A Few Scenarios for Concealed Weapon Permit Holders....

[Slyster]

(Moderators: not sure where this thread belongs so I put one in both "Tactics and Training" and "General Handgun Forum." Feel free to delete one or merge the two. Thanks and sorry for the confusion.)

Over the past 2 weeks while jogging I came across two specific incidents that made me wonder about what could have been done to handle these situations. I am not a concealed weapons permit holder yet, but soon will be. For those that are: what would you have done, and what could you have done if you came across these two events? Here they are:

1)

12 days ago while jogging through a rather large park in the early evening, I witnessed a serious beating. A man about 40 years of age was being brutally attacked by a younger male of around 25 years of age. I saw this in the distance and when I determined what was actually going on, I quickly ran over to be of some assistance. The attacker saw me comming and suddenly took off. I stopped to help the victim who was bleeding profusely from his nose and had additional head injuries (around his eye and lip) from multiple head blows. I removed my shirt and begain tending to his injuries, using my shirt as a rag. When I asked him what happened, he said he had been mugged and refused to give up his wallet. The attacker got his wallet anyways before he saw me comming.

Now, the attacked didn't appear to have any weapons, other than his fists. However, this was a vicious attack. When I realized this was real and indeed a serious situation, I witnessed several head blows being delivered by the attacker. In hindsight, I often think that perhaps I should have gone after the attacker to try and catch him, but the victim was "hurtin' for certain" so my instinct was to stop and help him.

So, with a concealed weapons permit, would you have been justified in drawing on the attacker even though he was not using deadly weapons, ie not a knife or gun? I would think that his fists would be considered deadly in this situation, but I don't know. What would you, as a concealed weapons permit holder, have done? I realize that he was fleeing by the time I got close, but what if the attack continued after I arrived on the scene?


2)

This just happened yesterday in the same park. I was engaged in my routine jog and noticed some sort of emergency going on near the childrens playground. I decided to take a detour to see what the ruckus was about. When I approached, to my horror, I saw two parents frantically trying to pull a dog off a young girl. She couldn't have been more that 9 or 10 years old. This dog (not sure of the breed...looked sort of like a rather small and skinny rottweiler) had a hold of her forearm and was violently pulling and doing the characteristic head thrashing you see dogs do with toys and whatnot. Upon arrival I kicked the dog as hard as I could. The dog still had a hold of the girl and I began to try and help muscle the dog off. Finally we were able to remove the dog. Another bystander came over and began frantically swinging a big stick at the dog which ran off.

The girl was in a lot of pain, and the dog had drawn blood. Her forearm was significantly damaged, bloody and bruised. Again, my question is what would you have done if you were armed? There is no question in my mind that a clear close range shot could have easily been made. Would you have been justified in shooting the dog?

I have always wanted to get a permit, but have just been putting off the class. After these two incidents, I will be attending the next available course. The funny thing is, I have been jogging through this park (which has a great reputation for being safe) for over 4 years now and have never come across anything of this nature. Just my luck, I literally ran into these situations within two weeks.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

shooting a fleeing assailant could in no way be considered self defense, which is the only real reason to use your weapon... besides... how do you know ( for sure ) that the guy beating & running was the bad guy ??? you could assume... but ???

I'm quite sure you would not have been the hero, or lessened the trama of the girl or her parent / gaurdian, if you killed the dog, while it was still "attached" to the girl... in pain, you could have caused the dog to bite down harder, or in fear, attack sevberal others before it actually died...

betting that if this was in town, at the very least...you'd have landed in jail for discharging a firearm in town

[Majic]

If you had went after the mugger with a weapon you would have been on the offense especially since no other weapon was seen. Your permit provides for defensive use only. Would be a shame trying to be a good samaritan only to have the mugger sue you for assault with a deadly weapon.
With the dog you had 2 scrambling adults, a frantic child, and the attacking dog. Getting off a shot without the risk of hitting someone else would be very difficult. Hard kicks to the dog's throat and chest will take it's wind away and most likely take the fight out of the dog.
If you are not engaged in self-defense there is a good chance you could get into legal trouble. While a lot of folks may frown upon this sometimes it's best to just call 911.

[Slyster]

If you are not engaged in self-defense there is a good chance you could get into legal trouble.

