Would you engage?

[hipower]

40 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

My question about carry insurance has never been answered, and it is simply this…

I do not believe for one second that any insurance company is going to pay your legal defense fees for a bad shoot. I have asked for stories of real life cases that we could check where that happened, not stories in ads. So far nothing.

I have reservations about the carry coverage deals as well. Mostly...would they pay out at all to defend me. 

As RED333 opins, will a DA try to get you on the idea insurance coverage? Will your choice of carry gun get you slated for more trouble? Stock firearm vs custom/modified? Does your carry have fierce or menacing name? How about your choice of ammo? Is it what local cops use, or some ultra bad, demonized HP with a fancy or scary name?

Yeah, I'm not really adding anything new to this, discussion. I just wanted to give my thoughts.

 

[peejman]

1 hour ago, E4 No More said:

"Good witnesses" tend to end up dead witnesses. 

I don't think this guy has Clinton connections. 

[DaveTN]

28 minutes ago, hipower said:

I have reservations about the carry coverage deals as well. Mostly...would they pay out at all to defend me. 

As RED333 opins, will a DA try to get you on the idea insurance coverage? Will your choice of carry gun get you slated for more trouble? Stock firearm vs custom/modified? Does your carry have fierce or menacing name? How about your choice of ammo? Is it what local cops use, or some ultra bad, demonized HP with a fancy or scary name?

Yeah, I'm not really adding anything new to this, discussion. I just wanted to give my thoughts.

 

I put carry insurance in the same category as the weapon you choose to use, the ammunition you choose to use, etc. The question first and foremost for criminal charges will be “Was the use of deadly force justified?” if the answer is “Yes” none of those things matter. If you find yourself charged criminally the state is contending that the use of deadly force was not justified….period. You have screwed up.

Could the DA charge you when you haven’t screwed up? Sure, but the bottom line is still justification. He still would need to have cause. Insurance, ammo, or the gun you used won’t be it.

But back to the original topic… I answered quickly because I knew what was being reported about those murders. I don’t hunt because I can’t kill animals for sport, but I could kill a criminal and go eat lunch.

This has been talked about many times here. You need to think through scenarios you might run into. Scenarios where justification might be clear cut, but the safety of others are at risk, or you don’t know where other bad actors are. Or maybe you find yourself with a gun stuck in your face. Look at all possibilities, go through them in your mind, it will help you.

Am I justified in what I am about to do? That was all I remember about my thoughts in the first shooting I was in. Not drawing my gun, not shot placement, those were automatic, based on how I was trained, I don’t remember thinking about them. I do remember thinking “Am I justified in what I am about to do?” And I had about one second to react. I saw the suspect pulling something from his waistband, I thought it was a gun, but wasn’t 100% sure. It was a gun, and had I hesitated I could have very well been killed.

I’ll also add this… I don’t have a problem discussing scenarios on an open forum. As I said, I know the law. I would never shoot someone that wasn’t trying to kill me or some other innocent person in an attack I had not provoked. That means if my big mouth gets me in a situation where I’m threatened with an azz whipping, I’ll take the azz whipping. Even in my home, I can’t see shooting a burglar unless I see a weapon; even though I am justified in doing that. Too many people fear the unknown, and when you are carrying a gun that can cost you or someone in your family their life. Know the law. Don’t try to work around it or bend it to meet your needs.

[pop pop]

I have belonged to Armed Citizens Legal Defense Net for years(360-978-5200). It is not insurance per say, but one could call it that. Call them and discuss their network, you will get a person to talk too. No, they review every shooting before they agree to pay so one had better be certain of justification. No, I did not purchase membership counting on going out and killing someone. My wife is also a member. 

I look at my membership as just another homeowners insurance policy, car insurance, of health insurance. I never purchased any of these insurances planning on using them. In fact I hope I never am forced to use many of them, but know at my age I will use the health insurance and dental insurance. I probably had health insurance for most all my life (72) however the last 15 years I have used it many times. Also had homeowners and auto insurance for the past 55 years. Could a D A challenge me for purchasing all these different policies, well yes, but I would guess it could be explained because he has insurance also. Reasonable people take measures to protect themselves. Well don't they? 

Having the membership in ACLDN does not bother me, and like Dave, I plan to be justified if I am ever forced to protect myself or family. 

Intervening in others problems are shaky ground at best, so one had better be 100% sure what is going on before getting involved. There is no room, O %, for error. Dave is correct "JUSTIFICATION," will be at the forefront. What would a reasonable person do if he were in the same situation you were in, at the time, will be the standard in judgment of your actions.  

Edited April 10, 2020 by pop pop

[Grayfox54]

I honestly can't say how I would react until actually faced with the situation. However, I think most of us who have decided to carry have also made the decision to protect innocent lives when possible. 

