encounter at wallyworld - calling all armchair QB's

[dewayneward]

FWIW, IMHO, carrying a gun that has a manual safety in condition 0 is irresponsible.
Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer down.
Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine in place, hammer down.
Condition Two: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer down.
Condition One: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety on.
Condition Zero: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety off.

how is carrying a gun that has a manual safety in condition zero irresponsible?????? I really do want to know because I have assumed for quite awhile that it is perfectly fine to carry my gun in condition zero? Now, mind you, I own a 1911 and carry it in a kholster IWB. The kydex covers the trigger. The only way for it to go off is if the back plate on the grip AND the trigger are pulled at the same time. Am I trusting my gun too much? Should I rethink my carry condition? I dont want to be irresponsible, but I trust my gun and saw nothing wrong with condition zero? What, in your experience has shown you not to carry that way???

@ Old Gringo, are you thinking that I should have just let the guy cuss? I am guessing so and that is the only "my fault" that I can really think of. I dont see how this and the costco event have anything to do with each other (outside of them occuring at shopping places). The costco guy got made and it was a bad chain of events that led to him being shot. had something happened with me, it would be just like any other shooting thattook place around a bunch of people that anyone could have experienced.

[OldSchool]

Sounds as if you handled it well. More and more people like that around (wannabe bullies). I never tolerated cussing around my family, ever.

Something that I have learned....people that dont carry condition 0 (and I'll argue 1) need to leave their gun at home.

OK, if you say so. I don't like condition 0, so I guess I'll leave it at home from now on.

hi old school. When you carry, what condition do you "roll" in? I dont make my "condition 0 or arguably 1" comment lightly. But, in a self defense scenario, do you think that you would be able to (assuming condition 2 here, timelines extend as you move up to 3 and 4, etc.) rack the slide (assuming a semi auto).

This scenario really has shown me that 0 is the only way to go. The only reason I can think of in carrying in any other condition is that you dont trust the gun to keep from AD'ing. I use to be the same way, like the gun was going to go off in my hand or something, but over time, I got to the point. In today's incident, I was condition 0, as usual, and with how close the guy and his friends were, I wouldnt have had time to do anything else, including flipping off the safety.

There are a number of videos out there, but it is a repeated fact that it takes a normal person only a few seconds to get to you from 21 ft away. This guy was 3 ft. Of course you have to do what is right in your mind and what you feel comfortable with, but a gun that isnt able to immediately stop a threat is useless (unless it scares the person). Dont believe me, try to do a test on how long it takes to draw and present to a threat coming at you that wants to do damage. THEN (after you discover the timing isnt even close) compound that by stress of the encounter, tunnel vision , making sure your child is safe, etc.

All of those are valid concerns. However, as with any situation, it is all a matter of balance and preparation.

I must err on the side of safety for all, just as my ancestors carried with the hammer on an empty chamber. I am as capable as anyone of making a mistake. All of those concerns you mention put the situation at more risk for error. With a Glock or XD, I have little choice as to how I carry. With a SA/DA, I opt to use the safety, as I have since I was a kid, on all firearms.

This is not daily combat. This is a situation in a stable (regardless of the daily news reports) society with outliers. One minute on the freeway will demonstrate what we're up against. As an honest (read: "law-abiding") citizen, I am under constraints to which the outliers feel no compulsion to conform. A situation involving a gun is one in which mistakes cannot be "made good." In such a case, I must protect myself with other methods before relying on the gun. That may put me at a disadvantage, and I have signed up for that risk. I also realize that the BG, as a coward, will have already worked very hard to put me at a disadvantage, and I have to expect to go into a situation that way. The gun I carry is a last resort, nothing more. Indeed, I would be most pleased that there be no question whatsoever that I needed to defend myself/my family. However, on the rare occasion that it ever gets to that point, it is unlikely that the BG will leave unscathed....

I will be prepared, not scared.

[terryg]

FWIW, IMHO, carrying a gun that has a manual safety in condition 0 is irresponsible.

