My first confrontation

[Trent]

Kleanbore; appreciate the words of wisdom you've shared.

Is there a "least common denominator" you can put together, concisely, that would ensure people who travel extensively don't need to memorize laws in every state they travel in?

 

[GBExpat]

Every time someone recommends Grossman I make sure to link to how dangerously full of crap he is.

http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm

Thanks for that ... very interesting stuff.

BTW, this is the first that I have ever heard of Grossman.

 

[Kleanbore]

Is there a "least common denominator" you can put together, concisely, that would ensure people who travel extensively don't need to memorize laws in every state they travel in?

If you are referring to presentation of a firearm or other aspects of the use of force laws, I go by this:

• First, do everything posible to evade, avoid, and descalate any situation that may end up involving violence. Escape is also a good idea regardless of the law, if you can do it.
• Don't draw unless you have no alternative.
• Be the first to report any incident involving violence or threats or the display of a firearm.
• Leave the enforcement of the law to sworn officers.

You do need to know and abide by the weapons laws. Bookmark this.

 

[Sav .250]

"all most assulated." That by itself is not much to almost shoot somebody for.

It`s not to be used to bluff your way out of possible danger. Not picking on you. Not all re-act the same way. Opinions outside of a actual stand your ground situation, are just that. Who knows what anybody would do.

I`m sure your re-thinking what happened to you and will learn from it.

 

[Trent]

If you are referring to presentation of a firearm or other aspects of the use of force laws, I go by this:

• First, do everything posible to evade, avoid, and descalate any situation that may end up involving violence. Escape is also a good idea regardless of the law, if you can do it.
• Don't draw unless you have no alternative.
• Be the first to report any incident involving violence or threats or the display of a firearm.
• Leave the enforcement of the law to sworn officers.

You do need to know and abide by the weapons laws. Bookmark this.

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

 

[hueyville]

In 25 years of regular carry and spending a life that has put me in a myriad of situations I have had to "draw iron" three times. First two I had full intentions of killing the threat(s) and in both situations the other party(s) realized my intent due to lack of hesitation and sheer suprise from speed of my actions. They immediately ceased all hostile intentions and dropped their weapons before I squeezed the trigger. I count myself lucky as though completely justifiable had person(s) been half a second slower I would have found out what it was like to take a life. After the incidents I had no remorse or misgivings as I realized my training to take firm control in a tactical situation saved someone else's life while possibly saving mine or at least grave physical harm to myself. The third time I was forced to draw a weapon I knew the person would not have the stomach for a fight. He had a gun in hand and was chastising my wife verbally only because he thought having a pistol gave him the right to act like a jerk. Once I took control he continued his verbal rant but disarmed himself. Funny part was we were in a state with no reciprocal rights for Concealed Carry and he called the cops with intent on having me arrested for my infraction. Turned out even though I was 1,400 miles from home the police chief who came to the scene knew him as a local trouble maker for years and of all things his first question to me was "haven't I seen you competing at the San Juan shooting range"? On my yes answer he dismissed the local with a warning and stopped by my motel that night to take me to his home for beers and show me the very first bullet feed system I ever saw for a Dillon progressive press. That was suprising in 1997 as you had to build a bullet feed because they were not commercially available at the time to my knowledge.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by hueyville: In 25 years of regular carry and spending a life that has put me in a myriad of situations I have had to "draw iron" three times.

Please read the form rules and understand why we do not recommend posting "this happened to me" accounts.

First two I had full intentions of killing the threat(s) and in both situations the other party(s) realized my intent due to lack of hesitation and sheer suprise from speed of my actions.

While homicide may be justified or excused under extraordinary circumstances, no citizen is ever justified in intentionally killing another person.

Also, it is exceptionally unwise to post such an intent in a public forum.

Funny part was we were in a state with no reciprocal rights for Concealed Carry and he called the cops with intent on having me arrested for my infraction.

