What would you do in this scenario?

You really think you can shoot someone for grabbing you around the neck?
I did not say that. I said, it's not so easy to give a definitive "no" to that question without understanding the specific facts of the situation. You are going into it predisposed to saying it is excessive.

If he's pressing his thumb on my throat and I don't think I can get them off - HELL yes...

If he just rests his hand on the back of my neck to intimidate me? No...
 
[thinking]So, I have a duty to be harmed before I defend myself now?

See my above posts - I hope you never have to experience such a situation, but you are going to learn a lot if you do...


Yes, you can't shoot people just for threatening you. You can't shoot someone just for a simple assault. Even if he puts his hands around you neck and says "I'm going to kill you now," you really can't shoot him.

I don't see what my personal experiences have to do with this? Have you been in any gun fights? I think it looks bad when the cops show up and you have a gun, no injuries, and the dead guy is unarmed..

Rule number one is that you can't shoot unarmed people, even if they piss you off, threatening you, or even injure you.

With this case, it's actually pretty quite hard to kill someone by grabbing them around the neck. Although it sounds bad, the reality is that it takes some work to get someone by the throat/trachea (the classic Marine move), it takes a while to get someone to pass out (MMA) style, and it's really hard to break someone's vertebrae.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, but just the fact that someone puts their hand around you neck does not mean you are a second away from instant death. Obviously, mace them, fight back, but you had better think twice before you shoot them.
 
I am man enough to say I would have no problem utilizing my boot to his jewels. The only person that worries about fighting fair in a street fight is usually the one that loses.
 
Yes, you can't shoot people just for threatening you. You can't shoot someone just for a simple assault. Even if he puts his hands around you neck and says "I'm going to kill you now," you really can't shoot him.

I don't see what my personal experiences have to do with this? Have you been in any gun fights? I think it looks bad when the cops show up and you have a gun, no injuries, and the dead guy is unarmed..

Rule number one is that you can't shoot unarmed people, even if they piss you off, threatening you, or even injure you.

With this case, it's actually pretty quite hard to kill someone by grabbing them around the neck. Although it sounds bad, the reality is that it takes some work to get someone by the throat/trachea (the classic Marine move), it takes a while to get someone to pass out (MMA) style, and it's really hard to break someone's vertebrae.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, but just the fact that someone puts their hand around you neck does not mean you are a second away from instant death. Obviously, mace them, fight back, but you had better think twice before you shoot them.

Thank you.
 
You would be the juror I fear most...

You are trying to apply and logic after the fact to a situation you either haven't experienced or don't recall very well if you did...

The "attacker" has already assaulted him by grabbing him by the neck. You can with minimal force kill someone in this way. Now we are ignoring the fact that they are teenagers for a moment because we are discussing carrying concealed weapons which I doubt too many people want teenagers to be doing. Their brains aren't yet fully formed and we know from experience and scientifically now they don't work quite right[laugh]

So, speaking of adults, what always concerns me most about this situations is that even those who believe in one's right to self defense apply "after the fact thinking" to the scenario knowing the non-lethal outcome and failing to maintain objectivity because of it...

Punching someone can be deadly too, but its harder than choking someone. If you have ever experienced this scenario, then I think would find it less clear once someone has threatened lethal force that you don't have the right to do the same. Or to threaten by showing your weapon without firing it...

This is a gray area and "reasonableness" standards apply. Unfortunately what is "reasonable" for someone who is LEO or military and someone who has never been assaulted in this way and is not trained to respond with non-lethal force are very different things...

p.s. If ever I was on trial for something like this, I would insist on a re-enactment. People's TV based assumptions about what this is like are totally flawed and assuming that 12 (or 6) of your peers will understand what you faced that day is a VERY poor assumption. Even if they are basically reasonable and intelligent people - our species has lost touch with the reality of "the wild" and it shows...


Excellent post! +2
 
Yes, you can't shoot people just for threatening you. You can't shoot someone just for a simple assault. Even if he puts his hands around you neck and says "I'm going to kill you now," you really can't shoot him.
And I never said you could - you are misreading my responses. I simply stated that the idea that someone does not have a weapon in no way determines just how deadly a threat they are to you...

