View Full Version : Are You Still Willing To Shoot An Unarmed Attacker...?
Forgive the obviously related topic.
Just wondering if anyone has changed or modified their personal ROE when dealing with an unarmed, but violent attacker. Has the Zimmerman case made you rethink how you may deal with such a situation in the future.
And so there is no confusion, here is the criteria.
You are in a situation where you honestly believe that RIGHT NOW you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death.
Will you attempt to eliminate the threat of injury or death or will you now attempt to somehow escape the situation without shooting if you can? Will you attempt to fight off your attacker to make an escape without resorting to deadly force? Will you use a gun just as a threat in hopes of neutralizing the situation? Will you consider trying to just "wound or disable" your attacker in a way that you hope demonstrates a willingness to spare or preserve his life?
Are you now more afraid of being the next Zimmerman than you are of great bodily harm or imminent death?
montanadave
07-19-13, 23:25
Probably not a popular choice, but I'm going to try to escape any situation before I resort to using deadly force. For me, shooting someone with the intent of taking their life is the absolute last resort when no other option exists.
I know many feel differently and that's OK. I have to answer to my own conscience.
CarlosDJackal
07-19-13, 23:27
You are in a situation where you honestly believe that RIGHT NOW you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death.
Damn right. Given the above criteria, the standard for using lethal force in self-defense has been met.
Once the above level of threat is met, the time to escape has probably passed. If you were in WHITE so much that you could not see the threat coming, attempting to flee when you are in current and immediate danger is probably going to do you more harm than good. JM2CW.
decodeddiesel
07-19-13, 23:27
Nothing has changed for me. I would still make every attempt possible to fight back and get out of the situation before using deadly force.
Targeting anything other than center of mass in a critical situation is just foolish from my previous experience.
I always like to preface these things by saying that since I've never been in a situation even close to this, where someone wants to take my life or cause me great bodily harm, I can only speculate. That being said, I don't think I'd hesitate whatsoever (before being in that situation I'd try to find a workaround, but once there, its too late). The case made me think more about it than I had before, but did not change my opinion. Now whether I'd fire one shot or multiple, I'm not sure. I would guess that if I'm mounted and my head is being beaten and I'm on the verge of unconsciousness, I'm going to slam several rounds into him. Or her, potentially.
Alaskapopo
07-19-13, 23:35
Its always best to try and find a way to avoid having to take a human life. Lethal force should be a last resort not a first. That said there are factors that justify shooting unarmed attackers. Size, age, numbers etc.
Pat
I have a major issue with this entire subject Steyr and I am going to draw a ton of ire for my response to you but I figure this is a better place to put it then, say, the other threads...
I think Zimmerman was a pussy. A pathetic, little arm chair commando wannabe, and I am honestly quiet disgusted that he has become a kind of poster child for the stand your ground law... Quite frankly, if you can't physically defend yourself with your body (as in your BODY) against a scrawny ass teenager, then you shouldn't be physically confronting one at night, alone, with no back up. Just my two cents on all of that.
When I am no longer capable of defending myself against a lone, unarmed attacker with my mind, fists, and body I will not be confronting lone unarmed attackers in my spare time (and yes I work as a bouncer where confronting lone unarmed attackers is part of the job). I believe it is the responsibility of every citizen to know their abilities and adjust their behavior accordingly.
I won't tell an out of shape older individual to not go rock climbing without a rope, but if he falls and dies I will only blame him and him alone.
With that prologue now out of the way, No my philosophy has not changed. I will use deadly force when I feel my life is threatened. But I don't expect any sympathy, fan fair, or support from anyone if my stupid actions put me in that situation, and quit frankly I would expect to fry if I provoked the confrontation and ended up having to kill the person I lost a fight with.
The GZ case hasn't changed my philosophy at all regarding SD situations. I will always try to evade first before resorting to deadly force. As montanadave put it, you have to deal with your conscience afterward.
Probably not a popular choice, but I'm going to try to escape any situation before I resort to using deadly force. For me, shooting someone with the intent of taking their life is the absolute last resort when no other option exists.
I know many feel differently and that's OK. I have to answer to my own conscience.
I understand that desire. But keep in mind the situation is RIGHT NOW. This isn't during the lead up to events. But RIGHT NOW you honestly believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death.
Its always best to try and find a way to avoid having to take a human life. Lethal force should be a last resort not a first. That said there are factors that justify shooting unarmed attackers. Size, age, numbers etc.
Pat
Is it your opinion that being at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death hasn't brought you to that last resort?
Keep in mind we aren't discussing situational awareness or any other preventative actions or any lead up factors. You are simply in a situation where you honestly believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death and you are armed.
You are in a situation where you honestly believe that RIGHT NOW you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death.
I am not really worried about this scenario. Let's face it, GZ was pretty much a doughy punk-ass. I am more or less a nasty mo-fo. I have good stand-up and even better Ju-Jitsu. It is unlikely I have anything to worry about from a 17yo.
If the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
To quote MC Ren of NWA - "The police are going to have come and get me off your ass, that's how I'm going out."
If I have to use deadly force there will be no doubt as to what happened. GZ got hemmed up because it was not immediately clear that he did the right thing.
I have a major issue with this entire subject Steyr and I am going to draw a ton of ire for my response to you but I figure this is a better place to put it then, say, the other threads...
I think Zimmerman was a pussy. A pathetic, little arm chair commando wannabe, and I am honestly quiet disgusted that he has become a kind of poster child for the stand your ground law... Quite frankly, if you can't physically defend yourself with your body (as in your BODY) against a scrawny ass teenager, then you shouldn't be physically confronting one at night, alone, with no back up. Just my two cents on all of that.
When I am no longer capable of defending myself against a lone, unarmed attacker with my mind, fists, and body I will not be confronting lone unarmed attackers in my spare time (and yes I work as a bouncer where confronting lone unarmed attackers is part of the job). I believe it is the responsibility of every citizen to know their abilities and adjust their behavior accordingly.
