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. Guys,

    Just as a cop what they would do if they disarmed someone and that person started walking toward them ignoring the cops demands they stop.

    And keep in mind there is a weapon there... yours. If the BG grabs it then you are in jeopardy. That BG is actually just walking toward a weapon they intend on using.

    And consider if you are not good at H2H, well, you gonna let them take your gun?

    So yes, shoot. Especially if you are in a state with a stand-your-ground law.

    Just be able to articulate to the cops WHY you felt you had to shoot.

    Deaf
     
  2. Haven't you ever heard the police....bang bang...stop..police.:whistling:
     


  3. poodleshooter1

    poodleshooter1

    1,844
    0
    May 3, 2005

    Good post except for the part about convincing the cops why you felt you had to shoot. That conversation is to be had with an ATTORNEY.
     
  4. eracer

    eracer Where's my EBT?

    6,711
    2
    Apr 5, 2011
    Tampa, FL
    Exactly.

    Once the determination is made that the situation requires a deadly force response, then action must be taken. Pulling out a gun to dissuade an attacker whom you fear means to do you mortal harm is never a good idea. The gun comes out when it's time to fire. Not before, and certainly not after.

    I know the natural reaction is to hope that the attacker will retreat, but that a dangerous game.

    I've been close to that situation before - two trespassers were in my back yard at 2:00am. One of them kept advancing towards me, despite my telling him to turn around and leave the way he came. When he was within 30 ft. I yelled, "I've got a gun," and he turned and ran. Had he continued advancing, I would have shot him. Would I have faced a Grand Jury? Probably. But a witness would have corroborated the fact that the intruder advanced towards me with his hand in his pocket, after I'd warned him about the gun.

    No jury in Florida would have indicted me.
     
  5. wrczx3

    wrczx3 Jerry

    320
    3
    Jun 3, 2011
    Stoneham,Ma.
    Shoot the guy! Maybe he has another weapon in his pocket? I would also rather have to deal with my lawyer than have my family deal with the funeral home.
     
  6. That is the key, though. If he had started this whole affair without the knife, would it be appropriate to shoot him? That is my point. The knife/club, at this point of the situation, is almost a non-issue, as it has been taken out of the equation. So we are back to "unarmed man, approaching slowly, talking to you." Does that justify using deadly force? If so, you're probably good to go. If not, you're probably in trouble.
     
  7. NewGlockShooter

    NewGlockShooter

    337
    0
    Feb 15, 2011
    Pull the trigger.

    It was obviously the impact of the SD rounds that made them drop their weapons.
     
  8. So? Do the same scenario without the knife or club. Does "closer" now give a deadly force justification?

    Sorry, but "guess" does not provide reasonable belief.
    The issue isn't "safer", the issue is if you can explain to the court why it was reasonable to shoot an unarmed man who was slowly walking toward you and talking to you. Is a 50 pound weight difference sufficient for that is the question.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  9. That actually happens quite a bit, and generally the officer does not shoot. And if he did lots of folks here on GT and elsewhere would be yelling about "why did you have to shoot him since he was unarmed?"
     
  10. HexHead

    HexHead

    4,815
    0
    Jul 16, 2009
    I would also assume they intend to try and disarm me and use my weapon against me, hence they are still a threat and would be dealt with as such.
     
  11. Warp

    Warp ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    16,304
    297
    Jul 31, 2005
    Atlanta

    Exactly.
     
  12. So, an unarmed person, who you know to be unarmed, approaches you slowly saying they want to kill you. You will pull out your gun and shoot them?

    To be clear, folks, I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't shoot. I'm suggesting you better be able to justify "I shot an unarmed man because I was scared", as that is the reasoning many are offering. That might or might not be a valid reason depending on a number of factors.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  13. Warp

    Warp ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    16,304
    297
    Jul 31, 2005
    Atlanta
    But we don't know that.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  14. smokeross

    smokeross GTDS Member #49

    6,690
    1,320
    May 15, 2011
    Alaska
    Just hand over your weapon, and raise your puny arms real high!
     
  15. badge315

    badge315

    4,288
    326
    Aug 14, 2008
    Middleburg, FL
    But the BG did, in fact, start the assault with a knife (in the original scenario). Does the fact that he has disarmed himself when confronted with armed resistance suddenly place an obligation on the intended victim to disarm themself as well?:dunno:

    What would you suggest one do in such a scenario? Reholster and start from scratch? (not being a smartypants, I really want to know if you'd consider that a viable option for a non-LEO?)
     
  16. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Lifetime Member

    14,819
    2,145
    May 4, 2003
    Wait up a sec.

    Why do you think my cop standard of reasonable fear for my life is somehow different than yours? If you're not willing to justify the cop shooting an empty-handed man who won't stay back, why should we justify your actions when faced with the exact same threat?
     
  17. badge315

    badge315

    4,288
    326
    Aug 14, 2008
    Middleburg, FL
    I only specified a non-LEO because a civilian would not be expected to attempt to apprehend the BG, whereas an LEO might be expected to do just that in this case.
     
  18. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Lifetime Member

    14,819
    2,145
    May 4, 2003
    But no one's offering suggestions for apprehending anyone here. They're all saying that this guy is such an immediate threat to life that they're justified in shooting him. (A couple are talking about preventing felonies, but that's a difference without distinction here.)

    So. If the empty-handed guy is that much of a threat to you, then surely he's that much of a threat to me.

    IMO, that people are expecting a different response from LE isn't an attribution of super-human powers to cops. It's the proper realization that the deadly threat generally isn't there, and they expect cops to play by the rules. My point is that the rules are identical for the non-LEO when it comes to defense of life.

    ETA: Sorry, just realized that I never answered your question. Yes, if deadly force isn't justified, I expect people to not use it. That may mean holstering, that may mean applying the fine art of the muzzle thump, that may mean a lot of things. There's a vast gray area between the time to talk and the time to shoot, and this scenario illustrates that. Being able to handle that gulf is one of the decsions you have to make that I talked about earlier.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  19. Warp

    Warp ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    16,304
    297
    Jul 31, 2005
    Atlanta
    LEOs are civilians. ;)
     
  20. poodleshooter1

    poodleshooter1

    1,844
    0
    May 3, 2005
    While I think this is a great thread (not really), it's clear no one here really knows anything about the legal aspect of this subject. I'm going to ask this in the GATE forum for Ayoob to comment on.