That is a fairly broad assertion - weapons vary greatly. I carry my SR9c with the safety on. I am very well practiced at sweeping the safety after the draw but during the low presentation.

However, I also currently carry a borrowed P64 (as I am currently replacing my small carry). This thing is DA/SA and has like a 20 lb trigger pull in DA. The safety is not 1911 style sweep with the thumb, but rather is 'Beretta' style push forward on the slide. It is not natural to me at all. I feel extremely comfortable carrying this with the safety off and feel it would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

[Oldgringo]

dewayneward wrote:

@ Old Gringo, are you thinking that I should have just let the guy cuss?

Yep. Your kid has written that he knows the words and that he knows they are not nice words. Were these words not heard on your TV in your house? I have to agree with Carry-a-Kimber, you over-reacted to the rude, boorish behavior of an immature, self-aggrandizing and perhaps misbegotten {person}. A CHL is not a Batman's license.

IANAL; however, I do have to report for jury duty next month. Good luck and God Bless.

[dewayneward]

dewayneward wrote:

@ Old Gringo, are you thinking that I should have just let the guy cuss?

Yep. Your kid has written that he knows the words and that he knows they are not nice words. Were these words not heard on your TV in your house? I have to agree with Carry-a-Kimber, you over-reacted to the rude, boorish behavior of an immature, self-aggrandizing and perhaps misbegotten {person}. A CHL is not a Batman's license.

IANAL; however, I do have to report for jury duty next month. Good luck and God Bless.

Those words arent/werent said in our house on tv or otherwise. I have a filter on the tv that removes those words from tv programming, but I understand what you are trying to say. I dont agree that people should just be allowed to be potty mouths. I am not sure about the batman license and how this situation relates. I guess it is a difference between us (from what I gather from your other posts), you have previously commented that you wouldnt help someone else (using deadly force) if they were being attacked, etc. I am just not wired that way. While I am not going to go out of my way to get in the middle of something because I have a CHL (or even if I didnt), I just cant sit idly by while things like this happen.

maybe I need to get rewired :-)

[G26ster]

OP - I'm curious. What would the guy who put his hand on the cart have to do for you to draw your weapon and fire, while you were between him and your son?

[Medic218]

What Wal-Mart was this at?

[dewayneward]

OP - I'm curious. What would the guy who put his hand on the cart have to do for you to draw your weapon and fire, while you were between him and your son?

honestly, not sure, he was trying to remove the cart as a barrier between he and I (I am assuming that he wasnt wanting to shake hands with me).

This gets into an interesting area, because armchairing this is one thing, but there in the middle of it, I think that if he had raised his hands that would have been it for me and I would have defended myself and stopped him.

This is where it gets interesting, what needs to happen in order for someone to use their gun? Do you actually need to be hit in order to respond with force? This is a disadvantage of having a gun, there really arent any other "defenses" that you can do with a gun on you (at least that i am aware of).

I have asked the same question myself and it boils down to "you better guess right". I cant get a clear cut answer. Sure, you can read the law, but then it becomes that whole "reasonable person" argument. For some people, even if you get hit, pushed, etc., it isnt enough to make them defend themselves.

Going back to this scenario, I was close, so I can say that had that cart ceased to be a barrier or it got more aggressive, I would have pulled my gun and depending on the reaction, stopped him (and depending on the circumstances) his friends.

[The Annoyed Man]

FWIW, IMHO, carrying a gun that has a manual safety in condition 0 is irresponsible.
Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer down.
Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine in place, hammer down.
Condition Two: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer down.
Condition One: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety on.
Condition Zero: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety off.

how is carrying a gun that has a manual safety in condition zero irresponsible?????? I really do want to know because I have assumed for quite awhile that it is perfectly fine to carry my gun in condition zero? Now, mind you, I own a 1911 and carry it in a kholster IWB. The kydex covers the trigger. The only way for it to go off is if the back plate on the grip AND the trigger are pulled at the same time. Am I trusting my gun too much? Should I rethink my carry condition? I dont want to be irresponsible, but I trust my gun and saw nothing wrong with condition zero? What, in your experience has shown you not to carry that way???

