I drew my weapon in self defense: Gun owners & Dog Walkers

Better reason than OP's. Sucks you have to forever be dealing with a 'crazy' in your life now. Some real freaks out there in the wild.

 

This is insane. I would carry in my bath robe too.

Not to long ago, I think just after Connecticut, A guy here went into a lawyers office armed. He was in a property dispute with another guy and this was the litigation lawyer, He shot and killed the man he is in a dispute with and the lawyer and wounded 2 others I think. Then he drove him self to a parking lot and offed him self.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/gunman-shooting-arizona-office/2013/01/30/id/488187

I hope you stay safe and re-look at what your HR department does with critical information.

 

Those situations can turn bad so fast, sounds like it was dealth with accordingly, I probably would have at least butt stocked him if he turned on me in a quick movement. I don't trust anyone, especially if you got the balls to come knock on my door and threaten my family. There's alot of things that would have made me lose my cool in that situation.

 

You're absolutely right. You did not say run from the dog. Your actual words were "..slow your run … close the gap between your wife (backup) and yourself..," which the OP (jogging) described as behind him (also jogging).

Okay, perhaps a different context might help you better understand my position. You're walking in the park (or running, jumping, crawling, flying, or whatever - it's your park, so do what you want), suddenly hear a noise, and turn to see a man, yelling & screaming wildly, charging straight at you with a knife in hand.

Your notion above is that a "dismissive posture" might possibly put him at ease. My position is that a "dismissive posture" is indeed cowering and by the time you figure out it's not going to put him at ease, it's probably too late.

Of course, in a public park, a person has a right to do as he reasonably pleases, without consideration for your pooch. Your animal (in this case, the aggressor picking the person, not the other way around) should not even enter the person's thought process, much less restrain or temper his activities.

That (the right to freely go about your business, with an equal right to defend yourself when threatened during that) is the very premise behind the "stand your ground" laws. You imply that's mindless aggression, while I consider it simple freedom.

-

 

Specalt - you acted accordingly and responsibly!

 

Give up on this one Stewart ,,,, as soon as he cant out talk you the name calling will start.

 

LOL. You may be right. Since I've said just about all I can, as clearly as I can, it is probably a good time for me to get out of it. Someone else can take over if they want.

 

Smart move

 

Beavis that sucks. I am going through something "similar" at the moment, although the trial doesn't start for the individual until September. I do understand your situation though, and have spent time making my family more secure. I hope you have as well!

 

I was running in a local park here in Salem, sometimes I like touse the smaller trails in park as it makes me work on some agility due to thetight trails and rocks.

Anyway long story short. it was about 10:30am and I was runningalong one of the trails. I had my head phones in; I was having a great timeuntil I heard a dog going nuts behind me. I turned to see the biggest pit Ihave ever seen. I stopped in my tracks and barked back at him as loud as Icould. He kept coming so I made a move toward him and barked back at him again.With that he stopped about 5 feet from me and just growled at me, he had on acollar and leash so I knew his owner should be close by but could not see them.We had a 15-20 second stand off and then he changed posture a little and hebacked up some. As he did I backed away slowly, that's when I saw a personlaying against a tree from where the dog had most likely come. I yelled at themto get their fing dog.

The only response I got was some mumbling, they appeared to bewasted.



After I moved on I found one of the bike officers in the park letthem know what happened and went on with my jog.
In retrospect I can’t blame the dog, it appears to me I startled it as I ranbuy and it was just trying to protect the idiot that owned it.
I do wish I had my weapon on me as I would have felt more comfortable with thewhole thing. I idea of having to fit with a very large pit hand to hand is nota fun one.
Now I carry a knife on my arm band my phone is held in at least that way I havesomething I can use instead of a rock.

 

So, by this rationale -- if I am crossing in a crosswalk with the WALK sign lit, a place I am legally allowed to be and minding my own business, and I see a driver texting and careening toward me at a rate of speed which causes me imminent danger of death or injury do to an illegal act(s) (reckless endangerment, speeding, negligence, etc.) I have the right to whip out my gat an' leave 'em leakin'?