Why would anyone ever publicly admit to having committed a crime?

 

[Trent]

When explaining why you did what you did to the authorities, you shot to incapacitate, you just wanted to end the threat, you didn't shoot to kill.

If the guy happens to bleed out while the ambulance is on the way, well, he should have picked a different door to kick down. Police / ambulance response time where I live is at MINIMUM 22 minutes. That's not good odds for an intruder that just took a hit center of mass.

It's not necessarily a good thing for ME either.

While perhaps a bit off topic, do YOU know how to treat a sucking chest wound or lung hit? Do you know how to perform a tracheotomy? Do you keep large bandages and coagulant powder in your first aid kit?

If you shoot, you SHOULD know how to stabilize gunshot wounds. Negligence or accidents with firearms happens every day, somewhere. If you're a hunter/shooter/keep a firearm for self defense, not a bad thing to know, or tools to have handy.

If I have a human being bleeding out on my floor, bad guy or good guy, I'm going to try to help them if they are no longer a threat.

Which brings me to a question. If you know help is a long way off, Kleanbore, what's your advice regarding rendering aid to a criminal assailant who a few minutes ago was trying to harm you, and now is unconscious and bleeding out on your floor?

Perhaps a topic for a different thread, but rendering medical aid (or not) can have consequences aside from the shooting incident, proper.

 

[Deen Macheen]

My step dad, Vietnam vet who left an eye and a finger there, has talked to both my wife and I a few times. We are both CCW and I had to qualify with the weapons I was carrying while doing bail bond recovery. He told us no matter how prepared you are mentally, when you have to take a life the first time, you will throw up.

I agree with the others here. If it didn't bother you, I would be worried.

 

[mbt2001]

I am not sure taking this thread in a legal direction is helpful...

 

[HadEmAll]

The closest I've come in 17 years of carrying a handgun to having to use it involved an individual who resented me kicking his dog, which I had asked him to call back, on a public roadway. In a neighborhood with a well-known leash law. He had deliberately watched the dog approach me.

Details minimized, he approached me with a shovel, and I really thought I was going to have to draw.

The thing that made this double horrifying was that in the yard he left to approach me across the roadway, were a boy of about 10 sitting on a bicycle, and a woman he had been talking to.

I could not believe this was happening in front of people who I feared would take his side and skew the story no matter how much in the right I was.

I still have recurring flashbacks of how bad that could have been. Shooting an assailant in front of his kid and wife (assumed, I was visiting the area).

Like someone else said, I didn't even want to carry for a while, even though I knew I was 100% in the right.

 

[JohnKSa]

• First, do everything posible to evade, avoid, and descalate any situation that may end up involving violence. Escape is also a good idea regardless of the law, if you can do it.
• Don't draw unless you have no alternative.
• Be the first to report any incident involving violence or threats or the display of a firearm.
• Leave the enforcement of the law to sworn officers.

Very good. I find that many people want to know when it's legal to use their gun in self-defense. That's precisely the opposite of how one should think about deadly force.

On many occasions I have tried to explain that if you're in the middle of the situation and you find that you are thinking about the legality of using deadly force, then things almost certainly aren't nearly bad enough for you to actually use your firearm. When you really need to use your firearm, you likely won't be thinking about anything else other than surviving or helping someone else survive.

Knowing the law helps you avoid getting into situations that could be legally problematic and it helps you avoid saying or doing something stupid before or after a self-defense encounter.

One HOPES that when one is FORCED to use a firearm in self-defense that the deadly force laws in the applicable region will exonerate him. That is what they are there for; they aren't there to provide people with a primer to decide when they can unload on someone without going to jail.

When explaining why you did what you did to the authorities, you shot to incapacitate, you just wanted to end the threat, you didn't shoot to kill.

You shoot to stop the threat because you have no other choice. I wouldn't want to tell the authorites that I shot someone to incapacitate them. It should be totally irrelevant to the defender if the attacker lives or dies, is incapacitated or unhurt, as long as the attack stops.

