Had to Draw on Someone Last Night

This is a discussion on Had to Draw on Someone Last Night within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; It almost seems like some folks here feel we are attacking her actions. This is not the case. All of us have a responsibility to ...

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 208
Like Tree168Likes

Thread: Had to Draw on Someone Last Night

  1. #136
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,537
    It almost seems like some folks here feel we are attacking her actions. This is not the case. All of us have a responsibility to make sure that all the potentially bad things that can happen are brought to light. Do not be so one sided that you blindly assume that pointing a gun at someone just because you " feel" threatened is a justification for implying deadly force. Too many people around here carry their little feelings around on their shoulders.

    I have read it over and over, and I still do not see where the imminent danger of personal injury or death was in this scenario. Just a " feeling". Well, if that's what we go by in the CCW community, someone will get their feelings hurt sooner or later by someone not on the board, but the court.
    oakchas likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #137
    Ex Member Array NYCrulesU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    It almost seems like some folks here feel we are attacking her actions. This is not the case. All of us have a responsibility to make sure that all the potentially bad things that can happen are brought to light. Do not be so one sided that you blindly assume that pointing a gun at someone just because you " feel" threatened is a justification for implying deadly force. Too many people around here carry their little feelings around on their shoulders.

    I have read it over and over, and I still do not see where the imminent danger of personal injury or death was in this scenario. Just a " feeling". Well, if that's what we go by in the CCW community, someone will get their feelings hurt sooner or later by someone not on the board, but the court.
    While I agree 100% that this scenerio showed no imminent danger that would call for shooting at the supposed "assailant". She was perfectly justified in drawing her weapon and removing herself from the situation as she did.

  4. #138
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    A big +1 to glockman10mm, and I also want to point out that I have seen numerous times here where people post things such as:

    - he COULD have a gun/knife/nunchuks/shotgun/taser hidden in his hoodie/pants/backpack/sweatsuit
    - he approached me aggressively
    - one punch from that guy could have killed me
    - blah, blah, blah, disparity of force, blah, blah, blah...

    IANAL, but none of these justifications (to me) merit the introduction of a firearm for defense with deadly force. Like it or not, this is DEFENSIVE Carry, not Preemptive Carry, Urban Yoot Scare-away Carry, Robber/Thief Detainment Carry, Disparity of Force Carry, or Dirtbag Dispatch Carry.

    Only Texas allows you to use deadly force in defense of property. Every other state requires that civilian carriers fear of imminent death, sexual assault, and/or grave bodily harm. Generally, Castly Doctrine states protect you in your car and home if and when they are breached (for the most part).

    I am not trying to assign blame, and I am not a judge or jury member (yet). But, I do enjoy discussing these scenarios as it helps me better dissect my own actions. That's why I play here and mix it up with other opinions.
    oakchas likes this.

  5. #139
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    [QUOTE=NYCrulesU;2107966]While I agree 100% that this scenerio showed no imminent danger that would call for shooting at the supposed "assailant". She was perfectly justified in drawing her weapon and removing herself from the situation as she did.[/QUOTE]

    No kidding. You are always justified in removing yourself from a dangerous situation in nearly any way you can, and doing so is always a good idea.

    I would have likely drawn my weapon as well, but I think it was premature to present it to the bicyclist. She specifically cited that she displayed her drawn weapon to the bicyclist, and she obviously presented it in a threatening way since she mentioned the possibility of him soiling his trousers during her after-action laugh fest with her "training partner." That's the discussion point.

    In case you overlooked it, here is the relevant section of the OPs post:

    "I later called my buddy, who I actively train with, and we laughed that there is now a want to-be car-jacker whom most likely has smelly pants. I told him maybe he will think next time about doing so."

    I think this clearly shows that she knew she had presented her weapon in such a way as to threaten the bicyclist with death. That's what you do when you point a gun at someone.
    oakchas likes this.

  6. #140
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,060
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    It almost seems like some folks here feel we are attacking her actions. This is not the case. All of us have a responsibility to make sure that all the potentially bad things that can happen are brought to light. Do not be so one sided that you blindly assume that pointing a gun at someone just because you " feel" threatened is a justification for implying deadly force. Too many people around here carry their little feelings around on their shoulders.

    I have read it over and over, and I still do not see where the imminent danger of personal injury or death was in this scenario. Just a " feeling". Well, if that's what we go by in the CCW community, someone will get their feelings hurt sooner or later by someone not on the board, but the court.
    PERZACKLY!

    The longer I carry, the more I become aware of keeping those feelings (little and otherwise) in check. We've had some testimony from others who's lives were changed by CC... And we've all heard the stories that bear out the CC holder to be more law abiding than John Q. Public on the whole...

    It's quite possible that those with the longest tenure of carrying are the ones who spout the rule of 3 stupids harder and longer than the rest of us, just because they want to avoid anything that might be in the least bit ambiguous.

