close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

What if they approach while you are holding them at gunpoint?

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by poodleshooter1, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. Wow, just read through all 9 pages. Very interesting how different we all are in the different scenarios. I think it's interesting to note that the OP's scenario could happen everywhere in the USA except Illinois. Citizens are sheep there since they can't carry a gun.

    It's very easy for everyone to sit at the keyboard and say what they would do in the varying situations. But when the juices start flowing in the heat of the moment, anything is possible. I wish there were more training programs available where you could train for the various scenarios. LE have those neat simulators to help them train. Wish they were available for classes to the public. If the realism is anywhere near the sims I use for flight training, the training would be invaluable.

    BTW, I'm siding towards Bren's advice. Thanks Bren.
     
  2. Lord

    Lord Senior Member

    1,665
    292
    Jun 28, 2006
    San Antonio, Texas
    In TX the intent to kill would have to be proven. this is the reason that they drive home the following: you draw your weapon and shoot (if it comes to that) with the intention of STOPPING the threat. death from firing your weapon should be incidental, not intentional.
     


  3. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,648
    1,947
    Jul 12, 2007
    I think what he meant to imply that shooting below the waist is still employing deadly force.

    The whole argument against shooting to wound being a bad idea hinges on the fact that shooting is use of deadly force whether you intend to kill or not. You realize you don't have justification to kill an attacker, so you shoot them in the leg and they die, your lack of intent to kill is pretty close to irrelevant. "I didn't mean to kill them" doesn't make it a justifiable shooting. At best maybe you get to negligent homicide vs another form of homicide or manslaughter. It falls under you should have known death was a fairly likely option, whether that was your intent or not.

    I'm interested in avoiding prison and avoiding being killed. Distinctions that mediate my prison term are not of interest.

    I'm no lawyer, I'm sure someone could phrase that better than I just did, and I could be wrong depending on state law.

    Randy
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  4. SpringerTGO

    SpringerTGO

    2,718
    282
    Jul 30, 2011
    Say you live (or are staying in a cabin) in an area where police can't arrive in under 45 minutes. You don't expect anyone else to be home, and hear footsteps in your house. You wouldn't draw your weapon? You investigate (because you know help can't arrive in a timely manner) and find an unarmed 12 year old eating the cheetos he found in your kitchen.
    You'd still shoot?
     
  5. Z28ricer

    Z28ricer

    885
    0
    Aug 4, 2005
    Tampa, FL
    I'm pretty sure he meant if he's confronted by someone, he's going to draw and fire if he's determined that he is justified.

    In your scenario its different being in-home, you can have your weapon in hand without charges of brandishing, etc, obviously he would have reversed the steps of determining the threat and drawing, at that point.
     
  6. Kelo6

    Kelo6

    362
    84
    May 20, 2008
    <---Not a lawyer, but has had basic LE training and volunteers with a local LE Agency.



    Not able to shoot? Not necessarily. Not in Oregon, anyway. Your justification is in their intent to commit a crime. Just because they stopped advancing or dropped their knife/bat/whatever doesn't necessarily mean they have changed their mind.

    Maybe you just interrupted their OODA loop and they're taking a second to reevaluate and decide how to now deal with you, a now armed victim.

    I'll touch on that later.


    But you change the scenario in the very next paragraph by saying the keep advancing.

    Those are TWO DIFFERENT scenarios and they can play out quite differently, or similarly depending on different factors.

    Scenario #1 They stop advancing and drop their weapons (but don't run. This wasn't specified in the OP, but he seems to conclude that they don't leave, but keep advancing on you after dropping weapons)


    Scenario #2:
    They drop their weapons BUT KEEP ADVANCING


    In Oregon, both are still attempting to commit Felonies, and both scenarios justify deadly physical force in your defense, and you can come out of the holster blazing.

    Recommended? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, depends on a few factors.



    See here:

    So in Oregon, physical force is justified in self defense and in defense of a third party, and a degree of force which the person believes to be necessary for the purpose.



    So whatever level of force is necessary to prevent the illegal use of force can be used upon the attacker(s), so long as I can clearly articulate based on the facts as to why I believed that level of force was necessary.

    Those facts include what I observed to be happening at the time, and why that level was necessary given all factors (their numbers, size and weight vs mine, my dispositions [injuries, medical conditions, etc.]).


    If I can take a look at the scenario, and I reasonable believe that the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force is being used against me or a third person, then I am justified in using an appropriate level of force to stop the illegal use of force against me or a third person.



    That's just physical force, though:


    DEADLY FORCE IN OREGON:

    If they are "using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person" (be it me or a third party), then lethal force is justified.



