Questions On Being Disarmed While OCing

[McX]

being in the wrong place at the wrong time made him a target.

 

[hopnpop]

being in the wrong place at the wrong time made him a target.

Darn good possibility. My initial thought was that his SA wasn't peaked at the time. Then I got to thinking that the whole "situational awareness" aspect makes for a good catch-all excuse. It can be applied to most anything that can and might go wrong with OC. So whether it was a matter of wrong place at wrong time, or lack of SA, or whatever, it happened. Probably won't be the last time, either. I'll remain thankful of it being such a rare, nearly unheard of occurrance; and a reminder to always keep your SA honed when OCing. Who knows what exactly MADE him a target.... maybe he was wearing one of these...(?)

 

[eye95]

How about on page 2 of the July 15 issue of GUN WEEK? "Man robbed during open carry"

A man openly carrying a handgun was robbed at gunpoint in Milwaukee, WI - where concealed carry is not legal - and now the outlaw has the citizen's pistol.

According to WTMJ news, the 34-year-old gunowner habitually carried a pistol on his belt. His neighbors reportedly knew he was always armed, and evidently the robber did as well because he got the drop on the armed citizen.

[paragraph removed]

He also reportedly said that open carry made him a target, so he is not going to do that anymore. However, he also said this adds fuel to the argument that Wisconsin should have a concealed carry statute. Currently, Wisconsin and Illinois are the only two states that do not have some sort of concealed carry law. A concealed carry law was vetoed twice by anti-gun Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat.

Open carry activists have argued that carrying guns where they could be seen is a deterrent to crime.

Obliously, Gun Week isn't a big proponent of OC, either. The last line irritates me. Since this one incident happened, it must mean that OC isn't a deterrent to crime in the least, after all. What a load. But I digress. I'll still be OCing today (and tomorrow, and the next day).

This one has been discussed in about half-a-dozen threads, including one dedicated to it.

It wasn't a gun grab. It was an armed robbery. The OP (and some challenge that seems to be around here) are in regards to a gun grab or a snatch, an opportunistic removal of the gun from the holster before the carrier can stop it.

 

[hopnpop]

This one has been discussed in about half-a-dozen threads, including one dedicated to it.

It wasn't a gun grab. It was an armed robbery. The OP (and some challenge that seems to be around here) are in regards to a gun grab or a snatch, an opportunistic removal of the gun from the holster before the carrier can stop it.

OHH.....an opportunistic removal of the gun by an otherwise UNARMED person - gotcha.

 

[eye95]

The original question did not say "unarmed." Nor, IIRC, did the challenge.

The concern is that OC makes one a target of a gun grab. Based on the challenge not having been met, it would seem that there has never been a documented case of such a grab.

Here is the relevant part of the OP.

...What would happen if someone snuck up behind you and tried to disarm you while OCing and you shot them? ...

 

[hopnpop]

The original question did not say "unarmed." Nor, IIRC, did the challenge.

The concern is that OC makes one a target of a gun grab. Based on the challenge not having been met, it would seem that there has never been a documented case of such a grab.

Here is the relevant part of the OP.

No prob, I'm not being argumentative.

 

[Dreamer]

I agree, I think, but if you are targeted because you have a gun, the other guy probably does too. You are more likely to be shot for OCing (another remote possibility) than to be forcibly disarmed.

Please cite a single instance where this has ever occurred.

I would imagine that you might be more likely to be shot by an LEO while OCing, but there has not been a single incident that I know of where an OCer was shot by a criminal BECAUSE he was OCing...

 

[simmonsjoe]

Please cite a single instance where this has ever occurred.

I would imagine that you might be more likely to be shot by an LEO while OCing, but there has not been a single incident that I know of where an OCer was shot by a criminal BECAUSE he was OCing...

it hasn't occurred. path of least resistance. Criminal sees you armed, goes and robs someone else. If he pulls a gun/starts shooting its most likely he didn't notice you were armed. Crooks about to commit a crime have tunnel vision and almost no situational awareness. Look at all of the stories of people sticking up places where cops are eating and the like.

