Threat reduction

[doncb]

In my LTC class the instructor was going over use of deadly force and when is the point the threat was reduced to where deadly force was no longer justified.

Here is the scenario used: Someone comes at you with a knife and the intent is clear. Deadly force is justified. You draw and fire once hitting them in the chest. They drop the knife but continue advancing towards you. The instructor stated that at the point they dropped the knife, the threat was reduced and deadly force was no longer justified. The opinion of the class was that as long as the person was advancing towards you the threat still remained, knife or not. The instructor was adamant that them dropping the knife reduced the threat and that deadly force was no longer justified even though they continued advancing and if you continued to shoot it turned into murder (or something along those lines). Sure the type of threat changed, but a threat remained (who wants to let someone like that get close enough to start beating you. If the person had stopped advancing and you shot them again, sure, you stepped over the line as the threat no longer existed.

Here is how I personally would hope to handle the situation: Someone comes at me with a knife and the intent is clear. At that point deadly force is justified. I draw and fire once hitting them in the chest (I wouldn't fire just once to avoid the next part). They drop the knife but continue advancing towards me. If possible, I move to open the space between us as they continue to advance (although I'm not sure if moving is really necessary). Sure the type of threat changed, but a threat remained (who wants to let someone like that get close enough to start beating you). To me, deadly force would still be justified as they were still coming towards me and I would still fear that my life was in danger. If the person had stopped advancing and I shot them again, sure, I stepped over the line as the threat no longer existed.

Is my line of thinking valid or is the instructor actually right?

[Liberty]

Shooting someone in the chest, might just mean they are wearing a vest. Lots of variables here, though. Is aggressor physically bigger or more capable? Is there another weapon? Is this a legal or personal moral issue? Is there a clear escape?

[SHogun62]

Seems to me your instructor tossed in a lot more detail than any reasonable person in that position would factor. Its a somewhat difficult task for experienced combatants to make judgement calls like what you described during an incident, let alone near impossible for a first time combatant. Maybe I give people to much credit, but it seems to me a jury of reasonable peers would see this situation as you do, if the assailant is still advancing, and you're still holding a firing position, the logical step is stop the threat as quickly as possible. Taking pause to re-evaluate whether or not a second shot is warranted is not the likely course of an average person acting in self defense, under extraordinarily stressful moments.

I'm not a lawyer, but based on my experiences with combat, that's my perspective.

Upon reading your question to my wife, who was curious about the scenario, I want to add this...

If you shoot a person in the chest, and they are still advancing, two likely conclusions are at play; 1- They're wearing armor, and the threat is still VERY real. 2-They are jacked up on some kind of intoxicant, and they threat is still VERY real. In my military and law enforcement capacities, these were the reasons we were given when taught to shoot "2 to the chest, 1 in the head" (if the first 2 didn't stop the threat).

[doncb]

The scenario was that you didn't start the confrontation. I would definitely try to de-escalate the situation and only use force as a last resort. I think the "one shot" is unrealistic just like "shoot to wound". Since I'm almost 60, disparity of force could come into play.

[TexasJohnBoy]

All other avenues of de-escalation aside, if I'm forced to shoot you in the chest because deadly force is justified, and you continue to advance at me *after being shot center mass*, then you're still a big threat as others have mentioned.

Armor, on something, just plain nuts, you're still coming at me with a 9mm hole in you.

I think getting shot with a .22 would make most normal people stop pestering you!

[Jusme]

My response is to continue shooting until the threat has stopped. That means that if the threat is still advancing, even without a knife, the threat still exists. Another weapon in a pocket, steel toed boots, large ring on a huge hand, are all potential weapons, and if I have had to resort to shooting in the first place, then all other threat reductions have failed. JMHO

[AJSully421]

If you shoot someone, and they are still advancing even though you still have a functional firearm pointed at them... you have a very serious problem. You can very easily make the argument that once that guy gets a hold of you that you reasonably believe that you will suffer serious bodily injury or death as a result.

The guy tackles you, wrestles for the gun, manages to get a round in you... Don't you reasonably think that could cause serious bodily injury?

Guy gets a good hit to your face, you lose consciousness... what do you reasonably believe will happen next?

Who knows... keep shooting. Getting prosecuted means one thing: you survived, and in the end, isn't that what matters most of all?

On that note, I want full exemption of PC 46.02 for all CHL holders. It is insane that we can carry handguns but not an ASP baton or something "less lethal". I could certainly put an end to someone's unarmed attack with a baton and not put the guy in the hospital for too long, or the morgue. Might make some Obamacare premiums or Medicaid taxes go down... something to think about lawmakers.

[thetexan]

There are a couple of issues going here.

The test is...do I or don't I ...

...have a REASONABLE belief that the use of deadly force is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to prevent serious bodily injury or death by the use of unlawful deadly force against me.

Immediate necessity is the key. After the event there may still be a threat but is it an immediate threat? And do I believe REASONABLY that it is immediate?

The existence of an immediate threat and my reasonable belief thereof is what authorizes the use of deadly force. The removal of the immediacy is what terminates my authorization.

The other issue is this...We teach that one never shoots to kill but rather shoots to remove the threat. This does not mean shoot to wound such as shoot in the arm or leg.

If I have an immediate threat I will shoot to stop.

