User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 9:40:49 PM EDT
[#1]
If my gun has to come out it's being shot. At the point the gun needs to be exposed is the point I need it. Displaying a gun as a citizen to DE-esculate, or do threaten to use or to maybe use it & your mind isn't made up to do so is where you get in trouble.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 9:51:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If my gun has to come out it's being shot. At the point the gun needs to be exposed is the point I need it. Displaying a gun as a citizen to DE-esculate, or do threaten to use or to maybe use it & your mind isn't made up to do so is where you get in trouble. So you get your gun out and the bad guys start running away. You gonna shoot and deal with LEO, Lawyers, Judges ? Or are you going to re-holster and go on with life? Are you married ? Kids ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:01:11 PM EDT
[#3]
First post.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:22:25 AM EDT
[#4]
I too think the question is worded awkwardly.
There many posts here that are far better advice than what you received in the training that you paid for. "Shoot to kill" is among the worst bits of advice. One should use the gun to STOP the immediate threat. It is true that the most effective way to do that can and does often result in a fatality. But killing isn't the objective, surviving the attack is. Sometimes when a bad guy realizes they may get hurt or arrested they will change their actions. If you do draw you should be %100 ready to if you have to. I'd write more if not on this silly phone. Cheers! -JC |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:00:58 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I feel that some situations could be de-escalated by displaying a weapon. The kicker is that if it doesn't work you better be ready to use it. My thoughts exactly!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:38:16 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I draw and the situation "de-escalates" before I shoot, that's great. That said, if I draw the gun I have every intention of putting it to use. This. I'm not hoping that the sight of my pistol de-escalates a situation. I'm not a cop. When it comes out, the decision to shoot has been made and will happen if the situation hasn't changed from the time if that decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 2:38:04 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. I'm not hoping that the sight of my pistol de-escalates a situation. I'm not a cop. When it comes out, the decision to shoot has been made and will happen if the situation hasn't changed from the time if that decision. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If I draw and the situation "de-escalates" before I shoot, that's great. That said, if I draw the gun I have every intention of putting it to use. This. I'm not hoping that the sight of my pistol de-escalates a situation. I'm not a cop. When it comes out, the decision to shoot has been made and will happen if the situation hasn't changed from the time if that decision. Time to draw, get muzzle on target and pull the trigger, should be take about as long as reading the second phrase in this sentence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 2:49:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah. Due to the "decision to act" loop being there, the aggressor has a fraction of a second to figure out what's going on and start acting to retreat. The ones that leap forward and try to grab the gun are going to do it basically, immediately rather than thinking about it. Time to draw, get muzzle on target and pull the trigger, should be take about as long as reading the second phrase in this sentence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: If I draw and the situation "de-escalates" before I shoot, that's great. That said, if I draw the gun I have every intention of putting it to use. This. I'm not hoping that the sight of my pistol de-escalates a situation. I'm not a cop. When it comes out, the decision to shoot has been made and will happen if the situation hasn't changed from the time if that decision. Time to draw, get muzzle on target and pull the trigger, should be take about as long as reading the second phrase in this sentence. If you're that close they can grab it or stab you. In the Wal Mart example, you could be 50 yards away from a nut waving a machete over his head. Immediate threat? No. Reason enough to draw your weapon & keep it @ a low ready? Yes. He may not be a threat to you. He might be a threat to his domestic partner cowering behind the counter you don't see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 7:23:30 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you're that close they can grab it or stab you. In the Wal Mart example, you could be 50 yards away from a nut waving a machete over his head. Immediate threat? No. Reason enough to draw your weapon & keep it @ a low ready? Yes. He may not be a threat to you. He might be a threat to his domestic partner cowering behind the counter you don't see. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: If I draw and the situation "de-escalates" before I shoot, that's great. That said, if I draw the gun I have every intention of putting it to use. This. I'm not hoping that the sight of my pistol de-escalates a situation. I'm not a cop. When it comes out, the decision to shoot has been made and will happen if the situation hasn't changed from the time if that decision. Time to draw, get muzzle on target and pull the trigger, should be take about as long as reading the second phrase in this sentence. If you're that close they can grab it or stab you. In the Wal Mart example, you could be 50 yards away from a nut waving a machete over his head. Immediate threat? No. Reason enough to draw your weapon & keep it @ a low ready? Yes. He may not be a threat to you. He might be a threat to his domestic partner cowering behind the counter you don't see. 50 yards? even closer The "if I draw I shoot" crowd are not thinking it through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 8:04:12 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoting a post from the "Street robberies and you - the Basics" thread.
