When To Pull and or Shoot

[HKS]

The point of this thread is to put yourself in his shoes, which is also considered to be carrying.

There are some general rules you need to remember about a gunfight.

If there are more guns against you than with you, then you are going to die.

If you die, you lose.

There are many cases where even if armed, you still need to flee, if you want to live.

This rat pack of bikers was one of those times.

 

[bofh]

The bikers clearly threatened the driver before he fled the first time. If I had just driven over a biker, I would expect they were chasing me to do harm. The biker getting off his bike clearly has a weapon in hand and does use it. The bikers were clearly the initiators and showing plenty of hostility at the point of the attack. How you don't see imminent threat is puzzling.

I'm curious, at what point did the bikers become an imminent threat? Maybe after half his face was smashed? Under your thinking, the only right scenario is shooting the biker. Mine at least attempts to deesculate before entre of the car.

Past threats do not justify the use of lethal force, only imminent threats do. Once you left the initial contact scene, it doesn't matter anymore who the initiator was. The law treats each event (injury or death you cause) separately anyway, even at the same scene. Shooting a biker at the scene that didn't pose a threat would be considered manslaughter. You still haven't shown me the imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Keying you car doesn't count. :crazy_pilot:

Your supposed attempt to deescalate (check your spelling) will be seen by a jury as an attempt to escalate the situation. If the biker shows you his gun, do you count that as deescalation too? Good luck with that. :no:

 

[maat]

Showing full intent to penetrate the car is different from actually penetrating the car. When someone shows full intent to penetrate the car, then you are not in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Any criminal defense attorney will tell you that once you have been charged. Good luck with your approach. :girl_wacko:

Watch the video I posted, specifically the part starting at 8:12. It specifically refers to people like you. leasantry:

I watched the video. While I agree with most of it, this guy makes it sound better that you shoot yourself if you pull your gun. I'm not some guy looking for an excuse to pull a gun. Clearly, by what happened in the video, you are only left with shooting the biker. IMO, coming at my window with a weapon(helmet) is an imminent threat. Cops pull guns on people all the time without imminent threat. Cops pull guns all the time without needing to fire. What do you think would happen to a cop if he was in the same scenario and pulled his gun when the biker was coming at his window with a weapon?

 

[maat]

There are some general rules you need to remember about a gunfight.

If there are more guns against you than with you, then you are going to die.

If you die, you lose.

There are many cases where even if armed, you still need to flee, if you want to live.

This rat pack of bikers was one of those times.

Have you recognized that the car had fled all it could and was cornered? Please catch up.

 

[HKS]

Have you recognized that the car had fled all it could and was cornered? Please catch up.

That was the driver's mistake.

He had to keep fleeing.

I would have been side swiping bikers left and right. He did not.

You need to take out the bikers without running over them.

And you need to avoid traffic jams.

He did neither.

 

[HKS]

If ever there was a good time to have a riot shotgun or an assault carbine with you in the car with high cap mags, this incident was it.

I have travelled the highways with my assault carbine and several high cap mags with me. Every state has different rules for these.

 

[HKS]

I watched the video. While I agree with most of it, this guy makes it sound better that you shoot yourself if you pull your gun. I'm not some guy looking for an excuse to pull a gun. Clearly, by what happened in the video, you are only left with shooting the biker. IMO, coming at my window with a weapon(helmet) is an imminent threat. Cops pull guns on people all the time without imminent threat. Cops pull guns all the time without needing to fire. What do you think would happen to a cop if he was in the same scenario and pulled his gun when the biker was coming at his window with a weapon?

Shooting yourself would only make sense if you only had 1 bullet left, and you were still outgunned and outnumbered, and you knew they were going to torture you to death. It can happen and does. But this was not one of those times.

In the vid, the driver of the car essentially gave himself up as a sacrifice for the sake of his passengers.

 

[maat]

Shooting yourself would only make sense if you only had 1 bullet left, and you were still outgunned and outnumbered, and you knew they were going to torture you to death. It can happen and does. But this was not one of those times.

In the vid, the driver of the car essentially gave himself up as a sacrifice for the sake of his passengers.

