Decisive Action & Dangers of Letting An Attacker Withdraw Armed

[Soundslikejosh]

Under the right circumstances, if my leveled barrel and loud commands can keep me from taking a life, I will.

Call me a fool, I guess.

Right on BWF and Big Craig. There are circumstances that don't require killing the BG. The real issue is having the time and judgement to make the proper judgment. Being prepared to kill is essential, following through on that plan is another decision that can only be made by a guy who is basically ******** his pants.

 

[dburkhead]

If you are in a situation where you need to draw your weapon, but do so in the hope you don't have to use it, you are fooling yourself. If the situation is bad enough for you to draw, you had best be prepared to shoot.

"Being prepared to shoot" and "hoping you won't have to" are not mutually exclusive. One can be both: fully prepared to shoot if one has to while still hoping not to have to.

Again, I point out that the studies on armed self defense show that most cases ended without a shot being fired. As one example, per the NCVS for 1992 only in 38% of defenses with a firearm did the defender shoot at the attacker. However, only 20% of defenders were injured in the course of the crime (compared to half when no defense was attempted). And the NCVS is a survey of victims and, so, would be on the low side. A lot of "no shots fired" incidents where the crime was averted simply never get reported and don't make the statistics. Other studies (Kleck, Lott, etc.) report an order of magnitude more defenses of which the vast majority simply have to be in the "no shots fired" category or they would show up in those crime statistics.

One should never draw unless on has reasonable fear for one's life or health. However, if you wait until that fear has reached such imminence that the choice is between shooting as soon as you clear leather (or kydex or whatever) and dying, then that strikes me as rather foolish. Wait that late and a missed shot, a bit of fumbling because you are scared out of your mind (pretty much a given in a "I was in fear for my life" situation), means that you don't have to be afraid of anything ever again--and everyone at the viewing can comment on how peaceful you look.

That guy across the room screaming that he's going to kill me while drawing an 18" Bowie Knife, counts as "fear for my life" but there's still time for him to go "oh " and decide to exercise the better part of valor between the time I draw and the time I have to decide between pulling the trigger and being spit upon his point.

Count on him deciding to retreat rather than press his attack? Never. Hope that he'll do so? Absolutely.

And if he decides I'm bluffing? Well, we'll both find out and have to live, or not, with the consequences.

 

[quiggly]

Well I asked the question and I better give my thought. If I was the guy behind the counter on this I think I would let the guy withdraw.

I draw and point my weapon at the BG and yell to drop your gun or I will fire. If he stands there and thinks, and starts to retreat, I don't think I fire. If he flinches with the arm that the gun is in. Sorry thats 2 for flinching. But if he looks like he has had a change of heart, unless I am in a position to cut off his escape, I am pretty sure that I let him walk.

 

[indytechnerd]

What if that guy who withdraws comes back later with a friend and a couple Remington 870's? What started as a botched robbery now becomes a couple bangers looking for revenge, and you're outgunned. The other thing that bugs me is this..

...A lot of "no shots fired" incidents where the crime was averted simply never get reported and don't make the statistics...

Why, especially in a case like a clerk in a store, wouldn't you have PD enroute as quickly as possible?

 

[dburkhead]

What if that guy who withdraws comes back later with a friend and a couple Remington 870's? What started as a botched robbery now becomes a couple bangers looking for revenge, and you're outgunned. The other thing that bugs me is this..

Why, especially in a case like a clerk in a store, wouldn't you have PD enroute as quickly as possible?

What about it? What someone might do, in the future, is not legal justification for shooting now. And just how often does that happen? Why bother coming back here when there's a softer target up the road. Outgunning the target doesn't mean that you still won't get killed.

As for why the clerk in the story wouldn't want the police coming: if, so far as the clerk knows, the incident is over, then why would they want the police coming? The police will want to take up time with statements, maybe want them to try identifying the assailant from photos, and all sort of other troublesome, time consuming tasks--time for which the clerk is unlikely to be paid.

Even that, however, is beside the point. Pretty much every study of defensive gun use comes up with the same conclusions: in most cases the gun is not fired and in a great many cases, no police report is filed. You might wonder why it happens that way, but that doesn't change the fact that it does happen that way quite frequently.

 

[indytechnerd]

What about it? What someone might do, in the future, is not legal justification for shooting now. And just how often does that happen? Why bother coming back here when there's a softer target up the road. Outgunning the target doesn't mean that you still won't get killed.

