Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
9/11/2013 11:12:06 PM EDT
As I was taught in a handgun course, you need jeopardy (think intent), ability, and opportunity to shoot in a non castle-doctrine scenario. My question concerns your opinions on intent. I.E what would you do. I really hate to be that guy that brings up stupid CCW scenarios, but in my course, they didn't touch on intent much, and I would like to hear for you folk what in your mind constitutes intent when no words are spoken.

Image 2+ shifty looking guys are walking roughly towards you, and they fan out to presumably surround you. Assuming they are reasonably close, you have ability and opportunity, but is fanning out in your direction enough for intent in your opinions? Is approaching after you tell the 2+ guys something like "I have nothing for you" enough for you to go hot?

I would probably have my hand on my gun, but beyond that, I don't know.

9/12/2013 4:20:38 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
As I was taught in a handgun course, you need jeopardy (think intent), ability, and opportunity to shoot in a non castle-doctrine scenario. My question concerns your opinions on intent. I.E what would you do. I really hate to be that guy that brings up stupid CCW scenarios, but in my course, they didn't touch on intent much, and I would like to hear for you folk what in your mind constitutes intent when no words are spoken.

Image 2+ shifty looking guys are walking roughly towards you, and they fan out to presumably surround you. Assuming they are reasonably close, you have ability and opportunity, but is fanning out in your direction enough for intent in your opinions? Is approaching after you tell the 2+ guys something like "I have nothing for you" enough for you to go hot?

I would probably have my hand on my gun, but beyond that, I don't know.

View Quote


What does your training tell you that indicates?

Your decisions will be based on your training, not mine or anyone else's.  

If, given the situation you face, and the training and life experience that you posess at that time, do you believe that you are in immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm?

If so then you should probably defend yourself.

If not, then not.

Afterwards, can you articulate why you did what you did?

Would a reasonable and prudent person, in your situation, knowing what you knew at that time have reacted in the same way?

Those are the important questions and only you can answer them.

But...

If you can get away safely, then you probably should consider that option right near the top of the pile.





9/12/2013 4:21:38 AM EDT
[#2]
Think of it this way

Ability= Do they have some type of weapon
Opprotunity= Are they able to use that weapon due to proximity
Jepordy= Are you in fear
9/12/2013 5:54:23 AM EDT
[#3]
So I'm not small, have been described as imposing/intimidating in appearance by many people, I don't dress or groom like I'm on my way to an interview most days, I don't carry myself sheepishly, I don't often smile, and I tend to watch the people around me, the majority of my associates are very similar, I would hope you get a needle in your arm and every asset you have goes to my wife if you shoot me because me and a buddy split to get around you on a sidewalk as we've done many times for various reasons, none of which were mugging. If you said "I've got nothing for you" you may well get a rather hostile, "WTF are you talking about?" or something similar, I don't know you, I'm not interested in you, and chances are I don't expect or want you talking to me, it's not a threat it's my subtle way of letting you know to leave me alone. Could I be more tactful, yes, and I may well be depending on my day and the circumstances.

Outside or in public, castle doctrine or not, you're going to make your life much harder than it need be if you shoot or possibly even draw on someone and they are not armed, physically assaulting you, verbally threatening severe injury that a jury can reasonably believe you believed them capable of, or impeading your avenues of escape while putting you in fear of your well being, of course you have to be able to prove any of the above, and in the case of the latter two that's not likely to be easy. There is no clear answer to your question, hesitation may get you killed, but responding to an imagined threat should land you in jail, unfortunately if the threat is real but the evidence of it non-existent you may well end up there too.
9/12/2013 7:13:03 AM EDT
[#4]
Avoid>Diffuse>Escape>Shoot.
9/12/2013 2:05:36 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
As I was taught in a handgun course, you need jeopardy (think intent), ability, and opportunity to shoot in a non castle-doctrine scenario. My question concerns your opinions on intent. I.E what would you do. I really hate to be that guy that brings up stupid CCW scenarios, but in my course, they didn't touch on intent much, and I would like to hear for you folk what in your mind constitutes intent when no words are spoken.

