[jatx]

Originally Posted by Razor

If you don't consider 6 adult males rushing toward you, armed or not, as a potential threat to your life, you a much badder man than I am. Have you ever seen what one unarmed man can do to another?

I am no badass and would not claim that I am. I am a normal guy by most measures. But the issue isn't whether the six men were a potential threat, it's whether they were an imminent threat. None of the news reports have indicated that they threatened him or brandished weapons of any sort, only that they moved toward him as a group on the way to a vehicle two cars down from his. No imminent threat of mortal injury = deadly force not justified.

Originally Posted by Razor

Huh? First you say brandishing is bad, then you talk about maintaining low ready and issuing verbal commands. Even at 'low ready' the weapon is out of the holster and ready for use. Have you seen how quickly someone can transition from 'low ready' to the ability to fire? If the weapon is in your hand, you're brandishing, so you might as well be ready to use it immediately rather than depend on it as a mere visual aid during negotiations.

I suggested that he first put distance between himself and the men. If, while doing that, they did in fact continue after him and not on the way to their own vehicle, he would be justified in fearing for his safety and could begin to escalate.

Originally Posted by Razor

So, its much better to allow these guys to move along and possibly injure and kill someone else (running with the illegal, possibly terrorist, scenario here) than to get involved, huh? You're safe and sound; too bad for everybody else.

Don't twist my statement. As civilians, we carry weapons to protect our lives and those of others from legitimate, imminent threats. We do not carry them in order that we may enforce the law, and we do not carry them in order to diffuse "potential threats".

Originally Posted by Razor

Those passengers in the hijacked airliner (Flight 93?) heading towards D.C. on 9/11/2001 should not have become involved with trying to detain the hijackers, as they could not have been 100% sure that their lives were in danger either, right?

This is an appeal to emotion, not a logical argument. Passengers on a hijacked airliner are certainly justified in believing that they are in mortal danger. The history of hijackings ending with violence confirms this. Therefore, they may take steps to subdue their assailants and protect themsleves.

Originally Posted by Razor

Were any of the men detained injured? Other than being delayed in their travels, what long-term harm did they endure by this detainment? If legitimate law enforcement erroneously detains (or even incapacitates) a citizen, should they be charged with a crime as well?

The law does not require that youinjure someone in order to fall under the definition of assault. My copy of Black's defines assault as:

"Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability to do so, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking, or doing bodily harm, to the person of another."

1. Did he threaten the men with injury? Yes, he held them at gunpoint on the ground.

2. Did he display the means to inflict injury? Yes, he drew the gun in circumstances where the use of deadly force in self defense would not have been justified.

3. Was the display intentional? Yes, he pursued some of the individuals after they were already in their own vehicle and forced them to get facedown on the ground at gunpoint.

Absent the conditions necessary to characterize the situation as one of justifiable self-defense, the men were assaulted. There is clearly a fine line here, and using force judiciously in self-defense requires you to be nimble both mentally and physically, but the decision to carry is the decision to play by the rules.

Originally Posted by Razor

Whatever happened to the concept of "better safe than sorry"?

Civilians are occasionally justified in legally detaining others, i.e. "citizen's arrest". These cases are usually limited to situations where:

1. A felony or misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace is committed or attempted in your presence.

2. A felony has been committed and you have reason to believe that the person arrested committed it, whether or not it was in your presence.

Obviously, this individual witnessed no crime and had no reason to believe that a felony had occured. He was not within his rights and, while I do not want to see him thrown in the clink, he isn't exactly a poster boy for responsible carry, either.