Always give them an out?

[Vermonter]

Something I started thinking about tonight was that if you give an opponent an "out", once they realize they've messed with the wrong guy they'll take off. They won't be fighting to survive, they'll have an option to stay out of trouble.

I'm not talking about waving a gun around, which is well documented as being a bad idea and very likely illegal. I'm talking about not pinning them, or backing them into a corner, etc.

I'm interested in others' thoughts. Thanks for your time.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If you can. I don't want to shoot anyone I don't have to.

"Always" is a tough goal. I think we can all envision circumstances in which you don't have the option to give someone an out without placing yourself in an even worse position. But I believe the earlier you start looking, the more successful you might be in finding an out to give them...

Or finding one for yourself. If you retreat (where it is safe to do so) that might be the best way of giving both of you an out.

 

[2zulu1]

Earlier this evening I smelled cigarette smoke inside my home which means someone may have been very close to, or on, my rural property. The German Shepherd and I reconnoitered the perimeter of the home and didn't see anyone and dogs in the distance weren't barking. Had visual contact/s been made I would have contacted the SO and activated the neighborhood watch.

It's always a good idea to keep in mind that social miscreants can and often act as predators who may exploit what they interpret as an act of unwillingness to engage as a sign of weakness to engage. If you've ever been inside the head of a felon/s, then you know how unpredictable their actions can be, especially if they are feeling invincible.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'm talking about not pinning them, or backing them into a corner, etc.

This would make you the aggressor. If your attacker has given up, SD is out the window.

 

[conw]

This would make you the aggressor. If your attacker has given up, SD is out the window.

I think he meant "nor."

However I disagree with your reply. Pinning or subduing or shoving someone into a corner isn't going to make you the aggressor if you weren't already. If you are in a violent encounter or have a reasonable expectation of such that you are able to articulate post incident, your choice of tactics can include any of the above if it was done with expectation of ending the encounter using appropriate force.

As an example I find shoving people into small spaces and dominating their movement physically while delivering appropriate aggression to be hugely effective. This can also work by shoving someone over a curb, etc.

Unconventional, yes. If I am doing this in a defensive context that I didn't bring about then it is simply under the same umbrella as other effective and appropriate tactics of movement or aggression. It is up to me to articulate it just like any other tactic I would use prefight or infight but that doesn't mean it makes me an aggressor.

As to the OP I think criminals will disengage if they choose to and are rarely so concerned as to be fighting their way out before the physical phase of the encounter begins. If it has begun and you're being criminally assaulted or are using reasonable force to prevent same, you won't want to put the cart before the horse. The concept you're talking about makes more sense in a brewing situation where someone is angry at you.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by conwict: As an example I find shoving people into small spaces and dominating their movement physically while delivering appropriate aggression to be hugely effective. This can also work by shoving someone over a curb, etc.

Unconventional, yes. If I am doing this in a defensive context that I didn't bring about then it is simply under the same umbrella as other effective and appropriate tactics of movement or aggression. It is up to me to articulate it just like any other tactic I would use prefight or infight but that doesn't mean it makes me an aggressor.

Two things:

1. In addition to what you "articulate", invstigators, the charging authority, and should it come to that, the triers of fact will also weigh what others say they saw, and pushing someone around is not going to look good.
2. Who was the initial agressor is but one quesstion; another is whehter the defender used only the force that was necessary to defend himself or herself.

To address the OP's question: yes, if you can give an aggressor an "out", do so.

 

[Fotno]

I hope to leave this world having never had to fire a weapon in anger, so yes, given the opportunity I would gladly allow an aggressor the option to flee. The problem? In almost every circumstance where deadly force is truly warranted, the defender will be the person backed into a corner (real or metaphorical) not the other way around.

 

[Big Boy]

If they have presented a threat to me and have a weapon whether it be a gun, knife, or otherwise I am going to stop the threat immediately by pulling the trigger until the threat stops.

The only instance where i might not fire right away would be if they were the aggressor but unarmed, or if they had already started running and me pulling the trigger would result in me shooting a fleeing aggressor.

 

[MrDig]

I hope to leave this world having never had to fire a weapon in anger,

I want to take note of this, because I also hope I never ever fire a weapon at another, in anger
I would hope the decision to do so would be quite rational and after determining that there was in fact no other option available to me. I would need to determine there was no other means to end the threat.
Am I picking at details? yes I am and for me it is an important distinction, if I allow emotion to enter into my decision I could make a grievous mistake I would rather maintain that carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility and that using it was only option, not one I took from an emotional disadvantage.

