Drawing weapon vs. firing

[Excaliber]

I totally agree that 'what if' scenarios are important and should be thought about. I personally run them through my head many times daily as I go through my normal routine when I am in the quick stop, the bank, the restaurant, etc. These, along with handgun training, practice and proficiency will present you with the best odds if a real situation arises.

However, I am always reluctant to answer any Internet presented scenario with a solid answer. This is do to the extras that could play a factor in them. Each one of us will have a different view in our head as to what the presented scenario looks like, and in turn we will each answer differently. Ask any LEO or Military person who has actually been in various face to face self defense situations and they will tell you while they may be similar, no two are exactly alike, and in turn each would be handled differently due to time of day, location, bystanders, yadda yadda. I can tell you I was never in two that were totally identical as a LEO (albeit was only a 4 year stint.)

One of the good things about this forum is the sharing of knowledge, reviewing actual cases and discussing how they were handled and what could have been done better. Even then, unless you were truly involved, your methods and how you handled it will be different than the next persons view.

I agree with you again on the highlighted points, and that's where I see the value in having these discussions. I'm looking for someone who sees the same information I'm looking at differently, or who has a tactic or solution I haven't thought of.

As a 20+ year LEO in a major metro area, I'm well aware that no two situations are alike. I'm also keenly aware that there's lots to be learned from others and the situations they've been in, regardless of how many actual incidents I've seen personally. That subtle difference in situations usually contains a lesson I can put in my internal library for future use. The most valuable information for me is often in the way the situation was recognized and analyzed to determine the best course of action.

Your position that definitive answers can't be given in theoretical situations or even actual situations with limited detail because even a small change in the information can change the best option is well taken. However, I maintain the perspective that I'm not giving or receiving legal advice in these discussions, and they give me the opportunity to make or recognize mistakes that are pointed out by others so I learn to avoid them in real life. With this in mind, I believe that there's a great deal to be gained by kicking around the pluses and minuses of the options available under a presented fact pattern and trying to find the best solution for myself, which I acknowledge may differ from the best solution for someone else under the same circumstances.

[aardwolf]

The first problem is to survive. If you don't solve that problem, the law and other potential consequences are pretty meaningless.

[Excaliber]

The first problem is to survive. If you don't solve that problem, the law and other potential consequences are pretty meaningless.

I agree. That's why it's so important to have an internal "library" of response options ready to go so you can execute the right one in time to survive the incident. If you haven't thought the options through ahead of time, it's extremely difficult to do all of the right things and none of the wrong things really fast as the incident breaks around you.

Once you've succeeded at that task, it's almost equally important to manage the legal aftermath correctly, or you'll no longer be a free man. While that's not quite as bad as not surviving, good guys who have been there tend to rate it a real close second.

[dwhitley]

I think its unjust if you give me authority to carry a weapon then I should have the authority to protect my family or my life at any means. I think it can be a double edge sword. I hear a lot of people talk about getting involved as if you see a man beating his wife or someone being robbed... me I think that just because I carry does not give me the right to get into the mix even though I want to the law to me will not protect me for injecting myself into that situation so I would call 911 and explain I am a CHL holder should I use force to stop the crime then it would be on them not me. DW

[fm2]

The problem is you can run these scenario's through your head a million times, but you never know just what you will do until faced with the actual situation. Every element at the time plays into the initial response and action, and each subsequent action by all parties involved and the surroundings leads to a different reaction.

But, that is what running those 'what if' scenarios through your head helps you with; being able to make those quick responses and reactions.

I agree. There's a lot going on in the moment that is not conveyed in an online post. We also bring personal attributes that may not be common or well developed across some sample of people. So I look at these as not finding the way, but a way to solve the problem.

[Excaliber]

I think its unjust if you give me authority to carry a weapon then I should have the authority to protect my family or my life at any means. I think it can be a double edge sword. I hear a lot of people talk about getting involved as if you see a man beating his wife or someone being robbed... me I think that just because I carry does not give me the right to get into the mix even though I want to the law to me will not protect me for injecting myself into that situation so I would call 911 and explain I am a CHL holder should I use force to stop the crime then it would be on them not me. DW

Many situations like the ones you cite are not what they seem to be at first. Is that a man beating his wife, or is that an undercover LEO attempting to arrest a transvestite robbery suspect? Is that a guy getting robbed, or a guy getting arrested by a plainclothes drug enforcement agent? These things can get pretty sticky pretty fast.

