I see there's quite a heated discussion going on about could've / should've / would've. Submitting From my point of view - Malcolm's encounter is a textbook case of what to do if you're untrained / unequipped for multiple attackers with or without weapons. For the untrained, playing the odds that they are robbers without violent intent is the best hope you've got. Fleeing Another option would be to effect an escape. The odds you're playing with are effective and accurate firing (or just dumb luck) from at least one armed aggressor as well as possible blocker elements (human or otherwise) on likely escape routes. With hindsight, we can see the main aggressor has poor firearm handling skills but this can't be known on initial contact. For me, this would have been a poor choice but I also recognise that the "flight" urge might prove overwhelming for individuals where mental preparedness is not part of a daily regime. Fighting Lastly, one has the option to provide resistance. Resistance only ever becomes an option when training is part of a daily (or at the very, very least bi-weekly) schedule. By training, I do NOT mean the following: Aerobics Iron Man Judo Chops IPSC / ITA (and to lesser extent IDPA) club shoots. Mixed Martial Arts Thinking that any of the abovementioned will serve you well in a violent, aggresive, armed conflict will only result in Rambo ego's being nurtured. Don't get me wrong, I think they're awesome as a sport, but not as a method of surviving fights with armed aggressors. Legal Aspects Roneblack46 is spot on when it comes to using legal force. The pointing of the firearm by the main aggressor justifies lethal force (even if that firearm was a replica). Drawing and firing your firearm with lethal intent in Malcom's situation falls inside the remit of justifiable, common-man self defense as prescribed by law. Lethal force, however, is on a case-by-case basis - Shooting someone in the back as they're running away is a criminal offence under South African law (seeing as the attack would be seen as over). The legal use of lethal force is covered in one's competency certificate prior to a firearm license application and every firearm owner should be well-versed in it (yes, even Oscar). Personally Speaking The use of lethal force, or the other alternatives (Submitting / Fleeing), are best determined before a situation even presents itself. Will you give up your belongings? Great, then prepare yourself to do just that. Will you provide resistance / use lethal force? Great, then prepare yourself to do just that. Far be it from me to prescribe what you should have done in Malcom's situation - as only you determine your skills level, mental preparedness and downright level of comfort. I can only speak for myself when I say that I would have fought tooth and nail, but only because: I train every day (in Somerset West of all places!) for violent encounters where knives, pangas, handguns and rifles are used; I'm confident in my abilities to take on multiple aggressors; I'm well trained in the use of various firearms under arduous, stress-induced conditions; I'm aware (as much as possible) of my environment; and finally Because I've made the decision to engage long before the situation presents itself