I haven't been here long enough to know if you are serious or just trolling me. Are you seriously suggesting that an armed motorist just allow himself to be seriously beat if he had a gun to defend himself?

 

[bofh]

I watched the video. While I agree with most of it, this guy makes it sound better that you shoot yourself if you pull your gun. I'm not some guy looking for an excuse to pull a gun. Clearly, by what happened in the video, you are only left with shooting the biker. IMO, coming at my window with a weapon(helmet) is an imminent threat. Cops pull guns on people all the time without imminent threat. Cops pull guns all the time without needing to fire. What do you think would happen to a cop if he was in the same scenario and pulled his gun when the biker was coming at his window with a weapon?

Alexian Lien wasn't armed, he and his family survived and the attackers were caught, charged, tried and convicted. Lien sustained lacerations to his face and sides, requiring stitches at a local hospital. So, shooting was clearly not the only option. Your argument has thus been proven factually wrong.

We have already established that you do not understand the law, there is no need to add more posts to prove that. As long there is a barrier between you and the attacker and the attacker doesn't have a weapon that can breach the barrier and injure you severely or kill you at the same time, that attacker is not a imminent threat justifying deadly force.

No lawyer will ever raise your cop argument in court, by the way, as it is inadmissible. Did a cop pull a gun on you when he stopped you for a traffic violation? You just made yourself a laughing stock in this forum.

A cop has the local PD and the police union behind him, making sure that he can get away with murder. We have documented numerous cases in this forum. Do you have your own PD and union?

PS: I completely failed to mention that one of the bikers was a cop. LOL. This is hilarious!

:hang2:

 

[HKS]

I haven't been here long enough to know if you are serious or just trolling me. Are you seriously suggesting that an armed motorist just allow himself to be seriously beat if he had a gun to defend himself?

That's what he finally decided to do. It was for the sake of his family in the car.

You are not getting the fact that he was outnumbered and these bikers were most likely also armed as well.

One of them would have shot him from the side.

Rambo movies are great but in real life it does not work like that.

I would have been sideswiping bikers to get them out of my way and kept driving to a police station, going down side streets to avoid traffic jams.

There are times when a gun won't help you unless it is a long gun against handguns, which he also did not have.

 

[HKS]

"This message is hidden because bofh is on your ignore list. "

Don't get a hard-on for bofh.

He is already on my ignore list with several of his sock puppets.

 

[bofh]

"This message is hidden because bofh is on your ignore list. "

Don't get a hard-on for bofh.

He is already on my ignore list with several of his sock puppets.

I am curious, do you know any other Internet terms than "sock puppet"? Oh, I forgot, you are not reading this. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. LOL.

 

[maat]

Alexian Lien wasn't armed, he and his family survived and the attackers were caught, charged, tried and convicted. Lien sustained lacerations to his face and sides, requiring stitches at a local hospital. So, shooting was clearly not the only option. Your argument has thus been proven factually wrong.

We have already established that you do not understand the law, there is no need to add more posts to prove that. As long there is a barrier between you and the attacker and the attacker doesn't have a weapon that can breach the barrier and injure you severely or kill you at the same time, that attacker is not a imminent threat justifying deadly force.

No lawyer will ever raise your cop argument in court, by the way, as it is inadmissible. Did a cop pull a gun on you when he stopped you for a traffic violation? You just made yourself a laughing stock in this forum.

A cop has the local PD and the police union behind him, making sure that he can get away with murder. We have documented numerous cases in this forum. Do you have your own PD and union?

PS: I completely failed to mention that one of the bikers was a cop. LOL. This is hilarious!

:hang2:

I believe you are conflating what I mean as showing /pulling the gun. I never said point the gun (draw down on him) at the biker(through the window). What I'm suggesting is no different than a guy unconcealing his gun, with hand on(not pulled)when he believes he is getting ready to be assaulted by a guy with a helmet in hand. From in a car, the biker will not see it on him, so the driver would hold it where it can be seen, but not pointing it.

The fact that the driver survived is irrelevant. He could have been killed and IMO, could have possibly evaded penetration of his car and a beating. I hardly doubt that his showing the gun would have been a legal detriment under the circumstances.

 

[maat]

That's what he finally decided to do. It was for the sake of his family in the car.

