Scary situation! Need some advice - Page 3

Scary situation! Need some advice

This is a discussion on Scary situation! Need some advice within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by 21bubba Your advice here and historically is going to get somebody (perhaps you) badly hurt or killed some day. Care to back ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56
Like Tree35Likes

Thread: Scary situation! Need some advice

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array NC Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NC Foothills
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    Your advice here and historically is going to get somebody (perhaps you) badly hurt or killed some day.
    Care to back that up with some state recognized training references based on law?


  2. #32
    Distinguished Member Array Tally XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    There was no weapon displayed as per the OPs post.

    You don't invoke deadly force based on what could happen. You don't use deadly force to counter verbal threats. You will be judged on how you decide to defend yourself. It would be a hard row to hoe if there was no deadly weapon other than yours involved.

    If you are the one that introduces deadly force into a situation guess who would be justified if one of the drunk's friends happened to also be a concealed permit holder and shoots you?
    Man, what planet are you from? No weapon displayed by the OP. There was no deadly force invoked. He as simply at a defensive posture. That is not illegal in any state anywhere anytime. Heck, he could have been "protecting" his cell phone that was on his side for all anyone knew. And, if some idiot who might even be a CCW citizen, is stupid enough to run out into moving traffic waving arms and stopping the flow, he wouldn't be the one justified.


    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    Care to back that up with some state recognized training references based on law?
    Why don't you rebuke this with facts that back up your statements? I certainly know Florida law and nothing the OP done would have brought him even so much as a questioning from LEO in this particular state.
    “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
    - Barack Obama Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

  3. #33
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    Care to back that up with some state recognized training references based on law?
    You got me. I am no match for your google-fu o master of the internet. To tell the truth, I can't make sense of your question. "State recognized training references"? "Based on law"?

    You consistantly want to "what if " situations to make them fit your mindset, fine. Just remember, a screwdriver makes a terrible hammer.

  4. #34
    VIP Member Array NC Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NC Foothills
    Posts
    2,566
    Tally XD, I'd like a chance to clarify what was said.


    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    Since no deadly threat was presented you may want to use this as a good reason to add a less than lethal alternative to a firearm such as pepper spray. Weak side and if he kept coming then use some chemical persuasion to get past him and roll.

    Things like this do have a tendency to unnerve you but you lived through it without ending up in the morgue or jail. Round out the tool box and enjoy.
    This is my response to the OP. No where did I say anything about him displaying a gun or preparing to use deadly force. I merely made the statement that he may want to think about adding another option on the force continuum that would allow him options when things are not a clear cut "deadly threat".

    Quote Originally Posted by Tally XD View Post
    And on another note, the scenario could have been different. Say the guy waving his arms had a knife. At just a few yards away he would have become a deadly threat in mere seconds.
    This is your response to my post. I took it as you were advocating the escalation to displaying a firearm because the drunk "may" have a knife. I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement but that's what led me to the following reply to your post.

    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    There was no weapon displayed as per the OPs post.

    You don't invoke deadly force based on what could happen. You don't use deadly force to counter verbal threats. You will be judged on how you decide to defend yourself. It would be a hard row to hoe if there was no deadly weapon other than yours involved.

    If you are the one that introduces deadly force into a situation guess who would be justified if one of the drunk's friends happened to also be a concealed permit holder and shoots you?

    A less than lethal alternative is far more likely to be needed and also a lot easier to justify.

    If the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.
    I was hoping to make the point that as non LEOs we are normally not allowed by law to meet a threat with greater level of force than threatened with. If no deadly threat was displayed then a firearm would not be considered appropriate by many states statutes governing the use of deadly force. In many instances a response with chemical is in between soft hands and the increased level of impact weapons or firearms. Most altercations do not require deadly force, they can be handled with lesser forms of force. That was the only point I was intending to make from post one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tally XD View Post
    Man, what planet are you from? No weapon displayed by the OP. There was no deadly force invoked. He as simply at a defensive posture. That is not illegal in any state anywhere anytime. Heck, he could have been "protecting" his cell phone that was on his side for all anyone knew. And, if some idiot who might even be a CCW citizen, is stupid enough to run out into moving traffic waving arms and stopping the flow, he wouldn't be the one justified.




    Why don't you rebuke this with facts that back up your statements? I certainly know Florida law and nothing the OP done would have brought him even so much as a questioning from LEO in this particular state.
    And again, I never said the OP displayed a weapon nor did I chastise him for his actions. There were posts by others that may have been in that vein but I never intended to be critical of his actions, merely making a suggestion for another option on the force continuum.

