Do You Challenge? With a Gun?

[Edison Carter]

NOTCLINT, where do you get off lecturing people about self restraint, and then threatening to wreak deadly vengeance upon a hypothetical someone who might shoot dead your progeny after he has illegally entered their home in the dead of night?

You are rational when you threaten murder and arson, but we are deficient somehow when we draw down on a midnight intruder?

If that is the kind of offspring you produce, your line WILL be short.

EC

[Roberta X]

NBK, the UnClint, whoever you are today...

Originally Posted by NBK2000

Life is a thousand shades of gray, not BLACK/WHITE.

No, it actually isn't -- it just looks that way if you stand far enough away. Up close, the physical world is a whole series of questions, all of which have definite answers, most of which can be put in yes/no form. "Shades of grey" talk is, in my opinion, an attempt to evade responsibility. Olympian detachment might be fine for Greek gods but we are mortal men and women; we live down where questions require answers.

Originally Posted by NDK2000beta

It's one thing to shoot a stranger when you aren't be sure of the reasons for their being there, automaticly ascribing hostile intent despite lack of supporting evidence (mask, weapon, etc.). That's not showing self-restraint.

It's an entirely different situation when you know that your first-born son, the sole heir of a family name going back six generations, is murdered by an idiot for no reason other than the idiots fear.

And yet -- every bad guy ever shot, and the hundred times as many scared off at gunpoint, is some mother's son (or daughter), the bearer of some father and mother's genes, going back countless generations. One is the flip side of the other. Always. When you shoot a man, you're shooting a man. Good, bad -- end result is just so much meat, all potential for further interaction gone. Every death is heartbreakingly tragic to someone. Should they all be avenged, or merely the "idiotic" ones? Why?

(It should be pointed out that in most cases where someone is shot by a lawful gun owner, "idiotic fear" isn't a part of it. Things like forcible entry or approaching while demanding money (or worse) and threatening force are quite clear to the intended victim and to prosecutors and Grand Juries).

I'm not here to cherish strangers. They make their choices. When their choices present a danger to me, I react. And I understand and accept the consequences.

My responsibility -- the responsibility of any true adult -- lies in accurately evaluating the danger. No one can judge that for you; indeed, one measure of adulthood is your ability to make those judgements for yourself with sufficient accuracy and your willingness to accept the results of your decisions.

Originally Posted by NDK2000

Then it's not a matter of that person having murdered only that one person, but by killing him, all future possibility of the continuation of my family name, my genetic lineage, and the history of my ancestors.

H'mmm. I've Scots ancestors, too; but you have two choices here: either what you've said holds true for every killing, from a serial murder sizzling in the electric chair to the most innocent of his victims, from a man shot breaking into a home to a grandmother dieing from a druggist's error -- or it is pure sentimentality.
Potentialities are only potential. Our society counts persons as equal -- or killing a man who'd had a vasectomy or a post-menopausal woman would count far less than killing a sixteen-year-old

Originally Posted by NDK2000

In essence, the murder of at least 6 people, and more than a century of oral history.

I don't think so. Not at all. When you kill a man, all you kill is the man. His ideas, his history, all live on, as long as there is but one recorded account or one other person to remember it.

[springmom]

Well said, RobertaX. If I walk in to my house once the last son has grown and gone, and find my hypothetical baggy-pants-and-Goth kid in my living room, I'll still challenge. But if he's a bad guy and he pulls a knife or a gun and I have to shoot him then I have shot somebody's baby. Maybe their only son. Maybe one who carries ten, or twenty, generations.

UnClint's kid is more important to HIM than anybody else and that's understandable; and his over-the-top post as to what he'd do if that kid was killed is understandable too. I still have trouble coping with what happened to my youngest son in January, and that was "just" an aggravated assault with a gun in his teeth, he didn't end up with more holes in him than he started with. But because these are real human lives we're talking about, we do as little as possible to defuse a situation and stop the threat, so that we don't kill somebody's only son when we could have just stopped that same only son.

