Who's right and wrong here?

[eldirector]

See in a situation like this, being if the person was not so much larger than you and didn't have a weapon and still kept coming at you after you drew your firearm, a clean shot to the leg might be sufficient...non-lethal (mostly) and keeps that whole worry of man-slaughter off the table ;-)

Besides, shooting in the leg is still deadly force. The same as center of mass. See the quoted IC earlier in the thread.

I'd like to see someone get in a leg shot, when the perp is rushing you and less than 10 feet away (as per this scenario). That's less than 1 second to aim and shoot before he is on you.

 

[rambone]

Just plant a piece of wood on him and a closed swiss army knife. Then you can use the Ian Birk defense.

 

[rich8483]

See in a situation like this, being if the person was not so much larger than you and didn't have a weapon and still kept coming at you after you drew your firearm, a clean shot to the leg might be sufficient...non-lethal (mostly) and keeps that whole worry of man-slaughter off the table ;-)

uh... by definition THIS IS DEADLY FORCE LEGALLY for more than one reason. a person can bleed out from a leg wound and two, and court can easily argue that you were aiming center of mass and simply missed. the same reason "warning shots" are deadly force.

why are told to aim center of mass in the first place? because hitting the head or any other extremity is extremely hard under stress on a moving target.
please dont tell me you think you are the ONE person who could pick off someones middle toe with a bow and arrow from 200 yards away while hes running.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Dross nailed it.

 

[Denny347]

I think something interesting would be to hear how a police officer would respond and be treated after his or her response. I just can't see some one doing this to a police officer and them not firing.

Unless I could see a weapon, or if he was hiding his hands and I believed he was carrying a weapon, or if I had some prior knowledge of his empty hand abilities (MMA fighter, boxer, etc) then no shoot.
Where does a verbal threat, fast walking, and ignoring lawful commands enter on my use of force continuum?

 

[cosermann]

Here's another way to think about it. Posted on INGO before. The idea is from one of Ayoob's Judicious Use of Lethal Force videos. Just to stimulate the thread.

If an altercation with an unarmed BG is imminent, and you draw your weapon to a low ready (or whatever your training describes as a ready defensive position), and the BG continues to attack...You can make some assumptions.

1) He knows that I have a deadly weapon in my hand because he can see it.
2) He can reasonably assume that I know how to use it and that it is not an empty threat.
3) I don't know anything about this person. He may be a thug, a retired Navy Seal, SAS, KGB, Honor roll student, etc.
4) In that situation I know nothing about what training he has, but he knows something about the training I have.
5) No one would continue to attack if they thought they had a major chance of losing.
6) Because the bad guy is pushing the attack he must be confident enough in his skills that he can still win the altercation even with me holding a gun.
7) He has enough training to win the attack unarmed against an armed gunman.
8) The only way to stop him is to kill him.

I hope to never have to use this line of reasoning, btw.

I think it's maybe been posted in a couple of previous threads. Here's one at least:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...en_unconsious_in_his_driveway_in_hammond.html

Edit - And this one:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/36038-the_wont_back_down_situation.html

 

[Gareth]

And, what I've been taught and read is that if you aren't in fear of your life, then you can't shoot, and must not be in fear for your life if you shoot to wound.

You were taught correctly.

Warning shots, and carefully placed shots intended only to incapacitate an attacker are both BS. Timing is everything during an actual life threatening situation. I've been there and obviously survived. There is NO time for warning shots or carefully placed shots intended only to wound an attacker.

 

[Tommy2Tone]

Here's another way to think about it. Posted on INGO before. The idea is from one of Ayoob's Judicious Use of Lethal Force videos. Just to stimulate the thread.

If an altercation with an unarmed BG is imminent, and you draw your weapon to a low ready (or whatever your training describes as a ready defensive position), and the BG continues to attack...You can make some assumptions.

1) He knows that I have a deadly weapon in my hand because he can see it.
2) He can reasonably assume that I know how to use it and that it is not an empty threat.
3) I don't know anything about this person. He may be a thug, a retired Navy Seal, SAS, KGB, Honor roll student, etc.
4) In that situation I know nothing about what training he has, but he knows something about the training I have.
5) No one would continue to attack if they thought they had a major chance of losing.
6) Because the bad guy is pushing the attack he must be confident enough in his skills that he can still win the altercation even with me holding a gun.
7) He has enough training to win the attack unarmed against an armed gunman.
8) The only way to stop him is to kill him.

I hope to never have to use this line of reasoning, btw.

I think it's maybe been posted in a couple of previous threads. Here's one at least:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...en_unconsious_in_his_driveway_in_hammond.html

Edit - And this one:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/36038-the_wont_back_down_situation.html

I agree with this. I for one am not going to take a beating just because this guy doesn't have a weapon. You can EASILY die from a beating. And as other have said, this guy may be very skilled in hand to hand combat. I draw, if he still charges and does not stop with verbal commands. I do what i have to do to get home safe.

 

[cosermann]

And, what I've been taught and read is that if you aren't in fear of your life, then you can't shoot, and must not be in fear for your life if you shoot to wound.

This is a good rule of thumb in most places where the law doesn't virtually force you to be a victim.

However, the standard in Indiana is technically "serious bodily injury" as defined back in post 25.

Colorado might be (probably is?) slightly different.

Everyone should be familiar with the standard in their home jurisdiction.

 

[Benny]

I don't know the practical legal considerations, but let's get into the philosophical and logical for a moment.

I'm 6'2", and I weigh 300 pounds. To put that in perspective, when I'm in really, really good shape I weigh 250. I ran my first and only marathon a few years ago at 290.

I've never understood why I should have a different standard of defense because I'm big and scary. In fact, if you think about it, it should lower the threshold.

Let's say the scenario described happens to me. The guy weighs a buck fifty and has pencil arms.

