great question I dont know the answer to
This is a discussion on great question I dont know the answer to within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Well if I take the gun from him what's to say he won't take it right back?...
January 8th, 2013 07:56 AM
Well if I take the gun from him what's to say he won't take it right back?
This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.
January 8th, 2013 08:38 AM
It depends. What does your state law say about use of deadly force and under what conditions? It varies from state to state. Has case law been established in a situation such as this? And finally, did you need to use deadly force to stop the threat, or did you use it because the balance of power shifted in your direction?
Quoting "disparity of force" and such doesn't apply equally in every state, not does what constitutes allowable use of deadly force.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
January 8th, 2013 09:17 AM
Thanks ph. Still confused how this came up in 1896, but there are many things in SC that confuse me since I am only a lowly comya and not a binya. Personally, imminent threat is still number one, nighttime or not. Stuff is just not worth someone's life as much as the idea that I am being robbed wants me to make sure the BG will never do this again.
Originally Posted by phreddy
January 8th, 2013 10:21 AM
Here is the only law that matters: SURVIVE! Do whatever you have to do to survive. Worry about laws and all that other crap AFTER you survive.
If you are in a fight with an armed man and you are able to wrestle the gun away from him then heck yes, shoot him with it. You would still be in a fight with the guy at that point and he would be trying to get his gun back or to hurt you. This is a no brainer. SERIOUSLY, THIS IS A NO BRAINER. YOU ARE FIGHTING WITH A GUY WHO IS STILL TRYING TO KILL YOU. How do you know he doesn't have another weapon to use on you?
The exception would be if he cut and ran as soon as you got control of the gun. If he stops fighting and runs then let him go.
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent
January 8th, 2013 05:55 PM
If he is still attacking, I would say yes, your justified in the use of deadly force. ! he is trying to get his weapon back, and 2 you have no idea if the gun was the only weapon he had. If after disarming him he attempts to flea, that puts a different light on the subject and will depend on the DA and your state laws.
Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.
NRA Life Member
January 8th, 2013 09:59 PM
All right, let's say it was your gun to begin with and he is confronting you with belligerence, are you right to shoot him because of the chance he might take your gun?
Originally Posted by paaiyan
Probably not, although if he definitely was trying to take your gun you absolutely cannot let him have it and it would be better to shoot than to give it up. That's how I see the Martin vs. Zimmerman thing- Z. was losing the fist part of the fight and M. is one of the last people you would ever want to have a firearm.
So it probably depends on what happens next. If I were to take a gun off a belligerent person my first instinct would be to unload it and clear it. Shooting it would be a last resort because I don't know anything about this gun; it could be damaged or have the wrong ammo in it. This is also a rare, hypothetical situation- better to avoid any shooting until you are sure *** is going on, in my opinion.
January 9th, 2013 10:44 AM
Absolutely, if by "belligerence" you mean what the statutes generally mean in the use-of-force sections: violence to the point of legitimizing one's fear of impending death or crippling injury because of it. Same as always.
Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx
Short of that, you're right, there's no call for putting down the dog. But if it meets the normal, everyday statutory definitions for use-of-force that always apply, then there's no reason to suggest a person's lawful authority to put the dog down is any different than it ever is.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
January 9th, 2013 10:54 AM
C'mon people why in the world would you shoot him IF he has been neutralized and is no longer a threat? Especially if he is running away.
Because he may have bloodied your nose and you are pissed? That is really no reason to shoot someone.
That being said:
If, for some reason, you do decide to shoot him make sure you shoot him somewhere besides in the back and make sure he is dead.
"Life is tough but it's really tough if you are stupid"
January 9th, 2013 02:55 PM
Again, it all depends on what state you are in and what the laws of that state are.
Originally Posted by Hodad
What do you consider neutralized? Just because he is going away from you after he saw a gun or you took the gun from him. Maybe he is looking for cover so he can get to his gun/knife whatever and resume the attack. Also, there is nothing in the statutes for our state that state where you can shoot someone. I may be wrong, but I don't know of any laws that say you can only shoot someone in the middle of the chest, or to do otherwise automatically makes a justified shoot unjustified.
Making them dead is debateable. If you shoot to stop the threat, and they don't die do you keep pumping rounds in them until they are dead? If they live and are a general scum bag, pretty good chance they are if they are attacking you, but they have a history of criminal behavior, who do you think will be believed during the investigation. My money goes on the person defending themself from the scum bag.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
January 9th, 2013 03:11 PM
By "belligerence" I mean the English-language use of the word, looking for a fight. "You MF, I hate you," shaking his fist, etc. There is a chance he is going to be able to beat me up and take the gun, which of course I cannot let happen. But I would have to be completely sure that is exactly what is going to happen before firing a shot. Sure, as in he's on top of me beating me and the lights are going out.
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
I guess it makes a difference who the defender is. A small woman who will definitely lose the fight and the gun might get away with shooting, while with someone like me who is huge a jury isn't going to buy that I had physical fear for my life from an unarmed person. It's an awful situation for sure, when there's a gun anywhere in the area. Given the legal ramifications I'd rather lose a fistfight than win a gunfight.
Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.