View Full Version : He shot an unarmed man!

12-17-2003, 06:48 AM
What if one is walking down a street and say two of the three BGs take you down with a fast high low tackle and start kicking you while you are down.

But you manage to roll out of it get up and draw your pistol, But now one of the guys thinks he can take you as in action beats reaction. So you are faced with fighting with your hands against almost impossible odds or shooting an unarmed man.

And the other thugs have your escape route blocked and they are already movin' in on ya.

Randy Harris
12-17-2003, 07:08 AM
Knowing before hand that I will argue disparity of force, using the video from the Tennessee Carry Permit class- it covers this concept(along with alot of magazine articles and books) as my reason for fearing grave bodily injury or death from assault from superior numbers even if they are unarmed, the brave guy gets shot to the ground as do the others unless they are across the street by the time their buddy hits the ground. This is one of the contingencies you need to have a plan for in advance. If A happens, then B is my immediate response. If they overpower me, then they will be in control of my gun( guns) and that cannot be allowed. They should've rethought their activity list for the day, because unless I'm incapacitated in the initial scuffle,at least one of them gets shot.(This is of course assuming that he does attempt to rush me and that there is no means of escape-deescalation is ALWAYS the best option, but in this scenario as it has played out, I fear gunfire is the solution) CRUEL HAND LUKE

12-17-2003, 07:50 AM
As was made frightfully clear to the public when hockey dad Thomas Junta beat Michael Costin to death in the span of only a few minutes, a large person can inflict grave bodily injury with only their bare hands.

Recognition of Disparity of force is also a part of my defensive strategy as an average sized CCW holder who does not possess the size, strength and skill to fend off multiple attackers empty handed.

12-17-2003, 08:51 AM
One aspect of Disparity of Force that must be remembered is when to stop where there is more than one attacker. In the heat of the moment, one's impulse may well be to shoot all of the unarmed attackers. However, once any of the attackers does anything to indicate that they have broken off the fight, any claim of self defense against that individual ceases to apply. To say that other BG/s must retreat "across the street" to avoid being shot is, I believe, incorrect. If a BG moves back a few steps and makes a credible verbalization or gesture indicating he wants out of the fight, one's right of self defense is over as to that individual.

This scenario and others like it present very difficult sets of facts for the armed citizen. Imagine how it would play out in court if a witness testified that you shot an unarmed BG who was backing away from the fight. Even if there aren't any witnesses, one could easily imagine what the surviving BG/s would say. There just don't seem to be any good answers. I think that in an instance involving three unarmed thugs, the forensic evidence could most likely be the deciding factor, and it would have to be consistent with very close proximity of the dead or wounded attacker to the armed citizen for the armed citizen to legally prevail.

Randy Harris
12-17-2003, 09:00 AM
Oh yeah, and a copy of an Ayoob lecture video a friend liberated from the local PD also would be part of why I feared for my life! Not sure which video it is, as it is a copy, but it was extemely informative.Would seriously like to take the class! CRUEL HAND LUKE

Randy Harris
12-17-2003, 09:17 AM
I used the "across the street" comment as to paint the picture that they would PROBABLY beat feet for the exits, not that I would shoot them unless they were literally across the street.I got the idea from the scenario that they were"blocking escape", and moving in(showing intent to do harm).I doubt that they would hang around long after #1 gets shot, but if they do and continue to "move in" then you can only assume it is NOT to congratulate you on some fine shooting! I THOROUGHLY understand that there is a point you have to break off your violent reaction.I would expect most here would know that. I would not expect a discussion here to spiral down into something like you would see on "armed redneck psycho forum.com" or something like that where" I'm gonna shoot them sumbitches then drive over em with maah car!!". Of course if they verbalize compliance, or back away they don't get shot, but if they continue to" move in" I assume they know what they are doing and think they can take the gun away. Sorry for any misunderstanding on my previous post. CRUEL HAND LUKE

Randy Harris
12-17-2003, 10:16 AM
Not my intention to completely take over this thread, but I keep forgetting stuff. This is EXACTLY the situation where the Harries flashlight technique, but using your folding knife in the flashlight position would come into play. I have a theory that most folks have never been shot. I haven't. no one I'm close to has. But almost EVERYOONE has been cut at some point.Where am I going with this?? Well, from what folks see on TV and movies they don't FEAR a gunshot the same as they do being cut.On TV the hero gets shot and still limps along to complete his mission.Folks don't have a true frame of refernce to judge the risk they run from a gunshot.On the other hand People have been cut(intentionally and accidentally) for thousands of years.They KNOW what kind of injury they can suffer from a sharp blade. Guns, in the grand scheme of things, are pretty new. That's why I theorize that here the knife might deescalate the situation quicker than the gun as we as a species have a long history of fearing being cut.If BG #1 KNOWS he'll get cut badly then he may think twice about trying to grab your gun.Just my theory. CRUEL HAND LUKE

12-17-2003, 10:20 AM
Cruel Hand Luke,

I didn't mean to imply that you really would shoot them from across the street. I only intended to use that as an example of what wouldn't work in court. Sorry, no offense intended. I believe that this Forum is populated by intelligent, level headed, right thinking folks. It is easily the best of its kind on the Web. The sole purpose of my post was to reiterate the legal hazards of Disparity of Force situations, not to imply anything negative about anyone. I think that Disparity of Force is a subject that we should all review from time to time because it is one of the more likely scenarios that the armed citizen could encounter, particularly us "older" guys. :)

Randy Harris
12-17-2003, 10:34 AM
Of course, no offense taken. I unfortunately sometimes ambiguously word some things that upon further review can seem confusing(EVEN TO ME :D ) It's kind of frustrating when you know what you MEAN to say, but what you TYPED isn't comprehended the way you intended. Ah...... the perils of the forum poster! Oh well, on with the discussion! CRUEL HAND LUKE

Randy Harris
12-18-2003, 01:26 PM
Capital idea!!! Of course with my luck they'd lose the package :D ! I would (I assume) be able to get the Tennessee State Handgun Carry video admitted as evidence. It is provable that I saw it back when I took the class to get my permit(1996).They still use the same video. I had always assumed that your videos, magazine articles and books would all be admissable. You are after all the sum totaol of your education, and experiences. I never throw away magazines (my wife wishes I would) and I have every book( Ayoob, Suarez,Stanford,etc )that I've ever read. Never thought you'd have to prove when you read it, watched it or heard about it. Interesting. Thanks David!! CRUEL HAND LUKE