This is a discussion on Assaulted at a party. Shoot or not? real situation within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Don't go to parties with violent people +1 Your friend needs to avoid three things: 1) stupid people 2) stupid places 3) stupid things If ...
+1Don't go to parties with violent people
Your friend needs to avoid three things:
1) stupid people
2) stupid places
3) stupid things
If you have a buddy who tends to get obnoxious when he drinks, then maybe he shouldn't be your buddy.
If your favorite bar is "a little rough," then maybe you should go look for one with hanging ferns (or better yet, do your drinking at home).
And finally, avoid doing stupid things. Going to a Harley bar and yelling "Harley's suck" is an example of things to avoid.
As for your friend, he never should have exchanged words with his assailants. When you are carrying, you need to be casper milquetoast with no ego. He should have been apologetic, put up his hands, and backed on out of their pronto.
Last edited by lowflyer; January 25th, 2007 at 12:38 AM.
Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.
Ok, Just to clear things up, they both were armed with box knives. I had absolutely nothing to do with this situation, except for my friend telling his story to me. I agree with you in the" u shouldn't have been there in the first place" attitude. But regardless you're there, because its a known fact that people don't always do what they should. But I look at it this way, regardless of the other circumstances at the time. The armed victim retreated from the house after only verbally responding to the aggressors. He did not know prior to showing up to the party they were there. The aggressors followed them to the car, both armed with deadly weapons. They assault him and the two people hes with. The reason I said I would have shot the aggressor is because I was trying to put It in the perspective as if I was on duty. If two suspects come at me with knives, Im going to defend myself with lethal force. This is, by the way, college bullcrap. In conclusion, Im not one of those shoot em all type of guys, but if someone threatens to take my life then Im going to do whatever I can to prevent it.
When you receive your CCW, you strap your firearm whatever you choose fit, the ego leaves at the door. Because we are "trained" (in most cases) in the use of force laws for our states, we have a higher duty to avoid conflict. I'm not saying that CCW holders set to a higher standard of some sort, but we should be because we are well aware of what we can do, can't do and that we have the means to accomplish it.
As a LEO, you would certainly be held to a higher standard. Higher than you can imagine until you are actually held to it. I can also guarantee that the outcome of the department team responsible for investigating the incident can be greatly influenced by public/media opinion and that is never good, sometimes it bites back... Hard.
Yes, in the eyes of the law and how black and white they can be a lethal threat gets met with lethal force. However, the law and its outcome in court is never judged by the law. It's judged by a group of people that often have no idea what it is, come with their own preconceived notions on what is "right" and what is "wrong", and is sometimes swayed entirely by the prosecutor.
In stand your ground states you have no duty to retreat, but it is usually really helpful. Him leaving the party was a great decision, him exchanging words with the people probably wasn't and it could be seen as escalation. I would agree that presenting the gun to a lethal threat would be justified.
However, the outcome of what you would/wouldn't do afterwards would be entirely up to 12 people that I hope no one will ever have to meet. Don't think that the badge will protect you from a county prosecutor, I've seen many times where a shoot was deemed justified by the department and the prosecutor brought charges regardless. I hope no LEO is ever put into that situation, but once it happens the badge comes off and you are tried as one of your peers and it won't be LEOs in that box.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." Adolf Hitler
I have no doubt in your mind you are thinking through all the steps in this scenario, but you aren't putting them down. When writing stuff like this it is like my old math professor told me, show all your work. If you get the wrong answer you still get credit for correct process. I was bad about that...anyway.
What I get is that your friend was invited to a party by a girl. Cool guys like that. He arrives with a couple of buds, you weren't one of them, and runs into a couple guys he has had trouble with in the past. We don't know what any of them said to each other, big gray area, and your friend and his buds leave. The two other guys follow the three friends out to their vehicle and make threats with box cutters. Your friend cocks his revolver in his jacket pocket and the two aggressors leave the area.
It would be helpful to know if your friend's verbal exchange was him standing his ground and escalating the situation or if he was all no problem I'm leaving. That would be important when he goes to trial.
At any rate you comment that had you been in the same situation you would have shot the guys with the boxcutters. Here's where I believe you didn't show all your work on the problem. I believe LEOs are still taught force escalation techniques or something similar.
In other words you probably have spray and/or a baton to use before going to the gun. Also verbal commands. If on duty or otherwise I think you would issue verbal commands first and move up from there. I have to assume unless the guys with box cutters are totally drunk or high they will comply before you have to make holes in them.
This situation and the legality of it if your friend shot the boxcutter guys, would hinge on how the jury interprets evidence and whether or not they believe your friend escalated to confrontation verbally. If you were in the situation as a LEO you would have a entirely different set of problems because of your training.
Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.
To the posters making comments (troll, BS etc.), you are pushing the limits here. Please respond respectfully and as you would appreciate someone responding to you. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Some folks just aren't good at expressing themselves in the written format. Especially online forums like this one.
Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.
Welcome to the forum, bmwaddicted. Sometimes we see people that only post a couple of times looking to stir up trouble by making an outragious or controversial statement.
Hang out for a bit and post some more. Let us know that you are "real" and not just looking for trouble.
I could fill in the details that you left out in my own imagined scenario and easily justify shooting two aggressors coming at me with box cutters.
Be yourself. Be honest. This is a great community. :)
"If you so much as bunny hop I'll cut your heart out!" Billy Bob Thornton in The Last Real Cowboys
"I carry a gun for the same reason that I carry health insurance and a cell phone - be prepared."
I think in the scenario in question, regardless of whatever the missing information, if people were shot and/or killed under these circumstances, the case would likely end up in front of a grand jury. I would wager from there that an indictment for manslaughter or 2DM would be forthcoming. Even if the shooter was found not guilty at his trial, his life would be a living Hell for many years to come.
I think that is why it is imperative that those of us who carry weapons do everything we can to avoid situations where our actions leading up to employing a weapon could be seen as even remotely suspect. That means, while armed or capable of being armed, no arguing with people, no drinking, no gambling, no improprieties of any sort, and no parties where any of that may happen, etc...
Carrying a deadly weapon means that one accepts the responsibility of remaining alert as to the 'wrong thing' and being extremely careful to always avoid it.
Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.
Depends entirely on the laws in your state, but there's a good chance the answer is yes. It would also depend on the "words" that were exchanged inside. If others at the party viewed you as the original instigator then you would probably end up in jail. Even if you were not the instigator, but got just as aggressive as the other guy, that would probably work against you.Originally Posted by bmwaddicted
Yes, absolutely. As I said above, if you demonstrated any aggression previously then a jury might very well view you as the one who started things, and that would bode very badly for your future freedom.Originally Posted by bmwaddicted
Maybe. Maybe not. See above. You can't pick a fight with someone, or even stand up aggressively, and then turn around and leave and expect the jury to ignore the "words" that were exchanged previously.Originally Posted by bmwaddicted
It doesn't sit right with a lot of people, but the fact of the matter is that when you're carrying you will be held to a different standard than someone who is not. As such you have to be passive almost to the point of obsequiousness, until the point comes when lethal force is justified.
Last edited by denverd0n; January 25th, 2007 at 11:30 AM.
On duty? Are you a police officer? If so, I'm surprised that you don't already know the answers to these questions you're asking. If not, then what do you mean by "on duty?"Originally Posted by bmwaddicted
In any case, it is still going to depend entirely on what happened before. A prosecutor will talk to witnesses who were at the party. He will be looking for anyone who is willing to say that you were in any way the aggressive one. If he can find such a witness then you are in for a whole world of hurt my friend.
That makes absolutely no sense. The story is told in a civilian's standpoint, yet you later interject your alledged LE status as your justification for shooting them.The reason I said I would have shot the aggressor is because I was trying to put It in the perspective as if I was on duty.
Because over the shouting and bickering going on, they can hear the cocking of a hammer and know *exactly* what it is that made that sound. Riiight.he grabs the gun in his coat and a cocks the hammer, I guess to warn them hes armed
If you are a police officer as you claim to be, this question would have been answered for you in your training. If you are a police officer and you don't know when you can or cannot use deadly force, you better go back to the academy and learn some more because you could get someone killed and it might not be the criminal, it could be a fellow officer.
07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006
Probably the only home based FFL that doesn't do transfers.
I wasn't trying to write a book on these forums, so if my story lacks some detail then thats why. My friend didn't tell me details of what was exactly said. He told me he went into the party, noticed that these two individuals were there, and decided to leave. And as far as the cocking of the hammer goes, they might not have heard that, but they could probobly see the barrel pushing against the inside of his coat. My friend was telling me this to answer one simple question: If two guys, that have probobly been drinking or high, come at you with knives, then do you have the right to use deadly force. My first reaction to the question was that if your life is in danger than you have the right to use whatever force necessary to protect yourself. The only reason I compared it to a duty situation is because that is the only time I could think of that I would be confronted like that. In wichita we are equipped with tasers, but that would be in-affective against two assailants. Im asking these questions not because I don't know the answers, but because I want other opinions on the subject. Also, in any use of deadly force, there is a grey area in my opinion. And to the last comment, I wasn't using my LE status as a basis for shooting them. I was simply trying to relate my friends incident to a situation that could occur in my life. And, truth be told, in wichita we are called to incidents that happen at partys all the time. Hypothetically speaking, I could be responding to a distrubance, and while approaching the residence, be confronted by two intoxicated men with knives. I could draw my weapon, but if they don't want to back down, then what else can someone do but fire. I hope I never have to use lethal force, but when it comes down to my life or thiers, then I'll do what i have to do.