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; In most states, reaching for a door handle is enough intent to warrant a clean shot. Not saying that is the preferred action, you did ...
In most states, reaching for a door handle is enough intent to warrant a clean shot. Not saying that is the preferred action, you did good. I'd have a hard time not running him over in my attempt to get away from the threat.
However, I have to agree with adric22 that gun in hand, but out of sight might have been a better course of action until something more overt on his part happened.
I've been approached by pedestrians while in my vehicle more than one occasion, and more than once, I've had my gun in my hand at the ready but never displayed it to the subject.
In each of those occasions, none of them ended up attempting anything criminal. I was glad I had my gun at the ready, but I was also equally glad I did not shove it in their face.
Just something to consider in the future.
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
I seem to have forgotten the drama that stirs on fourms such as this one. I appreciate the those who have shared thoughts on different ways this situation could have been different, or what others would have personally done at such a time. That being said, I stand fully confident in the spit second decisions I made given the circumstances. At the end of the day, my goal is to come to my family. If drawing on someone in a situation that happened quickly was my first thought of survival, it is just that. I carry, and I train for a reason. To protect myself and my family. In the military, I came to realize sometimes the least path to resistance is what gets you jacked up. Reality doesn't allow us to think politically, it forces us to act. For me when my life is threatened I will resort to my tactic of survival.
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend. - US Marine Corps
And you'll learn soon enough which folks here need to switch to decaf...
I would also like to see some case law that says its okay to shoot someone because they grab your door handle. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I've never heard of it before and it seems a bit suspicious to me.
I think the OP did a good job. No one was hurt and she is here safe tonight telling us about it. I do have a rule of my own that I think is legitimate that says if something happens and its to the extent that necessitates you to draw your weapon, then it should also necessitate a call to the police. This protects you to some extent. There's a saying that goes somewhat along the line that the first person that calls in and tells their side of the story, has the upper hand. If the guy on the bike called the police and you didn't, it could look like you were trying to get by with something. The police could just as easily ask you, "If you thought your life was really in danger, then why didn't you report it?" and they would have a good point.
I wasn't there and I realize that things happen quickly and sometimes you only have time for reaction and not so much time to rationalize all contingencies. I might have done the same thing as the OP if I found myself in a similar situation. I do, however at the same time, agree that trying to handle the gun at the same time I'm trying back up is a task that is dividing too much of my attention at a very stressful moment.
FL 812.133 Carjacking.
(1) "Carjacking" means the taking of a motor vehicle which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the motor vehicle, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.
(2)(a) If in the course of committing the carjacking the offender carried a firearm or other deadly weapon, then the carjacking is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If in the course of committing the carjacking the offender carried no firearm, deadly weapon, or other weapon, then the carjacking is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3)(a) An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing the carjacking" if it occurs in an attempt to commit carjacking or in flight after the attempt or commission.
(b) An act shall be deemed "in the course of the taking" if it occurs either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taking of the property and if it and the act of taking constitute a continuous series of acts or events.
Take it as you will, anyone trying to enter a car without consent is guilty of a felony, and subject to stand your ground as well as castle doctrine. I'm not a lawyer, but I've owned a few. Intent is 90% of the law.
glad you were prepared,that .40 may have saved your life..
Now to refresh the sketchy memory of some of the critics here (those items highlighted, and placed in a simple time line)...
To the guy on the bike who approached buenetteMP,
If your intentions were innocent and you were just trying to be helpful, in the future, approach slowly with your hands in view and state your business without approaching the vehicle closer than loud voice distance.
If you are experiencing an emergency, find a business that is open to have them call 911 for assistance if for some reason you are unable to do so, don't pick some random person in a vehicle.
Final note - Regrettably you failed the MadMac syllabus of personal safety and risk avoidance. You were running errands in an area you are not familiar with, nor did you seek alternatives to those errands that could be done from the safety of your home, you had your windows down, you did not place yourself in a position to immediately accelerate away form the situation, you did not leave the immediate area as soon as you noticed the other person coming toward you...Gosh, I know I am missing 4 or 5 more items, but I just can't remember them all.
Last edited by Sticks; December 17th, 2011 at 07:18 AM. Reason: Could not resist
Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
See also Sheep
None of this is what I said. Since this is precisely a Monday morning quarterbacking board in the scenario section, I am simply pointing out inconsistencies. Go ahead a justify all you want. If you don't want to read conflicting thoughts on a scenario, ask the mods to boot me off the forum so only cheerleaders can post.
I suppose your midset is that a gun solves every security and safety probelm you have, and every time you present one to a "BG", you've done well. We don't even have any idea this guy is "bad" other than the aforementioned skin color and weight.
I always find it suspicious when the gun -brandishing person pulls his/her weapon on an unarmed (as far as we know) person of color, and afterwards laughs about him soiling his pants, and fails to notify police. Personally, I think someone didn't a pony for Christmas when they were six, and Daddy didn't pay enough attention to them.
This law includes your personal vehicle.
76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he
reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry
into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or
likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by
stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of
assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he
reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a
felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the
purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of
imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is
made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or
by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.
Changes to Chapter 776,
The Part of the Law Pertaining to
Justifiable Use of Force
On October 1, 2005, changes to Chapter 776,
Florida Statutes, became effective. The changes relate
to: the protection of persons and property;
authorizing a person to use force, including deadly
force, against an intruder or attacker in a dwelling,
residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances;
creating a presumption that a reasonable fear of death
or great bodily harm exists under certain
circumstances; creating a presumption that a person
acts with the intent to use force or violence under
specified circumstances; the justification in using
deadly force under certain circumstances; the lack of a
duty to retreat and a person’s right to stand his or her
ground and meet force with force if that person is in a
place where he or she has a right to be and the force is
necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm, or the
commission of a forcible felony; creating immunity
from criminal prosecution or civil action for using
deadly force; the definition of the term “criminal
prosecution’’; authorizing a law enforcement agency
to investigate the use of deadly force but prohibiting
the agency from arresting the person unless the
agency determines that there is probable cause that
the force the person used was unlawful; providing for
the award of attorney fees, court costs, compensation
for loss of income, and other expenses to a defendant
in a civil suit who is immune from prosecution under
this section. See Chapter 200527,
Laws of Florida.
Good job, when i am in an unfamiliar neighborhood, ect, as i travel a lit to catch a boat, I am always midnfull of stoplights, ect, always leaving myself maneuverable room, and keep aware of parking lots, ect, when coming to a stop, just a habit, and one that either saved my bacon, or more possible someone elses when i found myself in East St Louis lost one night, and a similar incident at a red light with a car behind me, being the agressors.....all went well , no shots fired and thats the best in all cases....
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
I asked my stock broker the other day, what I should be investing in ....his reply, canned goods n ammo !!!
NOT LIVING IN FEAR, JUST READY!!!
I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness,
nor the arrow for its swiftness,
nor the warrior for his glory.
I love only that which they defend.
My Litmus Test for these kind of situations is to imagine that the guy on the bike is my son, brother or any family member and to do the same with the woman in the car.
If my son came to me and said a woman pulled a gun on him and he described the circumstances I would advise him not to scare the daylights out of a woman alone in a car at night. If the woman in the car was my wife, daughter etc I would say good job you got to walk away from a possible life threatening situation without having to shoot someone. I would also tell her she has to report that incident to the police.