LEO Question - Firearm Defense

[Dan]

This question is for someone with reliable firearms law knowledge. I am looking for a reliable answer based on good information. Otherwise, please disregard the question.

I was learning firearm defense today and the instructor showed a technique for disarming a bad guy. After the move he then instructed
me to take the gun and back away while pointing it at the bad guy. He did not instruct to take a shot but without shooting that would leave me holding a bad guy at gun point - something I never want to do as it is essentially a stalemate.

When I got my CCL I learned that lethal force is only allowed in response to lethal force. I guess this is where my question comes in. Once disarming a bad guy what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to keep the gun and run (to the police)? Do I not only point but shoot at the bad guy? That doesn't seem right. Yet, having been attacked by a bad guy once the odds are strong that a second attack is coming. How is lethal force against an unarmed attacker legit?

I realize that this is all theory. Still, that's why we train, right?

Best,

Dan

[Dan]

PS: I am asking this question here because this is the one place I know of where I can reach LEO's on line and who are going to be reliable in their replies. I would appreciate it if the mods would allow it since it really isn't about "guns" as much as it is about defense, lethal force and the legal aspects of the scenario.

Thanks.

[Vortex]

Were you (or others) in imminent danger of being killed after you took the gun away? (no)

Could you articulate that fear to a jury? (probably not)

Could you be convicted of murdering an unarmed person? (sure)

[Dan]

If the bad guy charges you again is this imminent danger? I think not. If you are somehow cornered (while armed) and he charges you is that different? Again, I think not.

I guess what I want to know is what does one do? Keep the gun and run? It seems like one of those odd situations where the defender is stuck between a rock and a hard place?


Best,

Dan

[fastblackmerc]

I think it depends on who is around to see what happens next..... If it's just you and the perp.... "after I disarmed him he tried to take the gun back and it just went off, officer"... Just thinking out loud here... I'm not a LEO.....

[Vortex]

Nothing wrong with keeping the gun and running my friend, youll live to tell about it.. You dont want the bad guy to kick your ass and get the gun back, then you are back to stage one.

[Smokie]

With all due to respect to all different opinions, but you are worried about the rights of a bad guy with a gun that he was going to use on you and you manage to wrestle away the gun....and now you are considering running away????

Since I have a great love for humanity, my duty is to blow the m---------er away so that he can never, ever harm another human being. By the way, I'm serious. Yes my beliefs do mean I may go to jail....but I made the world a safer place.

[Hotrauder]

The legal ramifications depend on State law and the political ambitions of the local DA. They are all over the board. We have a conservative interpretation here in Florida. You MAY protect yourself from what you perceive to be a mortal threat. If it were me I SUSPECT THAT THE GUN WOULD ACCIDENTALLY DISCHARGE during the struggle, croaking the perp. Just my mortal 2 cents. I hope it never happens..to anyone but I know that it will all to often. Everyone should carry and be prepared to shoot to kill. There is a reason that the scumbags look for EASY targets and that crime goes down where people take responsibility to protect themselves and support the police. Dennis...

[TripleTransAm]

Since I have a great love for humanity, my duty is to blow the m---------er away so that he can never, ever harm another human being. By the way, I'm serious. Yes my beliefs do mean I may go to jail....but I made the world a safer place.

My wife and I discuss this, once in a blue moon. I share the above opinion, she (being from a more level-headed Sweden) does not.

If I was in this situation, I think I would probably issue a clear warning first, while establishing enough distance between us to give me more time to react. If I felt I could not, I would probably opt for a leg shot to avoid having the tables turned.

If my family's safety was at stake, there would be no hesitation: we'd be looking at an ex-bad-guy, a bad-guy who ceased to be, a bad-guy who's gone to meet his maker, a bad-guy who is no more... etc... (insert whatever other dead parrot reference you'd like).
I don't care if it took 3 or 4 bullets, this guy would be a human flute by the time I was done with him.

[greggash]

Basically;
If you get the gun, you have 2 choices.
Run like hell, with the gun of course.
or

Dump the clip into the perpetrator... do not wing or knee cap
They will sue the **** outa you and win...
just do it right, and explain I kept pulling the trigger till the noise stopped

[Alan]

I was learning firearm defense today and the instructor showed a technique for disarming a bad guy.