In other words...my philosophy is not BANG! "DIE"...BANG! "DIE"...BANG! "DIE"

It is BANG! "STOP!"...BANG! "STOP WHAT TOU ARE DOING"...BANG! " HAVE YOU DECIDED TO STOP YET!!!"

The very instant the reasonably believed immediate threat has been stopped then deadly force is no longer authorized. In other words the death of the attacker is not the test as to whether I am through using deadly force. The test is, have I or have I not stopped the IMMEDIATE threat....YET! If yes then I stop using deadly force. If no, then I am authorized to use deadly force until the answer becomes yes...until the threat is no longer immediate.

By the way, reducing the immediacy of the threat can occur several ways. For example I can run away until immediacy is not a factor. I don't have a requirement to retreat ( except in certain circumstances) but I can.

My intention is to effectively and immediately stop the threat, never to kill. But it WILL stop! (Notice I am not deliberately AVOIDING killing, it is just not my INTENTION to kill, only to stop the immediate threat). But, the odds are the results will not be good for the attacker.

tex

[locke_n_load]

yep. no matter what they have, if you have a firearm, every encounter is an armed encounter. I refuse to get into a fistfight if my gun is on me -there always the chance they get a lucky punch in and then my gun could be taken and used against me. If someone comes at me with the intent of assaulting me, my gun will be drawn (if concealed or open). If they still advance, then they get shot.

Edit: I avoid confrontation pretty much at all costs. So if someone is attempting to assault me, there is a good chance they are either under the influence, crazy, or attempting to rob me.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Shooting someone in the chest, might just mean they are wearing a vest. Lots of variables here, though. Is aggressor physically bigger or more capable? Is there another weapon? Is this a legal or personal moral issue? Is there a clear escape?

Far too many factors to consider that are not set out in the instructor's scenario. I too cover the "when and to the degree" element in my classes, but I also point out that knowing when the threat has ended can be very difficult. (I have a 3 hr. seminar on deadly force and much of that time is spend on just such scenarios.)

I also talk about the case of the pharmacist who shot one hijacker, chased the others out of the building, then came back in and put five more rounds in the stomach of the first hijacker who was on the ground. The line between self-defense and retribution is sometimes difficult to identify.

Chas.

[Jago668]

The attacker's intent was very clear when he pulled a knife and started towards you. They intended serious bodily injury or death. That intent is still there, and I have no clue if they have another weapon. Even after being shot they are intent on injuring/killing me as evidenced as continuing to advance on someone that has shot them. So the attacker will continue to be shot until they stop attacking or I run out of bullets. I carry more than one knife, and there are people that carry more than one gun. So once an attacker has escalated it to a deadly force encounter it stays that way as long as they are attacking.

[allisji]

The attacker's intent was very clear when he pulled a knife and started towards you. They intended serious bodily injury or death. That intent is still there, and I have no clue if they have another weapon. Even after being shot they are intent on injuring/killing me as evidenced as continuing to advance on someone that has shot them. So the attacker will continue to be shot until they stop attacking or I run out of bullets. I carry more than one knife, and there are people that carry more than one gun. So once an attacker has escalated it to a deadly force encounter it stays that way as long as they are attacking.

[karder]

Our society is full of people who seem to believe that "unarmed" means "no threat". This is a myth that has been spread by the media and is preposterous. Men were killing other men with their fists and feet long before guns were invented.

In early September I was fortunate enough to attend a black belt level jiu jitsu seminar in Dallas. I spent 3 days rolling around on the mat with some very high level grapplers and believe me, even a strong, healthy man can get put on his back and quickly find himself in a serious world of hurt by even a moderately trained fighter.

Now if the shooter is in your instructor's scenario is an older person, with bad knees, bad back, or arthritic hands, they simply cannot allow an advancing attacker to shoot on them and take them to the ground. If you are in serious enough danger to pull your gun and fire, you are in enough danger to keep firing until the threat is stopped. Certainly I would not encourage "cleaning up" by going back and finishing off a downed attacker as in Mr. Cotton's example, but the threat must be stopped to the point where you can safely exit and wait for PD.

[The Annoyed Man]

My response is to continue shooting until the threat has stopped. That means that if the threat is still advancing, even without a knife, the threat still exists. Another weapon in a pocket, steel toed boots, large ring on a huge hand, are all potential weapons, and if I have had to resort to shooting in the first place, then all other threat reductions have failed. JMHO

This..... which is why my guiding principle if I should ever have to shoot someone is that anyone worth shooting once, is worth shooting twice. Double tap. Quickly. So in the instructor's scenario, the attacker would already have (at minimum) two bullets in him before dropping the knife. Like Liberty said, the BG might be wearing a vest. You don't know. Maybe the single bullet disrupted the attack but did not deter it. Maybe he dropped the knife out of surprise at being hit, and intends to pick it right back up and press the attack home. Maybe he has a second knife on his person. Maybe he hasn't drawn his backup gun yet. In the heat of the moment, there's no way to know, and that passes the reasonableness test. Your job is to drop him ASAP, and then worry about the dropped knife later.

How far away did the instructor say the attacker was? If he's inside your danger zone, he's a threat even if bare-handed.

[bblhd672]

And then there's this approach: http://bearingarms.com/stephen-w/2014/0 ... nceptions/