Lessons from a confrontation today

[rainbowbob]

Your subsequent resolution to avoid getting involved in the likely futile effort of correcting the bad public behavior of strangers seems a wise decision.

I think this resolution will prove to be the most effective "Strategies and Tactics" lesson to be gleaned from this discussion.

As obvious as it may seem...doing whatever you can to avoid contacts and conflicts with violent sociopaths may be 95% of the game plan for avoiding the need to employ deadly force.

As you described the original incident, though, it seems the police and/or prosecutor could easily argue (not necessarily correctly) that you were an active participant in the confrontation. There was never a point in the original post where you clearly disengaged.

Yes...and...no.

I agree the powers that be might interpret my behavior as contributory - and to some degree it was. However, prior to his verbal challenge and aggressive rush toward me - I had turned my back on him, zipped my lip, and was walking away. I would assert that was a pretty clear disengagement on my part.

When I heard the tone of his verbal challenge and realized he was coming at me, I felt it was imperative to turn, brace myself, and put my hand on the weapon in my front pocket. At that point, I had no intent to draw my weapon - only to be prepared to do so if it became necessary.

With a front pocket carry, it is possible to be fully prepared without having to play the hole card. In other words - I didn't have to brush back a cover garment or reach into my coat and expose my concealed weapon. I was able to take a natural stance with my hand in my pocket. I do believe he may have picked up on my body language and slowed just a half step.

Was he approaching you to give you a piece of his mind or a violent tune up?

The look in his eye, the tone in his voice, and his body language ALL convinced me it was the latter. He confirmed that impression with his parting remarks:

"If your wife and kid wasn't here I would really **** you up!"

I would say that was pretty unambiguous if he can be believed at all.

Me, I think there's an argument here for getting your wife her own gun, so somebody could be covering your six in a scenario like this.

Nothing would please me more. I have yet to get her to actually fire a gun. I have got her to the point where she knows how to clear a revolver and dry-fire it, as well as agree to have it loaded in the closet when I'm gone for any length of time. I've repeatedly invited her to go out to the range on a quiet weekday morning. She says, "Maybe... but don't push me." So I'm hopeful - but I have to go slow here.

 

[EHL]

I'm sorry I gotta chime in too. First of all, when I read your OP about the part when your wife got in the middle of it, I just about blew my stack! I know because my wife has done this to me before too! I yelled at her like no other after that, and she has since learned that she better run for cover (with the kids)or at least cover my back. (she has a CCW too) I'm glad you two spoke together afterwards to come to an agreement over what to do better in any possible future situations though, at least it won't happen again.

The second point is that it is absolutely moronic for anybody to suggest that it's preferable to take a punch in the face from some stranger than it would be to defend yourself. That's the ultimate sign of a chest thumper, "it's not manly to not take a punch". Like others have said, that's freaking laughable.:banghead: Yeah, I'm gonna sit there and trade punches with somebody who may or may not be better at swapping hits than I am. A CCW is for self defense, if some freaking guy comes at me with the obvious intent to cause bodily harm I am going to defend myself, period! Of course I will try and de-escalate but if push comes to shove (i.e. punching, kicking, stabbing, etc..) I will do my utmost to end the confrontation. Whether it means pulling my gun and hoping that takes the wind out of his sales or if he tries anything, actually pulling the trigger-I will do it and would recommend all who carry do the same. Like others have mentioned, trained hardcore fighters have been knocked out with "one punch" and after that, you and your family are entirely at this [] mercy.

Sorry, not me and mine. While those of you are pretending to be bad [] trading punches in order to be "manly", I'll be defending me and mine with everything I've got to assure theirs and my own safety.

End of rant.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Just more proof that I'm "old enough to know better, yet still too young to care"....

When he said "Do we need to talk about this some more?"...that would have been it...no gun play, but I would have had the irresistible urge to "go a few rounds".

I know, I know...DEFINITELY NOT the right thing to do, but old habits die hard and I never accepted being pushed around.

I'm a product of the life I have lived ("rough & tumble" in all respects) so don't take this post the wrong way.

The OP handled it pretty good except for the part where he said "Is that right?"...that very well may have blown up in his face and caused a fight...he was moving away, he should have left it at that.

