Four unarmed men

This is a discussion on Four unarmed men within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by mcp1810 Matt, I think shooting the van driver question requires an intimate knowledge of your particular jurisdictions laws on use of force. ...

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 113

Thread: Four unarmed men

  1. #61
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Matt,
    I think shooting the van driver question requires an intimate knowledge of your particular jurisdictions laws on use of force. Under the Texas penal code the driver is an active participant in an attempted aggravated kidnapping. I can use deadly force against him to prevent that. In fact, it could be argued that he should be the first target. If I hypothetically shoot and disable two of the men that exited the van, and the other two manage to get my wife in the vehicle, they are as good as gone. I am now faced with a moving target at increasing range and unless they leave all the doors open I can't see inside the vehicle to know where my wife is.
    If on the other hand I were to shoot the driver first. we have a couple of scenarios now.
    1) driver does not like getting shot at and bugs out leaving his buddies behind.
    2) shots take effect and regrettably kill the driver.
    a) vehicle is in gear and starts rolling away, leaving the rest of us behind.
    b) vehicle was in park and there is now a dead body that must be removed from the drivers seat before they can drive away.

    Now the other four bad guys have a choice. They can cut and run, or they can continue knowing that their get away has been severely compromised. If they choose to continue they have a bunch of negatives on them now. Gunfire is not common in my neighborhood so they can expect that police are being called and will be responding. Their vehicle, if it has bullet holes in it, is not going to "blend" in this area. And of course I have not stopped shooting at them unless they have disengaged or I no longer have a safe shot.

    And of course they have to figure all of this out in under ten seconds.
    I'm still not sold on the legal, moral or tactical wisdom of shooting at the driver instead of engaging the men who are actively assaulting my wife.

    If they manage to get into the vehicle, then shooting the driver is the most likely way to prevent the escape.

    But prior to that, it seems to me that engaging the men who are trying to drag the wife away makes much more sense.

    Engaging the BG trying to drag her off accomplishes much the same set of things shooting the driver does, plus it actually hampers the effort to get her in the van in the first place.

    The driver might well decide to haul tail if he sees you shooting at his accomplices.
    The rest of the guys trying to drag her to the van might get an outbreak of smarts on seeing their buddy play the bullet catch and haul tail.

    I still think one is on very shaky legal grounds engaging the driver first, while the wife is outside the van. He is part of a criminal act, for certain, but he lacks the immediate ability to harm you. The others, conversely, are actively causing her harm. They should, IMHO, be the initial targets for both tactical and legal reasons.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Member
    Array ecbaatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Michiganb
    Posts
    331
    [QUOTE=ccw9mm;1011454]


    The beauty of a firearm and a reasonable amount of training is that it has a chance to equalize the situation, even one as fast-moving and violent as a multiple-person kidnapping such as this. Particularly if all family members have trained together as part of a team effort for resisting such violence.

    Remember Samuel Colt when he said:

    Be not afraid of any man no matter what his size, in times of trouble call on me and I will equalize!

    or something close.
    Eric

    EM1(SS) Retired

    For freedom is never free someone else just picks up tab.

    Kimber Custom II
    Kimber Eclips Pro II
    Marlin Camp Rifle .45acp

    A 9mm may expand but a .45acp won't shrink

    Remember there are only two types of Ships in the Navy, SUBMARINES and Targets!

  4. #63
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by MattLarson View Post
    I still think one is on very shaky legal grounds engaging the driver first, while the wife is outside the van. He is part of a criminal act, for certain, but he lacks the immediate ability to harm you. The others, conversely, are actively causing her harm. They should, IMHO, be the initial targets for both tactical and legal reasons.

    Matt
    I don't know about Florida law, so what I can do here could possible get you twenty years or more there. But in Texas the law reads,
    § 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
    in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
    person if:
    (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
    (2) the actor reasonably believes that his
    intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
    Now 9.32 reads,
    § 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
    is justified in using deadly force against another:
    (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
    (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
    (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
    (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
    deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
    subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
    against whom the deadly force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the forcewas used; and
    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
    other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
    ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
    where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
    against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
    criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
    required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
    section.
    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
    whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
    that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
    consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
    As I read this the driver having an immediate ability to harm me is irrelevant.

    Also, are we assuming that just because the four guys that jumped out don't have any visible weapons means the driver is unarmed also? By engaging the driver last we run the very real risk that as soon as we draw to engage the dismounts he will bring a weapon to bear.

    Now we are taking fire from a numerically superior adversary who has some cover and mobility on their side.

