Potential scenario the other night

[DaveM55]

Here's some interesting reading.

http://martialarts.jameshom.com/libr.../aa021201a.htm

http://www.usadojo.com/articles/civi...-continuum.htm

[Dredly]

Originally Posted by headcase

*blue is mine

This stuff is pretty simple when you only stop and think about it.

by "hitting on" I meant verbally asking her out, complementing her buttocks, pickup lines... etc. Not beating her with a fist.

Its not really cut and dry or even obvious. I mean telling someone I'm going to shoot if you don't stop could land me in jail but they really should have 0 reason to listen to me, especially if I'm in a public place, there is no "personal space" law as far as I know.

a big drunk guy telling you he is looking for a fight and making unwanted advances towards your girl with his 2 buddies nearby watching and looking like they want to rumble is a good reason to bolt but if you are unable to do so because of where they are when is it okay to ensure they know where you stand without being the "agressor" and going off to jail?

I know the "10 foot rule" but in most small stores 10' is 1/2 the store...

[sgser]

The stated reason in the “Reason to Carry” box of my LTCF is “PROTECTION.”

I have a hard time accepting that I must not make it known that I am armed, if threatened, and will use my firearm, weapon, gun or whatever; to protect myself or a loved one or those for whom I am responsible.

When I have apologized, said I am sorry, I’m really sorry, and on and on and on while retreating and the situation is still not defused and I cannot retreat farther, I figure I will no choice but to go into an assertive posture.

IANAP but feel that it would be perfectly within my legal prerogative to advise whoever is accosting me that I am armed, saying words to the effect of:

I am ARMED and will PROTECT myself (others).

At this point my hand will be on the butt of what I am carrying.

Now Leave Me Alone!

I WARN YOU, I AM ARMED and I WILL PROTECT MYSELF.

STOP!

If that ends it, fine. If not, I see no reason not to go to the Ready. Not pointing or threatening, just at the ready.

Whatever the person perceives beyond what I have said is their problem. I am not trying to intimidate or threaten anyone, I am only advising. My only intention, if it becomes necessary, is to use my gun for the purpose for which the LTCF was issued, that being: PROTECTION. If by simply presenting it and the incident is ended, it will have served its purpose. Anything beyond that will be dictated by the circumstances.

One other thing, whatever the potential, I don’t view my gun as a deadly weapon when it is in my holster, nor when my hand is on the butt. In my opinion, it still has not become a deadly weapon when it remains cocked and locked and my finger is off the trigger and is NOT being pointed at anyone. But, as I indicated above, IANAP.

By the way, I am in the same boat as Frenchy, and I can’t give too much latitude.

ETA I just read GumLawyer's post #81 in the Concealed and Open Carry "I almost had to draw@Walmart thread. GunLawyer doesn't seem to disagree with some of my contentions. I wonder how he views my deadly weapon opinions.

[BerksCountyDave]

The possibility of a situation like this arising is one of the main reasons I've started to OC more often than not. IMHO, a drunk hooligan and his dumbass buddies are a LOT less likely to want to hit on a man's girl and act intimidating and possibly start an altercation if the man in question has a gun strapped on his hip. People may get stupid when they've been drinking, but they still recognize a gun when they see one.

[sinful]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Damn...

Same here. 8(

Well put headcase.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Dredly

by "hitting on" I meant verbally asking her out, complementing her buttocks, pickup lines... etc. Not beating her with a fist.

Its not really cut and dry or even obvious. I mean telling someone I'm going to shoot if you don't stop could land me in jail but they really should have 0 reason to listen to me, especially if I'm in a public place, there is no "personal space" law as far as I know.

a big drunk guy telling you he is looking for a fight and making unwanted advances towards your girl with his 2 buddies nearby watching and looking like they want to rumble is a good reason to bolt but if you are unable to do so because of where they are when is it okay to ensure they know where you stand without being the "agressor" and going off to jail?

I know the "10 foot rule" but in most small stores 10' is 1/2 the store...