The gun is designed to be carried cocked and locked. If you carry it cocked and unlocked, then you are carrying contrary to the method that the designers intended for it, and you're responsible for the results if things go south.

I carry 1911s too, and I've always carried them cocked and locked. There is no loss of drawing time when you flick off the safety with your thumb as you're drawing. It's a perfectly natural action, and the safety can make a great thumb rest if you like. Single action pistols with light triggers - which pretty much describes all 1911s - should not be carried safety off.

[G26ster]

OP - I'm curious. What would the guy who put his hand on the cart have to do for you to draw your weapon and fire, while you were between him and your son?

Going back to this scenario, I was close, so I can say that had that cart ceased to be a barrier or it got more aggressive, I would have pulled my gun and depending on the reaction, stopped him (and depending on the circumstances) his friends.

When you say "stopped him" I have to assume you would have used your drawn gun as something other than a thrown object. So then I assume you consider aggressive behavior (removing the cart and raising his hands), as "deadly force" against you? I think if that is the case, I don't believe you would be covered by PC 9.32, as nothing short of the other persons use or attempted use of deadly force would warrant your action under the law. Again, just MHO.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

[lonewolf]

Here are some additional thoughts on the matter:

Option One: Let the guy continue his cussing diatribe and have a discussion with your son when you leave on how annoying, rude, and inconsiderate he was. Just use him as an example of how not to behave in public.

Option Two: Confront the guy as you did (and as politely) and risk a confrontation when you are already outnumbered and are in a position to have to protect not only yourself buy your son (and perhaps others) because the goober is aching for a fight.

One certainty is that your children, as they grow, are going to be exposed to all manner of rude, offensive, and obnoxious people. Part of parenting, from my perspective, is teaching my children (now 15,16, and 18) how to deal with situations like this. I tell them to take the high road. Be part of the solution, not the problem. Just because someone else cusses, doesn't mean my kids do. Just because they know kids in school that are doing marijauna doesn't mean they have to. Just because someone acts like a total jerk, doesn't mean they can.

I can honestly say that when I have found myself in situations like that (to one degree or another) its worked best to be non-confrontational. Make a sincere effort to get out as soon as possible, remove myself and son from their vicinity. Stay off the goober's radar and keep my eyes/ears open. I really am a stand up guy, but the outcome here could have been problematic. You initiated contact with him. He, although using vulgar language, was minding his own business with his "friends". In a certain world, you became the aggressor, as much as I hate to say it.

When in a deadly force situation we are under no obligation to retreat, but a jury might have some problems if the deadly force were necessary because I approached the guy first. Wouldn't necessarily pin my future on that.

You are doing a good job in parenting your children, you are mindful of what they are exposed to, and wary of the world around you. They are going to hear those words sometime, from someone, and you might not be there to explain how inapporpriate they are. Go ahead and use this as an opportunity to teach your child that acting/speaking that way is offensive, rude, and makes one sound ignorant rather than teaching them that its a reason to get into a potentially deadly altercation.

My true apologies if I have offended any that may disagree, but while I believe I am a stand up guy, that doesn't mean I should go around poking at people who are obviously ignorant and uncaring of others. They will turn and bite.

Just my humble opinion.

[Carry-a-Kimber]

Well said LoneWolf

[dewayneward]

OP - I'm curious. What would the guy who put his hand on the cart have to do for you to draw your weapon and fire, while you were between him and your son?

Going back to this scenario, I was close, so I can say that had that cart ceased to be a barrier or it got more aggressive, I would have pulled my gun and depending on the reaction, stopped him (and depending on the circumstances) his friends.