Get a new instructor. Seriously.

[Dogzebra]

3 things to consider;
1- "Personal Protection" can have a very broad to very finite legal definition depending on the State you're in
2- Don't forget the saying " It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
3- Regardless of the above two, your decission is something you'll live with for the rest of your life

[Marauder.45]

The laws vary by state my friend. Knowing where you are from is necessary answer your question correctly.

Here is one of my favorite other sites, they can answer you with certainty if you tell them where you are.

http://glocktalk.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=30

Have fun on the site. Lot's of fun stuff.

[03SILVERSTREAK]

The instructor showed a technique for disarming a bad guy. I agree. Find yourself a New Instructor.:shake:

[CBT]

When in doubt, double-tap your way out.

[ghost03]

If you feel that you or others are in immediate danger( Life is being threatened or serious harm ) then you have the right to shoot. TRUE it will be hard to prove it or convince a jury if it ever gets that far. The saying " No Witnesses No Crime " couldnt be further from the truth.
As far as taking the gun from the bad guy.....Training with an instructor and having to do it in real life while your addrenalin is racing and crapping your pants are totally different. You never know what the other person is capable of doing. Who is to say that you would be able to take the gun, and god forbid might get shot. I know that there are mixed opinions and laws on this topic but personally I WOULD SHOOT TILL THE MAGAZINE IS EMPTY....SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER...

[usafsniper]

Once disarming a bad guy what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to keep the gun and run (to the police)? Do I not only point but shoot at the bad guy? That doesn't seem right. Yet, having been attacked by a bad guy once the odds are strong that a second attack is coming. How is lethal force against an unarmed attacker legit?

I realize that this is all theory. Still, that's why we train, right?

Best,

Dan

Interesting question you ask, and as many have told you here, there a many different answers depending on where you are and who the judge is. However, if someone was holding you at gunpoint, and you managed to gain control of the weapon and they insisted on taking it back, you'd be justified in shooting them. In the Air Force, we used to have a deadly force justification model that used the following three deciding factors...1) Intent 2) Capability 3) Opportunity. If the criminal had all three in his favor, then deadly force is justified. Later on, the AF went to a force model based on the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's Force Continuum. We've had that for about 10 years now, and it uses a very complicated ladder of options, that just recently the Air Force and evidently FLETC has decided to drop, and go back to the Big 3. So, IMHO regardless of whether the guy/gal has the gun/knife/chainsaw/bonedrill/big stick etc., if they demonstrate intent to kill you, have the capability (which can be more or less than just a weapon), and the opportunity exists for them to kill you (you aren't separated by a fence or shielded from harm), then by all means, blow the wasted source of humanity away.
:flamer:
This statement is not endorsed by the US Air Force, or Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and any use of said measures reflect full culpability on the user.

[Marauder386]

Yes in total agreement with the above reply...and I haunt the halls of FLETC more than I should sometimes...

:coolman:

[DL04]

:lol:
This question is for someone with reliable firearms law knowledge. I am looking for a reliable answer based on good information. Otherwise, please disregard the question.

I was learning firearm defense today and the instructor showed a technique for disarming a bad guy. After the move he then instructed
me to take the gun and back away while pointing it at the bad guy. He did not instruct to take a shot but without shooting that would leave me holding a bad guy at gun point - something I never want to do as it is essentially a stalemate.

When I got my CCL I learned that lethal force is only allowed in response to lethal force. I guess this is where my question comes in. Once disarming a bad guy what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to keep the gun and run (to the police)? Do I not only point but shoot at the bad guy? That doesn't seem right. Yet, having been attacked by a bad guy once the odds are strong that a second attack is coming. How is lethal force against an unarmed attacker legit?

I realize that this is all theory. Still, that's why we train, right?

Best,

Dan
Its only a stalemate until he makes any move towards you then its time to see if his gun is loaded by pulling the trigger 3 times - 2 to the body and 1 to the head! Really get a new instructor:shake:

[Big House]

:beer: :beer: :beer:


With all due to respect to all different opinions, but you are worried about the rights of a bad guy with a gun that he was going to use on you and you manage to wrestle away the gun....and now you are considering running away????

