When to Draw

[IrishPirate]

absolute minimum for me to pull the gun would be actual physical violence that is more than just a punch....and i'd have to be losing the fight. but if i were on the jury......

If they're unarmed and it's just talk....leave the gun in the holster. If they make a move at you and threaten you, i would say it's ok to pull the gun out and stop the situation from escalating if you don't think you could handle the situation with your own strength. I wouldn't shoot unless you've presented the gun and told them to back off more than once and they still keep coming at you. The first two shots wouldn't be kill shots......I'd go for legs or arms. If they persist....double tap, center mass.

If they are armed and they present a gun......straight to double tap....I'm not going to wait and see what they plan on doing with the gun.

[cheese]

I'm 6'1" 230. In a legit fistfight with someone my size cause he grabbed my wife's *** - I'm not pulling my gun.

With this instance would this person be at fault if the fight escalated to the point of needing to defend his life and he did? Say the offenders friends jumped in or he pulled a weapon. Should he have ignored the fact that someone groped his wife because he had a gun?

[J-cat]

Yes. He who provokes a fight is not entitled to use deadly force to end it.

[J-cat]

If that is what you got out of what I posted then I don't know what to tell you. You're mistaken on both counts.

Mistaken on what counts?

[domeshotjuan2]

BS

In Ca you can arrest for misdemeanors and felonies commited in your presence.

correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure its only felonies? i would think you wouldnt want to play rambo and risk a worse situation for a victimless crime. i mean if theres a fight break it up at your own risk but detaining people...im not willing to risk my life on most victimless crimes

[Soldier415]

I carry daily. In the last 3 years, my gun has cleared my holster once.

If I draw my gun, it is because the next motion is flicking the safety off and placing the front sight on the chest of the threat.

[Cokebottle]

correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure its only felonies? i would think you wouldnt want to play rambo and risk a worse situation for a victimless crime. i mean if theres a fight break it up at your own risk but detaining people...im not willing to risk my life on most victimless crimes

Just because it's a misdemeanor doesn't make it victimless.

The difference between misdemeanor burglary and felony armed robbery is whether someone is home (assuming items stolen in the burglary aren't valuable enough to qualify for grand theft).

DUI is a misdemeanor... your action of detaining the drunk may be the only thing that keeps it "victimless".

[nrakid88]

Hmmm... so what do you guys think about this. Someone is pissed at you for whatever reason, you blow it off, walk away. He keeps yelling and yelling, its clear he wants a fight. You still keep walking away, he charges for you, would you pull? Let me add it doesn't appear that he is armed.

I have no CCW or any training, but I would say I would definately pull. He could tackle you, your gun could fall out he could grab it and your done for, or he could run up, get a good first blow, and just beat the crap out of you, possibly taking your weapon and killing you.

[Cokebottle]

Hmmm... so what do you guys think about this. Someone is pissed at you for whatever reason, you blow it off, walk away. He keeps yelling and yelling, its clear he wants a fight. You still keep walking away, he charges for you, would you pull? Let me add it doesn't appear that he is armed.

It depends on the circumstances.

Is this someone that you know in any way, or have encountered before, or just some guy on the street who is having a bad day?

While you can never be 100% certain that someone is not armed, in the situation that you describe, you can get a reasonable idea of whether they may be armed or not, and how serious the threat may be.

I honestly couldn't answer that until it happens to me... and when it happens to me, the situation will be different from when it happens to you.

Just remember:
Opportunity, Ability, and Intent (to cause death).
All three must be present, and you must be able to articulate why you believed all three to be present at the time you fired.
You must be in fear for your life for it to be a "good" shoot.

[taloft]

Your attitude is precisely the reaqson why our crime rate is so high and criminals are running amok. Nonody wants to get involved. Peeople just look the other way. I never said that people shouldn't get involved, nor did I advocate that people look the other way. If that is the understanding you came up with after reading my post then you are mistaken. I quite clearly stated that a person has options, and that they should get some training so they have a better understanding of which options to use and when to use them. I was advocating training for those that have questions about the legality of the use of force to defend others. Any other messages you received were a misunderstanding on your part.

