Self-defense against unarmed thugs

[MeMelYup]

I understand that and I've always had trouble with the opinion (that I've largely seen on this forum) of "I'm drawing, I'm firing". Seems like those should be two different decisions, assuming you've got the time to make them.

I agree they are different decisions. However, I phrase it a little differently: "If I am drawing, I am willing to fire if necessary."

I believe there are some people who have the belief that merely drawing a handgun is some kind of magic talisman that will cause the other person to flee in horror. They do not have any expectation that if they draw, they may need to shoot. Merely drawing may be all that is required 95 times out of a hundred, but sometimes the other person's reaction will quickly escalate the situation where shooting is necessary. A person who hasn't thought that through and is simply displaying an empty threat instead of serious purpose is going to find things going quickly sour.

I believe that is the point. A person must never draw their firearm unless they are willing to use it. If you draw your firearm only to defuse the situation, you must be willing to use it if the situation escalates. Therefore, never draw your firearm unless you are willing to use it.

[The Annoyed Man]

I understand that and I've always had trouble with the opinion (that I've largely seen on this forum) of "I'm drawing, I'm firing". Seems like those should be two different decisions, assuming you've got the time to make them.

I agree they are different decisions. However, I phrase it a little differently: "If I am drawing, I am willing to fire if necessary."

I believe there are some people who have the belief that merely drawing a handgun is some kind of magic talisman that will cause the other person to flee in horror. They do not have any expectation that if they draw, they may need to shoot. Merely drawing may be all that is required 95 times out of a hundred, but sometimes the other person's reaction will quickly escalate the situation where shooting is necessary. A person who hasn't thought that through and is simply displaying an empty threat instead of serious purpose is going to find things going quickly sour.

I believe that is the point. A person must never draw their firearm unless they are willing to use it. If you draw your firearm only to defuse the situation, you must be willing to use it if the situation escalates. Therefore, never draw your firearm unless you are willing to use it.

If you feel compelled to draw your firearm, you should also be willing to reholster without firing, if drawing successfully deescalated the situation. But either way, the gun is being "used"..... either to interrupt the attack, or to end it.

If someone is charging at you with an angry expression, shouting and threatening mayhem, and you draw your gun and aim, consider drawing and aiming as a preemptive act to whatever follows:

A) You draw the gun. The guy stops his charge, apologizes, backs away, and leaves - the gun gets reholstered.

B) You draw the gun. The guy stops his charge but keeps shouting threats and otherwise actiing aggressively - the gun stays unholstered, at the low-ready, until the situation resolves to either (A) or (C), at which point it is reholstered.

C) The guy does not stop his charge - you shoot him, and once he's down, you reholster.

My point is that there is a world of difference between:

A) If you draw, you had better use it; and

B) If you draw, you had better be willing to use it.

(A) is the wrong answer.

[Javier730]

I understand that and I've always had trouble with the opinion (that I've largely seen on this forum) of "I'm drawing, I'm firing". Seems like those should be two different decisions, assuming you've got the time to make them.

I agree they are different decisions. However, I phrase it a little differently: "If I am drawing, I am willing to fire if necessary."

I believe there are some people who have the belief that merely drawing a handgun is some kind of magic talisman that will cause the other person to flee in horror. They do not have any expectation that if they draw, they may need to shoot. Merely drawing may be all that is required 95 times out of a hundred, but sometimes the other person's reaction will quickly escalate the situation where shooting is necessary. A person who hasn't thought that through and is simply displaying an empty threat instead of serious purpose is going to find things going quickly sour.

I believe that is the point. A person must never draw their firearm unless they are willing to use it. If you draw your firearm only to defuse the situation, you must be willing to use it if the situation escalates. Therefore, never draw your firearm unless you are willing to use it.

If you feel compelled to draw your firearm, you should also be willing to reholster without firing, if drawing successfully deescalated the situation. But either way, the gun is being "used"..... either to interrupt the attack, or to end it.

If someone is charging at you with an angry expression, shouting and threatening mayhem, and you draw your gun and aim, consider drawing and aiming as a preemptive act to whatever follows:

A) You draw the gun. The guy stops his charge, apologizes, backs away, and leaves - the gun gets reholstered.

B) You draw the gun. The guy stops his charge but keeps shouting threats and otherwise actiing aggressively - the gun stays unholstered, at the low-ready, until the situation resolves to either (A) or (C), at which point it is reholstered.