Quoted:
This is a very good dissertation on disparate force from Andrew "The Law of Self Defense" Branca. I just wanted to point out that my views of disparity of force in the context of lawful self-defense were forged when I attended Mas' LFI-I course way back in the early 1990s (or so, I'm getting old). I've seen nothing in 20 years since and many thousands of studied self-defense cases to change my mind on those fundamental principles. So if you've already heard what Mas has to say on the issue, you're unlikely to hear something substantively different from me. I did want to add one observation to the thread, however. (The nature of the GATES forum prevents me from doing so in the original thread, hence this separate thread.) That observation is that over the last 20 years, and especially the last 5-10, while the fundamental principles of disparity of force have not changed, the vigor with which the criminal justice system is punishing otherwise law-abiding citizens who violate these principles has grown CONSIDERABLY less forgiving. Today in most jurisdictions there is VERY LITTLE slack cut for the use of disparity of force even by the "good guys" like us. This is in part a function of the explosion of CCW over that same time period--a LOT more normally law-abiding people are carrying handguns around with them, and thus a lot more defensive uses of handguns are occurring. It is vital to keep in mind that deadly defensive force cannot be used unless one is facing a deadly offensive threat (meaning, of course, death or grave bodily harm). FBI statistics tell us that we are 5 times more likely to face a simple assault or battery (one NOT justifying a deadly force response) than an aggravated assault or battery (one that would justify a deadly force response). This means, obviously, that most attacks are non-deadly force. If you respond with your pistol (deadly force) against a non-deadly force threat you are increasingly likely to be found to have deployed disparate force outside the bounds of lawful self-defense, AND TO BE PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR IT. Keep in mind that even merely threatening someone with the use of a gun is in itself aggravated assault, good in many jurisdictions for as much as 15 years in prison. What's it take to "threaten someone with the use of a gun"? Any behavior that would put a reasonable person in fear of the imminent use of a gun against them. Is simply putting your hand on your pistol while facing a potential threat enough to meet this standard, under such circumstances that they can perceive an imminent threat? In many states, YES. Certainly displaying a pistol in a "defensive manner" (meaning, a manner intended to intimidate) is more than sufficient. Even worse, in many states such conduct, absent lawful justification, can make YOU the deadly force aggressor against whom THEY can use deadly force in self-defense. Another lesson (among hundreds) that has stuck with me from LFI-I those 20 years ago is to not have a stupid-simple defensive toolbox. Not every problem is a nail, not every solution is a hammer. Give yourself options to move up the force continuum gradually as circumstances warrant, particularly including the ability to defend yourself effectively with non-deadly force. Speaking in my own words now, anybody who is carrying a pistol for personal protection who has not also prepared themselves for NON-DEADLY self-defense is a fool, and putting themselves in great legal peril. They've left themselves with no effective defensive option between "ZERO FORCE" and "DEADLY FORCE," even though MOST attacks occur precisely within that gulf. I see a great many otherwise law-abiding citizens who, for example, display their pistol to a perceived threat before that threat has reached the level of reasonably perceived death or grave bodily harm, and who are getting prosecuted and convicted for having done so. These citizens were in GENUINE FEAR when they acted, and because the only defensive tool in their toolbox was the gun, that's what they went to. And, no, I'm not speaking merely of deep-blue jurisdictions like Massachusetts. I speak all over the country and have had a great many prosecutors concur with this observation--they are convicting people for such conduct (technically, usually accepting pleas to avoid jail time). 20 years ago it was far more likely that prosecutorial discretion would result in these cases not being pursued. That is less and less the case today. These are increasingly seen today as good busts, good prosecutions, and good convictions. OK, that's it. Stay safe out there. :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:07:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Okay, so we learned in CCW Training from some "experts" that you never pull your weapon unless you intend to shoot and will shoot with 100% certainty Any expert that says that is a fucking idiot. The preemptive draw has prevented many an assault without a shot fired. I've used it myself. I'm going to shamelessly steal something a smart guy wrote on another forum: Use of lethal force is a judgement call and it's generally