Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by IronMonster, May 1, 2015.
Lucky the guy was a poor shot
Maybe it was no accident. Some folks do believe taking the guy out of the fight is the way to go. I suppose if I had a easy clear shot I would try to not kill a person. I suppose it depends on that person as well. Shoot in the leg you just stopped an attack. Shoot to kill and even if it is a bad guy you have to live with having killed someone. I would prefer that to not be on my conscience if I can avoid it.
So he was shot in the calf and the thigh and broke his arm too. Sounds like he may learn a lesson
Next up - intense research into the history of that gun and the gun owner and whether or not it was legally obtained under I-594 - you know, just to appease Bloomberg.
In the training classes I've had, it's always been taught to aim center of mass, just as the police do. The reason? In a situation where you think your life is in danger (which is the reason you pulled your weapon in the first place), you don't have the time or focus to aim for a lesser target - you'll be buzzing on adrenaline and the best you can do is get that gun pointed at the biggest target to stop the threat. If you did have the time and thought to 'wound' only, you may have a hard time convincing a jury that you really were afraid for your life. I don't think there is a single person here that looks forward to or desires killing a bad guy - I know I sure as hell hope to never do it. But if it comes down to it, I've been trained and will continue to train to go for the biggest target - center of mass.
Have to try and follow this story to see if the robber ends up filing a civil suit against the victim for medical, and pain and suffering.( i personally hope not)..
Agreed but given the opportunity to avoid a death I might try for it if I knew I had time for the center mass. I know it is not likely but my only thought is that if you can avoid that kill shot with a bad guy it may be ok. We are all trained in getting our CHL to "shoot to kill". Some juries may understand what you did better when you explain "I had to shoot and did what I could to not take his life".
I could be wrong and I would have to live that moment to know for sure. I just hope it never comes down to that. If that time comes I will do what it takes to stop the attack.
While I agree, I dont agree.
I do not want to kill someone, I dont want to live with the reality of having to take another life and second guessing if it was the right thing to do. However I also know that if I am pulling the trigger of my firearm while it is pointed at another human being I have exhausted all other potential solutions and I will pull the trigger with the intent to "stop the threat". I think even considering the option that you are shooting to injure an attacker minimizes how sure you need to be to pull the trigger. If I think I could get away with just "hurting" this person, in my mind then I may not be justified in pulling the trigger. Drawing a firearm and using a firearm I also see as two different things. There may be a time where drawing a firearm is justifiable but pulling the trigger is not. (I know that is a loaded statement, I dont think you should ever draw a firearm without the intent to use it, But I see the intent to use it and actually using it as two different things.)
Lets say you see a guy jump another guy out of the blue, walking down the street. The bad guy gets the other one on the ground and its clear he does not intend to let up. I think you would be justified in drawing your firearm and giving voice commands for him to stop. Unless things escalated I do not think you would be justified in shooting the attacker. (you might be, however I wouldn't unless I thought he was killing the guy) However if that attacker then pulled a knife out of his belt and stabbed the guy that might justify more than just commanding he stop. If the guy stood up and charged you, I think you would be justified to fire your weapon.
What ever the case, I dont even want it in my head that "I'll just wound the guy" If you shoot, you shoot knowing full well the ramifications and consequences
I would disagree with you on one point - in no class I've taken have I ever been told to 'shoot to kill', and I don't think anyone would ever actually say that in a class. You shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. Sure the bad guy may die, he may not. Some people would die with a single shot, others may take 6 or more. Based on my training, once the threat is over, I stop shooting. Consider that a single shot to the leg, could kill someone quickly, if you hit them in the femoral artery, while a shot to the chest may be survivable. I understand where you're going with it, I just don't think under actual circumstances it's really practical or necessarily attainable. Police get more training than the average citizen, and even they don't try to shoot to wound - that's more movie fantasy than reality. But again, I do understand why you feel the way you do.
Well I get all that for sure. I do not even agree with myself. I just do not want to say I would for sure kill an attacker. I would hope that I would exercise every option first. You are all right in that if you do have to draw you need to be prepared to put them down for good. I just think that with the whooping this guy got it may have not been an accident to hit his leg...twice. For this shooter he will not have that death on his conscience. I guess my only hope is that I never will either.
