[JiG]

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/section/6/article/120305/

Defendant: ‘I don’t want to shoot this guy if I don’t have to’

Lazarescue allegedly followed Cheryl Mack, the defendant’s wife, from a park March 20, 2015, back to her home on Maple Valley Drive. Geoffrey Mack said Lazarescue pushed the car door against him, hitting Mack in the shoulder and grazing him under the eye.
“I went ahead and started drawing my pistol, but I thought, ‘I don’t want to shoot this guy if I don’t have to’,†Mack said.

Don't draw unless you intend to use the weapon. People do not respond like the movies to the sight of a gun. If you pull it, use it.

“He pulls the gun … essentially right into his face, but I’m not going to let it go,†Mack said. “I held it, but I did try to turn it. He pulled it forward, and I pulled it backward. That made the trigger pull, and the gun discharged.â€

If he had not pulled the gun, this would not have been a problem.

“Why did you shoot the second time?†Teston asked.
“He was coming at me still,†Mack said, adding he did not want to shoot toward the chest.

If you do not want to stop the guy by any means necessary, you are not in fear of your life.

 

[JiG]

A previous article:

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/section/6/article/120283/

“Geoff, don’t do it,†said a neighbor in the 911 call

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

I have to caution against expressing the sentiment "Don't draw unless you intend to use (shoot) the weapon."
Let us suppose that an assailant does present such a danger that you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury (16-3-21). You draw and as you do so the assailant realizes the error of his ways and immediately 'withdraws from the field of combat'.
Are you supposed to go ahead and shoot him as you drew the pistol with the intention of using it?

And, although I don't know if it's ever come up in court, I can easily imagine a prosecutor getting hold of those words and using them to try and convince a jury that no matter what the assailant did, you intended to shoot because you had drawn a weapon.

 

[Rugerer]

So, no such thing as pull and hold at low ready? If things change between the pull and the press, ought you not to change your plan?

You posters who gallantly post that "if I draw my gun I am shooting" haven't drawn a gun before.
There isn't a thing wrong with verbal commands or distraction shots....again, provided that YOU know where the round will go.
Limiting yourself to drawing and pulling the trigger is nonsensical. It doesn't fit real world experiences. I have pointed guns at people, and have taken up the slack on triggers and dropped thumb safeties. I remember each time vividly. In each instance, I was justified to shoot someone. In each instance, their behavior immediately changed, which resulted in me NOT shooting them.

 

[DonT]

Statistical studies have suggested that in a high percentage of defensive gun use incidents, just the display of a firearm stopped the attack.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I have drawn as a preemptory move LOTS of times, including once just about a year ago (it is the subject of an entire thread here). I certainly would have used it without hesitation if needed, but it wasn't needed. As a police officer, I pulled my gun all the time not to use it, but just to be ready to use it. Saved my butt more than once.

I guess I have to disagree with the advice given just due to my own personal experiences and the fact that I probably would not be around were it not for drawing before I actually intended to start blasting.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Statistical studies have suggested that in a high percentage of defensive gun use incidents, just the display of a firearm stopped the attack.

Like, almost ALL of them . . .

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I cannot figure out why he thought he needed a gun out at all. Cornelio Lazarescue is 74.
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/section/6/article/120283/

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Article a few hours after what JiG posted:

A Buford man accused of shooting another man in the leg and jaw was acquitted of the more serious charges against him Wednesday.

Geoffrey Mack, 64, was convicted on one count of reckless conduct. He had faced charges of aggravated assault, aggravated battery and false imprisonment.

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/section/6/article/120331/

That was one fast jury verdict.

 

[Feral]

I have drawn as a preemptory move LOTS of times, including once just about a year ago (it is the subject of an entire thread here). I certainly would have used it without hesitation if needed, but it wasn't needed. As a police officer, I pulled my gun all the time not to use it, but just to be ready to use it. Saved my butt more than once.

I guess I have to disagree with the advice given just due to my own personal experiences and the fact that I probably would not be around were it not for drawing before I actually intended to start blasting.

I have to say I agree. I can see multiple scenarios where simply drawing could de-escalate a volatile situation. In that situation firing isn't necessary because the introduction of your firearm was enough alone.

That is evident by your personal experiences. As well as countless ones readable online.