Springmom

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by Roberta X

And yet -- every bad guy ever shot, and the hundred times as many scared off at gunpoint, is some mother's son (or daughter), the bearer of some father and mother's genes, going back countless generations. One is the flip side of the other. Always. When you shoot a man, you're shooting a man. Good, bad -- end result is just so much meat, all potential for further interaction gone. Every death is heartbreakingly tragic to someone. Should they all be avenged, or merely the "idiotic" ones? Why?

Actually, we might be doing society a favor by offing some of these scumbags. It brings new meaning to taking out the trash. Do we want the offspring of gang bangers, thugs, and low lifes roaming the streets to terrorize our future generations? Not me. I'm sure most here would agree that many of those offspring end up in the same vicious cycle. Call it the lack of a good role model or worse yet, having very bad role models.

The point is, if you don't defend yourself from these scumbags, it will be your future generations that are lost. I AM a son, a brother, and a husband (not to the same people mind you... my family tree does not loop back upon itself) and my self preservation is more important to me than some scumbags family. You reap what you sow.

[DiplomaticBlackHawk]

First off , I have lots of love for ya SpringMom so i will say , don't let them get to ya girl.Only sons are important BUT NO MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN ANY CHILD ANY ANY ANY ANY ANY , UNDERSTAND ANY??? Come on people i just heard people put more value on one life more than another and it made me sick.I would like everone to go back and read this entire post and see what they think about what they said and what it might have done positive or negitively to the post as a WHOLE.I was going to lash out at many but guess what ITS NOT COOL.I like Capt. Charlie's signature the best , WHAT KIND OF AMBASSATORS ARE YOU TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Some here have underreated ,over reacted ,ect and I will go as far as to state that some have just flat out talked out of their butts.Then again some have shown they are true diplomats and we thank you . But now I think it is time for moderation , now.Thank you everyone for ur time and understanding.I know there where many many people that read Eric's sticky concerning this very thing but I think we need to see the PENDULM NOW.LET HER SWING ERIC.

[Skyguy]

invention_45 quote:

If I entered and THEN discovered him in there, I'd draw and shoot. There's no way of knowing how a surprised criminal will react, and I wouldn't want to find out the hard way by hesitating.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned what a bad tactic that is.
(Probably too involved in their own long winded philosophical-emotional rants, I guess.)

Anyway, your "draw and shoot" in that situation is over the top.
Learn to draw, scope, challenge, detain.....then, if needed, defend yourself.

Here's a tip:
Most burglars are common thieves. Statistically they're not pros, killers, home invaders, junkies, etc.
Many times they're just kids not aware of the consequences of their actions.

That said, go easy with the trigger....but 'always' protect yourself from danger.

For your own good pal, get some basic training........quick!
.

[Roberta X]

Warning, what follows is just my opinion and I am just some chick on the internet. YMMV, professional driver/closed course, etc. etc. IMHO.

Nicely put, Springmom, and while we may use similar ideas and reasoning to reach divergent conclusions (or maybe not), I can see your side of it -- and perhaps a bit more of UnClint's, as well.

Every's mother's son is precious to her. But is that enough to always stay one's hand? It may be enough to stay society's hand; no judge or jury can see the crime as the victim saw it or know the perpetrator's true heart. But in the moment of the crime, when the decision is a matter of yes or no, to survive or sucumb, he who hesitates will lose. There are definite answers, but there may not be any good or satisfying answers and the person whose choice created that blind alley is the perp, not the prospective victim defending himself.


stephen426, we're not all that far apart, really; but Adam Smith's "invisible hand" can as readily weild a gun as a checkbook: if law-abiding citizens defend themselves against aggression, the greater social good will take care of itself. The broader interest is served by serving oneself, just as the grocer makes available a wide variety of tasty foods to you not from love, but for his own profit. Setting out to be "doing society a favor by offing some of these scumbags" is a goal all too easily perverted, especially if one is then tempted to take it upon oneself to cull the "scumbags" in advance. Been tried; can't be done. Like the poor, the lawless are ever with us. They must be dealt with one at a time, as they reveal themselves through direct actions against others. That said, I liked the Batman movies, too.


