsibility of the police.

Since the topics discussed in S&T must necessarily encompass the use of deadly force with potentially lethal consequences, it is of paramount importance that what is posted here be always be presented in the most responsible, mature, and thoughtful manner. ...

Everything posted on THR can have significant long tem impacts on public opinion, on the reputation of THR, the staff, and our members.

Again, contemplation is one thing, but fantasizing will certainly be perceived as something else. And having a sense of responsibility is one thing, but gaining from the gun a sense of power will be taken as something else entirely.

When one's statements may influence public opinion or be used later to color the perception of others who may sit in judgment, the selection of words must be considered very carefully.

 

[stonecutter2]

Here in Illinois, all I could have done is try to run away.

I think you did well in this situation.

 

[JustinJ]

"Again, contemplation is one thing, but fantasizing will certainly be perceived as something else. "

I think we may all be thinking of fantasizing as something different. If a guy thinks about how it would be cool to shoot a bunch of terrorists trying to take over a mall, i don't see that as a problem. A fantasy about confronting a guy for being rude so that it can turn into an altercation is something entirely different.

"When one's statements may influence public opinion or be used later to color the perception of others who may sit in judgment, the selection of words must be considered very carefully. "

I understand your point but I'm of the opinion that discussing things openly is always a better way of dealing with them than ignoring them. A few anti gun people misinterpreting my comments i think is worth it if it might help a few others make wise decisions when carrying.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Justin,

I see your point, but the people that misinterput your comments may well be the jury of your peers if you land in that worst case scenerio...

On another note, Dr B summed it up nicely here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=598317

His post:
The issue is pretty much black and white for me.

1. Don't draw it unless you have no other option.

2. If you draw it, you better be ready to use it because the situation has escalated as far as it can go.

You quoted Mas earlier, and he is one of if not my favorite authors and CCW authorities.

He advocates drawing as little attention to ones self as possible, and being as discreet as possible...I can't remember his exact phrase but something like avoid deathmaker ammo from an ultra super badguy killer model pistol...
I would guess that this would go for posts that could come back to haunt you.

 

[Gig 'em]

In reference to the experience of <MOA, why did you not jump back in the truck and go to another gas station? I have been in situations like that multiple times in Houston. Each time I said "Howdy" very loudly, got back in the truck and left asap. The only responses I received were surprised looks and the occasional gang sign. Btw, they were armed. (Very easy to spot in the front of their pants.) I'm not in a mandatory retreat state, but I would much prefer everyone walk away, even if the BG only walks for a few minutes until the police show up... Just my thoughts. Thanks.
-Gig 'em-

 

[Ben86]

I would suggest that that statements such as that are not the kind of thing that one would want to have read in court after a shooting in which the evidence supporting justifiability is sparse or otherwise not convincing.

I understand that statements like that can be misconstrued in court by a sensationalist lawyer. But, I still believe that cartoon like good guy-bad guy fantasies in one's mind don't make one insane, violent or irresponsible. That said I do agree that they are best not posted on the internet, or otherwise shared on a public, permanent media.