PocketRocket

Recently bought this book cause of the good things folks here have said about it. Was reading along and enjoying the book until I came to page 20 and read:

"Suppose you are minding your own business and an assailant walks up to you, grabs you by the throat, and punches you in the face. You can't shoot him yet; he has not offered sufficient show of deadly force."

He's kiddin right?

__________________
"An armed society is a polite society"

archer51

Not sure if he is kidding or not, but if a person grabs me by the throat that is a deadly attack. Depending on how your grabbed it takes very little time to incapacitate a person with a throat hold.

MilitaryPower

Excellent book, even though some of that stuff is considered outdated. I believe what is meant is, if somebody hits you with a cheap shot, no, you can't shoot him. Once the hit and run is over, there is no more threat. But, if the person is trying to beat the crap out of you, by all means shoot. Getting hit in the wrong spot can damage you for the rest of your life. In addition, when somebody is manhandling you that close, they could feel and pull out your gun and shoot you with it. So, you want to draw before giving him the opportunity to do so.

That is my take on it, although I may need to reread that part to fully remember and understand it.

__________________
http://www.mp-pistol.com
S&W M&P .40, M&P 15A
Walther P22, PPS 9mm
Gun control can be blamed in part for allowing 9/11 to happen.
"Si Vic Pacem Para Bellum" (Latin)- "If you want peace, prepare for war".

kazzaerexys

I think MilitaryPower has it right. Single unarmed assailant, you would be hard pressed to convince a jury/DA that you faced a lethal threat. The other thing I would add is that, in the book, Ayoob is trying to address as many people as possible; some of his advice will be more useful to people in an area that is less amenable to armed self-defense than others. There may be jurisdictions where you wouldn't be indicted for armed response in that situation, but there are a lot of places where you would be...

__________________
“What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?”

—Justice Antonin Scalia

PocketRocket

How are you to be sure he has no knife or other weapon? You'll find out when your dead I guess. He kinda contradicts himself on pages 15&16 with this:

"When considering the oft-encountered legal rule that a puch or kick does not warrant armed defense, the practical man will do well to realize that these laws have been formulated by judges and legislators who spend their lives in th security of courtrooms and hearing chambers. It is a rare lawmaker who has ever witnessed or undergone a brutal physical assault. Those Americans who have- and who may live with the prospect every day- realize just how much damage can be done with hands and feet. A seasoned street-fighter, or even an amateur in the grip of a savage, murderous impulse, can puncture your eyeballs, crush your testicles, snap your windpipe, break your spine and cave in your skull in less time it takes for the scream to chocke in your throat."

That to me would clearly qualify for the often talked about statement you should give to the police after an assault/attack:

"I was in fear of losing my life or being seriously injured."

__________________
"An armed society is a polite society"

Supertac45

In my world, any attack to my head is considered using deadly force. I'll do anything at that point to stay alive.

__________________
Les Baer 45
N.R.A. Patron Life Member
M.C.R.G.O.

kazzaerexys

PR, one of the basic rules of our system, as Ayoob definitely explains in this book, is that lethal force for the armed citizen is only justified against a lethal threat, and the way courts tend to define this is in terms of Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. If you can convince a potential jury that a given attack met these criteria, then you would presumably get exonerated. If there is no obvious weapon and you are facing a single attacker, that is a serious uphill battle in a lot of jurisdictions.

While the paragraph on p15--16 might be a good argument for being armed and avoiding Condition White, it is not, in and of itself, a valid legal defense. It may be the beginnings of one---it can help you explain to a jury how and why you perceived a lethal threat that the DA keeps insisting wasn't really there---but don't count on getting out of a criminal murder/manslaughter charge by explaining that you shot the guy who punched you because some street criminals can deliver lethal bare-handed attacks. If you are sitting in a courtroom as a defendant, the DA is not trying to agree with you that there was a definitive lethal threat, and Ayoob is pointing out that the start of the prosecution's argument will be that you shot an unarmed man. It will be up to you and your lawyer to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there really was a lethal threat you had to respond to.

I don't think it's a contradiction. I think it's an acknowledgment of the fact that in some ways the legal system is stacked against lethal force in self defense.

__________________
“What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?”

—Justice Antonin Scalia

MilitaryPower

I think it depends on the person as well. A fit adult male shouldn't shoot a little old lady for hitting him with her purse. I'm a small guy, but fit, even so there are a LOT of people who are physically imposing compared to me.

I personally wouldn't shoot somebody because they hit me (non-life-threatening), but I will shoot somebody to stop or prevent them from hitting me. Again, much of it depends on the attacker.

__________________
http://www.mp-pistol.com
S&W M&P .40, M&P 15A
Walther P22, PPS 9mm
Gun control can be blamed in part for allowing 9/11 to happen.
"Si Vic Pacem Para Bellum" (Latin)- "If you want peace, prepare for war".

JackJ

Remember, this was written 15 to 20 years ago. Some things have changed. There is still a large amount of information in the book that is relevant.

BikerRN

I can't speak for Massad Ayoob, but I do read his writing, and agree with most of it. I may be wrong, but let me see if I can explain it.

Someone grabbing you by the throat is not usually a "Lethal Threat". Remember that while you have to look at "worst case scenarios" you also cannot act beyond what is known at the time of the threat. For example:

Lets say a man walks up to you in Podunk, AR and grabs you by the throat. He has made no verbal comments to the effect that place you in "fear of your life" nor has he done anything else in regards to attacking you. By my teaching you have been the victim of a simple assault.

You don't know it but this nefarious critter has a 7" Bowie Knife in his waistband. You pull your gun and proceed to ventilate said critter with three rounds from your trusted firearm. In the course of the investigation the knife is discovered, and the fact that it was an unknown element to you. Trust me, this sort of stuff happens all the time.

Because the knife was unknown to you and you were only the victim of a "simple assault" you are not justified in stopping your attacker with Deadly Force. Attempts to flee, disengage from your attacker and verbalization of the ability to use Deadly Force all work in your favor. Who but someone attempting to use Deadly Force would continue an attack against a person that has the ability to use Deadly Force?

Laws vary by communities and "In The Gravest Extreme" was written to try and encompass all the various locales in our great land. Truth be told I don't think one will go wrong if they follow the teachings in Massad Ayoob's writings and may prevent untold future hardship.

Firearms are considered a tool of "last resort" and attempts to use other tools work in your favor, usually, before resorting to Deadly Force if at all possible.

Biker

__________________
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."