I won't tell an out of shape older individual to not go rock climbing without a rope, but if he falls and dies I will only blame him and him alone.
With that prologue now out of the way, No my philosophy has not changed. I will use deadly force when I feel my life is threatened. But I don't expect any sympathy, fan fair, or support from anyone if my stupid actions put me in that situation, and quit frankly I would expect to fry if I provoked the confrontation and ended up having to kill the person I lost a fight with.
Well we aren't presenting a scenario where you are Zimmerman.
We are discussing YOU in your own scenario. And even if you choose to not confront anyone. What if they have confronted you? What if they have simply mistaken YOU for the person who they believe raped their girlfriend and you are NOW at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death and you are armed.
I am not really worried about this scenario. Let's face it, GZ was pretty much a doughy punk-ass. I am more or less a nasty mo-fo. I have good stand-up and even better Ju-Jitsu. It is unlikely I have anything to worry about from a 17yo.
If the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
To quote MC Ren of NWA - "The police are going to have come and get me off your ass, that's how I'm going out."
If I have to use deadly force there will be no doubt as to what happened. GZ got hemmed up because it was not immediately clear that he did the right thing.
Again, I'm not putting you in the Zimmerman scenario.
I'm putting you in a scenario where your attacker is more than capable and you are NOW at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death. For you that means you just realized you are fighting somebody or about to be attacked by somebody with much greater skill than you possess and you honestly believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death.
We are discussing YOU in your own scenario.
In my own scenario the guy(s) are armed and in my house so deadly force will be on open and shut case.
GZ was writing checks his ass couldn't cash. Don't start shit - won't be shit. GZ sought out an encounter and got one. THEN, he had to use deadly force to extract himself from his initial **** up.
Most normal people involved in self defense are actually minding their own business and are forced to defend themselves. Zimmerman's problems stem from him NOT having a clear cut case of self defense. Most people will not have this problem.
In my own scenario the guy(s) are armed and in my house so deadly force will be on open and shut case.
GZ was writing checks his ass couldn't cash. Don't start shit - won't be shit. GZ sought out an encounter and got one. THEN, he had to use deadly force to extract himself from his initial **** up.
Most normal people involved in self defense are actually minding their own business and are forced to defend themselves. Zimmerman's problems stem from him NOT having a clear cut case of self defense. Most people will not have this problem.
Please stop altering the scenario.
Please stop adding the Zimmerman scenario.
The scenario is YOU (alone) find yourself dealing with an unarmed but violent attacker and you are NOW in a situation where you honestly believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death.
Under those conditions and in THAT SCENARIO ONLY...are YOU willing to shoot an unarmed attacker to eliminate the threat of great bodily harm or imminent death?
Well we aren't presenting a scenario where you are Zimmerman.
We are discussing YOU in your own scenario. And even if you choose to not confront anyone. What if they have confronted you? What if they have simply mistaken YOU for the person who they believe raped their girlfriend and you are NOW at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death and you are armed.
My vote was given your scenario, Yes...
It was never really a question in my mind, it is part of my philosophy and my entire being (the right to self determination), the Zimmerman case didn't come close to even rattling the walls of this philosophy. I am armed every day of my life, and I am capable of killing to defend myself if need be. I don't think such a "philosophy" should be something that is "dabbled" in, it needs to be a commitment and if something as simple as a jack ass who did something unethical and stupid shakes that, well then, you shouldn't be carrying a weapon because you don't understand yourself enough...
I will never actively seek harm. I will always reserve the right to defend myself.
But, I still think Zimmerman is a tool and doesn't deserve the support he is getting.
Nightvisionary
07-20-13, 00:35
I am not really worried about this scenario. Let's face it, GZ was pretty much a doughy punk-ass. I am more or less a nasty mo-fo. I have good stand-up and even better Ju-Jitsu. It is unlikely I have anything to worry about from a 17yo.
If the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
To quote MC Ren of NWA - "The police are going to have come and get me off your ass, that's how I'm going out."
If I have to use deadly force there will be no doubt as to what happened. GZ got hemmed up because it was not immediately clear that he did the right thing.
If you are doing a ground and pound with a CCW holstered pistol on your hip you are doing it wrong. Cops can get away with this, sometimes, because they have level three retention holsters, a radio, a uniform and badge, back up, and other defensive tools.
If you go to the ground your opponent now has access to a firearm regardless of how good you think you are.
Alaskapopo
07-20-13, 00:41
Is it your opinion that being at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death hasn't brought you to that last resort?
Keep in mind we aren't discussing situational awareness or any other preventative actions or any lead up factors. You are simply in a situation where you honestly believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death and you are armed.
What I am saying is you should avoid putting yourself in those situations. Like I said if you read my post there are times when lethal force is justified against unarmed attackers. Zimmerman was in such a situation. My problem with his situation however is he brought it on himself by confronting Martin but that is another thread. We should not be looking to end other peoples lives and should avoid lethal force if at all possible. Just a little over 2 weeks ago I was in a fight with a suspect who was trying to do the best his could to hurt me by punching, elbowing, hair pulling etc. Somehow I managed to subdue him without shooting him.
Pat
What I am saying is you should avoid putting yourself in those situations. Like I said if you read my post there are times when lethal force is justified against unarmed attackers. Zimmerman was in such a situation. My problem with his situation however is he brought it on himself by confronting Martin but that is another thread. We should not be looking to end other peoples lives and should avoid lethal force if at all possible. Just a little over 2 weeks ago I was in a fight with a suspect who was trying to do the best his could to hurt me by punching, elbowing, hair pulling etc. Somehow I managed to subdue him without shooting him.
Pat
I don't disagree. But again this isn't about Zimmerman.