Image 2+ shifty looking guys are walking roughly towards you, and they fan out to presumably surround you. Assuming they are reasonably close, you have ability and opportunity, but is fanning out in your direction enough for intent in your opinions? Is approaching after you tell the 2+ guys something like "I have nothing for you" enough for you to go hot?

I would probably have my hand on my gun, but beyond that, I don't know.

View Quote



so are you are literally asking if you can shoot someone for walking toward you?  the short and what should be obvious answer is no.

if I were a prosecutor.  I would say they "fanned out" because they were being courteous and walking around you so you didn't have to move.  if you told them "I have nothing for you" they probably just assumed you were rambling into your blue tooth.  maybe both guys are deaf.  maybe they don't speak engrish.  maybe they had ear buds in.  walking near someone on public property is not a crime, and is not justification for deadly force.

even in castle doctrine states the law is pretty simple.  you have to REASONABLY believe that you are in grave physical danger.  you saw how Zimmerman worked out and he was getting his ass kicked.  if you shoot someone who hasn't touched you and they don't have a weapon in their hand.....   well lets just say that no prosecutor is going to believe that you were "in reasonable fear for your life".

your best option in this scenario is to create distance.  start walking backwards.  stare them in the eyes and yell STOP!  DO NOT CONTINUE TO WALK TOWARD ME!  not say something that literally has no meaning like "I have nothing for you".  if they were still coming at me at this point and I was that fearful of the 2 individuals, I would draw my weapon and hope that's all it takes to make them fuck off.  the shitty part of this scenario is that you as a civilian have no authority to 'order people to stop'....so if you do end up having to shoot, you pulled a gun on someone who had no weapon and hadn't threatened or laid a finger on you.  the prosecution can still argue that 'they attacked after you brandished your weapon'.
9/12/2013 3:45:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Depending on your state, even just putting your hand on your firearm in the holster is considered assault or brandishing, so you better be sure.

Here in AZ for example,

A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
B. This section does not apply to a person who:
1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.
2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.
C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.
D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:
1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.
2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.

And also, this:

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone;

So even if they are verbally harassing you, they employ the 'reasonable person' standard. That is, what would most people believe was happening in that situation? You can't be looking for a fight.
9/12/2013 7:05:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote History
Quoted:
I wasnt planning on shooting them upon fanning out, just gauging the room a bit.

your best option in this scenario is to create distance.  start walking backwards.  stare them in the eyes and yell STOP!  DO NOT CONTINUE TO WALK TOWARD ME!  not say something that literally has no meaning like "I have nothing for you" Maybe not a good phrase,  but I said "something like" because the situation dictates the phrase.if they were still coming at me at this point and I was that fearful of the 2 individuals, I would draw my weapon and hope that's all it takes to make them fuck off. This is what I would probably do, but wanted opinions  the shitty part of this scenario is that you as a civilian have no authority to 'order people to stop'....so if you do end up having to shoot, you pulled a gun on someone who had no weapon and hadn't threatened or laid a finger on you.  the prosecution can still argue that 'they attacked after you brandished your weapon'.
View Quote

9/12/2013 7:10:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote History
Quoted:
Depending on your state, even just putting your hand on your firearm in the holster is considered assault or brandishing, so you better be sure.

Here in AZ for example,

A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
B. This section does not apply to a person who:
1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.
2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.
C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.
D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:
1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.
2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.

And also, this:

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone;

So even if they are verbally harassing you, they employ the 'reasonable person' standard. That is, what would most people believe was happening in that situation? You can't be looking for a fight.
View Quote


In WA:

RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.