If it were me, 1 of 2 things would happen, and neither of those involves the BG leaving my sight (sights?) armed and on 2 feet. He either drops the weapon and kisses linoleum until PD arrives, or raises his weapon, in which case "2 for flinching" like Quiggly said.

As for why the clerk in the story wouldn't want the police coming: if, so far as the clerk knows, the incident is over, then why would they want the police coming? The police will want to take up time with statements, maybe want them to try identifying the assailant from photos, and all sort of other troublesome, time consuming tasks--time for which the clerk is unlikely to be paid.

Why would you assume the incident is over? The only information you have is a BG with a weapon is no longer in your line of sight. Why wouldn't you want PD to at least do a drive by? Let them sweep the parking lot and area around the building.

Even that, however, is beside the point. Pretty much every study of defensive gun use comes up with the same conclusions: in most cases the gun is not fired and in a great many cases, no police report is filed. You might wonder why it happens that way, but that doesn't change the fact that it does happen that way quite frequently.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, and I hope to never be in that situation. But, the last thing I want is a BG that is known to be armed lurking around me, my family, or in this case, my place of business/employment.

 

[dburkhead]

If it were me, 1 of 2 things would happen, and neither of those involves the BG leaving my sight (sights?) armed and on 2 feet. He either drops the weapon and kisses linoleum until PD arrives, or raises his weapon, in which case "2 for flinching" like Quiggly said.

Why would you assume the incident is over? The only information you have is a BG with a weapon is no longer in your line of sight. Why wouldn't you want PD to at least do a drive by? Let them sweep the parking lot and area around the building.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, and I hope to never be in that situation. But, the last thing I want is a BG that is known to be armed lurking around me, my family, or in this case, my place of business/employment.

You're questioning "why" completely misses the point: it doesn't matter why. The simple fact is that they do. Every study on the subject turns up that most "armed self defense" cases both involve no shots fired and no police report. And in the vast majority of cases, they are justified in doing so. Even in the lowball case (the NCVS report) in 68% of the cases of self defense with a firearm, the gun is never fired. Incidents of injury in such defenses is reduced from half (no self defense) to 20% (self defense with a gun--even if not fired).

BTW, if he turns and flees when you pull the gun, and you shoot anyway, congratulations: you've just committed a felony. Maybe you'll get away with it if there are no witnesses to dispute your claim of his raising his weapon in your direction, but you will still have committed a felony. You will have shot somebody (better have killed him because otherwise you'll have a witness who can dispute your claim) who was running away.

 

[indytechnerd]

I'm not questioning the studies, and have never been of the 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality. If no shots are fired, that is best case scenario. And, in your example, if the guy flees, as in turn around and run like hell, then I can probably make the assumption that he's not intending on coming back. I would not shoot in this situation at all, but if he backs up, still facing me, without dropping his weapon, then I consider that a tactical maneuver and will continue on the course I mentioned in my previous post.

We can probably agree to disagree on the whole calling the cops thing. Not calling them, because of some supposed hassle to a possibly non-existent crime, I don't buy.

Having said all that, it's discussions like these that brought me here. Thanks.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm not questioning the studies, and have never been of the 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality. If no shots are fired, that is best case scenario. And, in your example, if the guy flees, as in turn around and run like hell, then I can probably make the assumption that he's not intending on coming back. I would not shoot in this situation at all, but if he backs up, still facing me, without dropping his weapon, then I consider that a tactical maneuver and will continue on the course I mentioned in my previous post.

We can probably agree to disagree on the whole calling the cops thing. Not calling them, because of some supposed hassle to a possibly non-existent crime, I don't buy.

Having said all that, it's discussions like these that brought me here. Thanks.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. In the case of backing slowly away with weapon still at a ready position, I would agree, drop it or....

The hassle was simply one possible explanation. Many of these incidents don't end up being reported. Whatever the reason, they aren't. And maybe clerk in a store is more likely to call it in than "guy confronted in restaurant parking lot" or "guy who lost situational awareness for a moment at the ATM" or.... I've never seen the incidents of reported vs. unreported broken down that way. Anyway, whether you buy it, or I buy it doesn't really matter--it's only whether the person deciding whether or not to make the call buys it. There are a lot of people out there who do not see the police as anything other than, well, enemy might be too strong a word, but certainly "unfriends" (to borrow a Tolkeinism).

It has been a good discussion.

