guess who lost

[oknow]

Knife vs. Gun: Guess Which One Lost
Pistol-packing veteran attacked by crazed criminal.
Posted 1 day ago in <broken link removed> by Russ Chastain with 3 Comments

SHARETWEET
33
SHARES

Knife v. Pistol in PA Parking Lot

Philadelphia, PA – Hey, it's just common sense, right? Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Army veteran, vice principal, and firearms instructor William Lawler knew that, and it turned out to be good that he did.

As he walked with his girlfriend through a supermarket parking lot, Lawler noticed a man standing next to the open door of an SUV. Lawler noted that the man "looked odd from the beginning."

When the man began muttering and cursing, then drew a knife that might have even made Crocodile Dundee proud (it reportedly had a 13-inch blade), Lawler moved his girlfriend away and drew his <broken link removed> .

Most of the time, the sight of a gun will cause a criminal to go the other way, especially if the crook doesn't have a firearm. But the knife-wielding man, who had reportedly been arrested 21 times before, continued to approach while threatening to cut Lawler. Lawler kept his gun down and backed away, but made it clear that he would use the gun if he had to. When the man got within five or six feet of him, Lawler raised his pistol and fired once.

At least a half-dozen times, I ordered him to stop. The last time, I said, 'I don't want to shoot you, but I will.'

Although hit in the groin, the crook had balls enough to continue the fight: "Then, after I shot him, he fell to his knees and tried to throw the knife at me."

Regarding his unconventional shot placement, Lawler said, "My intent was to stop him, not kill him."

I don't think I would have done that. Anyone intent on attacking me, anyone against whom I feel the need to use deadly force, will likely be met with more aggressive bullet placement. Although it can be argued that if the knife-wielder had been wearing a Kevlar vest, his privates made a legitimate target.

Ouch.

Lawler was quoted as saying, "I firmly believe that in order to maintain a free society, people need to take personal safety into their own hands. You should walk around ready and able to protect yourself and others in your community."

Well said, Lieutenant.

- See more at: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/10/2...mpaign=Weekly+Newsletter#sthash.mc4duEy4.dpuf

Read More

 

[Caveman Jim]

Never just try and wound a threat!!! You do not have a threat wounder in your holster...

 

[Sstrand]

I am told that a groin shot is very effective in stopping the advance of a knife wielding thug.
Major vessels live there along with the pelvic girdle and femurs.

Sheldon

 

[Stomper]

Two to the head will stop an attacker dead cold, too.

 

[decklin]

Maybe he'll learn his lesson after the lawsuit.....

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Bust his pelvis! From what I have read a human being cant stand with the pelvis broken, also, bone shards through the artery and blood vessels. Seriously painful, generally fatal if you're using enough gun!
Disclaimer: I, personally, have never shot a criminal!

Since he intended to wound it would have been an easy shot a 5-6'.
What the heck is up with that? I think that Mr Lawler and his GF were very lucky.

 

[U201491]

I am told that a groin shot is very effective in stopping the advance of a knife wielding thug.
Major vessels live there along with the pelvic girdle and femurs.

Sheldon

Hip Socket turns them into a monopod, two and they become a slug.

 

[U201491]

Yep, your duty is to stop the threat if your life or another is threatened.
Simply stop it without analyzing how or to what degree beforehand.
Just stop it by what ever means possible.

 

[AustenW]

Look at it this way. If you are carrying, you need to be in the mindset of "I shoot to kill, not to wound". Just my 2 cents though!

 

[Sstrand]

Nambu
You are correct. I think that police training teaches that if your assailant has a knife you need to act before he gets within 20feet or so. Otherwise you may fatally wound him but he can/will "stick" you just the same!!

Sheldon

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Look at it this way. If you are carrying, you need to be in the mindset of "I shoot to kill, not to wound". Just my 2 cents though!

NO, you shoot to stop!! You are trying to stop them, not kill. (legal jargon) If done correctly, the two may be one and the same, however

From the article: "When the man got within five or six feet of him, Lawler raised his pistol and fired once"

I guess he never heard of the 20 foot rule, that's where I'll open up with my 10 MM

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

Look at it this way. If you are carrying, you need to be in the mindset of "I shoot to kill, not to wound". Just my 2 cents though!

I look at it this way; if someone is trying to hurt me, I want to make their life hell as much as I can. Shoot him in the head, and he has no remorse, second thoughts, or guilt. Shoot his dick off, and he will be thinking about that day for the rest of his life

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

I guess he never heard of the 20 foot rule, that's where I'll open up with my 10 MM

20 ft rule? Ha, more like the 121 ft rule.

 

[Ttuck]

20 ft rule? Ha, more like the 121 ft rule.

Hahahahahahahah that's gold.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

NO, you shoot to stop!! You are trying to stop them, not kill. (legal jargon) If done correctly, the two may be one and the same, however

From the article: "When the man got within five or six feet of him, Lawler raised his pistol and fired once"

I guess he never heard of the 20 foot rule, that's where I'll open up with my 10 MM

Exactly right! Killing is a by product of stopping your attacker!

 

[U201491]

Look at it this way. If you are carrying, you need to be in the mindset of "I shoot to kill, not to wound". Just my 2 cents though!

No you shoot to stop the threat, keyword stop.
No Wound, No Kill, just stop the threat the outcome can vary.
Fear of your life or that of another and to stop the threat. There need not be any other reason.

 

[Swedish K]

Shoot to stop the threat is correct - it's the terminology our correctional officers were trained to state and put in the reports in the mandatory annual use of force training. While shooting to stop the threat may result in killing the threat, a simple difference in how it's said can mean the difference between a law suit and no law suit.

 

[AustenW]

I agree. Maybe I should say, "shoot to stop, but with a well placed shot". I do agree though, shoot to stop the threat. Whether or not it kills them, as long as your life/life's of bystanders/victims is out of danger that is all that matters in the situation.

 

[Nickb]

Shoot to stop the threat is correct - it's the terminology our correctional officers were trained to state and put in the reports in the mandatory annual use of force training. While shooting to stop the threat may result in killing the threat, a simple difference in how it's said can mean the difference between a law suit and no law suit.

Exactly!

And those stationary cardboard targets don't stand a change against those two guys with the knives... Scary stuff!

 

[NoFlinch]

OK, I have a question;

I would not even THINK of shooting UNLESS my life or someone I KNEW's life was in danger.

Of course, that is to be taken at face value, as I WOULD shoot if in a mall, movie theater, etc., and others were being attacked.

I have always been aware of the "Law Suit" scenario, and have felt in almost any situation, whether you are right or wrong, it's going to cost you thousands in ATTY. fees.

Would it not be better to eliminate the threat once and for all, as MOST "attackers" are NOT upstanding citizens, and eliminate the possibility of a lawsuit by a "wounded perp."

Then your "lawsuit concerns" would be narrowed down to family (which in the case of a "bad" perp would be lower), or the DA, which probably would not charge you if it was a "good" shooting.

I understand there are variables to this, but I'm talking "generally".