Thanks for the help guys.

So what you guys are saying is that unless it is self-defense (ie defending yourself only), you can't draw your firearm.

So you can't defend others then, only yourself. I got ya. Seems kinda funny, but I guess thats the way it is.

So if I was the one being attacked/mugged or being attacked by the dog, could I have used my firearm in defense?

Thanks again for the help.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

If you were jogging with the guy that was mugged, & you feared for your life, though the mugger hadn't struck you "yet", but...

you feared for your life

, then you are likely legal... but if you put "yourself" into a position then you were offensive, rather than defensive, & you'll likely face charges...

...you can defend yourself & those around you, but you can't enter into a situation where you would have to draw your weapon... in fact, if you are in court, ( which you are likely to be in later )... if you can't show that you tried to escape rather than confront trouble, you'll likely be the one thats charged...

[ppcpilot]

So what you guys are saying is that unless it is self-defense (ie defending yourself only), you can't draw your firearm.

Depends on the state..here in LA you can use it to stop a forcible felony happening to a 3rd party if that 3rd party themselves would be justified in using deadly force.

[mikejonestkd]

first senario:

the mugger was fleeing when you got within range. You cannot go after him with deadly force as the threat to the mugging victim has ended. You could employ deadly force in the defense of another if a situation occurs that you can not retreat from, or you have an obligation ( your elderly grandmother in a wheelchair ) to defend a loved one who would otherwise be justified in using deadly force to defend themselves.

Second senario:

Discharging a firearm with that many people around and the dog obviously being in contact with the girl is just too dangerous, there is too great a chance of hitting a bystander.

There is a time and place for using a firearm in defence of yourself or others but these don't seem like it to me, and if you did I am sure you would have some splainin' ta do with the LEOs.

[JohnKSa]

In the first scenario, the fact that the victim immediately fled the scene when you approached meant that he was no longer a threat to either of you. Had he continued the attack in your presence then it's possible but unlikely that the circumstances of the attack could warrant deadly force. In a situation where it's two defenders to one attacker with everyone unarmed, it's probably not going to be easy to justify shooting him.

The THREAT of deadly force (drawing) is not usually considered to be the same as USING deadly force so you could probably justify drawing on him if the attack continued after you arrived. If the situation could reasonably be resolved without the use of a firearm, you'd be far wiser to handle it that way.

Pursuing him could be legal in some states and under very specific circumstances, but it's probably not such a great idea even when it's legal. Like a dog chasing a car, the problems begin when the quarry is caught.

So you can't defend others then, only yourself.

I don't know the laws everywhere, but in TX, you can defend others as if they were you. Essentially you can do what you would find reasonable if you were in the victim's shoes.

In the dog scenario, you would have been justifed in using your firearm. Whether it would have been wise to shoot in a scenario like you describe is another story. I'd be very reticent to touch one off in that kind of situation (several people in the very near vicinity moving around unpredictably) unless it was obvious that there was no other way to stop the attack.

I will be attending the next available course.

It's likely that the course you take will contain a good bit of this kind of information. If not, www.packing.org should have some basic information and probably has links to your state's deadly force statutes.

[Slyster]

You could employ deadly force in the defense of another if a situation occurs that you can not retreat from, or you have an obligation ( your elderly grandmother in a wheelchair ) to defend a loved one who would otherwise be justified in using deadly force to defend themselves.

Hmmm, so in my situation, if the attack continued the best thing to do would have been to try and detain the attacker without using a firearm? I can't help but wonder if I would have been able to detain this guy. The 40 yr old was completely helpless/defenseless. I mean he was getting his clock cleaned. So if I was to jump in, it would have turned into a 1-on-1 situation with me and the attacker. Probably not a good thing considering he out wieghed me by about 50 lbs. I mean it is totally against my nature, and I shutter at the idea of "turning a blind eye", but you guys aren't leaving me very good options here. If the attacker did indeed continue upon my arrival, I could have easily "retreated" from the event and left this guy to continue to get pummeled. How is that a good option!?

if you can't show that you tried to escape rather than confront trouble, you'll likely be the one thats charged...

So I should have just called 911 and waited while the guy continues to get whaled on? Hmmm, interesting.