I purposely didn't even present a "why did it happen" or "what could have been done to avoid it" lead in. This discussion isn't about situation awareness or prevention. I also suspect that when dealing with your attacker two weeks ago you honestly didn't believe you were at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death regardless of his intentions. I'm not talking about shooting somebody in a situation where you know or believe you can handle or control the situation without having to resort to lethal force.
There are people I believe I can control but I understand other people might have to shoot the same person due to disparity of force issues. And Mike Tyson might be able to manage people that I believe I'd have to shoot. But again that isn't the point of this discussion.
This discussion is if (for reasons unknown to you) you find yourself dealing with an unarmed but violent attacker and RIGHT NOW you honestly believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death will you shoot that unarmed attacker to eliminate the threat or will you try and do something else to avoid the possibility of facing a trial where you shot an unarmed attacker?
MountainRaven
07-20-13, 00:55
I voted with montanadave (and others) before the scenario was clarified. Escape, evasion, de-escalation, &c., &c., &c.
That being the case, all options except number one are f___ing stupid.
Everyone knows there is no shooting to wound and firearms are not signaling devices.
If you're in a situation where grave bodily harm/death is imminent, it's too late to escape. Your choices are kill to be killed.
If you're in a situation where grave bodily harm/death is imminent, it's too late to escape. Your choices are kill to be killed.
That is why I asked who is still willing to risk grave bodily harm or death to prevent having to use deadly force against an unarmed attacker. Some people seem to be indicating a willingness to attempt alternatives like fighting a person who is more than capable of causing great bodily injury or death.
I think the Zimmerman case highlights the need for the armed citizen to try to avoid situations that have the potential to escalate into violence whenever you safely can do so.
Leaving the safety of your car to go looking for a suspicious person is not an example of this.
You have no idea who you might encounter, what their background is, what they might do, or how dangerous they might be.
If Zimmerman's situation had involved someone who was not from around there who had a 20 year record of being in and out of prison; who had just burglarized a neighborhood house it would have been much different than had it involved a 17 year old kid who was staying in the neighborhood--even though that kid may have circled around and jumped him, knocked him down, and proceeded to ground and pound him and put Zimmmerman in fear of death or serious bodily injury.
You don't get to choose who the person is.
But sometimes you do get to choose whether you will enter into an unknown situation that has the potential to escalate to violence.
As a wise retired LEO friend said, "you want to be seen as a victim, not a participant or an instigator." You don't want to be seen as doing anything that instigated or escalated the conflict.
One common denominator I've noticed in some people who have gotten in trouble for defensive shootings is that they left the safety of their home or their vehicle to search for or to confront someone.
I think the Zimmerman case highlights the need for the armed citizen to try to avoid situations that have the potential to escalate into violence whenever you safely can do so.
Leaving the safety of your car to go looking for a suspicious person is not an example of this.
You have no idea who you might encounter, what their background is, what they might do, or how dangerous they might be.
If Zimmerman's situation had involved someone who was not from around there who had a 20 year record of being in and out of prison; who had just burglarized a neighborhood house it would have been much different than had it involved a 17 year old kid who was staying in the neighborhood--even though that kid may have circled around and jumped him, knocked him down, and proceeded to ground and pound him and put Zimmmerman in fear of death or serious bodily injury.
You don't get to choose who the person is.
But sometimes you do get to choose whether you will enter into an unknown situation that has the potential to escalate to violence.
As a wise retired LEO friend said, "you want to be seen as a victim, not a participant or an instigator." You don't want to be seen as doing anything that instigated or escalated the conflict.
One common denominator I've noticed in some people who have gotten in trouble for defensive shootings is that they left the safety of their home or their vehicle to search for or to confront someone.
I don't think many disagree with that. And we've had that discussion numerous times on this forum for a reason.
But that isn't what I'm talking about and sometimes, through no fault of your own, regardless of how prepared you believe you are, trouble still manages to find people with little or no warning.
This is the scenario we are discussing. It's here, it's now and it's not going away and getting worse. Is anyone now hesitant to use lethal force in a situation that deems it out of fear of legal repercussions?
"I would fire a warning shot"
Never ever do this. Haven't we all seen enough news articles about people who that getting arrested?
Just remember that when you get sucker punched or hit in the back of the head and knocked to the ground.
I have a major issue with this entire subject Steyr and I am going to draw a ton of ire for my response to you but I figure this is a better place to put it then, say, the other threads...
I think Zimmerman was a pussy. A pathetic, little arm chair commando wannabe, and I am honestly quiet disgusted that he has become a kind of poster child for the stand your ground law... Quite frankly, if you can't physically defend yourself with your body (as in your BODY) against a scrawny ass teenager, then you shouldn't be physically confronting one at night, alone, with no back up. Just my two cents on all of that.
When I am no longer capable of defending myself against a lone, unarmed attacker with my mind, fists, and body I will not be confronting lone unarmed attackers in my spare time (and yes I work as a bouncer where confronting lone unarmed attackers is part of the job). I believe it is the responsibility of every citizen to know their abilities and adjust their behavior accordingly.
I won't tell an out of shape older individual to not go rock climbing without a rope, but if he falls and dies I will only blame him and him alone.
With that prologue now out of the way, No my philosophy has not changed. I will use deadly force when I feel my life is threatened. But I don't expect any sympathy, fan fair, or support from anyone if my stupid actions put me in that situation, and quit frankly I would expect to fry if I provoked the confrontation and ended up having to kill the person I lost a fight with.
jklaughrey
07-20-13, 01:52
Life is an ever constant struggle between static and dynamic exchanges. Every situation will vary, every response and outcome shall be different. But if we are going with just singular variables that I'm going to die if I don't act, well I doubletap. Maybe one more to the face for good measure.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
But that isn't what I'm talking about and sometimes, through no fault of your own, regardless of how prepared you believe you are, trouble still manages to find people with little or no warning.
I agree with that completely! Some people out there read certain books or adopt certain strategies/outlooks and believe they are immune from what you described above. I think this is unrealistic and wishful thinking on their part.