 

[Bluelick]

I have read this entire thread with great interest and I think the OP handled it well, was lucky, and did a very good after-action analysis.

Along with this, two things occur to me:

1. In all honesty, did having a firearm to some degree keep the OP from disengaging just a bit sooner? I would ask that question of myself in the same circumstances. The "Is that right?" leads me to this question. I'm not asking for an answer to this, really, I just think it's a question that anyone carrying needs to consider--am I more likely not to practice the same level of avoidance as I would unarmed? If so, what does that mean?

2. I wonder how different this might have been if the sidearm were worn unconcealed. Might never have gotten started. I understand that's not legal everywhere.

Thanks for an interesting discussion, and my respects to all participating.

 

[rainbowbob]

The "Is that right?" leads me to this question. I'm not asking for an answer to this, really, I just think it's a question that anyone carrying needs to consider--am I more likely not to practice the same level of avoidance as I would unarmed? If so, what does that mean?

The "Is that right?" retort was clearly unnecessary and unwise. You ask two very good questions for which I have no easy answers.

But I'm thinkin' about it a lot lately.

 

[TimM]

That being said, I agree that shooting someone rather than taking a punch is a great way to land yourself in prison. I also personally think that unless there is a huge disparity of force, it is really chicken**it of a person to pull a gun rather than take a punch. I would say cowardly, but that word doesn't seem to pack as much punch any more. Anyway, long story short, there are very few cases where it is ok to shoot an unarmed person. If it isn't ok to shoot them, it isn't ok to pull a gun.

Here is the question I have and I have always wondered about this. I have not been hit in a fight for more than 25 years but I have been hit accidentally in that time. From all past experiences I realize that if I get hit I have a serious problem.

I have a glass jaw. I don't necessarily feel the pain, it doesn't hurt that much and I do not get knocked out. What does happen is that I lose my vision, all of it, I see black - every time.

So... taking any kind of punch in an altercation can be serious trouble for me. I am really not sure as to what my options are. Except don't get hit.

Any input?

 

[rainbowbob]

So... taking any kind of punch in an altercation can be serious trouble for me. I am really not sure as to what my options are. Except don't get hit.

Any input?

Well...There is quite a lot of input contained in the discussions in this thread.

 

[TimM]

Well...There is quite a lot of input contained in the discussions in this thread.

I understand that. As far as the dog park... I have three dogs that I take to a dog park near me at least 4 times a week. It is not an uncommon occurrence to encounter idiots. I just pack up and leave, I can always come back at a better time. It is not worth the ruining my day or a rise in my blood pressure.

I was just responding to the quote that it is [] not to take a punch. I was offering one honest and factual scenario where it is not wise to take a punch.

 

[rainbowbob]

There is quite a lot of discussion in this thread about the legal, ethical, and tactical considerations regarding whether or not one should use deadly force to avoid taking a punch.

I agree with you, Tim - I don't think it's a good idea to take a punch and risk losing conciousness (or worse) before you're able to defend yourself.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

I have tried hard to keep big mouth shut. It's so bad I might sputter and mutter for three days. But I know if I escalated something with a verbal parting shot which would only throw gas onto the fire... it aint good.

Something about the blood, once it gets going....

 

[spittle8]

You're not looking for a fight, but if you DO happen to get into an argument with somebody, it might get violent, so the other guy better shoot you? And if he does, he might be in big trouble?

You might want to re-think those survival tactics.

I wouldn't start a fight, not my thing.

If I get into a disagreement with someone and it proceeds to a gentleman's duel, he'd be making a grave mistake by drawing down because he now wants to avoid the fist fight. The kind of person that would draw in that situation most likely doesn't have the stones to pull the trigger.

I don't plan on getting into it with a CCW-permit holder, and if such a person antagonized a fight, they have no business carrying.

The VAST majority of landed blows DO NOT result in death. It's not as rare as a lightning strike, but you can rest assured you're very unlikely to die from a single blow. If you're being stomped out, that's another matter entirely.