(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

So no mention of hand on firearm, but its all up to the courts anyways.
9/12/2013 9:17:56 PM EDT
[#9]
I would put money on it that anybody that really wanted to prosecute that would include placing your hand on it as intent to draw.
9/12/2013 10:03:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote History
Quoted:
I would put money on it that anybody that really wanted to prosecute that would include placing your hand on it as intent to draw.
View Quote


Sure, but the law doesn't mention an inferred intent to draw as brandishing. He would also have a hard time showing intent to draw if there is no way he know it was a gun other than I gave him a funny look and had my hand on my hip. It could have been a phone on my hip.
9/12/2013 10:25:19 PM EDT
[#11]
I would hope you're right.
9/12/2013 10:55:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote History
Quoted:


Sure, but the law doesn't mention an inferred intent to draw as brandishing. He would also have a hard time showing intent to draw if there is no way he know it was a gun other than I gave him a funny look and had my hand on my hip. It could have been a phone on my hip.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would put money on it that anybody that really wanted to prosecute that would include placing your hand on it as intent to draw.


Sure, but the law doesn't mention an inferred intent to draw as brandishing. He would also have a hard time showing intent to draw if there is no way he know it was a gun other than I gave him a funny look and had my hand on my hip. It could have been a phone on my hip.


If he didn't know what your hand was on, and it could have been a phone, and you never had to draw, then why are you even in court?

If you think you may have to draw, why is your hand on your clothing covering your gun, and not on your gun? You, sir, need to buy OC spray. That, for me, is the bridge over uncertain justification.
9/13/2013 5:50:00 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote History
Quoted:


If he didn't know what your hand was on, and it could have been a phone, and you never had to draw, then why are you even in court? Dunno, but emk thought it was likely that touching the gun would land you in hot water, I argued BG had no reason to assume it was a gun and wasn't brandishing.

If you think you may have to draw, why is your hand on your clothing covering your gun, and not on your gun? I'm not sure where you got that the hand was on the clothing over the gun, you can have your hand on the gun and still not have it easily visible or aggressively displayed, depending on your mode of dress. You, sir, need to buy OC spray. That, for me, is the bridge over uncertain justification.I EDC some and it is the second line of defense after avoidance.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would put money on it that anybody that really wanted to prosecute that would include placing your hand on it as intent to draw.


Sure, but the law doesn't mention an inferred intent to draw as brandishing. He would also have a hard time showing intent to draw if there is no way he know it was a gun other than I gave him a funny look and had my hand on my hip. It could have been a phone on my hip.


If he didn't know what your hand was on, and it could have been a phone, and you never had to draw, then why are you even in court? Dunno, but emk thought it was likely that touching the gun would land you in hot water, I argued BG had no reason to assume it was a gun and wasn't brandishing.

If you think you may have to draw, why is your hand on your clothing covering your gun, and not on your gun? I'm not sure where you got that the hand was on the clothing over the gun, you can have your hand on the gun and still not have it easily visible or aggressively displayed, depending on your mode of dress. You, sir, need to buy OC spray. That, for me, is the bridge over uncertain justification.I EDC some and it is the second line of defense after avoidance.

9/14/2013 12:17:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote History
Quoted:
So I'm not small, have been described as imposing/intimidating in appearance by many people, I don't dress or groom like I'm on my way to an interview most days, I don't carry myself sheepishly, I don't often smile, and I tend to watch the people around me, the majority of my associates are very similar, I would hope you get a needle in your arm and every asset you have goes to my wife if you shoot me because me and a buddy split to get around you on a sidewalk as we've done many times for various reasons, none of which were mugging. If you said "I've got nothing for you" you may well get a rather hostile, "WTF are you talking about?" or something similar, I don't know you, I'm not interested in you, and chances are I don't expect or want you talking to me, it's not a threat it's my subtle way of letting you know to leave me alone. Could I be more tactful, yes, and I may well be depending on my day and the circumstances.

