Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

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

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

  1. SixkillerEnterprises


    Aug 16, 2011
    Can't wait to hear his reply. Every person here is entitled to their own opinion... and I'm sure we all want to find out who's are wrong. :homer:
  2. EXACTLY!! That is what needs to be understood here. What you thought matters very little once you get into the courtroom. The prosecutor will try to paint a picture, the lawyer for the BGs family in the civil case will try to paint a picture, and so on. Jurors, most of whom won't have much if any training in firearms and self defense will be painting their own pictures based on what each side is telling them. And if you can't show the jury why your picture is prettier than the others, doom on you.

  3. Any time you are involved in deciding to use lethal force there better be a number of WHAT IFS running through your head. If you are not thinking about the WHAT IFS you don't understand how the game is played. My 2 cents.
  4. No bigger than any of the assumptions others are making here. :shocked:
    We don't know much of anything iexcept he has dropped his weapon and is n ow slowly moving toward you while talking.
    Not only are those not the only logical conclusions I can come to, I think they are some of those BIG assumptions you mentioned earlier.
    So your advice is to plan on lying about the event to the court. Sorry, that doesn't strike me as a particualrly good plan.
    No, everyone doesn't know the guy's intent. That is the point.
    If it is such a clear case of self defense, why is your legal plan as presented above based on trying to decieve the court about what actually happended?:faint:
    Can we survive without doing things to make us go to court?
    Again, I'm not saying this may not be a good shoot situation. But a lot of the justifications being tossed out basically boil down to "I was scared that something bad might happen" and that is not ordinarily grounds for using lethal force.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  5. Vic777


    Jan 23, 2006
    I am an old man. If I had to wrestle a Twenty Year Old at maximum output, I would suffer a heart attack and die after 60 seconds of maximum output. I could be bound and gagged and left to starve to death. If an intruder gets within 10 feet of me, I have 60 seconds left to live, unless I neutralize the threat.
  6. OldCurlyWolf


    Aug 7, 2010
    And mostly it shouldn't when it does. :steamed:
  7. TDC20


    Apr 11, 2011
    Well David, we both agree that our judgement of the situation is on opposite ends of the spectrum. There could be a lot of different subtleties to a real situation that might change my assessment to not shoot, such as if there were indications that the guy was on drugs or insane, but that doesn't make it less dangerous necessarily. I don't leave home with my gun hoping I get to shoot someone. I said if I had the opportunity to retreat safely I would.

    I never said to lie about the event in court. What I meant to say is that my lawyer could present the evidence in a way that places reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. Remember, it's all about who paints the best picture, right?

    See, we just disagree on our assessments. I have been robbed before, I think I can figure out what the intent here is. You think the guy wants to give you a hug, I think he wants to kill me. I think your advice will get people killed unnecessarily. I think my advice might land them in court, but at least they're still alive.

    My plan is to protect my life by shooting someone who is trying to take my weapon from me to kill me. The court case is a result of a disagreement with my judgement by the State's attorney. They are claiming that I committed a crime. I contend that I did not. I never said to lie to the police, or tamper with evidence at the scene. A trial is about proving me guilty of a crime, but how the evidence is presented to the jury will decide whether you are found innocent or guilty. I don't have to lie at all. I never have to take the stand.

    My contention here is that you are advising people to overthink the situation, which leads to hesitation, which leads to being killed. If the assailant had not brandished a deadly weapon with intent to begin the confrontation, then my gun would remain concealed and wouldn't be an issue. That changes the entire scenario, because now the assailant doesn't know I have a weapon, so I can assume his approaching me does not have a deadly intent. But once he knows I have a gun, approaching me and ignoring commands to stop...doesn't that make you think his intentions are malevolent? I think that's where we disagree.

    I'm pretty sure that brandishing a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily harm is classified as assault with a deadly weapon. He didn't have to follow through to commit a felony here. I have every right to be "scared that something bad might happen" to me. Then he follows that up by disarming at the sight of my gun (gun trumps knife), so he drops knife and proceeds to approach me despite commands not to do so. Assuming that I walk away and he doesn't continue to pursue me, then the confrontation ends right there. The fact that he continues to pursue me despite warnings again indicates further intent to do harm. All I'm saying is, shoot if you have to, don't say anything to the police about it that can be used against you, and give your lawyer something to work with. In the end, your freedom and your livelihood depends on who can use the physical evidence to paint the prettiest picture to the jury. You contend that the State's attorney will charge me with shooting an unarmed man. I contend that my life was clearly in danger and that the shooting was justified. You claim that I am trying to deceive the court, but I claim the State's attorney is deceiving the court by falsely charging me of a crime that I didn't commit. I hire a lawyer to present the physical evidence to a jury in a way that benefits me. I really don't care how "creative" the lawyer is, as long as he is successful. Why? Because I committed no crime.