This is the scenario we are discussing. It's here, it's now and it's not going away and getting worse. Is anyone now hesitant to use lethal force in a situation that deems it out of fear of legal repercussions?
I would imagine most people are at least a bit more hesitant to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker.
To me the fact that you did everything to avoid a confrontation or a situation that has the potential to turn violent puts you in a better situation if you do have to use deadly physical force or even physical force.
It comes down to the specifics of your situation, what the law is in your area, and how well you can articulate your reason for employing deadly physical force. Also studying crime and violence allows you to recognize situations quicker and act sooner, if need be; as well as to articulate the need to have done so.
Forgive the obviously related topic.
Just wondering if anyone has changed or modified their personal ROE when dealing with an unarmed, but violent attacker. Has the Zimmerman case made you rethink how you may deal with such a situation in the future.
And so there is no confusion, here is the criteria.
You are in a situation where you honestly believe that RIGHT NOW you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death.
Will you attempt to eliminate the threat of injury or death or will you now attempt to somehow escape the situation without shooting if you can? Will you attempt to fight off your attacker to make an escape without resorting to deadly force? Will you use a gun just as a threat in hopes of neutralizing the situation? Will you consider trying to just "wound or disable" your attacker in a way that you hope demonstrates a willingness to spare or preserve his life?
I will give anyone threatening me exactly one verbal warning before I shoot to stop.
Right now I'm in such terrible physical condition due to my recent lower back surgery that a 10 yr old kid who stays inside all day to play pokemon could probably take me in a fist fight.
However, even without being really fragile right now, I'd still give one warning before shooting. It's impossible to know if he's closing to shank me or just get into an unarmed fight, and open hand vs a knife has retarded bad odds even if the knife wielder has no skill at all. Someone else having a concealed weapon is only known with hindsight... Or if they're naked I guess.
If a naked guy attacked me with fists... **** that I'd shoot first. That Florida bath salt zombie cannibal was naked.
montanadave
07-20-13, 04:46
I understand that desire. But keep in mind the situation is RIGHT NOW. This isn't during the lead up to events. But RIGHT NOW you honestly believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death.
That's the problem with writing scenarios. Everyone starts parsing the words and lending their own interpretation. Hell, I believe I'm "at risk ..." when I pull my truck onto the road and have someone I don't even know barreling towards me at 75 mph.
But I get your drift. If it's "right now" then, by my reckoning, we've crossed the rubicon. I'm not gonna start street brawling at my age. If I'm in fear for my life, I'm going to defend myself with the most effective means at my disposal. If that's a gun, then I will use it with the intention of removing the threat as expeditiously as possible.
Alaskapopo
07-20-13, 05:05
I don't disagree. But again this isn't about Zimmerman.
I purposely didn't even present a "why did it happen" or "what could have been done to avoid it" lead in. This discussion isn't about situation awareness or prevention. I also suspect that when dealing with your attacker two weeks ago you honestly didn't believe you were at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death regardless of his intentions. I'm not talking about shooting somebody in a situation where you know or believe you can handle or control the situation without having to resort to lethal force.
There are people I believe I can control but I understand other people might have to shoot the same person due to disparity of force issues. And Mike Tyson might be able to manage people that I believe I'd have to shoot. But again that isn't the point of this discussion.
This discussion is if (for reasons unknown to you) you find yourself dealing with an unarmed but violent attacker and RIGHT NOW you honestly believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death will you shoot that unarmed attacker to eliminate the threat or will you try and do something else to avoid the possibility of facing a trial where you shot an unarmed attacker?
I have no problem shooting an unarmed attacker in the right circumstances (legal justifications)
Pat
I'm too old to be brawling any more.
I'll evade the situation if at all possible. If not, and I feel that this person could cause me great bodily harm, at a minimum, he's getting ventilated.
Magic_Salad0892
07-20-13, 06:54
Right now I'm in such terrible physical condition due to my recent lower back surgery that a 10 yr old kid who stays inside all day to play pokemon could probably take me in a fist fight..
Good to know I could've taken you out when I was a kid. :p
ForTehNguyen
07-20-13, 07:07
better to be judged by 6/12 than carried by 6
I understand that desire. But keep in mind the situation is RIGHT NOW. This isn't during the lead up to events. But RIGHT NOW you honestly believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death.
Then you can't even ask your 2nd and 3rd questions. The only questions you can ask are shoot or die. Your questions suggest there at least has to be time to consider life preservation beyond killing the threat.
Hand from behind on your shoulder with a knife in other hand is right now.
You sitting in your running car, free to move, with a guy across the parking lot screaming I'm going to kill you MF that starts to run toward you.
Both are right now
"I would fire a warning shot or try and just wound my attacker."
I no you didn't! :D:rolleyes::D
If it was to the point where I felt permanent bodily damage or death would incur it would then that means it was some pretty serious shit going down,then yes I would. While I could probably outrun most any attacker for a ways, I would never turn my back to them because you never know if they really are unarmed or not.
Quite frankly, if you can't physically defend yourself with your body (as in your BODY) against a scrawny ass teenager, then you shouldn't be physically confronting one at night, alone, with no back up.
But according to the evidence, that never happened. In fact the evidence and testimony stated that the scrawny ass kid confronted and attacked someone for no good reason at all.
Please stop altering the scenario.
Please stop adding the Zimmerman scenario.
The scenario is YOU (alone) find yourself dealing with an unarmed but violent attacker and you are NOW in a situation where you honestly believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or imminent death.
Under those conditions and in THAT SCENARIO ONLY...are YOU willing to shoot an unarmed attacker to eliminate the threat of great bodily harm or imminent death?
