How to separate yourself

openryan · Jul 24, 2007

imported post

I hope this is the proper place to post this, it is the best fit I found

.

I am curious as to the suggestion, ideas, experience this brings forth.

1) If you were confronted in by someone with a firearm, how would you react, would you pull your gun immediately (cc or oc)?

2) If a home invasion was in progress and you were caught off gaurd (sleeping perhaps), and you were being held hostage, how would you diffuse the situation or separate yourself from the situation to gain access to your firearm.

Feel free to answer either or both questions, like I said, maybe I can take some advice from the rest of you and keep it in mind.

-Ryan

Citizen · Jul 24, 2007

imported post

openryan wrote:

I hope this is the proper place to post this, it is the best fit I found .

I am curious as to the suggestion, ideas, experience this brings forth.

1) If you were confronted in by someone with a firearm, how would you react, would you pull your gun immediately (cc or oc)?

2) If a home invasion was in progress and you were caught off gaurd (sleeping perhaps), and you were being held hostage, how would you diffuse the situation or separate yourself from the situation to gain access to your firearm.

Feel free to answer either or both questions, like I said, maybe I can take some advice from the rest of you and keep it in mind.

-Ryan

Getting a little "tunnel vision" on the gun, I think. Broaden the scope a bit.

Generally, I don't think you're gonna beat a drawn gun. 1.25-2 seconds, if that is an average draw time, is a long time available for the other guy to pull the trigger.

I think you're going to have to look to other options.

Also, the possible scenarios are far too numerous. You'll need to define the circumstances a good bit, I'm thinking.

Is he talking, or has he already shot your spouse? Is he suicidal? Are you tied up? Etc.

It may be that the best bet is to wait til he turns his back and you and your spouse just dive out the window and leave the gun in the nightstand drawer.

HankT · Jul 24, 2007

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Getting a little "tunnel vision" on the gun, I think. Broaden the scope a bit.

Generally, I don't think you're gonna beat a drawn gun. 1.25-2 seconds, if that is an average draw time, is a long time available for the other guy to pull the trigger.

I think you're going to have to look to other options.

Also, the possible scenarios are far too numerous. You'll need to define the circumstances a good bit, I'm thinking.

Is he talking, or has he already shot your spouse? Is he suicidal? Are you tied up? Etc.

It may be that the best bet is to wait til he turns his back and you and your spouse just dive out the window and leave the gun in the nightstand drawer.

I agree it's a gun first/gun only kind of premise in the OP. Not good for scenario excercises...

Unfortunately, some people are constrained to think gun first/gun only. They think they can just whip it out and "the threat would have been neutralized."

Reality, as you point out, Citizen, is actually a lot more complicated.

Armed4Life · Jul 24, 2007

imported post

According to "Principles of Self Defense" by Jeff Cooper, the response should be an EXPLOSIVE COUNTERATTACK with whatever is available. I'm confident that my dog would provide the 2 or 3 seconds required to grab the pistol and acquire a target.

openryan · Jul 24, 2007

imported post

Well, I was not trying to focus only on the gun. But I guess I did :?.

Was just trying to create something interesting, make up your own scenario if you like...

openryan · Jul 24, 2007

imported post

HankT wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Getting a little "tunnel vision" on the gun, I think. Broaden the scope a bit.

Generally, I don't think you're gonna beat a drawn gun. 1.25-2 seconds, if that is an average draw time, is a long time available for the other guy to pull the trigger.

I think you're going to have to look to other options.

Also, the possible scenarios are far too numerous. You'll need to define the circumstances a good bit, I'm thinking.

Is he talking, or has he already shot your spouse? Is he suicidal? Are you tied up? Etc.

It may be that the best bet is to wait til he turns his back and you and your spouse just dive out the window and leave the gun in the nightstand drawer.

Click to expand...

I agree it's a gun first/gun only kind of premise in the OP. Not good for scenario excercises...

Unfortunately, some people are constrained to think gun first/gun only. They think they can just whip it out and "the threat would have been neutralized."

Reality, as you point out, Citizen, is actually a lot more complicated.

Yes, you are right, in my house it is gun first/only if you are in my home and I don't know you and you are here to cause harm. I would waive the nicities for that scenario...

If someone is in my home I am not going to fiddle around with anything else other that something that will end his life - fast.

Legba · Jul 25, 2007

imported post

I was cajacked/kidnapped at gunpoint before. The guy got the drop on me and it wouldn't have mattered if I had a gun - there's NO WAY it would have helped. I wasn't armed on that occasion (it was before I carried) anyway, so it was all I could do to effect an escape. I ended up jumping out of a moving car (my car) to get away from the guy. I was nearly run over by cars behind us, but I limped to a phone and got the cops on him immediately. The best thing I did on that occasion was to have memorized my license plate number, so that the police could positively ID the car. Your brain is your best weapon, without doubt.

There is no set of rules that will govern every contingency. Be alert and improvise a solution as best you can. Be aware that it may not work. These situations are life-and-death, and there is no room for mistakes.

-ljp

DT4E31 · Jul 28, 2007

imported post

When you see a person next to you with a gun you use GUN

Grab

Undo

Neutralize

or so I'm told....Im sure it works for Steven Segal in the movies but I have never had the opportunity to try it.

Tomahawk · Jul 28, 2007

imported post

openryan wrote:

If someone is in my home I am not going to fiddle around with anything else other that something that will end his life - fast.

To protect yourself legally, you should be discussing stopping the threat to you or your family's lives, not ending someone else's life.

In practice, of course, these may have the same results, since you are using deadly force, but you focus should always be on stopping threats, not killing.

