Think it would be cool to shoot a bad guy?

[RVTECH]

Was if ever determined why this LEO shot in the first place?
He announces 'I will shoot you' then shoots, then annnounces 'l'll shoot you again'
I realize I was not there but the sequence of events seems odd - he announces he will shoot - then does.

 

[Bealzybub]

"Cool" as in would it be ok? Or "Cool" as in would it be trendy? I just love guns. Thats all. Sure using a gun would be the quickest way to end a life but in all my years I have never, in advance, imagined a scenario in which it would be "cool" to kill someone. No sir. When I think of those that were in one way or another "forced" to take a human life with a firearm the first thing that comes to my mind is sympathy. "Cold blooded" or "cool", one would get what they deserve.

 

[revjen45]

"It'd be the worst thing that ever happened."
You shoot when the only thing worse than shooting is not shooting. Sane people don't want to do harm.
I have a piece on my person except in the shower, and then I can reach it.
This is because I cherish my life and those of my loved ones. There is no material object I cherish enough to shoot somebody over. (Re: my Harley - That's carjacking, not simple theft.)
The cops call for backup when they want to hold an orc for processing by the legal industry. We the Peons don't have that option. If the orc flees, that's the best possible outcome.
If the orc attacks me, I will not allow anyone to harm me.

 

[Jonnyuma]

I've not had to ask that question as I had mandatory training (USCG) in the how, where, why and when of using force, including let

I love the Coasties and wouldn't consider denigrating the training that you/they recieve/offer. But my time in the USMC (3/7, Wpns Co, oorah) and time spent in various sh*tholes has 0 bearing on civilian SD law... the ROE are totally different. Yeah, I can handle just about any weapon from black powder (not included in Uncle Sugar's training regimen) up to shoulder and vehicle-mounted rocket and missile systems... means nothing when it comes to delivering a pill into some methed-up home invader in Portland Oregon.

Your first weapon is your brain.

Knowledge is power.

Cliches to be sure, but accurate and useful. Having the training and skill to use your chosen defensive weapon effectively is VERY important... second only to knowing when you can employ that system, and that's where knowledge of the law comes into play.

I don't carry daily - I carry rarely. I just don't think I need to - used to, but not so much now.

I don't need to carry daily either. In fact, up to this point in my civilian life, I've only NEEDED to carry three times. Only one time did I actually NEED for the gun to be loaded with actual ammo. It's an unfortunate fact of life that those three times were completely unpredictable and random.

 

[The Heretic]

I love the Coasties and wouldn't consider denigrating the training that you/they recieve/offer. But my time in the USMC (3/7, Wpns platoon, oorah) and time spent in various sh*tholes has 0 bearing on civilian SD law... the ROE are totally different.

Totally agree. I received LEO training by and with both civilian and military LEOs. LEO training, especially for the CG, at that time, was quite different from combat training.

Today, not so much from what I understand. While still very much leaning towards LE, from what I have heard, now being under DHS (instead of DOT) the MSST ops teams also have more training in engaging with armed ships and persons with more weaponry than your typical criminal - i.e., terrorists.

Personally, I went into the USCG to help people in trouble, not engage with terrorists or catch drug traffickers. I think it is a mistake to mix SAR with security. It might be more efficient, but I think the two should be separate.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Totally agree. I received LEO training by and with both civilian and military LEOs. LEO training, especially for the CG, at that time, was quite different from combat training.

The weirdness occurs when you add-in state law. In some states you have a "duty to retreat". Some states limit your ammo to ineffective hard ball. Some limit magazine capacity. Some restrict the make and model of firearm by NAME (looking at YOU, CA)

It's a 10A "issue" that is less important than state preemption. Knowing a various state's laws is much less a minefield than trying to decipher state, county, municipality, parish, village, etc ordinances. It's easy to say, "Just stay away from those places", but the real world sometimes requires traveling from place to place.

Neo-cons and anti-government extremists tend to look at state-level preemption as a big-government conspiracy... what they fail to realize is that our state government, no matter how terrible, is what prevents an untenable patchwork of restrictive laws. We VOTE for state reps, but have no say in other counties, municipalities, etc. The utter bizzarro-world scenario of state-level pols and various congress-critters willing to RELENQUISH power to lesser bodies... man, if that's not a wake-up call as to what the end-game is then I surely can't persuade. They are willing to relinquish their own authority if it means more arrests and gun confiscations from their "lessers". It's diabolical and terrifying, and mostly serves to make me angrier than I already am... that stuff actually makes me want a confrontation... something I've deliberately steered away from in the recent past.

WA is trying to remove preemption... it's been thinly disguised as a "conservative" ideal. Rather odd marketing considering the market it's being sold to.