Thanks for clearing that up (honestly). Ok, so here is a my most likely real world response:
Since I generally do not carry a gun it is unlikely I will shoot somebody outside on the street. If I did feel the need to use a weapon, these days I mostly carry a Cold Steel Ti-Lite. And, I can assure you I would use it long before I became overwhelmed. Most likely it would be in my hand before we made contact and I would attack him before he had a chance to do anything decisive to me. The prefered technique in this situation is the prison style shanking. Something along the lines of pit bull meets sewing machine. Thus the term 'stitched up'. Very few people are mentally prepare to fight for their life at a moments notice. Quite frankly, in my experience, the "element" is really not prepared to meet determined resistance.
Never the less, dead men tell no tales and there will only be one version of events (as in the Zimmerman case).
Once I had to beat a guy with an ASP baton. It was New Years and I was wearing a tux. I really didn't feel like rolling around with a dirt bag. He started moving on my wife and I didn't give him a chance to reach her. He limped away with a broken shoulder and collar bone. My wife and I went home laughing about it. The way to survive a violent encounter is to meet it with a greater and often disproportional level of violence.
When keepin' it real goes wrong...
I think the Zimmerman case highlights the need for the armed citizen to try to avoid situations that have the potential to escalate into violence whenever you safely can do so.
Bingo!
A gun is like a seat belt. It may save your life after a crash but you do not go around looking to crash into things just because you are wearing your seat belt.
Five_Point_Five_Six
07-20-13, 09:51
I will always try to evade danger first, but when not possible and I fear serious bodily injury or death, I'm sending lead aspirins their way.
Probably not a popular choice, but I'm going to try to escape any situation before I resort to using deadly force. For me, shooting someone with the intent of taking their life is the absolute last resort when no other option exists.
I know many feel differently and that's OK. I have to answer to my own conscience.
This. Just because its legal doesnt mean it's the right response. Every situation is different.
Zero good can come from answering a poll like this in a public permanently logged arena.
Army Chief
07-20-13, 10:31
Evade, if possible. Your scenario seems to preclude this to some degree by the immediacy and severity of the danger, but if I am not forced to engage, I would surely prefer not to. The cocksure bravado notwithstanding, you cannot undo such a thing after it is done. That doesn't mean that I have a moral problem with taking the shot, but rather that I would want it to be the last available option for the sake of my own conscience.
AC
That's the problem with writing scenarios. Everyone starts parsing the words and lending their own interpretation. Hell, I believe I'm "at risk ..." when I pull my truck onto the road and have someone I don't even know barreling towards me at 75 mph.
But I get your drift. If it's "right now" then, by my reckoning, we've crossed the rubicon. I'm not gonna start street brawling at my age. If I'm in fear for my life, I'm going to defend myself with the most effective means at my disposal. If that's a gun, then I will use it with the intention of removing the threat as expeditiously as possible.
That's what I'm getting at. But despite what has been established as the rules of escalation and lethal force for decades, a significant number of people are now second guessing such things even though they exist as a result of a pattern of experiences.
As a result of this self defense shooting being turned into a "show trial" a lot of people who have been taught "what to do and when" are now going to hesitate.
Then you can't even ask your 2nd and 3rd questions. The only questions you can ask are shoot or die. Your questions suggest there at least has to be time to consider life preservation beyond killing the threat.
Hand from behind on your shoulder with a knife in other hand is right now.
You sitting in your running car, free to move, with a guy across the parking lot screaming I'm going to kill you MF that starts to run toward you.
Both are right now
There are many situations where somebody is within 10 feet but hasn't struck you yet but their intentions are very clear and disparity of force issues put you at risk RIGHT NOW.
You could attempt either of the other two options and instead of firing a center mass shot to stop your attacker you could point the gun and hope to scare him off, fire a warning shot, attempt to wound him or even enter into a fight with the hopes of David prevailing over Goliath.
But according to the evidence, that never happened. In fact the evidence and testimony stated that the scrawny ass kid confronted and attacked someone for no good reason at all.
Can we PLEASE not transplant my topic to the Zimmerman case specifically. If you want to discuss that, go do it on a Zimmerman topic.
This isn't about the Zimmerman case except to the extent that it might influence your reaction in a scenario you find yourself in.
Zero good can come from answering a poll like this in a public permanently logged arena.
I completely disagree.
I think it's an important question to ask because it seems from many answers that the Zimmerman case will have a lot of people second guessing themselves in a situation where they are at risk of great bodily injury and imminent death.
The established rules of escalation and lethal force were created for a reason. And now quite a few people are going to try and find an Answer B to solve their problem. And a lot of them are going to suffer for it.
I think the Zimmerman case is going to get a lot of people killed who didn't have to die.
Moose-Knuckle
07-20-13, 14:52
I think the new SOP should be to dig a hole and just before you stick your head into it lube up your anus with a water based lubricant.
If the threat is imminent and there is no way for me to deescalate the situation or fall back then it is going to be a bad day for everyone, just worse for others. Some people tend to forget that unarmed does not mean harmless. I've worked in martial arts for most of my life and can kill your ass just as quick with my hands at close range as most can with a gun. Also knowing what I do know in regards to combatives at close range unless you are pumping bullets into my ass or know what you are doing holding a gun on me at close range may be a worse idea then not being armed at all. And I know I am not the only one who trains in disarming others. Add in that weapons of one form or another are easily concealed just because they appear unarmed does not mean that they are. Also, at least where I am at now, and I believe around a good portion of the rest of the country there is the issue of not whether the attacker was armed but whether he was precieved to be armed. Basically there are a **** ton of variables. However, if I am in a situation where I feel I can not retreat, and I have been in that situation in the past, and that I am going to be in danger of extreme harm in short order, again everyone is having a bad day, but I am going to do my damnest to walk away from it.
Grand58742
07-20-13, 16:53
Coming from a guy who's had use of force training beat into his head for twenty years now.
I think you are missing a significant option in your responses. There should be a fourth option of "I would use deadly force if no other means of force are possible or cannot be employed without putting myself at risk of receiving death or serious bodily harm."