What do I know about him? He's threatening a guy who looks like me and continuing to advance. Why must I assume I can beat him in a fight? This guy might be like Bruce Lee, who weighed 120 pounds. Also, I'm carrying a weapon, not in a retention holster. What if we're rolling around on the ground and he gets my weapon? I don't have a baton, or pepper spray, or a taser.

Let's take it up a notch. Let's say I pull my pistol and tell him not to come closer and he still advances. Are you saying I shouldn't shoot him then?

To paraphrase Ayoob, I don't know anything about this guy except that he is threatening to kill me and is advancing on me with apparently the intent to do so. What does he know about me? He knows I'm bigger than he, he knows I'm stronger than he, and he knows I've got a weapon and I've said I'll shoot him. If he continues to advance isn't it reasonable for me to believe that he has every intention of winning this fight? He knows it's a fight to the death, he set that standard and I have a deadly weapon. Is it prudent of me to assume that he can't win the fight, and leave me dead?

Again, I understand some of the legal difficulties, but do you see my philosophical point?

Good post.

I am 8 inches taller and 75 lbs heavier than the average adult male(US). I didn't look for a height/weight percentile chart, but I'd venture to guess I'm larger than roughly 99% of the population. If size plays that big of a part in a court ruling, I might as well quit carrying.

I don't use a retention holster either. If someone (that looks) unarmed approaches me with the intentions of doing harm, I'd be completely fine with calling a time out, getting my firearm to safe location, calling time in and settling it weapon free...It would save me a lot of time and money beating their ass than shooting them and going to court.

Too bad it's not that simple. What happens when we get to rolling around on the ground and my pistol falls out?

What happens if he gets the better of me on the feet and he just takes it?

Where should the line be drawn?

How do I not know that the 6' 200 lb guy approaching me isn't the next UFC middle weight champion?

Say the guy is 5'3" and an absolute p****. What am I supposed to do then? Just let him repeatedly hit me until I run across a police officer?

 

[Hiker1911]

Yes but that is based on the "reasonable person" test. If the OP is 6'3" 270lbs and the threat is a 5'3" 110lbs and does NOTHING else other than yell and walk toward him...most likely NOT going to pass the test. There are so many factors in this "simple" scenario that could lean it either way.

^ The little guy was yelling, and unarmed...

 

[BigGuyinMuncie]

Tough call, but not as tough as living with yourself if the guy does get to you and kills you or your wife...Justifiable? Don't know about that, but I could live with myself if the situation happened to me....Just one guy's opinion

 

[chefnick7]

Its a clean shoot, got a pocket knife you could plant on him to make ya feel better about it....

 

[Rookie]

A tip from Masaad Ayoob from his Judicious Use of Lethal Force video. It was during a talk about home invasions, but it applies here. If an altercation is imminent, and you draw your weapon to a low ready or whatever your training describes as a ready defensive position, and the BG continues to attack...You can make some assumptions.

1) He knows that I have a deadly weapon in my hand because he can see it.
2) He can reasonably assume that I know how to use it and that it is not an empty threat.
3) I don't know anything about this person. He may be a thug, a retired Navy Seal, SAS, KGB, Honor roll student, etc.
4) In that situation I know nothing about what training he has, but he knows something about the training I have.
5) No one would continue to attack if they thought they had a major chance of losing.
6) Because the bad guy is pushing the attack he must be confident enough in his skills that he can still win the altercation even with me holding a gun.
7) He has enough training to win the attack unarmed against an armed gunman
8) The only way to stop him is to kill him.

 

[Rookie]

Here's another way to think about it. Posted on INGO before. The idea is from one of Ayoob's Judicious Use of Lethal Force videos. Just to stimulate the thread.

If an altercation with an unarmed BG is imminent, and you draw your weapon to a low ready (or whatever your training describes as a ready defensive position), and the BG continues to attack...You can make some assumptions.

1) He knows that I have a deadly weapon in my hand because he can see it.
2) He can reasonably assume that I know how to use it and that it is not an empty threat.
3) I don't know anything about this person. He may be a thug, a retired Navy Seal, SAS, KGB, Honor roll student, etc.
4) In that situation I know nothing about what training he has, but he knows something about the training I have.
5) No one would continue to attack if they thought they had a major chance of losing.
6) Because the bad guy is pushing the attack he must be confident enough in his skills that he can still win the altercation even with me holding a gun.
7) He has enough training to win the attack unarmed against an armed gunman.
8) The only way to stop him is to kill him.

I hope to never have to use this line of reasoning, btw.

I think it's maybe been posted in a couple of previous threads. Here's one at least:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...en_unconsious_in_his_driveway_in_hammond.html

Edit - And this one:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/36038-the_wont_back_down_situation.html

Well that sucks. I just spent a half hour using the crappy search function to find where I posted it before...

 

[Andy219]

So based on the size requirement, your all saying if Bruce lee came at you screaming I'm gonna kill you and your a foot taller, you have to fight him.

I don't care what size you are! If you run at me telling me your going to kill me. I yell to stop, and you don't stop. I pull my weapon and yell to stop again. You continue running at me and asserting your gonna kill me. Then I have no reason to believe that you won't try.

In that scenario the actions of the aggressor prove to me he has some skill set or the belief that he can cause me great bodily harm or death regardless of my size. So I will use what ever force I deem necessary to stop the threat to my person or my family/friends.

 

[Benny]

So based on the size requirement, your all saying if Bruce lee came at you screaming I'm gonna kill you and your a foot taller, you have to fight him.

Sir, that would be impossible.

 

[Rookie]

Ok, Jet Li...

 

[Benny]

Ok, Jet Li...

Justified shoot.

Jet Li would pwn Bruce Lee anyway.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I would survive the encounter.