Deadly force is exclusively about preventing imminent, unavoidable and potentially deadly crimes, it is not for punishing criminals, incapacitating criminals, or killing criminals.

 

[Deen Macheen]

In my state, people have to qualify on weapons they are using when operating as a security guard, armored car driver, bail bond recovery agent, etc.

This study guide, while very long, is a good overall guide and contains on page 7 the use of force continuum which is based on a similar DOJ document. It may help clear up some questions.

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/images/Revised Student Study Guide 3-11.pdf

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JohnKSa: I find that many people want to know when it's legal to use their gun in self-defense. That's precisely the opposite of how one should think about deadly force.

On many occasions I have tried to explain that if you're in the middle of the situation and you find that you are thinking about the legality of using deadly force, then things almost certainly aren't nearly bad enough for you to actually use your firearm. When you really need to use your firearm, you likely won't be thinking about anything else other than surviving or helping someone else survive.

Knowing the law helps you avoid getting into situations that could be legally problematic and it helps you avoid saying or doing something stupid before or after a self-defense encounter.

One HOPES that when one is FORCED to use a firearm in self-defense that the deadly force laws in the applicable region will exonerate him. That is what they are there for; they aren't there to provide people with a primer to decide when they can unload on someone without going to jail.

When explaining why you did what you did to the authorities, you shot to incapacitate, you just wanted to end the threat, you didn't shoot to kill.

You shoot to stop the threat because you have no other choice. I wouldn't want to tell the authorites that I shot someone to incapacitate them. It should be totally irrelevant to the defender if the attacker lives or dies, is incapacitated or unhurt, as long as the attack stops.

Deadly force is exclusively about preventing imminent, unavoidable and potentially deadly crimes, it is not for punishing criminals, incapacitating criminals, or killing criminals.

Very well put.

Very well put indeed.

 

[Trent]

You shoot to stop the threat because you have no other choice. I wouldn't want to tell the authorites that I shot someone to incapacitate them. It should be totally irrelevant to the defender if the attacker lives or dies, is incapacitated or unhurt, as long as the attack stops.

Deadly force is exclusively about preventing imminent, unavoidable and potentially deadly crimes, it is not for punishing criminals, incapacitating criminals, or killing criminals.

I stand corrected.

 

[phonesysphonesys]

If I ever have to shoot a bad guy the only help I will give is calling 911. I will not go near said person or touch them. I might get accused of trying to finish them off. Also he may have other weapons that are hidden that he could do me harm with.
Semper Fi

 

[HighExpert]

Several years ago, in Orlando, i was the almost victim on an armed holdup. I was hauling cars at the time and owned my own 9 car semi. I was squatting at the side of the trailer running the hydraulics when I had a gun pressed to the back of my head. I was told to stand up at which point he grabbed my belt so that I couldn't turn around. This and the possible noise of removing my gun from my fanny pack kept me from pulling my gun at that time. I told him my money was in the cab of the truck and that he was welcome to it. He put me on my knees by the truck door, withdrew the magazine from a .32 and showed me the bullets while he aimed the gun at my eye. I got really good look at him. He then told me to get the money. I climbed into the cab, drew my gun and fired 6 of the seven rounds I had in the direction of where he had been standing. I found out later that I had grazed him on the neck, inside of one leg and outside of the other leg. I then looked out to see him crawling around the back of the tractor. I bailed out in pursuit and he started hobbling across the parking lot. I could have shot him in the back several times but did not. He finally got about 65yds away and turned to level the gun at me again. Before he could fire, I fired my last round at him and the police later figured that I missed by going by his left ear at about 3 inches. Not bad for a Sig 230. I then called the police and told them what has happened and that I was out of ammo. They set up a perimeter and brought in a tracking dog who tracked him to a rooming house that they could not take the dog into because others lived there. I told the officer that I was really upset that I did not have warm, dead body for him. He wrote down that I had fired until the threat disappeared. The subject, within two weeks was involved in a robbery that resulted in the death of a 64yr old man for the sum of $4. I recognized him from the photo the police showed on TV during the manhunt for him. They had IDd him by his prints. I testified against him and found that he was also charged with beating two truckers so badly they could not testify as they had no memory of the event. He pleaded guilty after I made a fool of his attorney in court. He got 20yrs on each of the first two counts and 30yrs on mine to be served consecutively. He still had to go on trial for murder. He was 17 and had a record with 51 previous arrests and was still on the street. I spent almost 8 months when I needed someone to watch for me while I loaded cars in this neighborhood. I still, 12 years later, will not sit with my back to the door in a public place, will not go anywhere I cannot legally carry my gun and will NOT give up my guns for any blowhard politician in D.C. I can say without doubt that I would have not lost any sleep if I had killed him. I had every intention of doing just that. If you have been involved in a similiar situation, tell the story often to everyone who will listen. Eventually it will get to be almost like a movie that you saw instead of a tramatic experience. My rule is, if I draw my gun you are going to be shot. I do not threaten, I do not say hold it, I do not fire warning shots. I make my decision, draw and kill you if possible. At least I will never be charged with brandishing a weapon. Good Shooting