There are just too many conditional factors to warrant a "this answer fits all scenarios" kind of poll. I have to take into account the following items:
Intent of subject of causing me great harm or death
Capability of subject of causing me great harm or death
Opportunity of subject of causing me great harm or death
And of course, the totality of circumstances and personal risk perception of the encounter will be taken into account. And whether or not I have lesser means of force available to me that can be employed to subdue said subject prior to employment of lethal force. It's a good training method to use on both sides, on and off duty. Biggest thing here is the mindset I have of "take the bad guy off the street." That's the cop talking. I can't just run away to fight another day (although I did pick that option in your poll) or let said individual go attack someone else. So the mindset is to take him or her out of the fight and wait for back up or in this case, first responders.
I'm not going to get into the thousands of variables of the situation that could be a factor or try to apply your poll to the Zimmerman case. But if I have lesser means of force available, I will use them prior to resorting to deadly force. A But sometimes, all methods will fail and one will have to resort to immediate lethal force even on an unarmed attacker. All situations could end up with deadly force employment, but it should always be a last resort to hostile intents.
For me, this is the cop talking. There does need to be that fourth option included for a complete poll.
Coming from a guy who's had use of force training beat into his head for twenty years now.
I think you are missing a significant option in your responses. There should be a fourth option of "I would use deadly force if no other means of force are possible or cannot be employed without putting myself at risk of receiving death or serious bodily harm."
That is covered by the poll question itself.
"You Believe You Are At Imminent Risk Of Great Bodily Injury Or Death..."
That is the RIGHT NOW situation. Yet it seems some here are willing to risk serious bodily harm and death in order to not have to shoot an unarmed attacker.
Coming from a guy who's had use of force training beat into his head for twenty years now.
I think you are missing a significant option in your responses. There should be a fourth option of "I would use deadly force if no other means of force are possible or cannot be employed without putting myself at risk of receiving death or serious bodily harm."
There are just too many conditional factors to warrant a "this answer fits all scenarios" kind of poll. I have to take into account the following items:
Intent of subject of causing me great harm or death
Capability of subject of causing me great harm or death
Opportunity of subject of causing me great harm or death
And of course, the totality of circumstances and personal risk perception of the encounter will be taken into account. And whether or not I have lesser means of force available to me that can be employed to subdue said subject prior to employment of lethal force. It's a good training method to use on both sides, on and off duty. Biggest thing here is the mindset I have of "take the bad guy off the street." That's the cop talking. I can't just run away to fight another day (although I did pick that option in your poll) or let said individual go attack someone else. So the mindset is to take him or her out of the fight and wait for back up or in this case, first responders.
I'm not going to get into the thousands of variables of the situation that could be a factor or try to apply your poll to the Zimmerman case. But if I have lesser means of force available, I will use them prior to resorting to deadly force. A But sometimes, all methods will fail and one will have to resort to immediate lethal force even on an unarmed attacker. All situations could end up with deadly force employment, but it should always be a last resort to hostile intents.
For me, this is the cop talking. There does need to be that fourth option included for a complete poll.
I think for the non-LEO, using less-than lethal force would seem to be risky legally, especially if lethal force is used later in the incident.
It may be seen as escalation, and I could see it being used against you to assert that you didn't believe you needed to use lethal force at first.
Grand58742
07-20-13, 18:38
That is covered by the poll question itself.
"You Believe You Are At Imminent Risk Of Great Bodily Injury Or Death..."
That is the RIGHT NOW situation. Yet it seems some here are willing to risk serious bodily harm and death in order to not have to shoot an unarmed attacker.
But again, have all lesser means failed or cannot be employed?
I'm not willing to risk serious bodily harm or death, especially if I'm carrying a firearm and I'm facing an unarmed opponent. If I fail, I've now armed them. Tueller Drill comes into play here big time.
But there still is that gray area between your options. Do you have lesser means available and are proficient in their use (hand to hand, knife, hey, maybe you are in a Lowes and start jobbing the guy up with a toilet plunger) or are firearms your only option? Would the guy stop at presentation or do you have to continue the act?
Unfortunately if you start shoehorning your answers into absolutes, you end up with the same things the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial try to prove. They were leaning towards the whole "your life really wasn't in danger and you didn't have to shoot" and ignored the perception of the individual in danger. In use of force encounters, there are no absolutes and thousands of variables that have to be taken into account. I have to be able to say to investigators, judges, lawyers and juries:
"I used all lesser means of force available to me at the time and perceived my risk of seriously bodily harm or death so I employed deadly force"
or
"there was no time to employ lesser means of force and I believed the subject constituted a threat of serious bodily harm or death to myself and would have posed a significant threat to others had they been able to garner control of my firearm so I employed lethal force."
If push comes to shove and I cannot employ less than lethal means and I believe the subject would present a greater threat if they were armed with my weapon, then yes, I would not hesitate to use deadly force on an unarmed attacker. However, there are too many variables for a one size fits all scenario. There isn't the logical choice of "I would shoot an unarmed attacker after all other means of less than lethal force have failed or cannot be employed."
Grand58742
07-20-13, 18:41
I think for the non-LEO, using less-than lethal force would seem to be risky legally, especially if lethal force is used later in the incident.
It may be seen as escalation, and I could see it being used against you to assert that you didn't believe you needed to use lethal force at first.
Not necessarily. Say for instance your opponent is on drugs and is not affected by less than lethal means. And again, if they gain control of a firearm, what threat to they constitute to others? That's where the totality of circumstances come into play and you best hope you have good investigators from the LEO side turning over all stones and making sure all evidence is accounted for.
Variables are key whether you are a civilian or a LEO/.mil.
Let me give you the simple answer and not beat around the bush...If I feel I have no other choice, I am going to do my best to not hesitate and shoot center of mass. Now having said that, almost EVERYBODY who has any conscience is going to hesitate a little. I am not going to worry about the consequences til later IF I survive. Hesitation and self-doubt will get you killed.