 

[Old Syko]

All the studies and statistics in the world add up to absolutely 0 when it's your backside in the siruation of this clerk. He's lucky to still be alive due to his failure to follow up. In this situation the front sight of the clerk's weapon should be brought to rest center mass of the possible assailant and kept there until the situation was neutralized either by voluntary disarmament of the assailant, his hasty and absolute retreat, or in this case when he was outside the door and turned, gun raised to fire, with multiple rounds to that center mass. This clerk made the stupid mistake of assuming that since the guy was outside the door the threat no longer existed. Clearly a case of no training and no common sense. Just my .

 

[dburkhead]

All the studies and statistics in the world add up to absolutely 0 when it's your backside in the siruation of this clerk. He's lucky to still be alive due to his failure to follow up. In this situation the front sight of the clerk's weapon should be brought to rest center mass of the possible assailant and kept there until the situation was neutralized either by voluntary disarmament of the assailant, his hasty and absolute retreat, or in this case when he was outside the door and turned, gun raised to fire, with multiple rounds to that center mass. This clerk made the stupid mistake of assuming that since the guy was outside the door the threat no longer existed. Clearly a case of no training and no common sense. Just my .

What you appear to be missing about thos studies is that they are studies of what folk whose "backside" was in the situation and what they actually did and what the actual results were. And the results of those studies are at least as relevant as armchair quarterbacking by folk who weren't in the situation.

And I have to wonder what the folk who were actually in those situations thought they would do, or should do, or could do before they actually came face to face with it.

It's easy to say what someone should do in some generic situtation. It's easy to look back at a situtation and find fault in what actually was done. It's a whole lot harder to be in the hot seat oneself and make the call to pull the trigger on a human being and end his life.

Killing someone (dress it up as "shoot to stop" all you want, when you shoot at center of mass you are shooting to kill) is hard for most people. I'd even go so far as to say it's hard for the vast majority of people. That doesn't mean it's not the right call, but "right" and "easy" are not the same thing.

By the time I started talking about this, the discussion was no longer about the specific case that started the thread, but was much more general. I was rather speaking to the impression that some were giving that one should be spitting lead as soon as you clear leather. Shoulda woulda coulda maybe, but the truth is that in a significant majority of cases that's not how it goes down.

And suggesting someone is foolish for being in a situation where there is a viable threat where having the gun in hand, ready to shoot, but still hoping that one won't need to actually pull the trigger (while still being ready to do so if that hope is dashed) is, IMO, uncalled for.

Did the individual in the original case make a bad call? Probably. But that does not justify generalizing to all shoot/no shoot situations. And the discussion had gotten far more general by the time I came into it ("always" "if you pull the gun then...." etc.).

 

[indyjoe]

I can speak from person experience of knife versus gun and I let the knife wielder withdraw. But, the further away he was, the less of a threat he became. This is not so with a gun. Also the argument of not shooting him might invite multiple perps to come back with some 870s is moot. If you are forced to shoot/kill someone who is affiliated with a group of baddies, you might invite multiple shotguns coming for payback anyway.

Bad guy had gun OUT and at low ready, the clerk had his gun out and on target. If the bad guy didn\'t obey my command to drop his weapon, I would have shot him.

I think I would have done the same, based on the situation. The perp was caught stealing and removed from the store, after a physical confrontation. When he comes back with a pistol. The only reason is to kill me. Seriously. He has been over powered and he has upped the ante to rob with force, including most likely shooting first. He would comply with a weapon drop command or be dropped.

 

[Old Syko]

What you appear to be missing about thos studies is that they are studies of what folk whose "backside" was in the situation and what they actually did and what the actual results were. And the results of those studies are at least as relevant as armchair quarterbacking by folk who weren't in the situation.

Being one of the folks that have had their backside in a similar situation, I assure you all the stats in the world mean nothing. This is not like sitting at the poker table where you're allowed the time necessary to do the math before making a decision. You throw all the figures out the window and react off instinct and training or you probably don't survive. No armchair quarterbacking here.

Killing someone (dress it up as "shoot to stop" all you want, when you shoot at center of mass you are shooting to kill) is hard for most people. I'd even go so far as to say it's hard for the vast majority of people. That doesn't mean it's not the right call, but "right" and "easy" are not the same thing.

I made no attempt to "dress up" anything by using the term center mass. Center mass being the largest possible "lethal" target area is where everyone is trained to fire for the obvious reason of being able to "kill" an assailant.