Since I have a great love for humanity, my duty is to blow the m---------er away so that he can never, ever harm another human being. By the way, I'm serious. Yes my beliefs do mean I may go to jail....but I made the world a safer place.

[SergntMac]

Intent, Capability and Jeopardy is the three pronged legal test that will keep your sorry azz out of jail anywhere in this country, whether deadly force, or, ordinary force was employed.

In the scenario posted here, you have disarmed the suspect, and a reasonable man (a mental state) would say his threat of harm to you has ended. Without something more, like him charging you, or, reaching for a second weapon, his threat against you has passed. Deadly force would not be justified.

Your instructor's responsibility is to you, and to teach you how to survive, not get even. Backing away, perhaps even giving the suspect an opening to flee the scene, is correct instruction. Call the cops, report the crime, turn over the weapon, and go home to your family. Once the cops catch him, go testify in court against the suspect. It's better than defending your actions.

[Dan]

Reply #17 and reply #21 seem to be the ones that make the most sense, to me. Others had similar answers but the rationales stated in 17 and 21 are what would help me accept those answers.

It seems to me that if the attacker resumed his attack after I had the gun and retreat was not an option then the only thing that stops him from becoming armed again is me so, therefore, the use of force would be warranted. He is demonstrating intent, he may have the ability to retake the weapon and thus I would be in jeopardy.

I understand how some of you may feel about taking a life but I can say with certainty that there is no greater displeasure that an sane individual can live with, justified, or not. Please do not ask me how I can be so certain because I do not wish to discuss it in more detail than that.

My goal in asking the question was to find out the legal line. My truthful intent in a conflict, and the reason I am training, it to learn how to use the least amount of force possible to win. Even if such a win means giving myself time to retreat.

That doesn't mean that I don't want to know how to go to level 10 if I have to. It means that I want to be able to reply at the lowest level possible to be effective.

I don't feel that I need a new instructor. Nothing personal but I don't think I was asking for that advice, anyway. :) My instructor has, in a very short time, taught me a lot. It seems that my instructors advice was very close to being correct. He may not have known the technical reasons behind it but his technique instruction was/is dead on.

Thanks to everyone for their comments. This has helped me greatly. I'll continue to investigate this more thoroughly. I'm friend with the local chief and may ask him the next time we do lunch.

Anyway, my question has been answered to my satisfaction. Thanks, all.

Best,

Dan

[rayjay]

Dan, obtain a copy of the law in your state that authorizes the use of force. In NYS the rules are different for LEOs and citizens.

[rocknrod]

Get a new instructor. Seriously.
No Kidding.
He was showing you how to physically mess with an armed perp??????

[Alan]

Mac has it right. Listen to his experience.

I only have a few years under my belt in LE and have had specialized training through my PD, I'm certified in ALERRT:Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training, but at NO TIME did ANY of the more than qualified training officers (both former and current SWAT officers with Texas agencies) talk about, much less show, anyone how to disarm an armed suspect in the manner in which you've described your instructor as doing.

It's my professional opinion that you should get a new instructor. In my eyes, he is being negligent with the instruction he is presenting. I'm sure he's a great guy...but to me...that sort of "showmanship" in class screams stupidity. Methinks he's spent too much time watching Steven Segal movies.

I wish you the best in your continued interest in law, use of force, and taking the right steps toward training. I applaud you for that! Good on you! We need more good guys out there.

[usafsniper]

Mac has it right. Listen to his experience.

It's my professional opinion that you should get a new instructor. In my eyes, he is being negligent with the instruction he is presenting. I'm sure he's a great guy...but to me...that sort of "showmanship" in class screams stupidity. Methinks he's spent too much time watching Steven Segal movies.



Gotta agree here with big thumbs up here. Disarming techniques take MUCH time to perfect, roughly 1000 repetitions to make it muscle memory. That type of response is best left to direct action units and personnel who do that for a living...not people who may need it as a last chance option and only get to practice infrequently. Best of luck with your training. If you really want to make it feasible as an option...dedicate lots of time to perfecting the technique...or it may be the last technique you ever use.

[Dan]

This was my original post...

This question is for someone with reliable firearms law knowledge. I am looking for a reliable answer based on good information. Otherwise, please disregard the question.