Outside or in public, castle doctrine or not, you're going to make your life much harder than it need be if you shoot or possibly even draw on someone and they are not armed, physically assaulting you, verbally threatening severe injury that a jury can reasonably believe you believed them capable of, or impeading your avenues of escape while putting you in fear of your well being, of course you have to be able to prove any of the above, and in the case of the latter two that's not likely to be easy. There is no clear answer to your question, hesitation may get you killed, but responding to an imagined threat should land you in jail, unfortunately if the threat is real but the evidence of it non-existent you may well end up there too.
View Quote


From those of us who are too often judged not to be the warm fuzzy happy-go-lucky types ...
thank you sir, for the very articulate reply.  Timely advice for all.

Stay safe
9/14/2013 4:26:13 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote History
Quoted:


From those of us who are too often judged not to be the warm fuzzy happy-go-lucky types ...
thank you sir, for the very articulate reply.  Timely advice for all.

Stay safe
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I'm not small, have been described as imposing/intimidating in appearance by many people, I don't dress or groom like I'm on my way to an interview most days, I don't carry myself sheepishly, I don't often smile, and I tend to watch the people around me, the majority of my associates are very similar, I would hope you get a needle in your arm and every asset you have goes to my wife if you shoot me because me and a buddy split to get around you on a sidewalk as we've done many times for various reasons, none of which were mugging. If you said "I've got nothing for you" you may well get a rather hostile, "WTF are you talking about?" or something similar, I don't know you, I'm not interested in you, and chances are I don't expect or want you talking to me, it's not a threat it's my subtle way of letting you know to leave me alone. Could I be more tactful, yes, and I may well be depending on my day and the circumstances.

Outside or in public, castle doctrine or not, you're going to make your life much harder than it need be if you shoot or possibly even draw on someone and they are not armed, physically assaulting you, verbally threatening severe injury that a jury can reasonably believe you believed them capable of, or impeading your avenues of escape while putting you in fear of your well being, of course you have to be able to prove any of the above, and in the case of the latter two that's not likely to be easy. There is no clear answer to your question, hesitation may get you killed, but responding to an imagined threat should land you in jail, unfortunately if the threat is real but the evidence of it non-existent you may well end up there too.


From those of us who are too often judged not to be the warm fuzzy happy-go-lucky types ...
thank you sir, for the very articulate reply.  Timely advice for all.

Stay safe


X2
9/15/2013 10:01:30 PM EDT
[#16]
I try to keep the Cooper Color Code in mind when outside my house.

Yes, being approached by people fanning out should send you from Yellow to Orange, but not to Red unless you see other signs.  Move to one side of the walkway so your flank is covered, and make eye contact with each individual.  This will send a clear signal that you are aware of them, and unafraid.  

The vast majority of human communication happens through body language, although you probably aren't consciously aware of it.  Do some research (I've got an entire Internet you can use :D ) on signs of aggression, look for signs of teamwork or other subtle communication between the different people.  And if you were properly in Yellow you should already know if someone was behind you or not.
9/16/2013 6:18:13 AM EDT
[#17]
Something said in my CCW course that should be considered.  Basically the instructor said "You are now legal, you are not trained."
9/16/2013 2:15:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Reasonable man doctrine. Would a reasonable person consider your actions appropriate?
9/16/2013 3:41:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote History
Quoted:
I try to keep the Cooper Color Code in mind when outside my house.

Yes, being approached by people fanning out should send you from Yellow to Orange, but not to Red unless you see other signs.  Move to one side of the walkway so your flank is covered, and make eye contact with each individual.  This will send a clear signal that you are aware of them, and unafraid.  

The vast majority of human communication happens through body language, although you probably aren't consciously aware of it.  Do some research (I've got an entire Internet you can use :D ) on signs of aggression, look for signs of teamwork or other subtle communication between the different people.  And if you were properly in Yellow you should already know if someone was behind you or not.
View Quote


Great read, heard of it but never read it like that!