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; Originally Posted by MadMac Where did I or anyone else claim she came for a pat on the back? Personally, I think the incident is ...

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 208
Like Tree168Likes

Thread: Had to Draw on Someone Last Night

  1. #151
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    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.
    Glock 10's "white knight comment." That's how I interpreted it.
    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)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #152
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    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). .
    Disparity of force.

    And determining intent is a large part in charging and sentencing in many crimes. It is also a big part of the 'reasonable man' defense.
    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)

  4. #153
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,299
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    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.
    Mare,

    I can see your point. But, if we are to believe the OP, she displayed her weapon in a manner which might cause the bicyclist to soil his pants... For me, that's going to take you pointing it at me and doing so in a threatening manner. Maybe not for this hood ape.

    But then you go on to say that female responses to a big black man yelling at you and approaching your car might be different. Fine, if you're a 5'9" female.... But a 5'9" MP? of any gender? c'mon...

    If she hasn't been trained to deal with something like this; heck, if she hasn't had to deal with something like this under the color of authority as an MP... then MP must mean something different than I expect it to... A MP has to deal with trained killers all the time... everyone of our soldiers is, after all, trained to kill (to a greater or lesser degree, dependent on branch I suppose) in everything from marksmanship to CQB. If MPs can't stop them, who can?

    So this doesn't even come as close to a Leigh Anne Touhy... "If you so much as set foot downtown, you will be sorry. I'm in a prayer group with the D.A., I'm a member of the NRA and I'm always packing." moment, as it would if the OP wasn't a MP. And the OP as a MP should be able to fend off 2 men with sticks without resorting to her sidearm.

    So why is she afraid for her life in a locked car, in reverse and moving with a clear path behind? Big burly goon gonna rip the door from it's hinges with his "Jaws of Life" forearms? or at the very worst, break the plastic/potmetal handle off (which I will grant might not occur to her in the fear of the moment).

    Even you, in an unarmed confrontation in the park, had more "hair" than that, IIRC?

    So, the feminine perspective of this just doesn't wash... If she's a MP she's a trained corraller of trained killers, not some Leigh Anne whiffit of a 5' blond walkin' in the hood.

    OTOH, you're right, we weren't there...

    But, the one time I exposed my weapon (in it's holster, on my side) some 30 years ago, I didn't go yuck it up with my fellow CCers, or training partners, or even talk about it much for years... I don't think anybody soiled their pants over that one either.. but I was left alone following the incident, and I still had to deal with them or their counterparts every day in nearly face to face adversarial situations for another few months at minimum. And logically, as was pointed out here on DC, I also was not in fear (at the moment) of death or great bodily harm, even though it was indirectly threatened.

    <<<EDIT>>>

    As to the disparity of force... If she's a pedestrian against this goon, you bet! But where, in reality, is the disparity of force? A 2 ton car with a lady driving it. Or a bike with a 250 lb goon astride it? A pedal bike fer cripe's sake... C'mon... I offered to let Sticks try to grab my door handle while I'm reversing, I even gave him a weapon to shoot at me while I didi... I still bet he wouldn't get me shot or the door open...

    But again, in the fear of the moment... these things did not occur to her... And, we weren't there. So, she was justified (though maybe not legally so), and there were some things she should consider next time if she chooses to.
    Last edited by oakchas; December 19th, 2011 at 04:54 PM. Reason: Add disparity of force comments
    MadMac likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  5. #154
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    I cant really disagree with you Oak, or answer those questions.

    What I can tell you is that even backing up, in a fully enclosed and locked vehicle....if I felt the threat that the OP described, I'd be scared well until I got home and the adreneline seeped out of me. Gun drawn or not. No one knows the outcome of a situation until it is over.

    In all these scenarios, I'd venture to guess that most....male and female....posters are scared. Trained or not. It's how you perform WHEN you're scared that matters.