    In Oregon:

    Approaching me with a knife or bat in hand and displaying intent to harm me (the OPs scenario), then I am justified in using Deadly Physical Force.

    I am also justified in using the same amount of force in defense of a third party who is in the same scenario, if I believe the attackers are "about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person."


    If they don't want to take anything, and just want to beat you up, then it's Assault (posted above), which at the top three degrees is Also a felony (ORS 163.185, ORS 163.175, ORS 163.165)

    (Side note for the curious: Fourth degree assault in Oregon is a Class A misdemeanor, and involves Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing physical injury to another, or via criminal negligence causes physical injury to another by means of a deadly weapon [ND that injuries a person, doing something dumb while wielding a sword, etc, the key being that the act wasn't committed with intent to harm. It was an "accident".] It can bump up to a felony under certain circumstances.)



    So, the two scenarios as presented by the OP (either robbery or assault with a weapon), is the commission or attempted commission of a felony:



    Short answer, in Oregon, is no, you don't have to wait until they are that close. You could shoot them right off the bat (pun intended) and be legally justified as they have already shown their intent to commit a felony against you.



    There are really two scenarios in the OP:


    Scenario #1 They stop advancing and follow your commands to prone themselves out on the ground. You probably won't shoot, and you may decide to hold them there while you dial 911 and get the cops there. Or, run like a bat outta hell to safety.

    And no, in this scenario you're not going to reholster, as the threat against you isn't definitely gone.


    You don't know what their intentions are. For all you know, once you holster your weapon, they will jump up and attack you. So you're going to hold them there until the local Police/Deputies arrive and the threat to your life is removed. And yes, you will be drawn down on and ordered to drop the weapon. Do as you're told.

    Drop the gun as the police arrive (away from your assailants on the ground, obviously), and keep your hands up. Everybody will be detained, and yelling at the cops that you're innocent won't change that, or speed the process up. They don't know who is who until they get everybody detained and ask some questions.



    Scenario #2:
    They drop their weapons BUT KEEP ADVANCING


    The question for Scenario 2 is, has their intention to commit a felony against you changed?

    If they are still advancing, they can still commit "seriously physical injury" against you with their hands. Especially if there are thee of them against you!!

    But it's reasonable to believe that after moving toward you in a threatening manner with weapons, if they don't run away but keep advancing on you without weapons, ignoring your commands, then their intentions haven't changed.


    If they drop their weapons (or even if they don't!), and just turn tail and run, then yes, their intention to commit a felony against you has obviously changed. They are going to leave you alone or go and get guns (or friends) and come back, so you should get out of there, but you probably shouldn't shoot them.

    Definitely call 911, get to safety, and file the report. Give the Police every detail you have.



    It could also depend on what they're saying. If it's along the "we're gonna kill you" or "give me your money" variety then they are attempting to commit Murder, assault, or robbery in Oregon, which are all felonies.


    Again, justified under ORS 161.219 as they are "committing or attempting to commit a felony."



    SHOOTING IN BOTH SCENARIOS IS JUSTIFIED:

    Scenario 1: Attempting to commit a felony. It's not necessarily your job to wait to see if they change their mind. They are attempting to commit a felony, and deadly physical force is justified. If they do change their mind upon your challenge before you start shooting, then by all means, hold them their until LE arrives, but challenging is a way to protect yourself and clarify their intentions. But if it's already clear and you're the only guy there who could be their victim, it's pretty clear that you're the target. So challenging isn't even required. If there's time, do it. If they're already too close, you probably don't want to wait.


    Scenario 2: Again, attempting to commit a felony, with or without weapons (without weapons is Assault in the Second degree which is a B Felony, ORS 163.175)



    If they say, "We're so sorry you're on candid camera!" It could be different. But those people are likely to freak out and run for cover screaming.

    But if they're pulling a stunt like that they might get shot anyway, because again, BOTH scenarios are felonies and shooting is justified.


    As others have said, millions of options.


    Totality of the circumstances is important:
    1) Number of attackers
    2) Their demeanor (what are they saying, how are they looking at you?)
    3) Their actions (are they advancing or retreating?)
    5) Their disposition (their numbers, their physical strength and abilities)
    4) Your disposition (no retreat option, no chance of successful escape, and as others of mentioned, physical disabilities or limitations, illness, etc.)
    6) Location. (Where are you? Any help nearby? Or are you in a scenario that they've obviously trapped you?)


    As has been stated, there are a million elements, all of which contribute to your decision, your justification and the local authorities findings upon their investigation.


    What you'll find is that it comes down to state and local laws.


