The Down Range Forum
Flying Dragon Productions ( Michael Bane ) => The Best Defense on My Outdoor TV => Topic started by: Majer on December 28, 2011, 03:13:47 PM
-
In the flash mob thread it was stated that during a Flash Mob fight in a large mall none of the actors had weapons on them.If caught in a situation like this what would you use to protect yourself and family if your firearm is overkill?
-
If it's a matter of protecting self and family a firearm is never overkill.
-
Tom, if no weapon is displayed then how would you justify using deadly force? This is just a "what if " type of discussion.In most places if you shot someone trying to get you or your family out of a large brawl you would be charged with murder
-
Posted in the Flash mob thread :
There is legal precedent that numbers alone constitute a potentially lethal threat.
Being beaten to death with out a weapon is a fairly common cause of death in murder cases, far more common than death by gunshot.
If I am in fear for my life or the lives of others lethal force is the only reasonable resort.
Half measures will only increase the risk of injury to myself and others by prolonging the incident.
-
If it's a matter of protecting self and family a firearm is never overkill.
I couldn't agree more. I am never unarmed. Even when I travel. I leave my carry piece at home when I fly, but I always have a Surefire with me. Though I'm surprised that the TSA hasn't banned that yet. Since it does have the serrated bezel for use as an impact weapon.
-
Even if I do not have a gun on me what ever I grab to defend myself with will be used with the intent of inflicting the maximum possible damage with the intent of either killing or crippling my attacker.
If you do not act with that mind set then you might as well not act at all because you will not be effective, you will merely piss off your attacker and cause the BG to take special pains in hurting you.
-
Tom,I agree with your statement about inflicting the maximum amount of damage.However, in the eyes of the law there is a difference in using a weapon of convenience and carrying only a firearm(at least in my state) ,The old saying about" if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem starts looking like nails" applies. There is a thing called escalation of force and it applies with CCW in my state.I just think that we should look at other options available to us as it may save someone a lot of grief later on.
-
I will use the tools at hand - that usually means a weapon - if I feel that my life/welfare is threatened. Disparity of force is enough for me to honestly fear for my life. There is no such thing as a simple beating when a crowd/mob is involved. You have to live through the encounter to even being to worry about charges.
Although, under certain situations I can see going to the knife first. Cut a couple of the clowns across the forehead and there will be enough blood to freak-out the less committed mob members. I consider that non-lethal force.
No gun? No Knife? Get creative. Every situation is different.
-
Tom,I agree with your statement about inflicting the maximum amount of damage.However, in the eyes of the law there is a difference in using a weapon of convenience and carrying only a firearm(at least in my state) ,The old saying about" if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem starts looking like nails" applies. There is a thing called escalation of force and it applies with CCW in my state.I just think that we should look at other options available to us as it may save someone a lot of grief later on.
That's absolutely stupid.
If you are in fear of injury or death, a gun is the most efficient, effective, and practical solution.
If you are not in fear of injury or death then you have no excuse for initiating violence and will be in the wrong even if you slap the other person.
-
It may be stupid,BUT if it's the law you have to live within it. I think that it's stupid that my NY State CCW is not valid in nycity,but theirs are valid upstate,However It's the law and I deal with it by not going into the city...Ever.The chance of it getting changed is about the same as You voting for obama in the next election.There are circumstance where less than lethal force is better than deadly force and it wouldn't be a bad thing to have that option.
-
Stupid is when you need a state issued FID (firearms ID) to buy or carry pepper spray! That's the law here!
To the OP, I'm looking at carrying a shillelagh. Been looking around for a nice original and use it for a walking stick.
Other than that, I carry a knife and a flashlight as well as a handgun. I don't know that what happened in MN was a flash mob or just a bunch of unruly peckerwoods looking for trouble. Either way, I avoid really busy places anyway.
To Toms point, if someone assaults me or my family, someone will either die or end up in the ICU. I won't give them a second chance.
-
The reports on this mass disturbance was that over 200 people were involved. It started in the main food court and spread throughout the mall. I may have a different view than some or many but I will state it just the same:
Rule number one is "stop the threat." If I am in a confined space, such as a food court, and a hundred people start fighting, I am going to respond by gathering those I'm with and trying to get out. However, if my exit routes are blocked or any threat comes our way I will respond in a manor to stop the threat.
None of us are currently in a threat situation, so none of us can say for sure how we would react or what force we would use. But, like any threat situation I will not sacrifice my safety out of fear of lawsuit or legal action. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six!"
-
To Toms point, if someone assaults me or my family, someone will either die or end up in the ICU. I won't give them a second chance.
I agree, I look at every physical confrontation as potentially life threatening. If you didn't want to do me harm you would not be threatening me. I also do not believe in proportional response. If you come after me with fists, I'm coming after you with a howitzer. It's about surviving, and you don't survive very long by playing nice with people looking to hurt you.
