Close to having to shoot a man

imported post

Also this deals with situations outside the home:

California Penal Code § 197:

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

Click to expand...

In fact, not only do we have no "duty to retreat", Californians are legally allowed to come to the aid of fellow citizens in danger, with lethal force if necessary, even when the defender's life is not in danger, and in fact may be put in greater danger in order to assist the victim of a violent felony.

imported post

I was focused on his hands to make sure he didnt have a weapon. Instantly picked up on the odor of booze, and also that he was having troubles standing. He raised his hands like a boxer at the start of a round. The moment of truth has arrived. What is your move?

Click to expand...

So you shot an unarmed man who was too drunk to even stand up and want to call it self defense. If so please do not tell that to anyone. Maybe you left out the part about him weighing 400 pounds and you were afraid he was going to all on you and squish you. You did well by walking away but they way you have described it there is no way you would have been justified in shooting him even if he had charged you.Even in aCastle Doctine scenario the amout of force usedmust be proportional to the danger. That is why you shouldn't shoot someone who is knocking on your doorin the middle of the afternoon unless you know they are BG's.

imported post

Wonderful job!! I am glad that neither you or he became a physically injured party. I hope you don't get assaulted like that again, but if you do, this clearly shows you exercise good judgment.

I guess it's not really anyone's reaction to flat out run...but it is an option. I would if I had to.

imported post

My point is that situations like this are not black and white. There are so many variables that when it comes down to it. Even someone who is drunk can kill you just the same. As far as the whole unarmed argument some are using, all I can say is a couple good punches from a grown man at the right place will cause serious damage and even death.

But like I said earlier, my biggest fear was him going after my weapon. Even the law is vague. How many punches must I take? What if he tackles me? Must he draw blood on me? Should I stand there and get beaten up or worse because I should be afraid of possible prosocution by one side or a beating on the other? If he would not have stopped when i threatened him I would have chosen option 3. Defend myself on both fronts and hope that I was rightious in my actions.

I can say that if it had escalated I would not have an issue defending myself from an attacker. This is stuff people learn in Kindergarten. Don't hit others, don't take what is not yours. These are not some advanced concepts. If he is striking me with no intention of stopping I would have not lost a bunch of sleep in firing on him. I warned him, made sure he saw the gun and he made the right decision to leave.

imported post

greengum wrote:

HankT wrote:

greengum wrote:

Overall I really don't know how to feel about how I handled myself. I remember thinking that I prolly would have found my way back to my room somehow and call the police hoping they would come to rescue me if I was unarmed, and being scared to death the whole time. I also believe that is was the knowledge of me being able to effectively killing him in seconds is why I remained calm. I really don't want to have to kill another man unless I dont have any other viable options but there is 0 doubt in my mind if he had made a move to my gun or continued and escalate in striking me I would have.

I will say, not being a victim is a pretty good feeling.

Click to expand...

Well done. Fully in compliance with HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[suP]©[/suP] :

It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.

Failure to follow the wisdom and guidanceimplicit inHPCSD[suP]©[/suP] results in trauma, regret and various legal, moral and psychic costs. All of which, you avoided, gg. Good work.

Remember, HPCSD[suP]©[/suP] always applies. Even with a drunken CIA wannabe.

Did you report the assault by him upon you?

Click to expand...

No, it really didn't even cross my mind to contact the police. I was not about to go through the whole deal with the cops and be questioned and maybe even charged. I have a few life rules I live by. One of them is to almost never talk to the police unless I need their help to protect my Rights. My 2nd did that job for free and without attitude. The police would have just been drama. But that has really no bearing on why I made this thread.

Click to expand...

You're making up the "rules" as you go along. And they seem to be totally self-serving and ad hoc.

And somewhat unethical. Failing to report a crime is unethical since you have a responsibility to society.

But you didn't. Why? Because everything goes back to the gun for you....the gun decides what you do...

Good luck wit dat "rule."

imported post

:quirky

imported post

hey hankT,,, im sure all of us would be interested in your take on this event!
how do you think it could of,, should have been handled?
using the facts, as told to us by the OP
your wise and thoughtful insight could become a guiding light for us all to follow!
i wait in rapt attention,, im ready to learn,,
inquiring mind want to know

imported post

Based on a quick read-through, I think you did decently. I say this while taking into account that you may not have had much opportunity to study the subject of armed self-defense, or perhaps take formal training.

Some things to consider for next time. Meant in the spirit of helpful ideas to look over and sort through, to see if any might be useful, as compared to criticism.