    The way I see it by engaging the driver I am depriving them of mobility and negating any unseen weapons inside the vehicle that the driver could use.

    But like I said before, just because I can legally do it here does not mean you can do it anywhere else.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #64
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    The scenario stipulates the assailants are unarmed.

    Again, I'm still unconvinced that engaging the driver instead of the men actually physically assaulting your wife is tactically prudent.

    Your milage may vary.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  6. #65
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    You are right Matt it does say that the men that exited the vehicle are unarmed. One thing the OP does not specify is if the driver is one of the men that exited. So, if one of those four men is the driver, can I shoot him first?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #66
    Member Array PcMakr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    122
    I think that the one thing most of you have missed is that if there is a driver still in the van, he is definitely armed, with the van. If he sees you start to pull a gun or sees you start shooting, he may very well try to run you down with it. I think that a case could be made for shooting him because he actually had the more dangerous weapon, and you thought he was going to run over you, because you tried to defend your wife. So, Bang, Bang! If there is no driver behind the wheel, take out a tire or two, if you have the time and ability.

  8. #67
    Senior Member Array MilitaryPower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    976
    The first priority is the four men out of the vehicle. The driver does not get shot unless he attempts to use the vehicle as a weapon. He does not immediately have the means to kidnap, even though he is part of the crime. A shot or stab to the tire could help the police get him though, if he has the guts to drive away while a gun is being pointed at his face. In Florida, if he survives, he could be charged with attempted kidnapping and four counts of 2nd degree murder as a principle in the first degree. He might be eligible for a vehicle charge as well. Anyway about it, he won't be out for a long, long, time.
    Gun control can be blamed in part for allowing 9/11 to happen.
    "Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum" (Latin)- "If you want peace, prepare for war".

  9. #68
    VIP Member Array JAT40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ma
    Posts
    2,366
    In my view the four BG's grabbing the wife, (unlike some I want mine back ) are way too close to her to take good shots. At best I pick off one or two of them, the others shielded by the wife enter the van, driver hits the gas. Not good!
    By the time the BG's drag the Misses kicking & screaming to the van door. I would shoot the driver and possibly disable the get away vehicle. Now I can focus on good shot placement if needed on the other kidnaper's, who now can only escape on foot. Most likely not with wife
    While people are saying "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, ... and they will not escape. 1Th 5:3

  10. #69
    Member Array glock45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    384
    Four men jump off a van and start approaching me and my wife and they will see the business end of my gun for sure. They keep approaching with clear intent of harm or make sudden movements that make me fear for my life or my wife's life and they will get shot.

  11. #70
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by JAT40 View Post
    In my view the four BG's grabbing the wife, (unlike some I want mine back ) are way too close to her to take good shots. At best I pick off one or two of them, the others shielded by the wife enter the van, driver hits the gas. Not good!
    By the time the BG's drag the Misses kicking & screaming to the van door. I would shoot the driver and possibly disable the get away vehicle. Now I can focus on good shot placement if needed on the other kidnaper's, who now can only escape on foot. Most likely not with wife
    You could move close to her (i.e. near contact range for the BGs) and deal with them while trying to prevent them from getting to the van.

    No need to stand in one spot and let them get a head start away from you.....

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  12. #71
    me
    me is offline
    Senior Member Array me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Shanandoah Valley VA
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by MattLarson View Post
    You could move close to her (i.e. near contact range for the BGs) and deal with them while trying to prevent them from getting to the van.

    No need to stand in one spot and let them get a head start away from you.....

    Matt
    To me near contact range is not a great place for a gun fight with my wife there.

    If they try to grab or deflect my gun then the wife may get it.

    And GOD HELP ME if they manage (2 on me and 2 on her?) to take my gun from me.

    If I go to a knife, well She maay just as easily get this.

    OC is no good because I have respiratory issues.
    Mark

    "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

    -James Earl Jones

  13. #72
    Member Array banana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    california
    Posts
    91
    great analysis!


    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Matt,
    I think shooting the van driver question requires an intimate knowledge of your particular jurisdictions laws on use of force. Under the Texas penal code the driver is an active participant in an attempted aggravated kidnapping. I can use deadly force against him to prevent that. In fact, it could be argued that he should be the first target. If I hypothetically shoot and disable two of the men that exited the van, and the other two manage to get my wife in the vehicle, they are as good as gone. I am now faced with a moving target at increasing range and unless they leave all the doors open I can't see inside the vehicle to know where my wife is.
    If on the other hand I were to shoot the driver first. we have a couple of scenarios now.
    1) driver does not like getting shot at and bugs out leaving his buddies behind.
    2) shots take effect and regrettably kill the driver.
    a) vehicle is in gear and starts rolling away, leaving the rest of us behind.
    b) vehicle was in park and there is now a dead body that must be removed from the drivers seat before they can drive away.