C) The guy does not stop his charge - you shoot him, and once he's down, you reholster.

My point is that there is a world of difference between:

A) If you draw, you had better use it; and

B) If you draw, you had better be willing to use it.

(A) is the wrong answer.

Pulling the firearm out is "using" it. A firearm being used to stop an aggressor fortunately does not always have to be fired to stop the threat. I've successfully "used" my firearm once to stop a threat and the firearm was never fired.

[K.Mooneyham]

Disparity of force. (2 on 1, even if unarmed, age difference)

I don't get this argument. I've seen skulls broken, 1:1 - no disparity in size force. Any physical assault can be deadly. Why does it have to be 2:1 or a big difference in age or size?

I agree with your statement. Any assailant can be dangerous, but in this case, disparity of force would be easier to explain to 12 of my peers. If a one on one fight between individuals of the same stature was about to take place and one individual pulled a firearm and shot him, it could be considered justified but it would be difficult to prove. Would you draw on a person who became aggressive with you and did not have a weapon in their hands? Just curious.

I'm a medium sized middle-aged guy with zero training in hand-to-hand combat. I seriously doubt that I could do much against even one hardened thug who'd spent a lifetime "pushing weight" in a series of jail sentences, and even less likely if the thug was on drugs. So, if someone became physical with me, I would have to resort to other measures to defend my health and life. However, I can see your trepidation given the way the mass media "pre-convicts" people who defend themselves with firearms against an unarmed assailant, and the pressure that "pre-conviction" puts on the local authorities to actually convict the person who defended themselves from unwarranted aggression. Its a sad state of affairs in our nation.

[RogueUSMC]

I understand that and I've always had trouble with the opinion (that I've largely seen on this forum) of "I'm drawing, I'm firing". Seems like those should be two different decisions, assuming you've got the time to make them.
It is interesting that we all point out what is probably obvious - the jury is going to consider physical capability. IE - if you're physically capable, you start at a disadvantage in the courtroom.

I see it as intent. If I intend to go to the Burger King but end up going to the Smashburger, the intent to go to Burger King was still legitimate.

• In the event of threat to my wellbeing, I intend to produce a handgun in defense. If it ends up not being necessary, bonus.
• But following that, if I produce a self-defense firearm, I need to have intent to squeeze the trigger. And again, if that turns out to be un necessary, bonus.
• But finally, if I squeeze a trigger, I need to have the intent to stop a heartbeat. Any thing else is a mistake.

Now, others have said things to the effect of, "that is a decision that needs to be made if you have the time." I understand where you folks are coming from and agree with the druthers not to have to squeeze a trigger...or even draw for that matter. If you wait until the event to make those decisions, you are playing more 'catch-up ball' in a situation where you are already playing 'catch-up ball'.

You have to have a doctrine established before hand. doctrine differs from a plan in as such as plans are made to play out against predetermined elements and environment. Doctrine is a response theory (ie., A happens, B is my reaction...C happens, D is my response.)

Your actions have to just happen unless the conscious decision to stop it is made. There should be no, "should I do this?" right in middle of the engagement. The only decision that should have to be made is to decide when to shut it down.

I may take heat also for my third bullet point above but it is just logic applied. In a self defense shooting situation, aiming for anything other than center-mass is hamstringing yourself. If you are aiming center-mass and hit your target (as you would hope,) stoppage of a heart is a very likely result.

Just my 2¢ but really only worth what you paid for it probably.

[Jumping Frog]

But finally, if I squeeze a trigger, I need to have the intent to stop a heartbeat. Any thing else is a mistake.

Personally, I phrase that differently. If I have to squeeze a trigger, I have the intent to stop the threat. If a consequence of stopping the threat is the person dies, then that is the natural consequence. But the intent is to stop the threat, not kill someone.

I agree a center mass shot is usually the quickest and most effective means to stop a threat. Death can be one outcome of the center mass shot, but it does not have to be the intended outcome.

[Deltaboy]

Same here ,bad back, bum right leg, I am a leave me along and I do the same to You. IE the Golden rule I preach restated. At 49 I'm too crippled to run and too old to fight anymore . I have become the Old Man that my Dad warned me about when I was young.

[SheilaYates]

Same here ,bad back, bum right leg, I am a leave me along and I do the same to You. IE the Golden rule I preach restated. At 49 I'm too crippled to run and too old to fight anymore . I have become the Old Man that my Dad warned me about when I was young.