Mass-diver said:
I don't see what my personal experiences have to do with this? Have you been in any gun fights?
What I am saying is that I have frequently heard your black/white argument from people who haven't experienced being assaulted and I have never heard it from someone who has...

No, I have not been in a gunfight but I have been assaulted, they had a deadly weapon (I did not), but I prevented them from using it...

Mass-diver said:
I think it looks bad when the cops show up and you have a gun, no injuries, and the dead guy is unarmed..
"Looks can be decieving" that's my whole point![wink]


Mass-Diver said:
Rule number one is that you can't shoot unarmed people, even if they piss you off, threatening you
I'll agree up to there, but... once you get here it gets gray ", or even injure you" - depends drastically on the nature of the injury...


Mass-Diver said:
With this case, it's actually pretty quite hard to kill someone by grabbing them around the neck. Although it sounds bad, the reality is that it takes some work to get someone by the throat/trachea (the classic Marine move), it takes a while to get someone to pass out (MMA) style, and it's really hard to break someone's vertebrae.
It might be if you are wrestling with someone who knows you are going to attack, but:

I am not talking about breaking of necks, I am talking about collapsing trachea and/or breaking the hyoid bone. Which with the element of surprise is not so difficult...

Mass-Diver said:
I'm not saying that it can't be done, but just the fact that someone puts their hand around you neck does not mean you are a second away from instant death. Obviously, mace them, fight back, but you had better think twice before you shoot them.
As I have said over and over, It's not clear to me from what he said that he was in sufficient danger for even me to say that he could shoot.

I was just pointing out that "think twice" is not a luxury you will get in such a situation, nor is it someone a jury should "reasonably" expect of someone else in such a situation. When they decide what is "reasonable", they need to do something that all too often they either don't or don't know how to which is to put themselves in such a situation with realistic expectations and then see how they would react...
 
Last edited:
I am going to leave this one alone..... [angry]
Too late, I already fired a shot you for your simple assault on the thread[rofl][rofl][rofl]

I'll leave it where it is too - I suspect my point is missed/lost in the blinding light of the idea of possibly shooting someone who is "unarmed" (despite the fact that they have two perfectly good and lethal arms[wink][laugh][laugh]) under any circumstances...
 
also, one should consider how much more dangerous the situation become for them IF they are armed. the assaulted, I mean, not the assualtee.

if I have no gun and someone is choking me, I'm going to fight back. hard. they may return that level of fight, or decide it's not worth it and bug off. they may or may not be armed. but, I don't know that when I'm fighting...

If I do have a gun and someone start choking me, simply fighting back may actually put me in a more dangerous position. if a struggle ensues and it has any intensity, the risk of someone other than me getting ahold of my gun goes way up... then they certainly have a gun, they certainly mean you harm, and you are certainly in danger.

if armed, I think I would draw on the first person to threaten and actually be a threat (aka, advancing) to me in the situation. if that escalates the situation, I am prepared for that. I have a fiance at home who loves me... I'm not going to gamble on to what level of a victim I will get off with being.
 
Do these courses and books I hear mentioned on this site touch on when you could say 'legally' your life has been threatened? For example, a man with a knife...life threatening? Man with a baseball bat...life threatening? Man starting to punch and beat you...life threatening? How does one size up a life threatening event?

Yes, they do. You want to take Massad Ayoob's Lethal Force Institute LFI-1. He covers it in more detail than anyone else. Highly recommended.

http://www.ayoob.com
 
And I never said you could - you are misreading my responses. I simply stated that the idea that someone does not have a weapon in no way determines just how deadly a threat they are to you...

I guess we are just going to have disagree on this one. To me, whether the BS has a weapon or not is EVERYTHING. I would have to be in the fight of my life before I shot an unarmed person.
 
if armed, I think I would draw on the first person to threaten and actually be a threat (aka, advancing) to me in the situation. if that escalates the situation, I am prepared for that. I have a fiance at home who loves me... I'm not going to gamble on to what level of a victim I will get off with being.[/QUOTE]

+1
 
a

if armed, I think I would draw on the first person to threaten and actually be a threat (aka, advancing) to me in the situation. if that escalates the situation, I am prepared for that. I have a fiance at home who loves me... I'm not going to gamble on to what level of a victim I will get off with being.