    That said, even if it was a really justified use of a weapon in self defense, and she actually killed a bad guy, who had and displayed a weapon... we might have said..."Why'd you shoot him there?" "Why didn't you go for the headshot and drop him instantly?" "Why didn't you shoot him at 50 yards?" Or, "You see, that's proof that the aim is drawn to the weapon (Walgreen's Omaha shooting where the GG's bullet ended up in the empty chamber of the shotty the perp was using)."

    I, and others critiquing, am/are not attacking her actions, as you point out... we are simply dissecting an "after action report," looking for ways we might improve if we should encounter such a scenario...

    What went right, what went wrong, what could we do better next time, what exposures (to risk) did we encounter, how can we avoid them, and so on...
    MadMac likes this.
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  7. #141
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,537
    Quote Originally Posted by NYCrulesU View Post
    While I agree 100% that this scenerio showed no imminent danger that would call for shooting at the supposed "assailant". She was perfectly justified in drawing her weapon and removing herself from the situation as she did.
    Absolutely had the right to be " alarmed". And to remove herself from the situation. However, there was no implied force or aggression from the bicyclist. Nor, did he attempt to impede her retreat. His intentions may have been sinister. And, acquiring a grip on her handgun was normal.

    But come on, going hysterical and screaming at someone while pointing the gun in their face is a little radical, especially if they have done nothing but yell to get your attention and ride a bicycle up to your car.
    My point is, if you are going to carry an object so easy to take a human life with, you should have a little more self control of yourself. This is nothing but pure emotional drama.
    Don't guess soldiers are what they used to be, especially MPs.
    If this is what they do, I would discourage enterance into the civillian world of LE.

    If a real off duty LE would have reacted that way, this thread would be full of haters Condemning the action.
    MadMac and DefConGun like this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  8. #142
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    ....and to add one point to the above post.

    If she is a current active duty MP, she has identified her state of residence, hair color, height, relative weight and other identifying data that could bring this to the attention of her MP commander on a local Army or Reserve installation. As a former military commander who had to deal with the actions of my troops off-base/off-post, I would personally find this post troubling coming from one of my troops - especially one who is charged to handle these types of situations. It shows a stunning lack of sound judgment, IMNSHO.

    No need to go white-knighting for her anymore, it's just my worthless opinion.

  9. #143
    Ex Member Array NYCrulesU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Absolutely had the right to be " alarmed". And to remove herself from the situation. However, there was no implied force or aggression from the bicyclist. Nor, did he attempt to impede her retreat. His intentions may have been sinister. And, acquiring a grip on her handgun was normal.

    But come on, going hysterical and screaming at someone while pointing the gun in their face is a little radical, especially if they have done nothing but yell to get your attention and ride a bicycle up to your car.
    My point is, if you are going to carry an object so easy to take a human life with, you should have a little more self control of yourself. This is nothing but pure emotional drama.
    Don't guess soldiers are what they used to be, especially MPs.
    If this is what they do, I would discourage enterance into the civillian world of LE.

    If a real off duty LE would have reacted that way, this thread would be full of haters Condemning the action.
    Calm down there Roscoe lol I'm not disagreeing with you.

    At my own fault, I didn't scutinize every single detail of the OP's opening post. I didn't see where she was screaming hysterically at the BG and didn't take into consideration her post event phone calls.

    I considered the basics of the scenerio. Stopped at light in the middle of the night, unknown individual rapidly approaches my vehicle seemingly aggressive in tone and manner. She draws weapon and hightails it out of dodge.

    Good all the way around. If it occured as such.

    If she screamed crazily at the supposed BG, so what? Everyone reacts differently when presented with danger. Imagined or not.

    Should she have actually aimed her gun at him or just held it on her lap? Not for any of us to say. We were not there. She felt the need to draw and aim. Potential problem overted. Good for her.

    She's unharmed and no lives were taken, no damage caused.

    We could sit and nitpick detail upon detail all day. Hopefully she is intelligent enough to learn where ahe could have reacted differently and adapt.

    Thankfully for her, I don't see anything in the scenerio that would call for lifelong regrets. I call that a win.

  10. #144
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Absolutely had the right to be " alarmed". And to remove herself from the situation. However, there was no implied force or aggression from the bicyclist. Nor, did he attempt to impede her retreat. His intentions may have been sinister. And, acquiring a grip on her handgun was normal.

    But come on, going hysterical and screaming at someone while pointing the gun in their face is a little radical, especially if they have done nothing but yell to get your attention and ride a bicycle up to your car.
    My point is, if you are going to carry an object so easy to take a human life with, you should have a little more self control of yourself. This is nothing but pure emotional drama.
    Don't guess soldiers are what they used to be, especially MPs.
    If this is what they do, I would discourage enterance into the civillian world of LE.

