Playing Chicken

[Skribs]

There was a video I came across recently, which unsurprisingly had some controversial opinions in the comments. It's graphic, so I'd rather not post it, but I will summarize the order of events, as best I understand.

1. A man had broken into a house, and police were alerted.
2. When police arrived, the man ran through the garage into the back yard. He was carrying what appears to be a suppressed SBR.
3. (At least) 2 police officers confront the man. Officer A is relatively in the open in the back yard. Officer B is in the next yard, looking over a low wall.
4. The man points the rifle at Officer A.
5. Officer B fires two shots and misses.
6. The suspect cowers from the shots and lowers his rifle (still holding the pistol grip, gun pointed at the ground). He paces back and forth for around 10-20 seconds while the cops are yelling at him to put the gun down.
7. Officer B sees the man turn towards him and dumps his magazine, ending the situation. It appears the man was just pacing, and the rifle was still pointed at the ground.

The average comment to this video was something along the lines of, "I get that this probably would have ended this way, but did he really need to shoot right then? The gun was pointed at the ground."

While this specific situation was a law enforcement action, and I do believe this type of scrutiny will be much more common for law enforcement, the general concept of "bad guy has gun that is not currently pointed at me" is one that any civilian can have as well.

My opinion, and the opinion of several others on the video, is that the rifle is a threat as long as its in play, no matter where it's pointed. That if the officer had waited for the rifle to be raised, he might miss, or might have ineffective hits, and then the rifle is brought into play, and rifle beats handgun.

I also find this an extension on "just shoot them in the leg" or "just learn to fight, bro." The idea that you have to play chicken, as if you're not in danger unless the gun is pointed directly at you and the trigger is pulled free of slack.

It goes to what I said in another thread. There are those who believe in protecting everyone, and those who believe priority goes to yourself and your loved ones. It's easy to judge others when you're not in the crosshairs.

Maybe I'm in biased company, but does it not make sense to treat a bad guy with a gun as an imminent threat, no matter whether the gun is leveled or not?

 

[Jeff White]

My opinion, and the opinion of several others on the video, is that the rifle is a threat as long as its in play, no matter where it's pointed. That if the officer had waited for the rifle to be raised, he might miss, or might have ineffective hits, and then the rifle is brought into play, and rifle beats handgun.

This is the important difference. The officer has a duty to be there and to act. The private citizen has no business pursuing the the suspect with the rifle. That makes if the gun is an imminent threat moot. It might be something to consider in a different situation, but in the example you cite a private citizen has no business being involved.

 

[Kleanbore]

While this specific situation was a law enforcement action, and I do believe this type of scrutiny will be much more common for law enforcement, the general concept of "bad guy has gun that is not currently pointed at me" is one that any civilian can have as well.

My opinion, and the opinion of several others on the video, is that the rifle is a threat as long as its in play, no matter where it's pointed. That if the officer had waited for the rifle to be raised, he might miss, or might have ineffective hits, and then the rifle is brought into play, and rifle beats handgun.

Very true.

But while theoofficers were duty bound to head into the yard, the civilian was not.

 

[Skribs]

This is the important difference. The officer has a duty to be there and to act. The private citizen has no business pursuing the the suspect with the rifle. That makes if the gun is an imminent threat moot. It might be something to consider in a different situation, but in the example you cite a private citizen has no business being involved.

The exact details, no. But the general situation could. For example:

Someone has broken into my house and has a rifle. I shoot a few rounds and they cower, but do not drop the rifle. Do I treat them as still being a threat that needs to be stopped until they drop the rifle? Do I withhold further rounds until the gun is pointed in my direction again?

 

[Jeff White]

Someone has broken into my house and has a rifle. I shoot a few rounds and they cower, but do not drop the rifle.

You miss across the room? Just kidding it happens……
Like everything else, it’s situationally dependent. There is no one size fits all answer.

The intruder is still armed and still in your home so he’s still a threat.

If he’s running or crawling for the door but still holding the rifle it wouldn’t be justified to shoot him unless he turns the gun towards you.

