Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/29/2009 8:13:54 PM EST
I was wondering if anyone would draw on someone who threatens them with a bat? The Craigslist ambush in Chicago where an offduty cop was assaulted with a bat (and a firearm) comes to mind.

Lets say the person who threatened you was a family member. The boy threatens his Dad. Link to Video. Be aware may not be worksafe.

We talk about carrying for defense of ourselves, but what about when the person threatening us is family or a close friend? I do believe that the majority of victims of violent crimes (rape, murder, assault/battery) are family members on other family members. Now the question is would you draw a firearm on family?
Link Posted: 7/29/2009 8:27:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tecumseh:
I was wondering if anyone would draw on someone who threatens them with a bat? The Craigslist ambush in Chicago where an offduty cop was assaulted with a bat (and a firearm) comes to mind.


Bang bang bang

Lets say the person who threatened you was a family member. The boy threatens his Dad. Link to Video. Be aware may not be worksafe.


I plan on staying alive and with only the holes in my body that I was born with, let's put it that way.

We talk about carrying for defense of ourselves, but what about when the person threatening us is family or a close friend? I do believe that the majority of victims of violent crimes (rape, murder, assault/battery) are family members on other family members. Now the question is would you draw a firearm on family?


With some of my family, I'd love to.
[/quote]

Link Posted: 7/30/2009 5:29:42 AM EST
my only worry about drawing on someone with a bat, is the charges i would face. i dont think a bat is technically classified as a "deadly weapon" even though and unarmed person could easily be beaten to death with one. IF i really felt that a person with a bat was sincere enough to use it, no question, dudes going down. but, say, someone is just trying to act thuggish and simply threaten with a bat, i would likely walk away. thats the BS with our legal system. a law abiding person, like those of us that have CCW, have to worry more about how the law will skew something that was completely justifiable.
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 5:49:24 AM EST
The decision to use deadly force is based on threat of grave injury or death.

If someone threatens you with a baseball bat, that can certainly cause grave injury or death.
Trying to retreat is one thing but I would never turn my back to someone who threatened me with a club or knife.

You are justified in drawing. Charges and what you will go through with the police probably will vary depending on where you live and how you
communicate your story.

Link Posted: 7/30/2009 6:06:03 AM EST
It's always dependent on the situation. I'm on blood thinners, so I think getting hit one time with a bat will probably cause internal bleeding that could kill me. If they just seem to be talking, I'll walk away. But if I'm cornered and they're threatening the pistol is coming out and they have about 1/2 a second to gtfo.

I don't have kids, but if I did and my son was threatening me with a bat I don't know if I could do it, I really doubt it.
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 6:22:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/30/2009 6:24:56 AM EST by Ghost013]
People have died from 1 or 2 punches to the face. A guy in my area died a couple years ago when his friend punched him once in the face (they were both drunk at a bar and things apparently got heated between them).

A baseball bat is most definitely a deadly weapon. I would not hesitate to draw my weapon in the event that someone picked up a bat and was threatening me. I would not however shoot the person just for threatening me, they would need to be coming at me with it.


Link Posted: 7/30/2009 6:37:44 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 7:03:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/30/2009 7:05:37 AM EST by flyingjibus]
I keep seeing these questions. It seems so simple to me, I dont know why people cant seem to grasp it.

Intent. Ability. If both of these things are present you are pretty much good to go.

Has bat in hand and you have no path of escape. Ability to cause deadly injury is present.

Demonstrates that he wants to hit you with bat. Intent to cause deadly injury is present.

Has bat in hand but is walking away, or standing his ground, or saying leave me alone or I will hit you. ability present but Intent not present.

Says I am going to go get a bat and kill you with it but does not have a bat in hand. Intent present but ability is not.

Guy is threatening to hit your wife, your kid, your buddy with a bat and has it in hand. Draw weapon, place your self between intended victim and him and both back away through nearest escape route. If assailant charges you, drop him. ability and intent are there. If he allows you to leave, intent is not present and you leave and everyone keeps breathing.

If the question is whether or not I am justified in shooting someone to stop harm to someone else all that needs to happen is to place your self between the two people. You are now the target, problem solved. but you must ask your self if the person you are intending to save is worth whatever may happen.

all of this being said, you are still going to have to face the music, be questioned by the police, and possibly have a jury decide if your thought process was sound. Remembering these things will make that more likely but it is never going to be a sure thing. Regardless of the situation you are still going to be sued in civil court most likely.