    As I said earlier, I think your statement that the episode would have ended the same, gun drawn or not, was accurate. Based on her interpretation of the aggressor, I'm just not going to criticize drawing the firearm. I wasnt there. For me, as a woman, I'd say the drawn gun was extra insurance, playing it on the safe side. Would the law look at it that way? No guarantees.
    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)

  6. #155
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,299
    Gee, I hope Brunette is enjoying her popcorn while we go bandying about her close encounter of the goon kind!
    MadMac likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  7. #156
    Guest Array Guest1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    home-astan(FINALLY)
    Posts
    1,125
    OOH-RAH,Semper Fi!!!!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by BrunetteMP View Post
    Was running errands after work last night in town, pulled up to a stop sign at an intersection and was waiting for traffic to lighten up to pull out. I had my window down, radio up and spotted a black male around 250lbs dressed in black riding a bike, he drifted down the road and turned next to me, coming directly at me and yelled "hey! Hey you!", I hit the lock on the doors, got the window up to a safe height, threw it in reverse and grabbed my .40. He advanced aggressively headed for the door handle, I kept reversing, drew my weapon and told him to get away from my car. He saw the gun, and froze. I put my foot on the gas, backed up and made a u turn at a safe distance away and left.

    To put this in prospective, I'm a 5'3, white female so he probably thought I was the perfect victim. 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.
    In the mean time Iíll be staying away from the area in case some of his buddies were watching, and he was smart enough to get a plate number. Thankfully I live outside the city in a rural area and have no business in the city.

    I chock it up to a good experience, and believe my muscle memory served me well. Things are crazy out there these days. Hope everyone stays safe.

  8. #157
    Distinguished Member Array DefConGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I'd say the drawn gun was extra insurance, playing it on the safe side. Would the law look at it that way? No guarantees.
    I doubt the law is going to look at it that way. In my mind's eye, I'm not going to draw the gun unless I'm going to use it. From the description given in this thread, I'm under the impression that the drawn gun is used as a scare tactic and this is a practice I do not agree with nor do I think is a legal one. If the OP is in such grave danger so as to necessitate drawing her weapon, then why wasn't the same said danger to the degree that necessitated her firing her weapon? I think that this is an important discrepancy that needs to be noted and addressed. We've had major serious discussions about warning shots and without getting into all of that, I think a lot of people agree that guns aren't intended to be used as tools of intimidation. Now is it possible that someone can attack me and after I draw my gun in retaliation that the BG withdraws from his attack, putting me in a position where I no longer need to shoot? Sure it is but this is not what happened in this scenario from the way it has been reported thus far.
    oakchas likes this.

  9. #158
    Senior Member Array RKflorida's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Deltona, Florida
    Posts
    785
    AH! I see a takeaway lesson here. Attention all bad guys, don't frighten people with guns as you may get shot.

  10. #159
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,299
    Quote Originally Posted by RKflorida View Post
    AH! I see a takeaway lesson here. Attention all bad guys, don't frighten people with guns as you may get shot.
    You sharin' the catnip with your avatar?
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  11. #160
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by DefConGun View Post
    I doubt the law is going to look at it that way. In my mind's eye, I'm not going to draw the gun unless I'm going to use it. From the description given in this thread, I'm under the impression that the drawn gun is used as a scare tactic and this is a practice I do not agree with nor do I think is a legal one. If the OP is in such grave danger so as to necessitate drawing her weapon, then why wasn't the same said danger to the degree that necessitated her firing her weapon? I think that this is an important discrepancy that needs to be noted and addressed. We've had major serious discussions about warning shots and without getting into all of that, I think a lot of people agree that guns aren't intended to be used as tools of intimidation. Now is it possible that someone can attack me and after I draw my gun in retaliation that the BG withdraws from his attack, putting me in a position where I no longer need to shoot? Sure it is but this is not what happened in this scenario from the way it has been reported thus far.
    I dont see where she drew to intimidate. My interpretation was that the gun was drawn and ready to fire if it became necessary. That is what I mean by extra insurance. A gun does no good in its holster when you need it fast.

