As far as I'm concerned, an aggressor with a weapon is a lethal attack. But, what about an unarmed aggressor?
I question whether I should allow anyone to engage me while I am carrying. I would not pull on anyone I feel I could manage, but I question what I should do if someone is my size or bigger.
Clearly, the first option is to avoid engagement. But, what if you are attacked physically while you have your weapon?
Do you defend yourself while armed? Or do you pull to avoid physical engagement to prevent the possibility of having your gun used on yourself?
Too many possible variables.
Physical condition of target.
Size of aggressor
Number of aggressors
Presence of others
Other means of defense
Ability to disengage/flee
Never pull unless imminent danger (life or limb) is there. If I pull I am using. If i am minding my business and am attacked depending on the severity I will use the force necessary to protect myself.
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk
Originally Posted by maat
High pockets is correct... IMO.
Originally Posted by high pockets
Use the FORCE.
Consider stand your ground a possibility.
Originally Posted by high pockets
Fleeing is not an option.
Aggressor is your size or better.
Aggressor is determined.
Single person, no others around.
So you are saying that you will engage in a hand fight without pulling. This may mean that you may have your weapon used on yourself.
Originally Posted by tookerw1040
I'm not seeing where Hp implied use of force. Are you saying that you would use force in this situation?
Originally Posted by oakchas
To me it slightly sounds like he was being sarcastic, and with the caps of "FORCE", maybe star wars?????????
Originally Posted by maat
A good place to start is with Mas Ayoob's book "In the Gravest Extreme."
It's an easy read. Go through it once, then go back and pore slowly through the sections on "Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy", and "Disparity of Force."
Then follow that up with professional training, such as the MAG-40 course, which concentrates more on the justifiable use of deadly force than actual shooting skills. Once you have that training under your belt, then pursue training in the fine points of fighting with a firearm.
ok, given the variables here I will make a few suggestion on what I would do under certain circumstances.
Ive had extensive training and would have a real hard time in court if I did draw my weapon when confronted by some one my size or smaller..now a bigger guy would be harder to justify...unless I firmly believe this guy will beat me to death or cause serious body damage. At that point where I feel my life is in danger IMHO you draw...remember you do not have to shoot if you draw, but if you do honestly feel threaten and you do fire shoot center mass. but either way I will have a LOT of explaining to do. There is no way, If you cant escape, that you should subject yourself to a beating...you dont know if this guy is jacked up on drugs or is a former cage fighting champion, or a returning soldier With extensive combat exp who is haveing a PTSD flash..in the latter it is a sad situation and but I still feel that if the guy is determined to pound a mud hole into you then you can draw, if he backs down great, if not and is still intent on breaking you in half then you should defend yourself.
But as I said, with my back ground I would have a rough go of it on a normal day, however I dislocated my knee last night in Jujitsu, so I am on crutches and cannot defend myself in a fight, so I will do my best to verbal judo my way out of it and if the aggressor still wants to shove one of my crutches up my 6..then yeah I draw,and hope its a police officer I know and have trained with shows up and that my lawyer is worth the money..
BTW I was winning when the knee went..just in case anybody wanted to know..lol but like all my post what I do my or may not be what is best for you...Good luck and I hope that situation never happens
It depends. My main concern is my weapon. If the person is unarmed and I have the chance I'm going to step back while reaching for my weapon. I'm going to tell him that I am carrying a weapon. IF he keeps coming at that I can only assume he is going to use my own weapon against me.
If i'm attacked by surprise I'm going to defend myself and my weapon at any cost.
Yes, I meant "The FORCE" as in Star Wars... Because of the vagueness of the original scenario. Now that we have more details...
Gasmitty's right, start with principles you can learn in The Gravest Extreme an out of print classic that should go back in print.... it is timeless.
If fleeing is not an option, and you are not trained in H2H, and you have some distance... OC spray is a good idea, if you carry it. Stun gun is a possibility...
If none of those tools are available... use your head. Literally. The upper part of the forehead is a near perfect dome (one of the strongest structures in nature). Use it against his face. Get your body behind it.
I'm assuming you are cornered, since fleeing is not an option.... If it has gotten to that point, your situational awareness is sorely lacking... And if he's that close, you may not be able to effectively draw and fire any way...
