Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by poodleshooter1, Aug 24, 2011.
Folks, if you don't have a positive contribution to make, how about just not posting.
I asked about shooting below the waist and it would still be intent to kill so you might as well shoot them in the chest and not take the chance of missing
Even if the weapon is dropped the perp is still moving towards you they are still a threat because you can't tell if they have another weapon
If I am in fear of my life I draw in preparation to shoot. If the bad guy drops his weapon then I don't shoot immediately. If the threat persists however, I am going to shoot.
While that is a simple answer there are many variables to throw in there and to contemplate. Can I put a barrier between me and bad guy. If so I do that. If the bad guy advances and I have time to give commands, I do that. If he obeys my commands then I don't shoot.
What if I pull my gun, he drops his knife, runs for cover so he can draw a pistol and tries to shoot me first. There are so many things to think of that it is impossible to answer every variable over the internet. The bottom line is if the threat still exists to my life, I am going to end that threat one way or another. Shooting someone is always the last resort!
When I took my CCW class in the state of Ohio, there was a lawyer who was good friends with the gun range that I go to. He came in to talk about the "legal" side of carrying concealed, and using lethal force to protect your life. The two points that I keep popping in my head as I read this response:
1. If you are prepared to to pull your gun, you pull the trigger. You do not pull the gun as a warning,or a threat because you have to explain why you used lethal force, when apparently a threat was all that was needed.
2. (which follows the same thought process of #1,) Never fire warning shots, or shoot below the belt (purposely not killing, but wounding) because, again, you are using lethal force in a way that wasn't lethal and you have to prove that lethal force was needed to legally draw your weapon, and then explain why you didn't use it lethally.
Yep knife fell when the 10mm bullet went through him,,,The End
Maybe you should switch to a SD round that expands better rather than punching little 10mm holes in them.
I would have to disagree with that statement in bold. If that were true, I would have already given dirt naps to a couple scumbags. Both times my gun was drawn, I was prepared to fire if I had to, but thank god I didn't have to.
However I completely agree with #2.
^^^I agree, I would never ever pull the trigger if the threat stopped at the sight of a gun. Sometimes there is a imminent threat, but they stopped at the sight of the gun coming out of the holster. If you still shoot you just committed a murder.
It's situations such as this one where your lawyer will earn his money.
Your best course of action IF you were to shoot the advancing unarmed badguy would be to remember to keep your mouth SHUT when the Police arrive and let your lawyer articulate the justification for deadly force.
What Mas has said about being set upon by a mob of people, then the mob is As One, and every member of the mob are equally responsible and are "fair game". If you shoot at the one guy that has a weapon and miss and hit the person next to him, you should still be okay.
I also remember John Farnam quipping when dealing with multiple attackers: Everyone gets first servings then you go back and give them seconds (if necessary).
Regarding someone who has dropped their weapon and continues to advance upon you while you're still Pointing your gun at him, Mas has said that that person is probably thinking that you WON'T shoot and it's a good chance that he's going to try and take your gun and shoot you with it. If you DO shoot the now unarmed attacker, you had best be able to testify in court why you were justified in shooting.
Bang! Simple, no?
I'd say the element is lead more than anything.
Now if in Texas, you don't have to retreat if you did not provoke anything, but in other states, well I dunno. But here in Texas, I suggest you don't keep a'coming once they tell you to stop.
Great post. There are a million ways to paint the scenario, but it all boils down to this: if there is an imminent threat of harm/death, then react. If the threat subsides, then stand ready.
In the case of 3 guys and you shoot 2...then the one left advances on you after seeing you drop his 2 buddies? Are you kidding me? I'll give him the opportunity of a verbal command, and I'll retreat if possible, but once he's inside of 10 feet where I can only get 2-3 shots before he reaches me, I'm shooting him. Why? Because as soon as he gets my weapon away from me, I'm a dead man. That's all the intent and opportunity I need. And that's assuming he doesn't have a knife or a gun that I haven't seen yet. My chances of winning the struggle for the gun are much better if he has a couple of bullets in him already.
Let's face it, I'm old and I'm lazy. I could have studied Krav Maga or some other martial arts for 10 years, but instead I decided to take an 8-hour class and pay a fee for a CCW license. My self-defense is lethal force when necessary. I'm too old now to throw-down with some punk intent on doing physical violence on me. If he's stupid enough to risk his life to do so, then I'm certain his intent was to take mine. In the end, he loses, not me.
I know there are anti SD and gun-hostile DA's out there, mostly in blue states. What they should do is give you a medal and a key to the city for taking out the garbage, not charge you with murder. Anyone crazy enough to advance on you when you are clearly in self-defense mode, and they know you are armed with a firearm, does not deserve to have their actions defended by charging the victim with murder. Charging someone in that circumstance is truly unethical and immoral.
I think this could be explained in a court of law in such a way that a reasonable jury would not convict you of murder, or anything for that matter. At least not where I live (amongst good and sane people).
If my solution to this problem is to shoot the now unarmed attacker, I think I'd have been better off to have shot as soon as I drew my weapon. There is no requirement when being attacked with a deadly weapon to give the attacker the chance to cease hostilities upon presenting your weapon. If your life is really in danger, drawing and firing immediately seems to be a viable option.
Looking at it from a jury's point of view, I think shooting while the attacker is still armed will play better.
You might want to re-think #1 regardless of what that guy told you. I don't have the reference right now but I read somewhere that 80-90% of the time a CCW person draws a gun, it isn't fired and the perp does not escalate the situation.
Another angle is this. Each moment and each milisecond is its own. If you draw in 1.5 or 2.5 like most people then there are changes that could be happening during your draw so planning on shooting because you are "needing to shoot" isn't exactly how it works in real life.
If you are in true defense mode there is nothing wrong with drawing. It doesn't mean you have to shoot. You need to separate the drawing from the shooting.
Now, I will agree with the "shoot to stop" and "keep shooting until they stop" but that isn't drawing.
Anyone have real examples of how long it takes them to draw in plain clothes and deep carry? Way longer than I want it to no matter how many reps I get in. If it's getting that bad I'm at least getting my hand on it, if not drawing.
If I was in fear of death or severe bodily harm, I'd shoot.
If I could retreat, I'd consider that as well.
Otherwise, I might want to test my retention and contact shooting skills with something more than airsoft..
Not sure why I would want to detain a person at gunpoint, it would generally be in my best interests to allow him to flee.
I'm not in the business of bringing in the badguys.
This is exactly why Florida enacted the 'Stand Your Ground' statute. It used to be a victim's duty to retreat as far as possible before engaging an attacker with deadly force.
Now, once a threat has escalating to the point at which one feels justified in using deadly force, one no longer has to retreat. Any continued threat may be met with deadly force.
Pretty simple, IMO. If you drew, intending to shoot based on the fact that the person was threatening you with a knife and he drops the knife, then you no longer have the justification to shoot based on that set of facts. They are no longer in existence. If he now advances on you barehanded can you explain to a jury of your peers why it was reasonable to assume that deadly force was the appropriate response to a threat of attack by an unarmed man. Personally I think you have a rather tough road ahead if you do.
OK, but the question is - "What would you do then?"