I've run a number of scenarios through my head and years ago came to the decision that I will not be the one to start a gun fight. If the bad guy just wants the money or is just running his mouth and so far hasn't actually hurt anybody, I'll let him go and just try to be a good witness. I will not pull my weapon or fire the first shot. However, if he hurts someone, moves to hurt someone or I'm absolutely convinced he will hurt someone, then all bets are off. But again, I can't swear to it until it actually happens. 

[A.J. Holst]

The only thing I can add to this what if:

It's a public place, who is potentially in (or out of) the foreground and background and how quickly could that change?

 I'm pretty consistent about checking for alternative routes and exits.

With or without loved ones changes my options.

[buck1032]

I can not say what I would do and being in that moment as training will dictate how each of us handles the stress. First and foremost I carry in defense of myself and family. If I feel like I am in a deadly situation where my life or my families lives are in danger of immediate great harm or death, it will be only after I have expended all the available ammo I carry. Now back to the situation at hand. I would like to think I would have rendered assistance to the now victims. I feel after I saw one person assaulted with great bodily harm I would have responded. Thats what I think, that doesnt take into account the stress, panic and pandemonium that took place. 

 

One thing I would like to bring up is that murderers mother, like in many situations as this, has said "Idris Abdus-Salaam's mother contends he was not capable of the unexplained violence that left three women dead at an East Knox County truck stop", "Walidah Abdus-Salaam, however, maintains that such a heinous act is completely out of character for her son" and "He's not a violent person," she told Knox News. "The picture they painted is ugly. That is not my son."

From this link https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2020/04/09/pilot-stabbing-idris-abdus-salaam-mother-not-violent-person/5122340002/

 

So the mother claims he son was a good boy and not capable of such acts. As we are suppose to be staying home, practicing social distancing I cant help but think random craziness like this is more likely to happen more often. 

[DaveTN]

It’s a nutcase with a knife. You walk over with your weapon pointed at him and tell him to drop it. At that point it will probably be over. If its not, you shoot him.

People will be getting out of the way as soon as they see your gun.

As soon as you shoot him, depending on the circumstances you might want to have a plan of what you will say or do to keep from getting shot yourself.

[Dirtshooter]

3 hours ago, DaveTN said:

It’s a nutcase with a knife. You walk over with your weapon pointed at him and tell him to drop it. At that point it will probably be over.

Exactly what I think would be the best option. I know that millions of times per year just the sight of a gun pointed at a bad guy, makes him not so bad.

[chances R]

My wife asked me the same question, my immediate answer was yes, whether armed or not....but seldom am I not.  Don't think I could live with myself otherwise.  But then again, one never knows for certain until you're in the middle of it.

5 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

....... I will not pull my weapon or fire the first shot....... 

Your choice, but that is a good way to lose a gunfight.  One does not have to wait to be shot at, nor is any warning needed.  If in the mentioned stabbing, if one had a shot into the back, or even the ear of the perp, would be no problem IMO.

[aknifemaker]

Yes I would engage, I could not stand by while these ladies were stabbed to death. Its a decision that has to be made in a split second but imagining the carnage that was happening at that gas station don't see how anyone helping could be arrested for helping.

My prayers to all the families.

[Raoul]

I would engage. I have personally been in a situation where the #### hit the fan. 

[jwinter]

I don't know what I would have done. I would imagine freeze at first and then try to get the others out of the building. After that, I don't know. I don't carry so blowing the guy away would not have been a option for me. For those that want to go all "dirty Harry" on the guy, I'm going to leave this right here for you.

vigilante

 

a person who tries in an unofficial way to prevent crime, or to catch and punish someone who has committed a crime, especially because they do not think that official organizations, such as the police, are controlling crime effectively. Vigilantes usually join together to form groups.

 

 Good luck with the outcome of your trial for those that would.

[10-Ring]

Way too many variables and imo there is no such thing as a text book scenario.  If I was confident that I could neutralize what I perceived to be a 3rd party threat without great risk to myself or others I would.  I'm not playing hero though, I have too many people who depend on me to get myself hurt or killed. 

[RED333]

12 hours ago, jwinter said:

blowing the guy away

I feel good about saying that none of us here "want" to do this.

 

12 hours ago, jwinter said:

I don't carry

Why not? If you do not want to answer or better yet I will accept your answer and then ask just how do you protect yourself and your loved ones? Tell me it is none of my business, I will accept that as well.

[jwinter]

Some of the more interesting quotes leading to my thoughts on people wanting to blow him away. Maybe I misread them:

“I would have given him an opportunity to surrender and if he didn’t; I would have killed him.”

“Assuming we have a safe backstop I bet most would take the shot.”

“If in the mentioned stabbing, if one had a shot into the back, or even the ear of the perp, would be no problem IMO.”