I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 7:11:44 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 8:02:20 AM EST
Anyone who thinks I couldn't kill them with a bat better get a reality check. I'd have to fire on any assailant with a bat. One good knock and you could be done.
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 8:53:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/30/2009 8:56:20 AM EST by 2FALable]
Originally Posted By TurboSam:
my only worry about drawing on someone with a bat, is the charges i would face. i dont think a bat is technically classified as a "deadly weapon" even though and unarmed person could easily be beaten to death with one. IF i really felt that a person with a bat was sincere enough to use it, no question, dudes going down. but, say, someone is just trying to act thuggish and simply threaten with a bat, i would likely walk away. thats the BS with our legal system. a law abiding person, like those of us that have CCW, have to worry more about how the law will skew something that was completely justifiable.


Clearly you've never seen the aftermath of blunt force trauma. I don't mean to sound harsh but people have got to get these concepts clear in their heads. Really it's good that people are asking as it means they are trying to think these things through but so much of this is common sense. Not to mention your conviction about why you defended yourself or someone else is as important as any other aspect and more important than some.

Not picking on TurboSam but REALLY? You'd turn your back on someone that just indicated some level of threat to you with a bat? Again with no intent to pick on anyone or seem harsh but please if this is your approach DON'T carry a firearm. The end result of the scenario you just indicated is likely to be assailant bashes your head in, you realize too late what's happening, attempt to draw, die and now the assailant is armed with a firearm and a bat.

A regulation bat is not a weapon when carried in the car. A bat that does not meet regulation size and weight can easily be classified as a weapon when carried in your car. Yet that same regulation bat is just as effective a weapon.

The poster that talked about ability and intent is spot on. Both however are somewhat subjective and open to environment and other factors.

Ability: That's your decision to make. Granted an assailant in a wheelchair with a bat that is a good distance from you is less of a threat than a walking 18 year old with a bat 20 feet from you. The ability of each to pose a threat to you is greatly different.

The same person in a wheelchair with a bat is not the same threat as the same 18 year old WITHOUT a bat 20 feet away. Even if said 18 year old appears unarmed he still has an abiliuty to pose a threat.


Intent: Also somewhat subjective in that you have to use whatever you can to determine intent. However if someone is nice enough to say, "I'm gunna keel you!" That establishes intent in a very clear and open way. In which case think of it as a flow chart. You now loop back to ability.

If both are established in a way that convinces you, you should defend yoruself.

This is the net of what people are talking about with threat level/readiness conditions. Everyone around you at all times should be perceived as a possible threat. If someone stands out from that level of awareness you should begin to analyze ability and intent. If someone has ability you begin to look at intent. If you can't establish intent you continue to watch. If based on other factors you can do something to establish intent do that.

In other words your in the mall parking lot going to your car. You notice someone that seems to take too much notice of you and they shift course in intercept of intersect you. Change your course. If the other person does the same. Look at ability and intent. Ability is easy, almost everyone has the ability to cause harm to another assuming they have intent. So your someone has changed course to match you again for interception or intersection. They may be a long way away. Maybe change course again. If they should change again to match you. Engage them verbally. "Can I help you?" If that same person has a bat in their hands, your sense of danger should go WAY up. Not only do they have ability, but an enhanced ability to harm you. If they ignore your question, ignore and speed up, stop, answer, whatever those things impact intent.

Too many people view the issue as armed/unarmed, how close do they have to be, etc. It really isn't about those things, those are all factors in a bigger equation.

Bare handed people have the ability to hurt/maim/kill you.

Don't forget you're carrying a concealed weapon. You are barehanded but still have a gun. What about that guy that's coming toward you? Chuck Norris' evil twin is a threat bare handed. That gangbanger over there is a threat bare handed, he also might have a gun or a knife.

Just be certain that if you ever pull your firearm in self or defense of another you BELIEVE the other person had ability and intent. If you do explaining why you defended yourself or them will be easy.

Link Posted: 7/30/2009 11:15:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/30/2009 11:16:54 AM EST by ALPHAGHOST]
Originally Posted By TurboSam:
my only worry about drawing on someone with a bat, is the charges i would face. i dont think a bat is technically classified as a "deadly weapon" even though and unarmed person could easily be beaten to death with one. IF i really felt that a person with a bat was sincere enough to use it, no question, dudes going down. but, say, someone is just trying to act thuggish and simply threaten with a bat, i would likely walk away. thats the BS with our legal system. a law abiding person, like those of us that have CCW, have to worry more about how the law will skew something that was completely justifiable.


"you worry about the charges; i'll worry about MY life"
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 12:35:37 PM EST
a bat is more than enough for me...

i don't plan on waiting to be dead before i pull my weapon

i can just hear the cops now... "the moron had a gun and just stood there while the BG beat him to death!" What was he thinking? Why didn't he pull his weapon?
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 12:54:07 PM EST
Put it to you this way. I person is more likely to kill you with a bat than a gun.. Meaning, if they are using a bat, they have already done one or some of the following:

a. Checked out mentally.
b. Crime of passion, no morality check.
c. Pre-meditated (as for a crime).
d. Thrill seeker (meaning, they like the thrill of the crack/thump sound).


