carracer
Regular Member
In my advanced class we were taught: "everybody gets one before anyone gets two" for multiple assailant situations. Not saying if this is right or wrong. Just what we were taught.
My theory would be that the most imminent threat gets shot repeatedly until he is no longer an imminent mortal threat or no longer the most imminent mortal threat. I would then move on to the new most imminent mortal threat.
I suspect that once the not-as-imminent mortal threats see what is happening to the most imminent mortal threats, they will start choosing not to be the most imminent mortal threat.
My hope is that they figure out that the guy in front gets shot and start scrambling not to be in front. Kinda like "I don't have to outrun the lion. I only have to outrun you."
Ther are legal things that can be used to defend ones self. There are very soild made canes out there don't you know I have bad knee, a good size long shackled padlock with a strong nylon strap attached makes a heck of a impact weapon I have to lock my stuff up you know.
imagination folks
One does not have to be weaponless if you can think.
Many, perhaps most jurisdictions consider a disparity of force situation to justify deadly force and set the standard at 3 individuals whether armed or not, as well as the 21 foot rule for knives, clubs etc.
My theory would be that the most imminent threat gets shot repeatedly until he is no longer an imminent mortal threat or no longer the most imminent mortal threat. I would then move on to the new most imminent mortal threat.
I suspect that once the not-as-imminent mortal threats see what is happening to the most imminent mortal threats, they will start choosing not to be the most imminent mortal threat.
My hope is that they figure out that the guy in front gets shot and start scrambling not to be in front. Kinda like "I don't have to outrun the lion. I only have to outrun you."
Or suppose you have young children with you. When I'm on my own I'm pretty flexible. When I have my little (3.5 years old) girl with me, I'll do anything I deem nessicary to keep her safe. As far as I'm concerned, a dumbass's life is not worth a scratch on her perfect little head.
Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
#1. Most of us are fairly bright enough to know where such mobs are likely. (Not to mention the places where self defense is "illegal.")
#2. Most of us are, therefore, smart enough to know it's not likely a good place to go and will stay away.
#3. If, for some unavoidable reason, one were to find themselves confronted with a dangerous situation like this, I'd think situational awareness would allow us to notice problems from the very start and make tracks to leave or find cover.
#4. If one could not leave, and a potentially lethal attack began (remember, you don't have any obligation to read their minds), one would have to take whatever steps were necessary to stop as many of the attackers as possible. Unless there were hundreds of them, whipped to an insane rage, sight of the first few to fall would probably end the encounter.
Ultimately, there are no guarantees. We just do the best we can with what we have to work with.
The best gunfight is the one that never happened... so just don't go there. Anyway, that's my plan.
The loudest and most annoying in the crowd gets it first...
This was in Chicago Illinois, the victims did not have the tools of self defense, so we will probably never know.
For me and many disabled a mob attack is a deadly threat. I don't have to advertise my disabilities, it is just their bad luck if they encounter an armed disabled citizen.