Probably not a popular choice, but I'm going to try to escape any situation before I resort to using deadly force. For me, shooting someone with the intent of taking their life is the absolute last resort when no other option exists.
I know many feel differently and that's OK. I have to answer to my own conscience.
I think you are exactly where you should be: avoid as much as a reasonable person would and be able to articulate such.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
But again, have all lesser means failed or cannot be employed?
That is typically a question that can never truly be answered at the time.
This is why we moved away from the "shoot him in the leg" or "shoot the gun out of his hand" nonsense.
You are in a situation where serious bodily harm or death is IMMINENT. That means the conditions exist for it to happen at any moment. From that point on NOBODY knows the future of the outcome.
You might get killed before you even get your hands on your weapon.
You might get in a lucky strike that disables your attacker.
You might yell "Look out for Michael Jackson" and distract your attacker long enough to make a run for it.
You might pull off your belt and start whipping it around like Bruce Lee with a pair of nunchaku and convince your attacker that you are insane and he back off.
This might happen, that might happen...maybe, maybe, maybe.
Everyone seems to want guarantees, guess what? You are going to probably die waiting to identify them. You aren't going to receive a signed affidavit from your attacker informing you that he is a genuine threat and means to severely injure and / or kill you and that you will need to shoot him in order to prevent his actions.
This is why we have basic criteria such as "YOU BELIEVE" you are at risk of serious bodily injury or death.
In reality there are only two choices:
1. Take a decisive action where you attempt to eliminate the threat of injury or death with the use of deadly force.
2. Take your chances with some form of alternative method to neutralize or eliminate the threat that may or may not be successful.
And lots of people say "You will know if you ever need to shoot somebody and if you don't know, then you probably don't have to."
Just one problem with things like that, and that is all the people who died with a gun in their hand because they didn't accurately assess the situation or were still waiting for the "I'll know when the time comes" realization.
In things like this everyone wants absolutes, and this is also why everyone monday morning quarterbacks. "He should have done this, he should have done that." Problem is it can be hard to assess the "big picture" situation from the center, especially if you didn't see it developing.
And all the "shoulda, coulda and woulda" won't help if you are now unconscious because you didn't want to be the next Zimmerman.
People in this country are talking about revising or eliminating "stand your ground" laws and returning to the days where victims are "required by law" to attempt to escape from their attackers regardless of if such attempts put them at additional risk which will likely cost them their lives.
Well we need to borrow a phrase from the Abortion Rights crowd.
NEVER AGAIN!
Never again should the law abiding be forced to carry the legal burden and responsibility for criminals who attack us.
Never again should we be forced to avoid a public place that we have every right to be because violent criminals also like being there.
Never again should we be forced to accept violence and try and "gauge" the severity of the attack before we are allowed to stop the attack with deadly force.
Doesn't matter if you are black, white or whatever. This isn't a race issue. This is a "I refuse to be a victim" issue.
I think you are exactly where you should be: avoid as much as a reasonable person would and be able to articulate such.
You are blindsided by a skinhead who has stuck you from behind. RIGHT NOW you have ever reason to believe he intends to continue with the attack resulting in serious bodily injury or death.
You are also armed. You are going to do what right now?
Grand58742
07-20-13, 22:45
That is typically a question that can never truly be answered at the time.<snipped for length>
I don't disagree with you on a lot of the points you made, but I'm also looking at it from a long term standpoint. We just saw in the Zimmerman trial how the prosecution tried to bring up every conceivable act he could have done to avoid deadly force. Although it failed, it did show just how far a prosecution will go to try to sew doubt into your story and attempt to show the use of deadly force wasn't authorized even when you clearly state it was your only recourse. Even if you had six hours of karate training at the local YMCA when you were eight years old, they can and most likely will try to use that against you to discredit you.
Biggest thing is to train. Start looking at possible scenarios and likely outcomes. Develop the analytical mindset and use the OODA loop. Sometimes lethal force is the only force that could be used, even on an unarmed attacker. That's why the training classes are extremely important.
Second biggest thing is to make sure you don't speak without counsel present in the aftermath as well as making sure you have a Pro-2A lawyer that supports SYG laws. Additionally, your statement should clearly state how you perceived the situation and felt lesser means of force weren't applicable and why.
Doesn't matter if you are black, white or whatever. This isn't a race issue. This is a "I refuse to be a victim" issue.
Don't recall where I brought race into this at...?
I don't disagree with you on a lot of the points you made, but I'm also looking at it from a long term standpoint. We just saw in the Zimmerman trial how the prosecution tried to bring up every conceivable act he could have done to avoid deadly force.
And that is the entire point of this post, how much it has changed the accepted standards for "deadly force" even among the members of this forum.
Don't recall where I brought race into this at...?
You never did, it was a point I was making just in case there was anybody who wasn't sure where I was coming from.
If I'm in immediate reasonable and articulable fear of death or great bodily harm, I'm going to light them up. If in doubt, I'm going to do everything in my power to break contact and regroup from a secure location. If that means I have to run like my head was on fire and my ass was catching, so be it.
I can catch my breath a lot faster than I can clear a post shooting investigation. :)
NeoNeanderthal
07-20-13, 23:00
Everyone knows that the reason most people are pissed about treyvon is not because he was unarmed, its because he was black.
This case has made me realize that i better be even more sure that it is APPARENT that i am in fear for my life, if my attacker is black. Other wise i will be labeled a racist in court/media.
I live in nh my high school had 1.5 black people out of 1200. I can't parade any black family members or friends around to "prove" i'm not a racist...because i don't have any. (because there are none here!)
Grand58742
07-20-13, 23:34
Everyone knows that the reason most people are pissed about treyvon is not because he was unarmed, its because he was black.
Actually, people are pissed because they were looking for a reason to be pissed and because the race baiters are keeping tensions high.
Different topic, different thread though.