Any of those are a dangerous combination and anyone implying or outright coming at me with a bat is getting shot to drop.
Taking into account a person of my size, I could more than likely take 1 or 2 gunshot wounds to the abdomen (depending on location), where as 1 swing from a bat to the temple would have a higher chance of putting me down for good.
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 2:05:44 PM EST
Originally Posted By Tecumseh:
I was wondering if anyone would draw on someone who threatens them with a bat? The Craigslist ambush in Chicago where an offduty cop was assaulted with a bat (and a firearm) comes to mind.

Lets say the person who threatened you was a family member. The boy threatens his Dad. Link to Video. Be aware may not be worksafe.


At 1:30 in the video the dad(?) approached his 16 year old kid to stop him from beating the truck. The kid turned on the dad and began to swing at him but arrested the swing as the dad jumped back. The kid immediately resumed beating the truck. In that situation I don't think anybody here would have shot the kid, relative or not. His intentions were to throw a tantrum and beat the truck. The dad was able to stay safe by just keeping back. The kid obviously needed a beating after he cooled down but he probably never got it.

For the sake of discussion though, the kid could have caused serious injury in seconds if he had followed through, so in theory any person could have reasonably feared for his life. And he might have followed through. The only way to know with absolute certainty whether he would or would not is with hindsight. After all, he came unhinged enough to throw a violent tantrum and swing at his dad in a rage. Sometimes people even surprise themselves by how far they go in a rage. What you really think is going to happen is based on alot of things. You can only go on what you really think is going to happen and hopefully you're right. If you're wrong, the results can be tragic, either way.

Link Posted: 7/30/2009 2:21:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By Tecumseh:
Now the question is would you draw a firearm on family?


I've thought about this. The short answer is no. That's based on the family that I have. Any lethal threat from them would be totally out of character and probably a bad reaction to medication or a brain tumor or something. Even if it meant that I would die by their hands, I would not kill them. I would die for them. Survival is not everything.

Now, if I had a family member that had become an evil person and I had come to grips with this fact already, then yes, I would use lethal force to defend myself.
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 2:37:27 PM EST
Since I could be beaten to death with a bat, that would qualify as "great bodily harm or death".
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 3:41:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By 2FALable:


Clearly you've never seen the aftermath of blunt force trauma. I don't mean to sound harsh but people have got to get these concepts clear in their heads. Really it's good that people are asking as it means they are trying to think these things through but so much of this is common sense. Not to mention your conviction about why you defended yourself or someone else is as important as any other aspect and more important than some.

Not picking on TurboSam but REALLY? You'd turn your back on someone that just indicated some level of threat to you with a bat? Again with no intent to pick on anyone or seem harsh but please if this is your approach DON'T carry a firearm. The end result of the scenario you just indicated is likely to be assailant bashes your head in, you realize too late what's happening, attempt to draw, die and now the assailant is armed with a firearm and a bat.

A regulation bat is not a weapon when carried in the car. A bat that does not meet regulation size and weight can easily be classified as a weapon when carried in your car. Yet that same regulation bat is just as effective a weapon.

The poster that talked about ability and intent is spot on. Both however are somewhat subjective and open to environment and other factors.

Ability: That's your decision to make. Granted an assailant in a wheelchair with a bat that is a good distance from you is less of a threat than a walking 18 year old with a bat 20 feet from you. The ability of each to pose a threat to you is greatly different.

The same person in a wheelchair with a bat is not the same threat as the same 18 year old WITHOUT a bat 20 feet away. Even if said 18 year old appears unarmed he still has an abiliuty to pose a threat.


Intent: Also somewhat subjective in that you have to use whatever you can to determine intent. However if someone is nice enough to say, "I'm gunna keel you!" That establishes intent in a very clear and open way. In which case think of it as a flow chart. You now loop back to ability.

If both are established in a way that convinces you, you should defend yoruself.

This is the net of what people are talking about with threat level/readiness conditions. Everyone around you at all times should be perceived as a possible threat. If someone stands out from that level of awareness you should begin to analyze ability and intent. If someone has ability you begin to look at intent. If you can't establish intent you continue to watch. If based on other factors you can do something to establish intent do that.