And suggesting someone is foolish for being in a situation where there is a viable threat where having the gun in hand, ready to shoot, but still hoping that one won't need to actually pull the trigger (while still being ready to do so if that hope is dashed) is, IMO, uncalled for.

Believe me! At a time like this you have no concept of what may or may not be concieved as foolish. If you have time for such thoughts you may as well turn your gun on yourself. You have larger issues to concern yourself with at that time. There are times when you may draw in preparation of possible events and not fire as I outlined before regarding the original case. But to let your guard down before all possibility of threat is extinguished as in this video is regarded as a stupid mistake by any defense training instruction I'm aware of.

 

[dburkhead]

Being one of the folks that have had their backside in a similar situation, I assure you all the stats in the world mean nothing. This is not like sitting at the poker table where you're allowed the time necessary to do the math before making a decision. You throw all the figures out the window and react off instinct and training or you probably don't survive. No armchair quarterbacking here.



I made no attempt to "dress up" anything by using the term center mass. Center mass being the largest possible "lethal" target area is where everyone is trained to fire for the obvious reason of being able to "kill" an assailant.



Believe me! At a time like this you have no concept of what may or may not be concieved as foolish. If you have time for such thoughts you may as well turn your gun on yourself. You have larger issues to concern yourself with at that time. There are times when you may draw in preparation of possible events and not fire as I outlined before regarding the original case. But to let your guard down before all possibility of threat is extinguished as in this video is regarded as a stupid mistake by any defense training instruction I'm aware of.

"The stats in the world mean nothing." So what people have actually done means "nothing. Is that really what you want to say. That's all the "stats" are--compilations of what people have actually done in real-life situations. You are going exactly backwards from what I'm saying. I'm not saying, "the stats say you should..." I'm saying, "the result of people doing .... is" The "stats" are a compilation of what people have actually done, not a recommendation of what they should do.

A lot of people talk about "shooting to stop" rather than "shooting to kill" and, frankly, that's naive. If you're shooting at COM, you are shooting to kill. And if you find that something easy to do, I can only hope that you are one of a very small minority or there really is no hope for humanity.

Believe you? Why? As far as I can see, you're just some anonymous guy on the Internet, one given to hyperbole ("might as well turn the gun on yourself"). If what you claimed about "might as well" were true then instead of most successful gun defenses ending without a shot being fired, you'd have most cases where the defender did not shoot having the defender dead. That, however, is not what what generally happens.

And nobody said anything about "letting your guard down." I certainly didn't. (And while perhaps the video in the OP showed one doing so, I specifically said that I have been speaking to the more general case instead of just the initial example.)

You want foolish? Foolish is waiting until you have to shoot immediately or die before drawing the weapon--given any other option. Any distraction, any mistake, anything that can cause any delay and you die. You might use the "dead man's ten seconds" to take your assailant with you, but that will be cold comfort to those you leave behind.

Are there going to be cases where you're (generic "you," not any specific individual) forced into a "shoot immediately or die" situation? Sure. However, given the results that have actually happened (those "stats" you disdain) that's not universal, nor even apparently the majority situation). You may disagree, but I think I'll take the word of folk like Trent Lott, Gary Kleck, Masaad Ayoob and others who've put a lot of time and effort into studying the situation.

 

[Old Syko]

I think I'll take the word of folk like Trent Lott, Gary Kleck, Masaad Ayoob and others who've put a lot of time and effort into studying the situation.

It's funny you believe the the same men who teach exactly what I've stated. Yes they do so because of stats they have gathered. What I have stated and the 3 men mentioned and many others have verified in there writings and other teachings is that although statistics show certain odds when dealing with a specific stiuation, in the end each situation has to be dealt with on a singular basis and is best handled when properly trained to eliminate as many variables as possible.

Sorry if you're offended by some guy on the web. I don't play PC very well. You see this is a been there done that situation for me. Anyone who is not willing to take a life shouldn't be carrying to begin with. After all that is one possible end result. In my situation it didn't have to come to that as the possible assailant chose his first option.

You are correct, you don't have to actually believe me. Wait until (God forbid) it happens to you and then tell me what you believe.

 

[dburkhead]

It's funny you believe the the same men who teach exactly what I've stated. Yes they do so because of stats they have gathered. What I have stated and the 3 men mentioned and many others have verified in there writings and other teachings is that although statistics show certain odds when dealing with a specific stiuation, in the end each situation has to be dealt with on a singular basis and is best handled when properly trained to eliminate as many variables as possible.

