Question: If I am OCing and someone makes a move for my gun....

imported post

FrankC wrote:

AvianP, that's why I said at the beginning of this thread to break his thumb if he actually tried to take your gun. FWIW I had someone following me inside a store this summer eyeballing my right hip(CC), my response after taking several turns was to turn and start walking toward him. The guys eyes got pretty big and he backed up around the corner of the aisle, I turned around and went back to what I was doing. My point was to attempt to keep others away from your gun before it became a matter of you shooting them.

Click to expand...

I like your action here. The combination of your SA and reactivity in a simple, information-producing manner ends the "potential threat." Which probably was no threat at all, just a jabrone who didn't know how to act in public..

I think AvianP was too passive with his perceived problem with the guy who he thought "wanted" his gun. AP was doing all the work (figuring out howlong is "long" and how dangerous a "homeless" guy could be) and the "potential threat" guy was just bumbling along in a daze.

A simple move like yours sets up a resolution of the little dance that might have been going on--without any broken thumbs or drawn pistola...and without even any undue thoughts about same.

OTOH, mabye Maslow was right ...

imported post

AvianP wrote:

If someone lunges at my pistol, what can I do to protect it and me?

Click to expand...

Hate to state the obvious, but...YOU HAVE A GUN. Your gun is TO protect you. You're well within your right to draw. Once it's drawn and in-hand, THEN you have to make the split-second decision between a shoot/no-shoot situation. It's your responsibility as an armed citizen to keep your gun out of the hands of anyone else. I think if I were in that situation you described, I'd place my hand on it and keep it there while I made eye contact with the person to let them know that I'm leary of his actions and it may then dawn on him that he's putting an armed person on 'condition orange'.

imported post

AvianP wrote:

Il_Duce wrote:

You sure he wasn't security keeping an eye on you?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Coulda Been. If Best Buy security (as an example) was stupid enough to make a move to disarm me, what is my appropriate move? I don't want to shoot anyone, especially someone who is trying to make an honest days living...but where does it become a point of me standing my ground and not letting the pistol get away from me at any cost?

Click to expand...

Anyone in security should know better. Anyone who made it past the 8th grade should know better.

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Pepper Spray gives you a less than lethal option when deadly force is not justified.

Click to expand...

...and a less than reliable option. I'm justnot an advocate of chemical sprays, sorry. If I had that much faith in spray deterrants I probably wouldn't carry a gun. I know, lots of people feel that both sprays and guns have their place and to that I say to each their own. I think if you could present fact that there was an increasedlikelihood of the need to uselethal force, drawing your gun on a likely threat would be justified. Drawing your gun doesn't automatically equate to deadly force - shooting someone does.

Anyone think I'm way off-base here?

imported post

I prefer the guaranteed effective weapon, not the one that will just piss-off the assailant.

I've been on the receiving end of that stuff (the REAL stuff the cops use, at the academy) and while it will ruin your day, and probably the next few, it by no means incapacitates. I cannot imagine the pissed-off bad guy who wants to kill you would become anything more than even more pissed-off and more determined. anger is an emotion rooted in the ego. Tell me, do those who want to dominate you and take what you've got, have the kind of self-control to push that down? Has the fact that this BG has already decided to attack you not already proven that false?

Pepper spray is a provocation and antagonization upon someone who has already made the choice. Those who advocate it have no understanding of the criminal mind.

Find for me the testimony of someone who has actually used it, and find an absence of "it didn't do shit" in what they have to say. You'll find it is quite a tall order.

imported post

In WI there is no castle doctrine. You can not use deadly force to defend against the loss of property. If you decide to shoot someone for trying to steal your handgun, you had better be prepared to state in court that they were also threatening your life while they were attempting to steal it. Stealing your handgun and running away with it does not justify the use of deadly force in WI. Drawing your handgun isthreatening to use deadly force.

The fact that you have a handgun does not increase the threat from someone "lunging" at you. In all cases if a lesser force than deadly force will stop the threat, you are likely required to use it and always better off using it.

939.48 Self−defense and defense of others. (1)

Click to expand...

A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

939.49 Defense of property and protection against
retail theft. (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person’s property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one’s property.

Click to expand...

The excuse that you "thought" they might use it against you is quite different that you reasonably believe that they WILL use it against you. You must be prepared for a jury to decide what is reasonable or not.

imported post

In WI there is no castle doctrine. You can not use deadly force to defend against the loss of property. If you decide to shoot someone for trying to steal your handgun, you had better be prepared to state in court that they were also threatening your life while they were attempting to steal it. Stealing your handgun and running away with it does not justify the use of deadly force in WI. Drawing your handgun isthreatening to use deadly force.