    Now the other four bad guys have a choice. They can cut and run, or they can continue knowing that their get away has been severely compromised. If they choose to continue they have a bunch of negatives on them now. Gunfire is not common in my neighborhood so they can expect that police are being called and will be responding. Their vehicle, if it has bullet holes in it, is not going to "blend" in this area. And of course I have not stopped shooting at them unless they have disengaged or I no longer have a safe shot.

    And of course they have to figure all of this out in under ten seconds.
    Quote Originally Posted by JAT40 View Post
    In my view the four BG's grabbing the wife, (unlike some I want mine back ) are way too close to her to take good shots. At best I pick off one or two of them, the others shielded by the wife enter the van, driver hits the gas. Not good!
    By the time the BG's drag the Misses kicking & screaming to the van door. I would shoot the driver and possibly disable the get away vehicle. Now I can focus on good shot placement if needed on the other kidnaper's, who now can only escape on foot. Most likely not with wife
    I think I would also try to follow the action you described.
    When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

  14. #73
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by MattLarson View Post
    If she's actually in the van, I think you have a point.

    But as presented, the assailants are trying to drag her to the van. She's not in it yet.

    Apparently, some folks think the driver is more of a threat than the assailants who are immediately assaulting he
    Matt
    But, that is the point. Once she is in the van, it is likely too late for me to save her because the driver will take off with his foot to the pedal.

    I am not sugggesting that the driver is more of a threat, but he is going to be the key to my losing my wife if the others are successful in getting her into the van.

    No disrespect intended here, but I am very surprised that any one would argue that the driver is not a valid target for the use of deadly force.

    From a tactical perspective I am not experienced enough to know what the best approach would be, but I have no doubt that if I elected to take out the driver, it would be a lawful use of deadly force to protect my wife from being abducted into a van and/or being gang raped and killed.
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,158
    In a violent, heinous crime in progress right before your eyes, the end does justify the means (in a sense), at least if we're speaking of the timing of eliminating criminal A versus criminal B.

    I think we can agree there is one goal, here: at almost all costs, stopping that van leaving with your family member. There are limited ways to achieve that. You either disable the vehicle, the driver, or eliminate the ability of the four "hands on" idiots who are manhandling your loved one towards the van.

    With a handgun, it's bloody unlikely to disable a vehicle, at least not with just a few (even well-place) shots.

    Mere yelling or pleading isn't going to do much, as they've got numbers on their side.

    Police are only minutes away, so that's not a viable option.

    Get into gear buddy, 'cause you're it. Time to step up to the plate, or to start saving for funeral expenses.

    I see it fairly simply. All players in the crime are legitimate, legal targets. I cannot possibly imagine the law jumping on your head for attacking any member of a crew in the act of kidnapping your own family, in almost any manner achievable. If it so happens that one criminal gets stopped prior to the next, where's the infraction? I mean: what's the goal, here? ALL players are contributing to the success of the crime, since numbers are the operative tool of leverage, in such a situation. So, reduce the numbers and you reduce the odds that the van of criminals takes your loved one. Even if that includes the driver.

    We all make choices. Your loved one's exiting the scene ... and you're going to have qualms over taking out the driver, or the "sweep," or the leader, or the "point" person? I mean, you've got seconds before you see your loved one for the last time ... and you're going to dither about the reasonableness of stopping this one versus that one? How would you explain that to the family, that you evaded your limited opportunities after thinking it over?
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  16. #75
    Ex Member Array JOHNSMITH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    1,726
    Kidnapping is quite the forcible felony, therefore, there is only one response.

    Make sure no one is behind you, then "BANG" followed by multiple bangs.

    If they make it to the van with your wife/girlfriend/daughter/whoever, then there's a good chance you'll be identifying her mutilated body several weeks from now.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Traveling in PA unarmed
    By Jumper2501 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 13th, 2009, 04:50 PM
  2. Unarmed threat
    By 40CalSW in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: May 20th, 2009, 08:37 PM
  3. I come to you unarmed…
    By Rascaduanok in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: August 29th, 2008, 09:39 PM
  4. Unarmed in NY
    By raysheen in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: July 26th, 2006, 08:20 AM

Search tags for this page

ccw five unarmed guys
,

content

,
jumped by unarmed men concealed carry
,
where to shoot a vehicle to disable it
Click on a term to search for related topics.