I wouldn't bother asking a 911 operator if you should use force to stop a crime. No operator in his right mind would tell you to do so, and even if he did you wouldn't have the protection of acting at the request of an LEO because almost all 911 operators are civilians.

The law does allow you to use force to defend another innocent party, but you are not obligated to intervene as an LEO is. If a situation can be managed by calling 911 and letting the professionals handle it, that's generally the best way to go because they have authority and immunity that you don't. When it looks like a serious injury or loss of life would occur if you don't take immediate action, you have a moral decision to make. What you would do in this case is something I suggest every CHL holder should think through ahead of time.

[lrb111]

Does the video camera in the ATM change anything for anyone?

[DoubleJ]

it's certainly something to consider. and along those considerations, one would have to know the limited range and angle that those present. you move directly to the side of the ATM, and you're effectively "out of picture."
in the proposed scenario, the BG's could possibly be in frame, but there's just no way to really know, especially "in the moment."
me, I would presume at all times I'm being watched (either camera, or eye witness), and no, I don't mean by the guys in the black helicopters... Anyway, if you are justified, witnesses are your friends. if you're in a gray area... well...

[Excaliber]

Does the video camera in the ATM change anything for anyone?

It shouldn't unless your plan includes doing things that you wouldn't want brought out in court. In that case, my suggestion would be to change your plan.

If you're lucky, the camera may capture action that could help your case. However, ATM cameras are designed to view only a person or the driver portion of a vehicle at the machine. It is most likely that it would record only a very small part of the incident if it captured anything useful at all. This could well work in your favor as long as your account of the incident is consistent with what has been recorded.

[newlife12176]

Well considering I haven't seen many people state what they would do if they found themselves in that situation, I figured I would. I understand (as most everyone here) that what you say you would do and what you actually would do given the immediate circumstances including fear, anxiety, apprehension, and adrenaline are 2 different things. However, I do feel we should play this scenario out in our minds and in this forum to get feedback from others point of view and opinion.

I would advise these 3 individuals to keep their distance as soon as I felt a threat. That may be 25 feet, 10 feet, or 2 feet. I cannot say because I would need to physically feel the threat and take into consideration their body language, facial features, and demeanor. If they did not stop, (which 99% of the population would unless they actually had intent to harm you or rob you) I would produce my weapon and order them to back off. I was actually in fear of bodily harm, being robbed and maybe even death. If these individuals still were advancing on me I would warn them of my intent to shoot them (I know this all happens in about 2 seconds, but I could manage this). Now here is where it gets tricky. Under normal circumstances if we were at the park or something, NONE of us would be legally justified in using deadly force. Considering I am at the ATM, I think any reasonable investigating officer, Grand Jury, or DA would agree that the only intention of these individuals would be robbery (given the fact of time of day, style of dress, failure to heed my warnings of both force and deadly force with the production of my weapon, and hopefully criminal background, or possession of a weapon on their part). The law states we can use the threat of deadly force and deadly force to prevent the commission of an imminent robbery. I feel I would only have 1 course of action and that would be to start shooting everyone in the room that was advancing on me. I cant imagine anyone wanting to engage me while I am pointing a weapon at them and screaming I am going to shoot them. I'm sure they would hall as at the sight of my weapon.....lets at least hope so.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

[NcongruNt]

Now here is where it gets tricky. Under normal circumstances if we were at the park or something, NONE of us would be legally justified in using deadly force. Considering I am at the ATM, I think any reasonable investigating officer, Grand Jury, or DA would agree that the only intention of these individuals would be robbery (given the fact of time of day, style of dress, failure to heed my warnings of both force and deadly force with the production of my weapon, and hopefully criminal background, or possession of a weapon on their part). The law states we can use the threat of deadly force and deadly force to prevent the commission of an imminent robbery. I feel I would only have 1 course of action and that would be to start shooting everyone in the room that was advancing on me. I cant imagine anyone wanting to engage me while I am pointing a weapon at them and screaming I am going to shoot them. I'm sure they would hall as at the sight of my weapon.....lets at least hope so.