The fact that you have a handgun does not increase the threat from someone "lunging" at you. In all cases if a lesser force than deadly force will stop the threat, you are likely required to use it and always better off using it.

939.48 Self−defense and defense of others. (1)

Click to expand...

A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

939.49 Defense of property and protection against
retail theft. (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person’s property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one’s property.

Click to expand...

The excuse that you "thought" they might use it against you is quite different that you reasonably believe that they WILL use it against you. You must be prepared for a jury to decide what is reasonable or not.

What are you prepared to do if someone calls you names, walks right up to you and punches you? You had better be prepared to do something other than draw your weapon and shoot or you had better be prepared to go to prison and loose your right to ever own a weapon....

imported post

HankT wrote:

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

In WI there is no castle doctrine. You can not use deadly force to defend against the loss of property. If you decide to shoot someone for trying to steal your handgun, you had better be prepared to state in court that they were also threatening your life while they were attempting to steal it. Stealing your handgun and running away with it does not justify the use of deadly force in WI. Drawing your handgun isthreatening to use deadly force.

The fact that you have a handgun does not increase the threat from someone "lunging" at you. In all cases if a lesser force than deadly force will stop the threat, you are likely required to use it and always better off using it.


...


The excuse that you "thought" they might use it against you is quite different that you reasonably believe that they WILL use it against you. You must be prepared for a jury to decide what is reasonable or not.

What are you prepared to do if someone calls you names, walks right up to you and punches you? You had better be prepared to do something other than draw your weapon and shoot or you had better be prepared to go to prison and loose your right to ever own a weapon....

Click to expand...

Well said....very well said.

But the gun-first-mentality....

...just-doesn't-get-it.....

Click to expand...

Hank... please stop making absolute statements that do not take into consideration real world circumstances. To show that your "gun first mentality.... just doesn't get it" doesn't apply to all situations please tell me exactly...

What options does an old woman have when a young man is strangling her with his bare hands? Should she be thinking in terms of using her gun first?

Hank... I am beginning to believe that you are the most subtle anti self defense lefty I have ever run into. But even if that is so your "postulate" and your statements that are couched in absolutes............ cannot stand the sunshine of common sense.

imported post

That just isn't true. If someone walks up to you and starts beating on you, you would have every reason to draw on them at least as a defensive display, particularly if they're large enough to pose a threat. Fists and feet DO kill from time to time.

If you reasonably believe your life is in danger from an unarmed but still dangerous person posing a threat, in most states you are completely justified to use force.

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

Hank... I am beginning to believe that you are the most subtle anti self defense lefty I have ever run into.

Click to expand...

Beginning?

The man is an Armchair Mall Ninja.

Defensive 'use' of a gun does not always mean pulling the trigger. Staring down the barrel of a .45 is the most effective 'less than lethal' force there is. You don't have to have a belt full of batman gadgets to switch around should the circumstance warrant.

Defensive display IS less than lethal. "Gun-first-mentality" "gets it" better than Mr. Hankey. Draw, Point, Bang. The 1st 2 options are varying degrees of less than lethal force, and if those two don't work, you are quite prepared for the 3rd, without returning to your bat utility belt for what you should have had in your hand from the start.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

The excuse that you "thought" they might use it against you is quite different that you reasonably believe that they WILL use it against you. You must be prepared for a jury to decide what is reasonable or not.

What are you prepared to do if someone calls you names, walks right up to you and punches you? You had better be prepared to do something other than draw your weapon and shoot or you had better be prepared to go to prison and loose your right to ever own a weapon....

Click to expand...

Well said....very well said.

But the gun-first-mentality....

...just-doesn't-get-it.....

Click to expand...

I hope neither one of you is ever in a situation that requires use of deadly force because your minds are so cluttered with 'FEAR OF PRISON'you will hesitate or never react. You are assuming that you know the 'intent' of your assailant. You don't, nor could you if the assailant is unknown to you. Neither one of you have ever been LEO's 'n doubtful your court experiences have extended much past Judge Judy.

If you are armed... and assaulted... (I don't mean slapped or something...) but physically assaulted (It's doubtful either of you have ever been so accosted as well) while armed; the last thing you would want is for the perp to sieze your firearm. You cannot assume intent or extent of the assault.

Rookie cops are shot mostly because they hesitate, but cops are under a different dynamic than Joe Sixpack. You have evey right to shoot your attacker and STOP the attack. If you happen to kill 'em in the process... Oh well. Unintentional consequences of an act not initiated by you. If you can't use that pistol... don't carry it. No, Hank... YOU-don't-get-it.