Or if I step out of the road, or hurry across it is that now the definition of "cowering" because I did not stand my ground against an illegal assailant.

I can do the apples-to-oranges comparisons all day too.

Crazed, knife-wielding madman (at some point a human being capable of decisions and thought process) ≠ unleashed dog (instinct & training).

For what it's worth, I do see your points, and I completely agree that a dog needs to always be leashed and is subject to whatever harm may befall it if not. I just disagree with the thought process.

Of course, agreeing with Jimbo won't really garner you any intelligence points. And I never call people names unless they make blatantly racist/ignorant comments. Then all bets are off. You've done neither, so everything's cool in my book.

Now, to me, this is intelligent process. It's actually pretty simple...

Do what you would do if you were not carrying a weapon. If that does not work, use weapon.

 

What's really so confusing about all this? In your scenario, if the driver is aiming his vehicle at you intentionally, with the clear intent to cause you harm, yes. If not, no. You obviously cannot shoot someone over a simple accident, even if caused by negligence or whatever.

Going back to the original scenario, the dog charging aggressively in the park is not an accident. That charging animal fully intends, and has the capacity, to cause harm. You have every right to defend yourself from that.

 

I've never argued that he didn't.

Of course he does. That's where I think the disconnect is. I'm not arguing the validity of the action, just the thought process which leads to it.

I know too many people who carry, and when faced with a situation, their first reaction is, "grab my gun!" When in all reality, if they just exercised a little brain power, it wouldn't be necessary.

This is literally the only point I am trying to make.

 

Oh, I understand your point. I'm just offended by it. Offended by your implication that we don't think - don't "exercise a little brain power." We're not a bunch of mindless killers. The OP clearly thought. Dog would be dead otherwise. Indeed, with an estimated 4.7 million bitten each year, he even thought well when choosing to draw a firearm.

What more do you want? It's not like we have hours to think about it. And, personally, I'm not going to just assume a "dismissive posture" in the hopes some unknown stray dog charging at me will play nice. I'll pull my gun first and then worry about trying to pacify the dog. Then, if that doesn't work, I'm ready for whatever follows.

 

I think knowing when to and when not to introduce a gun into a situation is a big part of the learning experience before concealing. The last thing I need would be to introduce a gun to a heated situation and the make it worse and somehow lose the weapon and have it used against me. I've promised myself to only carry when I'm completely comfortable with it and can respect the weapon and also know the most I can about it beforehand, it's one of the biggest reasons I don't own a handgun yet.

 

Wow.

That sucks you're offended by an interaction on the Internet. If you're going to get that worked up about healthy discussion, I think we're done here.

For what it's worth, I take no offense at all. You're as entitled to your opinion as I am.

Good day.

 

The decision of when to use a firearm (which includes pulling it from a holster) is always a critical one. And you'll quickly discover there is no one answer (especially one which can be taught or learned). It varies for each individual in each individual situation. As a quick example, there's little real threat to a younger man from a drunk wanting to fistfight, so a weapon is unwarranted unless the situation somehow escalates. The threat is greater to a much older person, however, so a weapon may be justified. Same situations, different people, potentially different answers.

To regulate the specific use of firearms, you'd have to list a thousand situations, with a thousand variables for each. And, since the variables are often much more subtle than my example above, it's very difficult to judge with hindsight what is or isn't justified.

Luckily, gun owners themselves seem to be doing a pretty good job at this. In states with liberal gun carry laws, there hasn't been the bloodbath many opposed to guns predicted - the numbers are rarely higher, and in many cases lower, than those with strict gun control laws. I suspect you'll do a good job at it as well.

 

I like reading both sides of this debate. Insightful as to how different people would react in this situation.

 

I'm surprised it was re-opened..