head shots malicious?

[TacticalFriedChicken]

I've got a friend who just started his CCW classes the other day. We got into a friendly argument the other night when he asked me where I would shoot an attacker, and when I told him I'd take a couple shots to COM and then if they were still coming, a headshot. He said something about 'in class I learned that headshots are irresponsible and you would be seen as the court as malicious because you are not supposed to try to kill the person, you are trying to stop them without killing them.' ***? I thought the quickest way to incapacitate an attacker was to kill them dead.. Hence the term 'justifiable use of DEADLY force'. And anyway, since when is a shot to the heart, lungs, spine, or liver considered shooting to wound? I thought those were all VITAL organs as well. So anyway, is this class bogus? I've never had to use a gun in self defense, thank God, but if I ever did, I sure as heck wouldn't want to have to worry about the legal ramifications of my shot placement. I'd be interested in doing whatever it took to save my own a$$.. so if anyone could shed some light on this, I'd appreciate it.

[FrankDrebin]

You're better off learning the law from a competent instructor...I believe most states REQUIRE that a person who is teaching a class on deadly force law and responsibility be either a judge, lawyer or somehow certified to instruct on subjects beyond sight alignment and trigger control.

For instance:

(iv) Firearms and the law, including civil liability issues and the use of deadly force. This portion shall be taught by an attorney or an individual trained in the use of deadly force.

Doesn't sound like your guy was either.

[Double Naught Spy]

Whether or not the instructor can teach the law can vary state to state. In Texas, they do.

Do check your state's laws, but I am confident that you will find that the law does NOT specify exactly how you can apply lethal force. In short, once your state's requirements are met for using lethal force, whether you shoot the bad guy in the head, chainsaw through the chest, or run over him with your H2 Hummer at 90 miles an hour isn't stipulated. I also believe that it will not stipulate how many times you can shoot a person either. The question may be raised as to whether the person was still a threat to you when you did the head shot, and if the person was, then there should be no problem.

You won't find a section that says that the following calibers are considered malicious to use when performing an act of self defense (list of friendly calibers). There will be no definition of tire irons, golf clubs, or size of vehicle that can be use. You will not be limited to a stick of certain dimensions to keep you from being "malicious."

I am not sure, but I have never seen any form of lethal force, used when requirements were met by the law, called malicious in a court finding. Once again, feel free to check, and Texas is the only state I am even remotely familiar with, but I don't think you will find anything.

As you note, when your life is on the line, it is stupid to be worrying about potential legal rammifications. One thing is certain. If you are dead, there are no legal rammifications to you. Your estate may be sued, but with you dead, you won't be a part of the process directly.

Check it all for yourself, but generally speaking, lethal force means lethal force and you are not dictated as to how you apply it once conditions are met for application.

[mete]

Wasn't too much logic there .Heart , spine etc can be lethal. Head shots ? Harder to hit,bullets may glance off rounded skull.If BG is wearing body armour head shot may be the only way to stop him......In any case there is no sure thing - shoot and continue to shoot until the BG is no longer a threat !!!

[progunner1957]

Masaad Ayoob addressed the "shoot to wound" pitfall in one of his books. His outlook is that if you are truly in fear of losing your life or sustaining grave bodily harm, shoot to STOP your attacker. If you are not truly in fear of losing your life or sustaining grave bodily harm, DON'T SHOOT.

Shooting to stop involves placing hits in the attacker's center of mass - that is, his sternum (breastbone). Beneath the sternum lies the heart, and to either side lies a lung. Hits in this area give you the highest probability of stopping your attacker.

Things usually don't go according to plan in a life or death fight - you jerk the trigger, your knee buckles as you fire, you don't have a perfect grip on your gun, your attacker stumbles as he rushes you. Sometimes bullets find their way to the attacker's brain in the heat of battle.

Sometimes, center of mass hits do not immediately stop the attacker and a headshot is mandatory, that is if you want to survive.

If you shoot to wound, Ayoob says, a prosecutor will turn that against you. It is one of the oldest plays in the prosecutor's playbook. He will say, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is a reason the accused shot the deceased in the leg: The accused KNEW IN HIS HEART that the use of deadly force WAS NOT JUSTIFIED in this instance."

The jury, being made up of a majority of ignorant gun-fearing schmucks, will buy it and duly send you off to "the Big House." His survivors will sue you for millions and be living in your home, eating your food and pi**ing away your life's savings while your family lives under a bridge in a cardboard box.

Ain't the criminal justice system just grand??

Get a copy of Ayoob's book, "In The Gravest Extreme." It is an older book on the topic, but is a goldmine of information.

Defending yourself and your loved ones with a firearm IS NOT A GAME. It is deadly serious business. Read. Study. Learn. Practice. Attend trainings led by competent professional instructors. If you don't, someday you will wish you had done so.

[FrankDrebin]

Shooting to stop involves placing hits in the attacker's center of mass - that is, his sternum (breastbone). Beneath the sternum lies the heart, and to either side lies a lung. Hits in this area give you the highest probability of stopping your attacker.

So if you shoot him in the head you're not shooting to stop? You're shooting for some other purpose? Also...I've seen plenty of people shot through a lung, gut, shoulder, chest etc, and NONE of them ever stopped as fast as the ones who were shot through the brain. A pistol round through the lung isn't going to stop many people in the time that the defensive handgunner is going to prefer. A hit to the brain stem gives you the highest probability of stopping your attacker. I'm not sure, but did you mean that AIMING at the center of mass gives you the greatest possibility of hitting a vital organ? Because I'm here to tell you that a 9mm round between the eyes beats two to the lungs for rapid stopping efficiency.