If you get into a fight that did not start with a sucker punch or some such, you probably shouldn't draw unless you're losing badly and fear they may take it too far. In that case, you're morally obligated to make them aware of the fact that you are armed, and only shoot if they come forward, looking to wound. An unarmed man isn't likely to kill you, you can go for the knees first...

I guarantee you that any normal jury will put you away for shooting someone to avoid a fist fight. If you're jumped by some goon hiding in the darkness, or a gang of thugs ambush you, that is a different scenario, but most fights outside the ghetto are not of that sort (unless things have changed). Use mace first, if the guy comes forward and you are crippled or otherwise limited and can't outrun the guy, then draw, but it should be your LAST move, not the first line of defense, and you should give him a chance to back down or go for the legs before shooting to kill. I know most people would agree with my logic here...

If you feel responsible enough to carry a concealed firearm you can carry some mace, a tazer, and/or learn a fighting art.

Son, be careful putting people in positions like that. What you are doing is describing what you will do as you are assaulting someone.

I never said I would initiate a non-consensual fight, but guys get into it sometimes, and when that time comes, it's beyond ridiculous to immediately draw a firearm. Walk away, run, or use some mace. If you can carry a weapon that will take a life you can learn to use other tools to escape.

They may or may not have to defend that action later, but you won't know the outcome. You'll be 6 feet under with a recent 45 caliber hole.

Are you quite sure? It's just as plausible that I'd grab the gun, swallow a gut wound and turn it on the fellow, and I'd then be able to justify using his own firearm against him as he had just shot me. If you're within punching distance you better know what you're doing if you're going to draw and discharge a firearm. Gunshot wounds aren't generally instantly fatal.

RATIONAL people always choose themselves.

Rational people don't go from "I don't want to fight, dude!" to "BANG BANG you're dead." THAT is insane. It's not even cooky, it's outright insane. You have other options, shooting someone isn't the only option. I live in Detroit and I move on foot. I'm white and not particularly imposing. Believe me, there have been times when people have threatened me with violence just because they didn't like the look of me, but was I inclined to draw down on them? Not as long as I can fight out of it, mace them, or run. I was jumped by 15 gangstas and they circled me as they took their shots, throwing right crosses. I was on my feet for a minute of that and I was able to escape without using deadly force. You can't tell me that you're seriously afraid of a single punch.

I am 62, 5'7'/200, my jacket size is 50. My work out routine: 3 sets of 15-reps @ 210...when I feel robust I will do all 3 set at 20 reps....and if I don't lift my Dr says the Arth will become worse sooner...

A man my age has no business picking a fight with an older gentleman. While it's honorable that you maintain a level of conditioning, you're not obligated to give a fist fight.

Finally, I strongly believe in our rights to defend ourselves and innocents, but you've got to be realistic. Shooting someone to kill is serious business, and a scrap is NOT. Often enough, if some goons jump you, they're more likely to run if you defend yourself with your fists than they are to kill you. These types of people prey upon the weak, they usually don't pick fights with strapping lads. Don't look like prey, and if you can't help but look like prey (disabilities, size, whatever) you have other options to go to before lethal force.

Also, consider your circumstances. If someone jumps me near an alley at night, I can presume they mean to seriously menace me, possibly kill me. I am justified in shooting them, though I'll look to wound unless I see a weapon or their hands stray. If I get into an argument with a guy and it comes to blows, my first reaction is to give him a fight. If he's covered in gang tats, then sure, maybe I'll draw instead of lose the fight, fearing he might go too far, but my first reaction is not "I'm gonna shoot you."

I'm not trying to piss anyone off, without sounding too crass I'm "on y'alls side". I don't live in a fantasy world like so many do and I realize the world is a nasty place, and we all have the right to defend ourselves, I'm just asking that we all temper that sentiment with some compassion. Even good guys do bad ****, like start fights. You've got to consider what lead to the fight, are you being robbed (potentially fatal) or are you getting into a good old duel? I apologize for my lack of brevity... Cheers

Ross

 

[rainbowbob]

I know most people would agree with my logic here...

Ross (spittle8):

I...I'm just...speechless.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Here in Tennessee...getting a busted nose, black eye, knocked out teeth, etc. is NOT considered "a threat to your life" or "great bodily harm"...and it is illegal to shoot an unarmed man...PERIOD.