As far as the dog was concerned. There was a time that spanded approx 1 min or so where this girls father and I had the dog totally pinned against the playground sand, but still clenched to the girls forearm. It would have been all too easy to draw a pistol and put it right to the dogs head and fire without any chance of the bullet harming anyone else. Good idea or no? Sounds as though you guys are saying that wouldn't be a good idea at all.

Interesting responses guys, much obliged. I look forward to further responses.

[BikerRN]

OK, in the first scenario both of the "players" were unknowns at the time this happened. This, IMHO, is not a time for a firearm. I would yell at them to stop said aggressive actions towards one another and call 911. In fact I would call 911 before yelling at them to stop. That's it, no more that I would do besides be a good witness to my responding brother/sister LEO's.

In the second scenario, way too many people, and dogs don't always succumb to bullets. In this situation I would use my knife and "gut" the dog from the rear. What I mean is, I would approach from the rear of the dog and drive my knife upward in to the dog's sternal area and then cut back towards myself. It's risky, but I think the situation calls for some risk and chances, but not as much as a firearm would produce.

Another option would be to grab the dog by the hind legs. Most dogs will eventually let go of their "prey" once you do that. The problem is, you will have to let it go at some point. What do you do then? I say that the dog has proven itself to be violent towards humans, therefore the knife would be justified.

Biker

[Tanzer]

Both scenarios are 911'ers in my state. No question about it.

[JohnKSa]

... if the attack continued the best thing to do would have been to try and detain the attacker without using a firearm?

IMO, detaining someone is a job for the police. The best thing to do would have been to stop the attack using the minimum force necessary that didn't expose you or the victim to the possibility of serious injury.

That might mean telling the attacker know that you've called the police. It might mean (as it did) that merely coming to the victim's aid would be sufficient. It might mean drawing your weapon. It's hard to say. What you don't want to do is fall into the "Because I have a hammer everything looks like a nail" syndrome.

[el_diabl0]

A CCW licensee recently killed a pit bull that was attacking a girl in a town near me. He was lauded as a hero and not charged.

[Slyster]

Just talked to a LEO and this is what he said (his comments were confirmed by the sheriff standing right next to him):

For the first scenario, if the attacker continued to attack the victim upon my arrival, I technically would be justified in drawing my firearm because constant blows to the head are considered deadly force with the intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm. A swift direct blow to the head (especially from a trained martial artist, boxer, etc) can kill someone just as quick as a bullet or knife. If the attacker stops, runs away, lays down, does anything other than continue to inflict deadly force with the intent to kill or cause bodily harm, you holster your weapon and call the police. If he continues to deliver head blows, you stop him with deadly force, ie shoot him until the threat is stopped.

He futher stated that I don't have a duty to retreat when another citizen is being treated with deadly force with the intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm. He continued and said that the only problem with the situation is there would be some confusion when the police arrived. He said he wouldn't be sure who was fending off who and who was using necesarry deadly force in defense, not offense. However, he said if you cooperate completely and quickly upon LE arrival (including holstering your weapon immediately), things can be worked out rather quickly especially since you would have the original victim as a witness. He stressed that multiple direct blows to the head, especially when the victim is defenseless is deadly force and the fists responsible for those blows are deadly weapons.....period! In the same breath, you have to be reasonable. If the blows are coming from an 80 yr old woman they probably wouldn't be deadly.


For the dog thing, he too said I would have been totally justified in using the weapon to stop the dog as long as you weren't putting others in jeopardy.

Interesting. I find it a bit puzzling that there have been so many answers to the scenarios posed.

I am from Utah by the way.

[Dewhitewolf]

Laws regarding this matter vary from state to state. The best thing to do is to find a course in your area that covers the laws of the use of force. That's what I did.

Taking a course like that can save you from criminal or civil charges later, or at least reduce your liability, should you be involved in an incident. It's no guarantee, but court practice usually gives weight to the person who is educated and trained, and makes the effort to keep up with current laws and regulations.

Don't fall into the trap of limiting your training to taking one CCW course. Same goes for learning the laws of force. People forget and skills fade over time. Hold yourself to a higher standard, and keep records of any courses you attend.

And beware the armchair commandos and other such know-it-alls: not only do they have little or no actual credibility, they won't be there for you when the stuff hits the fan.