In other words your in the mall parking lot going to your car. You notice someone that seems to take too much notice of you and they shift course in intercept of intersect you. Change your course. If the other person does the same. Look at ability and intent. Ability is easy, almost everyone has the ability to cause harm to another assuming they have intent. So your someone has changed course to match you again for interception or intersection. They may be a long way away. Maybe change course again. If they should change again to match you. Engage them verbally. "Can I help you?" If that same person has a bat in their hands, your sense of danger should go WAY up. Not only do they have ability, but an enhanced ability to harm you. If they ignore your question, ignore and speed up, stop, answer, whatever those things impact intent.

Too many people view the issue as armed/unarmed, how close do they have to be, etc. It really isn't about those things, those are all factors in a bigger equation.

Bare handed people have the ability to hurt/maim/kill you.

Don't forget you're carrying a concealed weapon. You are barehanded but still have a gun. What about that guy that's coming toward you? Chuck Norris' evil twin is a threat bare handed. That gangbanger over there is a threat bare handed, he also might have a gun or a knife.

Just be certain that if you ever pull your firearm in self or defense of another you BELIEVE the other person had ability and intent. If you do explaining why you defended yourself or them will be easy.




heres the thing, a bat is not generally considered a "deadly weapon" even if it can be used to kill someone. hell, i bet you i could kill someone with an ice cream scoop if i wanted to bad enough. the point is, if someone has a bat, maybe let them know, either by verbal warning, or by pulling, that you are armed and give them the chance to back off FIRST. dont just gun someone down b/c you think they might use the bat to hurt you. if i have a genuine fear of my life, i would shoot to kill, but if i just thought someone was flashing a bat to act tough, id be sure everyone had the chance to walk away first.
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 3:55:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By TurboVolute:
Originally Posted By Tecumseh:
Now the question is would you draw a firearm on family?


I've thought about this. The short answer is no. That's based on the family that I have. Any lethal threat from them would be totally out of character and probably a bad reaction to medication or a brain tumor or something. Even if it meant that I would die by their hands, I would not kill them. I would die for them. Survival is not everything.

Now, if I had a family member that had become an evil person and I had come to grips with this fact already, then yes, I would use lethal force to defend myself.


That boy if mine would have driven that truck and ONLY that truck till the day he moved out. No that boy didn't need killing, a whooping maybe, but not killed.

Link Posted: 7/30/2009 4:00:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By TurboSam:
heres the thing, a bat is not generally considered a "deadly weapon" even if it can be used to kill someone.


If you are carrying a gun and you are knocked out w/ a bat... the guy with the bat will have the gun. It is a no brainer.

Link Posted: 7/30/2009 4:06:25 PM EST
Aim for the pelvic girdle and fire quickly if they are within striking distance or are closing that distance rapidly. It's the quickest way to get them off their feet and on the floor. And it may just save your ass.
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 4:09:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By GackMan:
Originally Posted By TurboSam:
heres the thing, a bat is not generally considered a "deadly weapon" even if it can be used to kill someone.


If you are carrying a gun and you are knocked out w/ a bat... the guy with the bat will have the gun. It is a no brainer.



you're preaching to the choir. im just trying to show how you will be viewed for gunning down a "defenseless unarmed man simply carrying a bat with him." kinda like the crackhead a few weeks ago (dont remember where) that got a taser away from some cop while resisting arrest, where as the cop was well within his rights to use deadly force, based on the same idea you said above, but didnt, and then got sued by the perp for excessive force.
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 4:31:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/30/2009 4:35:37 PM EST by 2FALable]
btw the entire thing with the video has nothing to do with deadly force... that video isn't even a contender for firearm usage.

As for the concept of a bat any defense attorney can turn a bat into a deadly weapon in the eyes of a jury with one 30 sec movie clip.

What a jury is or isn't going to do should not be your first thought. Whether you are in imminent danger should be.

The odds are you'll face a grand jury no matter how right you were. I dunno. I don't think this thread is really going anywhere though.

Nobody said anything about gunning down a defenseless man with a bat. However the thug with a bat that says gimme your wallet or I smash your head like a melon. Is likely to take a couple of rounds if he pushes the issue.

Then again most thugs with a bat will find the business end of a 1911 persuasive enough to not push the issue. Their choice however.
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 5:37:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By TurboSam:


heres the thing, a bat is not generally considered a "deadly weapon" even if it can be used to kill someone. hell, i bet you i could kill someone with an ice cream scoop if i wanted to bad enough. the point is, if someone has a bat, maybe let them know, either by verbal warning, or by pulling, that you are armed and give them the chance to back off FIRST. dont just gun someone down b/c you think they might use the bat to hurt you. if i have a genuine fear of my life, i would shoot to kill, but if i just thought someone was flashing a bat to act tough, id be sure everyone had the chance to walk away first.

Wut?
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 6:00:27 PM EST
The bat isn't even necessary. If someone threatened me (even without having an obvious weapon) that is cause enough to prepare to bring your weapon into play. If they look like they are about to lay a hand on you then it is time to draw down. Remember that hands can be lethal weapons just as easily as a firearm or knife.