Anyway, my main point is that states have vastly different laws concerning a self-defense shooting. It's a damn good idea to know the law and asking the question doesn't indicate desire or intent.

 

[TTSX]

To answer the title question, no. I think it'd be really scary and I'm not sure I'd come out in one piece. They say nobody wins a fight and I'm sure that applies tenfold when guns are involved

 

[Used To Hunt]

I think it would be a lot cooler than being shot by a bad guy lol

 

[TTSX]

^there's that, too.

 

[No_Regerts]

Was if ever determined why this LEO shot in the first place?
He announces 'I will shoot you' then shoots, then annnounces 'l'll shoot you again'
I realize I was not there but the sequence of events seems odd - he announces he will shoot - then does.

Reading the report, he said he ordered dude to show his hands repeatedly. Video shows that. He then said dude was reaching for something, audio catches him telling dude to stop and show his hands. He cooks off a few rounds and later says he thought the guy was reaching for a gun. Not sure what he saw.

 

[Jonnyuma]

A guy being emotional after shooting someone, even in the line of duty, is hell-and-gone from thinking it would be "cool" to shoot someone.

That's a real stretch and not a little bit insulting to most of us who know better... this is me veering back to the title and OP.

 

[RVTECH]

I can HONESTLY say I am glad I did NOT shoot the intruder in my house last year.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

Child predators and molesters? I'd unload and reload and unload. Believe me.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

If one has to shoot , I would suggest only shooting enough to end the threat.
It does no one any good to turn into a monster , while defending yourself or others , from monsters...
Violence , properly applied and controlled can be the best or at least the most effective answer...
Note that "best" and "most effective" can however be at times , worlds apart.

The above is just my view , based on my experiences...I am not telling anyone what to do or how to think.
Andy

 

[revjen45]

"To answer the title question, no. I think it'd be really scary and I'm not sure I'd come out in one piece. They say nobody wins a fight and I'm sure that applies tenfold when guns are involved."
"I think it would be a lot cooler than being shot by a bad guy lol"

You shoot to end an existential threat. Period. Not because it's "cool."
"Sucks to shoot a bad guy." is a true statement. It just sucks less than being on the receiving end of GBH. Being placed in the situation requiring DGU is the definition of a dilemma, i.e. the choice between 2 undesirable courses of action. "Kill or be killed" puts it pretty succinctly. Once lethal force has been deployed any chance of a pretty outcome is 0 to none. Injuries and blood are ugly, even if the good guy prevails. Shooting to kill or wound indicates unclear on the concept. You shoot to stop an immediate existential threat. Since there is a high correlation between effective shot placement and lethality, shooting to stop is likely to result in fatality. Even with SYG retreating is the best option if you can. I would always rather go home and have lunch than have to justify shooting some cretin with an attitude problem to the cops. If said cretin presses an attack on my person and I can't get away then I will do whatever is necessary to stop the attack. I know to a (sub)human predator I look like a 3-legged wildebeest looks to a pride of lions. Add being more subject to GBH from a punch to the head or chest than most people and being unable to run or go mano-a-mano, and armed SD/HD is my most viable option.

Yeah, fighting for your life would be "scary," but it sure beats begging for your life.

 

[pharmseller]

If Kierkegaard and Sartre had a shootout, which one would be the threat?



P

 

[Oregonhunter5]

Let's be more realistic..
If someone is about to harm me, or anyone around me, I will respond. But doesn't have to be a weapon.
Might be a Cliff...

 

[Alexx1401]

Sig line is humor. I am getting old and used that line long before I ever saw the movie. I missed the part in my sig with me holding an M1. The line of "Get off my lawn" was old when they made that movie.
Just looked again and I still for the life of me can't find a pic of me holding an M1 though. All I can see is my dogs. Must be your browser.

 

[Alexx1401]

Reading the report, he said he ordered dude to show his hands repeatedly. Video shows that. He then said dude was reaching for something, audio catches him telling dude to stop and show his hands. He cooks off a few rounds and later says he thought the guy was reaching for a gun. Not sure what he saw.

Cop has you at gun point, you reach for anything, I don't care if it's a pack of gum to offer, you deserve to get shot. Sad for the Cop but in this case would not blame him one bit.

 

[BroncoFan]

Was if ever determined why this LEO shot in the first place?
He announces 'I will shoot you' then shoots, then annnounces 'l'll shoot you again'
I realize I was not there but the sequence of events seems odd - he announces he will shoot - then does.

The deceased was wanted for a drug deal shooting from the night before. Refused to show his hands, furtive movement, was warned, multiple times, no compliance...ruled justified and rightly so.