Skyguy, I think you just may be at a critical part of the matter. Some of what's going on here might be people taking a different meaning from similar words:

• Don't draw unless you're ready to shoot.
• Don't draw unless you intend to shoot.
• Don't draw unless you're prepared to shoot.
• Don't draw unless you are willing to shoot.

I have heard each one, and other versions besides, from many trainers and other gunnies and I never took them to mean that if I drew, I had to shoot -- only that if I went so far as to make my sidearm visible, I had darned well better understand that the situation was one that could rate, and might result in, gunfire.

But I don't know that everyone else took those words to mean that. On reflection, I can't say that I am completely sure every well-trained professional that ever uttered them to me meant them as I have taken them.

How do the others here interpret those words?

[Trip20]

Good advice, Skyguy -- however I believe this comment of yours is a little superfluous:

Many times they're just kids not aware of the consequences of their actions.

The flip-side of this coin is that "kids" are more dangerous because they are "not aware of the consequences of their actions."

And let's not fool ourselves -- even "kids" know the consequences of their actions enough to be aware that home invasion = bad news.

Let us also not refer to criminals as "kids" unless they actually fit the definition. I refuse to consider a 19 year old burglar a "kid". Or 18, or 17...

I remember when I was that age. People this age are capable of just as much ill intent as someone twice their age. To disregard this possibility, is dangerous and naive.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by Roberta X

stephen426, we're not all that far apart, really; but Adam Smith's "invisible hand" can as readily weild a gun as a checkbook: if law-abiding citizens defend themselves against aggression, the greater social good will take care of itself. The broader interest is served by serving oneself, just as the grocer makes available a wide variety of tasty foods to you not from love, but for his own profit. Setting out to be "doing society a favor by offing some of these scumbags" is a goal all too easily perverted, especially if one is then tempted to take it upon oneself to cull the "scumbags" in advance. Been tried; can't be done. Like the poor, the lawless are ever with us. They must be dealt with one at a time, as they reveal themselves through direct actions against others. That said, I liked the Batman movies, too.

Sorry Roberta... I was just venting. I am not advocating in any way, shape, or form genocide based on race, religion, color, creed, sex, or national origin. My first name is not Adolph and my last name certainly isn't Hitler. I am a minority myself and I bust my butt to make a better life for myself. I have no respect for those people who just cry about being victims and don't do anything to improve their lives. Instead, they prefer to live off of handouts and steal from others rather than working. This does not refer to any group in particular so don't think I am racist. In fact, I hate everyone equally! Just kidding.

[Roberta X]

Has this thread gone on so long as to incur Godwin's Law? --stephen426, I was thinking more of self-appointed vigilantes than any mob or movement when I cautioned against preemptive looks-like-a-badguy removal.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with unadorned venting but we really should come up with an icon, glyph or typographical convention to indicate it, a "ventie" to go along with all the "smilies," to delineate between unloading frustration and, what, "rabble-rousing?" Everyone fuliminates sometimes but few of us are after initiating anything when we do.

I think responsibility -- accepting it, being able to handle it, rejecting it or failing under it -- is a key component in being a healthy member of society. If there are enough responsible people around, just everyday responsible types, not even heros, then things get along pretty well. Fall below some critical proportion, though, and it starts to come apart. Successful societies have some means of encouraging the growth of responsibility in children who have an aptitude for it; in terms of success, it may not matter exactly how that's done just as long as it does.

Not all irresponsible people are criminals but just about all criminals are irresponsible. And that's pretty much what you said, stephen.

[Skyguy]

Obviously, we've lost our way in the quest to answer the question; Do You Challenge? With a Gun?

The tactical pertinence of long winded emotional and philosophical rants, genealogy, nit-picking, word meaning....escapes me.
I've learned nothing from these ramblings.
.

[Al Norris]

Just in case anyone missed the point of my little story, the answer to the question; Do You Challenge? With a Gun?; is yes, should circumstances warrant it.

[OuTcAsT]

Exactly, The answer is yes.

I will draw my weapon, asess the situation, IE: Identify the threat, Give verbal commands, and hope the situation de-escalates. BUT, when I draw said weapon, I will be willing to fire if NECESSARY.

If the " Unknown Person" can identify himself and his reason for being there to my satisfaction, Nuff said.