 

[hopnpop]

it hasn't occurred. path of least resistance. Criminal sees you armed, goes and robs someone else. If he pulls a gun/starts shooting its most likely he didn't notice you were armed. Crooks about to commit a crime have tunnel vision and almost no situational awareness. Look at all of the stories of people sticking up places where cops are eating and the like.

Good point, but one should never RELY on a criminal to act like his predecessors. It only takes one criminal to NOT have tunnel vision, to engage his SA, and have a plan. Just sayin. But to date, what you say holds some truth.

 

[EG&G Technical Services Employee]

it hasn't occurred. path of least resistance. Criminal sees you armed, goes and robs someone else. If he pulls a gun/starts shooting its most likely he didn't notice you were armed. Crooks about to commit a crime have tunnel vision and almost no situational awareness. Look at all of the stories of people sticking up places where cops are eating and the like.

Is that what they call crack cocaine these days?

 

[hopnpop]

 

[EG&G Technical Services Employee]

Alluding to the fact that most criminals are high on drugs when crimes are comm..... DO I NEED TO SPELL IT OUT!

 

[eye95]

Alluding to the fact that most criminals are high on drugs when crimes are comm..... DO I NEED TO SPELL IT OUT!

I had the same reaction to your post that hopnpop did.

Do you have some statistics to back up the above assertion? I am sure many criminals are under the influence when the commit crimes, but not most.

 

[EG&G Technical Services Employee]

I had the same reaction to your post that hopnpop did.

Do you have some statistics to back up the above assertion? I am sure many criminals are under the influence when the commit crimes, but not most.

Yeah, watch COPS on any given night and see how many criminals are found with drugs, what do I look like, stat boy?

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html

There are your stats, took about 20 seconds to look up, instead of being lazy and asking me for the stats you could have done it just ask quickly, believe it or not!

 

[eye95]

Yeah, watch COPS on any given night and see how many criminals are found with drugs, what do I look like, stat boy?

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html

There are your stats, took about 20 seconds to look up, instead of being lazy and asking me for the stats you could have done it just ask quickly, believe it or not!

Meh. No worries. You only have a couple of dozen posts, so you may not know how we tend to do things here. We back up our assertions, instead of becoming defensive and calling someone who asks you to do so lazy.

It doesn't matter to me. I've read most of what you've posted and have decided it ain't worth reading. Welcome to ignore-land.

 

[EG&G Technical Services Employee]

Meh. No worries. You only have a couple of dozen posts, so you may not know how we tend to do things here. We back up our assertions, instead of becoming defensive and calling someone who asks you to do so lazy.

It doesn't matter to me. I've read most of what you've posted and have decided it ain't worth reading. Welcome to ignore-land.

It obviously is worth reading if you read most of it, but cheers anyway.

And from reading many threads on the forum "you" back up assertions only when it serves to rid the board of some anti. There are no need for facts when everyone is in agreement right? I'm just that monkey in the wrench, gentlemen, that gun owner that hasn't completely gone to the dark side (extreme right wing). I'm just here to keep you on your toes, but so far my discussions are either met with "troll" or "ignore-land". You right wingers sure are infatuated with fantasy.... oh wait.
"

 

[Bikenut]

It obviously is worth reading if you read most of it, but cheers anyway.

And from reading many threads on the forum "you" back up assertions only when it serves to rid the board of some anti. There are no need for facts when everyone is in agreement right? I'm just that monkey in the wrench, gentlemen, that gun owner that hasn't completely gone to the dark side (extreme right wing). I'm just here to keep you on your toes, but so far my discussions are either met with "troll" or "ignore-land". You right wingers sure are infatuated with fantasy.... oh wait.
"

I grow weary of the typical Leftist's arrogant assumption that they are so gifted that us "common folk" should kiss their....... ummm ........ feet in gratitude that they would deign to favor us with their notice.

 

[SaintJacque]

Yeah, watch COPS on any given night and see how many criminals are found with drugs, what do I look like, stat boy?

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html

There are your stats, took about 20 seconds to look up, instead of being lazy and asking me for the stats you could have done it just ask quickly, believe it or not!

1) You made the claim, so it's your responsibility to source your assertions. Telling us to "google it" is extremely ineffective persuasion. Personally, I find it irritating.