one that normal people are hesitant to make. I mean, I don't really know a whole lot of people who are just itching for the chance to go through a gunfight on the street. Here we're veering into the lane of people who have considerable experience dealing with bad guys and watching the aftermath of shooting incidents but I'll offer my 3 drachmas: An interaction with a bad person is an interaction. The quality of the interaction can determine the ultimate outcome. Speaking personally, if I can get out of a situation without having to actually pull the trigger, I'm all for it. If in my interaction with the bad guy I can convince him that what remains of his existence will be blood-soaked agony before cold death and he decides he'd rather not gurgle out his last breaths at my feet, huzzah. If it takes pointing a gun at his face to make him believe he's about to meet Jesus, then so be it. I'll point the gun at his face. If he insists on pressing the matter past that point then he's insisting on oblivion and I'll oblige. While there are some situations where there is absolutely no doubt about the correct course of action and immediate use of lethal force is the only answer, there are also situations where a display of the means and willingness to use lethal force can put an immediate end to the hostile actions without gunfire. People can argue about how representative the data set is, but it's absolutely clear that a significant number of defensive uses of firearms every year do not involve actually pulling the trigger. There are many factors that can contribute to a situation going down that way, but chief among them is the fact that introducing a gun into the situation significantly changes the dynamic for some bad guys. (Others may not give a rip) If I'm making the final decision to shoot, I'd much rather make it with the pistol already in my hand than with it sitting in my holster. Now I may not have a choice in the matter due to circumstances...but if I've got enough situational awareness to spot a potential attack coming and I've taken some proactive actions to put myself into a better position as it's in the initial stages I may well be able to have my pistol out before the other guy has me completely in his trap. In that situation I'm pulling the pistol because I've recognized a criminal assault in progress and I expect that in the next couple of seconds I will probably need to pull the trigger to stop the other guy's hostile actions. I may not yet have made the decision that I need to shoot, but I'm in a position where I think that decision is literally a heartbeat away...and even though my draw is decent I'm not about to wait until I have the compulsion to pull the trigger to get the gun into a position where I can use it. When the gun comes out I have every intention of using it should the bad guy force the issue. If it happens that when I start to pull the gun or that when I cover him with my muzzle that he decides he's had enough and runs, fantastic. Saves me a lot of headache. If producing the firearm causes him to pause for a second because his plan just went to hell, well, Ok. I'll improve my position as best I can and do whatever I think I need to do to convince him that yes, I really will end him on the spot. If I start to pull the gun and he isn't dissuaded at all from his course of action...well...I'm better off with the gun in my hand than with it in my holster. What I think is being missed here is the recognition that criminal assaults are not binary events. They are highly dynamic. If you can spot one forming and do something about it before it gets to the point where you are facing incoming gunfire/stab wounds, then by all means do so. We're not taking about pulling the gun willy nilly just because somebody gives you the creeps, here. You've recognized a criminal assault and you're taking legitimate defensive measures to protect yourself. I utterly loathe to use myself as an example, but I'm kind of forced to in order to make the point: When the dude tried to rob me at the gas station I understood from the moment I saw him change direction to intercept me that he was going to rob me. I've mentioned previously that as soon as I saw him change direction I immediately thought I was going to have to shoot him. I didn't pull the gun then because at that point he was just a dude walking across a parking lot and it wouldn't have been a justifiable use of force. I watched the guy like a hawk as he closed distance on me and picked a spot at which I knew for a fact he was coming after me. When he hit that point I spun on him, dropped my stuff, and got into an interview position and started with verbal challenges. Mild at first, while I continued to make distance. He continued to encroach on me and got frustrated enough to drop the ruse and demand the money. When he did that he'd initiated a criminal assault and that was all the justification I needed to go from avoidance and attempts at deescalation to aggression. I stopped moving backwards, started moving AT him, and started to draw. As I was doing this I told him to back the ***CENSORED*** up at maximum volume. On top of