I was learning firearm defense today and the instructor showed a technique for disarming a bad guy. After the move he then instructed
me to take the gun and back away while pointing it at the bad guy. He did not instruct to take a shot but without shooting that would leave me holding a bad guy at gun point - something I never want to do as it is essentially a stalemate.

When I got my CCL I learned that lethal force is only allowed in response to lethal force. I guess this is where my question comes in. Once disarming a bad guy what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to keep the gun and run (to the police)? Do I not only point but shoot at the bad guy? That doesn't seem right. Yet, having been attacked by a bad guy once the odds are strong that a second attack is coming. How is lethal force against an unarmed attacker legit?

I realize that this is all theory. Still, that's why we train, right?

I have gotten a number of recommendations to hire a new instructor. Guys, please don't be so quick to judge. Perhaps not, at least, until you've gotten enough info to make such a strong recommendation. I appreciate your looking out for me but I don't think that I have given enough info for that call to be made, have I? Besides, I was looking for legal info as opposed to advice about my trainer. :)

Please, don't get me wrong, I'm not upset. I am simply pointing this out. I was asking about the law. Plain and simple, and I was looking for some reasoning on it. I appreciate your trying to help me to get the best instruction possible but I have already seen a lot of different styles of instruction and I feel pretty comfortable with this guy. I think his training is sound.

Best,

Dan

PS: My trainer DID say that most times, when befronted with an armed assailant one is more likely to be worried about his water falling on the floor than disarming the attacker. :)

[Wagonmaster]

Dan,

I am not an attorney but I am an LEO, thus I will chime in on this topic, as I love a good debate on shoot, no shoot scenarios. Although some have voiced their disagreement with the instructor's "Disarming a bad guy" technique, this is actually a routine training excercise in weapon retention/sudden assault training. One can preclude that you would only attempt to disarm an armed assailant if there was reasonable fear that you will suffer imminent death. As an example: The bad guy tells you, "I'm going to blow your brains out because you can identify me" this statement would lead you to believe your death is imminent if you do not take immediate action. On the contrary, if the bad guy tells you, "Just be cool and you will not be harmed" this would be an example where it would be a bad idea to attempt to disarm your would-be assailant. Hence, the disarming technique taught by your instructor is a valid one IF you are in a situation where you believe your imminent death is intended vs implied. It is a last case scenario, but a totally valid one.

To touch on the second subject of what to do after you have disarmed your assailant, I agree with your instructor in his instruction telling you not to shoot. Primarily you want to create distance between you and your attacker. This is "flight or fight" syndrome. Nothing says you have to shoot this guy, back-up, get away! Clearly the threshold of your imminent danger has been lowered if you are now armed and your assailant is not. DO NOT think for one second however, that you are safe just because you now have his gun and he is unarmed. The last two Officers killed (by gunfire) in the State of Washington were overpowered and disarmed by their attackers and subsequently shot and killed with their own department issued duty sidearm. You can pay your respect to these brave Officers @ ODMP (Officer Down Memorial Page). This is a harsh reminder that just because you are armed does not mean you have the upper hand. Besides, it is a known fact that dirtbags often carry more than one weapon.

Most states take judicial notice of what is referred to as "Positive size mismatch" In other words, if you are armed with a gun and you are 5' 8"- 157lbs and your unarmed assailant is 6' 2" 235lbs is it reasonable for you to conclude that this suspect may overpower you and disarm you and kill you with your firearm? Of course it is! Like others have stated in this thread it is largely dependant on the local DA's perception of the events. Will you be viewed as a overzealous vigalante or a helpless victim trying to save your own life? The question at your trial will be, "Would a reasonable person in the same situation react the same way"? If your actions were reasonable this will sell itself.

Knowledge of your rights is self empowerment. The mere fact that you are taking a firearms defense training course tells me that you are light years ahead of the general populous who own guns for personal protection. Kudos to you! Many gun owners purchase a handgun for personal protection and then they toss it in the closet (where it is readily available by their teenage son who will later shoot his best friend in the face during an accidental discharge). They have no idea how to clear a misfeed, manipulate the slide or magazine in low light conditions, shoot weak handed, etc. etc. They never go to the range to practice their speed and accuracy and they dont ensure their spouses are trained in the use of the weapon. If you ever have to fire a weapon at someone it WILL be because you are in grave danger, so for your wife and kids sake lets hope you have the proper training. TRAIN AS YOU WISH TO PERFOM!!!