You are not getting the fact that he was outnumbered and these bikers were most likely also armed as well.

One of them would have shot him from the side.

Rambo movies are great but in real life it does not work like that.

I would have been sideswiping bikers to get them out of my way and kept driving to a police station, going down side streets to avoid traffic jams.

There are times when a gun won't help you unless it is a long gun against handguns, which he also did not have.

I don't believe in this scenario that the driver using a gun would have led to a gun fight. Right or wrong call, I would have used my gun to possibly stop the penetration of my car and eventually, if necessary, shot the guy who did penetrate my car. I would not have offered myself up as a punching bag.

 

[bofh]

I believe you are conflating what I mean as showing /pulling the gun. I never said point the gun (draw down on him) at the biker(through the window). What I'm suggesting is no different than a guy unconcealing his gun, with hand on(not pulled)when he believes he is getting ready to be assaulted by a guy with a helmet in hand. From in a car, the biker will not see it on him, so the driver would hold it where it can be seen, but not pointing it.

Thank you for posting yet another example of you clearly not knowing the law. I already posted that showing your gun as a threat, pointing a gun at someone and shooting your gun at someone are all legally considered using lethal force. In the eye of the law, showing your gun as a threat is the same as shooting at someone and missing. I also already posted in this and the other thread that there is a legal difference between someone getting ready to be assaulted by a guy with a helmet in hand and a barrier, such as a car window, between the attacker and you, and someone actually assaulting you with no barrier between the attacker and you.

Let me put it this way, if you show me your gun in an attempt to deescalate, I am going to shoot you and take my chances in court. You just threatened me with death. That was your choice and you will face the consequences. Do you understand that? Comprende? Capeesh?

The fact that the driver survived is irrelevant. He could have been killed and IMO, could have possibly evaded penetration of his car and a beating. I hardly doubt that his showing the gun would have been a legal detriment under the circumstances.

The driver was threatened with serious bodily harm once the car window was broken. At that point, he had a legal right to defend himself and his family with lethal force. Most judges and juries would agree. He didn't do that as he was not carrying a firearm. The fact that the driver survived is just the counterpoint to your argument that shooting back was the only option, which clearly it was not as the driver didn't even have that option. I am pretty sure you know that, troll.

As for his showing his gun, I already mentioned that there was at least one undercover NY narcotics officers in the biker gang. He was not one of the attackers. If the driver woould have "showed his gun" without justification, the undercover cop could have shot him or at least testified against him later.

Keep going with your trolling. You clearly have zero understanding of the law and demonstrate it in every single post. Here is something more for you to read: USACarry | What Does Brandishing Mean? And Why You Should Never Do It….

:jester:

 

[maat]

Thank you for posting yet another example of you clearly not knowing the law. I already posted that showing your gun as a threat, pointing a gun at someone and shooting your gun at someone are all legally considered using lethal force. In the eye of the law, showing your gun as a threat is the same as shooting at someone and missing. I also already posted in this and the other thread that there is a legal difference between someone getting ready to be assaulted by a guy with a helmet in hand and a barrier, such as a car window, between the attacker and you, and someone actually assaulting you with no barrier between the attacker and you.

Let me put it this way, if you show me your gun in an attempt to deescalate, I am going to shoot you and take my chances in court. You just threatened me with death. That was your choice and you will face the consequences. Do you understand that? Comprende? Capeesh?



The driver was threatened with serious bodily harm once the car window was broken. At that point, he had a legal right to defend himself and his family with lethal force. Most judges and juries would agree. He didn't do that as he was not carrying a firearm. The fact that the driver survived is just the counterpoint to your argument that shooting back was the only option, which clearly it was not as the driver didn't even have that option. I am pretty sure you know that, troll.

As for his showing his gun, I already mentioned that there was at least one undercover NY narcotics officers in the biker gang. He was not one of the attackers. If the driver woould have "showed his gun" without justification, the undercover cop could have shot him or at least testified against him later.

Keep going with your trolling. You clearly have zero understanding of the law and demonstrate it in every single post. Here is something more for you to read: USACarry | What Does Brandishing Mean? And Why You Should Never Do It….