-
The reports on this mass disturbance was that over 200 people were involved. It started in the main food court and spread throughout the mall. I may have a different view than some or many but I will state it just the same:
m58...did it have any coordination? Was there anything to determine if they were all connected? My sister was there a few days earlier and would have had no chance what so ever to defend herself. She hates going but her daughter wanted to get some last minute shopping done.
For anyone who's not aware of the enormity of that place, they say that if you stayed for 5 minutes in each store, it would take you nearly four days to visit every one!
-
This morning it was reported that "social media" was involved. As fast as it spread through the mall, and this place is massive for those that have not been there, it had to have been planned in advance. I'm waiting to hear if the attackers and victims were rivals or if the victims were random.
-
We heard that there was a hip hop artist scheduled to perform who decided not to show for the gig and things got out of hand. Again, its' the NBC nightly news so it's anyones guess as to what actually occurred.
I worry about my big sis sometimes. She's not one of the sheeple but she's 66 and lives alone. Her kids keep a close eye on her though.
-
It may be stupid,BUT if it's the law you have to live within it. I think that it's stupid that my NY State CCW is not valid in nycity,but theirs are valid upstate,However It's the law and I deal with it by not going into the city...Ever.The chance of it getting changed is about the same as You voting for obama in the next election.There are circumstance where less than lethal force is better than deadly force and it wouldn't be a bad thing to have that option.
You are either in danger , in which case lethal force is the only sane option , or you are not, in which case no violence is called for.
There is no middle ground.
-
Things aren't always black and white Tom.If I can use a non lethal weapon to get away from a threat then I will do that.If I HAVE to shoot someone to protect myself or a loved one then I am willing and able to do that.
-
We heard that there was a hip hop artist scheduled to perform who decided not to show for the gig and things got out of hand. Again, its' the NBC nightly news so it's anyones guess as to what actually occurred.
I worry about my big sis sometimes. She's not one of the sheeple but she's 66 and lives alone. Her kids keep a close eye on her though.
That was in the initial reports but was dismissed as the actual cause. The reason given was that it appeared far to coordinated. I'm waiting to see what comes out of who the victims were.
Overall it has gotten very quiet which typically means that they are trying to track down someone (or group) without tipping them off. That and the short attention span of our Twin Cities media. We had a three year old killed by a stray bullet in another part of town, and now all attention is on that.
-
Things aren't always black and white Tom.If I can use a non lethal weapon to get away from a threat then I will do that.If I HAVE to shoot someone to protect myself or a loved one then I am willing and able to do that.
What you mean is you will try to use non lethal force and hope it works and you can get away.
It fails and you are on the ground getting your kidneys kicked to mush, you last thoughts before passing out might be...Gee, I should have used my gun.
-
No, having been sprayed with pepper spray while getting certified,I know what it is capable of,I also won't be standing there waiting to see if it worked,I'll be moving away from the threat and accessing (have my hand on ready to draw) my hand gun. I will also be calling the Police asap to report the assault in which I had to defend myself with the pepper spray. Now it may not go as smoothly as that (Murphy was an optimist) But if I don't HAVE to kill /shoot someone all the better for me.
-
Things aren't always black and white Tom.If I can use a non lethal weapon to get away from a threat then I will do that.If I HAVE to shoot someone to protect myself or a loved one then I am willing and able to do that.
When we start using force of any type to stop the threat it must be black and white. At the time you act, your actions must be black and white in your mind based on your education, practice and situational awareness. Any gray area will put your butt in a sling faster than you squeezed the trigger in the first place.
This need for black and white is the exact reason that you wait for the adrenaline rush to subside before you say anything more than "Lawyer - no search!" I don't care if you slapped with an open hand, punched with a closed fist, punched with reinforcement in your fist, threw a chair, deployed pepper spray, flashed light in their eyes, drew a knife or used a firearm. Any resistance puts us into the situation of answering to law enforcement, and "lawyer - no search!" is the answer of choice.
-
Things aren't always black and white Tom.If I can use a non lethal weapon to get away from a threat then I will do that.If I HAVE to shoot someone to protect myself or a loved one then I am willing and able to do that.
When it comes to applied violence it is indeed "black and white". You are either in danger and justified to use lethal force, or you are not in danger therefore all violence is unjustified.
If you can not accept that then you should not carry any weapon since your indecision makes you more of a danger to those who depend on you than any potential threat.
They think you can use a gun well on a range, and you have one with you so they are safe.
They are wrong, if you do not have the mindset to go all the way you might as well be carrying a bunch of posey's for all the good you will do.
-
Tom,my mindset is fine,I made the decision many years ago that I will always come home to my family.I feel that having other options available makes that a higher possibility of occurring.
-
Less than lethal options are a mistake that robs you of reaction time that could have been used effectively if you went straight to lethal means.
-
Tom,That's your opinion and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree,What works for one person might not be the best course of action for another.
Now,lets get back to the reason for this thread,I was just wondering what(less than lethal) if anything others on this board may carry with them and why.
-
Tom,That's your opinion and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree,What works for one person might not be the best course of action for another.