all that, I'm watching his hand which is still in the pocket of his peacoat. I expected him to produce a weapon and try to kill me with it. I intended to stop him. I hadn't yet come to the conclusion that I had to shoot him...but I expected it to get to that point in literally a matter of a couple of seconds and I wasn't about to spot him those couple of seconds. Now it so happens that somewhere in that process he decided to break off the attempt. I don't know exactly why he chose to break off the attempt because he fled into the darkness never to be seen again. The best read I can give is that he figured out I was pulling a gun and flight took precedence over fight. If he had merely paused his attack out of shock or to regroup, I would have continued to draw and I would have pointed the gun right at him, started giving commands, and tried to put at least an obstacle (as much of the gas pump as I could get without loosing situational awareness) between us. Had he approached with a drawn gun, things would have been different...but bad guys tend to wait to spring the trap until they're close. I was confronted with an unmistakable robbery attempt but the guy didn't have a weapon visible. He had a hand in a pocket concealing Heaven only knows what. Shooting him in the face wouldn't have been appropriate. Using absolutely no force wouldn't have been a good idea either. When it hit the point where I felt he was about to pull a weapon on me, I immediately started working on getting mine into play. In a situation like that I'd argue it would have been a bad idea for me to wait until I needed to shoot the guy to begin putting myself in a position to offer a successful defense against his actions. Also, they said you should always shoot to kill, and never to wound. When you point a firearm at someone, you are using lethal force. When you pull the trigger, you are using lethal force. Period. If you are not prepared to use lethal force, the gun is the wrong tool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 5:53:17 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Okay, so we learned in CCW Training from some "experts" that you never pull your weapon unless you intend to shoot and will shoot with 100% certainty and never as a threat or deterrent. In in everything firearms related, state laws vary considerably. The Law is Arizona is quite clear. There are many situations where a "threat of deadly force" is warranted/allowed, but actual deadly force is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 7:52:08 PM EDT
[#13]
When ever a discussion about the use of force take place, the law element often becomes part of the discussion. Obviously the law is very important; however, there comes a point in an encounter with a bad guy, that surviving the situation must trump the law. If you wait to long to draw, your chances of surviving the fight diminishes rapidly. Remember you are reacting, not acting, so you're already behind the curve.
No matter how well trained one might be in the mechanics of self defense or the use of the pistol, the mental aspect of being prepared and willing to follow through are much more important. When you "are in fear for your life" the law should be the last thing on your mind. Otherwise, you probably won't be around for it to matter!!! Place your hand on or pull the gun as early as possible, be prepared to use it, and hope like hell you don't have too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 1:06:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe that if you are going to draw you should be ready to shoot, and if you shoot it should be to kill. That being said, if I draw and the bad guy backs off, then great and I wouldn't shoot. Just never assume that just displaying a firearm will make someone back off. I'd say you nailed it. Situations are fluid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 3:54:49 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I too think the question is worded awkwardly. There many posts here that are far better advice than what you received in the training that you paid for. "Shoot to kill" is among the worst bits of advice. One should use the gun to STOP the immediate threat. It is true that the most effective way to do that can and does often result in a fatality. But killing isn't the objective, surviving the attack is. Sometimes when a bad guy realizes they may get hurt or arrested they will change their actions. If you do draw you should be %100 ready to if you have to. I'd write more if not on this silly phone. Cheers! -JC That's basically what i was taught in my CHL class. Stop the threat not shoot to kill or shoot to wound, if pulling my weapon without firing stops the threat i would consider that a good thing. I wouldn't have to deal with killing someone, cops, prosecutors, courts, judges etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:21:52 AM EDT
[#16]
FPNI.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2014 11:14:50 PM EDT
[#17]
Nope. If proving that I am armed will stop the goblin from goblin, then nobody gets hurt. I go on my way and goblin gets smarter (or doesn't, whatever).
