OPEN CARRY and confronted by someone....

imported post

NewZealandAmerican wrote:

Do you use your fists to block/defend yourself as if you didn't have your gun on you when retreat is not an option? Use any other means of force to defend yourself?

Click to expand...

Yes, block any punches you can, reach for your Pepper Spray, or your knive if he is choking you out, or he is grabbing your gun and is trying to unholster your gun.

Gun Fu, depends what State you are in is not a good first line of defense. Get trained in hand to hand fighting, at least enough to get to your gun or retain your gun.

imported post

While the court looks at the four components of the decision mentioned above, the issue you really are raising is with regard to how will the court/jury determine whether you were in reasonable fear for life if fists begin to fly and you determine you cannot disengage. The measurement will be largely determinedby the concept of disparity of force as concerns the judgment of a "reasonable man".

Re: Disparity of Force (Which is used to measure the reasonablity of how much you would fear for your life in a physical encounter.)

Here's an excerpt from one of M. Ayoob's columns on "Use of Deadly Force" (citation follows):

Disparity of force is the situation that authorizes the law-abiding citizen to shoot what appears to be an unarmed man. In this concept, the law recognizes that the power of the attacker to kill or cripple with "body weapons," fists or feet, may be so great vis-a-vis the defender's stature and ability that this disparity of physical force becomes the aggressor's deadly weapon.

If the attacker is a black belt or a professional fighter and known to your customer as such at the time, he possesses disparity of force. So does an unarmed male violently attacking an unarmed female. So does a gang, and as few as two unarmed assailants can give grounds for justifiable homicide if they attack ferociously enough. However, once all but one have been turned back or neutralized, the sole survivor is no longer a member of a gang and may no longer be shot -- at least, not for that reason.

A sound and healthy person viciously attacking a cripple, or a strong young man attacking a weak old person, also create disparity of force.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n3_v37/ai_12462185/

The entire series is a good read and addresses your question with more thought and detail albeit in a general situation which may vary due to individual states' laws with regard to retreat, protection of property, etc.

imported post

ecocks wrote:

........ or a strong young man attacking a weak old person, also create disparity of force.

Click to expand...

This is something that young punks should consider when they try to assault those in their 60's and early 70's.

They should also consider that a disproportionally high number of these old farts have military experience, courtesy of Vietnam, and a corresponding attitude towards the sanctitiy of a young thug's life.

imported post

I am 32 Years old, 6 foot 5 inches and about 220lbs. I am a good sized boy. I look fit and strong. BUT, I had the disk between L4 and L5 remove itself to a new home in my spinal nerves. I had emergency operation around the first of the year. If a person hit me on kicked me in the back or even tackled me I could have even worse damage than I have now. I could even be paralysed... I would give 1 warning then draw.

imported post

I would be more concerned about what happens if I get the snot beat out of me and the guy takes my gun while I'm bleeding on the sidewalk... now my gun is in the hands of a violent attacker.

For that reason alone I think I would "display" lethal force and hope the threat was enough to deter him... otherwise the damage that could be done with my weapon after the fact would be the biggest factor in how I handled the situation.

I can't think of many sane reasons why an unarmed attacker would ignore the business end of a .45

imported post

I'm 5'9", 120 lbs. I have martial arts training, formal and informal,in several forms of melee. In a fight against an average thug, hand to hand, I pride my odds.

However...

If I'm OCing, and some jackass starts instigating me, looking for a fight, I have to consider this: I have a gun in plain view. How could he possibly pick a fight with someone who is known to be armed, unless he is also armed?

My point is that there is no way to ensure that he only has his hands and fists. He could have a knife or even a gun of his own.

Furthermore, if you've ever finished a porterhouse steak, you're probably a lot bigger than me. I'm quick, but if someone got one or two good hits on me, I'm done. Even in hand-to-hand combat, I rely on speed and the ability to dodge and outmaneuver an opponant before striking a weak point. Having a gun on my belt also tends to hinder my ability to do so.

And if he gets close enough, he can probably outmuscle me and take my gun from me. Maybe I can defend it, but it's not a chance worth taking when drawing is a safer option.

Point being, the assailant gets one warning. If he does not break off, I draw. If he moves in a fashion that strikes me as a draw of his own, or approaches in a threatening manner, I fire.

imported post

Well, there are a lot of 'what if's that play out in your question. Myself personally, if I am OCing and am threatened by someone who is unarmed, my first response would be to try and put distance between myself and that other person. (ie take an avenue of retreat if it is available, or get in my car and drive away) Reason being, I really don't want to get into a wrestling match or a fistfight where the BG would have an opportunity to grab at my gun. Matter of fact, I don't want an agressive individual close to me at ALL, especially when I have my gun. So yes, my first choice would be to simply leave the area and let the BG yell and scream and shout or whatever while I go on my merry way.