Now,lets get back to the reason for this thread,I was just wondering what(less than lethal) if anything others on this board may carry with them and why.
A 6 shot .32 instead of an 8 shot .45 because winter clothing dictates pocket carry for practical access and a 1911 will not fit in my pocket.
-
I can't speak from experience, because I've never been attacked or even threatened, but some of the statements made in this thread just don't seem right to me.
Time, distance, and money have prevented me from attending any of the reputable training schools but, like most of you, I have taken the opportunity to learn as much as possible from watching and listening to Bane, Ayoob, Wilson, Head, Janich, and many others. I must admit that I have NEVER heard any of them say that a non-lethal response is a waste of time. I have NEVER heard any of them say that if you're attacked with fists then respond with a Howitzer. I have NEVER heard any of them say that when you're attacked then your stated intent is to kill.
Far be it from me to judge another's reactions... for you may have indeed caught the glare of an attacker's eye... but some of the opinions given in this thread are counter to all that I've learned and would be legally indefensible in many jurisdictions.
-
I can't speak from experience, because I've never been attacked or even threatened, but some of the statements made in this thread just don't seem right to me.
Time, distance, and money have prevented me from attending any of the reputable training schools but, like most of you, I have taken the opportunity to learn as much as possible from watching and listening to Bane, Ayoob, Wilson, Head, Janich, and many others. I must admit that I have NEVER heard any of them say that a non-lethal response is a waste of time. I have NEVER heard any of them say that if you're attacked with fists then respond with a Howitzer. I have NEVER heard any of them say that when you're attacked then your stated intent is to kill.
Far be it from me to judge another's reactions... for you may have indeed caught the glare of an attacker's eye... but some of the opinions given in this thread are counter to all that I've learned and would be legally indefensible in many jurisdictions.
My opinions are based on living in bad neighborhoods and knowing people who were robbers and killers.
Everything I have said is based on a conservative interpretation of NH lethal force laws, and nothing I have posted contradicts anything any of those mentioned have said or taught.
Apparently you missed the part when all of them have said that "The purpose of a pistol is to let you get to a rifle".
I have repeated it over and over in this thread but physical danger is like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't.
If you are the safest , (legally as well as physically ) course is to end the threat as immediately as possible.
If you are not in danger you will go to jail if you so much as shove the other person.
-
Apparently you missed the part when all of them have said that "The purpose of a pistol is to let you get to a rifle".
No, I didn't miss that part... and once the decision is made to "go for the gun" I agree that decisive and overwhelming force is both necessary and justified to stop the attack. Much has been written about the force continuum. I don't want to speak for the OP, but I think that this discussion was meant to focus on tools and techniques that can be deployed prior to lethal force being justified. While it is true that one can not be "just a little pregnant", I have a hard time applying this same logic to threat levels. I can be in danger but the threat level represented by that danger may not justify my application of deadly force in response. Things may escalate VERY quickly, and I must be able to adjust my response to a dynamic situation. When deadly force becomes justified, then by all means, go for the gun and end the attack.
-
No, I didn't miss that part... and once the decision is made to "go for the gun" I agree that decisive and overwhelming force is both necessary and justified to stop the attack. .Much has been written about the force continuum I don't want to speak for the OP, but I think that this discussion was meant to focus on tools and techniques that can be deployed prior to lethal force being justified. While it is true that one can not be "just a little pregnant", I have a hard time applying this same logic to threat levels. I can be in danger but the threat level represented by that danger may not justify my application of deadly force in response. Things may escalate VERY quickly, and I must be able to adjust my response to a dynamic situation. When deadly force becomes justified, then by all means, go for the gun and end the attack.
I think this is where LEO influence crosses the line into the civilian sector. As civilians we have no escalation of force requirement like most law enforcement agencies. In fact trying to duplicate their tactics can get you killed or in some serious legal trouble. As a civilian we need to do our best to get out of dangerous situations.
The only time I would ever engage a bad actor is if there is imminent danger of grevious bodily harm or death to myself or my loved ones and then my primary goal is to stop (not kill) the attack. One fatal shot to the thorasic region won't neccesarily stop the threat from hurting or killing me, Massa Ayoob has said if he ever is fatally injured his last effort will be to take the SOB with him, much like the Miami shoot out perps Matix and Platt on the other side.
Other than that if I am carrying my primary responsibility is to de-escalate and the only time I would go hands on is if they are too close to draw the weapon. There are times when less leathal is appropriate when I can't carry a gun though, I like impact weapons and lights or lights that can be used as impact weapons.
-
The person who replies to physical danger with POTENTIALLY, (no magic bullets) lethal force, in other words a gun, is aiming to end the threat as rapidly as possible.
The person who resorts to "less than Lethal means" simply seeks to inflicted extended pain and suffering on an individual as punishment for making poor life choices. It indicates a very disturbed and poorly adjusted personality.
Pepper spray ? You want to employ "chemical weaponry ?
Isn't that why they hung Saddam ?