What do you mean by this statement (in red)? Seems to me, regardless of your location, you have the legal right to prevent imminent harm from yourself. Whether you are at the ATM or in the park is irrelevant if you have reasonably perceived an imminent threat to yourself. Proving that threat may be a little easier if you are at an ATM, but a threat to your life is still a threat to your life, regardless of location.

[newlife12176]

Because at the park you do not have the justification to use deadly force if 3 thugs are approaching. Maybe if they pulled a knife or something, or threatened your life in some way, or told you they were going to rob you. My point was that you legally have justification to use deadly force to prevent an eminent robbery (as such at the ATM). I agree with you. You have the right to protect yourself anywhere you can (and you should).

[dwhitley]

See this is why I think I would always be worried about using deadly force. I feel you are rolling the dice to the effect of will I be cleared or not. I mean lets face it in todays world seems that there is always a critic to everyones thoughts or process of thinking. D

[Excaliber]

Because at the park you do not have the justification to use deadly force if 3 thugs are approaching. Maybe if they pulled a knife or something, or threatened your life in some way, or told you they were going to rob you. My point was that you legally have justification to use deadly force to prevent an eminent robbery (as such at the ATM). I agree with you. You have the right to protect yourself anywhere you can (and you should).

See this is why I think I would always be worried about using deadly force. I feel you are rolling the dice to the effect of will I be cleared or not. I mean lets face it in todays world seems that there is always a critic to everyones thoughts or process of thinking. D

There are always folks who will criticize and attempt to criminalize a defender out of either ignorance or politics. However, the law is the standard you will be judged by. Whether or not you have reason to believe a situation requires use of either force or deadly force to prevent harm to yourself will be judged under the law as what a reasonable person would have perceived and done under the same circumstances.

If you're walking down a path in the park and 3 people who make you uncomfortable are simply approaching from the opposite direction, you don't have reason to use any force at that point. If you step 6 feet off the path to let them pass and they stop, harass you, and spread out with one remaining in front and the other 2 attempting to flank you, you've got reason for concern. If a verbal warning doesn't get them to back off and they continue to advance with apparent intent to rob you or commit a deadly assault (3 people can do this with simple body force - no weapons required) in my IANAL opinion you would be justified in drawing your weapon and firing if necessary.

The better trained you are, the more scenarios you have considered, researched and trained on beforehand, and the more solid your repertoire of responses is, the better you will perform, the better you will be able to explain your actions, and the less you will roll the dice.

I understand it's not comfortable to think these things through, and to expose your thoughts to examination on the forum. I believe that's why so very few of our many members ever engage these types of discussions, but avoiding the thinking ahead of time wastes opportunities to prepare for the very real possibility that one will find himself in one of these situations at least once in his lifetime. What one does or doesn't do when the balloon goes up will change his life forever, whether he prepared for that situation or not. There are no do overs in this game.

Personally, I'm not thin skinned (couldn't have survived all those colorful things I was called in multiple languages for 20 years as an LEO if I was) and I'd rather have any errors in my thinking corrected on the forum so my real life plans will be as strong and defensible as I can make them. Others may feel more comfortable lurking through these discussions and hoping their plans will be put forth by others and they'll get the information they want that way. That's better than not thinking about it at all, but I think we miss some of the impact when we don't put at least a little bit of ourselves on the line during these opportunities.

If you wait to get into a situation like this to start thinking about it, there's a very real risk you'll act on fearful impulse rather than knowledge and training and make mistakes that could put you on the wrong side of the law. If you spend the few seconds you have to resolve an encounter procrastinating about what to do, you'll end up as food for the wolves.

The 7P principle applies: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Pretty Poor Performance. (Yes, I know what the original version says, but I'm adhering to forum rules)

[LCP_Dogg]

There are a lot of "self-defense" classes out there and also "tactical shooting" type of classes as well. These all teach you how to defend yourself and/or proceed with caution.

What would be REALLY COOL is if there were classes that walked you through and put you in scenarios and forced you to decide what to do (flight, fight, or shoot) and then walked you through what you did, and the laws, and the perceptions of any witnesses, etc.. Now that would be a class worth taking, although every scenario is different - it still gives you more information and knowledge and experience than you have today (I would love this type of class).