TexasCHLforum.com

sbrawley wrote:

flowrie wrote: Saw something some time ago about "Ability, Opportunity, and Intent" or "AOI". Seems to me like this bad guy would fill the bill on all three, but hope I never have to deal with such a situation.
Are there any LEO's or former LEO's that can comment on the "AOI" ? Is this taught?

That sounds like something a professor covered when I was taking my basic courses at the community college. I can't remember the subject matter, but whatever the subject was it doesn't get fulfilled unless all elements are present. Some examples he gave were:

Situation: Two rivalry gang members (X and Y) are in a building together
Scenario 1: X & Y are in separate rooms making death threats to each other. Only intent is present.
Scenario 2: X has a weapon and is making death threats to Y. Intent and ability are present.
Scenario 3: X enters the same room as Y and makes death threats. Opportunity, Intent, and Ability are all present. X has now fulfilled the elements.

Man, I wish I could remember what was being covered.

ELB wrote:

C-dub wrote:...I understand the danger of letting someone get within reach and all that, but we don't have the authority of LE. Especially since he was unarmed and not a clear deadly threat I think it would be a very hard road to convince anyone that the use of deadly force would have been justified in this situation. The OP's hand to hand skills are what saved him from a nightmare.

I'm not sure what authority an LEO would have regarding self-defense or defense of another that a citizen wouldn't have. Once the pistol is brought into play justifiably, as it was here, preventing an attempted disarm would seem to be every bit as much justification for the citizen as for an officer. Like nightmare69 pointed out, other factors like disparity of stature come into play, and I would think also disparity of age (get the feeling bubba84 was not the younger combatant), the fact that the bf had kicked the woman to the ground and again while she was on the ground, and the defender's own level of training would play into it. Bubba84 turned out to have some open-hand skills that he felt he could employ, but another person may not have those, and I don't think the law requires he let himself be beaten and/or disarmed, especially by a younger/maybe stronger and certainly more vicious assailant. It might be sticky, but if someone else without hand-to-hand training had been in bubba84's shoes, I think there would be a good case to be made if this clown had been shot instead of grappled.

Congrats to bubba84 and glad it turned it alright for you and everyone else.

nightmare69 wrote:Glad to hear you made it out ok. I know exactly what you mean going for your mic. In your opinion, would you have been justified in using deadly force since the subject continued to approach you?