The story would have never made headline status in Tx and reached the level if stupidity that it did therefore I don't worry. Florida is one of those largely divided states between left, right, liberal, conservative, ghetto etc.... Seeing as the local police didn't feel the need to press criminal charges at the time of the incident should say enough. The "race chasers" and liberal media changed that judgement call.
The story would have never made headline status in Tx and reached the level if stupidity that it did therefore I don't worry. Florida is one of those largely divided states between left, right, liberal, conservative, ghetto etc.... Seeing as the local police didn't feel the need to press criminal charges at the time of the incident should say enough. The "race chasers" and liberal media changed that judgement call.
If I'm not mistaken I do believe FL was first with the Stand Your Ground law in the nation. Now certainly we have a share of ****tards like Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
But I doubt very much TX would find itself immune. In fact I can probably guess who would lead the charge.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Sheila_Jackson-Lee.jpg
The_War_Wagon
07-21-13, 05:42
I have a wife and four Autistic children counting on me. Gameplan IS:
ME - 1
BG - 0
The story would have never made headline status in Tx and reached the level if stupidity that it did therefore I don't worry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
Horn was ultimately no billed.
The story would have never made headline status in Tx and reached the level if stupidity that it did therefore I don't worry.
Already happened, sort of. Remember the Joe Horn, Pasadena, case? It caused quite a controversy. Horn was ultimately no billed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
I know what Steyr brought up is a somewhat cut & dry situation but here are my thoughts.
I didn't read the whole thread, so IDK if this has been stated, but in a realistic encounter you never truely know if your adversary is armed and with what or not, nor if he has friends waiting in the wings. If it is a young, hot headed punk odds are they will brandish a weapon very early on to make you think he is the supreme badass of the land. If it really is a supreme badass, you probably will not know he is armed until he is on you sticking a knife in your ribs.
My point being, applying lower level force techniques because you THINK he's unarmed can be a fatal gamble for a civilian on his own with no radio, no retention holster and no backup coming 100 mph down the road, unless he is standing there naked, and then still... It doesn't matter who your adversary is, try to make space and express the distance you are prepared to go to not be a victim, and act accordingly. Even if one is LE, if you are covering a town or large area on your own, it plays a huge factor in how you act towards a potential threat vs if you had backup.
So, for me Zimmerman changes nothing about how I view things or would try to handle a situation. There are just too many unknown varibles for me to rule out going armed against an apparent or truely unarmed person. I know my strengths & weaknesses. I know I can take a punch ok, but am no prize fighter. I know I do not have the endurance to go a street round with a rioded up meth/bath salt junky with no help. Those are all factors in decisions made. One must really be brutally honest & objective about themselves and their true capabilities before you can make such decisions.
Bingo!
A gun is like a seat belt. It may save your life after a crash but you do not go around looking to crash into things just because you are wearing your seat belt.
Sorry for going off topic, but this is my new tagline for the anti's who like to envision and predict "wild west shootouts" if people are armed and able to defend themselves in public.
Thank you Armati. Brilliant.
Mr. SteyrAUG,
You are clearly an intelligent man. In all my years of reading your posts, I have yet to disagree with anything you've said. Your command of the English language, and your use of it, is second to none.
With the above understanding, I cannot envision that you believed anyone on this forum, given your VERY narrow presented scenario, is going to come on here and admit that they'd rather take a potentially life threatening, or life ending, beating, instead of using lethal force against a criminal attacker. The current state of affairs in our country has given all of us pause, but none of the liberal non-sense is going to change the mindset of someone who is under immediate attack.
To everyone else: OF COURSE we will all try to E&E. OF COURSE, we will try to not be IN the situation in the first place. Is there anyone here who doesn't understand that lethal force is an absolute, no other choice, last resort? I think we all do.
Mr. SteyrAUG,
You are clearly an intelligent man. In all my years of reading your posts, I have yet to disagree with anything you've said. Your command of the English language, and your use of it, is second to none.
With the above understanding, I cannot envision that you believed anyone on this forum, given your VERY narrow presented scenario, is going to come on here and admit that they'd rather take a potentially life threatening, or life ending, beating, instead of using lethal force against a criminal attacker. The current state of affairs in our country has given all of us pause, but none of the liberal non-sense is going to change the mindset of someone who is under immediate attack.
To everyone else: OF COURSE we will all try to E&E. OF COURSE, we will try to not be IN the situation in the first place. Is there anyone here who doesn't understand that lethal force is an absolute, no other choice, last resort? I think we all do.
Unfortunately it would seem that there are a few who are suggesting just that and / or advocating it for others.
And I have to wonder about all the CCW folks out there who aren't on forums such as this one, who only know what they were taught in their certification class and now are going to hesitate or looks for options that put them at risk rather than end the attack.
mikelowrey
07-21-13, 13:35
Mr. SteyrAUG,
You are clearly an intelligent man. In all my years of reading your posts, I have yet to disagree with anything you've said. Your command of the English language, and your use of it, is second to none.
Agree. I go by what I was taught in the academy. "You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat right in center mass" ;)
morbidbattlecry
07-21-13, 14:02
Ok who is that one guy that would take uncle Joe's advice lol.
Ok who is that one guy that would take uncle Joe's advice lol.
He got arrested. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/07/18/man-cites-joe-bidens-shotgun-advice-after-using-it-and-being-arrested-n1643551
I'm too old to run and to infirm to fight; that's why I carry a gun.. JMO.. Ron
crusader377
07-21-13, 16:37
My thoughts are that I would take every action possible to avoid a fight including the following: minding my own business, walking away, etc...
That said, if someone attacks me or my family armed or unarmed, I will aim center of mass to stop the attacker using as many as necessary applications of Speer Gold Dot 9mm ammunition.
My .02 but I'm slightly surprised by the poll results providing respondents answered truthfully and given the collective makeup of this forum. I expected to see a greater concentration of votes for option #1. Perhaps I was just inaccurately projecting my expectations/assumptions onto the data.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.