Now I know that in about 30 seconds after I post this someone is going to say “We have castle doctrine in my state and if he’s in my home it doesn’t matter what he’s doing.” However the scenario doesn’t mention castle doctrine being a factor.

 

[Jim Watson]

Yeah, times change.
M. Ayoob was telling a different story in 1980, a nighttime intruder was then fair game.

 

[JohnKSa]

...does it not make sense to treat a bad guy with a gun as an imminent threat, no matter whether the gun is leveled or not?

This is not advice, just some observations.

If a person places you in a situation where you have no other option but to respond with a firearm and that response does not motivate them to retreat, you are in deadly danger. They either know something you don't and therefore don't consider you a threat, or they are not rational--they don't care if they live or die or their brain isn't working well enough to cause their survival instinct to kick in. Either situation is potentially extremely dangerous.

Remember, how a person acts should be evaluated based on the situation. A person who is calm and unconcerned in a situation where there's no threat is acting normally. A person who is calm and unconcerned while you are pointing a gun at them is absolutely not acting normally and there is some reason for that abnormal behavior.

 

[old lady new shooter]

You miss across the room? Just kidding it happens……

Maybe you didn't miss, but for whatever reason he just didn't go down. Back in the day when PCP was a thing somebody on that would frequently keep right on coming after being shot.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Remember, how a person acts should be evaluated based on the situation.

Behavior is how defenders reasonably judge jeopardy/manifest intent.

Pre-attack indicators matter. Behavior during an attack matters. Actions during a potential withdrawal (or is it just tactical repositioning?) matter.

Where a firearm is pointed during an attack is just one of the behavioral clues a defender considers, all in a split second, to reach a reasonable conclusion about jeopardy.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Even when running or crawling away, an attacker can still point the gun behind them and shoot you. Cops have been shot this way.
Every situation is different and every person has to make thier own decisions. In the situation described earlier, attacker in my home but his gun is not pointed at me: He is a threat to my life until that gun is out of his hand. What I will do to effect that result may be different than what you do. I'm in reasonably good shape, I might try to kick it or grab it while keeping him covered with my weapon. I don't want my wife to take any risk attempting that. I want her to put bullets in him until he is no longer a threat. To each his own, but I don't find any fault in what that officer did. The guy was told to drop the weapon multiple times.

 

[Skribs]

Even when running or crawling away, an attacker can still point the gun behind them and shoot you. Cops have been shot this way.
Every situation is different and every person has to make thier own decisions. In the situation described earlier, attacker in my home but his gun is not pointed at me: He is a threat to my life until that gun is out of his hand. What I will do to effect that result may be different than what you do. I'm in reasonably good shape, I might try to kick it or grab it while keeping him covered with my weapon. I don't want my wife to take any risk attempting that. I want her to put bullets in him until he is no longer a threat. To each his own, but I don't find any fault in what that officer did. The guy was told to drop the weapon multiple times.

I would argue not just out of his hand, but also out of reasonable reach. Not necessarily immediate threat, but very near to it.

 

[Hartkopf]

How long does it take an average person (with just a little practice) to take a riffle from low ready to putting a hole in a near target? We can measure this and it’s been measured a million times but IMO, I put the number at one second.

If a bad guy is holding a rifle pointed at the ground, I count on him being able to deposit lead into my brain within 1 second. There are many other variables to any self defense situation but I keep this number in mind as a rule of thumb. Basically that bad guy(if truly deemed a bad guy) is a HUGE threat while holding a rifle pointed at the ground.

 

[Skribs]

How long does it take an average person (with just a little practice) to take a riffle from low ready to putting a hole in a near target? We can measure this and it’s been measured a million times but IMO, I put the number at one second.

If a bad guy is holding a rifle pointed at the ground, I count on him being able to deposit lead into my brain within 1 second. There are many other variables to any self defense situation but I keep this number in mind as a rule of thumb. Basically that bad guy(if truly deemed a bad guy) is a HUGE threat while holding a rifle pointed at the ground.