If He cannot or will not Identify himself, then He may lie on the ground in a safe (to Me) position until LE arrives, or he may exit the premises, at which time I will secure myself and wait for LE.

If He makes any threatning movements or gestures other than the above, TAP,TAP.

[casingpoint]

<Do you challenge with a gun>

Statutorily in most states you are empowered to use deadly force to defend yourself, but not to make idle conversation. That is a federal right under the First Ammendment, but will not be used as the law of decision in a state court. Actually, an admission on your part that you challenged could go against you in that it evidences you did not perceive an immediate threat but instead found time to chit chat. Then you gotta come up with another good reason why you suddenly felt threatened enough to open fire. Somewhere in all that legal mubo jumbo, a good prosecutor could start your goose cooking if you make a verbal slip, assuming you elect to take the stand or tak to the cops after you talk to your lawyer. And God forbid it ever comes out that your were yelling commands to the perp with your finger on the trigger in a tense and stressful situation, the adrenaline pumping, the muscles of your hands and fingers twitching like it's been proven scientifically they do, resulting in accidental firings, to which self defense statutes do not apply.

[wixedmords]

You would have to draw to have control of the situation. But, unless you have determined you are under an attack, or in danger, I would hate to shoot the wife sleepwalking.

The key to me would be before issuing commands, to scope the situation out a little bit more to see if the person is alone. If alone one can more in and begin to issue commands controlling the situation with the firearm.

If an instructor somwhere said to shoot in this situation, I am betting they have buried some family members, or will.

Shooting is final. Can't take it back.

[Roberta X]

Aww, I'd've written something shorter if I'd had time! (Mark Twain had the same problem but was way more interesting to read).

In answer to the question, yes -- but only if "HANDS UP! GET ON THE FLOOR!" counts as a challenge. And I'll accept running rapidly away as a reponse as good as or better than compliance: I'm not really in the prisoner-taking business.

...About those long, philosophical rants: there are conditions under which I will shoot with little or no warning. There are people, gunnies, who are horrified to think any of us clean and decent gun-owners would do such a thing. I feel obliged to (try to) explain. Done.

[tanksoldier]

Drawing a weapon is not the same as actually using deadly force. If drawing the weapon prevents someone from getting killed, even a BG, it's probably worth it.

<<Actually, an admission on your part that you challenged could go against you in that it evidences you did not perceive an immediate threat but instead found time to chit chat. Then you gotta come up with another good reason why you suddenly felt threatened enough to open fire.>>

That's asinine. Having a gun in your hand isn't using deadly force. The reason you opened fire is that you felt your life was threatened. That can occur at any time based on the evolving situation. If you can't safely handle a weapon under stress you need to not have one. Depending on the situation, after you issue your verbal commands the BG might have:

1. Started to close with you. Even unarmed and with your weapon in it's holster a wrestling match is a deadly confrontation for a CCW.
2. Put a hand in his pocket, behind his back, in his pants, etc. You though he was going for a weapon.
3. Turned out to have a knife. If he's within 21 feet, he gets shot per the Tueler drill.

[error426]

Exactly, The answer is yes.

I will draw my weapon, asess the situation, IE: Identify the threat, Give verbal commands, and hope the situation de-escalates. BUT, when I draw said weapon, I will be willing to fire if NECESSARY.

If the " Unknown Person" can identify himself and his reason for being there to my satisfaction, Nuff said.

If He cannot or will not Identify himself, then He may lie on the ground in a safe (to Me) position until LE arrives, or he may exit the premises, at which time I will secure myself and wait for LE.

If He makes any threatning movements or gestures other than the above, TAP,TAP.

I agree exactly. This is essentially what I would do in such a situation. Regardless of what some might argue, I want my piece out of the holster and ready for use if necessary.

[Al Norris]

Action almost always beats reaction....

[DobermansDoItGoofy]

1) "I wonder who they are?" - not a question you want to be asking yourself 'after' you have drawn your firearm...but you might be in that position?

2) "I'll just scare them!' - not a good rationale to be having while you draw your firearm...

3) "How do I 'safely' handle this situation?' - a good question to be asking yourself...before you cross the line...