Exceptions have been made for females, elderly, and/or disabled people...but anybody in good health who uses a firearm on an unarmed attacker "in public" is getting a one way ticket to be cell mates with a guy named "Bubba".

And thats the way it should be...use a little common sense people, there have always been "chest beaters"...and there always will be.

There is no harm in getting your [] kicked, mines been kicked a few times and I'm still here.

The aggressor in this thread showed IMMEDIATE respect for the OP's wife (he backed down when she intervened)...he was NO threat to her, he was only attempting to assert himself over the OP.

Get real people...he was just a bully, last I checked that's not a "killing offense".

EDITED TO ADD: IF he had you down stomping the [] out of you...then you would have a leg to stand on in court, but thats a 2 way street.

 

[TimM]

There is no harm in getting your [] kicked, mines been kicked a few times and I'm still here.

This is a blanket assumption and it is wrong. There are multiple hundreds of people who have had their [] kicked and they are no longer here. You have been lucky.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Regardless...getting beat up IS NOT considered a threat to your life in most (maybe all) states.

 

[Harold Mayo]

It's not? Most statutes have language that include "bodily harm" in addition to direct threats to life. There is no way to determine whether or not you are going to die from injuries sustained or that the guy beating you is going to stop when you're down. Unless you can quote some legalese to back up your statement, I'm going to have to call "BS" on it.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

It was addressed in the class I took (given by a lawyer) about when, where, and how lethal force is justified.

That "language" you refer to is ALWAYS stated as SERIOUS bodily harm (SERIOUS being the key word)...that does not include busted lips, black eyes and such.

Call BS all you want...I'd rather get beat up and be free than shoot some SOB and get a cell mate named Bubba.

 

[Harold Mayo]

In reading this thread from the beginning, I can see where you're coming from. Personally, most unarmed assailants wouldn't bother me to the extent that I would have to escalate and I certainly wouldn't be reaching for a firearm in the case given (maybe...the poster is a grandfather, which might imply a disparity in physical ability with a much younger man).

However, I must ask again, how do you determine to what extent a person is going to injure you if you're on the losing side of the engagement? If you get punched and that's it, that's one thing...you're certainly not justified in using lethal force. If you get punched, knocked down, and then suffer repeated kicks to the head, that's quite another story.

 

[JWarren]

spittle,

You are operating from what sounds like a VERY specific scenerio that you are envisioning. Even so, there are things within it that are muddy.

I wouldn't start a fight, not my thing.

and then...

Even good guys do bad ****, like start fights.

OK.....




How about....

If I get into a disagreement with someone and it proceeds to a gentleman's duel, he'd be making a grave mistake by drawing down because he now wants to avoid the fist fight.

Dude... this IS NOT a "gentleman's duel if "he now wants to avoid the fist fight."

No, what you are describing is two people getting in an arguement and you decide that you'll beat the hell out of them and they have decided that they don't want that.

That is NOT a gentleman's duel. That is YOU choosing to escalate a verbal disagreement into physical assault.

I seriously hope that you can see the issue with that.

The kind of person that would draw in that situation most likely doesn't have the stones to pull the trigger.

Don't bet your life on it.

I don't plan on getting into it with a CCW-permit holder, and if such a person antagonized a fight, they have no business carrying.

Translation (it seems):

I may instigate fights, so I don't want to have a CCW and if I choose to attack you, you should not have one either.

The VAST majority of landed blows DO NOT result in death. It's not as rare as a lightning strike, but you can rest assured you're very unlikely to die from a single blow.

YOU do not have the right to play the statistics with MY life-- especially with someone who is trying TO AVOID a fight where you want to "humiliate them (from your earlier post).

Spin it all you want. I've witnessed severe injuries from fights in my 37 years. YOU do not have the right to decide if I will experience them.

If you get into a fight that did not start with a sucker punch or some such, you probably shouldn't draw unless you're losing badly and fear they may take it too far. In that case, you're morally obligated to make them aware of the fact that you are armed, and only shoot if they come forward, looking to wound. An unarmed man isn't likely to kill you, you can go for the knees first...

We do not live in your "Fight Club" nor do we have to subscribe to your notion of "honor" in a fight.