An unprovoked attack upon an open carrieris NOT a rational act. Therefore, you can expect nothing less than continued irrationality on the part of the attacker. If they obtain control of your firearm, it is a reasonable expectation they will:

1. Shoot you with it.

2. Commit mayhem upon the public after shooting you with it.

3. Shoot themselves or attempt 'suicide by cop' with the weapon in hand.

4. All of the above.

Carrying a firearm (which you don't do past your front door living in New Jersey, Hank) bears responsibility for controlling that firearm. If someone takes your gun... and commits mayhem or other predations upon the public with it... and you had the opportunity to stop them (shoot them) and didn't 'cause you wussed out... YOU also bear the burden of responsibility for what they did with YOUR gun. If you are not capable of taking human life... or at least wounding a 'human'... Don't carry the gun.

The consequences of having someone sieze your firearm would put any rational person in fear for their life. Therefore, use of deadly force to prevent that is justifiable homicide. 'Self Defense' Now... you can sit there in front of your keyboard in your underwear eatin' pie all day 'n concoct whatever 'postulants' you want... but reality is something else again. If you can't deal with that... don't carry... don't even own a gun. Get your little can of pepper spray... magic amulet 'n put on your Cheyenne ghost shirt 'n go forth into the world so prepared.

imported post

Can anyome cite actual cases and outcomes of attempted gun-snatching incidents? I am gonna ask a cop what his response would be to a snatcher. Seems to me what could reasonably kill a cop could reasonably kill John Q. So what's "defense of life" for the cop is the same for the LAC. Or so it would seem.

imported post

Holy crap I feel like I've got a lot to touch base on...

Interceptor_Knight: "You can not use deadly force to defend against the loss of property. If you decide to shoot someone for trying to steal your handgun, you had better be prepared to state in court that they were also threatening your life while they were attempting to steal it. Stealing your handgun and running away with it does not justify the use of deadly force in WI. Drawing your handgun isthreatening to use deadly force. In all cases if a lesser force than deadly force will stop the threat, you are likely required to use it and always better off using it."

**You're jumping from the threat of deadly force straight to deadly force. Drawing your gun isn't using dealy force. It's the threat of deadly force. You're right as in not legally being able to shoot someone over property, no problem... However, it becomes circumstancial when said property is an openly worn, loaded firearm. In that case, it's a reasonable assumption that said property would be used against you, to which you might respond with the threat of lethal force. Also, drawing your gun is a big difference from aiming it at someone. Aiming it at someone is a big difference from shooting them.

"What are you prepared to do if someone calls you names, walks right up to you and punches you? You had better be prepared to do something other than draw your weapon and shoot or you had better be prepared to go to prison and loose your right to ever own a weapon...."

**Look at you, all cute and dramatic. Quite the unrealistic scenario you got there. Am I OCing or CCing? If I'm OCing and someone calls me names and approaches me and punches me (while I just stand there mute, of course)...they're friggin insane. Too many variables and we're notgoing to try and assume what dialogue would take place because most situations can be talked down. If not, there are too many variables that weigh in on how it escalates. I thinkabout everyone who carriesunderstands that shooting is a last resort. The intention is to end the violence, not escalate it.

HankT: "In..."

Must you write so damn big and dark? It's really quite annoying no one likes being screamed at.

"But the gun-first-mentality...."


**It's not a gun first mentality. If someone has got his hands on you or your gun,he's skipped the "threat" step of the confrontation, thus eliminating your opportunity to talk down or de-escalate the situation, and the opportunity to walk away and distance yourself. He's jumped straight to "emminent threat", to which you respond as you have to, to preserve life and limb.



ixtow: "Defensive 'use' of a gun does not always mean pulling the trigger. Staring down the barrel of a .45 is the most effective 'less than lethal' force there is. You don't have to have a belt full of batman gadgets to switch around should the circumstance warrant. Defensive display IS less than lethal."

**EXACTLY!!



Sonora Rebel: "If you are armed... and assaulted... (I don't mean slapped or something...) but physically assaulted (It's doubtful either of you have ever been so accosted as well) while armed; the last thing you would want is for the perp to sieze your firearm. You cannot assume intent or extent of the assault.
Rookie cops are shot mostly because they hesitate, but cops are under a different dynamic than Joe Sixpack. You have evey right to shoot your attacker and STOP the attack. If you happen to kill 'em in the process... Oh well. Unintentional consequences of an act not initiated by you. If you can't use that pistol... don't carry it.

An unprovoked attack upon an open carrieris NOT a rational act. Therefore, you can expect nothing less than continued irrationality on the part of the attacker. If they obtain control of your firearm, it is a reasonable expectation they will:"...etc


**Well-said and strongly agreed with.



Alexcabbie: "I am gonna ask a cop what his response would be to a snatcher."

