Closest I have come to drawing.

[Citizen]

Wrong!

Anyone within a 21 foot radius of you can be on top of you before you can react to that person. With someone closer than that, if you feel threatened and you DON'T move you hand to your gun, you are foolish.

Thanks for bring that up.

This idea about not touching the gun unless intending to shoot must be a holdover from some instructor who thought his students were immature nuts who would play out something they saw in the movies. That or maybe some misplaced, misapplied aspect of samurai or bushido culture.

Either way, I agree, with a slight modification, if there are elements of AOJ present and the threat is inside the reactionary distance, it would be foolish not to have a hand on the gun. Police do this. One poster mentioned it is used so the cop is one level of force continuum above the suspect. I don't think that really applies to non-police. I would focus more on the time element as a justification. And, it shouldn't be overlooked that reaching or referencing, say, the CCd gun can have a deterrent effect that obviates the need to shoot. Obviously, it would be an even better choice to move yourself so the possible threat is outside the reactionary distance, but if that just ain't possible because of confined space or barrier, then I myself would probably move my hand to my gun.

The trick is to be able to articulate why you did it if the police show up and cite or arrest you for brandishing/threatening. As in articulate it to the judge/jury, not the cops.

 

[.40CLTlocal]

You're right. Its getting over-processed. We're not trying to process out your reaction. I've already said it was probably an automatic reaction. In fact, if you spend any time processing the situation before taking action, you're even further behind the reaction curve.

So, I'm not trying to over-process. The problem is Walking Wolf trying to assert that reaching for the gun against an unarmed man is both legal, best, and appropriate. His dodging around the question trying to prove his point is the problem. Its just begetting more and more refinement of argument in order counter his off-base assertions.

Just to illustrate, but by no means criticize, let me pose this question. The guy is standing closer, and suddenly his hand comes up to slap the homeowner's face. Does a person automatically react by reaching for the gun to prevent entry, or does he automatically react by flinching his head back and raising an arm to block? You see, the reaction is automatic. It is not thought out at the time it occurs. And, we don't want to stand around thinking it out. We want an automatic reaction. For obvious reasons.

The problem arises when the homeowner only has reaching for the gun as his reaction. The old adage that you'll revert to your training under stress applies. Get startled, get stressed, and the gun-reach is automatic--if it is the only tool in the toolbox. The point isn't to convince you to overprocess. As I mentioned earlier, the point is to have other tools in the toolbox. Lets leave talking through a closed door out of the discussion because maybe a situation develops in public or somewhere else. The other options I mentioned were a shove back, and a stern command to stop. If you get those practiced a bit, you'll instinctively know which is best in the next situation because you will have already been seeing the encounter unfold up to that point. Just practice up a bit so you have another tool or two in your toolbox.

And, of course, if you call the police don't tell them that on afterthought he was probably just wanting to get in the last word. That erases any indirect protection from an expansive interpretation of the castle doctrine statute.

See this is where I would have some issues. Why would I want to have to put my hands on another person? To me that is asking for more trouble and I am now in arms reach. I have no idea if this guy is a navy golden gloves with a crazy right hook. A strong punch can kill just as fast. Self defense tells me to stop the threat not get in to a shoving with some one on my own property. Also you elude that I knew he was unarmed. I did not. I have no idea if there is a knife in his sleeve or a gun in his waste band.

 

[Citizen]

See this is where I would have some issues. Why would I want to have to put my hands on another person? To me that is asking for more trouble and I am now in arms reach. I have no idea if this guy is a navy golden gloves with a crazy right hook. A strong punch can kill just as fast. Self defense tells me to stop the threat not get in to a shoving with some one on my own property. Also you elude that I knew he was unarmed. I did not. I have no idea if there is a knife in his sleeve or a gun in his waste band.

These are good points. But, you're starting to combine things. Lets separate them.

Just so it flows better and makes more sense, lets start with a quick review. Both of the castle-doctrine statutes protect the use of force in certain circumstances. Neither of them protects the threat of force. Thus, the statutes right on their face offer no protection to reaching for your gun. Any gun reacher is now open to whether police or prosecutor wants to cut some slack and expansively interpret the use of not-lethal force to include the threat of force. Get an anti-gun cop or anti-gun prosecutor and its time to start rolling dice. This is more to counter the arguments that castle-doctrine protects you than to prove you need some other handling. I just want you to see that you are not protected by the castle-doctrine. At least as far as I can see on the information available at this point.