2) Your source is 10 years old.

3) According to your own source, only 32% of inmates were under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense.

4) I have watched cops, and it makes me sick. So many of the arrests and stings are for drugs and NOTHING more.

 

[hopnpop]

Well, let's see here - the 1st cause of my "wtf" reaction was your handle before you changed it to "EG&G Technical Services Employee". What was it again, um, Pregnant AIDS??? Ok, that alone warrants a twitchy eye and a "wtf". And the crack cocaine comment, I thought, was a poor attempt at humor which isn't so bad, but it came from so far out of no where and didn't really have much relevance. It just seemed that our conversation was far and gone from anything having to do with criminals being on crack and/or other drugs. It's really makes no difference whether someone's under an unfluence or not - an attempted gun grab is an attempted gun grab, and anyone who attempts this, under an influence or not, is a dangerous person who needs to be "dispatched" in one way or another.

The comment is off the wall and not even worth doing any homework over, especially as it makes no real difference. IMO, it shouldn't have even been taken seriously. Now that this thread has been totally derailed, let's get it back on track, shall we?

 

[heresyourdipstickjimmy]

First, I am not a troll but this is my first post as I am new to the board.

I couldn't really find a better location to post this so I just picked General Discussion.

I have been reading alot about Open Carry on other forums and wanted to learn more about why people believe it is or is not a good idea so I have been reading some threads.

I don't want to get into a debate over CCing or OCing but I do have a few questions which I would be concerned about if I was allowed to OC in SC.

What would happen if someone snuck up behind you and tried to disarm you while OCing and you shot them?

Do you have every legal right to fire at themeven if you do not know theyhave aweapon?

I know that some states, including SC,will only legally allow you to shoot someone if you believe they will cause you or someone else severe bodily harm, dismemberment, or death.

Does the possibility that an attacker may use your own weapon to harm or kill you, someone you are with, or innocent bystanders legally stand up to the definition of proper use of deadly force?

Would you be liable if someone did disarm you and used your weapon to injure or kill someone else?

I know that someone can just as easily get a concealed firearm away from you and you are not going to stop and make sure that an attacker is armed either way but they would not necessarilybe going directly for the gun if it was properly concealed compared to if you were targeted specifically because you had a firearm visible while OCing.

Personally I would be on edge while OCing even if I had training on stopping someone from disarming me and had a holster that had some type of retention device like a Serpa or something similar that officers use.

I know that officers have a higher percentage rate ofbeingdisarmed since they are more likely to deal with criminals on a daily basis but I would still be concerned with the possibilty no matter how slim.

Thanks

There is one and only one answer for the emboldened question. That act is considered the use of deadly force, and especially so in the LEO community (I believe it's Deadly Force Assault). Your responsibility at that point is to protect the weapon at all costs, attempt to create distance between you and your assailant at any cost BEFORE unholstering, then positively identify your target BEFORE taking any further action. Yes, you'd likely be justified in shooting, but would that make sense without positively identifying your target. Someone already posted it, but I'll reiterate it: Situational Awareness.

Of course, every threat of this nature and scenario where this occurs will be a little different, which is where training and good judgment become more important that your shooting skills.

At a minimum, bruises, broken bones, dislocated joints, and the like are all warranted for such use of deadly force by an assailant. Though those too require judgment (very rapid at that). If a child attempted to unholster your firearm from behind you, you'd likely become reluctant to react properly in the future. It's a risk we all face when we carry and an important reason why holster choice for the location and method of carry (as well as the firearm of choice) that day are so vital.

So check with your local LE office and see how they would respond. Then look at your State's laws to see if you as a citizen can be charged criminally for reacting in the same fashion. If it's legal for you as a citizen, then you're done. If it's not, then you'll need to start writing your Attorney General and Legislators to get it changed. No citizen should EVER be forced to wait to be shot or shot at prior to using lethal force in defense of themselves or others. Imminent threat is all that should be needed...ie pointing the gun at you or someone else or physically attempting to take a firearm from someone who is lawfully carrying. Both of those are clear examples of intent to do harm and are both deadly force assaults.