GT


This question is for someone with reliable firearms law knowledge. I am looking for a reliable answer based on good information. Otherwise, please disregard the question.

I was learning firearm defense today and the instructor showed a technique for disarming a bad guy. After the move he then instructed
me to take the gun and back away while pointing it at the bad guy. He did not instruct to take a shot but without shooting that would leave me holding a bad guy at gun point - something I never want to do as it is essentially a stalemate.

When I got my CCL I learned that lethal force is only allowed in response to lethal force. I guess this is where my question comes in. Once disarming a bad guy what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to keep the gun and run (to the police)? Do I not only point but shoot at the bad guy? That doesn't seem right. Yet, having been attacked by a bad guy once the odds are strong that a second attack is coming. How is lethal force against an unarmed attacker legit?

I realize that this is all theory. Still, that's why we train, right?

Best,

Dan

[Smokie]

Yet, having been attacked by a bad guy once the odds are strong that a second attack is coming. How is lethal force against an unarmed attacker legit?

I realize that this is all theory. Still, that's why we train, right?

Best,

Dan

Dan, I know my previous response was not what you were looking for, and you have recieved far wiser responses from people that know the law and have been in situations like the one you described for real.

The scenario you described was rather devoid of emotion and adrenaline, you were asking an academic question about a situation that in real life would probably not present you with enough time to make academic decisions.

Without being there in that moment, the answer I gave you was based on a very simple basic premise: someone with a deadly weapon was prepared to use that weapon on me with the intent of ending my life, if I allow that person to live, he will have more opportunities to end my life at a later date. Why would I want to allow this person the opportunity to end my life or someone else's life at a later date?

I know that in your heart you know the difference between the legal thing to do and the right thing to do, I hope you find the answer you are seeking.:)

[Dan]

Thanks for your thoughts, fellas. This is taking on the type of tone that I am looking for. A good academic discussion.

While speaking with a friend who is highly trained in the use of firearms from his time in the armed forces he brought up something that I hadn't thought of and that is the mindset of the bad guy.

He said that after you take the gun away the bad guy is very likely to come at you because you have something that is his. In other words, he came to take from you and you took from him instead.

I guess this makes making the call that much harder. In that one split second you need to decide if you are going to fire on the person before you even disarm him. It always comes back to "Don't draw unless you plan to fire", doesn't it? I just never thought I would be thinking about a disarm as a draw but I guess that is what learning is about.

Yes, I shoot weak hand. In fact, due to an eye surgery and a lense replacement in my left eye I nearly always shoot right side though I am a lefty. I know how to clear a jam but not quickly. I have read about tactical stuff but haven't taken a course, yet.

I realize that training is without emotion and that the real world befronts us with a myriad of new sensations and emotions. I guess that is why I train, and train and train. If, in one of those situations, I could make my way to thinking clearly enough to act without emotion then I'll at least know what to do. If would be a shame to have clear thought under such high stress and not have a course of action to take which would help to ensure your survival.

I will say one thing about the technique that he taught and that is that, if the bad guy has his finger on the trigger it will be broken badly by the end of the move. I guess that would make it pretty hard to return fire unless that bad guy attacked anyway.

Best,

Dan

[GAMike]

Dan:
Down here in GA The State Senate just approved a bill that would allow a brader spectrum of instances were deadly force can be used as self defense, and where if a life of another is at risk, a person can become involved at the defense of another, without fear of getting sued by the perps family or a bystander who may have got injured.

If this goes through the house as is............ The police will in essense have said to the public "we cannot be everywhere" We need help.

This kind of bill would never fly in MA or CT. In these states, once a perp is disarmed, I would recomend running 1st, firing a warning shot ifescape is not possible, before shooting in self defense (this is if there are witnesses)........If no witnesses, drop the idiot first, then fire the warning shot, and make up a story if needed Sorry to say it like that, but thats the world we live in. Especially down here in Atlanta. With all the drug these ppl could possibly be on, you just can't take a chance. You or the dope. Your choice

Best regards,
GAMike:burnout: :burnout: :burnout: :burnout:

[Dan]

Mike,

Thanks. Yes, you're right. There is no way that that law would pass in New England. It's a pity, really.