Lets take the next point out of order. Lets look at the other guy having an unknown weapon. The law has been at this for millenia. Literally. The law has split the hairs that were split when previous splits were split. The devil is in the details. AOJ doesn't particularly include that an attacker might be armed. If you don't see a weapon, its not going to factor into what you knew at the time and won't count toward what you reasonably believed. In dozens of books, videos, and write-ups on AOJ that I have viewed, no one said that the possibility the empty-hands attacker might have a weapon counted as justification for lethal force. Nor any court opinions. Now, if the empty-hands guy has one hand in his pocket and verbally hinting at a weapon, its a whole different ball game. But, that's not what we're talking about here. Unless the attacker has size or numbers aka disparity-of-force, it is the weapon that is the A of AOJ. If you don't see a weapon, or he doesn't verbally refer to having one, and there is no disparity-of-force such as size or numbers, then A is completely missing, and AOJ never gets off the ground.

As to shoving the guy, I am working on the assumption he is so close that a fast forceful shove doesn't require you to move forward. If you have to move forward, then maybe a verbal command to stop is better as the first step. It might be better as the first step anyway, depending on circumstances, because shoving can be viewed as battery, opening the door to a citation. Also, regarding hard, fast shoves, don't forget that if you are shoving, now you are ahead of his reaction curve.

You're right about the golden gloves/martial arts. Unfortunately, the self-defense stuff I've learned doesn't let you use that angle unless you know that particular person in front of you has those qualities. I didn't say the law was perfect. In his video Judicious Use of Deadly Force, Mas Ayoob indirectly mentions asking the assailant if he is a martial artist to establish the knowledge about disparity-of-force. You can almost imagine the conversation:

BG: "I'm gonna kick your ass!"

GG: "Oh, no! You'll want to break some bones, too, huh?" (helps establish the grave bodily injury angle)

BG: "Yeah, I'm gonna break your face, too!"

GG: "Oh, no! You probably know karate or something?"

BG: "Yeah, I'm a black belt. Here it comes."

GG: [bang, bang]

But, my point is that unless you know he is a golden gloves or martial arts expert, you're not going to be able to use it. The possibility that he might be isn't going to be allowed as part of what you knew at the time. This is all in reference to using lethal force. I cannot imagine the law is going to allow you to use the threat of lethal force differently.

Also, the guys who are arguing with me are partly right--the cop may be entirely on your side after you explain things. Its not like cops are experts on self-defense law. Keep it in perspective. I'm recommending aquiring some other tools in case the cop that comes is not on your side. And, newly, so you have another reaction you can use in public. Pull that gun reach on an empty-handed antagonist in public, you're gonna want all the witnesses on your side and hope nobody calls the cops. It is just too plainly a threatening or brandishing. And, thus a different reaction is needed.

 

[frogfish]

I would not place my hand on the grip of my gun in public unless I feel threatened or intend to unholster my gun.

That being said, I do elbow check my gun all the time, especially if there are people in close proximity, or rest my arm on the grip.

 

[Ricky]

He's from the liberal state of Calif. Not surprising..I'll put my hand on my gun anytime I want.....Great job walking wolf

So how do you clean your handgun? How do you put it in a holster? When buying a weapon do you shoot it at the counter?

I'm touching my handgun now, and there is nothing you can do about it? :lol:

 

[razor_baghdad]

From 3 days ago:

Interesting story. Glad it worked out.

I'm not sure reaching for the gun is the best idea. I'm thinking you might open yourself to a criminal complaint. AOJ* is completely absent. No weapon. No verbal threat. Not even disparity of force--just one guy versus another. Your report that you think the guy was maybe just trying to get in one more word seals the deal--it indicates that even you did not perceive a genuine threat. Had there been a criminal complaint against you, and you stated that to the cops, you would be handing the cops a great piece of evidence against you.

Its one thing to call attention to a gun as a dissuading tactic when elements of AOJ are present; its something else when none are present. When no elements of AOJ are present, you are open to a brandishing charge or the legal equivalent. I understand this was an automatic reaction. My point is that you might want to interpose a different different response, more measured toward what really occurred.

I might opt for a commanding, "Stop! Leave, now!" (That last has worked for me two or three times already.) Shoving the guy in the chest might be a good one, but it opens the door to a battery complaint. Taking a boxing stance might be another.