:jester:

I'll do research on whether showing a gun is considered leather force. IMO, that is ridiculous. I know that showing a gun as a show of force when not threatened or while committing a crime is illegal. Showing for the purpose of self-defense, IMO, is not attempting to commit a crime. And, I believe this driver has a strong case for doing so.

Whether I'm right or wrong does not excuse your pathetic attitude towards my honest debate. Being new to a forum does not make me new to debating issues. You said your peace so move on.

 

[HKS]

I don't believe in this scenario that the driver using a gun would have led to a gun fight. Right or wrong call, I would have used my gun to possibly stop the penetration of my car and eventually, if necessary, shot the guy who did penetrate my car. I would not have offered myself up as a punching bag.

The driver obviously disagreed with you and did not want to put his passengers/family at risk.

He was probably correct.

His only chance of outrunning the rat pack of bikers was to get to a safe place like a police department.

He failed.

I don't know if he was armed, and I believe he was NOT.

Had he been, he could have started shooting at the bikers, however they would likely have also been armed in that case and would have started shooting back at him, in which case his passengers would all have died too.

Avoidance is the key to success in a situation like this.

First, avoid bikers especially if they are running in packs. Running in packs gives them a mob mentality. I saw a bunch of bikers pestering a motorist once, up ahead of me. The bikers were trying to pass all of us cars. Most of us moved over and gave them a wide berth. One car driver did not and they were all over his case for it. That is probably how this particular incident started as well.

Second, if they single you out, slow down and let them go by. In most cases they just want to pass you. Since they outnumber you it is not wise to play cat and mouse with them. They are the cats. You are the mouse.

Third, if they try to pull you over, definitely do NOT stop. And don't let yourself get pinned in traffic either. Having failed to avoid the situation it now requires escape and evasion.

In my case I am always armed, and if this situation had happened to me, and I got pinned in traffic like the car driver did (motorist), I would have gotten out of the car and led the bikers away from my car, so my passengers would at least be safe.

Then I would have gotten behind cover. This is always the first thing you should do -- and which I was taught to do -- in my CFP classes. I have been through 2 CPF classes in 2 different states. One was extensive and lasted 2 days while the other was superficial and lasted only 4 hours.

From cover, then you can open fire. If you had enough ammo with you -- more than one mag -- you might have held out until the police arrived. They usually roll to "shots fired".

This particular motorist (the car driver) did nothing right.

 

[HKS]

I'll do research on whether showing a gun is considered leather force. IMO, that is ridiculous. I know that showing a gun as a show of force when not threatened or while committing a crime is illegal. Showing for the purpose of self-defense, IMO, is not attempting to commit a crime. And, I believe this driver has a strong case for doing so.

Whether I'm right or wrong does not excuse your pathetic attitude towards my honest debate. Being new to a forum does not make me new to debating issues. You said your peace so move on.

It depends on the state. In some states like California displaying a weapon is considered brandishing and is illegal.

In other states it is not a crime until you point the muzzle at someone.

 

[bofh]

It depends on the state. In some states like California displaying a weapon is considered brandishing and is illegal.

In other states it is not a crime until you point the muzzle at someone.

HKS is wrong.

Displaying your deadly weapon in a threatening manner, as discussed here, without proper justification of using deadly force is illegal in all states. You are making an intentional lethal threat. It doesn't matter where the muzzle points. Doing so without proper justification gives the opponent the justification to lawfully respond with lethal force, including to shoot you and get a clean bill of health afterwards. We are not talking about unintentional exposure or complex anti open carry laws here.

Know your state's laws.

 

[maat]

HKS is wrong.

Displaying your deadly weapon in a threatening manner, as discussed here, without proper justification of using deadly force is illegal in all states. You are making an intentional lethal threat. It doesn't matter where the muzzle points. Doing so without proper justification gives the opponent the justification to lawfully respond with lethal force, including to shoot you and get a clean bill of health afterwards. We are not talking about unintentional exposure or complex anti open carry laws here.

Know your state's laws.

In the end, you and I are going to disagree on whether the driver had "reasonable" reason to believe he was under imminate threat. I believe he was.

I will take away from your posts to do some deeper research on presenting a gun as a deterrent.