[orionengnr]

Post your location. State laws differ dramatically.

As far as scenario #1, it depends on the state and it's laws.

Scenario #2, if I can get that dog's neck in the crook of my arm, (and if it has someone's arm in it's mouth, I have a better than fair chance) it will very shortly release it's grip on everything including the child's arm...and it's conciousness, due to the induced deficiencies in it's oxygen intake system. I'd sooner do that than send bullets flying...

YMMV, and probably will.

I'm on your side no matter how you go at it (within reason). Better than standing around and doing nothing.

[mattro]

Slyster,
Start with 2 good books

Principles Of Personal Defense (Paperback) by Jeff Cooper
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Per...4809516&sr=1-1

then

Armed Response: A Comprehensive Guide to Using Firearms for Self-Defense (Paperback) by David S. Kenik
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Response...4468214&sr=1-3

There are alot of good books out there, but these are simple and full of the most imprtant fundamentals.

Then get a good grip on what the laws are for your state.

Once you learn the funamentals and what your state laws say, you can quickly answer most of the "what if" scenerios.

[kgpcr]

If you dont carry a cell phone you should not carry a gun. in the first instance you could have dialed 911 and let the assailant know the police are on the way. if he then came after you 911 is on the line and the whole thing will be recorded. as for chasing a criminal no thats not your job. never chase a perp. call it in but never chase them down with a gun.

[obxned]

Assuming you pocket carry or use an IWB holster, I think you should keep it in your pants in BOTH cases. Call 911, and then find a different jogging route.

[parrothead2581]

I often think that perhaps I should have gone after the attacker to try and catch him, but the victim was "hurtin' for certain" so my instinct was to stop and help him.

I agree with your instincts. You have no idea if the assailant is armed, where he is going, or who may be waiting for him there. Going after him, armed or unarmed, should not be your concern in this particular scenario. This likely isn't the first, or the last time the assailant has done this. His day will come. Tending to the injured, in this case, should have, and was, your priority. Carry a cell phone. I carry mine along with my ASP.

Good job.

[Lurper]

The correct answer to both scenarios is the same:
First, know your state's laws.
Second, were you in fear for you life or serious bodily harm or someone else's. If the answer is yes, lethal force is justified (in most states).

ALways call 911 first. But in both scenarios (given the beating continuing in the first one) I believe it is clear that the answer is yes.
In the first scenario your best response would be to call 911, report the location of the incident, description of the assailant, victim and yourself. Tell the 911 operator that you are armed and that you're certain that if you don't stop him, he will beat the other guy to death. Holler at the assailant, telling him to "stop you're killing him, if you don't stop I will be forced to defend his life" (remember 911 calls are recorded). If the beating continues, shoot until the threat is removed. If the assailant complies, don't shoot. If he runs, don't chase. If he stays, order him to lie down and wait for the police. Make sure you give the dispatcher your description including what you are armed with so the responding officers will know who is who. When the officers arrive, don't move, listen to and closely follow their commands.

In the second scenario, call 911, give the dispatcher the same information as above. Walk up to the dog and if he doesn't turn his attention to you, position yourself so you can shoot him in the head from above without hitting anyone else. Shoot. If you can't get a clear head shot, shoot c.o.m. from above (remember your safety rules: Know your target and what's beyond).

In general, if you or someone else is in fear of death or serious bodily injury, lethal force is justified. But, you need to know the specifics of your state's laws.

[stephen426]

As pretty much everyone one else had said, the first scenario is a no draw situation. The attack has stopped and the attacker is fleeing. Just be a good witness and help the guy. Now the situation changes if the attacker does not flee, but ends up attacking you. Lets say that there is a disparity of force (either you are elderly or the attacker is much stronger). when do you become justified in drawing a weapon?

As for the dog, I think shooting the dog may have been justified. Even after kicking it really hard, it did not let the girl go. Forget about traumatizing the girl. The dog is already doing that. You need to make the dog stop before doing more damage. You could shoot the dog from point blank range (straight down) and not risk hitting any bystanders. If you shot it in the spine, you would most likely paralzye it and stop the attack immediately. Furthermore, the dog could be checked for rabies and the girl would not have to undergo the painful treatment for rabies unnecessarily. Since the dog ran away, it could not be tested. Even though I am a dog lover, I would not risk trying to wrestle the dog away from the girl and risk my own hide. Dogs that atack humans are bad news.

