• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Question about shooting an unarmed person?

Bader

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
90
Location
Greenwater, Washington, USA
imported post

From what i know deadly force (shooting, stabbing, ect) is only used as a last resort when you feel your life or another is in danger. I'm going on my 11th year in the service, and I've gone through my share of hand gun training. They taught me to only draw and use my firearm in a last resort situation. For instance, a man approaches you asking you for money (unarmed), you say no, he hits you in the head, and continues to hit you and you cannot control him, you feel as if you don't use the force necessary to restrain him you might lose your life. You fire your firearm and ultimately this man dies of his injury's. You have used justifiable force.

If a reasonable person believes that they are going to suffer great bodily harm then they have the right to use deadly force.
The question is is the person reasonable or biased or just plain paranoid.

In your situations, the case of the woman being attacked and controlled is an example of being justified to use deadly force. Being attacked by a group of unarmed thugs depends on a few variables. It depends on how much force is being used by the group.
If they are just taunting, slapping and hitting it would not be reasonable. If one of them is choking the victim while other held then deadly force is reasonable. If the victim is down and is being kicked, especially in the head, then deadly force is reasonable.

Those who say that the use of a firearm is never justified against an unarmed attacker, are not thinking clearly.
 

ecocks

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
1,040
Location
USA
imported post

So what was your take on deciding (consciously) to draw in order to discourage/scare the guy away rather than deciding you were in peril and weredrawingafter deciding you would have toshoot?
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

ecocks wrote:
So what was your take on deciding (consciously) to draw in order to discourage/scare the guy away rather than deciding you were in peril and weredrawingafter deciding you would have toshoot?
Not sure if you're talking to me, or the above poster, but I think you should only draw under the circumstances that you are in immediate fear of your life, or you feel the particular situation could escalate to you being in fear of your life.

In the case shown in the video, where the two rednecks continued to follow the man in the BMW, and harass him, yelling obscenities, etc etc.. I feel that was a good example of when it's good to draw, but not necessarily fire. The man was being followed and harassed, and then cornered. The people following him also pulled out a baseball bat. The man drew his firearm and told them to back down. No shots were fired.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

ecocks wrote:
Good advice within that posted link...

"Displaying or brandishing a weapon without firing it is often unwise. It may be construed by a prosecutor or a jury as illegally threatening the use of the firearm or weapon, i.e., common law assault, threatening, or other similar offenses. It is also tactically unwise because it may encourage the aggressor to attempt to disarm the client."

Information like the above can also be construed as unwise.

In WA State you have limits as to the amount of force needed to defend againstor stop a crime. If merely drawing the weapon STOPS the threat then shooting anyway would be over the line.

Prosecutors will only construe FACTS. If the facts supported your merely threatening deadly force then you will be home free. How about the scenario where you pay attention to the first line in the quote. You pull your weapon, the BG throws his hands up, but you shoot anyway (because that was the advice that was burned in your mind). Some wittness is going to put your butt in a sling. Remember, today there are always wittnesses. If not eyewittness then security video or photo's. Just ask any Seattle PD officer, especially those that roughed up the subject in a wheelchair.

You draw your weapon if you are threatened and fear for your life. You shoot only if necessary. You don't draw if you are not threatened.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

amlevin wrote:
ecocks wrote:
Good advice within that posted link...

"Displaying or brandishing a weapon without firing it is often unwise. It may be construed by a prosecutor or a jury as illegally threatening the use of the firearm or weapon, i.e., common law assault, threatening, or other similar offenses. It is also tactically unwise because it may encourage the aggressor to attempt to disarm the client."

Information like the above can also be construed as unwise.

In WA State you have limits as to the amount of force needed to defend againstor stop a crime. If merely drawing the weapon STOPS the threat then shooting anyway would be over the line.

Prosecutors will only construe FACTS. If the facts supported your merely threatening deadly force then you will be home free. How about the scenario where you pay attention to the first line in the quote. You pull your weapon, the BG throws his hands up, but you shoot anyway (because that was the advice that was burned in your mind). Some wittness is going to put your butt in a sling. Remember, today there are always wittnesses. If not eyewittness then security video or photo's. Just ask any Seattle PD officer, especially those that roughed up the subject in a wheelchair.

You draw your weapon if you are threatened and fear for your life. You shoot only if necessary. You don't draw if you are not threatened.
I agree with this 100%. Although many disagree.. I feel it's just a matter of how each individual has been taught.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Bader wrote:
If a reasonable person believes that they are going to suffer great bodily harm then they have the right to use deadly force.
The question is is the person reasonable or biased or just plain paranoid.

The big "R" is something that a lot of gun-first guys forget.

And the GFGs also forget that, after a shooting, it is someone else who decides the "R" part .... LEO/DA/Judge/Jury....

Remember everyone:

It is better to do the right thing than to be tried by 12.

HankT, 2009
 

ecocks

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
1,040
Location
USA
imported post

Cool, do what you want. I strongly disagree as does every instructor I know well enough to have discussed this. Yours are obviously much different.

