Opinions pls.

[NRMCOLT]

Situation: An aggressor (could be male/female) is attacking someone with the intention of great bodily harm or even death with a deadly weapon in hand, you are a ccw holder(PTC), you draw your pistol at low ready and shout command to the attacker to drop the weapon which he/she does but, after dropping said weapon the attacker begin to advance to your position showing signs of aggressive behavior towards you but is unarmed.

Question: What would you do?

Thanks!

[19elevin]

I would stop the aggressor by using only the force necessary. Deadly force would not be appropriate according to the law and as you have indicated, the gremlin has no weapon in hand and deadly force is not necessary, even better, retreat if able and assess the situation. It's really a hard call to make. We can all sit in front of the comfort of our computers and "armchair" this scenario with out really knowing what we would do unless faced with it. My .02 cents worth.

[Hunter]

Without a weapon the law(in N.C.)would not allow use of deadly force generally. If the attacker is some big fella on drugs there could be some leeway. They would just about have to be on drugs to advance on someone holding a pistol. It would not be a good idea to shoot an unarmed man even if he was advancing especially since you have stopped the attack on the other person now duty to retreat would come into play. Stopping the bodily harm ends the justification of deadly force. You and the other person should get the hell out of Dodge and call the law ASAP. Let them handle it from there. Keeping myself out of trouble with the law ranks right up there with protecting myself.

[horse 91-A1]

As he's beating the crap out of you, wait until just before you are ready to pass out and then shoot his sorry butt. :) That should satisfy self-defense requirements.

Adios,
Bob

[Sandman1967]

Here in Minnesota, The law does not say that he has to have a weapon.
If all the conditions are meet and retreat is not an option, I will shoot and I will keep on shooting until the threat subsides!

I agree with horse 91-A1, am not waiting to see if the guy wants to give me a big hug.

[wichaka]

In WA. one does not have to be armed either..........just perceived as a threat that could end in great bodily harm.
But there are other factors......proximity to you, overt act towards you, words, physical actions, etc.

Just the physical size difference can be enough. If he's 6-4 250, and you're 5-8 165.......you're good to go, as long as the above applys.

The best money you could spend is sitting down with a good attorney and go over some of these scenarios. It'll be worth it for your peace of mind.

[103]

In Florida, you've already done far more than necessary to save the guy's life. If he's still coming at you, you are free and clear to shoot if you feel you or anyone else is in danger.

[triggercontrol]

In most states "good samaritan" laws are intergrated into CCW statutes and a provision exists to help innocent bystandards when life and limb are in great jeapoardy and in some states, its the responsibility of a CCW holder to do just that.
Although the threat of civil liability is always present, you must do the right thing and help people.
but consider this counterscenario.

1. You observe a man beating the crap out of a woman and he is doing her great bodily harm.

2. You intervene and command the suspect to immediatly stop.

3. The suspect subsequently charges you.

4. You neutralize the threat.

5. He later dies in the hospital.

6. The girl's life you just saved ends up suing you because she is an abused spouse who loves "bab boys" and blames you for taking the life of her loving husband. She testifies in court that it was none of your business and that he was in anger management counseling and was having a bad moment and that you took the life of her children's father. A bolshevised ACLU lawyer rips you to shreds on the stand. A civil judgement is filed against you for $100,000 for depriving her of her livelihood due to emotional distress.

7. doesn't think it can happen, happens every day!!!, more often than you think.

8. Yes, you are still obligated to do the right thing. , but no good deed goes unpunished.

[Hawkmoon]

In most states "good samaritan" laws are intergrated into CCW statutes and a provision exists to help innocent bystandards when life and limb are in great jeapoardy and in some states, its the responsibility of a CCW holder to do just that.
You are correct that most, if not all, states which allow open or CCW of self-defense handguns also have some sort of provision that says in any situation in which you would be justified in using lethal force to defend yourself, you are also justified in using the same lethal force to defend a third party. I am not aware of ANY state that makes this a requirement. If you know of any, please cite specifics.

Perhaps more importantly, the provisions to which you refer are rolled into each state's laws pertaining to the use of firearms and self-defense. They are not "good Samaritan" laws. Good Samaritan laws generally apply to doctors, nurses, Boy Scouts, and others who might render first aid or other assistance at the scene of an accident or similar incident. These laws provide that providers of well-intended assistance may not be held liable if the person receiving the assistance subsequently dies. The wording in some states might be broad enough to include shooting a person who is assaulting a third party, but I suspect this would be a small number of states. That is covered elsewhere in most states' statutes, and is not the purpose of so-called "good Samaritan" laws. They are intended to protect medical professionals from lawsuits arising out of voluntarily rendering aid in emergencies.