If I felt the situation was dire enough that I drew a pistol but did not employ it, I would seriously consider calling the police immediately. Because otherwise, someone ELSE might call them and tell them that a crazy man is waving a gun around even tho nobody dindu no things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 2:37:35 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Okay, so we learned in CCW Training from some "experts" that you never pull your weapon unless you intend to shoot and will shoot with 100% certainty and never as a threat or deterrent. Also, they said you should always shoot to kill, and never to wound. I am wondering if most people who carry agree with this, especially with the first part. The reason I bring this up is that I have read threads where people said they pulled their weapon as a deterrent with the intent to shoot ONLY if the threat continues to a certain threshold (based on their perception) after they pull it. For example, a road rage situation where a guy is pounding on your locked window saying he is going to kill you. He has a knife but no gun that you can see. Do you wait until the situation escalates further or pull your weapon hoping he will back down instead of firing immediately. This is just an example, there are tons of other scenarios where you could tell someone you intend to shoot prior to shooting them. What if he didn't have a weapon, would you do the same thing? People mistake commitment for certainty. If you draw you need to be 100% committed to taking a life. Its that simple, because if you are not, you will freeze/miss/hit an innocent/die. If I decide that I have to shoot, THE MOMENT I DECIDE TO DRAW I AM 100% COMMITTED TO KILL MY ATTACKER. However, if the would be criminal decides that he is no longer interested and can communicate that to me before i get a clear sight picture, he wont get shot. this could be him dropping his weapon then laying down on the floor, or turning and running away. my weapon would not get holstered but i would no longer consider myself in immediate danger, and would no longer need to shoot. If i get the shot off before he changes his mind, then so be it. but be careful of the "if i draw i have to shoot". because more often than not. the act of drawing usually ends the altercation before a shot can be taken.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 2:51:08 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I too think the question is worded awkwardly. There many posts here that are far better advice than what you received in the training that you paid for. "Shoot to kill" is among the worst bits of advice. One should use the gun to STOP the immediate threat. It is true that the most effective way to do that can and does often result in a fatality. But killing isn't the objective, surviving the attack is. Sometimes when a bad guy realizes they may get hurt or arrested they will change their actions. If you do draw you should be %100 ready to if you have to. I'd write more if not on this silly phone. Cheers! -JC to put it simply. i hate when one human being kills or ends up having to kill another, and i hope i never have to end another human beings life. but i am not AFRAID of doing so if my life, my wifes life, my parents life, are on the line.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 4:01:29 AM EDT
[#20]
I would be a second away from using it. Whether I did use it would depend on how long the attacker wanted that second to last.
I can imagine a case in which I would draw and fire, but more likely the case would be one where pulling the gun out is simply getting it into a better position to end a threat if necessary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 9:00:38 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When ever a discussion about the use of force take place, the law element often becomes part of the discussion. Obviously the law is very important; however, there comes a point in an encounter with a bad guy, that surviving the situation must trump the law. If you wait to long to draw, your chances of surviving the fight diminishes rapidly. Remember you are reacting, not acting, so you're already behind the curve. No matter how well trained one might be in the mechanics of self defense or the use of the pistol, the mental aspect of being prepared and willing to follow through are much more important. When you "are in fear for your life" the law should be the last thing on your mind. Otherwise, you probably won't be around for it to matter!!! Place your hand on or pull the gun as early as possible, be prepared to use it, and hope like hell you don't have too. Curiously enough, those states enjoy high crime rates.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 9:40:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: you always draw with the INTEND to shoot. HOWEVER the average draw last about 2 seconds from leather to sight picture. that may not seem like much, but you can go from a weapons free situation to a "dam, look at dindu run" no shoot in that time or less.