    Jul 26, 2011
    I fully understand how my game is played, I don't go by Obama or anyone else's laws when it comes down to protecting myself or family... He's a dead man and i wont loose a mins sleep about it. And he better hope someone else was around ,,, are he will lay there till someone comes along. I have been in front of a judge for being shot at while I was a teenager by a drug head that we were trying to stop and have a FIST fight with ,,,the legal system is a joke because of the people we have running our country.
    I have close friends n NM and TX that are scared to go out and check on there cows and ranches because of the drug runners coming across the border,if it wasn't for our gov. Having so many people scared to protect there selves and there belongings alot of that would have come to a stop and we would have some FAT coyotes to hunt down there.i also fill that people who abuse kids sexually and rape women,, should never see inside of a jailcell and let us feed them for years till some lawyer try to prove they crazy.

    But like I said that's my 2 cents and way of living, but i have been told I was born a 100 yrs to late also.
  9. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Jan 16, 2005
    Why? In Kentucky, for example, if you explain to the police why you shot and it appears to be self-defense, they are legally prohibited from arresting you or starting any prosecution. If you save that for an attorney, they HAVE TO arrest you, indict you, etc., and if you hold out long enough, you can go to prison. It is seriously foolish to give someone the advice to not talk to the police in a self-defense shooting, since the sole difference between going home and a murder charge can be your own statement as to your subjective reasonm from shooting. If you don't think an arrest can snowball all the way to a conviction, once you are a murder defendant in the county jail, you don't know much about the legal system.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  10. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Jan 16, 2005
    If you are going to rely on the castle doctrine and Texas law to back you up, it would help if you first leanred what they say. Once you shoot an unarmed guy walking toward you, it's too late to check and see if the Castle Doctrine doesn't.
  11. eracer

    eracer Where's my EBT?

    Apr 5, 2011
    Tampa, FL
    Except for the lack of paragraphs, this is an excellent distillation of the relevant facts.
  12. That is my point. This is not an either-or scenario. This is one that has a number of variables that need to be addressed, and many here seem to be suggesting that they get to ignore those variables if they feel scared. It doesn't work that way.
    That is very different from having your lawyer falsely claim that you never saw the BG drop his weapon, or that you moved the weapon after the shooting.
    That is the problem. You think you can do something that you can't. You can't read his mind. You can only guess at what he is wanting to do based on his actions. So you need to be able to explain why his actions led you to reasonably believe you were in immediate fear of loss of life or great bodily injury (or whatever legal standard is appropriate).
    Whoa, let's not make things up! Nowhere have I said anything about giving hugs, and I have repeatedly said this can be a shooting scenario. If you want to discuss something at least be honest about what the other party has said.
    Great. Now all you need to do is explain why it was reasonable to assume that an unarmed man who is walking slowly toward you while talking should be considered "trying to take my weapon away from me to kill me."
    "Secondly, your lawyer can claim that you never saw the assailant actually drop his weapon (maybe under the stress you got tunnel vision)""At a later date, if there is no video or eyewitnesses (your lawyer will know before your trial due to disclosure laws), your lawyer could claim that after the shooting you moved the weapon a safe distance away from the assailant so it couldn't be used by him if he regained consciousness."
    True, you don't. Which means the jurors never get to hear about why you thought it was reasonable to shoot an unarmed man who had dropped his weapon.
    My contention is that your contention is incorrect. I don't want anyone to overthink anything. If deciding if your situation meets the legal requirements for use of force and if your response is reasonable leads to hesitation you have other problems.
    OK, if he doesn't know you have a weapon and approaches you one assumes he does not have deadly intent, but if he knows you do have a weapon before he approaches it automatically changes to he does have deadly intent? Sorry, that simply does not work on any level.
    Malevolent intentions do not provide justification for deadly force.
    Don't know about "here", I do know that he is no longer brandishing a deadly weapon with intent to do anything, and that he has actually indicated in a very clear manner that he is not following through with that, as he has clearly discarded the weapon.
    Sure. But again that does not lead in and of itself to a legal justification for using deadly force.
    Again, so what? Are you in reasonable fear of loss of life or great harm (or whatever the requirement is) in your state? I've got bad news for you....failure to listen to someone and follow their orders doesn't really rise to much of a force level. He can follow you all over the place. Maybe he want to get your license plate so he can call the police to report some crazy guy threatening him with a gun.
    And the State will be correct, right? Given the OP there is no question about that fact. The only question is if that shooting was legal.
    [/quote] I contend that my life was clearly in danger and that the shooting was justified. You claim that I am trying to deceive the court, but I claim the State's attorney is deceiving the court by falsely charging me of a crime that I didn't commit.[/quote]
    I'm sorry, you are the one who suggested having your attorney falsely present fictions as facts: "your lawyer can claim that you never saw the assailant actually drop his weapon"; "your lawyer could claim that after the shooting you moved the weapon a safe distance away from the assailant so it couldn't be used by him if he regained consciousness." And understand that you have committed a crime. The law excuses the commission of crimes based on justification.
    And there is your biggest problem. See, if you really think that what you did was right and that your actions were reasonable and legal, your defense is "this is what I did and it was reasonable and legal." By suggesting that your lawyer would need to do otherwise is pretty indicative of the fact that you realize your position really isn't that strong based on the actual facts of the case.
  13. Yep. Lots of folks (I'd suggest maybe most folks) really don't understand what Castle Doctrine really is and how it is used.
  14. I just noticed this. Your friend gave you bad advice.:faint:
  15. TDC20