Sorry if you're offended by some guy on the web. I don't play PC very well. You see this is a been there done that situation for me. Anyone who is not willing to take a life shouldn't be carrying to begin with. After all that is one possible end result. In my situation it didn't have to come to that as the possible assailant chose his first option.

You are correct, you don't have to actually believe me. Wait until (God forbid) it happens to you and then tell me what you believe.

And yet, strangely enough, they are the same folk who say that most defensive gun uses end without a shot being fired.

It's not that "some guy on the web" offends me. It's that "believe me" from some anonymous guy on the web bears very little weight. Why should I believe you rather than anyone else?

It would help, however, if you responded to my actual position rather than what you seem to think is my position. There is nothing in anything I have said that indicates not being prepared to take a life if the situation calls for it. One can still hope for other end results than that one (and did you not just say that that was what happened to you or am I misreading what you wrote above?) while still being ready to do so at need. And since I have explicitly said that repeatedly one wonders why you continue to beat on the straw man?

Fact: Most defensive gun uses end without a shot being fired.

There is nothing wrong with hoping that one's particular case will fall into that category provided one is ready for the possibility that it's not. That is all that I've ever said about that.

Fact: People are more prone to make mistakes, lose "small motor skills" and so forth under stress (I refer to you Ayoob's "Stressfire" if you need a source for this one).

This means that you're never more likely to make a mistake drawing a gun, taking it off safety (for those guns with safety), aiming it, and firing than when you are in immediate fear for your life. Under those circumstances, drawing and firing immediately should be a position you're forced into rather than one's standard policy. Plan for the possibility? Sure. Train for it? Absolutely. Figure it as your normal response? Nope. And that is all I've ever said about that.

Nobody, certainly not me, has said that one doesn't need to be prepared to kill at need. I've repeatedly said the opposite, in fact. And I have repeatedly disavowed any notion of counting on ending the situation without shots being fired. But I do object very strongly to people being called "foolish" for hoping they can land in the majority of cases where the DGU is resolved without a shot being fired.

Incidentally, I have been behind the 8 ball, as it were. In my situation defensive gun use was not an option because 1) I was a minor (and very few places allow minors to carry), 2) Ohio at that time did not have concealed carry licenses anyway, and 3) my family was dirt poor and could barely afford food, let alone firearms. I did, however, have a small sheath knife. I was alone on a bridge, faced by two guys, one of which had a knife, looking for "sport."

I managed to diffuse the situation without anybody getting cut and especially without any ambulances or hearses. So fine, call me a "fool" if you want. I'm still here which, as far as I'm concerned, is all that really matters. That the other two were able to walk away from the encounter may be a downcheck to some, but that I was able to walk away trumps in my book.

 

[kingnereli]

You have to pull the trigger. Of coarse, one would hope to diffuse a situation without shots being fired but the hesitation will allow time for him to aim and fire. The BG won't give you a chance to drop your weapon. Your life is too important.

 

[finity]

I know this is an old thread but...

The thing people of the "I would draw hoping he won't shoot me & order him to drop it or I'll shoot" mindframe are disregarding is the OODA loop concept.

If you draw your weapon while he has his out (or even somtimes not) you have already processed your OODA & decided (the ACT part) to not shoot without giving him a chance to retreat. He on the other hand now has the ability to cycle through his own OODA & decide to shoot you which will force you back into another cycle of OODA to counteract his actions. You will now be behind the reaction curve & may well be on the recieving end of the flying hot lead instead of the giving end. It happens alot even with people who are highly trained (cops & military). Basically the thought process will probaly be, "O sh@#, I don't think he's listening, I can't tell...he's raising his gun...or is he just moving his arms to turn & run...wait no he is raising his gun...I need to shoot him". Let's say that sequence of thoughts takes a half second. How fast can someone point a gun & pull the trigger, especially if it's already in hand..blam. It's all over.

If you shoot him while he's facing you off with with a weapon, you are completely justified. If you shoot him while he is retreating (full out running away) then you are a murderer. They is a huge gray area in the middle that could be the difference between you living or dying.

Nobody (well, at least stable people) wants to shoot someone else. The BG has already made that decsion for you & takes the moral decision out of your hands.

If for some reason the universe is on the BG's side that day & he does retreat without you firing, then good for him. Maybe he may rethink his choice of proffessions (I highly doubt it). If not he gets to reap the rewards for going out that day & making the poor decisions which led him to that point in time.