That being said, I do not carry pepper spray, a tazer, or any sort of knife (aside from my trusty boy scout pocket knife for opening boxes and such). I would try to use my noggin and get away from the threat, (flag down a cop car, enter a bank or someplace with security guards, etc) If all other options fail, and somehow it comes down to this guy violently trying to attack me, then yes, I would use my weapon to save my bacon because it is perfectly possible for one human being to beat another human being to death with nothing more than their bare hands, or snap a neck, or strangle the life out of someone. So the fact that the individual is not holding a gun or a knife doesn't make me feel that they are less of a threat, especially in close quarters.

imported post

Anyone who threatens someone they know is armed with a firearmdeserves everything or anything he receives from the one they have threatened. People are regurlarly killed by one punch delivered by the scum of societyfor no obvious reason.

Bad back, old age, or any other reason would make no difference to me. If someone unprovoked by me or minewas to threaten me or a member of my family at home or in public,with physical violence, and I was armed with a firearm, I would not hesitate to draw, tell the one making the threat I will shoot if they continue, and if the attacker did continue, FIRE, and in one healthy we survived piece, faceany concequences.

Haz.

imported post

Haz. wrote:

Anyone who threatens someone they know is armed with a firearmdeserves everything or anything he receives from the one they have threatened.

Click to expand...

I'd add on that anyone who threatens someone, armed or not, deserves what they get. I hate it when people threaten to "mess someone up" or any such thing. If you run your mouth, threaten to hurt someone or do violence to them, and then they turn around and beat your @zz, I have zero sympathy.

imported post

Ayoob and most others go on and on about this... and are not much help. Since most of us are not mind readers, unless we know the attacker well we won't have a clue if they are serious, trained in anything, on drugs or much of anything else except the fact that they are threatening us with death or great bodily harm. That last, then, is all I have to know about the situation to defend myself vigorously and immediately. That's why I carry a gun.

I'm a 64 year old woman, 5 feet tall, and physically able to fight my way out of a wet paper bag on a good day. <grin>

I have no intention of attempting to read their mind or "negotiate." When they attack me, they've decided to take their chances with that wonderful .45 bore they're staring at.

Smile - wait for flash.

imported post

There's a quote from somewhere..."Never pick a fight with an old man... he'll prob'ly just kill you!" 'Lotta truth to that. I have this 'thing' about defending the gun. If an attacker gets the gun... no telling what will transpire. So... I carry the gun for self defense... and it's a symbiotic thing. The gun defends me... 'n I defend the gun.... at the same time.

Somebody mentioned the'Nam vets in the over 60 crowdnot being all that concerened about Thuggo's longevity. 'Lotta us ol'pharts ain't cherry-boys in the trigger pullin' department. We'll revert to type inna heartbeat.

imported post

being i live in michigan, if i was not the instigator, i would draw my pistol, if he persisted, i would shoot him in say the leg or arm if possible, hopefully not killing him, anymore then that i dont see as justified.

imported post

oohrahboy wrote:

being i live in michigan, if i was not the instigator, i would draw my pistol, if he persisted, i would shoot him in say the leg or arm if possible, hopefully not killing him, anymore then that i dont see as justified.

Click to expand...

Shooting to wound is dangerous. Shoot to stop. That means center mass. You don't want to kill anyone. That's admirable. Shoot center mass, stop him, and hope he lives. If he doesn't, remember that you weren't trying to kill him, just stop him.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

oohrahboy wrote:

being i live in michigan, if i was not the instigator, i would draw my pistol, if he persisted, i would shoot him in say the leg or arm if possible, hopefully not killing him, anymore then that i dont see as justified.

Click to expand...

Shooting to wound is dangerous. Shoot to stop. That means center mass. You don't want to kill anyone. That's admirable. Shoot center mass, stop him, and hope he lives. If he doesn't, remember that you weren't trying to kill him, just stop him.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with you people? If you don't have the sand to kill... don't carry. Wounding is accidental... you damn well better be tryin' to kill 'em or you'll have no justification to pull the trigger in the first place. It's not called deadly force for nothing.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

eye95 wrote:

oohrahboy wrote:

being i live in michigan, if i was not the instigator, i would draw my pistol, if he persisted, i would shoot him in say the leg or arm if possible, hopefully not killing him, anymore then that i dont see as justified.

Click to expand...

