His actions were threatening, but, no, he did not ever say what he would do if I did not give him money. I was fully prepared to pull the trigger, but would I have been justified? I feel like I would have been justified to shoot had he continued advancing.Russel wrote: But... would it be considered reasonable to fire if the person continued to advance, had an unknown instrument in his hand, and was using verbal provocation alone?
At this point, he'd already been warned 2 times, yet continued advancing.As I was pumping gas, a guy came from between 2 cars in a hotel parking lot next to the gas station. At this time, he was a fair distance away, maybe 65-70 yards. He yelled across the gas station parking lot at me that he needed some money. I told him I didn't have any to give, and he should just be on his way. (Warning #1) He continued walking towards me. He got closer and told me again, "Man, I just need some money." I told him, "I already told you, I don't have any, you need to leave." (Warning #2) He continued walking towards me and was now somewhere around maybe 30 yards or so away.
Now, after 2 warnings, he continued advancing, and he raised his hands with something that could have been used as a weapon in his right hand. After a THIRD warning, he told me he needed money again, but this time it was a demand, not a request like previously. And STILL continued advancing on me.
This was the point where I drew on him, and even gave him a fourth warning, which thankfully, he took.He raised his arms at me and in his right hand he had a piece of something. I don't know what it was, but it was black, around 2 feet long and looked like something he could use to hit me with. At this point, I was pretty concerned, and saw lots of bad things playing out in my head. I told him, "Stop right there, don't come any closer!" (Warning #3) very loudly. He continued walking towards me and told me, "I said give me some money!"
He'd ignored multiple warnings to leave me alone. He'd also made a threatening gesture with his hands and was holding something that was, in my opinion, intended to be used as a weapon. There was little question in my mind anyway about what his intentions were. Luckily, the situation stopped there, he ran and I didn't have to find out. My brother, and several other LEO's agree, including the one who took my statement and wrote the report. Several LEO's have actually told me, "He's lucky, I would have shot him."At this point, I drew my Glock, pointed it directly at him, and screamed at the top of my lungs, "STOP!!! DON'T COME ANY CLOSER TO ME!!!" (Warning #4)
So IMHO, I was justified in what I did, and also would have been justified if I'd shot the guy, because the only way I'd have shot him was if he'd STILL continued to advance.
Was I legally justified in what I did? I think yes, otherwise, I'd have gone to jail that night, or soon after the report was filed and then charges would have been pressed against me.
Would I have been legally justified if the situation HAD gotten worse, and he HAD continued to advance on me, and I HAD shot him? Yes, I think so. But, I'm not a lawyer, and I just don't know for sure. I'm open to opinions, suggestions, and the friendly critique. And, Russel, sometimes the Devil's Advocate is an important role, it makes us think.