If you feel no longer fit to fight because of being 49 yrs. old, you should stay away from trouble that you might not get into danger.

[mrvmax]

We are not in grade school anymore and I am not in the WWF or UFC so there is no reason for me to be fighting anybody. If someone is hitting me then as soon as the assault begins I assume they are trying to kill me and I will stop it with whatever means that is necessary. For some reason men are programmed to think that fights are ok and are no big deal but I think otherwise since there is no reason I should be in one. I avoid all the machismo between men about who can beat up whom, it is nonsense and I will remove myself from those situations.

[jmra]

We are not in grade school anymore and I am not in the WWF or UFC so there is no reason for me to be fighting anybody. If someone is hitting me then as soon as the assault begins I assume they are trying to kill me and I will stop it with whatever means that is necessary. For some reason men are programmed to think that fights are ok and are no big deal but I think otherwise since there is no reason I should be in one. I avoid all the machismo between men about who can beat up whom, it is nonsense and I will remove myself from those situations.

I haven't exchanged blows with anyone since grade school. I don't have the slightest idea how well I would fare in such an exchange today and have no desire to find out. Unless you fight for a living there is no such thing as a fair fight. I'll do whatever I can to avoid a confrontation including de-escalation and retreat if possible, but if both of those measures fail I will use any tool at my disposal to defend myself and my family.

[Javier730]

Same here ,bad back, bum right leg, I am a leave me along and I do the same to You. IE the Golden rule I preach restated. At 49 I'm too crippled to run and too old to fight anymore . I have become the Old Man that my Dad warned me about when I was young.

If you feel no longer fit to fight because of being 49 yrs. old, you should stay away from trouble that you might not get into danger.

Im sure everyone on this forum does their best to stay away from trouble. Problem is, trouble can find you while your going about your everyday business. Trouble can come to you even when you are in your own home. Knowing that is one reason we get chls.

[jmra]

Same here ,bad back, bum right leg, I am a leave me along and I do the same to You. IE the Golden rule I preach restated. At 49 I'm too crippled to run and too old to fight anymore . I have become the Old Man that my Dad warned me about when I was young.

If you feel no longer fit to fight because of being 49 yrs. old, you should stay away from trouble that you might not get into danger.

Im sure everyone on this forum does their best to stay away from trouble. Problem is, trouble can find you while your going about your everyday business. Trouble can come to you even when you are in your own home. Knowing that is one reason we get chls.

Ms. Yates obviously doesn't know this crowd very well.

[JSThane]

We are not in grade school anymore and I am not in the WWF or UFC so there is no reason for me to be fighting anybody. If someone is hitting me then as soon as the assault begins I assume they are trying to kill me and I will stop it with whatever means that is necessary. For some reason men are programmed to think that fights are ok and are no big deal but I think otherwise since there is no reason I should be in one. I avoid all the machismo between men about who can beat up whom, it is nonsense and I will remove myself from those situations.

I haven't exchanged blows with anyone since grade school. I don't have the slightest idea how well I would fare in such an exchange today and have no desire to find out. Unless you fight for a living there is no such thing as a fair fight. I'll do whatever I can to avoid a confrontation including de-escalation and retreat if possible, but if both of those measures fail I will use any tool at my disposal to defend myself and my family.

If it's a fair fight, you're doing it wrong.

On a more serious note:

The big key is, once the aggressor / attacker stops their attack, so must the use of force. It's this way for cops, and I look at it like this for all. If you choose to go mano a mano with an attacker, you must stop beating him when he stops beating you. If you choose to draw your weapon, and he stops, you may go no further (although you don't necessarily have to reholster until you no longer reasonably perceive a threat; after all, he still has his fists/knife/goblin posse). If you have to shoot, you stop shooting once the threat has been de-escalated, whether through surrender, flight, incapacitation, or death of your attacker.

Also, two other points: The threat of deadly force IS the use of deadly force. And, hands are deadly instruments, even when not using them. Scenario: You are beset by Joe Critter, and you have parity of size and apparent fitness levels. You do NOT know Joe's prior experience in fistfights, nor do you know his pain tolerance, nor whether he's on recreational pharmaceuticals. Simple size/strength parity does NOT equal a presumptive "fair fight." But let's assume for the moment that it does, and you decide to defend yourself with the same weapons he's using, fists, instead of pulling your firearm. What happens if you lose the fight? If you're unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, he now has access to not only your wallet (threatening your financial security and that of your family), but also your still-holstered pistol. There is no reason why he cannot search you, find your gun, and make certain you can't ever fight again.