One point that many others have said is that it depends on the DA (or the attitude of the state.) I guess that is why one would need to run first. It's sort of tough. The "justice" part of me cannot believe that one should run from someone who is just as likely to go buy another gun and use it on another innocent. On the other hand, there are no options but to take the life as our laws leave the door open for the bad guy to take away any/all things that you want. Finally, who wants to kill?

Best,

Dan

[cyclone03]

Great question Dan.
Thanks to all the LEO's who've responded as well.

I have one question to add...

IF I was to disarm a perp and choose to retreat,and he came after me would that show intent on his part to do me harm?

This could all get very sticky couldn't it.

[SergntMac]

Great question Dan.
Thanks to all the LEO's who've responded as well. I have one question to add...IF I was to disarm a perp and choose to retreat,and he came after me would that show intent on his part to do me harm? This could all get very sticky couldn't it. Yes, Lance...And yes again, it does get sticky as the scale of force increases.

Reduce your question down to a bar fight, no deadly weapons. The perp swings at you and misses, but you swing back and don't. Only he has broken the law of Assault, you defended yourself with a justifiable response. Now restore the original question. Just because you have taken a weapon from the perp, doesn't mean you got them all. If he chases you when you try to escape, a reasonable man would infer that danger is again present, and deadly force is now necessary.

It's a little stickier here in Illinois, where retreat is not necessary. LEO and private citizens under attack do not have to retreat. They are allowed to react with what ever force is necessary to overcome the threat. However, they cannot initiate, i.e. "take the first swing".

A man half your size and standing ten feet away from you who says "I'm going to kick you azz" does not pose a reasonable threat. Equal size or larger and closer, he is a reasonable threat and you do not have to retreat. Though, it may be the smarter thing to do...

[cyclone03]

BTW That Glock site is way cool.Over 56,000 members?


Ops EDITED to 56,000 members

[rayjay]

As I said before, check your state's laws. In NYS you are obligated to retreat unless you are in your home. In the bar fight scenario, unless you can not retreat for some reason, mutual combat, you both get pinched.

[SergntMac]

As I said before, check your state's laws. In NYS you are obligated to retreat unless you are in your home. In the bar fight scenario, unless you can not retreat for some reason, mutual combat, you both get pinched. Which is why (and how) things get sticky...

There's no one solid, good answer here. IMHO, the important thing is to do what you gotta do to get home to your family. Some folks think retreat is being chicken snit, I think it's smart.

[GAMike]

Which is why (and how) things get sticky...

There's no one solid, good answer here. IMHO, the important thing is to do what you gotta do to get home to your family. Some folks think retreat is being chicken snit, I think it's smart.

Me, just me talkin here, I've kicked butt, and had my butt kicked...Never really derived any joy out of either believe it or not.........

My thing about situations like this is, if you let the person off easy, do you really think he is gonna repent, and never approach another with the same intent again??? Or by taking action to immobilize until authorities arrive (or the meat wagon) are you saving someone down the line.

The police may be trained to make that on the spot call, but most of us are not. I think you have to make up your mind in advance, and stick to the code you choose to live your life by.

Me..Not very PC in New England, but I am a "got it but hope I never need it" guy vs. a "need it, and don't got it" guy....... Must be all the Rebels down here is GA rubbing off on me :flamer:

the people I learned from say that if you pull it out you better use it. I guess if you take it away, and the perp is still advancing the same rule applies.

Best regards,

GAMike:burnout: :burnout: :burnout: :burnout:

[Ross]

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The Following Is Merely For Purposes Of Academic Discussion. No Legal Advice Is Expressed Or Implied. No Attorney-Client Relationship Exists Or Is To Be Implied As A Result Of This Communication. Seriously.