Dredly, bro, ...... First of all, you jumping in to something that is none of your business, where there is no threat of violence, just some asswipe hitting on someone else's girlfriend- with a gun, is, and I'm sorry if you take this the wrong way, idiotic. If it is your girlfriend, you fight them, or you ignore them, or you leave. If they make it physical, and you have no escape route, I would imagine you would be well within your rights to tell them, in no uncertain terms, that you are armed and you are leaving. How it plays out after that is up to them. If you guys don't know when a situation is escalating dramaticly enough that you don't want or need to be there any longer, no amount of advice is going to help you out.

Originally Posted by sgser

The stated reason in the “Reason to Carry” box of my LTCF is “PROTECTION.”

I have a hard time accepting that I must not make it known that I am armed, if threatened, and will use my firearm, weapon, gun or whatever; to protect myself or a loved one or those for whom I am responsible.

When I have apologized, said I am sorry, I’m really sorry, and on and on and on while retreating and the situation is still not defused and I cannot retreat farther, I figure I will no choice but to go into an assertive posture.

IANAP but feel that it would be perfectly within my legal prerogative to advise whoever is accosting me that I am armed, saying words to the effect of:

I am ARMED and will PROTECT myself (others).

At this point my hand will be on the butt of what I am carrying.

Now Leave Me Alone!

I WARN YOU, I AM ARMED and I WILL PROTECT MYSELF.

STOP!

If that ends it, fine. If not, I see no reason not to go to the Ready. Not pointing or threatening, just at the ready.

Whatever the person perceives beyond what I have said is their problem. I am not trying to intimidate or threaten anyone, I am only advising. My only intention, if it becomes necessary, is to use my gun for the purpose for which the LTCF was issued, that being: PROTECTION. If by simply presenting it and the incident is ended, it will have served its purpose. Anything beyond that will be dictated by the circumstances.

One other thing, whatever the potential, I don’t view my gun as a deadly weapon when it is in my holster, nor when my hand is on the butt. In my opinion, it still has not become a deadly weapon when it remains cocked and locked and my finger is off the trigger and is NOT being pointed at anyone. But, as I indicated above, IANAP.

By the way, I am in the same boat as Frenchy, and I can’t give too much latitude.

ETA I just read GumLawyer's post #81 in the Concealed and Open Carry "I almost had to draw@Walmart thread. GunLawyer doesn't seem to disagree with some of my contentions. I wonder how he views my deadly weapon opinions.

*bold is mine at the start

sgser, who said you couldn't? Why would you not defend yourself from attack? That is not what I, or anyone else that I saw, said. The point of all this is that firearm carriers need to understand that this is not a video game. This is not a TV show. You can't go around whipping out your weapon when ever someone confronts you for the slightest reason. They have to put you in a mental state where you believe you have run out of other options and need to defend your LIFE or the LIVES of others. Not your pride, not your dignity, your physical well being. You must try to retreat. While retreating, you should be throwing out warnings, and then and if, all else fails, you employ your weapon and hope 12 of your peers think you did right. I am really not understanding what is so hard for some people to grasp about this concept.

In your example, I think you would be well within your right to do as you postulate.

[sgser]

Hey headcase, I think you read something into my post that was not intended

sgser, who said you couldn't?

What I said was that the stated reason for the LCTF was for protection. I addressed a situation where a threat would be perceived.
T
hat is not what I, or anyone else that I saw, said.

No one said you did

Why would you not defend yourself from attack?

I said nothing about being attacked. I do not question my right to defend against an attack. But elsewhere you did address being attacked, you said, ‘

It should be obvious that if the aggressor is unarmed, you may only meet his aggression with like force. You can certainly use non lethal methods of meeting his aggression, but shooting someone for punching you in the face, or threatening to "beat your ass"’

What are you talking about, disparity of force? Here is a place where it might be appropriate to address TV where people react to brutal beatings with a shake of the head and continue to fight back. Talk to a doctor about the orbital bones around the eye being smashed, how about the mandibular joints and the possibility of a concussion or worse, a subdural hematoma, which could be fatal for some. Are you saying that I can’t use my firearm for PROTECTION, the reason for which it was issued if someone threatens to “beat my ass” whatever that is supposed to mean?

The point of all this is that firearm carriers need to understand that this is not a video game. This is not a TV show.

I see no reason for this remark,

You can't go around whipping out your weapon when ever someone confronts you for the slightest reason.