1. Just omit the verbal threats of deadly force. If they are reported to police, it just complicates things. Even if you do not literally intend to follow up on them, and are just using them to give pause to your assailant. It is too easy for police or prosecutor to decide that you really did mean it.

2. If a drunk is having a hard time standing, he is going to be slow dodging a good punch. I am not saying that is the proper response in any given situation. I am saying it is an option if needed. His extended reaction time will work well to your favor if you cannot get him to stop any other way. Ditto for a leg sweep that takes him off his feet. Keep in mind thatany fisticuffs on your part escalates the situation to possible false assault allegationsby him. Personally, I plan to avoid if possible.

3. I would call the police.While waiting, secure the gunoff person toreduce the chance ofwarrantless seizure, temporary or otherwise. Then meet the copsoutside the residence or hotel room. You may care to weigh signing a complaint and testifying in court against having to travel back to the jurisdiction for the bench trial. But,the first caller isoften assumed to be the victim. All it would take is for him to have some low-moral female traveling companion witness the confrontation and call the police first.

"Officer, my husband was just trying to walk to his room and this man attacked him. Started calling him names.And he pulled a gun!"

And without a witness to support your side, the door is open to the cop's judgement.

I'm thinking it might not be a bad idea to just report being mildly assaulted, uninterested in pressing charges, but definitely wanting the police to come by and get this guy under control before he actually does hurt someone or himself by falling down concrete stairs or something. "No, dispatcher. I'm not hurt. I'm not mad. He's just had too much to drink and needs a friendly but strong hand to get him under control.Can y'all come by?" Something like that, maybe.

imported post

It seems that you handled this situation ell enough. We all think we would do better but no one knows except those who have been through it. Proper preparation and training would definitely help us all not only in action but in what to say.





So from my lofty judgement seat..... You handled it adequately

imported post

Hank's logic 101, class is in session. Clearly every action I take on this world revolves around a gun. You proved that by citing multiple events in my life...o wait.

You now refer to me as unethical because I decided getting an ass kicking or worse was resolved without the need of the government after the conflict was over would be a waste of time. I'll be sure to ask for permission next time too! I wouldn't want someone attacking me to feel ethically violated! I forgot free thought, self reliance, and critical thinking can only be attained from the government! AHHHHH I HAVE BECOME A THOUGHT CRIMINAL WHO MAKES UP HIS OWN RULES!!!!!

Seriously though if you wanna troll me at least come up with something a little better. We are counting on you!



The point of me wanting to share this with the community is to really get people talking about how they would act in certain situations. I'm actually very curious where people stand or at the very least to have you guys think about how you would have handled it if you didn't want to share your thoughts with the whole interwebz.

As far as Hanks reference to "my own rules" I think my logic holds up that each of us has a different threshold of when we would be willing to use deadly force. Each one of us can looks at things differently or gauge a threat in a way that's unique to all our own perceptions. Hence we all have our own rules.

imported post

Situations like this are why I carry my "Cold Steel City Stick".

Yeah I kind of look like Sir Duke walking around with it but with my back problems and both knees having a torn miniscus it comes in handy for other purposes besides self defense.

I was walking my 2 dogs in Stern Grove this sunday when a dumbass was walking their vicious dog off leash and it started to attack my dogs (after a 20' run towards me growling with teeth gnashing)...the blunt end of my cane stopped it dead in its tracks with a large yelp.

I can imagine it doing similarly for a drunk asshole too. The nice thing about the stick is it enforces a distance between you and the attacker. A 6 c-cell maglite could've been used similarly on this guy I think.

Cops have a billy/mace besides their gun and know they have a choice...shouldn't we do the same?

imported post

I'm wondering what those Urgent PMs were from the beginning of this thread were

imported post

It had to do with personal information that I would rather random people on the interwebz not have. If I have met you at an open carry event you would have known it anyways.

imported post

From what little I have read with regard to using deadly force, what will be asked of the jury is, did the defendant act reasonably? Would a reasonable person act the same way in the same situation? This encompasses assessing the threat and the response to that threat.

Deadly force should only be used to preserve life.

And yes, you should have called the police and filed a report, even if you only brandish the firearm. That is the price you pay for arming yourself.

Stay vigilant.

imported post

Pace wrote:

You are correct, my apologies. California however does require you to use only sufficient force. Ie, shooting someone not armed, will end you in Jail.

Click to expand...

There have also beentimes where people are justafiably killed when not armed. Like big burly people. The shooter can say that the suspect's enormous size in comparison to their frail bodies was enough of a threat to their life durring a confrontation.