    One last point, please re-read my statement.
    If you are the one that introduces deadly force into a situation guess who would be justified if one of the drunk's friends happened to also be a concealed permit holder and shoots you?
    I was trying to say that if you were the first one in an altercation to display a deadly weapon then one of the drunk's friends could very possibly be justified in using deadly force to protect his drunk friend.

    Once again, I apologize if I either misunderstood your post or took it out of context. The internet doesn't allow much for adding inflection or feeling to a statement other than the "smileys" and I'm not used to using them very often.

    I hope that instead of rebuking, this helps explain my thought process on this. I take this topic quite seriously and I often get vehement on the subject since I have to address it every time I give the class for North Carolina's concealed handgun permit.

  5. #35
    Distinguished Member Array Chaplain Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,709
    Coming back to the OP and experience--In the midst of the very fluid situation--you have one guy--(intentions unknown, but definetly "odd" behavior), force the OP to stop, and then the OP sees the guys "buds" converging on the scene---

    --it didn't "feel" right to either the OP or his riding partner, and they both, independantly of each other, made defensive moves in preperation for potential violence--they are boxed in, vulnerable and presented with a potential of significant disparity of force. I'd say they made the right moves and should NOT feel bad about a defensive stance.
    Scott, US Army 1974-2004

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    - Ronald Reagan

  6. #36
    Distinguished Member Array matthew03's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    S.W. VA
    Posts
    1,823
    I think you did fine, in reflecting on this occurrence you will grow and adapt for the next time, (hopefully there won't be one). I certainly saw the situation you depicted the same way you and your riding partner did and would also have been on the defensive.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array GentlemanJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    indiana
    Posts
    962
    All things considered, since you couldn't escape, I think your best option would have been to kill the engine like you did, drop the kick stand, dismount the bike, and keep the bike between you and the drunk. You could draw your weapon (if you chose to), but the drunks buddies bearing down on you really complicates things. Hop on the back of your buddy's bike and motor off? It would really suck to leave your bike in the middle of the street but it IS an option. But if he freezes and you get caught on the bike you are even worse off.

    No real good options here and like you said it went down really fast. It's easy to look back and debate all the should haves and could haves. That was a crappy scenario and I'm glad everything turned out OK.

    This is also a good advertisement for carrying a non-deadly force option.

    Jim

  8. #38
    Senior Member Array MotorCityGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    MichiGUN
    Posts
    951
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    to me, it all sounds like you were situationally aware, have good reactions and instincts, and was prepared if something turned south in a hurry...

    All good.

    See no problem @ all.

    The only thing I would do differently, is when / if f I hit the kill switch, I automatically kick down the side stand in case I need to get off , or to do so in a hurry. If you take off, it's purely just kicking the side stand up as you take off (if it doesn't flip up all on it's own). LOL
    Unless, of course your kickstand, while extended, has a kill-while-in-gear switch. Mine's gotta' be up to go.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin

    NRA Life

  9. #39
    Senior Member Array RemMod597's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Snohomish County, WA
    Posts
    734
    You did good. Never can tell when someone will produce a weapon from somewhere.
    The guy probably doesn't realize just how close he came to being DRT.


    The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.

  10. #40
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,081
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    No where did I say anything about him displaying a gun or preparing to use deadly force. I merely made the statement that he may want to think about adding another option on the force continuum that would allow him options when things are not a clear cut "deadly threat".....
    I was hoping to make the point that as non LEOs we are normally not allowed by law to meet a threat with greater level of force than threatened with. If no deadly threat was displayed then a firearm would not be considered appropriate by many states statutes governing the use of deadly force. In many instances a response with chemical is in between soft hands and the increased level of impact weapons or firearms. Most altercations do not require deadly force, they can be handled with lesser forms of force. That was the only point I was intending to make from post one.....
    I hope that instead of rebuking, this helps explain my thought process on this. I take this topic quite seriously and I often get vehement on the subject since I have to address it every time I give the class for North Carolina's concealed handgun permit.
    To clarify, one may not only "introduce" but use deadly force any time and place that a reasonable person should fear for his life or grave bodily injury. The force continuum is just a guide for us armed citizens to use deadly force only in the gravest extreme. And there's no legal requirement for a fair fight against a violent criminal assailant.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  11. #41
    Member Array Speculator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    223
    My concern would be fumbling with a gun (though you didn't draw) while straddling your bike. You're reduced to one handed steering, you're stuck in place (since it's difficult to dismount when twisting to prepare to draw), and you've now got a big decision loop - who's doing what, who's a threat. Much better to stop the bike and prepare to accelerate away, and of course, anticipating.

