drew my sidearm, lesson learned

[protective measures]

I would love having reasonable conversations. Look back at this thread. I posted an opinion. All I've been doing since then is defending my opinion. There have been a hell of a lot more snide remarks made towards me than I have made and I have never initiated that type of conversation with any poster in this thread. If I get respectful responses, that's what I give. Look at my interaction with Protective Measures. We completely disagree on this subject and nether of us have taken a cheap shot at the other.

I understand that you mean well & are passionate about your position. I don't get to get on here much now so this is much more entertaining & constructive than reading/ watching which Kard. sister stuck out her b**bs the most or sc***ed the most rap stars.

 

[Bear44]

O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 A person can use lethal force to prevent a forcible felony... to be more precise:

a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Ability: The act of advancing aggressively toward the "good Samaritan" who is armed & DEFENDING himself or a third party against their loss of life or grave bodily harm is a serious threat & is "unreasonable".
The act of trying to take your gun away is a lethal threat & has to be treated as such.

Opportunity: The attacker is unreasonably advancing toward an armed person who is acting DEFENSIVELY.
The closer they advance the greater their opportunity.

Jeopardy: This one can be tricky. After repeated, loud verbal commands to "STOP!" they walk purposefully or even rush you it would be logical in most cases to feel that the aggressor had intent on doing you harm.... why else would they continue to advance toward an armed person imploring them loudly to stop?

I DO NOT suggest or condone involving oneself into domestic situations or ones that you are not totally sure of what is happening... nor do I like the idea of sitting idly by while watching a weaker, innocent party be victimized.

There are literally millions of variables that affect what would be the best course of action to take.
As we both have suggested numerous times it is critical to learn the laws on Use of Deadly Force beforehand.

I have found nothing better than conducting serious, disciplined realistic training scenarios using role players, dummy knives/ weapons, & high powered airsoft guns or Sims guns to allow students a firsthand perspective to get a taste of the speed, violence & unpredictability of violent encounters... or sometimes situations that aren't what they seemed.

"
a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Read this carefully. It is talking about two different kinds of threat and two different kinds of responses. A warning shot would fall under the part in blue because it is not "intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm".

 

[Willy Leadwell]

Bear44 , I have not meant to be disrespectful in any way if you have felt that I have been. I believe discussions are very important and necessary to be had. After all this is all in response to the dialog of me answering a question you had posted. That being said, the scenario I was in, a warning shot could have/would have been extremely dangerous. I was standing on a paved parking lot (not grass) of a very crowded hotel, beside a 6 lane (full) highway, with a crowded outlet mall in the backdrop. Any shot would have been a last resort if I was unsuccessful in getting him to stop, thus it would have been center mass. I hope I NEVER have to use lethal force EVER, but in the scenario that I was in fear for my life or severe bodily harm to myself or that of a third party, had he continued to ignore my warnings, I feel lethal force would've been unfortunate but justified. A weapon doesn't have to be present to articulate fear of one's life. In this case a weapon was present, mine, Had I engaged him and he gained the upper hand, he would've been armed.

This is why you should always carry two guns. One for self defense, and a clean one just in case it turns out the other guy didn't have one. That's how the NYPD does it, right?

 

[Willy Leadwell]

Are you serious? He's the one doing the training. LMAO

That's an extremely valid point.

 

[Traderjohn]

Some people just can't admit when they are wrong.

Who Dat?

 

[GreenPanther]

"
a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Read this carefully. It is talking about two different kinds of threat and two different kinds of responses. A warning shot would fall under the part in blue because it is not "intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm".

A shot in the direction of another person is still "likely" to cause bodily harm so you would evoke the entire sentence.

 

[Bear44]

OK guys, there are way to many of you piling on for me to respond to. Those of you that look at my responses dispassionately might get a different perspective on this subject. Those of you that are just taking cheap shots, ignoring the details of what I have said or are just making crap up, have fun and I hope you never have to justify killing a man just because he was talking mean to you or get killed because you didn't take some kind of action before it was too late.

 

[Bear44]

Screw that, let's take it out to the parking lot. You can show me there.

OK, have to respond to this.

Why would you want to change what would be a legitimate test into an unjustified criminal act? Is it because you are worried I would prove my point?

 

[Willy Leadwell]

OK, have to respond to this.

Why would you want to change what would be a legitimate test into an unjustified criminal act? Is it because you are worried I would prove my point?

I think you just proved mine.

 

[Willy Leadwell]

I've got to go to bed. All this running around in circles has got me tuckered out.