Another Hypothetical

[casingpoint]

If the CHL holder has his gun in a holster with a high level of retention, it might be reasonable to assume the attacker will probably not get his hands on the gun and consequently is not a deadly or harmful threat. At least it postpones the threat assessment until he does come into possession of the gun if all other things are equal.

But if the CHL holder's weapon is in a holster without retention devices, a reasonable expectation from the outset is that the suspect could very likely come into possession of the gun and thereby the threat is immediate and justifies preventive action.

The simple life is the good life.

[alphonso]

Quote: "In this hypothetical case the CHL holder obviously was able to retain possesion of the weapon to be able to use deadly force against the gun grabber."

Since this was my hypothetical to begin with I can correct you and say that it is/was not "obvious that the CHL holder was able to retain" his gun.

My question was, simply, if an unknown-to-you civilian tries to take your gun away does that act in and of itself give you reason to use deadly force? I thought it was a pretty simple question for one who might happen to know the answer.

I understand (and mentioned at the outset) that there were many tangents that could complicate such a question. The great majority of these tangents serve only to complicate, but do not change the essence of my initial question.

I have learned, though, that if a five year old, who use to be a cop, who is standing with one foot in a state that has the castle doctrine, and one foot in a state that does not, and is inappropriately wearing a 30-06 sign around his neck, while we are less than 1 foot from a Federal building that houses a racetrack, a carnival, occasional sporting events, and a satellite post office that I may have to think twice about where to bury the survivors from the crash....

[BTin]

In this hypothetical case the CHL holder obviously was able to retain possesion of the weapon to be able to use deadly force against the gun grabber. That being the case the CHL holder would have used deadly force against an unarmed person. Once the CHL holder had control of his weapon I guess it would have to be pretty obvious that the unarmed person was going to continue to come after you with a gun pointed at him.

+1

I would put my hand on top of the gun and press down very hard. Then punch the person in the face or push very hard. If the person kept coming after me, rinse and repeat. If the person is beating the snot out of me, get separation, and then use deadly force to stop the attack.

[alphonso]

Quote: "I would put my hand on top of the gun and press down very hard. Then punch the person in the face or push very hard. If the person kept coming after me, rinse and repeat. If the person is beating the snot out of me, get separation, and then use deadly force to stop the attack."

I repeat, I am not looking for tactical advice or info about evasive maneuvers. I just want to know if a grown adult non-LEO stranger civilian trying to take your gun by force constitutes a reason for you to use deadly force....

[Trinitite]

I repeat, I am not looking for tactical advice or info about evasive maneuvers. I just want to know if a grown adult non-LEO stranger civilian trying to take your gun by force constitutes a reason for you to use deadly force....

MAYBE

[alphonso]

Quote "MAYBE"

Now, THAT's the kind of answer I can get behind.

Apparently, no one knows the answer to my question. That's OK, and it's fine for one to say they don't know when they don't know.

Still, I find it an interesting question about an event that has never ( and hopefully will never) happened to me and was just kind of wondering about it.

While I'm at it, anybody know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....

[boomerang]

Apparently, no one knows the answer to my question.

I told you the answer on the first page. I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

[HankB]

Assuming it's not a curious five-year-old, it sounds like a robbery/mugging/assault is in progress . . .

[shootthesheet]

No, you cannot use deadly force on someone who tries to grab your gun. That is just my opinion.

[casingpoint]

Yes, boomerang did put it well. I would add that the sole measure of the necessity to defend yourself with deadly force is, do you think your attacker through his actions could kill you or cause you great bodily harm? That is all you need to know for justification. Generally it ain't no thinkin' thing. It happens too fast. You're running on instinct. But still, you will know.

[KD5NRH]

No, you cannot use deadly force on someone who tries to grab your gun. That is just my opinion.

Why not? If you use *any* force whatsoever to prevent it, and they use force to obtain or retain your proerty, it's robbery, which is a justification.

IMO, choosing you method of carry carefully helps. My primary method would be awkward for someone to take without my cooperation, and when I use the SmartCarry, well, let's just say I'd have to be really distracted.

[alphonso]

Quote: "I told you the answer on the first page. I can't help it if you don't like the answer."

Meow....

[Excaliber]

In over 20 years of major city law enforcement and over 35 years of studying violent encounters, I have yet to see or read of a case where someone attempted to disarm a civilian CHL holder whose gun was in the holster and concealed. Attempted disarms of police officers, particularly those with openly carried weapons or drawn ones, happen all the time, but those usually occur in arrest situations that CHL holders aren't involved in. When a bad guy puts his hands on a police officer's gun and attempts to gain control of it, that is a life threatening situation and it is managed accordingly.

I find discussing the legal and tactical aspects of real life incidents to be very worthwhile. However, I find little value in hashing over made up hypothetical situations because, like the one in the original post, they are based on unrealistic incident dynamics.

While I understand and encourage thinking potential situations through before they actually happen and don't disparage anyone for their efforts in this regard, in my experience discussions on how to resolve imagined issues tend to lead to posited solutions that work best in the imagination but don't translate nearly as well into the real world.

I think discussing real world incidents,with all their complexity, to sort out what was done well and what could have been done better is a much more productive exercise.

Just my 2 cents.

[pbwalker]

Quote: "I told you the answer on the first page. I can't help it if you don't like the answer."

Meow....

What is this?

[Morgan]

He's suggesting you were being catty.