And it was never suggested that I could or would. How it would be utilized was outlined sequentially in my post.

They have to put you in a mental state where you believe you have run out of other options and need to defend your LIFE or the LIVES of others. Not your pride, not your dignity, your physical well being.

Tell me then; when someone, or more, comes up to you and asks for your cell phone or your wallet or whatever, would a rational person not perceive an implied threat? You have no way of knowing where a situation like this will go, or do you?

You must try to retreat. While retreating, you should be throwing out warnings, and then and if, all else fails, you employ your weapon.

Wasn’t that what was described?

and hope 12 of your peers think you did right.

The situation I was addressing did not involve the endlessly surfacing 12 jurors but rather the Prosecutor who reviews the circumstances (IANAP)

I am really not understanding what is so hard for some people to grasp about this concept.

I can’t help that. You missed the point, that being that the gun is for PROTECTION. I said: My only intention, if it becomes necessary, is to use my gun for the purpose for which the LTCF was issued, that being: PROTECTION. If by simply presenting it and the incident is ended, it will have served its purpose.

Get some non lethal personal protection devices. A taser. Some pepper spray. A telescoping metal rod.

Are these devices 100% effective? Against how many?

Buy a German shepard.

Unless you have it trained professionally as an attack dog it might just end up being something else you have to protect. And, if it does attack someone you might be facing those 12 people you talk about.

Take some training in self defense. A firearm is a weapon of last resort.

And if it is the only viable option???

[headcase]

sgser,
Dude, go back and read my post again. This time, look at the bolded part of your quoted words. That was what I addressed in the first three sentences. How you could possibly think that I would say the rest of the things in my post, in reply to the rest of your post, baffles me. When I said, "the point of all this...", I was through addressing your post. I very clearly stated that I felt you were well within your rights to do as you postulated in your post. You seem to get it. A great many others seem to not get it, as evidenced by the recent rise in posts asking things along the lines of,"hey, if a guy slaps my girlfriend, I can shoot him right??".

I have already more than explained myself in this thread. If anyone can't understand the basic rules of employing your firearm by now, well, shoot the next guy who punches you, flirts with your girl in front of you, or who is just an asshole that is causing you discomfort and see if the prison will let you have internet access so you can come back and report on it.

[NY Refugee]

To many great responses to this thread to add much, but I too am concerned with the "can I shoot'm" question.
In my not so humble opinion the question should be, " what can I do/could have done differnently to deesculate the situation so it does not end up in some one getting shot"

[sgser]

Originally Posted by headcase

sgser,
Dude, go back and read my post again. This time, look at the bolded part of your quoted words. That was what I addressed in the first three sentences. How you could possibly think that I would say the rest of the things in my post, in reply to the rest of your post, baffles me. When I said, "the point of all this...", I was through addressing your post. I very clearly stated that I felt you were well within your rights to do as you postulated in your post. You seem to get it. A great many others seem to not get it, as evidenced by the recent rise in posts asking things along the lines of,"hey, if a guy slaps my girlfriend, I can shoot him right??".

I have already more than explained myself in this thread. If anyone can't understand the basic rules of employing your firearm by now, well, shoot the next guy who punches you, flirts with your girl in front of you, or who is just an asshole that is causing you discomfort and see if the prison will let you have internet access so you can come back and report on it.

Headcase, I re-read what you bolded, as you suggested, and I hope I can explain the reason I responded to it as I did.

As I understand bolded text it is to emphasize a part of text, not necessarily to isolate that text from other parts of a presentation. If the remainder of what I posted did not apply to what I wrote you could have made that perfectly clear in something like, for example

“sgser, who said you couldn't? Why would you not defend yourself from attack? That is not what I, or anyone else that I saw, said.”

Had you positioned your last sentence next, “In your example, I think you would be well within your right to do as you postulate.” followed by something like

The point of all this is while I agree with the rest of your post, others . . .

The inclusion of the word “others” would have clearly left what I wrote in my post and went on to, well, that of others.

And then, as indicated above, you closed with:

“In your example, I think you would be well within your right to do as you postulate.”

In effect you “bookended” my post with your remarks, further suggesting that what I wrote was included between what you bolded and your last sentence.

I hope this serves to undo your being baffled.