    If a real off duty LE would have reacted that way, this thread would be full of haters Condemning the action.
    And back to the insults (not to me but the reactions of the OP). I was just about to mostly agree with much of what you and Mad Mac had just posted (not that I expect you to care).

    But the bold is where you are still wrong....if you believe the OP. You didnt see the aggressor. She said how she perceived him and his actions and demeanor.

    And a gun isnt a proper response for any 'threatening' behavior...only threatening behavior with the believed potential of being deadly. That is what she claims.

    And as a woman, I can tell you that YOUR reactions to a man yelling at you and approaching your car on a bike are much different than many women's. Just like the comment earlier about fighting off 2 men with sticks without resorting to a weapon for an LE officer. Completely unrealistic within the context of this discussion.
    NYCrulesU likes this.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  11. #145
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    If a real off duty LE would have reacted that way, this thread would be full of haters Condemning the action.
    I guess we should all be judged by how LE or military would act.

    I dont even get the thought processs that makes this relevant to the discussion
    NYCrulesU and AZJD1968 like this.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  12. #146
    Ex Member Array NYCrulesU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    ....and to add one point to the above post.

    If she is a current active duty MP, she has identified her state of residence, hair color, height, relative weight and other identifying data that could bring this to the attention of her MP commander on a local Army or Reserve installation. As a former military commander who had to deal with the actions of my troops off-base/off-post, I would personally find this post troubling coming from one of my troops - especially one who is charged to handle these types of situations. It shows a stunning lack of sound judgment, IMNSHO.

    No need to go white-knighting for her anymore, it's just my worthless opinion.

    Let's address one simple and painfully obvious truth about this thread and your post in particular (along with one or two other regular members)....

    Had this been JohnMP and not BrunetteMP...or even had it been this forums resident Joan Rambo (who provides me with many hours of personal amusement and laughter), you all would be hi-fiving and back patting on a great job.

  13. #147
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    ....and to add one point to the above post.

    If she is a current active duty MP, she has identified her state of residence, hair color, height, relative weight and other identifying data that could bring this to the attention of her MP commander on a local Army or Reserve installation. As a former military commander who had to deal with the actions of my troops off-base/off-post, I would personally find this post troubling coming from one of my troops - especially one who is charged to handle these types of situations. It shows a stunning lack of sound judgment, IMNSHO.

    No need to go white-knighting for her anymore, it's just my worthless opinion.
    Well I wouldnt have agree with this post of course.

    I dont think she came here for a pat on the back. She came for constructive analysis of her actions (IMO). And she got it, I think.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  14. #148
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    . She said how she perceived him and his actions and demeanor.

    And a gun isnt a proper response for any 'threatening' behavior...only threatening behavior with the believed potential of being deadly. That is what she claims.
    I noticed the laws make no distinction between a man or a woman. It doesn't say in ANY law that I have read that a woman will be allowed more leeway in her defensive reactions. If you know of such an exeption, please educate me.

    No one can read another's intent (not withstanding what the "thought crime" believers will tell you). If this were the case, you could make a defense that you needed to draw down on this bicyclist (or anyone for that matter) because he gave you the stink-eye, or looked like a meanie, or maybe even a mean rapist meanie with a bad case of stink-eye. He even shouted, "Hey, you!" That could mean he's ready to strike, right?

    ...and please, I am not reading any personal insults in anyone's posts - simply protracted discussion around what little we know.

    She can "claim" all the way to the jury-box, but the actions of the bicyclist and her response in relation to the law are all that matter. Her intent or his intent notwithstanding.

  15. #149
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by NYCrulesU View Post
    Let's address one simple and painfully obvious truth about this thread and your post in particular (along with one or two other regular members)....

    Had this been JohnMP and not BrunetteMP...or even had it been this forums resident Joan Rambo (who provides me with many hours of personal amusement and laughter), you all would be hi-fiving and back patting on a great job.
    Please provide us with ANY credible evidence in the innumerable posts I have made here to back up that claim. If not, you must withdraw your personal insult. That is simply not true, and you have no way to even posit such a slur.

    I had the same opinion of the guy who posted a very similar incident about a year ago. No high-fiving or attaboys. I am an equal opportunity jerk.
    Last edited by MadMac; December 19th, 2011 at 05:18 PM.

  16. #150
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Well I wouldnt have agree with this post of course.

    I dont think she came here for a pat on the back. She came for constructive analysis of her actions (IMO). And she got it, I think.
    Where did I or anyone else claim she came for a pat on the back? Personally, I think the incident is fabricated, and I explained in detail why in a previous post. I may be comletely wrong. It's simply something to discuss.

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

chl, civil suite for drawing your weapon

,
deadly force north carolina
,
did gunfire take place in deltona florida last night
,
does the colorado castle doctrine law include the porch or your property
,
does the colorado castle law include bicycles
,

draw firearm on someone else who is threatened

,
how to describe a person for drawing purposes
,

iowa castle law

,
secondary result definition
Click on a term to search for related topics.