Question about deadly force

[Gunner3456]

Not to jack the thread but its pretty common for folks who are mental, or on drug or a combination of those to not be bothered by several 'man stopper' rounds. Not saying your perspective is wrong or anything, just making a small point.

I agree with you. I continue to hope and pray that I never have to shoot someone. Ever. However, if I do I will keep pulling that trigger until he goes down. Even the cops (at least in Oregon at Monmouth training school) are taught to double-tap, which to them means keep shooting until the threat is taken out.

 

[MSneuropil]

Although I am not a gun owner ...I think I'd prefer my sons (who are gun owners) to draw the gun and attempt to stop the attack without putting my son at physical risk with such an assailant. Lets put it this way...I'd rather not have my sons get a bite by some crazy drug affected person during a tussle. At least "we" wouldn't spend the next few years after a blood exposure wondering if the guy gave them HIVor HepC. Just sayin! So I say shoot em in the leg...and let the ER fix him up.

I wonder if the law allows that perp to be tested for HIV or HepC because he assaulted those women?? I know that there are some instances where the perpetrator (or patient...LOL) can be compelled to be tested if there is a blood (or spit) exposure. I am sure that those 2 ladies shed some blood....and having dealt with my share of perpetrators that ended up in the ER before going to jail...I can see where it would be a potential exposure risk to those women and whoever physically stopped the attack. Course it could also work the other way I guess...the victims could potentially give the perpetrator an incurable disease. ;p

 

[salmonriverjohn]

Not to jack the thread but its pretty common for folks who are mental, or on drug or a combination of those to not be bothered by several 'man stopper' rounds. Not saying your perspective is wrong or anything, just making a small point.

Thankfully they didn't make just one round and then throw the die away my friend.

 

[mjbskwim]

Its great to post the ORS. The more people here read it (and understand it) the better off we all are.
But, I thinks its also important that we remind ourselves that even if we use deadly force to the letter of the law (in our eyes) we are still likely going to sit in front of a jury. And that jury is not predictable.
A given set of jurors may think using physical force may of been reasonable given their view of the 'facts'. On the other hand, you may luck out and have a number of 2A supporters on the jury. If that happens then the prosecution screwed up during the selection process.

Just how many of those people are going to jump on that guy and drag him off the ladies?

Sure when I was 26-30 the guy would have suffered.But my old body doesn't like that crap any more.or do it for that matter.
I'd punch him in the back of the head and hurt myself.

Most of the jurors would like to believe someone could stop it without gunshots,but most understand THEY could not stop an attacker in this situation.

 

[mjbskwim]

Although I am not a gun owner ...I think I'd prefer my sons (who are gun owners) to draw the gun and attempt to stop the attack without putting my son at physical risk with such an assailant. Lets put it this way...I'd rather not have my sons get a bite by some crazy drug affected person during a tussle. At least "we" wouldn't spend the next few years after a blood exposure wondering if the guy gave them HIVor HepC. Just sayin! So I say shoot em in the leg...and let the ER fix him up.

I wonder if the law allows that perp to be tested for HIV or HepC because he assaulted those women?? I know that there are some instances where the perpetrator (or patient...LOL) can be compelled to be tested if there is a blood (or spit) exposure. I am sure that those 2 ladies shed some blood....and having dealt with my share of perpetrators that ended up in the ER before going to jail...I can see where it would be a potential exposure risk to those women and whoever physically stopped the attack. Course it could also work the other way I guess...the victims could potentially give the perpetrator an incurable disease. ;p

You read this a lot in these situations. "shoot him in the leg"

You do realize that one of the biggest arteries in your body are in your leg right?
A leg shot from a poor shot is as deadly as any body shot from the same person.
Plus if he has a gun in his pocket.......

 

[Tangent123123]

Although I am not a gun owner ...I think I'd prefer my sons (who are gun owners) to draw the gun and attempt to stop the attack without putting my son at physical risk with such an assailant. Lets put it this way...I'd rather not have my sons get a bite by some crazy drug affected person during a tussle. At least "we" wouldn't spend the next few years after a blood exposure wondering if the guy gave them HIVor HepC. Just sayin! So I say shoot em in the leg...and let the ER fix him up.

