NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/guns/16051

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-16 | 4.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!walter!att-out!pacbell.com!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!ra!mimsy!net.yale.edu
From: [e-mail] (Alan Watt)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Bad tactical position ( was Psychology in Defense)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:46:48 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Lines: 77
Approved: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, scylax![e-mail] writes:

|>
|> OK,  Someone tell me.  I scream at the perp "ON THE FLOOR"
|> He says "fxxx you" ,  I yell "DO IT NOW!"  He calls me "you homo."
|> He does not attack me, but he doesn't obey.  Stalemate.  Do I shoot
|> him or not?  Any takers?
|>
|> Lacking a better "technique", I say, if nobody is looking I waste
|> him after the second try.  No crippling shot, just my side of the
|> story to tell.  In a public place I am not sure what I would do.

The operative principle remains: does the perp. appear to a reasonable
person to represent a immediate threat to your life, or the life of
an innocent third party?  Screaming obscenities at you does not in
my mind constitute such a threat.  If perp is holding a weapon, you shout
"DROP THAT WEAPON!!!".  If perp has a weapon he could reach, or appears
to have a weapon he could reach, you shout "DON'T TOUCH THAT WEAPON!".
Actually, if perp is *holding* a firearm, you should shoot immediately;
issuing any kind of challenge at that point is risky.  If you find yourself
holding an armed perp. at gunpoing and he *doesn't* immediately drop
a firearm he is holding, I would consider that an adequate grounds to
shoot.  After all, when the police say "DROP THAT GUN NOW!", they do
mean *NOW*. If the weapon he is holding is not a firearm, but something
like a knife or club, you also have to consider distance.

Getting into a shouting match is a bad idea; it is only going to take
your attention away from what you need to concentrate on most.

My impression is (totally uninformed) that if you get the drop on an
armed perp, he is going to decide very quickly either to take you on
*NOW*, or drop his weapon and be very cooperative.  The situation where
the perp slowly inches towards you, ignoring commands to stop, will
only occur if perp decides you aren't really serious.

Back to the situation where you have a perp and gunpoint, and he is
not visibly holding a weapon, but he does not comply with your order
to get on the floor.  The main thing you care about is his hands:
can you seem them, and are they empty?  If he makes any sudden movement
with either hand towards any part of his body which could conceal
a firearm, a reasonable person could interpret that as an immediate
deadly threat.  If he moves so his hands are concealed from you,
a reasonable person could also interpret that as prepatory to drawing
a weapon.

If you are going to issue a challenge to a potentially armed intruder,
you want to be in a position of at least partial cover while the intruder
is in the open.  If possible, you want there to be some doubt in his
mind as to exactly where you are.  Anything you can do to contribute to
the impression that any exchange of fire is going to be more dangerous
to him than it is to you will help.  You also want to make sure that
if you have called 911, the police are going to encounter the perp
before they encounter you.

All of this assumes other circumstances have established beyond doubt
the perp has unlawfully entered your home, or in some other way established
hostile intentions.  Having good locks on solid doors is a good investment
for any number of reasons, among which is that you will be *very* sure
that by the time someone breaks into your home, it's no mistake.

|>     [MODERATOR: The merits of saying ahead of time, and in public,
|>      that one would shoot a perp in the above hypothetical situation
|>      should be considered.   But could we appeal to the officers here
|>      on the net to comment?  Surely training must address exactly
|>      this sort of scenario, where a bad guy is clearly covered but
|>      neither secured nor cooperative.]

The merits of saying in a public forum that you would under certain
circumstances exceed your lawful authority, or in some other way
violate the law shouldn't even be open for debate.
--
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University            Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station            [phone]
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112        [e-mail]