When you say "stopped him" I have to assume you would have used your drawn gun as something other than a thrown object. So then I assume you consider aggressive behavior (removing the cart and raising his hands), as "deadly force" against you? I think if that is the case, I don't believe you would be covered by PC 9.32, as nothing short of the other persons use or attempted use of deadly force would warrant your action under the law. Again, just MHO.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

I am glad that we are able to discuss this as I would hate to make a mistake that would have long standing consequences. It does get interesting with what was quoted. Based on this, I need to be beaten up before I can use deadly force....and quite frankly I can take a beating so even if he beat me up, I really shouldnt defend myself because I would survive the attack (he'd probably only punch me a few times). and I couldnt shoot him afterwards since he had broken off the attack.

This just doesnt sit well with me. With what I have read, I am in a no win situation and, legally, should try to find someone to purchase my guns.

Really the only time I can see when I can use my gun is if the other person pulls a gun first. i dnt know, this just doesnt sound right to me. I gotta be missing something.

[dewayneward]

OP - I'm curious. What would the guy who put his hand on the cart have to do for you to draw your weapon and fire, while you were between him and your son?

Going back to this scenario, I was close, so I can say that had that cart ceased to be a barrier or it got more aggressive, I would have pulled my gun and depending on the reaction, stopped him (and depending on the circumstances) his friends.

When you say "stopped him" I have to assume you would have used your drawn gun as something other than a thrown object. So then I assume you consider aggressive behavior (removing the cart and raising his hands), as "deadly force" against you? I think if that is the case, I don't believe you would be covered by PC 9.32, as nothing short of the other persons use or attempted use of deadly force would warrant your action under the law. Again, just MHO.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

I am glad that we are able to discuss this as I would hate to make a mistake that would have long standing consequences. It does get interesting with what was quoted. Based on this, I need to be beaten up before I can use deadly force....and quite frankly I can take a beating so even if he beat me up, I really shouldnt defend myself because I would survive the attack (he'd probably only punch me a few times). and I couldnt shoot him afterwards since he had broken off the attack.

This just doesnt sit well with me. With what I have read, I am in a no win situation and, legally, should try to find someone to purchase my guns.

Really the only time I can see when I can use my gun is if the other person pulls a gun first. i dnt know, this just doesnt sound right to me. I gotta be missing something.

[G26ster]

I am glad that we are able to discuss this as I would hate to make a mistake that would have long standing consequences. It does get interesting with what was quoted. Based on this, I need to be beaten up before I can use deadly force....and quite frankly I can take a beating so even if he beat me up, I really shouldnt defend myself because I would survive the attack (he'd probably only punch me a few times). and I couldnt shoot him afterwards since he had broken off the attack.

This just doesnt sit well with me. With what I have read, I am in a no win situation and, legally, should try to find someone to purchase my guns.

Really the only time I can see when I can use my gun is if the other person pulls a gun first. i dnt know, this just doesnt sound right to me. I gotta be missing something.

I don't mean any disrespect here, I'm just doing what you asked - armchair QB-ing. It just struck me from your responses that you "may" believe you can use your gun, not just draw it, to defend yourself if you feel threatened in any way. If so, that's just not the case. Your gun is a last resort, not the first. PC 9.32 is very clear as to when you can use deadly force. Some may not like it, but it's the law as of now. I believe the first obligation is to de-escalate the situation in any way possible, the next is to try and distance yourself from it. Now if you've run out of options and you can get a prosecutor and a jury to believe that the other party was about to use deadly force (gun, knife, or other weapon), or commit one of the actions described in PC 9.32, then the law will cover you, even if you don't retreat. I'm no lawyer, so I only can interpret the statute as I see it. I wouldn't rush out to sell my guns either. It's simply a matter of knowing when you can use deadly force and when you can't. Of course it's not always cut and dried.

i think you are trying to be a very good parent, and also keep your family safe, and I commend you for that. However, perhaps a re-read of the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws booklet would make things clearer to you. I'm sure some might disagree with my position, and you and others may disagree with this part of the penal code. I know I have some issues with them from time to time. But the fact is, that's the law, and I would hate for any CHL holder to ruin their life by acting in a contrary manner. If I'm incorrect, then no doubt others on this forum will correct me. This is absolutely the best place to be when it comes to being a responsible CHL.