Conversely, average human reaction time is about 2 seconds (at least, that's what we learned in driver's ed). That's why you're supposed to leave a 2 second gap between you and the car ahead of you.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yeah, times change.
M. Ayoob was telling a different story in 1980, a nighttime intruder was then fair game.

You missed me. How has Mas changed his views?

 

[The Night Rider]

How long does it take an average person (with just a little practice) to take a riffle from low ready to putting a hole in a near target? We can measure this and it’s been measured a million times but IMO, I put the number at one second.

If a bad guy is holding a rifle pointed at the ground, I count on him being able to deposit lead into my brain within 1 second. There are many other variables to any self defense situation but I keep this number in mind as a rule of thumb. Basically that bad guy(if truly deemed a bad guy) is a HUGE threat while holding a rifle pointed at the ground.

The only metric that matters is "Faster than you can react."

 

[shafter]

The gun need not be pointed at someone. The situation will be judged by the totality of the circumstances. The demeanor and context of the particular incident will be important factors.

 

[Jim Watson]

You missed me. How has Mas changed his views?

If he hasn't changed his view, there are certainly a lot of more recent sources that disagree.

 

[Kleanbore]

If he hasn't changed his view, there are certainly a lot of more recent sources that disagree.

Can you expand on that?

 

[Jim Watson]

OK, a lot of the above posts are in the vein of if an intruder is not actually pointing a gun at you, you should not shoot him, just because he has a gun or one nearby.
In 1980 Ayoob said a nighttime intruder was fair game, set up and ambush him or whatever you want to do to him.

 

[JohnKSa]

That's interesting. I don't know of any state laws that predicate the use of deadly force in self-defense on the time of day. TX has a fairly unusual law that provides extra latitude for the defense of property if the certain crimes take place at night--but that's not really applicable here.

Is this something that was in his writings or a comment made in person?

 

[Kleanbore]

OK, a lot of the above posts are in the vein of if an intruder is not actually pointing a gun at you, you should not shoot him, just because he has a gun or one nearby.

I see none of that here.

In 1980 Ayoob said a nighttime intruder was fair game, set up and ambush him or whatever you want to do to him.

That does not sound like the Mas I know. I have heard him take to task student who said "in my state, the law says that if someone is in my house, I can shoot him".

 

[Tinker-S]

Even if they are Law Enforcement, if there were cameras to capture the event, if they acted questionable, somebody is going to get in trouble.
I do train with firearms, but, in the event of an intruder, first call 911 and barricade if possible. This things are traumatic events that will forever change people's lives, and I would do what it takes to avoid it. Mucho macho types are quick to say "If it was in my house, I would shoot the intruder to pieces". Good for the ones on that line of thinking. My freedom is much more valuable than my life.

 

[shafter]

Conversely, average human reaction time is about 2 seconds (at least, that's what we learned in driver's ed). That's why you're supposed to leave a 2 second gap between you and the car ahead of you.

Average human reaction time is about .23 seconds. That's just from observation and decision to react. The actual action itself may take longer.

 

[Dudedog]

My freedom is much more valuable than my life.

??
Not much freedom 6 feet underground in a box.
IF you don't think your life is in danger you probably shouldn't be shooting.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Even if they are Law Enforcement, if there were cameras to capture the event, if they acted questionable, somebody is going to get in trouble.
I do train with firearms, but, in the event of an intruder, first call 911 and barricade if possible. This things are traumatic events that will forever change people's lives, and I would do what it takes to avoid it. Mucho macho types are quick to say "If it was in my house, I would shoot the intruder to pieces". Good for the ones on that line of thinking. My freedom is much more valuable than my life.

I'm sure your advice sounds good to you, but not for me.

#1. The intruder changed both our lives when he made the decision to enter my home. There is no going back from that.

#2. When he broke into my home, he became a threat to my family and whoever else is there with me. I am responsible for thier protection as well, so thier safety trumps my fears about freedom.

#3 Watch some actual hone invasion video footage and tell me how much time the victims had to dial 911 or barricade themselves. Realistic response time for LE in my area is about 25min. That 911 call will be made after I have secured my home and neutralized the threat. I intend to be alive to see how my lawyers handle any mistakes I may have made.