I guess I'll leave this thread alone too (as I don't want to further contribute to a train wreck), but again, I can't believe I'm reading some of this stuff?

Drawing as a threat, shooting unarmed people for fear of a simple assault? Hell, I'd be shooting people every other day [wink]

Carrying a pistol is a big responsibility, but I guess we have all been taught differently. I only draw if I'm going to shoot, and, I only shoot someone who is threatening me with deadly force.

Maybe if I can get on NES while in prison I'll rethink my views.
 
With this case, it's actually pretty quite hard to kill someone by grabbing them around the neck. Although it sounds bad, the reality is that it takes some work to get someone by the throat/trachea (the classic Marine move), it takes a while to get someone to pass out (MMA) style, and it's really hard to break someone's vertebrae.


Entirely incorrect. As someone who has been on both ends of multiple styles of MMA/Jiu-Jitsu chokes and strangles, you can lose conciousness in less than 7 seconds if applied properly. And during the seven seconds the "ride" is not a pleasant one. Your ability to react and defend appropriately with years of force on force training is a few seconds at best.

The average able-bodied adult male is cannon fodder for chokes and strangles when applied with ill intent from a trained individual.

Now, in fairness to the above comment and unarmed attackers in general, there is a very small portion of the general population that is versed in these techniques, and a smaller portion still that would use them for evil ends. My two cents here is that if someone grabs your neck/throat in an unarmed conflict, you are in SERIOUS trouble and should react by whatever means necessary to mitigate the threat.

Which brings us to "What is mitigation"? Is it shooting the person? Possibly. In the event that there are multiple assailants, and you are being strangled/choked (the two attacks will be considered interchangeable from this point on) in for example a prone position with your assailant on top of you, you're Goddamn right that this is a "deadly force" encounter.

This person is clearly attempting to kill you, and there are other threats present as well. I don't know of anyone strangling someone "halfway" to prove a point. I'm sure it's happened, but it's fringe area for sure. In this instance, I as a private citizen, life-long unarmed combat practicioner and responsible law-abiding adult view this as a righteous shoot.

Now, a different scenario where someone puts his hand on the back of your neck as you are engaged in a fist fight (This is very common in a boxing-style "Tie up" or a Muay Thai "clinch"). You are still in a unarmed conflict where bodily injury of some type is all but guaranteed, but the threat of grave injury or death is signifigantly less. Here, unless the victim is a 5 foot tall woman of 100 pounds and the assailant is very large man, you've got the makings of a fist fight. Do I stick to my original statement that you are in trouble when someone has a hold of your neck during an unarmed conflict?

Absolutely. From this position, knees to the face, elbows to the temple, head butts and a host of other close range attacks can be delivered with devastating results. I would mitigate the scenario, not by shooting the person, but by responding in kind.

The point here is that any unwelcome contact to the neck or throat should taken VERY seriously, and dealt with quickly and efficiently.

Although this will happen right around the time pigs fly, were something like this (a choking self-defense scenario) to make it to trial, I'd like to have each juror choked almost to the point of unconciousness at some point during the trial proceedings (obviously for the "experience" with their consent). The post that stated that we as a species have gotten removed from the wild was 100% true.
 
I would have to be in the fight of my life before I shot an unarmed person.
On this we are in 100% agreement. It's just the particulars of how many injuries we separately think we must first suffer before we "know" we are in such a fight...

As I said, I don't now nor have I carried a weapon and we are 20 years since my assault. I am not a vigilante. I am certainly not Chuck Norris, Steven Segal or Wesley Snipes...

I've had some bad experiences and a little training and they opened my eyes in a way that I obviously cannot adequately convey...

It's like the people who argue they will have time to chamber a round if they are attacked (and thus carry a semi-auto with an empty pipe). Then the instructor stands back with a rubber knife and says - "ok, unholster, chamber and shoot before I get this knife on your throat..."

The knife almost always wins, yet there seems to be a plentiful supply of people who keep making such arguments...
 