<MAX>
Link Posted: 7/30/2009 6:23:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/30/2009 6:27:34 PM EST by TheFlynDutchman]
Originally Posted By TurboSam:
my only worry about drawing on someone with a bat, is the charges i would face. i dont think a bat is technically classified as a "deadly weapon" even though and unarmed person could easily be beaten to death with one. IF i really felt that a person with a bat was sincere enough to use it, no question, dudes going down. but, say, someone is just trying to act thuggish and simply threaten with a bat, i would likely walk away. thats the BS with our legal system. a law abiding person, like those of us that have CCW, have to worry more about how the law will skew something that was completely justifiable.


A bat is plenty deadly enough. It all depends on where the one possessing the bat intends to hit you with it, & since you can't know that, it IS a deadly weapon...

There is nothing saying you have to meet the force with equal force.....That would be stupid.

And you contradicted yourself in blue
Link Posted: 7/31/2009 2:25:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/31/2009 2:27:06 AM EST by Archimiel]
Originally Posted By TurboSam:
Originally Posted By 2FALable:


Clearly you've never seen the aftermath of blunt force trauma. I don't mean to sound harsh but people have got to get these concepts clear in their heads. Really it's good that people are asking as it means they are trying to think these things through but so much of this is common sense. Not to mention your conviction about why you defended yourself or someone else is as important as any other aspect and more important than some.

Not picking on TurboSam but REALLY? You'd turn your back on someone that just indicated some level of threat to you with a bat? Again with no intent to pick on anyone or seem harsh but please if this is your approach DON'T carry a firearm. The end result of the scenario you just indicated is likely to be assailant bashes your head in, you realize too late what's happening, attempt to draw, die and now the assailant is armed with a firearm and a bat.

A regulation bat is not a weapon when carried in the car. A bat that does not meet regulation size and weight can easily be classified as a weapon when carried in your car. Yet that same regulation bat is just as effective a weapon.

The poster that talked about ability and intent is spot on. Both however are somewhat subjective and open to environment and other factors.

Ability: That's your decision to make. Granted an assailant in a wheelchair with a bat that is a good distance from you is less of a threat than a walking 18 year old with a bat 20 feet from you. The ability of each to pose a threat to you is greatly different.

The same person in a wheelchair with a bat is not the same threat as the same 18 year old WITHOUT a bat 20 feet away. Even if said 18 year old appears unarmed he still has an abiliuty to pose a threat.


Intent: Also somewhat subjective in that you have to use whatever you can to determine intent. However if someone is nice enough to say, "I'm gunna keel you!" That establishes intent in a very clear and open way. In which case think of it as a flow chart. You now loop back to ability.

If both are established in a way that convinces you, you should defend yoruself.

This is the net of what people are talking about with threat level/readiness conditions. Everyone around you at all times should be perceived as a possible threat. If someone stands out from that level of awareness you should begin to analyze ability and intent. If someone has ability you begin to look at intent. If you can't establish intent you continue to watch. If based on other factors you can do something to establish intent do that.

In other words your in the mall parking lot going to your car. You notice someone that seems to take too much notice of you and they shift course in intercept of intersect you. Change your course. If the other person does the same. Look at ability and intent. Ability is easy, almost everyone has the ability to cause harm to another assuming they have intent. So your someone has changed course to match you again for interception or intersection. They may be a long way away. Maybe change course again. If they should change again to match you. Engage them verbally. "Can I help you?" If that same person has a bat in their hands, your sense of danger should go WAY up. Not only do they have ability, but an enhanced ability to harm you. If they ignore your question, ignore and speed up, stop, answer, whatever those things impact intent.

Too many people view the issue as armed/unarmed, how close do they have to be, etc. It really isn't about those things, those are all factors in a bigger equation.

Bare handed people have the ability to hurt/maim/kill you.

Don't forget you're carrying a concealed weapon. You are barehanded but still have a gun. What about that guy that's coming toward you? Chuck Norris' evil twin is a threat bare handed. That gangbanger over there is a threat bare handed, he also might have a gun or a knife.

Just be certain that if you ever pull your firearm in self or defense of another you BELIEVE the other person had ability and intent. If you do explaining why you defended yourself or them will be easy.




heres the thing, a bat is not generally considered a "deadly weapon" even if it can be used to kill someone. hell, i bet you i could kill someone with an ice cream scoop if i wanted to bad enough. the point is, if someone has a bat, maybe let them know, either by verbal warning, or by pulling, that you are armed and give them the chance to back off FIRST. dont just gun someone down b/c you think they might use the bat to hurt you. if i have a genuine fear of my life, i would shoot to kill, but if i just thought someone was flashing a bat to act tough, id be sure everyone had the chance to walk away first.