Iwould suggest though that you run this thought process by your next tactical instructor for their reactions and let us know how they view it. No tongue in cheek or sarcasm, just make a well-informed decision on what circumstancesyou're going to draw under.
 

Marty Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
135
Location
, ,
imported post

ecocks wrote:
Cool, do what you want. I strongly disagree as does every instructor I know well enough to have discussed this. Yours are obviously much different.

Iwould suggest though that you run this thought process by your next tactical instructor for their reactions and let us know how they view it.

Well, let's first actually look at WA state law.

RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm -- Unlawful carrying or handling -- Penalty -- Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.



This is WA state law regarding "brandishing." Clearly, the statute contemplates the occurance of persons displaying guns in an attempt to forestall a criminal attack, elsewise there would not be an exception, (c).

Secondly, I don't know who your "tactical instructors" are, but the guys I run with, (Ayoob, Taylor, Hackathorn, Givens, Smith) to name a few, certainly contemplate armed citizens using a gun to warn off impending attack, and none of these guys, (along with myself) would never advise to ONLY draw a gun when you intend to shoot.

Marty Hayes, President, The Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc.
 

ecocks

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
1,040
Location
USA
imported post

Thanks Marty for you informed and professional opinion.

My training (from highly-qualified instructors) emphasized never drawing your firearm unless you reached a decisionthat lethal force was justified and you were deciding it was necessary.As such, theresponses were originally based upon the first scenario where the OP describes drawing your firearm and consciously displaying it to “this unarmed man who has just walked over to your car [which] doesn't seem like a justified case of lethal force” in a road rage incident despite this being “obviously..not considered justification for using lethal force”. None of this scenario presents a situation where this is appropriate.

The second scenario which emerged of guys with baseball bats approaching into tactical range does come closer tolending itself to one where thedrawing of the firearm in preparationfor you beingrushed probably can be construed as "warning" them to keep their distance. I see a difference in that when drawing in that scenario the use of lethal force is justified due to disparities of numbers and the ability to kill someone with a bat versus some unarmed guy "walking" to your car who is "obviously" unjustified.

Based on Marty's comments I'll loosen up my standards, rules of engagement, (at least when I''m out West and not in CA) just a bit to betterallow an option for"sending a warning" to potential bad guys although the line between brandishing and appropriate "warnings" seems mightily thin.
 

Marty Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
135
Location
, ,
imported post

Understood. I was thinking about this issue, and in that thought process, realized that the 4-setp draw stroke, as taught by Cooper, Taylor, Givens and other Cooper proteges incorporated the thought of drawing to "guard" a position where you were contemplating the need to use deadly force, but not yet decided to fire.

Perhaps I am wrong about the "guard"position, and I do't have the time at the moment to look it up in his writings, but I suspect I would find that there was some middle ground even in Coopers doctrine regarding the need to draw v. the need to employ deadly force.

Thank-you for your comments ecocks.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

Boo Boo wrote:
why do we need to continue to have these dumb @#$%ing threads. go post your @#$% elsewhere.

damm i'm getting pissed at all the f'n trolls
+1

There some strange posts with scary and whacked out questionshitting the forum these days.
 

Marty Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
135
Location
, ,
imported post

jbone, you are correct. I typically don't get involved in these green gorilla posts/questions, but this one was going the wrong way, and felt the need to right the ship.

What the problem is, in my opinion, is the new breed of gun carrier simply hasn't done the homework to understand the laws of use of deadly force in self-defense, but yet, they are packing anyway.

The good news, is the overwhelming majority of armed citizens will never need the information anyway, because they won't face those critical decisions. The bad news, is that some do need the information, and trying to figure it out in the 2.39 seconds he or she has to decide what to do, is a very difficult proposition.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

Marty, you nailed it!

These weird posts are a threat to gun owners. It seems a "new breed" of carrier/posters you mentioned only what to play bad ass with a weapon, impress, intimidate or have orgasms over the feelings of power? Who knows, but it's dangerous. Concerned more with justifying the display, or use of in situations that can be taken care of with a kick to the NADS. It's not enough to carry for the rare mostunlikely event they would ever need to use it, they desire to use it.

Some appear to be seeking acceptance for unorthodox methods of gun ownership and would rely on a few saying it's Ok over the majority saying hell no, and wish to attract more like themselves.

The forum needs closer moderation, or its going to head in a direction that will discredit.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

Secondly, I don't know who your "tactical instructors" are, but the guys I run with, (Ayoob, Taylor, Hackathorn, Givens, Smith) to name a few, certainly contemplate armed citizens using a gun to warn off impending attack, and none of these guys, (along with myself) would never advise to ONLY draw a gun when you intend to shoot.
Marty, I wonder of some of the issue here is folks misunderstanding something that is said by some well-respected instructors, namely: that you shouldn't draw--or even carry in the first place--if you're not prepared to use lethal force if actually warranted. I.e. as a warning to the sort of person who might carry a gun hoping to use it to scare off assailants but thinks they would never be able to actually pull the trigger.

Just a thought...
 
Top