People mistake commitment for certainty. If you draw you need to be 100% committed to taking a life. Its that simple, because if you are not, you will freeze/miss/hit an innocent/die. If I decide that I have to shoot, THE MOMENT I DECIDE TO DRAW I AM 100% COMMITTED TO KILL MY ATTACKER. However, if the would be criminal decides that he is no longer interested and can communicate that to me before i get a clear sight picture, he wont get shot. this could be him dropping his weapon then laying down on the floor, or turning and running away. my weapon would not get holstered but i would no longer consider myself in immediate danger, and would no longer need to shoot. If i get the shot off before he changes his mind, then so be it. but be careful of the "if i draw i have to shoot". because more often than not. the act of drawing usually ends the altercation before a shot can be taken. Er, no. If @ all possible, draw well before the situation reaches the point where you have to make a shoot/don't shoot decision. Waiting until you have already made the decision that lethal force is required to stop an attack is delaying the application of lethal force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2014 10:50:28 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I feel that some situations could be de-escalated by displaying a weapon. The kicker is that if it doesn't work you better be ready to use it. I agree with this, it's not likely the guy beating on your window with a knife is going to call the cops. If you're carrying a gun you've made the decision that you may have to kill someone and or face some form of litigation. It's going to take several years and a lot of court cases before we see how situations like this will play out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2014 11:49:08 AM EDT
[#24]
Your instructor sounds like an idiot who is setting his students up for disaster.
It will be entirely dependent on the situation and what information you have available to you. Your brain processes information very quickly. It it perfectly plausible to have a situation deescalate as you are drawing your weapon. Trust me, I've drawn on several armed individuals and never had to shoot as single one. Could I have? Maybe. But I didn't need to. And to recommend shooting to kill? Good luck in court with that mentality. We shoot to stop the threat. Once the threat is neutralized, the shooting stops. If the subject happens to die? Oh well, you did your job. If the threat stops but he survives? You still did your job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2014 11:59:11 AM EDT
[#25]
Had a conversation with a guy at work about guns and he told me his meth addicted half brother broke into his house one night which he reacted to the noise by grabbing his shot gun. He shot at the intruder hitting him making him run away. The cops showed up listened to what had happened he told the cops he didn't want to kill anybody just wanted to stop the intruder. He ended up going to jail. He told me the officer apologized to him while cuffing him and told him he understands but he wouldn't be going to jail if he had just killed the intruder. Served jail time for 3 years and is no longer legal to own a firearm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2014 3:17:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Had a conversation with a guy at work about guns and he told me his meth addicted half brother broke into his house one night which he reacted to the noise by grabbing his shot gun. He shot at the intruder hitting him making him run away. The cops showed up listened to what had happened he told the cops he didn't want to kill anybody just wanted to stop the intruder. He ended up going to jail. He told me the officer apologized to him while cuffing him and told him he understands but he wouldn't be going to jail if he had just killed the intruder. Served jail time for 3 years and is no longer legal to own a firearm. Sounds like there is a little more to the story that your friend is leaving out.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2014 8:20:37 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like there is a little more to the story that your friend is leaving out.......... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Had a conversation with a guy at work about guns and he told me his meth addicted half brother broke into his house one night which he reacted to the noise by grabbing his shot gun. He shot at the intruder hitting him making him run away. The cops showed up listened to what had happened he told the cops he didn't want to kill anybody just wanted to stop the intruder. He ended up going to jail. He told me the officer apologized to him while cuffing him and told him he understands but he wouldn't be going to jail if he had just killed the intruder. Served jail time for 3 years and is no longer legal to own a firearm. Sounds like there is a little more to the story that your friend is leaving out.......... This makes no sense what so ever. There has to be more to the story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 1:14:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Er, no. If @ all possible, draw well before the situation reaches the point where you have to make a shoot/don't shoot decision. Waiting until you have already made the decision that lethal force is required to stop an attack is delaying the application of lethal force. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: you always draw with the INTEND to shoot. HOWEVER the average draw last about 2 seconds from leather to sight picture. that may not seem like much, but you can go from a weapons free situation to a "dam, look at dindu run" no shoot in that time or less. People mistake commitment for certainty. If you draw you need to be 100% committed to taking a life. Its that simple, because if you are not, you will freeze/miss/hit an innocent/die. If I decide that I have to shoot, THE MOMENT I DECIDE TO DRAW I AM 100% COMMITTED TO KILL MY ATTACKER. However, if the would be criminal decides that he is no longer interested and can communicate that to me before i get a clear sight picture, he wont get shot. this could be him dropping his weapon then laying down on the floor, or turning and running away. my weapon would not get holstered but i would no longer consider myself in immediate danger, and would no longer need to shoot. If i get the shot off before he changes his mind, then so be it. but be careful of the "if i draw i have to shoot". because more often than not. the act of drawing usually ends the altercation before a shot can be taken. Er, no. If @ all possible, draw well before the situation reaches the point where you have to make a shoot/don't shoot decision. Waiting until you have already made the decision that lethal force is required to stop an attack is delaying the application of lethal force. If i am in reasonable fear for my life, or my loved ones lives, which is the threshold both legally in my state and personally. I'm not talking about waiting until they present a weapon, i'm talking about from the moment i decide i need deadly force, The people who pushed me to that have until i get a sight picture to change my mind. after that, we get to see if they are bullet proof. Now there are many ways using body language to convey to a possible attacker that he is about to be shot WITHOUT actually presenting a firearm. burnedoutleo's technique from his thread is my favorite. I work in a rough part of town, and occasionally i get a group of 2,3 uban individuals that have nothing better to do than walk the streets and blast music in their headphones, decide they want to walk in such a way that they would pass right next to me (as im doing my job i walk across the street dozens of times for various reasons.). yes we have had thefts and one recorded mugging on our property of one of our employees, so its not like i don't know what they are contemplating. On several of these occasions i have calmly kept walking looking directly at them, while running my hand along the edge of my untucked shirt then flicking it out like i'm making sure nothing will get in the way (again one of burnedoutleo's techniques). 100% of the time, the individuals that took an interest in me decide they can take the long way around and i never even touched or uncovered my firearm. If they ignore all those cue's its more than likely that anything less than lead poisoning will be met with equal indifference. So yes, if they ignore all of the "im armed, you wont like where this ends" signals im giving out, then they until the flash to decide i'm not worth it. I have never been called an orator, but i think you understand what i'm trying to convey. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 2:11:25 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I too think the question is worded awkwardly. There many posts here that are far better advice than what you received in the training that you paid for. "Shoot to kill" is among the worst bits of advice. One should use the gun to STOP the immediate threat. It is true that the most effective way to do that can and does often result in a fatality. But killing isn't the objective, surviving the attack is. Sometimes when a bad guy realizes they may get hurt or arrested they will change their actions. If you do draw you should be %100 ready to if you have to. I'd write more if not on this silly phone. Cheers! -JC Not only do you shoot to "stop" but when in court, and you're asked if you "shot to kill" your reply should be something like, "No, I shot so that I could live". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 2:14:57 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This makes no sense what so ever. There has to be more to the story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Had a conversation with a guy at work about guns and he told me his meth addicted half brother broke into his house one night which he reacted to the noise by grabbing his shot gun. He shot at the intruder hitting him making him run away. The cops showed up listened to what had happened he told the cops he didn't want to kill anybody just wanted to stop the intruder. He ended up going to jail. He told me the officer apologized to him while cuffing him and told him he understands but he wouldn't be going to jail if he had just killed the intruder. Served jail time for 3 years and is no longer legal to own a firearm. Sounds like there is a little more to the story that your friend is leaving out.......... This makes no sense what so ever. There has to be more to the story. Or somebody had a really, really bad lawyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2014 10:10:17 PM EDT
[#31]
#1. Try to leave
#2. Get loud, try to leave again #3. Weapon comes out, get louder #4. Shooting is the LAST LAST LAST resort. #5. Still be loud after the shooting is done. Anyone that says different is full of macho horseshit |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 12:57:44 PM EDT
[#32]
CC for 20 years. Three times I drew weapon, two times no need to shoot due to aggressor, one time I fired.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