And whenever someone decides to act, the government blames him. "You're a cowboy! You're out of control. You took the law into your own hands. We'll show you." I don't work for the government. Perhaps you should address this rant to them.

So people should not intervene because of a remote possibility that the bad guy is not really a bad guy? FYI, UC cops are trained to announce their LE status continuously while using force for this very reason... so they are not shot by mistake. Again, I didn't say that people shouldn't get involved. I also said that my example was over the top. It was merely hyperbole used to make a point. The odds of you actually stumbling onto such a situation are worse than you winning the lotto. The UC cops statement really isn't applicable since were discussing a fictitious situation with fixed variables I created. My example was completely hypothetical.

So far I've tried to spell it out as simply as possible. In that time you've attributed an attitude and beliefs to me that I don't have, Taken things I said completely out of context, and otherwise misrepresented the point I was making. I made all of this abundantly clear in my second post. Copied here:

The example given was to point out that you don't always know the circumstances of an event. Therefore, using a firearm in defense of another can be a tricky proposition. It wasn't to debate the merits of justifiable homicide. Nor am I saying that you should never use a firearm to defend another. What I'm saying is that if you have these types of questions you should get proper training so you don't screw yourself needlessly.

Hopefully, this will clear up any remaining confusion you have regarding my statements. I can't make it more plain than that.

[J-cat]

The scenario you presented is impossible to deal with, no matter what your training. Illustrating the impossible to make your point does not work. It implies that people should not even attempt to help.

[taloft]

How about tapping the cop on the shoulder to get his attention? Maybe grab the arm he's punching with? Maybe full on tackle him? Maybe spray him with the garden hose. Maybe fire a warning round? I see several things that can be tried prior to shooting him. Just because you don't see a solution doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Maybe there is no solution and it is merely a test to see if people engage their brain or their ego to address the problem.

The answer to the scenario isn't important. If it was I would have posed it as a question. What is important is getting people to think about the what if's and to see why training can be beneficial.

[Anothercoilgun]

If someone verbally threatens you harm but possesses no weapon?
--No.
If someone verbally threatens you with a weapon?
--No.
If someone starts a fist fight with you?
--No.

Once I cannot freely leave the area and face threat of firearm, then yes. Assailant would prefer the bullet as opposed if I went hand to hand.

[nrakid88]

I guess I think life is precious. Anyone comes charging at me while yelling threats, I would say they are easily a threat to my life, and I would be fearing for my life, I wouldn't risk a fist fight. But then again after reading your guy's posts it seems you are less fearful of losing your life, so perhaps I am not so average with how I see a threat.

It depends on the circumstances.

Is this someone that you know in any way, or have encountered before, or just some guy on the street who is having a bad day?

While you can never be 100% certain that someone is not armed, in the situation that you describe, you can get a reasonable idea of whether they may be armed or not, and how serious the threat may be.

I honestly couldn't answer that until it happens to me... and when it happens to me, the situation will be different from when it happens to you.

Just remember:
Opportunity, Ability, and Intent (to cause death).
All three must be present, and you must be able to articulate why you believed all three to be present at the time you fired.
You must be in fear for your life for it to be a "good" shoot.

[sqroot3]

As a CCW permit holder you have no legal or moral authority to act as a LEO.

I disagree. CA penal code section 197 specifically states that it is "justifiable" to commit homicide "against one who manifestly intends or endeavors...to commit a felony." That being said,

Are you a peace officer? If not, then unless whatever criminal activity is happening to you, or a victim is about to get one put through their head and you can reasonably intercede to prevent that from happening, then it's better to be as good a witness as you can.

...I completely agree, and would act in exactly the manner you describe