As several folks have said above, the essence of self defense is REASONABLENESS. Generally (laws may vary from state to state) a person is justified in using whatever force is necessary, including deadly force, in order to defend himself from attack. The test is usually something like "what would a reasonable man have done under the same circumstances?" In some circumstances where you have disarmed an opponent, a reasonable person may take the gun and retreat. In other circumstances a reasonable person would use the gun on the opponent.
The problem here, and the reason that there is no one answer to this question is this: The question of what is reasonable is ultimately up to the jury. A prosecutor may choose to indict you or not, but if you are indicted, in the end the jury will determine whether you acted reasonably under the circumstances, and therefore whether you are guilty of any crime.
Since this question will be decided differently by different juries, there will never be one answer to this question.
Hence the old adage (quoted by someone above) "It's better to be tried by twelve men than carried by six."
BTW, listen to Alan. Teaching someone how to disarm someone with a gun is just asking for trouble. This is only my humble opinion, but I would prefer to learn from someone with real world experience, who teaches realistic self defense, than from someone who is trying to turn me into Rambo.

[Dan]

Thanks for the feedback. Again, no one is trying to teach anyone how to be rambo. OTOH, it is entirely possible for one to be trained to disarm someone under the correct circumstances.

If someone says to me, "I'm gonna use this gun to kill you and then I am going to kill your wife" AND the guy is within arms reach of me, as in the gun is one inch from my face, then guess what? I really don't have a lot to lose, do I? In fact, I'll probably go for the gun and break the guys fingers in the disarm or die trying. BTW- I am also being taught to put my hands up in surrender (a very natural thing to do) and use that as a starting point of my defense.

If someone who is 10 feet away has the drop on me and all he wants me to do is to toss my wallet I plan on tossing my wallet. Maybe I'll toss it off to his side and look for a quick exit but I won't try any tricks at that point except maybe to retreat/conceal and hope that I am also carrying that day.

This is the reason why I want this topic to stay on topic, that being the academics of gun defense. There are way too many variables to tell anyone to not try a disarm. Each situation is different and is open to endless debate.

That much debate gives me a headache. Let's stick to this topic for now. :)

Best,

Dan

[bradical]

This is a very simple question in Florida now that the "Castle Doctrine" has been signed into law (about one year ago.) Basically, this law provides the following:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

So in Florida it is very clear that if someone draws a weapon on you, you have the right to meet force with force.

Imagine what would happen to the crime rates if every state passed laws like this?

[hdirish50]

After reading this thread, I only have one question, Why would you want to charge after someone with a gun? I have seen the technique that you are talking about and in the classroom setting it works great. However, you have to remember that if someone is pointing a gun at you, their mind set it to shoot. Also, if you run towards a person with a gun, they are defiantly going to shoot. In addition, your adrenalin is going to be racing and if you do not practice this technique, on a daily bases, you are going to get it wrong when the poop hits the fan. The best thing to do is to take cover and be the best witness you can.

[Dan]

After reading this thread, I only have one question, Why would you want to charge after someone with a gun? I have seen the technique that you are talking about and in the classroom setting it works great. However, you have to remember that if someone is pointing a gun at you, their mind set it to shoot. Also, if you run towards a person with a gun, they are defiantly going to shoot. In addition, your adrenalin is going to be racing and if you do not practice this technique, on a daily bases, you are going to get it wrong when the poop hits the fan. The best thing to do is to take cover and be the best witness you can.

I do not know who you are asking this questoin of but in the scenario I was training in the assailant had the gun in my face and I put my hands up in an "I surrender" position but at shoulder level.

I do not expect that anyone with real firearm training would open themselves up to gun defense so readily. I do expect that the average thug probably has a stolen gun, no gun training and probably no gun defense awareness as well.

I do have one question. Is it a fact that if someone is pointing a gun at you their mindset is to shoot? I know that a trained person has that thinking but does an untrained person? My thinking is that the average thugs mindset is to threaten. It seems to me that, unless they have killed before, they see the gun as more a tool for getting leverage as opposed to for killing.

Best,

Dan

[rayjay]

I do not know who you are asking this questoin of but in the scenario I was training in the assailant had the gun in my face and I put my hands up in an "I surrender" position but at shoulder level.

I do not expect that anyone with real firearm training would open themselves up to gun defense so readily. I do expect that the average thug probably has a stolen gun, no gun training and probably no gun defense awareness as well.