 

[robMaine]

I think giving someone an out is always the right thing to to do, not out of common courtesy but for self preservation. My feelings on this are based on my understanding of human physiology and the "fight or flight" response.

When you give someone no "out" they are being backed into a corner where they have to fight, this is a very dangerous person. If you give them an "out", and they choose to fight, then you are the one with no choice and you have the physiological and psychological advantage.

Although no where near as serious or dangerous a situation as a gunfight/SD situation, I use this technique all the time when working as a doormen at local clubs. Give the person an option to leave and an option to fight. If you corner them and force a fight, they have the adrenaline and nothing to lose advantage, and this is someone you don't want to go against.

It has worked for me and I could see it applicable to a deadly encounter as well, IMO

 

[conw]

Two things:

1. In addition to what you "articulate", invstigators, the charging authority, and should it come to that, the triers of fact will also weigh what others say they saw, and pushing someone around is not going to look good.
2. Who was the initial agressor is but one quesstion; another is whehter the defender used only the force that was necessary to defend himself or herself.

I chose not to give those disclaimers because I think it is understood that force needs to be appropriate. And I don't think that (m)any uses of force will be palatable to observers. Who's to say that an open hand vs closed hand strike or a sap versus an environmental trip vs OC will look better? I prefer to choose tactics when justifiable based on efficacy.

If you hear someone requesting, then shouting, that another person 'back up' then turn your head and see what appears to be the encroaching party suddenly get reversed and shoved into a wall and punched or otherwise hit or tripped, it would likely prove beneficial for the person using the aggressive action to have been witnessed asking the encroaching party multiple times to back up. What I'm saying is witness management, as far as is possible, is mostly a question of prefight conduct (and common sense like avoiding racial slurs).

sorry for the thread drift but I do want to say that making someone fall down even if you don't do anything else can cause very serious head injuries. It should NOT be used if there isn't serious articulable reason for that level of force.

 

[Loosedhorse]

social miscreants can and often act as predators who may exploit what they interpret as an act of unwillingness to engage as a sign of weakness to engage.

I hear this concern from time to time, but it seems to me a non-issue. Just as one doesn't have to be loud-mouthed, aggressive, and obnoxious to all (just to impress any predators who might be present that they should mess with someone else), you also don't have to be Caspar Milquetoast to give someone an out.

If someone mistakes my true and firm desire to avoid shooting him for a reluctance to defend myself from grievous harm, their misimpression will be corrected shortly.

Pinning or subduing or shoving someone into a corner isn't going to make you the aggressor if you weren't already.

This, to me, is past the "give someone an out" point anyway. Once contact has been made, all bets are off. The only person I want to give an out at that point is me, whether that's best (and legally) accomplished by empty hand, OC, lethal force...or running shoes.

As has been mentioned, giving someone (or yourself) an out--an option--can prevent a fight. In contrast, once the fight is on, it's on, and anything can happen. We should remember that if we get into a fight, we're already at big risk, and it probably means we've had several tactical failures to get us there.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Give them an out if you can and of course it depends on the situation. Shooting anyone regardless of how much they deserve it will complicate your life.

 

[JustinJ]

I think in an actual SD scenario the last thing one will have time to be thinking is, "hmm, if i stand here he can go there". Aside from not yelling "freeze" or "don't run" I don't see it as a practical consideration.

 

[hso]

If your objective is to avoid injury/death then having the BG run away is a great way to accomplish this, but you're making fraction of a second assessments of whether someone will do this or use it as an opportunity to jockey for an advantage to press the attack anew. I'd suggest repeatedly telling them to "get".

 

[smalls]

Really good point, Rob.

If you give them the choice of leaving, and they still want to fight, that's their mistake.

If you give no out, they are forced to fight. He's now fighting for his life (or so it would seem in their head), and people fighting for their lives are dangerous.

 

[Fotno]

I want to take note of this, because I also hope I never ever fire a weapon at another, in anger
I would hope the decision to do so would be quite rational and after determining that there was in fact no other option available to me. I would need to determine there was no other means to end the threat.
Am I picking at details? yes I am and for me it is an important distinction, if I allow emotion to enter into my decision I could make a grievous mistake. I would rather maintain that carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility and that using it was only option, not one I took from an emotional disadvantage.

Of course I was using the term 'in anger' in place of 'at another human being', and I agree in principle with what you're saying above, especially the highlighted portion. I imagine however, that anyone forced to defend themselves and/or their loved ones with deadly force is almost automatically in an emotional uproar. Whether or not that's a disadvantage, likely depends on the individual.