    Would she have shot if necessary, I can only guess. It would be my intention to do so.

    I'm not a supporter of the 'if I clear leather, I'm shooting' school of thought. If I draw my firearm, it will be because I am in fear for my life or bodily harm. If I dont shoot it will be because the threat ended.

    Her threat ended when she left him behind and he didnt follow. As Oakchas said, the encounter probably would have ended the same way with or without gun. But if she felt threatened enough to draw....so be it.

    My thought has been that she didnt know all the cards the aggressor had to play. He approached yelling at her and reaching for a car door handle. "Appearing unarmed" does not mean "unarmed." He approached, she took action by reversing and drawing....if HE then escalated and drew...then she was PROactive and had the advantage, rather than being REactive.

    Question: what's a more likely way to approach a car you want to carjack and not have it drive off immediately?

    a) ride up on your bike getting the driver's attention?
    b) ride up on your bike pointing a gun at the driver?


    Like I said, as a woman, I'm not giving up my advantages. My extra insurance is having my weapon prepared if he makes a new move.
    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. #161
    Ex Member Array MadMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    My thought has been that she didnt know all the cards the aggressor had to play. He approached yelling at her and reaching for a car door handle. "Appearing unarmed" does not mean "unarmed." He approached, she took action by reversing and drawing....if HE then escalated and drew...then she was PROactive and had the advantage, rather than being REactive.
    Question: what's a more likely way to approach a car you want to carjack and not have it drive off immediately?

    a) ride up on your bike getting the driver's attention?
    b) ride up on your bike pointing a gun at the driver?


    Like I said, as a woman, I'm not giving up my advantages. My extra insurance is having my weapon prepared if he makes a new move.
    No one is saying she shouldn't have had her weapon ready. Again, having the weapon handy = prudent decision. Pointing it at the man while yelling at him = not necesssary. Just drive away. No where does she even claim he was reaching for the (locked) door. She said he was approaching the vehicle in a way she interpreted as aggressive. How was he able to maneuver or ride his bike while reaching out for the handle? No where did I read that he even touched her vehicle.

    Please look at the title of this board. DefensiveCarry. Not Preemptive or Proactive Carry. The law doesn't give me the luxury of using what someone MAY have or MAY do as an option to introduce lethal force. By pointing the gun, she introduced lethal force into what may have been an entirely innocent interaction - "Hey, you, your gas cap is not secured..."

    Of course she doesn't hear anything after "Hey, you...." as she sees it is a large [black] male and she begins shouting, rolling up her window (in 40-degree weather), reversing, drawing, and pointing her weapon at him. Again - just a few of the reasons I think this scenario is fabricated. Way too much action between "Hey, you..." and leaving the area for one pair of hands. Plus, she apparently had time to also evaluate his movements and intent while performing all these functions flawlessly.

    Just my opinion, but I do know the law doesn't allow me to be proactive in defending myself.
    DefConGun likes this.

  13. #162
    Distinguished Member Array DefConGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I dont see where she drew to intimidate. My interpretation was that the gun was drawn and ready to fire if it became necessary. That is what I mean by extra insurance. A gun does no good in its holster when you need it fast.

    Would she have shot if necessary, I can only guess. It would be my intention to do so.

    I'm not a supporter of the 'if I clear leather, I'm shooting' school of thought. If I draw my firearm, it will be because I am in fear for my life or bodily harm. If I dont shoot it will be because the threat ended.

    Her threat ended when she left him behind and he didnt follow. As Oakchas said, the encounter probably would have ended the same way with or without gun. But if she felt threatened enough to draw....so be it.

    My thought has been that she didnt know all the cards the aggressor had to play. He approached yelling at her and reaching for a car door handle. "Appearing unarmed" does not mean "unarmed." He approached, she took action by reversing and drawing....if HE then escalated and drew...then she was PROactive and had the advantage, rather than being REactive.

    Question: what's a more likely way to approach a car you want to carjack and not have it drive off immediately?

    a) ride up on your bike getting the driver's attention?
    b) ride up on your bike pointing a gun at the driver?