I do have one question. Is it a fact that if someone is pointing a gun at you their mindset is to shoot? I know that a trained person has that thinking but does an untrained person? My thinking is that the average thugs mindset is to threaten. It seems to me that, unless they have killed before, they see the gun as more a tool for getting leverage as opposed to for killing.
Best,

Dan

Dan, don't count on the average thug even having a mind, no less the ability to use it.

[rayjay]

This is a very simple question in Florida now that the "Castle Doctrine" has been signed into law (about one year ago.) Basically, this law provides the following:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

So in Florida it is very clear that if someone draws a weapon on you, you have the right to meet force with force.

Imagine what would happen to the crime rates if every state passed laws like this?

NYS has had the "king of the castle law" for many years. The duty to retreat is still in effect here outside your "castle". I heard FL had sprouted some gonads against crime with a new law. I may consider moving there when I pull the plug.

[Dan]

Dan, don't count on the average thug even having a mind, no less the ability to use it.

If he isn't thinking then he isn't thinking through.

That means that he is a loose cannon. In my opinion anyone with a gun on you is a loose cannon however, I would press a guy who is keeping his distance far less than a guy dumb enough to get into my face with his piece.

I think it helps to know the signs of an inexperience pistoler as opposed to someone with tactical behind them.

In the end, I don't know what I will do. Between now and then, I train daily, just like has been recommended.

Best,

Dan

[TRP460]

I do not expect that anyone with real firearm training would open themselves up to gun defense so readily. I do expect that the average thug probably has a stolen gun, no gun training and probably no gun defense awareness as well.


Dan, please do not underestimate the abilities of the "average thug". More than likely, that person has been "educated" in any one of our state/federal penitentiary systems, and inmates can learn anything about everything once in prison.

As a matter of fact, inmates can get the same exact type of training that you're currently engaged with, and being instructed by other inmates with military/special forces/ LEO experience. About 15 years ago, I personally observed DOC inmates practicing "disarming techniques" on LEO traffic stop scenarios, and they practiced these "moves" for hours at a time.

My brother is a guard at our state penitentiary and he tells me that inmates still practice similar techniques, along with close-quarter combat and martial arts instruction and training.

Recalling what "usafsniper" wrote in post #26 of this thread that "disarming techniques take MUCH time to perfect, roughly 1000 repetitions to make it muscle memory", you have to understand that these DOC inmates have nothing BUT time to "hone" these newly acquired skills for use if or when they ever rejoin society...............scary thought, huh?

[rayjay]

Two last things, then I'm done. IF you know you're going to die if you don't do something: (1) autoloader, push the slide out of battery and try to keep it there (2) revolver, grab the cylinder so it can not turn or put a piece of your hand between the hammer and the frame. A NYPD sgt used the cylinder grab last week to stop a person from firing more rounds.

[Dan]

I practiced against knife lunges tonight using a rubber knife for at least a half hour. I "got killed," "fatally wounded," and "seriously wounded" numerous times and at no time did I get close enough to disarm the "perp."

The attacker was doing nothing but lunges. Had he decided to mix it up I would have been worse.

After a while I started to throw some kicks in but even then I wound up getting a few "slices" in the leg. Again, nothing I did was strong enough to disarm the "perp."

Then I took turns as the "perp" against my practice partner and within 5 minutes of sparring was able to "plunge" the knife FULLY into the solar plexus area of his chest. Yes, he had both hands in a scissor on my wrist but the fake knife was to the hilt in his chest. A fatal wound.

We have been told time and time again to always try to run from a knife fight. Tonight I learned that lesson well. Had I nowhere to run I would have looked for for something bigger than the knife to use against him.

Now, this thread is about gun defense, not knife defense. I am simply bringing this up to keep all of you abreast of my awakenings, instruction and education. It's been nearly 3 weeks since I started this thread.

As I learn more about this I am really learning that there is a lot more bravery in running that fighting. In a gun situation I would take the advice of RayJay. I would probably look to "live through it" if the perp was not threatening me with my life. Nothing in my wallet or on my body is worth a bullet in or through my body. If I were threatened with the threat that I was going to die no matter what I think that I would probably try to go down fighting.

I have found nearly every post in this thread insghtful and interesting. I wish to thank the particpants. Please, let's keep it going. I'm learning a lot.

Best,

Dan