I would assume that if any of these folks shot and killed the guy simply for seeing him attack others, they would be going away for some time in the ole’ gray bar hotel. If investigators saw those posts, I would imagine it would be much longer since they look like premeditated actions and the willingness to kill someone if only the right chance came up. Again, that is the way those came across to me but I could be wrong.

On not carrying. I do have a carry permit but have yet to carry. I got it more to stay as legal as possible when I transport my gun, bag and ammo in my truck. Honestly, I probably don’t need to actually carry unless I get some quality training. Which I have debated in the past and I have to say that this incident makes me think about it more.

[Chucktshoes]

4 minutes ago, jwinter said:

Some of the more interesting quotes leading to my thoughts on people wanting to blow him away. Maybe I misread them:

 

“I would have given him an opportunity to surrender and if he didn’t; I would have killed him.”

 

“Assuming we have a safe backstop I bet most would take the shot.”

 

“If in the mentioned stabbing, if one had a shot into the back, or even the ear of the perp, would be no problem IMO.”

 

I would assume that if any of these folks shot and killed the guy simply for seeing him attack others, they would be going away for some time in the ole’ gray bar hotel. If investigators saw those posts, I would imagine it would be much longer since they look like premeditated actions and the willingness to kill someone if only the right chance came up. Again, that is the way those came across to me but I could be wrong.

 

On not carrying. I do have a carry permit but have yet to carry. I got it more to stay as legal as possible when I transport my gun, bag and ammo in my truck. Honestly, I probably don’t need to actually carry unless I get some quality training. Which I have debated in the past and I have to say that this incident makes me think about it more.

 

Defense of a third party is specifically mentioned in the law as a justified use of deadly force. So it is legally correct as well as morally correct. 

[RED333]

13 hours ago, jwinter said:

Some of the more interesting quotes leading to my thoughts on people wanting to blow him away. Maybe I misread them:

 

“I would have given him an opportunity to surrender and if he didn’t; I would have killed him.”

 

“Assuming we have a safe backstop I bet most would take the shot.”

 

“If in the mentioned stabbing, if one had a shot into the back, or even the ear of the perp, would be no problem IMO.”

 

I would assume that if any of these folks shot and killed the guy simply for seeing him attack others, they would be going away for some time in the ole’ gray bar hotel. If investigators saw those posts, I would imagine it would be much longer since they look like premeditated actions and the willingness to kill someone if only the right chance came up. Again, that is the way those came across to me but I could be wrong.

 

On not carrying. I do have a carry permit but have yet to carry. I got it more to stay as legal as possible when I transport my gun, bag and ammo in my truck. Honestly, I probably don’t need to actually carry unless I get some quality training. Which I have debated in the past and I have to say that this incident makes me think about it more.

 

Thanks for your answers.

[DaveTN]

13 hours ago, jwinter said:

I would assume that if any of these folks shot and killed the guy simply for seeing him attack others, they would be going away for some time in the ole’ gray bar hotel.

And therein lies the problem. You are judging us on facts that you don’t understand. “simply for seeing him attack others” was no where close to what happened; so, I assume you aren’t familiar with what happened.

I’m good with any investigator coming back and reading my comments. Those actions would clearly be within what is allowed by law, the way I was trained at the Police Academy, and probably the way they are being trained all over the country.

When you go though training, and I hope you will if you are going to judge others, you will find that if you are carrying a gun, there may someday be a need to use it. There may be little time to act, and you damn well better know if you are justified or not.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you shouldn’t have judged those of us that made statements. That’s what we do here after shootings, deadly force incidents, or “what if” scenarios. Armed with hindsight being 20/20 we arm chair quarterback, and judge all that has happened. It is a learning experience. However, we make an attempt to stick to the facts. Sometimes that’s difficult with the media not always wanting to be accurate with the facts. But we do the best we can. So your “simply for seeing him attack others” is not accurate and more like something the liberal left would print. A more accurate statement by you would have been “simply for seeing him brutally stabbing several women to death”. That would be factual, but of course would make the rest of your assumption look silly.

 

[kellyII]

Keep this in mind, if it’s a legal issue that would keep you from intervening, then that should not be an issue. You have a right to defend yourself, family member or an innocent bystander. If your carrying a firearm and innocent lives are being taken right infront of you and you do not help then that’s a decision you will have to live with. I personally would not hesitate to eliminate the threat. Be a good witness, yes if that’s what’s needed, but when lives are being taken, it’s time to step up and take the threat down with over powering force with the quickness. 

[jwinter]

23 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

Defense of a third party is specifically mentioned in the law as a justified use of deadly force. So it is legally correct as well as morally correct. 

If that is the case, then I stand corrected and thank you for making that clear.

8 hours ago, DaveTN said:

I’m good with any investigator coming back and reading my comments. Those actions would clearly be within what is allowed by law, the way I was trained at the Police Academy, and probably the way they are being trained all over the country.

 

Ditto to the above.

Can one of you show where that is written in our laws? I would be curious to see how it is worded. I assume it would also be beneficial to others as well.

I can also assure you that I am no liberal. I believe this guy got exactly what he deserved. If anything maybe he got off easier than he should have. I just hope we don't have to hear about his "life story" for weeks while the victims get their usual 10 minute mention. 

[Chucktshoes]

2 minutes ago, jwinter said:

If that is the case, then I stand corrected and thank you for making that clear.

Ditto to the above.

Can one of you show where that is written in our laws? I would be curious to see how it is worded. I assume it would also be beneficial to others as well.

I can also assure you that I am no liberal. I believe this guy got exactly what he deserved. If anything maybe he got off easier than he should have. I just hope we don't have to hear about his "life story" for weeks while the victims get their usual 10 minute mention. 

https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-39/chapter-11/part-6/39-11-612

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Since I was mentioned by name (more or less) I'll chime in....

A good habit to develop is a well developed ability to not try to interject unnecessarily yourself into other people's issues out in public when you are armed. I did NOT just say not to intervene. I said try not UNNECESSARILY interject yourself. If you have any questions read about and watch the Michael Drejka video where he appoints himself the "handicap space monitor" of the gas station , gets in a screaming match with a woman, gets knocked down by her boyfriend and then shoots him AFTER he begins backing away with his hands up. The easily predictable and proper result? Prison.

Had he simply controlled himself and not instigated an argument in public while armed then he'd still be free. 

On the flip side lets look at the Sutherland Springs church shooting where Stephen Willeford grabbed his rifle and got involved. He responded to a clearly defined act in progress that shocks the conscience of most anyone. He is NOT in jail. Why? Because he involved himself to stop something that was clearly recognizable as something unlawful, immoral and anti social by ANY standards and he decided to get involved to save lives.

So what does all this mean? It means that if you cannot clearly define and articulate that what you are witnessing is going to result in grave bodily injury or death to an innocent person then you really need to reconsider pulling your gun and shooting (or threatening to shoot) someone. If you hear gunfire on the OTHER end of the mall you might want to reconsider hauling out your pistol and "running to the sound of the guns " especially if you don't know what is going on and don't know how many of them there actually are.... When Joseph Robert Wilcox decided to pull his pistol and go hunting for Jerad Miller during Miller's attack on the Las Vegas Walmart in 2014, Wilcox left a position of relative safety to find and stop Miller and was ambushed by Amanda Miller who he did not realize as an accomplice. Also if the cops shoot you thinking YOU are the shooter it counts just as much and kills you just as dead as the bad guy shooting you. 

Can there be mitigating circumstances that might drive you to charge off into the unknown ? Sure. If your family is on the other end of Walmart and that is where the gunfire is coming from then I think most folks would be compelled to act....but if you and your family are together 10 feet from the door and you hear rifle fire at the other end of Walmart then exiting stage left might be the best plan. 

As to getting involved in a stabbing in progress? If it is that you happen upon 2 dudes fighting in a parking lot that is not as clear cut as someone stabbing 3 women in a convenience store so you might be far more likely to get involved in one situation than another. If you feel confident in your assessment of the situation, feel confident in your skills (and are COMPETENT with your skills) then step in and do something . But we need to be able to take a breath and see the big picture before we charge off into the unknown doing our best impersonation of George Custer "there's probably just a few Indians out here....the village can't be THAT big"........   

[DaveTN]

23 hours ago, jwinter said:

Can one of you show where that is written in our laws? I would be curious to see how it is worded. I assume it would also be beneficial to others as well.

You would need to read all of Tennessee Code Title 39, Chapter 11, part 6 (601 through 622) you can start here.

https://advance.lexis.com/container?config=014CJAA5ZGVhZjA3NS02MmMzLTRlZWQtOGJjNC00YzQ1MmZlNzc2YWYKAFBvZENhdGFsb2e9zYpNUjTRaIWVfyrur9ud&crid=486a1475-6178-4e11-ab3f-8f447ae44fce&prid=e8a7d5e1-15a8-4bb3-a382-7fa3e582a1ae

That is unannotated and just gives you the text of the law. I have my own ideas on the use of deadly force that I believe will serve me in all 50 states, although I don’t know that, I have not researched all 50 states.

This is my interpretation. I am not a lawyer, don’t play one on TV, and am not giving legal advice, just stating an opinion.

I am justified in using deadly force if a reasonable person would believe I was facing an immediate threat of death, or great bodily harm, or if my intervention using deadly force was immediately needed to protect another.

Also keep in mind all these people can impact your financial costs of trial and ultimately your freedom. The primary responding Police Officers, the Police Investigators (Detectives), The DA’s investigators, The DA, and ultimately the Judge or a Jury.