You could shoot him in the leg and blow out his kneecap or maim him for life, sure. Then what, a civil suit and you supporting him until the day he dies?

 

[Asp]

You read this a lot in these situations. "shoot him in the leg"

You do realize that one of the biggest arteries in your body are in your leg right?
A leg shot from a poor shot is as deadly as any body shot from the same person.
Plus if he has a gun in his pocket.......

+1 Also, if one shoots at a leg, how can one say in court "I was in fear for my life!"? A prosecutor probably wishes more people would aim for the leg, because they would say, "You must have had enough time to draw, aim (carefully at a moving leg), and fire."

Plus there are obvious differences between the size of a leg versus a torso.
For the sake of this conversation, let's assume the perpetrator was wearing baggy clothes.
Would you (MSneuropil) really want to risk missing?
Ricochet anyone?

MSneuropil, if you're asking this of civilians, you should also ask even more from your police (and government)*.

*But I doubt you'll get any significant results from them, outside of their SOP.

 

[Redcap]

You could shoot him in the leg and blow out his kneecap or maim him for life, sure. Then what, a civil suit and you supporting him until the day he dies?

Easier just to end the problem.

 

[el gringo loco]

I think that if you are in the situation and your first thought is something like, "Am I going to get charged/sued if I shoot this guy?" Then, perhaps, deadly force is not the most reasonable response to the situation.

If you are thinking, "Oh my God, I have to shoot this guy!" Then, probably, the use of deadly force is reasonable.

Basically what I am trying to say is that deadly force is a last resort and, if you are a person with good judgement, it probably will only occur to you to use it when it is absolutely necessary. Our minds are capable of amazing analysis when pumped full of adrenaline and in a survival or life and death situation. Often we react under that kind of stress, falling back on training or scenarios that we have imagined in our heads, without consciously analyzing and weighing all of the different possible actions that we could take. After the situation is over, we may think of ten things that we could have or should have done. But, when we look at the actions we did take, we can see that our mind quickly ruled out several actions that had a low probability of success and actions that were not "reasonable" under the law. The action we did take involved skills that we were most familiar with and that had the highest probability of success. Those actions are generally appropriate to the situation even though we may not have thought out every last possible response. If you know the law and seek out training, your mind will be taught to seek out the correct response quickly with little conscious effort on your part. How many times have you heard, "My training took over and I just reacted?" That's not the response you want to have in court, but it is probably the more correct version of would have occurred.

 

[The B]

you don't get sued any harder for killing him deader. 3-5 rounds minimum standard response.

edit --- oops... looks like i'm a full page behind, and the above remark is now out of context... oh well, i'm leaving it anyway.

 

[mjbskwim]

Still appropriate

 

[WhyteCheddar]

Just how many of those people are going to jump on that guy and drag him off the ladies?

Sure when I was 26-30 the guy would have suffered.But my old body doesn't like that crap any more.or do it for that matter.
I'd punch him in the back of the head and hurt myself.

Most of the jurors would like to believe someone could stop it without gunshots,but most understand THEY could not stop an attacker in this situation.

Weather any of the jurors think that THEY could manhandle the perp is not relevant.
Most anyone who has sat on a jury knows that common sense is not always a common attribute in that locked room.
My comment is neither here nor there regarding the specific incident. I am merely pointing out that even if you have a 'good' shoot you can count on sitting in front of a jury, and juries are like a box of chocolates...

 

[The B]

in case it hasn't been mentioned- every single shooting in Oregon WILL, in fact, be decided by jury- starting with a Grand Jury, and hopefully ending with them... but if not, on their recommendation, it'll end with a trial jury.

ORS requires it for all shootings.

 

[Tangent123123]

Sort of a damned if you do and damned if you don't type thing. Either way it's gonna cost you.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

in case it hasn't been mentioned- every single shooting in Oregon WILL, in fact, be decided by jury- starting with a Grand Jury, and hopefully ending with them... but if not, on their recommendation, it'll end with a trial jury.

ORS requires it for all shootings.

Thank you for clarifying.
I should have been more specific.