 

[Trent]

I am not sure taking this thread in a legal direction is helpful...

I disagree.

Pulling a weapon on someone is a deadly serious thing, with deadly serious repercussions.

We're fortunate that the issue can be discussed here, in the open, and at length, from the comfort of our own homes, instead of one of us making a serious error in judgement someday, and finding their only option for conversation is with legal counsel in a holding cell.

 

[Zonamo]

I am not aware of any jurisdictions in which deadly force may be lawfully employed for the prevention of aggravated assault.

While I agree with much of what you have said, just want to point out Arizona is one jurisdiction where the threat of aggravated assault is justification for use of deadly force. From Arizona Revised Statutes:

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

13-1204. Aggravated assault; classification; definition

A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as defined in section 13-1203 under any of the following circumstances:

1. If the person causes serious physical injury to another.

2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

 

[Kleanbore]

^^^^^^^

Thanks.

 

[zmoore1991]

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

Is that suggesting that, in Arizona, it is okay to kill someone in the process of committing statutory rape? Or am I just reading that wrong? "Sexual conduct" to me means something consensual and not forced or coerced, and it is separate from "assault" and "molestation."

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by zmoore1991: Is that suggesting that, in Arizona, it is okay to kill someone in the process of committing statutory rape? Or am I just reading that wrong?

The key words are reasonably believes and immediately necessary and to prevent.

The reasonableness of that belief will be judged by others, who will take into account what the actor knew at the time based on evidence provided by the actor. They will decide whether a reasonable person would have believed that the use of force was immediately necessary to prevent the crime.

Your question was, "is it okay to kill someone?" Let's review JohnKSa's words one more time, and let's all commit them to memory:

That's precisely the opposite of how one should think about deadly force.

On many occasions I have tried to explain that if you're in the middle of the situation and you find that you are thinking about the legality of using deadly force, then things almost certainly aren't nearly bad enough for you to actually use your firearm. When you really need to use your firearm, you likely won't be thinking about anything else other than surviving or helping someone else survive.

One might add "or avoid serious bodily harm, which includes sexual assault."

One may not use force to punish someone for a crime already committed--ever.

 

[Zonamo]

Is that suggesting that, in Arizona, it is okay to kill someone in the process of committing statutory rape?

I don't know about "okay," but I do remember at least one time back when I was in high school, a guy here killed his teenage daughter's boyfriend and was acquitted. The boyfriend was only a couple of years older than her.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Zonamo: ...I do remember at least one time back when I was in high school, a guy here killed his teenage daughter's boyfriend and was acquitted. The boyfriend was only a couple of years older than her.

That tells us absolutely nothing.