    What's puzzling is that the guy who ran out into the street would not have done that if there was a car involved - he had, in his drunken state, to discern there was a bike, decide to run out in the street, avoid traffic.

    Not saying OP was untruthful, but it seems like something's missing from this account.

  12. #42
    Distinguished Member Array INccwchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    Tally XD, I'd like a chance to clarify what was said.




    This is my response to the OP. No where did I say anything about him displaying a gun or preparing to use deadly force. I merely made the statement that he may want to think about adding another option on the force continuum that would allow him options when things are not a clear cut "deadly threat".



    This is your response to my post. I took it as you were advocating the escalation to displaying a firearm because the drunk "may" have a knife. I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement but that's what led me to the following reply to your post.



    I was hoping to make the point that as non LEOs we are normally not allowed by law to meet a threat with greater level of force than threatened with. If no deadly threat was displayed then a firearm would not be considered appropriate by many states statutes governing the use of deadly force. In many instances a response with chemical is in between soft hands and the increased level of impact weapons or firearms. Most altercations do not require deadly force, they can be handled with lesser forms of force. That was the only point I was intending to make from post one.



    And again, I never said the OP displayed a weapon nor did I chastise him for his actions. There were posts by others that may have been in that vein but I never intended to be critical of his actions, merely making a suggestion for another option on the force continuum.

    One last point, please re-read my statement.

    I was trying to say that if you were the first one in an altercation to display a deadly weapon then one of the drunk's friends could very possibly be justified in using deadly force to protect his drunk friend.

    Once again, I apologize if I either misunderstood your post or took it out of context. The internet doesn't allow much for adding inflection or feeling to a statement other than the "smileys" and I'm not used to using them very often.

    I hope that instead of rebuking, this helps explain my thought process on this. I take this topic quite seriously and I often get vehement on the subject since I have to address it every time I give the class for North Carolina's concealed handgun permit.
    Ever hear of disparity of force? Five guys running at one guy who is blocked in. Thats a justified shoot. Surely a pistol instructor who teaches a defensive shooting course that qualifies people to get their permits should know what it is.
    21bubba likes this.
    "The value you put on the lost will be determined by the sacrifice you are willing to make to seek them until they are found."

  13. #43
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by INccwchris View Post
    Ever hear of disparity of force? Five guys running at one guy who is blocked in. Thats a justified shoot. Surely a pistol instructor who teaches a defensive shooting course that qualifies people to get their permits should know what it is.
    Not in NC's world.

  14. #44
    Distinguished Member Array Tally XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    Tally XD, I'd like a chance to clarify what was said.

    This is my response to the OP. No where did I say anything about him displaying a gun or preparing to use deadly force. I merely made the statement that he may want to think about adding another option on the force continuum that would allow him options when things are not a clear cut "deadly threat".
    I do understand this as you post it this time.


    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    This is your response to my post. I took it as you were advocating the escalation to displaying a firearm because the drunk "may" have a knife. I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement but that's what led me to the following reply to your post.
    No, I was merely pointing out that the drunk guy was close enough to him that, in the event he did indeed have a weapon, he could have been in very grave mortal danger very very quickly.



    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    I was hoping to make the point that as non LEOs we are normally not allowed by law to meet a threat with greater level of force than threatened with. If no deadly threat was displayed then a firearm would not be considered appropriate by many states statutes governing the use of deadly force. In many instances a response with chemical is in between soft hands and the increased level of impact weapons or firearms. Most altercations do not require deadly force, they can be handled with lesser forms of force. That was the only point I was intending to make from post one.
    I agree to an extent here except that in a lot of states, obviously not in yours, the only thing needed to justify deadly force is for one to be in great fear of their life. That does not necessarily mean a weapon, of any kind, has to be the device that causes the fear. At least in my state, we can meet a lesser level of threat with deadly force if we are in fear of our life. Granted, this may not go as well in a court of law but according to statute, it is all that we need.


    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    And again, I never said the OP displayed a weapon nor did I chastise him for his actions. There were posts by others that may have been in that vein but I never intended to be critical of his actions, merely making a suggestion for another option on the force continuum.
    I appreciate this but I certainly felt differently about your statement as I read it originally.

    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    One last point, please re-read my statement.

    I was trying to say that if you were the first one in an altercation to display a deadly weapon then one of the drunk's friends could very possibly be justified in using deadly force to protect his drunk friend.
    This is certainly true but it likely wouldn't hold water in court. However, if that were the case, and you ended up dead, court would matter little then.
    “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
    - Barack Obama Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array Hot Wing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Posts
    688
    Good Job

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

gallery guns

,

i want to be in a scary situations

,

riding bike with pistol

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors