What if

[dunndw]

Defuse the situation if possible

Deescalate the situation is possible

Escape the area if possible

Evade your attacker if possible

If none of the above is successful, do not hesitate to use any and all force needed to protect yourself. Its one thing to play the “what if” game in front of your computer, don’t allow those thoughts to make you hesitate if the time comes. Thinking about what I should do when the bad guy is running at you is the worst thing you could do. If you don’t have it figured out by then, you’re going to be behind the curve even more than you already are.

[Guest Benelli Nova Guy]

I have often wondered what I would do in the scenario the OP mentioned. I'm a small guy and it wouldn't take much effort if someone wanted to give me a good beat down just due to size differences.

My ultimate goal would be to try and put as much distance between myself and the attacker. I don't care what I have to do, if I can get away I'm going to do it. I never ever have to shoot someone, especially an unarmed attacker. I will run like hell if it means getting away from someone.

To stir the pot a little, I really hope you're kidding. Why spend the $200+ to get the privilege to defend yourself only to run for your life instead of legally defending yourself? I hope i missed something, bc that seems like a pretty good waste of time and effort.

[Oh Shoot]

To stir the pot a little, I really hope you're kidding. Why spend the $200+ to get the privilege to defend yourself only to run for your life instead of legally defending yourself? I hope i missed something, bc that seems like a pretty good waste of time and effort.

You spent bigger bucks on a car.

Hopefully you see defensive driving as a better option than using the air bag.

- OS

[dwcz]

I think anyone who takes personal defense seriously would learn how to defend themselves without a weapon, too.

This is why I choose to train in a martial art 6-8 hours a week. Actually, deciding to get my HCP came as a result of that training. Carrying a firearm was just a natural extension of being in control of my surroundings and dealing with a threat further away with a gun if necessary.

We train quite a bit on disarming an attacker(s) with a knife or gun and many I train with carry everyday too, so we incorporate weapon retention as well.

It is nice to know you have more options in your arsenal... Including the option to choose not to seriously injure someone even though you have the means to do so.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[wjh2657]

What your talking about is the reasonable man test and its the objective standard by which an individual's conduct can be measured against. If your actions are judged to be the actions of a reasonable man acting on the information you knew to be factual at the time of the incident then you would most likely escape accusation of criminal negligence.

Hoo boy where do you live? If you shoot somebody and they do not have a weapon on them, the police are most definitely going to arrest you and charge you with homicide. You will have to prove in court that you had "reasonable fear." The mitigation of "reasonable action" rides on the jury's perception of the facts, not on your perception at the time of the shooting. I am not an attorney but I have served bunches of jury duty and based this call on past jury duty experience.

If it is a lone assailant and you shoot him before he beats you down, then you have no proof he meant to harm you. If you shoot him after he beats you down, it is after the fact and not justified.

I don't agree with this pretty common misconception that an unarmed man is no threat, but I know how juries think and they will in all liklihood crucify you.

The only good defense is to run like you know what. If you feel that you have to stand up to him to retain your manhood, I hope you are really good with your fists. Fists are the only legal weapon in a fist fight.

[Doc Huckleberry]

thats a good scenario and id guess evrey sitch would be a lil different based on the victim and perp

[Erik88]

To stir the pot a little, I really hope you're kidding. Why spend the $200+ to get the privilege to defend yourself only to run for your life instead of legally defending yourself? I hope i missed something, bc that seems like a pretty good waste of time and effort.

because I don't want to be standing in front of a DA explaining why I shot a guy when I could have gotten away from the threat. I'm just saying that if I have a way out of the situation I'm going to take it. Shooting is the last resort.

[BlackHawk93]

Hoo boy where do you live? If you shoot somebody and they do not have a weapon on them, the police are most definitely going to arrest you and charge you with homicide. You will have to prove in court that you had "reasonable fear." The mitigation of "reasonable action" rides on the jury's perception of the facts, not on your perception at the time of the shooting. I am not an attorney but I have served bunches of jury duty and based this call on past jury duty experience.

If it is a lone assailant and you shoot him before he beats you down, then you have no proof he meant to harm you. If you shoot him after he beats you down, it is after the fact and not justified.

I agree, 100%. But my question is... what if you were in the process of getting the crap beat out of you, after of course trying everything to avoid it, and your attacker goes for your gun, and you HAVE to shoot him? Based on your jury experience and basic knowledge do you not feel any weight would be given to that? I'm not saying that I feel you would be acquitted on ONLY that, but wouldn't that be considered?

[wjh2657]

I agree, 100%. But my question is... what if you were in the process of getting the crap beat out of you, after of course trying everything to avoid it, and your attacker goes for your gun, and you HAVE to shoot him? Based on your jury experience and basic knowledge do you not feel any weight would be given to that? I'm not saying that I feel you would be acquitted on ONLY that, but wouldn't that be considered?

In a trial, two stories are told: the Prosecution and the Defense. The jury is normally going to buy one or the other in its entirety and not parts of them. This happens because jurors are not lawyers and many of them are not even well enough educated to understand all of the evidence, they will try to get it down to an either/or decision. They will color the stories with parts of the cross-examination by the opposing attorney.

Story goes something like this:

Premise: You were in an altercation involving physical force but no weapons, other than the gun that you brought to the fight.

Color: You were not a an LEO and were not required by any laws to have the weapon.

Premise: You were legal in having the weapon.

Color: But you didn't have to carry the weapon. No law said you had to carry the gun.

Premise: He was going for your gun to assault you.

Color: He thought you were assaulting him with your gun and was trying to defend himself.

Ending conclusions:

He is dead because you brought the gun. He had no gun.

There is a very strong possibility that his witnesses and your witnesses will cancel each other out with the jury. Therefore, conclusion is that witnesses don't know for sure what happened.

The over-riding concern of the jury will be that you were basically in a fist fight and you brought a gun. Because you brought the gun, a man died. They are going to seek some form of punishment for your act.

I can only speak from my jury expeience, but my guess would be that they won't find you guilty of aggravated homicide but they will not find for self-defense. They willl find you guilty of Manslaughter and it will mean jail time but maybe not actual prison time.

Again, it could depend on the mode intellect of the jury, locale of attack, even time of day or night. This is my nightmare scenario for carrying a gun into a bar or restaurant with a bar. Drunks get physical and they don't always recognize where an insult or threat comes from. I know this for sure because I used to drink heavily and made the mistake myself. More than once. Drunks in bars normally just knock somebody down.

I put my gun in a COM safe in my trunk when entering such locales and constantly scout for places and routes to get away from possible trouble from the bar.

Beating somebody to death is usually one of three scenarios:

Home invasion ( Castle Law covers you here.)

Gang Fight ( Don't join gangs, even if they do have cool tats!)

Domestic violence (most common, biggest threat can be a member of your own family!) (Don't tick off your big brother-in-law. Calling your wife a bitch can be fatal!)

Edited April 26, 2010 by wjh2657

[BlackHawk93]

I agree. Since obtaining my permit I have been MORE diligent about being lawful and avoiding confrontation for several reasons. One being I don't want to lose my permit. The other being just because I have a gun on my side doesn't mean I EVER want to have to use it. Like you say, you will be second guessed, judged, and flat out wrongly convicted (possibly) in people's eyes JUST BECAUSE you have that weapon. People should realize that permit holders who are responsible will AVOID confrontation, as the consequences of getting into an altercation could not only mean life or death, for you OR the BG, but also jail time. My permit has actually made me a MORE lawful citizen.

[wjh2657]

I have experienced the same change in attitude. The moment I slip my revolver into my pocket I go to condition yellow. Anytime I am isolated from the crowd or a voice is raised I go to orange. I stay in condition orange around people who are drinking. When somebody appears menacing I tend to "herd" or seek a "safe area." The funny thing is that I find this attitude carries over to my driving also. If I am carrying (which is everyday but Drill day, no guns on base) I am much more aware of other cars and drivers.

The gun doesn't give me a "hero" complex. Quite the opposite, it seems to serve as a constant reminder that I can get hurt.

[Guest crotalus01]

Food for thought - TN has no "brandishing" law. There was a case described here last year where a guy revealed his gun to an aggressor without drawing it. He was taken to court on (I think) aggravated assault charges, and he was convicted. In the ruling the judge specifically said if he had DRAWN his weapon it would have demonstrated fear of GBH but as he did not draw the weapon, it constituted assault.