:dude:Being a big boy i take offense to that. I want to use the defense that theyre so small in comparison to me that they can ninja circles around me lol:dude:

imported post

even this "disparity of force" is a misnomer,, im 6/1 175, trim and fit, but im not a trained fighter...

i really dont think i have to wait until ive been HIT once or alot,, when 1 good punch can knock a guy out!!

i think a gun ,, "shown up front", OCd, strong side, and "early on" in the "confrontation",, that i dont need to get attacked,, that its a "clear cut case" of "dont you dare escalate any more sh5t with me"!

you did exactly what YOU needed to do,, if any thing i would way you gave him too many chances to get to and hurt you.

he was drunk,, and you measured his danger to you just about right,,,

thanks the the story,, i have one too that happened in calif about 1984, but ive never told it yet.

probably a parking lot robbery, but i let him see the gun at about 25 ft away and he turned to go the other way.

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

even this "disparity of force" is a misnomer,, im 6/1 175, trim and fit, but im not a trained fighter...

i really dont think i have to wait until ive been HIT once or alot,, when 1 good punch can knock a guy out!!

i think a gun ,, "shown up front", OCd, strong side, and "early on" in the "confrontation",, that i dont need to get attacked,, that its a "clear cut case" of "dont you dare escalate any more sh5t with me"!

Click to expand...

That's the reason I changed from CC to OC.

imported post

Marshaul, I already said I was wrong, but you gotta point that out twice, you nut!

imported post

Don't carry a weapon, if your "biggest fear" is that he is going to take it!!!

You learned in Kindergarden how to defend yourself from drunk men at hotels? Did you go to school in Oakland Montessori?

Situations are not black and white, but the courts will often act that way. If you are unsure of your obligation under the law for carrying a weapon, I would advise you to take some classes to teach you this.

This is not to put you down, but to bring a real point up -- when you carry a gun, you better know what its for. It's to KILL SOMEONE when your life is in immediate danger. If you are going to carry a gun, you better know other alternatives, verbal combat, how to defend yourself, because in this country, if you do shoot a drunk guy, especially in California, you will likely be tried, convicted and go to jail If you are worried about your life, imagine yourself, without a gun in the California Penal system.

If he attacked you drunk, in the middle of a hotel area, and you killed him, there is a good possibility that you would have lost a lot of sleep, while lying in a cot wanting to know if your "friend" in the jail cell is going to be your "buddy" for the night.

Go take a class in gun safety, California laws (which I am not an expert, thanks Marshaul) and then maybe carry your gun.




greengum wrote:

My point is that situations like this are not black and white. There are so many variables that when it comes down to it. Even someone who is drunk can kill you just the same. As far as the whole unarmed argument some are using, all I can say is a couple good punches from a grown man at the right place will cause serious damage and even death.

But like I said earlier, my biggest fear was him going after my weapon. Even the law is vague. How many punches must I take? What if he tackles me? Must he draw blood on me? Should I stand there and get beaten up or worse because I should be afraid of possible prosocution by one side or a beating on the other? If he would not have stopped when i threatened him I would have chosen option 3. Defend myself on both fronts and hope that I was rightious in my actions.

I can say that if it had escalated I would not have an issue defending myself from an attacker. This is stuff people learn in Kindergarten. Don't hit others, don't take what is not yours. These are not some advanced concepts. If he is striking me with no intention of stopping I would have not lost a bunch of sleep in firing on him. I warned him, made sure he saw the gun and he made the right decision to leave.

Click to expand...

imported post

I would have BLASTED HIS FACE WITH 15% OC SPRAY!
I like to do the "bait & blast" aka act "scared" so they come to you like a predator! Then "WHAMO" & the funky chicken on the ground dance, including the screaming! Yee Haa!
Did it 4 times already and it's a lot of fun seeing pain in "trouble makers"....
OC is just as good as 50,000 Volts when it comes to creating a fast "funky chicken" screams, bouncing around, rolling and crying! Give a 2nd blast when they are on the ground for more satisfaction (if no witnesses)!!!

I love BLASTING ANY PIECE OF SHIT!
I ALSO HAVE A 2 GALLON 75 FEET RIOT BAZOOKA!
THEY USE THEM IN "CAGE RIOTS" IN MEXICO!
THEY STOP 100 PEOPLE IN ABOUT 1 MINUTE!
YOU COULD SAY IT'S LIKE SPRAYING FIRE -)
WW2 Okinawa & Iwojima like!
RED OC15% Battery acid, 45minutes of PAIN!