[triggercontrol]

In this case, the term "good samaritan" is used in a generic sense to convey the "spirit" of the law.

[wichaka]

Good Samaritan laws in states here in the northwest where I've asked L.E. folks say that it does not apply to the use of deadly force. You have no obligation to intervene for anyone.

As Hawkmoon pointed out the good samaritan laws are for those for example, happen upon a car collision here people are hurt. If you use your best common sense to help and someone ends up crippled or dies, you can not be touched civilly or criminally...........unless they can show you acted recklessly.

triggercontrol wrote;
In most states "good samaritan" laws are intergrated into CCW statutes and a provision exists to help innocent bystandards when life and limb are in great jeapoardy and in some states, its the responsibility of a CCW holder to do just that.

I for one would like to know which states force the responsibility to act for a CCW holder.

I teach "use of force" issues to L.E. and civilians in Washington State, and we have nothing like that.
It is sad to think that some states would force that type of obligation upon anyone.

Yes CCW statutes give you the CHOICE to help, but its not mandatory........ at least around here.

What state do you live in?

triggercontrol wrote;
Although the threat of civil liability is always present, you must do the right thing and help people.

Not trying to nit pick your post, but I must disagree with the MUST part.

The first and foremost important thing one MUST consider is your own safety and limitations........and will your actions either help or hurt the situation by your intervening. Charging blindly into any situation is not a wise decision.

There was another thread similar to this one. Hawkmoon will remember it, where I mentioned the key phrase for civil and criminal liability......
"But for your action", did you cause something to happen.

Here's an easy example;
......you run a red light and cause an auto collison and kill someone. But for your action, this person would still be alive.

Here's another which is on your scenario;
But for your action (when you saw the woman getting beat by a man) the man would still be alive.

Not everything is cut and dried in use of force issues. What you do in a fraction of a second is scrutinized for many hours after.
Which is why I highly recommend one sits down with a reputable attorney and go over such things..........it'll be the best $250-400 you'll ever spend. Especially if you have a CCW permit.

[Hawkmoon]

In this case, the term "good samaritan" is used in a generic sense to convey the "spirit" of the law.
I respectfully suggest that it's a poor choice of terms, and confusing, because the laws most states have to protect people who help out at accident scenes are known to the legal and LEO professions as "good Samaritan" laws. Applying a term that has a known connotation to an unrelated type of situation does not clarify matters.

As an engineer I used to work with was fond of saying, "Let us endeavor to eschew obfuscation."

[triggercontrol]

If you examine my original post, I said responsibility and not obligation. We all interpret responsibility differently. My definition is doing the "right thing".
In a situation where we see life being endangered, although it may seem clear cut on paper, we would all interpret it on a subjective level due to the fact that each of us has a different moral compass and our definition of what is the "right thing" will differ based on individual beliefs.
As a Christian, for me, helping someone who's life is in danger is far more important than any potential threat of civil liability, since there is far more to life than simply this realm. Without making it into a philosophical discussion, my point again , is that we all interpret it differently as to what the "right thing" is and what "responsibility" vs. "obligation" is.
"Good samaritan" was probably a poor choice of words on a legal scale, but the message I am trying to convey is now crystal clear. :)

[wichaka]

Thanks for your patience on this..............yes, I now know what you're feelings are and definitions.........that really helped.

I agree, one shouldn't act.........or should I say....."not act" based on the fear of liability. I think some Officers have died because of it. They hesitated when they shouldn't have because of the fear of being sued, loosing their job, etc.

I think folks really want to do the right thing in the example you gave, but other factors come crashing in and...............well you know the rest.

[Hawkmoon]

If you examine my original post, I said responsibility and not obligation. We all interpret responsibility differently. My definition is doing the "right thing".
I don't want to nit-pick this to death, but we are discussing an important topic, and I am a professional writer and editor. It bothers me when people don't understand what they themselves have written.

What you wrote is the following:
In most states "good samaritan" laws are intergrated into CCW statutes and a provision exists to help innocent bystandards when life and limb are in great jeapoardy and in some states, its the responsibility of a CCW holder to do just that.
This is all one sentence. It has two functional parts. The first part of the sentence says that in most states what you call "good Samaritan laws" are integrated into statutes. The second part of the sentence says that such laws exist to to help innocent bystanders ... and in some states it is the responsibility of a CCW holder to do that.