Bull-fucking-shit it isn't. Charge a cop with a bat and get back to me with the results. If you draw a weapon on me period, be it a baseball bat, knife, club, brick, tire iron, or sharpened screwdriver, you are very likely getting shot. Maybe its because I'm in Georgia and Georgia has good castle doctrine and SYG laws, but either way, you'll most likely be getting your life license revoked.

As for whether or not I'd draw or fire on a family member, you're goddamn right I would, I don't care who the member happens to be. You may only get a leg wound, but you're still getting shot, period, no exceptions.
Link Posted: 7/31/2009 7:35:46 PM EST
If a guy charged me with a bat, most definitely would I drop him. You can almost make anything into a dangerous weapon these days. Hell a guy threatening to stab you with a fantasy fine point pen is a dangerous weapon. I work in a county jail environment. I go to work thinking what could an inmate use against me as a weapon. It may not be a deadly weapon, but a weapon of choice. A tooth brush grinded down to a point, a tv that he/she could throw at you, their clothing that they could get around your neck of a guard that is unaware of their surroundings. Anything can be a weapon or dangerous weapon. If you draw and do fire on someone, be prepared to articulate on why you came to that decision and be prepared for a lot of questioning on your actions.

Stay safe
Link Posted: 7/31/2009 10:26:36 PM EST
Id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6...
Link Posted: 7/31/2009 10:31:56 PM EST
If you can articulate intent and opportunity, a bat is definitely a deadly weapon. I have drawn on people with bats, clubs, pipes, large sticks, etc- and I would have no issue shooting someone coming at me with a bat. One smack to the head, and you're toast..
Link Posted: 8/1/2009 6:22:39 PM EST
The reality is, or for me is that I would rather be judged by 12 and not carried by 6.
You come at me with a bat, piece of wood or a knife or what ever, even your bare hands, and I think my life is threatened, your going to get two in the chest and one in the head. I think of my familys or my life, I have a CCW and carry a gun and if I have to pull it out to defend my self or family, who ever threatened us is going to die, I'll do the paper work after, but your dead and cant hurt anyone eles again. Thats my view on the subject. Why have a CCW and carry a gun for self defence if you pussy foot around the subject of, should I shoot him or not. If you have to think about it and discuss it to your self, YES, you probaly have to shoot to save your self. I don't take the shooting of another person lightly, don't get me wrong, but if its them or me, no contest, more so if its my family, then I would go to town. Its probaly my military background in the special forces that makes me feel over protective and gun ho.
Link Posted: 8/1/2009 6:54:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By TurboSam:
my only worry about drawing on someone with a bat, is the charges i would face. i dont think a bat is technically classified as a "deadly weapon" quote]



I just had a CCW class, A person with a bat that intends to to great bodily harm or death, Is classified as a deadly weapon.
Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:39:09 PM EST
Lethal force must be met with lethal force.

A bat is a lethal weapon, as you can kill someone with it, just like any large blunt instrument.

That said, "scenarios" for defensive situations can vary widely.............................there will always be many factors to consider.

Know your state laws, be trained and prepared.

Link Posted: 8/2/2009 12:49:57 PM EST
My second year in police work we had a domestic where a father killed his adult son with one blow to the head with a bat. The son was a karate black belt and was threatening to kill his dad while the man was on the phone with 911. The dent in the son's head was an inch deep. Anyone who approaches me with a bat in a threatening manner is very likely getting shot.
Link Posted: 8/3/2009 5:12:20 PM EST
There is a documented case from Michigan (captured on CCTV) where a guy was pumping gas and was confronted by another man. The man raised the plastic lid from a trash can in a threatening manner and was shot to death by the customer pumping gas. The shooter was cleared presumabely partly because in that split second he didn't know if it was a plastic lid or a more lethal striking weapon. IMO, he's certainly lucky that it was captured on CCTV because it clearly showed that the instigator was raising the lid in an effort to strike the customer.

Attacking someone with a handheld weapon raises the stakes greatly. A bat is certainly a deadly weapon and it would be very reasonable to defend yourself with lethal force.
Link Posted: 8/3/2009 5:47:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By HelloMcFly:
Aim for the pelvic girdle and fire quickly if they are within striking distance or are closing that distance rapidly. It's the quickest way to get them off their feet and on the floor. And it may just save your ass.




What the Fuck????

If I fire on someone, I am aiming for a kill not just to wound. Aiming to wound is ignorant and only invites more legal problems. If he is dead there is only one side of the story.

As far as family goes, I doubt that I would be able to draw on a family member.