Fists can be deadly force. The threat of deadly force is using deadly force, and can (and usually should) be responded to in kind. If you're carrying, ANY fight is a potentially deadly fight, regardless of whether you ever clear leather. Don't get into these situations, but if you can't avoid them, win them. Period. Full stop.

[baldeagle]

Would you draw on a person who became aggressive with you and did not have a weapon in their hands? Just curious.

I wouldn't, no. Partly for the reason you outlined above. Partly because "becoming aggressive" with me doesn't mean that I should kill you, at least in my head, even if legally justified.

Not picking on you, but this is a very common misconception, especially among pro-gun people. Just because you shoot someone does not mean they will die. 76% of handgun shooting victims survive. Furthermore, the law does not justify killing someone. It justifies the use of deadly force, which may kill someone but won't necessarily kill them.

The purpose of the use of deadly force is to stop an attack, not to kill someone. If you allow yourself to think that deadly force == killing someone, you will introduce the element of doubt into your decision making, and that hesitation could cost you your life. If an unarmed assailant is advancing on you in a threatening manner and you reasonably believe that they intend to do you harm, the law says you may use deadly force to stop that attack.

And, btw, the fear of being shot, because you have it in your head that being shot == dying, can also inhibit your ability to react to a bad situation in a successful manner. The purpose of self defense is to stop an attack, not to avoid being shot. If you're worried about being shot, you're already behind the eight ball in a situation where you need to react in a timely manner in order to survive. Mind you, I'm not saying don't try to avoid being shot. By all means use cover or concealment to gain an advantage, but your focus should be on the fight, not its consequences.

At the end of the fight, your attitude should be, I'm sorry he forced me into a position where I had to shoot him to defend myself, and I'm sorry that the shooting led to his death (if he does indeed die), but he gave me no other options. You should feel the same way if he's paralyzed or if he's just full of holes and mad as a hornet. You did nothing wrong. His actions led to his injuries or death.

[jmra]

Would you draw on a person who became aggressive with you and did not have a weapon in their hands? Just curious.

I wouldn't, no. Partly for the reason you outlined above. Partly because "becoming aggressive" with me doesn't mean that I should kill you, at least in my head, even if legally justified.

Not picking on you, but this is a very common misconception, especially among pro-gun people. Just because you shoot someone does not mean they will die. 76% of handgun shooting victims survive. Furthermore, the law does not justify killing someone. It justifies the use of deadly force, which may kill someone but won't necessarily kill them.

The purpose of the use of deadly force is to stop an attack, not to kill someone. If you allow yourself to think that deadly force == killing someone, you will introduce the element of doubt into your decision making, and that hesitation could cost you your life. If an unarmed assailant is advancing on you in a threatening manner and you reasonably believe that they intend to do you harm, the law says you may use deadly force to stop that attack.

And, btw, the fear of being shot, because you have it in your head that being shot == dying, can also inhibit your ability to react to a bad situation in a successful manner. The purpose of self defense is to stop an attack, not to avoid being shot. If you're worried about being shot, you're already behind the eight ball in a situation where you need to react in a timely manner in order to survive. Mind you, I'm not saying don't try to avoid being shot. By all means use cover or concealment to gain an advantage, but your focus should be on the fight, not its consequences.

At the end of the fight, your attitude should be, I'm sorry he forced me into a position where I had to shoot him to defend myself, and I'm sorry that the shooting led to his death (if he does indeed die), but he gave me no other options. You should feel the same way if he's paralyzed or if he's just full of holes and mad as a hornet. You did nothing wrong. His actions led to his injuries or death.

Drawing on an aggressive person would not be my first resort. I would try de-escalation, I would attempt retreat. But if both failed I would not hesitate to draw. Notice I said draw, not shoot. Just because you draw a gun does not mean you have to pull the trigger. The NRA claims a very large number of citizens defend themselves with firearms annually. However only a fraction of that number results in shots fired. Presenting a firearm in a situation where use of force is justified appears to be a very effective means of defense. If I did feel compelled to draw on an aggressive person what happens next is totally up to them. Should you be prepared to pull the trigger if you draw your firearm? Absolutely, but the presentation alone may well do the trick.