Back to the Book of the Month discussion

http://ayoob.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=Ayoob&Category_Code=AMAB

In The Gravest Extreme. The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection.
The modern classic book that AMERICAN HANDGUNNER calls "must reading for anyone who owns a firearm for self defense". This best seller is widely acclaimed by cops, lawyers, and judges as the ultimate guide to the use of a gun's deadly force at the ultimate level of self protection. Numerous lawyers have said that they learned more about self defense law from this book than they did in law school. Often imitated but never equaled, In The Gravest Extreme tells it like it is, and prepares you to protect you and yours against criminal violence without being crucified for it in court. Anti-gunners call it "a guide on how to kill criminals and get away with it," but men like Lt. Frank McGee, former head of firearms training for New York City Police Department, say it's "must reading" for anyone who keeps a gun for self defense. Welcome to the reality of the street in a book that also makes a memorable gift to anyone who keeps a gun in their home. 130 pgs, illust., softcover "
 
I guess I'll leave this thread alone too (as I don't want to further contribute to a train wreck), but again, I can't believe I'm reading some of this stuff? Drawing as a threat, shooting unarmed people for fear of a simple assault? Hell, I'd be shooting people every other day [wink] Carrying a pistol is a big responsibility, but I guess we have all been taught differently. I only draw if I'm going to shoot, and, I only shoot someone who is threatening me with deadly force. Maybe if I can get on NES while in prison I'll rethink my views.
well, you are failing at leaving it alone, but that's okay. it's better when people participate. both sides have the potential to learn.

to address your points, I've got to clarify. what was left out in my last post was the assumption that I have already attempted to remove myself from the situation or avoid it altogether, and that I did not instigate it in any way.

now, after those have failed and you are in a position where a confrontation is imminent, with multiple assailants (or even one assailant you don't think you can take... and are you able to judge who you can take by looking? years of martial arts taught me I can't) and you have a gun. do you recognize that the danger you are in is actually much higher because you have a gun? when you're trading blows or grappling on the ground are you more focused on "winning" the fight or where your pistol is? if you underestimated the situation and your assailant does manage to get the better of you, do you realize how bad that can be? on the worst end you have you being shot with your own gun. on the best end you have you being beaten, probably unconscious, robbed, and your legally owned gun now in criminal hands.

even if you aren't legally responsible for what happens if your gun is stolen forcefully, how will you feel if it's recovered after it's been used to shoot someone innocent? if someone is attacking me, they have already shown a lack of concern for my health and well being. are you willing to stake your life on the bet that the person will have any more regard for your life than they do for the rest?

things are much simpler if you are not carrying. you fight. you fight for you damn life. but when you are carrying, you need to think of the 100 ways a confrontation could go very bad, and do what is best to avoid all of them. many times, the best thing is to run. when you cant run, the best thing is to diffuse the scenario as fast as possible. drawing a gun tends to do that.

but there is a correction here. just because you draw does not mean you fire. this is a fallacy perpetuated and drilled into us in the firearms world. you need to be prepared to fire, but the conclusion isn't forlorn the second your weapon leaves the holster. many things can change in the half second it takes you to put your gun at the ready. your line of fire could become unclear quickly. the threat could flee instantly. so, this stuff about "if I draw I will fire" is worse than what you are combating here.
 
Last edited:
It's like the people who argue they will have time to chamber a round if they are attacked (and thus carry a semi-auto with an empty pipe). Then the instructor stands back with a rubber knife and says - "ok, unholster, chamber and shoot before I get this knife on your throat..."

The knife almost always wins, yet there seems to be a plentiful supply of people who keep making such arguments...

On this, I agree with you 100%.


BostonFJ40: did that guy that Joe choked die?
 
A blood choke can take about 3 -5 seconds to work and they're out, a lot quicker (and more efficiently with higher success rate) than an air choke (wrap the arms, elbow in line with chin, flex)

My rule of thumb and how I have taught my students has always been, you have to equal out the level of force they are presenting you. each of these consists as a force multiplier:
- weapon (gun, kinfe, bat, ect),
- superior training (guy just walked out of a dojo with a black belt, you know the guy personally and know hes a good fighter, is Chuck Norris, ect)
- superior size (the guys like 6'5 and your 5'5, looks like kimbo slice)
- more than one attacker (if you have 2+ people coming at you, that's a force multiplier, and you are at a disadvantage, you have the legal ability to match force by adding your own multiplier)