Nobody has ever said "shoot to kill" to me but that seems to be the idea most gun owners have. It makes sense in that you can get sued by the "victim" no matter why you shoot them. I would rather lose money than my sense of decency but I have only had to draw once in my life and the multiple attackers with weapons turned on a dime and ran screaming. I know in that moment if they had kept coming "shoot to injure" was not something that crossed my mind.
I just hope we all train enough to think about if that person needs to be taken out for good. I know a lot of folks that almost seem to have a desire to use their weapon on a bad guy. Just thinking about the other side of the coin out loud. I do not think it is wrong that the fella in the article shot the leg. If the attack stopped then he got the job done.
Someone in my house with my kids and wife would be a very different story. I would take them down by any means necessary. Again I hope that never happens but I am prepared for it as much as one can be.
In all of this, I think the most important thing to remember is that 1 bullet, placed anywhere in the body, has the potential to kill - sever any major artery and a person could die fairly quickly. So even aiming for the leg may still end someone's life. As for the guy in Seattle, we don't know if he aimed for the legs or if he was just a poor shot. I guess the investigation will tell.
Gonna quote from the WSJTC Use of Force Study Guide (following these will make your life easier in court):
Choosing to carry a gun as a security guard or private detective is a personal choice that you
must make. Your employer does not make this decision for you. You must decide if:
You are willing to shoot and possibly kill someone who threatens your life or the life of another person who is with you;
You are capable of making the on the spot decision to use deadly force;
You thoroughly understand the law on the use of deadly force;
You are able to live with your decision after injuring or killing someone.
If you have doubts about any of these issues, then you are not prepared to carry a gun in the
performance of your job. You must resolve any questions you have about your willingness
and ability to use deadly force before you carry a gun. If you fail to make these important
decisions now, you will jeopardize your own life, and. the lives of other people with whom
you work. You cannot view the gun as just a threat that you will not actually use. You must
be willing to take another‘s life if the situation requires this action.
And from the shooting section:
Center of Mass
If you must shoot at another human being, it will be in defense of life and your immediate
goal is to stop the attacker from continuing. You will not be able to choose to shoot someone
―just a little bit‖ in order to discourage them. You must fire immediately and hope that:
1. You hit your intended target, and
2. Your hits stop your attacker.
In order to do this, you should train to shoot at the center of your attacker‘s upper body. This
is often called ―center of mass‖ shooting. Under the stress of a deadly attack, this is the
safest, most effective way to shoot.
Itminimizes the chance that you will miss your target,and reduces the possibility that you will hit an innocent bystander, and it increases the chance of stopping the attack.
If your attacker is not fully exposed, you may not be able to fire at the real center of mass. In
this case, you should shoot for the center of available mass. In other words, place your sights
in the center of that part of your attacker that is available.
Always try to use your sights - they are the key to hitting your target when under stress.
Shooting to wound means AOJ was never present. Life or immanent danger was never present.
Shoot to neutralize the threat-always.
I think the horse has been beaten to death above though.
Agreed, shoot to stop! Killing is compleatly a byproduct of stopping!
I don't think a shooting of someone trying to rob me face to face, even if it results in death, is anything to be guilty about.
I would not hesitate but I sure as hell would not feel good about it. That is really the point I am trying to make. I just hope it never comes to that but I have been in a bad situation and did not hesitate. Just got lucky in that they happened to be quick enough to show me they were no longer a threat.
Well shooting at someone's thigh isn't the best idea if you want to try to stop them and not kill them.
Hit that great big artery in there and watch his complexion get lighter real fast.
Or are you that good of shot you won't hit it?
Lower intestine shot and a colostomy bag would give the kid reason to stop his loosing ways
I disagree. You should have been trained to shoot to stop the threat not to kill.
Any statements like this will also be used against you if you ever had to try and justify yourself in a shooting. A prosecutor you would jump all over this and use it against you.
Having never actually done it, I can't say for sure how I would feel. I might be a bit traumatized it happened to me, but my philosophy is that such a person brought it on themselves, and I have no reason to feel bad about the act of defending myself.
That may be easy to say at this point and if it ever happens I might feel differently, but that is how I feel now.