4) "Do they have a weapon?" - good preemptive thought!!!

5) "Officer, I live at such and such address...there's a stranger in my house...who I think might be a burglar...I'm outside on my cell phone... - not a bad idea!!!!

6) Okay...it's 3am...you're out in the country...and downstairs in the darkness of your own home...you hear someone ransacking your house...and you have a handgun on your nightstand - yep, it's a good idea to be loaded, drawn and ready!!!!! Now however it's still unpredictable ie. a lot depends on the layout of the place. Are you cornered? Do you have to enter the same room as the intruder to turn on the lights? Can you call from your cell phone and not be overheard? Is the stranger alone? Are there others outside? Lots of variables!!! Do you verbally challenge? Yes - but it's a judgement call and depends on your survey of the scene and the level of real perceived threat.
No - if you realistically fear being harmed when you challenge. Is this a wild eyed armed fiend with a gun in your house - or is this the problem teenager you've known for years from next door who thought you were gone on vacation? Not a nice batch of scenarios!!!!

7) A Gun Fight is a terrible thing!!! A Gun Fight is not a happy adventure!!!

8) An oz. of Prevention is worth a pound of cure.

9) Seriously, a well trained dog (in my case a few well trained dogs) can do what a gun cannot do ie. prevent the intruder from coming in, challenge the intruder if he does come in, defend you in the dark, scare the intruder, hold the intruder at bay...and keep their canine eyes and ears open while you get some sleep...and work even when the alarm system has failed!!!

10) If you do have a dog - make sure it's a well trained dog - 'cause you'll be liable for that too!!!! Yep a dog is again the bottom line - yep a good dobie is the best defense!!!

[stratus]

It simply would not be in my nature to shoot an intruder without first attempting to get him to yield at gunpoint, unless he was already coming at me, which is obvious.

But yeah, if you're gonna yell orders, Jack Bauer is a good character to try and imitate, voice wise.

[Para Bellum]

I see no problem with the challenge with drawn gun if you know what you are about and the circumstances of using deadly force.

me neither, especially if you can avoid having to shoot this way. However, it depends on: where.

Out in the public challanging is extremely dangerous because some concealed carrying bystander or police etc, might be motivated to interfere and "defend" the "harmless and unarmed" who is "being attacked" and that might lead to two good guys fighting each other.

So at home or in confined spaces I control anyway: yes, challange.
anywhere else: only if you can be very very sure to be the only one with a gun (or a knife at 20 yds etc...)

Glen, always a pleasure to read your posts and answer your threads!

[TrooperSon]

Assuming you draw and then give orders (that is what I would do) have a factory trigger on that weapon.

[skeeter1]

My doors are always locked, and if someone I don't know (only one person, my best friend, has a key) breaks in here, I'll shoot first (loaded .38 in the bedroom) and deal with the consiquences later.

[stratus]

Originally Posted by Roberta X

I have heard each one, and other versions besides, from many trainers and other gunnies and I never took them to mean that if I drew, I had to shoot -- only that if I went so far as to make my sidearm visible, I had darned well better understand that the situation was one that could rate, and might result in, gunfire.

Yeah, that always bothered me too. When I was more of a newbie to a lot of these ideas, I had interpreted it as "don't draw unless you're going to immediately shoot, otherwise don't draw". I am honestly not sure why some people stick with this viewpoint. Granted, there are some situations in which that is your only option: you encounter someone in your living room, they rush you. That's not much of a dilemma; there's little or no time to react, and you have to shoot.

I remember reading a thread a while back about people who have had to draw their gun or display it in some fashion when confronted with danger (they were often in their cars at an intersection). In the vast majority of these situations, the sight of the weapon was enough to deter the aggressor. Drawing your gun and challenging are essentially the same thing, though you can always add to it with a loud, commanding voice.

Yes, you MUST be willing to use the weapon if you have drawn it, but it seems that in many cases, the deterrant effect of the weapon itself saves us quite a bit of complications. Not that we should count on it, but we shouldn't altogether discount it, either.

All this, and every fraction of every second that you are in a confrontation is full of variables the psychological stresses of which are extremely difficult to stay ahead of.