In any case if you prevail with the head butt, you are just as likely to need defense of the legal variety as you would had you used a gun.
I would also suggest you read the book The Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker... learn to use your 6th sense.
(not quite literally on the 6th sense, BTW.. but If things are getting "hinky" get out sooner rather than later.)
Also, in a situation like this, early on, before he's so close you are cornered, it's kind of a game of rock/paper/scissors. If you can surrepticiously show you are armed, without brandishing... it may be enough deterrent. Peace through superior firepower and all that...
I have to agree (in respective order) with high pockets and tookerw1040 because (a) there are too many possiblities, (b) even with detailed and identical scenarios, no two situations, responses, and possible outcomes will ever be the same, and (c) you must always keep in mind that your use of deadly force will have to be convincingly explained later in a court of law that you were justifiably and imminently afraid for your life (or someone else's) and there was absolutely no other alternative by course of action or avoidance to pursue at the time.
It's easy for any of us to sit around and conjure up some hypothetical scenario and seek opinions on how the scenario should be handled and/or played out; but everyone's opinion may be totally right or totally wrong with the same scenario because I can promise that even the simplest of scenarios with completely identical factors will never be the same. Actions and/or inactions will always be different because different individuals and unknown circumstances will make the scenario often evolve in totally different directions in a single heartbeat.
While this relates to military action in a combat zone, the different possible outcomes to an identical scenario apply nonetheless to LE or civilian SD situations as well. This isn't highly complicated and has only one factor to consider instead of a whole grocery list......
You are cautiously walking into a burned-out jungle village after a major firefight, and there are many civilian casualties of collateral damage - most of whom you can't help or are beyond help. You see an unarmed little girl less than 12 years old sitting in front of a burned-out hut shivering and weeping hysterically. You use your best broken Vietnamese to say "do not be afraid, we will not hurt you".
Situation (a) - she raised her head holding one hand with the other that was missing three fingers and bleeding profusely - we doctored her up best we could, helped her find what was left of her family, and left them all the C-rations we could spare before moving on.
Situation (b) - she raised her head holding a grenade in her hand and pulled the pin - we cut her to ribbons with fire from three 16's before she could toss it, and all of us hit the ground.
Obviously, offering a can of C-rations to the grenade girl would have been fatal for all of us; and fragmenting the wounded girl would have unnessarily taken a life and had all parties concerned paying a heavy price in conscience and at an ensuing court-martial.
I apologize for making light of all the hypothetical scenarios I keep seeing presented because each and every one could have dozens of potential outcomes and courses of action that will always be different from the individuals involved and the fluid progression of their actions, actions of others, and changing circumstances that will continuously affect the decision and potential risk involved in choosing to use, or not use, deadly force with each passing split-second of the event's progression. What may have had the best outcome in one instance could easily have a totally different outcome with an identical scenario.
That's why it's impossible, futile, and foolish to plan or opinionate the proper (or improper) actions in even the most simple defensive scenario like it was an orchestrated offensive tactical maneuver because that's just not the way it is in reality when it comes to a shoot or don't shoot decision that you will have to fully justify later in court - or regret later in jail.
Originally Posted by Eaglebeak
Well, as I do agree with you 100%. You must anaylize the situation, and develope it. In these hypothetical scenarios, it does give insights, and different views. Some of these threads could be hypothetical or they could be real time scenarios that people have experienced, and the poster could just want to see what other people would do at a certian point. With that you can learn diffrent ways to look at things. For example, in your scenario, the little girl might not have anything in her hands, and you give her the C rations. She gives one of you a hug, with a land mine stuck to her chest.... BOOM! now yes I know thats alittle over the top, but hear me out. Now with that being said. Should situation like that ever arise, maybe next time you will take a closer look for any potential "booby trap". But yes I do agree 100% that the smallest action between people in the identical scenario will change the out come. But the diffrent opinions give diffrent insights on how to view a given situation.
Not saying that you are wrong, not at all i agree with you, but it can give different ways to look at things. Learning from other peoples experiences, or thoughts, or views...
In a situation such as this couldn't the fact you are armed place you at a disadvantage in a fight? You would be in a position of not only protecting yourself from harm but retaining your weapon too. Your attention would be divided putting you at a disadvantage.