    Shooting in BOTH of the scenarios the OP presented (Have weapons, drop them, but don't leave, or drop weapons and keep advancing) is justified in Oregon, because there are clear and articulate facts that would lead to the reasonable belief that those individuals are attempting to commit a felony against you (or a 3rd party if it's the guy next to you).



    As many have said, talk it over with a lawyer, and know your local use of force laws, and be able to articulate why you were justified. If you don't know the laws and/or can't articulate your reason for using Physical Force or Deadly Physical Force, carrying a weapon can result in a lot of legal problems. Definitely have a lawyer handy.


    If you are legally justified, and can articulate it, then you probably won't wind up in a scenario where you unjustifiably shoot someone.

    Yes, people make mistakes, but reduce those chances by knowing the legal requirements.


    If you know the laws, and can articulate your use of force, chances are the DA won't file charges against you. You may be detained, but if the witness(es) and evidence are on your side, more likely than not you will be released.


    ETA: Holy %$&% that is long. :embarassed:
    But I hope it's useful and/or educational. Or at least interesting and thought provoking.

    Stay Safe! :wavey:
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2012
  7. Jack23

    Jack23 I. B. Glockin'

    1,672
    10
    Feb 10, 2005
    Deer Park, Texas
    Basically this. The instant that, due to proximity and level of threat perceived you feel like your life and health are in danger you shoot. Actually, in Texas you are NOT required to warn the aggressor verbally. Your fear of death or grievous injury is your impetus to shoot.
     
  8. SCmasterblaster

    SCmasterblaster Millennium Member

    18,253
    644
    Sep 24, 1999
    Hartford, Vermont
    BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang - RELOAD
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  9. Smithers

    Smithers

    225
    2
    Sep 29, 2012
    Ohio
    Yup, your mind will unlikely be having an internal debate about juries and definitions.

    Of course, if you don't shoot, you could have plenty of time debating from within your coma.
     
  10. Smithers

    Smithers

    225
    2
    Sep 29, 2012
    Ohio
    Actually, most agree. It just doesn't seem that way due to the number of ocd postings to the contrary.
     
  11. Smithers

    Smithers

    225
    2
    Sep 29, 2012
    Ohio
    Excellent post. Worth reading twice.
     
  12. Shoot yourself in the groin so they will know you mean business.
     
  13. boyscout399

    boyscout399 Stam Chipmunk

    414
    0
    Mar 30, 2008
    Auburn, WA
    A jury has to be unanimous to convict. You only need to convince ONE to force a mistrial.
     
  14. Bruce M

    Bruce M

    40,366
    11,323
    Jan 3, 2010
    S FL
    How much does it cost to get to a mistrial?
     
  15. Paul53

    Paul53 Geezer Boomer

    8,232
    7,093
    Nov 27, 2011
    Maine
    I'd rather be tried for their murder, than they be tried for my murder.
     
  16. happyguy

    happyguy Man, I'm Pretty

    Well...what are you going to do after he takes your gun away from you and shoots you with it, or stabs you with the knife he has hidden in his other hand?

    Easy decision for me though, I'm pushing 60 and have issues with both shoulders that precludes any intense physical training. Bang!

    Regards,
    Comrade Happyguy :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  17. vmann

    vmann Controller

    2,184
    45
    Jan 22, 2010
    DFW
    i am going to say at the top of my lungs, " stop or i will shoot, i am in fear for my life"....make sure someone heres you say I AM IN FEAR FOR MY LIFE
     
  18. ModGlock17

    ModGlock17

    4,389
    1,304
    Dec 18, 2010
    DisneyWorld
    Think about what has to be proven to people who weren't there, judges and jury.

    Unless you have video, how do you prove the person was approaching you? That was just your words, your view, of course favorable to you.

    In FL, you can meet force with equal force. But if the dead one came to you with empty hand that had just dropped a gun. Who would know so, post facto? Who witnessed?

    The Zimmerman case would be so easy if we had Trayvon video.
     
  19. Tru7h

    Tru7h

    67
    0
    Nov 30, 2009
    Thanks to the original poster for putting this question up. Not something I had considered.

    It's a question of Ability. There's no argument that he has Opportunity: he's close and getting closer. Jeprody was already confirmed, he brandished a weapon and threatened you.

    So if HE believes he is still a lethal threat to you, YOU are reasonable to believe it. If they're advancing even at gunpoint, they're on meth or something and can overpower you, they're counting on you to be a chicken and let them walk up and kill you, or they have an ace up their sleeve (body armor, another assailant you haven't seen, a hidden weapon, etc). Any of the above would reasonably stack up as unequal force.

    Pull the trigger as fast as possible, then open your field of view. Then call the cops (be the guy who does this first!), then call your lawyer. This one might not be pretty in court, but that's your only real option.