Today:

Thanks for bring that up.

This idea about not touching the gun unless intending to shoot must be a holdover from some instructor who thought his students were immature nuts who would play out something they saw in the movies. That or maybe some misplaced, misapplied aspect of samurai or bushido culture.

Either way, I agree, with a slight modification, if there are elements of AOJ present and the threat is inside the reactionary distance, it would be foolish not to have a hand on the gun. Police do this. One poster mentioned it is used so the cop is one level of force continuum above the suspect. I don't think that really applies to non-police. I would focus more on the time element as a justification. And, it shouldn't be overlooked that reaching or referencing, say, the CCd gun can have a deterrent effect that obviates the need to shoot. Obviously, it would be an even better choice to move yourself so the possible threat is outside the reactionary distance, but if that just ain't possible because of confined space or barrier, then I myself would probably move my hand to my gun.

The trick is to be able to articulate why you did it if the police show up and cite or arrest you for brandishing/threatening. As in articulate it to the judge/jury, not the cops.

I see where you're going with your "interpretations" of the statutes, AND THEY ARE your INTERPRETATIONS, but jeez......make a decision, or are you capable of just saying "Ya done well .40CLT!"

The "stranger" was well withing 21ft and made an aggressive move to impede MY movement on MY property. "Castle Doctrine" and protecting myself and my family come first. I have no idea of his "intent" as you mentioned previously, making my interpretation of his "intent", AFTER his aggressive movement on MY property UP TO ME.

Slap? Whatever happened to blocking the "slap" AND moving my hand to my weapon. C, you mentioned H2H in a previous post. A fist fight on MY property between a stranger and myself AND I'm armed just became a life or death struggle.

"Ya done well .40CLT!"

Thanks for the 21ft reminder gary737. That's very easy to "articulate" in court.

ETA: Respect is a two way street, Citizen. We're on the same side. Posts that are disrespectful by insinuation, insulting comments, name calling will get the same in return. "Mr Does This Help" and "tough-guy" and name-calling on the board should be reported to the mods and handled at their level.

Please show some respect to the posters on the board who have legitimate opinions and concerns and don't bring your personally insulting BS to any more posts.

 

[Citizen]

SNIPPED

(See the bold-face text at the bottom first. It might undercut everything else.)

OK. What are you bent out of shape about?

Show me where I was disrespectful to a poster before I was pounced on. And, even if I was once without recalling it now, I am sure I'll see you calling those who pounced on me first, right?

Regarding my interpretation of the statute, you are correct. Those are my interpretations. Unfortunately, nobody has shown me a better one or a court's opinion on the matter. Implying an invalidation or minimization of my interpretation is a pretty sorry counter-argument. If my interpretation is wrong, great. Show me. In fact, it would be a bit of a relief to know the legal hazards are not there. But, don't come along and tell me its wrong just because you don't want it to be right. So far, everybody elses opinion is just their opinion, too, but they can't back theirs up with reasoned analysis or case law.

Regarding castle doctrine and family coming first. Castle doctrine is not what the NRA said it is in a press release or First Freedom magazine article. It is not what a newspaper said it is. It is what the statute says, as modified by case law. Same for intent as a part of AOJ. If you have no idea what his intent is or your jeopardy, no prosecutor worth spit is going to allow to claim you reasonably feared. (And don't try to claim you couldn't know intent--the difficulty with reading intent is the whole reason the self-defense and police world shifted to jeopardy as shown from outward signs as means of reading intent. Its already known to be a slippery or difficult argument. Don't try to use it on purpose.)

On the family part, yes, family comes first. Nobody said it didn't. What we're discussing is whether the law can intervene and second guess your decision about how to react. As to perceived threats, I made it clear I was drawing an inference about the level of threat from the OPers comment about getting in the last word. Now, some folks want to go around in circles arguing about that point. I've even made it clear I was operating on the assumption the gun reach was probably an automatic reaction, meaning it wasn't thought out. Others seem to be of the opinion that they should be allowed to decide how to defend their families, but a decision requires thinking. A decision is not an automatic reaction. So, I'm not the one failing to make distinctions here. Nor am I hiding any assumptions. They're out there for all to see. Especially anybody who wants to tell me I'm wrong and show me where. Contradiction and unreasoned counter-argument is not showing me where I'm wrong. Notably, nobody has corrected me on the crucial assumption--that the OPers gun reach was an automatic reaction.