The only way that can be read is that some states require CCW holders to intervene.

I don't mean to flog a dead horse, but we have readers from all over the country (and world) on this forum, and therefore I think when discussing something that may have significant legal consequences it is very important to convey what we mean as accurately as possible. If you have a sentence about laws, then the sentence is talking about laws. If you are talking about personal, moral responsibility, then (a) it belongs in a separate sentence, and (b) it would not matter what state you are in so the reference to "and in some states" is a non sequitur.

Hopefully, everyone is now on the same page.

[triggercontrol]

Yes, I would agree that the legal aspect and the moral aspect should have been segregated into two sections, thus creating better usage and structure., but I am glad it is all cleared up now.

[triggercontrol]

With further deep thought about this thread, the thread originator posed this as a hypothetical, but to further expand on it, has anyone actually ever been in a similar situation where they had to shoot someone in assisting a loved one or a bystander, or for that matter, has anyone ever had to shoot someone and were there legal ramifications?, either if you were an LEO or a CCW permitted civilian.
In my teen years, I was a victim of an armed robbery and was mugged at gun point, but I did not carry at that time since I was a minor and not permitted to do so. I do remember that it was an exceedingly frightening experience since the muzzle of the gun was right to my face. The adrenaline surge gave me a migrane for about 12 hours after that. The suspect was caught by police and prosecuted accordingly.
Although the thread originator poses this as a hypothetical, I think its a difficult question to answer, since none of us really knows that we would do unless faced with it and having a split second to decide.
With all the legal and moral issues that we have debated, I think the correct answer is to simply say - I don't know-, because there are so many variables involved.

Is the area heavily concentrated with civilians and might it result in a stray shot, is it worth it to stop the fight? In other words, the risk of doing the right thing vs. the moral implications of not doing the right thing?
All I am saying is that in a heavily concentrated adrenaline packed situation, the answer is more difficult than we think.

[Woodman]

In answer to your most recent question Triggercontrol, I haven't yet been faced with a situation where I've been called on to defend myself with a pistol. I have however had to defend myself against a pistol about 10 years ago. The bad guy broke into my apartment while I was sleeping, I did not own any firearms at the time, but my sword collection had been started at that time. I heard him moving around in the living room, retrieved a Katana, and went to investigate. Bad guy's back was to me in the living room, trying to unhook my TV from my stereo. I told him to stop and turn around, and he turned pointing a gun in my general direction. I don't remember intending to hit him with the sword, but I did manage to nearly sever his gun hand, and got the police and paramedics involved shortly thereafter. He did attempt to sue me, but luckily the court saw it in my favor as self defense, and since I rendered aid to him by wrapping his arm with towels to prevent him bleeding out, it all worked out for the good. The police confiscated the sword till the trials were done, and by that time it was a rusted hunk of crap.

Thus, I believe if I were faced with a similar situation again, I would take the appropriate action to eliminate the threat at hand.

Side note, it was NOT a pleasant experience, and I still have occasional bad dreams about it, and I wouldn't wish a similar situation on anyone.

[Hunter]

I have never shot anyone but had a bad experience with a foamer step father who drank a little to much and liked to argue with my mother. In one instance when he was really mad I calmed the situation with the only gun I had at the time(I was around 13 or 14) my grandfathers Wards Hercules side by side. Man that was like dumping a 5 gallon bucket of water on a match. He was a real bad man. It is my opinion that resorting to violence should be a last resort and only to save the life of yourself or someone in immediate danger of death of serious bodily harm. Saving someone or yourself might be the right thing to do to be sure but remember when you lay down at night and close your eyes it will be you and God to sort out what happened. It would take only one bad decision to ruin your life and possibly others. I am not trying to sound like a lawyer but all sides of the coin should be considered.

[WBB]

If you choose to get involved in a bad situation be prepared to go all the way. Some idiots are not afraid of dying and I do not want to fight anyone with a pistol in my hand. If I cannot get away from him, he will have one or more lead implants before he gets into "grab the gun range." Best rule is to not get involved unless it directly concerns you, be a good witness.

[wichaka]

Have been an LEO for 17 years and have been in 3 shootings.

2 of the 3 had legal proceedings.........but that is expected.
Know the laws, your limitations and the truth will set you free.

Get good training, run over scenarios in your mind of what you would do, how you would act during and after, and train that way.............you'll be amazed what that will do for a person.
Ask questions of those who have been there.............there are plenty of folks willing to share, if one would ask. If they don't want to share, they will politely tell you so. Ask them what works, what doesn't.........who have they trained with, what do they train, and how. Lots of good info to be had.