    Like I said, as a woman, I'm not giving up my advantages. My extra insurance is having my weapon prepared if he makes a new move.
    Perhaps we are having a disagreement as to what "drawing" means. I don't have a problem with the OP taking her gun out of her holster and having it read to go if need be, etc. She can draw her weapon and not show it to the attacker (if that's what he was...we don't really even know this was an attack). By showing her gun to the guy on the bike and pointing it at him is brandishing (to my understanding) and this can be an issue that can troublesome for the OP. Why put yourself in that position and leave yourself open to the scrutiny of a court if this were to go to trial? I want to keep as many variables outside of the realm of court interpretation as I can, etc.

  14. #163
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMac View Post
    No one is saying she shouldn't have had her weapon ready. Again, having the weapon handy = prudent decision. Pointing it at the man while yelling at him = not necesssary. Just drive away. No where does she even claim he was reaching for the (locked) door. She said he was approaching the vehicle in a way she interpreted as aggressive. How was he able to maneuver or ride his bike while reaching out for the handle? No where did I read that he even touched her vehicle.

    Please look at the title of this board. DefensiveCarry. Not Preemptive or Proactive Carry. The law doesn't give me the luxury of using what someone MAY have or MAY do as an option to introduce lethal force. By pointing the gun, she introduced lethal force into what may have been an entirely innocent interaction - "Hey, you, your gas cap is not secured..." Of course she doesn't hear anything after "Hey, you...." as she sees it is a large [black] male and she begins shouting, reversing, drawing, and pointing her weapon at him. Again - just ONE of the resaons I think this scenario is fabricated. Too much action between "Hey, you.." and leaving the area for one pair of hands.

    Just my opinion, but I do know the law doesn't allow me to be proactive in defending myself.
    From OP:"He advanced aggressively headed for the door handle"

    Only the OP can interpret that, we werent there. Since you dont even believe it happened, I can see how you might disregard her statement and her perception. I can easily visualize a true imminent threat from that statement so it is at least possible.

    She also never said she pointed the gun at him. She drew it and he saw it. (Maybe she did point it, be she didnt say) She did yell at him. So would I. An innocent person would back off at shouting.

    You might be right tho. Instead of proactively reversing, she should have just sat there until he actually was yanking on the door handle. Or pulling out a weapon.

    Funny, I thought situational awareness was ALL about being proactive.
    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)

  15. #164
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by DefConGun View Post
    Perhaps we are having a disagreement as to what "drawing" means. I don't have a problem with the OP taking her gun out of her holster and having it read to go if need be, etc. She can draw her weapon and not show it to the attacker (if that's what he was...we don't really even know this was an attack). By showing her gun to the guy on the bike and pointing it at him is brandishing (to my understanding) and this can be an issue that can troublesome for the OP. Why put yourself in that position and leave yourself open to the scrutiny of a court if this were to go to trial? I want to keep as many variables outside of the realm of court interpretation as I can, etc.
    Readers's Digest version: I will draw and aim at an attacker if I believe lethal force is imminent. I will shoot if they continue the attack. I will lower weapon and not shoot if that threat ends.

    I will have to prove to police and possibly a jury that I perceived the lethal threat.

    I also understand the distinction between having weapon 'ready' and not aimed and aimed. From OP's post, I'm not sure which it was, but the man approaching apparently saw it.
    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)

  16. #165
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,802
    9MM, as you pointed out, there is a difference between how a woman and a man react to a given situation. You are destroying all the years of woman's lib by stating that one. So, should there be remedial training for females because they are some how different? But she passed the US Military requirements for fitness, and declared combat ready, and is a (trained?) MP.

    So now I am supposed to make allowances for her actions because she is a female? What a double standard.
    Sorry, I don't make allowances for this. You either can handle or you cant.

    I'm sure somemore sensitive type Knights will charge in here to defend her actions.
    But like I said, and, you just admitted, nothing but drama.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

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.