 

[robinkevin]

It's always good idea to give them an out. Perhaps give them something to think about so that maybe they won't try the same foolish mistake again. My first line of defense in close quarters is grappling. You will be surprise the number of times that I have been able to avoid a fight from a simple wrist lock countering a punch and letting suggesting to them that they don't want to go that route. Very effective...

 

[easyg]

It depends upon the situation.

Outside my home or business I definitely would do all I could do to prevent anyone from getting shot.

Inside my home or business....

Let's just say I wouldn't want the guy to come back later, better prepared and better armed, and perhaps with friends.

 

[Shadow 7D]

If you hear someone requesting, then shouting, that another person 'back up' then turn your head and see what appears to be the encroaching party suddenly get reversed and shoved into a wall and punched or otherwise hit or tripped, it would likely prove beneficial for the person using the aggressive action to have been witnessed asking the encroaching party multiple times to back up. What I'm saying is witness management, as far as is possible, is mostly a question of prefight conduct (and common sense like avoiding racial slurs).

I guess we will see how well that worked for Zimmerman...

I'd say, that it's entirely possible that the cop goes
"so you saw the man who shot the guys, first hit him, who was shouting... ARE YOU SURE?"

Seems like an easy way to get to trial for Manslaughter due to Mutual combat.

 

[Onward Allusion]

easyg
it depends upon the situation.

Outside my home or business i definitely would do all i could do to prevent anyone from getting shot.

Inside my home or business....

Let's just say i wouldn't want the guy to come back later, better prepared and better armed, and perhaps with friends.

^^^^^
this...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by easyg: Inside my home or business....

Let's just say I wouldn't want the guy to come back later, better prepared and better armed, and perhaps with friends.

If you believe for one moment that that the possibility that someone may come back later is a justification for the use of deadly force, you are wrong. If you have concluded from reading about "castle doctrine" laws that those laws provide a resident with the right to use deadly force after the need has passed, you have some learning to do. And having made that statement in a public forum, you could be in for a very unpleasant surprise, should you ever act on your, uh, "beliefs".

 

[Onward Allusion]

Kleanbore

Quote:
Posted by easyg: Inside my home or business....

Let's just say I wouldn't want the guy to come back later, better prepared and better armed, and perhaps with friends.
If you believe for one moment that that the possibility that someone may come back later is a justification for the use of deadly force, you are wrong. If you have concluded from reading about "castle doctrine" laws that those laws provide a resident with the right to use deadly force after the need has passed, you have some learning to do. And having made that statement in a public forum, you could be in for a very unpleasant surprise, should you ever act on your, uh, "beliefs".

Shadow didn't say that, at least that was not my interpretation. It is easier to leave a situation or allow the BG to leave the situation when one is outside of their home or business was my interpretation.

HUGE difference inside home & outside. I've personally been involved in situations outside where getting away or letting the BG get away worked well. Inside one's home, I doubt it would have turned out as well.

Inside your home (especially) or your business, where are you going to go? Hightail it out and leave family/co-workers or retreat and lock yourself in your room or office while the BG or BGs harm family members, co-workers, employees, or attempt to come after you behind your locked door or even try to burn your house down? This is the foundation of Castle Doctrine laws. I'm not talking about stand-your-ground laws or referring to the protection of property.

Anyone breaking into your home (or business) when you're present is out to do you and/or your family harm. There are no if's or but's in my mind. This is not just my opinion but that of the dozens of cops I've talked to over the years. Some of which (and this I do not advocate) - went as far as saying things like "Hey, once they're in your house, who's to say they didn't go to the kitchen and grab a knife..."

As an aside, I suggest that anyone who can afford it keep a criminal attorney on retainer or join a pre-paid legal service.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Onward Allusion: Anyone breaking into your home (or business) when you're present is out to do you and/or your family harm. There are no if's or but's in my mind. This is not just my opinion but that of the dozens of cops I've talked to over the years.

Whether or not that is what that person is "out to do", one certainly would have reason to believe that the person presents an imminent threat.

Barring other evidence to the contrary, that would justify the use of deadly force--as a defensive measure, but not for the purpose of preventing a possible later return, as mentioned by easyg, and not for the purpose of admnistering justice.

If the intruder elects to depart, the justification for deadly force ceases to exist.

Forensic evidence, earwitness testimony, the testimony of the intruder can all be bought to bear in the aftermath.

 

[hso]

The best thing you can have happen is for the BG to leave without doing permanent harm to you. Continuing the fight when you could have it stop is adding, not reducing, your risk of injury/death.