Liability is a paralyzer, but don't let that type of fear rule your world.
Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything...........can you say "hot coffee?"

There are certain things you should do before, during and after an incident.....this is why I stress contacing a good attorney and have a sit down and discuss such things.

[colonelroberts]

In CO it is the same as most other states. If the threat is advancing on you and there is no chance that you can retreat take the threat out of the picture.

On a side note, the other thing to do is if you have a cell phone dial 911 while keeping your weapon trained on the threat. Let the dispatch hear what the threat is yelling at you and in turn they hear you telling the threat to stand down. This will help if there are in questions on the shooting later.

If that does not deter the threat to stand down. The first rule applies, eliminate the threat. Remember the 21 foot rule at all times. Anything less than that it takes 1.5 seconds for a threat to close in on you and harm you up to and including death.

[RichBohlman]

On a side note, the other thing to do is if you have a cell phone dial 911 while keeping your weapon trained on the threat. Let the dispatch hear what the threat is yelling at you and in turn they hear you telling the threat to stand down. This will help if there are in questions on the shooting later.

Please remember two important things:

1) All 911 calls are recorded!

2) Many 911 dispatch centers still can not tell where your cell call is coming from!

Soooooooo, Be careful of what you say and try to call from your home phone if at all possible in a 911 situation.

-From a 911 Dispatcher with almost 3 years service-

[triggercontrol]

Excellent feedback and good thread, thanks. Alot of things to consider on this one.

[wichaka]

Remember the 21 foot rule at all times. Anything less than that it takes 1.5 seconds for a threat to close in on you and harm you up to and including death.

There was no RULE for the 21 feet, it was a suggestion and has since been done away with.

There have been extensive tests on this, including from myself and others........and the RULE if you want to call it that is closer to 50+ feet.

The 21 foot thing was done with a top draw holster, not todays LEO triple retention jobs that are more common. It takes an Officer an average of over 1 sec. just to draw out of one of those things, if one practices its less, but not all Officers are gun folks.............so sorry to say, some take over 2 sec to draw. By that time...........at best you're stuck..........worse youre dead.

I'll post some links to some of the tests a bit later..........

[Hawkmoon]

Wichaka is correct. I thought we had discussed this one to death in a prior thread.

21 feet came from the Tueller Drill. This was named for the police officer, a Lt. Tueller, who came up with it. What he was trying to do was to quantify for new recruits the "sixth sense" that experienced officers develope as to when a potential adversary becomes a legitimate "threat."

What he came up with was based on the length of time it took to draw the service weapon. This was many years ago, as Wichaka said. He timed a bunch of cops, and the average time to draw was 1.5 seconds. He then proceeded to conduct some sprints to see how far away another officer could start from and still get to him in that 1.5 seconds. The result was 21 feet.

So this was a RULE OF THUMB -- it was not a "shoot/don't shoot" determiner. The only thing it was supposed to do was teach rookies to be aware that a bad guy 21 feet away and possibly armed is a threat, so that's the time to draw the duty weapon and be prepared to shoot. It was never taught as a "rule" that says within 21 feet you can/must shoot, beyond 21 feet you cannot/must not shoot.

And, just as Wichaka said, Lt. Tueller himself is updating the Drill because he recognizes that the 1.5 seconds doesn't work with the newer triple retention holsters. The time required to draw is increased. Therefore, if there is more time needed to draw, a threat can cover more ground while you are drawing. I don't know what the correct number is -- Wichaka said 50 feet. But that's for police officers wearing a duty holster, which they should at least know how to find and how to draw from.

One of us ordinary folks carrying concealed, especially if we don't practice drawing ("presentation" I think is the word the gun rags love to use so they can sound more professional), may need more time than required by a police officer. Try it for yourself in front of a mirror. Then remember that an NFL lineman has to be able to cover 40 YARDS in 4 seconds or less or he won't even be on the practice squad.

[wichaka]

Here's some tests that were done with officers & Civilians;

forcesciencenews.org


ultimatepeformancetraining.com then click on articles.

[fwarren94551]

wichika -

Your links are incomplete and not clickable either. www.whatever does not work.

The thing is, one has to take a lot into consideration before drawing on a "threat". I am used to people passing within 3' in a park while walking; never yet considered one of them to be a threat. Never got attacked either. It is where you are and what is going on at the time. If someone is beating the tar out of somebody, this is very different than passing by someone in a park on a public right of way. Someone with a weapon displayed is also very different from someone with their hands at their sides enjoying the day.

