I asked this in another thread and pretty much received the same answers.
I maintain that under specific conditions, BEFORE reaching the kill-or-be-killed stage, showing your weapon to a threatening (not assaulting) individual who claims to have a weapon IS a form of de-escalation. By showing the assailant that you are equipped and prepared to defend yourself you may open up a moment of time in which he can reconsider his intentions. That is at least an opportunity for de-escalation.
Even if you disagree with everything I say, remember this:
ONLY THE AGGRESSOR CAN DE-ESCALATE!! YOU CAN"T!!
As the target all you can do is make the suggestion, hope for the best, and hope/believe you’re prepared for the worst. The sticky bit is that the aggressor has to agree to the suggestion.
Once the balloon goes up, you have a certain (varying) amount of control over only four choices: Run, Hide, Fight, Die. That’s it.
Let me throw in a twist. He’s the scene: Say you’re walking to your car. A man steps out of the dark, opens his jacket to show a weapon in his waistband (he doesn’t actually draw) and says something like “Gimme your wallet or I f*ck you up.” You say, “OK. Take it easy.” Then you make like you’re reaching for your wallet but you actually draw your weapon and take aim.
Here’s the decision point----Sure, you could fire to stop the threat and from a legal standpoint you MAY be OK. But what if you take a breath and say something like, “I don’t want to shoot you. How about we both just walk away?” Technically I may be guilty of ‘brandishing’, but just as technically I may have just saved one or two lives.
My philosophy, admittedly untested, is to fire only if absolutely necessary. If there is an opportunity to create some space between drawing and firing, space the assailant can use to change course, I feel morally bound to try to create that space. He can walk away or he can draw, but it’s his choice to de-escalate or not. If he draws, then I can fire.