If somebody were to break into your house tonight and your defense results in his death, a zealous prosecuter will find this forum, and this post, after searching your hard drive, and may try to use it against you. The internet is not always your friend.

Hawkflyer · Jul 28, 2007

imported post

Legba wrote:

...SNIP

Your brain is your best weapon, without doubt.

There is no set of rules that will govern every contingency. Be alert and improvise a solution as best you can. Be aware that it may not work. These situations are life-and-death, and there is no room for mistakes.

SNIP ...

+1

IMHO, This is the correct answer. Bring your brain to the fight or it will not be there when you need it. Actually there is no set of rules that will govern ANY contingency, in defense situations. The only rule in a fight for your life is that there are NO rules. A lot of times "conventional wisdom" turns out to be neither.

Tomahawk also makes a valid point. Defense is about stopping threats. In some cases this may result in or cause the death of an attacker (human or otherwise), but that is a collateral effect of some self defense acts, not the desired outcome.

Regards

CA_Libertarian · Jul 28, 2007

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

openryan wrote:

If someone is in my home I am not going to fiddle around with anything else other that something that will end his life - fast.

Click to expand...

To protect yourself legally, you should be discussing stopping the threat to you or your family's lives, not ending someone else's life.

In effect, if you use deadly force to stop a threat, then you are trying to end that person's life. Saying "stop the threat [by using deadly force]" is just another way to say "end his life [to stop the threat]." So, in my eyes, you both are referring to the same thing. I wouldn't fault either way of saying it.

Openryan did not indicate he would do anything illegal. To my knowledge, planning to do something which is legal is not a crime. Since "ending a life" for the purpose of self-defense is not illegal, I don't see how a DA could make a case from Openryan's wording.

Hawkflyer · Jul 29, 2007

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

openryan wrote:

If someone is in my home I am not going to fiddle around with anything else other that something that will end his life - fast.

Click to expand...

To protect yourself legally, you should be discussing stopping the threat to you or your family's lives, not ending someone else's life.

Click to expand...

In effect, if you use deadly force to stop a threat, then you are trying to end that person's life. Saying "stop the threat [by using deadly force]" is just another way to say "end his life [to stop the threat]." So, in my eyes, you both are referring to the same thing. I wouldn't fault either way of saying it.

Openryan did not indicate he would do anything illegal. To my knowledge, planning to do something which is legal is not a crime. Since "ending a life" for the purpose of self-defense is not illegal, I don't see how a DA could make a case from Openryan's wording.

There is a huge difference between using using deadly force that results in a death, and using deadly force with the intent to cause a death. Deadly force is not ALWAYS deadly, only potentially so.

What Tomahawk was pointing out was that Openryan's statement is more of the character of the latter than the former. A prosecutor most certainly could and would make use of that sort of talk.

see these links for this very kind of use of internet chat -

used by the defense
or this
used by the prosecutor in the same case.

Alexander even spoke of researching the law on the Internet and concluding he could shoot inspectors for being on his property, a meat supplier who did business with Alexander told jurors.

I was there, and this element of the prosecutions case was used to prove premeditation. In this case premeditation=Death penalty.

Regards

openryan · Jul 29, 2007

imported post

Anyone who wants to come into my home without a warrant, and to do harm, is going to get shot, in the face.

Premeditation, no, prepared, yes!

The point is, nobody should have any business entering my property unless I warrant their entrance, or a court of law does.

If they brought this up in court and it work, I hope they would kill me, I don't want to live in a country like that

DT4E31 · Jul 29, 2007

imported post

So its okay to come into your home with a warrant and do harm?

j/k

openryan wrote:

Anyone who wants to come into my home without a warrant, and to do harm, is going to get shot, in the face.

Premeditation, no, prepared, yes!

The point is, nobody should have any business entering my property unless I warrant their entrance, or a court of law does.

If they brought this up in court and it work, I hope they would kill me, I don't want to live in a country like that

openryan · Jul 29, 2007

imported post

DT4E31 wrote:

So its okay to come into your home with a warrant and do harm?

j/k

openryan wrote:

Anyone who wants to come into my home without a warrant, and to do harm, is going to get shot, in the face.

Premeditation, no, prepared, yes!

The point is, nobody should have any business entering my property unless I warrant their entrance, or a court of law does.

If they brought this up in court and it work, I hope they would kill me, I don't want to live in a country like that

Click to expand...

If the state says so

Tomahawk · Jul 29, 2007

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

openryan wrote:

If someone is in my home I am not going to fiddle around with anything else other that something that will end his life - fast.

Click to expand...

To protect yourself legally, you should be discussing stopping the threat to you or your family's lives, not ending someone else's life.

Click to expand...

In effect, if you use deadly force to stop a threat, then you are trying to end that person's life.

Wrong. While I may be very angry at an attacker, Iwill not set outto kill him. I will use deadly force, if required, to stop the threat. If the attacker should happen to die in the process, that is unfortunate, but since I plan to stop using deadly force as soon as he stops attacking, he stands a pretty good chance of living. In fact, if he runs after seeing that I'm armed, there won't even be a shooting, although this is still a use of deadly force.

You may think I'm splitting hairs, here, but there's a world of difference between the two in lawyer-land.

How to separate yourself

openryan

State Researcher

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

HankT

State Researcher

Armed4Life

Regular Member

openryan

State Researcher

openryan

State Researcher

Legba

Regular Member

DT4E31

Regular Member

Tomahawk

Regular Member

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member

openryan

State Researcher

DT4E31

Regular Member

openryan

State Researcher

Tomahawk

Regular Member