Dialing 911 is for after the fact. You need to stop the attacks first. If you have time to do so before due to the distance, then do so to get help as quickly as possible.

[newarcher]

In GA, I can use deadly force to stop a forceable felony.....when a buttwhooping among the particpants becomes a forceable felony vs a misdemeanor assault is hard to determine. You might also have a tough time discerning whether the guy losing at the time isn't actually the robber who had the tables turned on him. I wouldn't do it....can't save the whole world.

As for number 2, that's a hard call. I would have kicked the hell out of that dog until it let go. If after about three kicks, it didn't let go I would have flipped it over on its back to see that that would make it let go. If not, I would have crushed its windpipe with my knee until it was dead. Usually, flipping a dog on its back puts a dog in a submissive pose that they generally don't like. Now if it let go, I would have dragged it off and shot it.

New

[leadcounsel]

Read your state self defense statute. I don't know what state you're in, but most states generally say something like you can defend yourself with force equal to what your assailant is bringing. For instance, if your assailant has only fists, you can use only fists. If you bring a weapon, now YOU are the assailant and he is the defender. If he has a weapon, however, this CAN be considered deadly force and you may respond IN DEFENSE with deadly force. If he has a knife, you can use a knife, pointy stick, or gun and are equally justified.

The KEY language is that in order to use DEADLY weapons in self defense you MUST BE IN FEAR OF IMMEDIATELY SERIOUS BODILY HARM OR DEATH. This is all very subjective. If an old woman attacks a professional boxer with her bare hands or even a purse, the boxer is probably NOT justified in using a weapon. However, if the boxer attacks the old woman with his bare hands, she probably IS justified in using a deadly weapon in defense because of her reasonable fear of immediately serious bodily harm or death.

Now, the level of defense you can apply to YOURSELF is also transfered on other people. If you came upon the boxer attacking the old woman, YOU are justified in believing that SHE is about to suffer IMMEDIATE SERIOUS BODILY HARM OR DEATH. Hence you could step in to defend her. But what if SHE is the assailant and HE is the defender...? Or what about a domestic violence where BOTH parties are aggressors?

There are soooo many variables in your story and I can't address all the possibilities. Just read your statute and keep in mind that situations are not always as they seem. Imagine if the mugger was actually an under cover police officer arresting a sex offender and the sex offender was resisting. You roll up and draw down on a cop, who justifiably shoots YOU in HIS self defense, or his buddy (that you didn't see) shoots YOU in self defense.

If it were ME, I would probably take a position of cover, try to analyse what's going on, call the police with my cell phone, and if I could figure out whether I could help I would and I'd only draw my gun if absolutely necessary and I was 100% sure of the actors (eg who is the victim).

[jfrey123]

NV resident here, FWIW.

Senario number one was handled well by you IMO. My state allows CCWers to protect citizens in their immediate contact. My reaction, if carrying would've still been very close to what you did. I would've rushed in addressing the attacker to stop, and my firearm would've been out in a low ready position. Shout, "STOP! I'm armed!" or something like that to declare your presense and intent. The important thing it to maintain your distance to start. Once the attacker is aware of your presense and your firearm, he will probably do one of three things:

1. Stop and run/comply with your "lay down" order.
2. Stop and engage you
3. Continue with his beat down

Keep your distance so you can clearly identify what he is going to do. If he does #2 and starts toward you, you still have time to make your presentation to target and fire. #3 would likely have the same result as #2. If he does #1, you now have no need to fire. Get a description and be a witness.

Side note for this senario: I would likely engage BG before calling 911. Just me personally, but when you come up on something like this, you gotta react immediatly. I would probably be shouting "Someone call 911" as I run up to the BG, but taking two minutes to talk with a dispatcher might get this victim killed.

Senario number two would leave my gun in it's holster. Dogs on the attack are very fast moving tiny targets, and I would hate to miss and nail this little girl. This is the type of senario for which I carry a knife. This dog would have had all kinds of knife wounds in his neck while I was beating the holy bejezzies out of it.


I also think it's time to find a new running path...