Regarding the slap, I think you're just upset and attacking. I was just thinking up alternatives. Now, you're attacking me for not thinking up the best alternative? Of course a slap and gun reach might be better. Depends on the circumstances though. Remember, there is no disparity of force. There is no certainty on attempted forcible entry, in fact whatever circumstances were present left the OPer to conclude later that the salesman was probably just trying to get in the last word. There were no weapons in view. The law's representatives may well view the threat of lethal force represented by the gun reach as unjustified.

Regarding your attempt at showing a contradiction by two quotes, its pretty plain that in the second post I state that elements of AOJ are present as a condition. In the OPs situation there are exactly zero elements of AOJ present. None. No disparity of force, no weapon, thus no A for ability. Well, technically O for opportunity is present but only because the conversation occurred with a few feet separation. Without A for ability, O is pointless. The whole reason O is included in AOJ is to distinguish when an agressor has Ability, but no Opportunity, for example, a knife on the other side of 12' chain link fence and across the street. Such would not justify lethal force because the defender is not really in danger; the knife doesn't represent a defendable threat because the agressor is not in a position to use it. Back to AOJ and the OP. No Jeopardy/Intent. As I mentioned earlier, courts are not going to let you imagine jeopardy or possible jeopardy. It has to be present and reasonable, not theoretically possible.

Hey! I just realized something. I think some of the dissension here might be arising from incomplete or no understanding of AOJ. If everybody understood AOJ, first, they wouldn't be going off on tangent arguments, and second, they wouldn't be arguing some of the things they're arguing. And, I wouldn't have to be making the explanations I am about AOJ. I did say that AOJ is really important as the elements of legal justified defense and that you need to know this stuff. I just didn't realize how soon it would come up. I was thinking one needs to know it in case of a self-defense situation. I didn't dream it might get in the way of thread discussion.

Listen, lets suspend the arguments for a while. Everybody who thinks I'm an idiot, take a moment to look up or review AOJ, disparity of force, imminence, etc. Then we can go back to arguing if we still have anything to argue over.

 

[razor_baghdad]

What are you bent out of shape about?

Listen, lets suspend the arguments for a while. Everybody who thinks I'm an idiot, take a moment to look up or review AOJ, disparity of force, imminence, etc. Then we can go back to arguing if we still have anything to argue over.

[/B]

No-one is arguing or "bent out of shape" or "upset" or "attacking". I'm just trying to show you that everyone has opinions and not everyone reads AOJ/I like you do or like I do. I would only hope my lawyer and the jurors see my POV.

Respectful follow-on posts like this last one of yours are what's expected on the forum. Discussion, not arguments, not insults, not insinuations, not name calling. That's what I was referring to.

(See the bold-face text at the bottom first. It might undercut everything else.)~SNIP~

Regarding the slap, I think you're just upset and attacking. I was just thinking up alternatives. Now, you're attacking me for not thinking up the best alternative? Of course a slap and gun reach might be better. Depends on the circumstances though. Remember, there is no disparity of force. There is no certainty on attempted forcible entry, in fact whatever circumstances were present left the OPer to conclude later that the salesman was probably just trying to get in the last word. There were no weapons in view. The law's representatives may well view the threat of lethal force represented by the gun reach as unjustified.

Regarding your attempt at showing a contradiction by two quotes, its pretty plain that in the second post I state that elements of AOJ are present as a condition. In the OPs situation there are exactly zero elements of AOJ present. None. No disparity of force, no weapon, thus no A for ability. Well, technically O for opportunity is present but only because the conversation occurred with a few feet separation. Without A for ability, O is pointless. The whole reason O is included in AOJ is to distinguish when an agressor has Ability, but no Opportunity, for example, a knife on the other side of 12' chain link fence and across the street. Such would not justify lethal force because the defender is not really in danger; the knife doesn't represent a defendable threat because the agressor is not in a position to use it. Back to AOJ and the OP. No Jeopardy/Intent. As I mentioned earlier, courts are not going to let you imagine jeopardy or possible jeopardy. It has to be present and reasonable, not theoretically possible.

I did say that AOJ is really important as the elements of legal justified defense and that you need to know this stuff. I just didn't realize how soon it would come up. I was thinking one needs to know it in case of a self-defense situation. I didn't dream it might get in the way of thread discussion.
Listen, lets suspend the arguments for a while. Everybody who thinks I'm an idiot, take a moment to look up or review AOJ, disparity of force, imminence, etc. Then we can go back to arguing if we still have anything to argue over.