** Well, if he's part of the large concensus of cops who think any civilian who OC's is a knucklehead, then good luck with that. Even if he's not of that stance, he's well acquainted with many who are, and, well, I just wouldn't expect an unbiased answer. Maybe I'm just harboring some opinions I read on officer-dot-com that irritated me.

imported post

Hey Hop, I am a former USAF criminal investigator and military cop. Officer.com has its share of knuckleheads as do we here. Cops need someplace to blow off steam and vent frustrations, and I am not registered on ODC because I am no longer in the profession. However, consider that being a cop makes you a social leper to anyone other than a fellow cop; people are afraid to loosen up around you for fear that they might have anything they say used in a court of law. Also, if you ever heard me and the other cabbies talking about idiot John Q you might think we cabbies hated all people too. Most of the guys on ODC (and most of us cabbies) are just venting frustration, so don't take things you read on a social website so darn seriously! I know there are remarks made on ODC that seem frightening, but most of it is BSing after a hard day.

What is a hard day? A few years ago an African-American male, intoxicated on alcohol and who-knows-what else, started raising hell in the middle of Walter Reed Drive in Arlington. Oh, and did I mention he weighed 350 pounds and was buck-nekkid? Pepper spray and even Tasers did not faze him much, and finally the cops got a chance to swarm him and restrain him WHEN HE SQUATTED DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD TO TAKE A DUMP. Dry cleaning? More like gasoline, a match, and a whole new uniform. Gaaaah. They could have just shot him dead for a variety of reasons. But as they saw it, they were there to protect both the neighborhood AND the loon. Now after you have wrestled on the pavement with a 350 pound wino and gotten yourself covered in his doody, wouldn't YOU want to co-miserate with your peers?

The other day I rode up on my bike to a 7-11 where there were five cops standing around talking. I held up a quarter and said "Hey! I'll give you guys two bits to watch my ride!" and they all cracked up. Try treating them like neighbors. You might just find out they are exactly that.

imported post

I would grab his hand with my strong hand, turn towards him, and my weak hand/elbow meet with his jaw. Of course, being armed, and having a 50" chest is a deterrent for most people.

imported post

Alexcabbie: I'm not leaning on everything I see written on ODC and I understand about blowing off steam. I'm just commenting on the cumulative stance of the majority on that site.Beneath all the steam is still an underlying stance against civilian OC.I'm not trying to discredit the job nor those who perform it. As far as treating them like neighbors, you shouldn't assume that I don't. 90+% of my face-to-face interactions with officers have been positive and friendly. I've only had two negative interactions - once when I was plainly harassed,and the other right after a traffic accident where I'd fallen asleep behind the wheel and they thought I was DUI. Once I blew clean they were human again. I've had a few LEOs in my life become pretty good friends - I know they have good sides and bad.

A lot of my understanding of LEO mentality comes from one of my all-time favorite books, which I highly recommend to about anyone, you included. Get your hands on it if you can, it's"

"Armed & Dangerous" by Gina Gallo.

Memoirs of a Chicago Policewoman. Great read.

imported post

AvianP wrote:

If I am OCing and someone makes a move for my gun, what are my legal responses. Can I unholster my weapon to protect it w/o being charged with brandishing?

I am concerned because I noticed a guy checking me out at a store yesterday, and then over the next 15 minutes, he tried to stay at my 6 o'clock as much as he could. He didn't seem intimidated at it, and the look I saw in his eyes when he saw my gun was "I want that". If he had moved up behind me and placed his hand on the handle of my gun, I would break a few of his fingers pretty easily.....but the question remains. If someone lunges at my pistol, what can I do to protect it and me?

Click to expand...

simple method, if yoru strong side is your right and where you carry, the second his hand goes on your weapon, grab it with your right hand, bring it up, come around and PLOW your left hand through his elbow joint from the outside............it becomes very hard to steal a weapon with an inverted elbow :-D

imported post

Just stomp on their toes or instep... you ain't Chuck freakin' Norris. Then distance yourself from the assailant 'n either pull that pistol or whistle Dixie.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Just stomp on their toes or instep... you ain't Chuck freakin' Norris. Then distance yourself from the assailant 'n either pull that pistol or whistle Dixie.

Click to expand...

haha chuck norris would just roundhouse kick them to death.......as he does to every thing else in this world :-D lmao............i cant whistle

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Just stomp on their toes or instep... you ain't Chuck freakin' Norris. Then distance yourself from the assailant 'n either pull that pistol or whistle Dixie.

Click to expand...

No! the gun is just to compensate for my tiny penis. I'm actually a ninja. I don't need a gun to protect myself, I have ancient secret Chinese magic instead... You know, like all the anti's who say they don't need one.

My Obama bumper stickers will protect me! They're VINYL! Not paper like a restraining order.