There just aren't any pat answers. And human violence is a problem. One can worry one's self sick about it in the abstract. There is no way to be absolutely safe in all situations.

Frank

[wichaka]

Okay, here ya go........


http://www.ultimateperformancetraining.com/

Then click on articles.


http://forcescience.org/

Then click on either publications or resources.

[fwarren94551]

Okay, here ya go........


http://www.ultimateperformancetraining.com/

Then click on articles.


http://forcescience.org/

Then click on either publications or resources.

Thanks. Looked at it. Old news to me. People can act a lot more quickly than we can react; old news to me from doing martial arts. I can "touch" someone from a standstill without telegraphing the move. I've had black belts from various disciplines encourage me to "slug" them and have always "touched" them using a light touch at least a second before they could react. I could, using street moves, have killed them as well and had enough time for multiple techniques.

Translation to gunfighting - someone can put multiple bullets in you if you are just standing there looking to react.

Fortunately there aren't many assailants out there, which is why there are relatively few murdered officers. Most people understand that you only get away with something like this once and then everyone and his dog comes down on you.

Frank

[triggercontrol]

fwarren:
Are handguns now illegal in San Fran? I am glad you know martial arts, because the criminals in San Fran will know that you don't have a handgun. Stay safe.

[triggercontrol]

I have thought more about this and have tried to visualize this. Its amazing how quickly someone can cover a 21 foot distance , even in a casual sprint thats not adrenaline induced. Reaction time is so minimal. This is a very good thread.

[fwarren94551]

fwarren:
Are handguns now illegal in San Fran? I am glad you know martial arts, because the criminals in San Fran will know that you don't have a handgun. Stay safe.

It does not affect me at all; I'm state-licensed and it takes precedence over local laws; they can't make it unlawful for me to have a gun in SF. I work around here as an armored car guard. LEOs, state licensees etc. due to state pre-emption are not affected and CANNOT be affected.

What the SF Board Of Supervisors has done is introduce a ballot measure to see if citizens of the county want such a ban. If passed and until overturned it would leave their citizens unable to own a gun. But I live in another county that is not nearly so stupid.

In 1974 the state voted on a constitutional ballot measure to make all NEW handguns illegal and it went down by over 80% of the ballot. That gives you some kind of idea about CA at its most liberal, which was 1974 - the politicians want to ban guns but even in SF, I think most people don't.

Being San Freako there is no way to know until the ballot is counted but I suspect it is going down to defeat.

If asked "Do you want to own a cheap handgun that probably won't work" most people will say "Yes." If asked "Do you want to be completely disarmed" the answer tends to be No.

Frank

[triggercontrol]

Very well put. Thanks for the feedback.

[fwarren94551]

Very well put. Thanks for the feedback.

Not a problem, friend.

The fact is that we have many cowards out here who hide their cowardice under the guise of "pacificism," along with fags, fairies, bull dykes and so on who just can't be bothered to behave responsibly and take up the task of defending themselves and who, for fear of moral decrepitude, don't want anyone locally to show a better example.

The SFPD knows the type and despise them.

If you think YOUR life, whomever one may be, is not worth defending, that still gives one no right to disabuse others of their lives and dignity by making an effective defense unlawful.

There is a statute in CA, still on the books, that makes a lesser crime immediately forgiven if it can be shown it was instrumental in preventing a more serious crime. And robbery and murder are at the top of this list. So if the law is passed, so long as the gun comes out for resisting robbery or homicide, they STILL can't prosecute.

Most people don't know this. The way the laws are in CA, breaking any law short of murder to prevent a murder is a powerful, time-and-court tested, affirmative defense. As cops put it about people unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon that only comes out at the moment of truth, the point of the concealed weapons laws are moot. You get caught any other time you will be prosecuted. But you cannot be in lawful instances of self-defense which you can prove.

Gives the anti-gun folks, the serious anti-gun folks, real fits but the legislature is not able to revoke the principle involved. It is this principle that lets cops kick down doors without warrants when they have a reasonable suspicion of a violent felony in progress, make the arrest,a nd get a conviction - even though the Constitution itself otherwise prohibits it.

Frank

[triggercontrol]

I am very happy that I live in Florida. LOL
In a potential self defense situation as described in this thread, the law favors the victim if they are in true fear for the life or the lives of their loved ones. I also think that if you came to the aid of a bystander, and there were witnesses and the evidence showed that you acted to preserve life, the law here would favor you.