Drive away
“Can I ___” is the wrong question.
“Should I ___” is a better question.
I think that realignment will rectify most if not all of this.
5 Likes
Shooting isn’t the first option. Complying and running isn’t the first option. The first option is fighting for what’s yours. Often when challenged, a thief will run away. This is why they try to select weak targets. That being said, why would I ever not at least attempt to challenge a thief? We need to start thinking about a different approach to training. Like levels of awareness except these would be levels of challenge. First verbal: HEY! STOP! Then physical: Place yourself in their way. Then maybe if they’re still not complying go to the cs gas or pepper spray knowing it could quickly escalate to the final level being draw your firearm. All while knowing your in the right because the criminal engaged you in some way by trying to make you a victim in the first place. I know this is the exact opposite of what we’re being trained to do now but I think in the long run it would benefit everyone if we all made sure criminals knew nothing comes easy.
Yes if driving away is an option take it.
1 Like
According to most of the reports I have read the majority of self defense situations end without shots being fired because the criminal runs away when faced with a firearm. Seems to me that blocking the escape route makes the likelihood of someone getting shot significantly greater. A cornered rat is a very dangerous thing.
4 Likes
I meant placing yourself in between them and their intended target. Inviting them to leave with nothing. This is opposed to letting them get what they want and leaving after they’ve already gotten it.
This makes a little more sense to me. Though I would be looking to put some cover or at least concealment between myself and the threat as apposed to placing myself between the threat and their intended target.
I would almost certainly be shouting warnings that the police have been called and I will defend myself if they don’t leave. Unless I felt the situation required more stealth. Either way I want to make sure I maintain the safest defensive position possible, forcing the intruders to take all the risks if they choose not to leave.
2 Likes
In this scenario, where is the intruder, how do you know there is only one, where are you, where are the rest of your family, are you armed and if so how, what can you tell about the intruder’s armed/not status, what if anything does the intruder already have their hands on, what did you determine was their “target” property to steal and how did you make that determination?
1 Like
That post was a “what if” about changing our philosophical approach to defense situations in general. It’s like five or so posts behind this one. Go check it out. It speaks about how if we change training from find cover, barricade, call police and wait to a series of escalating aggressions. First verbal then physical then non lethal and finally lethal. I’m just making an example about how training could focus on something else other then just being as safe as possible. I’m no expert. An expert could put together a much more comprehensive and effective series of actions. We should also not promote that these actions would be less defendable in a court of law. A criminal initiated the encounter and we should not be afraid to act accordingly. If the USCCA and nra adopt this philosophy I think criminals would eventually begin to weigh how dangerous their profession is against what they’re gaining and possibly choose a different profession.
Yup. Bad instinct. You are no longer facing a threat, but presenting one.
To require the use of lethal force? Doubt it.
“Try?” There is not try. Do or do not.
I would say that the “invasion” or defensible attack on the car occupant begins with:
- forcible breaking into the car; or
- crossing the plane of the door/window with menace.
That really is too close for the tactically alert defender. Have locked doors. Drive away. Even justified, use of the gun would be a defensive failure.
“Must I ____?” is the best question.
Sure. Fine. Challenge, if you can safely do so. If they stop, “drop my stuff and get out of here!”
I think at this point you have initiated the physical confrontation, and have assumed responsibility for the outcome — make a live capture and you’re a hero; end up shooting and you’re a killer; end up losing and you’re a dope. Our society and law generally does not accept that a private citizen may use lethal force to capture a fleeing miscreant. Too much bad judgement out there. Even the cops often aren’t great at it.
The fact that our legal system seems unable to deliver swift and certain justice does not make DIY justice a good solution. The civilian role is about the inherent right to self-defense, and about fixing broken parts of the system; not personally spanking the bad boys.
5 Likes
Wow! Great insights! Thank you for all your efforts but I totally disagree. In the first response your not using lethal force, your chasing down your property that the thief stole so they are still the aggressor. If they were to drop the property and I continue pursuing, then I think I’d be the aggressor.
In the second response, again, your not going directly to lethal force, your just fighting off an attacker, once he gets you out of the car and takes possession of your property, then you have every right to use lethal force.
I think instead of ask can, should, or must I we should be stating “they’d better not”
In the last response your not trying to stop a thief from leaving, your inviting the to leave with nothing. Your not trying to capture or kill, your trying to protect your property and in our beautiful constitution we have every right to do so. Thanks again for you insight. I really do appreciate honest, calm conversations
Which is why we don’t need to do that.
You are answering your own question
You keep asking “am I the aggressor” while simultaneously recommending we become aggressors and literally saying you think we should escalate the situation.
3 Likes
Just saw this vid, different context but still pretty much what’s being repeatedly emphasized here: deescalate.
Reacting aggressively does not make me the aggressor. The criminal is the aggressor by committing a crime against you. In the law you can act aggressively in response to an aggressor. See what I’m saying? What if we changed our approach to an aggressive one to protect what’s ours rather then a passive approach being hide and call the police. I know it’s because a fear of death and financial ruin but if we changed our approach, we’d be with in our legal rights and criminals would think more about how much danger they might be in if they tried something. Eventually it would be common practice and courts would probably eventually start throwing out civil cases before they even reached the trial stage.
Dang! The video isn’t playing! I think it’s important to give the creep an opportunity to de-escalate by leaving empty handed.
It was just a screenshot. Here’s the video
1 Like
That guy’s a great teacher. Involving the students, using real life example, and finally but most important he’s entertaining. Good stuff but completely different then what we’re talking about. He saying walk away from a fight and I agree. Don’t let pride get you in trouble. My argument is not one of pride but constitutional rights to protect yourself and your property. If we should be teaching that right and the uses of that right rather then barricade and wait. There’s really only two or three people that openly disagree. I’m sure many more can’t be bothered but I’m also sure many agree but don’t want to put that in writing on a public platform and I get that. Actually, that was my point in a different convo over in the self defense topic. This one was for legalities of “what if” scenarios. The two have been entwined by a couple of us. Anyway, thanks for the input.
Do you though?
1 Like
There’s a clear difference between walking away from a fight and defending your life and property. Pride is the deadliest of sins. A person could antagonize me until they’re blue in the face. I don’t want to fight or hurt anybody ever. I don’t even like killing bugs. I also don’t want to allow anyone to steal from me or attack me without consequence. You and I obviously disagree on how people should train and that’s ok. I also realize there are pyrrhic victories but that’s something each individual needs to weigh. What’s important. I see your side and understand it but don’t agree it’s the best approach.
I would like to suggest that there is also a clear difference between:
- Defending your life
- Defending your property
- Defending your property under the guise of saving some other person’s life in the future by taking the criminal off the street
I think it might be called pride when you would rather have a physical, possibly deadly, confrontation with a person than suffer the indignity of having your property stolen while you remain safe
It’s just “stuff”. It’s not worth your life, and you clearly recognize a significantly increased risk to you life should you go out and confront the criminal with escalating aggressiveness
2 Likes