Now the problem comes in, well what if you have superior training. Something that worries me if I got in this situation, would be well, there's three of them, but judging on how they hold themselves, I feel i'm able to take them down without killing them.
Rule of thumb is: If you personally feel, that there is NO other alternative but to brandish a weapon and shoot them, then shoot to kill and hold nothing back. If however, you have the SLIGHTEST inclination, that there are other options (like giving the guy your bike, running away, casting magic missile, WHATEVER!) then you are 100% Required to seek that alternative rout.
 
well, you are failing at leaving it alone, but that's okay. it's better when people participate. both sides have the potential to learn.

to address your points, I've got to clarify. what was left out in my last post was the assumption that I have already attempted to remove myself from the situation or avoid it altogether, and that I did not instigate it in any way.

now, after those have failed and you are in a position where a confrontation is imminent, with multiple assailants (or even one assailant you don't think you can take... and are you able to judge who you can take by looking? years of martial arts taught me I can't) and you have a gun. do you recognize that the danger you are in is actually much higher because you have a gun? when you're trading blows or grappling on the ground are you more focused on "winning" the fight or where your pistol is? if you underestimated the situation and your assailant does manage to get the better of you, do you realize how bad that can be? on the worst end you have you being shot with your own gun. on the best end you have you being beaten, probably unconscious, robbed, and your legally owned gun now in criminal hands. even if you aren't legally responsible for what happens if your gun is stolen forcefully, how will you feel if it's recovered after it's been used to shoot someone innocent? if someone is attacking me, they have already shown a lack of concern for my health and well being. are you willing to stake your life on the bet that the person will have any more regard for your life than they do for the rest? things are much simpler if you are not carrying. you fight. you fight for you damn life. but when you are carrying, you need to think of the 100 ways a confrontation could go very bad, and do what is best to avoid all of them. many times, the best thing is to run. when you cant run, the best thing is to diffuse the scenario as fast as possible. drawing a gun tends to do that.

but there is a correction here. just because you draw does not mean you fire. this is a fallacy perpetuated and drilled into us in the firearms world. you need to be prepared to fire, but the conclusion isn't forlorn the second your weapon leaves the holster. many things can change in the half second it takes you to put your gun at the ready. your line of fire could become unclear quickly. the threat could flee instantly. so, this stuff about "if I draw I will fire" is worse than what you are combating here.

(Sorry I can't leave well enough alone) but I don't find much in your post to disagree with.
 
I'd rather come home on crutches than to have to come home and tell my father I actually let some kids take my stuff without a fight.

And the whole question is moot anyway...if you did nothing then, you'd do nothing now...how many "what if", mall-ninja call and response posts do we need around here anyway?

Absolutely correct. My father would've done the same thing. My girlfriend's father taught her how to fight, when she had something like this happen.

Old school kids knew if you came home and told dad you didn't put up a fight to avoid an ass whupping...that you got an ass whupping for it. Better to come home bloody.

My father wsa the same way, as was I. Better to fight back.

Pulled my knife, slashed both tires and said "Here you go bitch."

GASP![wink] You would "brandish a weapon"... You brute! Directly to jail with you - even showing a weapon is an assault... [laugh]

Derek, like I, didn't grow up in the Socialist shothole called Marxichussetts. For us, carrying a knife was perfectly acceptable behavior. We ALL carried pocket knives, usually given to us by Dad or Grandpa.

You can't shoot someone just for a simple assault. Even if he puts his hands around you neck and says "I'm going to kill you now," you really can't shoot him.

Absolutely right, this far. Once he starts to squeeze, different story. But squeezing should leave marks.

Which brings us to "What is mitigation"? Is it shooting the person? Possibly. In the event that there are multiple assailants, and you are being strangled/choked (the two attacks will be considered interchangeable from this point on) in for example a prone position with your assailant on top of you, you're Goddamn right that this is a "deadly force" encounter.

This person is clearly attempting to kill you, and there are other threats present as well.

Yup, should be justifiable to shoot then.

My opinion is summed up simply as "creditable threat".

If it's a creditable threat, retaliation is justified.

The question is what kind of retaliation is justified for what kind of threat.
 
Back
Top Bottom