Should you be ready to fire? Certainly. Be prepared. You may have to take a life to defend yours. I understand what the others are getting at as well. If you're willing to draw, be willing to use it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

To be fair, though, after reading about the situation JiG is discussing, it appears that there was no need at all to introduce a firearm into the situation. Even Mack's stated justifications, taken alone and with no contradiction, do not appear to offer any justification for presenting a weapon. As a caveat, I am just going off of the very limited information in a few newspaper articles.

 

[moe mensale]

I cannot figure out why he thought he needed a gun out at all. Cornelio Lazarescue is 74.
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/section/6/article/120283/

Guess you've never confronted a horny, old, Romanian Baptist! :lol:

 

[Phil1979]

Just quickly reaching for my gun one day caused a potential attacker to do a 180. Had I continued my draw and shot him, I would have been guilty of murder.

Just because you have to draw doesn't mean you stop evaluating the situation to see if you shoot or don't shoot.

Now, it can be such a close call, that in the same split second your attacker starts to surrender your finger is already pulling the trigger and you cannot reverse course. It's simply physically impossible.

It's been proven as such when an attacker has holes in both the front and back. As the shooter is defending himself, the perp quickly turns away, and the shooter cannot release his trigger pull that is already in progress.

 

[JiG]

I understand in the forum's rush to find Bdee's replacement to kick around that I seemed suitable.... setting all of that aside, MP finally saw it. There was no need to introduce the gun. Had he not, the guy that got shot would have been unable to pull the gun towards him, which resulted in the shooter accidentally shooting the person he wanted to threaten with the gun in the first place.

If you aren't ready to use it, don't pull it. Anyone's comments prior are moot, in all of those examples, the brandisher had intent to use it.

How does one claim that they did not mean to shoot someone when they were admitting to pointing a gun at someone?

 

[a_springfield]

I understand in the forum's rush to find Bdee's replacement

Off topic but when did this happen and what did he finally do to get the big B

 

[Wings06j]

I have to caution against expressing the sentiment "Don't draw unless you intend to use (shoot) the weapon."
Let us suppose that an assailant does present such a danger that you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury (16-3-21). You draw and as you do so the assailant realizes the error of his ways and immediately 'withdraws from the field of combat'.
Are you supposed to go ahead and shoot him as you drew the pistol with the intention of using it?

And, although I don't know if it's ever come up in court, I can easily imagine a prosecutor getting hold of those words and using them to try and convince a jury that no matter what the assailant did, you intended to shoot because you had drawn a weapon.

It's not "If you draw you must shoot". It's "don't draw unless you intend to shoot". At the instant you draw your weapon you had better meet the criteria for use of deadly force or believe that such criteria is imminent and be willing to follow thru (shoot) if there isn't a change of course. For example if someone is running at you with a knife with nothing between you and them then there is sufficient threat to draw the weapon. However if they are still 50 feet away you probably wouldn't immediately fire. Once they hit 20 feet then you'd pull the trigger. If they stopped and reversed course you would obviously not shoot.

I could see a prosecutor trying to twist the meaning and there probably is a better way to phrase it (don't draw unless you are willing to use it and the situation necessitates?). It's like shooting to kill vs stop vs live. Same meaning, aim for center mass to put the threat down in minimal time. But the connotation is different.

 

[JiG]

Off topic but when did this happen and what did he finally do to get the big B

I can't say for sure, but its been around a month or so.

I do not know what did him in, but the theory is he became a nuisance to a moderator or three.

 

[JiG]

It's not "If you draw you must shoot". It's "don't draw unless you intend to shoot". At the instant you draw your weapon you had better meet the criteria for use of deadly force or believe that such criteria is imminent and be willing to follow thru (shoot) if there isn't a change of course. For example if someone is running at you with a knife with nothing between you and them then there is sufficient threat to draw the weapon. However if they are still 50 feet away you probably wouldn't immediately fire. Once they hit 20 feet then you'd pull the trigger. If they stopped and reversed course you would obviously not shoot.

Well said!

 

[Rugerer]

If you pull it, use it.

This statement wasn't qualified with "intent." It seemed rather absolute to me.

 

[JiG]

This statement wasn't qualified with "intent." It seemed rather absolute to me.

Maybe next time you will not look for absolutes. I never mean to speak in absolutes, even if you thought I did.

When MP pulled his gun, he used it. It served a proper purpose.

Again, this guy had no reason to skin it. When he did, he was met with a situation he was not prepared for because he had no intention of using the gun. He pulled the gun as a display of power. He did not pull the gun in defense of life. Big Freaking Difference.