But how's this....

I think it is VERY reasonable that a person who has chosen to assault someone is a person that I should "fear they may take it too far."

...you're morally obligated to make them aware of the fact that you are armed, and only shoot if they come forward, looking to wound.

I am morally obligated to NOTHING when dealing with someone who is assaulting me. You honestly act like assault is some kind of "gentleman's game."

I guarantee you that any normal jury will put you away for shooting someone to avoid a fist fight.

Nothing is guaranteed. I happen to believe that my lawyer would paint you as a mentally-unstable, raging goon that spends his waking hours seeking people to beat down in order to compensate for something like sexual impotence. Likely, he'll have a long record to operate from and a good number of character witnesses.

if the guy comes forward and you are crippled or otherwise limited and can't outrun the guy, then draw, but it should be your LAST move, not the first line of defense, and you should give him a chance to back down or go for the legs before shooting to kill.

Wait... you CRIPPLE me and I should "give you the change to back down??"

What is the color of the sky in the world that you live in?

If you feel responsible enough to carry a concealed firearm you can carry some mace, a tazer, and/or learn a fighting art.

Or not. I have a 2nd degree black belt, and am a former ring-fighter. Which is where I've SEEN what permanent injuries a fist can do with my own eyes.

I never said I would initiate a non-consensual fight

Again, you contridict yourself-- or you operate from a very narrow set of assumptions that you hold to yourself.

If I get into a disagreement with someone and it proceeds to a gentleman's duel, he'd be making a grave mistake by drawing down because he now wants to avoid the fist fight.

That sounds EXACTLY like a nonconsentual fight.

In fact, EVERYTHING you have posted has to do with people wanting to "AVOID A FIGHT."



But let's be clear. I think everyone is talking "past one another." It seems that you are trying to describe a situation where two idiots decide to fight, one is getting his butt kicked and decides to prematurely end it by drawing a gun.


I think you fail to realize the people that you are talking to on this forum.

The VAST number of people you are speaking to are LONG past such idiocy of ego-driven fist-fights. The people that you are talking to typically DO NOT engage in consentual fist-fights. The people that you are speaking to, in general, mind their own business. Sure, they will speak their minds, but that is a LONG way from engaging in physical altercations.

From what I am seeing, the people you are speaking to are describing this scenerio from THEIR perspective where some jack-hole has decided to "humiliate" them via a physical assault where there has been NO prior trading of blows. They do this because they do not see themselves in such a situation of trading prior blows. They've gotten past such idiocy.

Now, have two options on this:

1.) Either continue discussing this from the point of an assumption of an escalated consenting fist-fight, or

2.) discuss this from the perspective of the assumption that one person has chosen to avoid being physically assaulted by someone initiating an assault.

If you try to blend the two, it does not bode well for any moral standing. But of course, that is your choice.

Are you quite sure? It's just as plausible that I'd grab the gun, swallow a gut wound and turn it on the fellow, and I'd then be able to justify using his own firearm against him as he had just shot me. If you're within punching distance you better know what you're doing if you're going to draw and discharge a firearm. Gunshot wounds aren't generally instantly fatal.

Man, you are betting with a LOT of assumptions.

Rational people don't go from "I don't want to fight, dude!" to "BANG BANG you're dead." THAT is insane. It's not even cooky, it's outright insane.

Again, I think you are operating from the assumption of your "Fight Club."

You can't tell me that you're seriously afraid of a single punch.

I'll tell that to the guy I know who got the detached retina from a single punch.

While it's honorable that you maintain a level of conditioning, you're not obligated to give a fist fight.

This further reinforces the notion of what others HAVE to do to fit into your "code of honor."


Just so we are clear... I'm not obiligated to "give" you anything nor am I obiligated to buy into your code of honor.

I'm just asking that we all temper that sentiment with some compassion.

If a person has chosen to assault me, I have no obligation to offer any compassion.



-- John

 

[Fred Fuller]

OK, folks, one more go-round is not going to accomplish a lot more, as far as I can tell. If the OP wants this discussion continued, he can start a new magnum opus Part II, otherwise we're done with this one before we begin to experience IRL what we've been talking about.

lpl