We're all thinking up alternatives to someone attempting to enter our homes unannounced or by force. That's what the OP intended with his interpretation of his reactions and IMHO, he did a great job of interrupting a possibly volatile situation simply by being armed in his own home. Kudos .40.

"Depends on the circumstances" is exactly correct. We weren't there.

I quoted your posts because you contradicted yourself from one day to the next when offered the exact same "circumstance" and/or "situation", which means even you are in doubt as to what the correct action should have been. The salesman was inside personal space range, well inside personal defense range, and was surprised when re-buffed by the OP. I would have done the exact same thing as the OP. The point is that you and only you will decide what is the best option/action.

I understand AOJ and I don't agree with your interpretation or opinion. That's not arguing, that's just not agreeing.

Your 12' chain link fence reference is useless in this thread. Start an AOJ/I thread. Your bolding of the "might get in the way of this thread discussion" is borderline condescension and calling us stupid.

No-one is calling you an idiot or is going to so you can stop with the "why me?" attitude. Just discuss.

 

[ncwabbit]

Hurray to what razor_baghdad said to you citizen.

Now .40cltlocal while i am not an attorney, the internet was kind enough to provide specific NC statutes regarding your initial scenario: (your attention is directed to the para (b) which is the corner stone of the NC deadly force laws (doesn’t matter concealed or open they are the state’s Castle Doctrine statutes!) )

And since you complained about not being providing cites Citizen here ya go…(http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_14.pdf)

§ 14-51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm.
(a) definitions of home, motor vehicle, workplace.

(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:

(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.

(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

Bottom line, .40cltlocal, apparently in contravention of what my esteemed poster from VA believes, NC statutes state: 1) you do not have an obligation to retreat. 2) if you believe you face imminent death or serious bodily harm you may use deadly force. 3) therefore you do not have to hesitate and ascertain AOJ or anything stupid like that…you can defend yourself…period!!

so when the spidy senses tingle go ahead and be preemptive and put your hand on your gun and press on defending yourself and family...

Respectively submitted.

Wabbit

Ps… and you are right R_B nobody called citizen an idiot but membership feedback from his forum posts throughout the forum's thread might lead him to draw that conclusion by himself. Personally, I prefer the term…savant. (a person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows little about anything else and we have just failed to appreciate his field of expertise.)

pps: truly do not care about AOJ, disparity of force, imminence and such!!

 

[Bearfoot]

I think it is time for everyone to put their big girl panties on, deal with it, and move on. This sort of stuff is worse than watching the presidential debates.

 

[ncwabbit]

glad some of us wear proper gender specific trousers aren't you?

wabbit

ps...that is out of my system...

 

[.40CLTlocal]

I think it is time for everyone to put their big girl panties on, deal with it, and move on. This sort of stuff is worse than watching the presidential debates.

And to think I posted this simply as a reminder that we all need to be more aware than usual as the hoildays get here. A time when B&E's and robberies rise by tens of %'s. Stay safe everyone.

 

[muccione]

I'm just going to answer my door with my AR in a 3 point tactical sling. And a sidearm in a drop leg holster.

 

[carolina guy]

We answer unexpected knocks to the door with pistol in hand, but then we have a completely fenced yard, with a locked gate across the driveway. So, anyone at our door has already jumped a locked fence and is within the curtilage...

 

[RobertPA]

Aaaannnnnd here is why I stay off forums

Every forum has a resident:

Lawyer
Mechanic
Engineer
Nuclear Scientist
Race Car Driver
Mathematician
Computer Expert
God
Jesus
Holy Ghost
etc etc

Plain and simple, you were protecting your home and most individuals who drive those trucks are, sadly, criminals. I am not going to degrade a human being for trying to make a living to, hopefully, feed his family; however, there are the few who are down and out on their luck and just needed a job and are desperate. Either way, each type of person can get desperate and can snap at any time and create a situation that can turn badly.

Honestly, you told him to screw off one too many times and he was on your property and reaching for your gun to protect the safety of your family was well within normal. How many people are going to call the cops and tell the they reached for YOUR door to STOP you from CLOSING it and you then reached for your firearm to threaten them? Really? That makes almost as much sense as a "John" calling a cop because a hooker refused to give him a blow job after she took payment.