ARnutt

Link Posted: 8/3/2009 7:24:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By ARnutt:
Originally Posted By HelloMcFly:
Aim for the pelvic girdle and fire quickly if they are within striking distance or are closing that distance rapidly. It's the quickest way to get them off their feet and on the floor. And it may just save your ass.




What the Fuck????

If I fire on someone, I am aiming for a kill not just to wound. Aiming to wound is ignorant and only invites more legal problems. If he is dead there is only one side of the story.

As far as family goes, I doubt that I would be able to draw on a family member.



ARnutt



However a motivated assailant that is charging you and is not dealt a near instant fatal blow can still reach and harm, maim, or kill you. Instantaneous incapacitation is not possible with non central nervous system wounds and does not always occur with central nervous system wounds. For a charging assailant this implies a head shot which is iffy on a non-moving target under stress, much less one in movement while you are under stress.

The point of the statement above was a double tap to the pelvic girdle will almost always drop an attacker immediately to the ground minimizing their chances of reaching you. At the same time this should be combined with off axis movement.

But that was his point.
Link Posted: 8/3/2009 8:35:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By 2FALable:
Originally Posted By ARnutt:
Originally Posted By HelloMcFly:
Aim for the pelvic girdle and fire quickly if they are within striking distance or are closing that distance rapidly. It's the quickest way to get them off their feet and on the floor. And it may just save your ass.




What the Fuck????

If I fire on someone, I am aiming for a kill not just to wound. Aiming to wound is ignorant and only invites more legal problems. If he is dead there is only one side of the story.

As far as family goes, I doubt that I would be able to draw on a family member.



ARnutt



However a motivated assailant that is charging you and is not dealt a near instant fatal blow can still reach and harm, maim, or kill you. Instantaneous incapacitation is not possible with non central nervous system wounds and does not always occur with central nervous system wounds. For a charging assailant this implies a head shot which is iffy on a non-moving target under stress, much less one in movement while you are under stress.

The point of the statement above was a double tap to the pelvic girdle will almost always drop an attacker immediately to the ground minimizing their chances of reaching you. At the same time this should be combined with off axis movement.

But that was his point.


Exactly. We shoot to STOP. Pelvic shots will STOP most attackers, if they aren't stopped by "center mass" hits.

Link Posted: 8/3/2009 9:44:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By ViniVidivici:
Originally Posted By 2FALable:
Originally Posted By ARnutt:
Originally Posted By HelloMcFly:
Aim for the pelvic girdle and fire quickly if they are within striking distance or are closing that distance rapidly. It's the quickest way to get them off their feet and on the floor. And it may just save your ass.




What the Fuck????

If I fire on someone, I am aiming for a kill not just to wound. Aiming to wound is ignorant and only invites more legal problems. If he is dead there is only one side of the story.

As far as family goes, I doubt that I would be able to draw on a family member.



ARnutt



However a motivated assailant that is charging you and is not dealt a near instant fatal blow can still reach and harm, maim, or kill you. Instantaneous incapacitation is not possible with non central nervous system wounds and does not always occur with central nervous system wounds. For a charging assailant this implies a head shot which is iffy on a non-moving target under stress, much less one in movement while you are under stress.

The point of the statement above was a double tap to the pelvic girdle will almost always drop an attacker immediately to the ground minimizing their chances of reaching you. At the same time this should be combined with off axis movement.

But that was his point.


Exactly. We shoot to STOP. Pelvic shots will STOP most attackers, if they aren't stopped by "center mass" hits.



False
Link Posted: 8/5/2009 6:56:27 AM EST
Bat=Lethal Force=Shot. End of story.

http://hankford.com/bettywilson/crimescene.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=940DE2DE1E38E033A25757C0A9659C94679FD7CF

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/more_arrests_in_baseballbat_at.html

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Ebens_Ronald_198421767.aspx

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2008m10d27-Brent-Stephens-gets-life-after-brutal-baseball-bat-attack

Anyone that doubts the lethality of a ball bat needs to have their heads examined to see if there are any brains between their ears.
Link Posted: 8/5/2009 7:06:14 AM EST
Yes, I'd draw immediately. In Oregon, the standard is "threat of serious bodily harm"––meaning, reasonable fear of death or injury to a vital organ. A bat, knife, frying pan etc. all satisfy that requirement. Fists do not. A bat is about as deadly as it gets at close range, more so than a knife, IMHO.
Link Posted: 8/5/2009 9:41:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2009 9:45:43 AM EST by bradleyswine]
Originally Posted By 2FALable:
Originally Posted By ARnutt:
Originally Posted By HelloMcFly:
Aim for the pelvic girdle and fire quickly if they are within striking distance or are closing that distance rapidly. It's the quickest way to get them off their feet and on the floor. And it may just save your ass.