Shooting to wound is dangerous. Shoot to stop. That means center mass. You don't want to kill anyone. That's admirable. Shoot center mass, stop him, and hope he lives. If he doesn't, remember that you weren't trying to kill him, just stop him.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with you people? If you don't have the sand to kill... don't carry. Wounding is accidental... you damn well better be tryin' to kill 'em or you'll have no justification to pull the trigger in the first place. It's not called deadly force for nothing.

Click to expand...

Try rereading my post. I did not say, "Don't kill." I did not say, "Try not to kill." I said, "Shoot center mass." The point is to stop the threat. Center mass has a higher probability of stopping the threat than shooting for arms or legs, but comes with a high probability of killing. However, killing is not the goal, just an unfortunate, but likely, result.

Even if killing is one's goal, it is foolish to say so. Anything you type here can be used against you should you be forced to stop a BG and he dies as a result.

I see nothing "wrong with" me. Though, I cannot speak to the wrong-withedness of those who shoot to wound or those who shoot to kill.

Shoot to stop. Center mass. Keep shooting until they stop.

imported post

'Ever have to shoot a man? Quickly? They don't stand still... they might shoot back. You may not have a COM azimuth... 'n while you're standin' there goin' into your Weaver range stance 'n thinkin' about it... you're liable to eat a bullet or two. So you point that pistol at what you've got to shoot at'n mag dump it... drop the mag and reload if you have to and do it again. You shoot 'til the threat is down and disarmed. It's at that point you'll determine if he's dead or wounded. 2nd place in a gunfight is not desirable. Gunfights inrobbery attempts are short. violent and unpredictable. Surprise is always with the attacker. You can play internet lawyer all ya want... but in extremis... 'Snooze... ya lose.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

'Ever have to shoot a man? Quickly? They don't stand still... they might shoot back. You may not have a COM azimuth... 'n while you're standin' there goin' into your Weaver range stance 'n thinkin' about it... you're liable to eat a bullet or two. So you point that pistol at what you've got to shoot at'n mag dump it... drop the mag and reload if you have to and do it again. You shoot 'til the threat is down and disarmed. It's at that point you'll determine if he's dead or wounded. 2nd place in a gunfight is not desirable. Gunfights inrobbery attempts are short. violent and unpredictable. Surprise is always with the attacker. You can play internet lawyer all ya want... but in extremis... 'Snooze... ya lose.

Click to expand...

Isn't that just about what I said? You shoot center mass and keep shooting until the threat stops.

So, what are you taking issue with?

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

'Ever have to shoot a man? Quickly? They don't stand still... they might shoot back. You may not have a COM azimuth... 'n while you're standin' there goin' into your Weaver range stance 'n thinkin' about it... you're liable to eat a bullet or two. So you point that pistol at what you've got to shoot at'n mag dump it... drop the mag and reload if you have to and do it again. You shoot 'til the threat is down and disarmed. It's at that point you'll determine if he's dead or wounded. 2nd place in a gunfight is not desirable. Gunfights inrobbery attempts are short. violent and unpredictable. Surprise is always with the attacker. You can play internet lawyer all ya want... but in extremis... 'Snooze... ya lose.

Click to expand...

Isn't that just about what I said? You shoot center mass and keep shooting until the threat stops.

So, what are you taking issue with?

Click to expand...

You've saidmuch and experienced little. You may not have a classic COM to shoot at... Shoot at what you have... from whatever azimuth/angle.



Didn't youlose yourcarry permit for somethin'?

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

'Ever have to shoot a man? Quickly? They don't stand still... they might shoot back. You may not have a COM azimuth... 'n while you're standin' there goin' into your Weaver range stance 'n thinkin' about it... you're liable to eat a bullet or two. So you point that pistol at what you've got to shoot at'n mag dump it... drop the mag and reload if you have to and do it again. You shoot 'til the threat is down and disarmed. It's at that point you'll determine if he's dead or wounded. 2nd place in a gunfight is not desirable. Gunfights inrobbery attempts are short. violent and unpredictable. Surprise is always with the attacker. You can play internet lawyer all ya want... but in extremis... 'Snooze... ya lose.

Click to expand...

Isn't that just about what I said? You shoot center mass and keep shooting until the threat stops.

So, what are you taking issue with?

Click to expand...

You've saidmuch and experienced little. You may not have a classic COM to shoot at... Shoot at what you have... from whatever azimuth/angle.



Didn't youlose yourcarry permit for somethin'?

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? I think you have me confused with someone else.

Someone advocated shooting to wound. I took issue with that. You asked, "What's wrong with you people?" as though I had been advocating shooting to wound. I corrected the record and asked what issue were you taking with what I said.

I ask you again. What have I said that you are taking issue with?

Maybe you misread what I posted. That's OK. We all do it. However, please stop arguing with me over what I didn't say. It is extremely annoying.