    Apr 11, 2011
    I'm not saying to never talk to police in any self-defense shooting. It depends on the circumstances. In this case, after you describe the facts, the officers hearing your story are going to think either 1. you are justified, or 2. they're going to respond with, " you're saying that you shot him after he dropped the knife?" As others in this thread have. If it's the former, then yeah, they may release you. If it's the latter, then they charge you and depending on what you said (because it's been proven that people make mistakes after the stress and adrenaline involved with having to shoot someone in SD) you have seriously damaged your defense.

    I wasn't aware of the law in Kentucky, but what's the difference if you wait in lockup a couple of hours for your attorney to arrive, get his advice on the matter, and then give your statement to the police? You need a couple of hours to settle down anyway before saying anything, so you're less likely to make a mistake in the confusion and "fog of war" so to speak.

    I'm not trying to start an argument here, I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this situation without ending up dead (wrestling with assailant for my weapon) or in prison, possibly on death row. I think it's terrible advice to tell someone to talk to police immediately after a SD shoot. Why? Because it's been proven that there is confusion. Your body has adrenaline surging, your hands will probably be shaking, you will be thinking how close you came to dying, etc. It's very difficult to get your mind to focus on the facts in that condition. For example, I have had LE officers tell me that in police shootings, it's very common that the LEO involved will not be able to give the correct answer as to how many shots he fired. He might say 2 or 3 or 5 when he actually dumped an entire magazine. The difference is that he is going to get the benefit of the doubt, and the State's attorney is unlikely to charge an LEO. In my case, if there's a SD-hostile SA, anything I say is going to be used against me. And under the duress of immediate post-life/death situation, I might make a mistake. Forget about ever being able to retract anything you tell the police during that interrogation. It's probably on video and it will be used against you as evidence. Even if it is incorrect information! (an honest mistake) So, I think advising people to talk to police immediately after a shoot, especially where there may be questionable circumstances, without first consulting an attorney, is really really bad advice. In the worst case scenario, you may end up with a needle in your arm.

    One thing for sure this thread has taught me and that is to get some OC spray and carry that whenever I have my CCW weapon on me. I believe that is the correct and best answer here. Saves you from all kinds of bad things happening, both during and after this plays out.
  16. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    Jul 12, 2007
    One point that should be blatantly obvious to everyone at this point.

    It doesn't matter which side of this debate is right or wrong....

    The fact that on a gun centric forum there is a controversy over whether shooting the guy under these circumstances is justifiable should raise a HUGE RED FLAG as to whether a jury of 12 "normal" non-gun centric folks will think it is reasonable.

    They set the reasonable standard, not us. And if we can't even agree... good luck with the jury.

  17. IMO that really sums it all up, and is the essence of the whole issue.
  18. Warp


    Jul 31, 2005
    That is a good point. However, I sometimes like to think that most of those offering advice/suggestions/feedback/thought process are doing so under the knowledge that 12 "peers" will be the judge so that is already taken into account
  19. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    Jul 12, 2007
    I agree, I have no doubt they are factoring in the 12 peers that will be the arbiters of "reasonableness" when giving their advice, but I also think that groupthink tends to set in and groups such as this start believing they are a lot more mainstream than they really are.

    Every group tends to think their positions are eminently reasonable, since it seems so reasonable to them. From birthers to Obamatrons, they all think they're reasonable.

    I come at this thinking you can justify it, and thought I laid out a pretty good case for it. I'm throwing this out there even though it really contradicts that, essentially tends to prove me wrong...

    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  20. FireGuy

    FireGuy Into The Breach CLM

    May 20, 2002
    Hiding In The Rockies
    So it really boils down to our understanding of what the laws of your state are, and how thoses laws will be interpreted by the jury. You must be able to present your actions as being within those legal limit as judged by the cultural standards of the jury. What works in Arizona or Colorado may be harder to sell to a jury in New Jersey or Illinois.

    As a partially disabled 57 yr old vet living in Colorado my response to the original post is very simple. I believe the attacker to have the intent and physical ability to inflict lethal bodily harm to myself and or others at this moment in time. I am in fear of losing my life if I do not utilize possibly lethal force to protect myself and others.

    BANG!! BANG!! BANG!!!

    That said, I've had three instances where the use of lethal force would have been justified but the attackers fled when they realized they had brought knives or baseball bats to a gunfight. I'd like to thank them for fleeing so I didn't have to present my justification for the use of lethal force.