What the Fuck????

If I fire on someone, I am aiming for a kill not just to wound. Aiming to wound is ignorant and only invites more legal problems. If he is dead there is only one side of the story.

As far as family goes, I doubt that I would be able to draw on a family member.



ARnutt



However a motivated assailant that is charging you and is not dealt a near instant fatal blow can still reach and harm, maim, or kill you. Instantaneous incapacitation is not possible with non central nervous system wounds and does not always occur with central nervous system wounds. For a charging assailant this implies a head shot which is iffy on a non-moving target under stress, much less one in movement while you are under stress.

The point of the statement above was a double tap to the pelvic girdle will almost always drop an attacker immediately to the ground minimizing their chances of reaching you. At the same time this should be combined with off axis movement.

But that was his point.



I would think a good place to hit someone in the pelvis to drop them with one shot would be in the anterior center of the sacrum right below L1.


http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/398102-overview
Link Posted: 8/5/2009 9:55:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By bradleyswine:
Originally Posted By 2FALable:
Originally Posted By ARnutt:
Originally Posted By HelloMcFly:
Aim for the pelvic girdle and fire quickly if they are within striking distance or are closing that distance rapidly. It's the quickest way to get them off their feet and on the floor. And it may just save your ass.




What the Fuck????

If I fire on someone, I am aiming for a kill not just to wound. Aiming to wound is ignorant and only invites more legal problems. If he is dead there is only one side of the story.

As far as family goes, I doubt that I would be able to draw on a family member.



ARnutt



However a motivated assailant that is charging you and is not dealt a near instant fatal blow can still reach and harm, maim, or kill you. Instantaneous incapacitation is not possible with non central nervous system wounds and does not always occur with central nervous system wounds. For a charging assailant this implies a head shot which is iffy on a non-moving target under stress, much less one in movement while you are under stress.

The point of the statement above was a double tap to the pelvic girdle will almost always drop an attacker immediately to the ground minimizing their chances of reaching you. At the same time this should be combined with off axis movement.

But that was his point.



I would think a good place to hit someone in the pelvis to drop them with one shot would be in the anterior center of the sacrum right below L1.


http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/398102-overview


You think you can reliably hit that under stress? See the link I posted about three posts up.

Jay
Link Posted: 8/18/2009 5:28:01 AM EST
I've seen more people with life changing injurys caused by baseball bats then by firearms.

If you are coming at me or my family with a bat, you are going to get shot.
Link Posted: 8/18/2009 12:15:30 PM EST
Hmmmmm I dunno,if someone had a bat and I had,say,a split second I may try hosing him with some good'ol OC spray while backing up for the nearest exit.

Now if I'm backed into a corner? meh gun's coming out and some fool is going to get a toe-tag,a bat is a weapon by anybody's book,unless you live in a liberal la-la state

Now family? sir if you choose to bring weapons out I will kill you no matter who you are,family or stranger.
Link Posted: 8/18/2009 12:29:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By acidman:
I've seen more people with life changing injurys caused by baseball bats then by firearms.

If you are coming at me or my family with a bat, you are going to get shot.


Link Posted: 8/18/2009 5:36:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By streamcatcher:
Yes, I'd draw immediately. In Oregon, the standard is "threat of serious bodily harm"––meaning, reasonable fear of death or injury to a vital organ. A bat, knife, frying pan etc. all satisfy that requirement. Fists do not. A bat is about as deadly as it gets at close range, more so than a knife, IMHO.

How could fists not qualify as being able to cause serious bodily injury?
Link Posted: 8/19/2009 2:26:46 PM EST
You guys really need a drop gun.
Link Posted: 8/19/2009 8:13:10 PM EST
If the person that was going to assult you with a baseball bat wont back off as you draw your firearm, if you shot him in the legs or arms showing no intent of murder would you still get arrested? Or should you let him strike you once or twice first?
Link Posted: 8/19/2009 9:12:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By 1xoutlaw:
If the person that was going to assult you with a baseball bat wont back off as you draw your firearm, if you shot him in the legs or arms showing no intent of murder would you still get arrested? Or should you let him strike you once or twice first?


You wont get charged with murder for shooting someone that is about to assault you with a baseball bat. If you have to shoot someone you shoot center of mass or head to eliminate the threat immediately. You don't shoot someone in the arms or legs. That's just Hollywood bullshit. As for your last question....seriously?!?! Absolutely not!! You want to risk having someone use your head as a baseball? You should be shooting before he starts swinging at you.
Link Posted: 8/19/2009 10:14:35 PM EST
i wouldnt be scared of the assasilant but more afraid of the legal fees that will come biting you in the ass later
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top