If you shoot to wound, Ayoob says, a prosecutor will turn that against you. It is one of the oldest plays in the prosecutor's playbook. He will say, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is a reason the accused shot the deceased in the leg: The accused KNEW IN HIS HEART that the use of deadly force WAS NOT JUSTIFIED in this instance."

Funny, I've been in law enforcement for 20 years, in and around the place that holds the "murder capital" title off and on, and I've never seen anyone who was justifed in using deadly force charged, let alone convicted of shooting someone because he told the police or prosecutor he was shooting to wound. Where does Ayoob get this stuff? Does he make it up? You'd think I'd have seen it happen one or two times over the past 20 years if it was the "oldest play in the playbook". Can you post any of the examples that part-time cop Ayoob used?

[progunner1957]

Sometimes, center of mass hits do not immediately stop the attacker and a headshot is mandatory, that is if you want to survive.

Yes. In order to HIT center of mass, you would need to AIM for center of mass.

I'm quoting "that part time cop Ayoob's" book from memory; unfortunately, I did not memorize the book cover to cover. I apoplgize for the oversight on my part.

Obviously, you are the expert here, Frank. You take over from here.

[FrankDrebin]

Yes. In order to HIT center of mass, you would need to AIM for center of mass.

Jeez.

You missed my point...which was...the idea of "shooting to stop the bad guy's aggressive action" has nothing to do with where on the guy's body you're aiming.....It involves intent, which is the same whether you shoot him in the leg, chest, or head and whether you're aiming at the head hip girdle heart etc...

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I read a case here in TN about a gentleman who shot a man wielding a knife in a bar fight and then after he fell down went and finished him off with a head shoot. He went to jail for manslaughter as the assailant was no longer a threat. Seems like your time to act can be very short.

[FrankDrebin]

I read a case here in TN about a gentleman who shot a man wielding a knife in a bar fight and then after he fell down went and finished him off with a head shoot. He went to jail for manslaughter as the assailant was no longer a threat. Seems like your time to act can be very short.

Same sort of thing happened around here. A doctor came upon a guy stealing his car. The guy took off. The doctor shot him. Good shooting so far. The guy then crawled under a parked car and the doctor went from a potential crimestopper to a murderer when he shot him again while he was under the car.

[butch50]

Common sense is to shoot for COM - because it is a larger target. Unless you know he is wearing body armor.

A shot to the head would probably not get you into any more trouble than a shot to COM, if it is your first shot.

A double tap might not get you into trouble if they are very close together in time. Probably OK to double tap the head or the COM, if the shots are very close togehter timewise.

But common sense should also tell you that since your shooting to stop the agressor, not kill him (death may be a by-product but not the goal) then a Coup De Grace to the head after he has been stopped is going to get you in a world of hurt. I bet that is what the instructor was trying to relay, and it got garbled in the translation.

[Coltdriver]

Your friend does not live in Colorado.

What an idiotic situation we are all in when a prosecuting attorney will treat a person defending their own life as if they are a super human who can pick and choose where to shoot someone in the event of a bona fide emergency.

In Colorado I can shoot you anywhere I want to if you are in the wrong. And I am lawsuit proof.

Right and Wrong is fairly cut and dried. Bleeding heart crook protecting liberalism knows no wrong except for the act of an American defending their life.

[Bravo25]

Better Judged By 12, Than Carried by 6.

[BreacherUp!]

"Shooting to stop". When I shoot to the head, I am "shooting to stop." Any shot fired on a subject is deadly force. Under that umbrella, my target within the frame of deadly force is the head. It has nothing to do with "trying to kill or wound." I know the best chances of stopping someone is the head, unless the tactical situation dictates otherwise (distance, backdrop, bystanders, moving target, etc.) .
I am not arguing against COM. I am arguing against the fact that my targeting the head is to kill, rather than STOPPING the threat of serious injury or death in the quickest fashion.

BTW, love the name TacticalFriedChicken!

[FrankDrebin]

Better Judged By 12, Than Carried by 6.

I'd prefer to avoid both.....it's virtually always doable.

[NarcSgt]

You said it Breecher, you shoot to stop, not maim (thx Frank). Weather you are shooting at the head or chest, the goal is the same, stop the threat.

Its just a flesh wound!!!

[FrankDrebin]

Why would you wanna shoot Auntie Mame???

[shield20]

There is a school of thought that says if 2 shots to the chest doesn't stop him, more probably won't help because the target has stopped feeling pain due to the body's natural reaction. Better to turn him off NOW with a shot to the head if possible.

Also, just want to remind people that shooting center of mass isn't always to the chest - if your attacker for instance is behind cover/concealment, COM is center of whatever part of him is showing.

A class I took as a student with a firearms training company I worked for had us walk to a shooting line blind, then turn around on signal and engage different targets with BG's holding hostages mixed in with neutral targets. I turned and for whatever reason the BG's heads beside the GGs looked HUGE - no problem placing 1 round in each fast. The instructors were surprised I took head shots, but...instinct(?) took over and it just worked that way.

Anyway - go for COM because it SHOULD be a better-odds shot - but let the situation (and your right to life) decide, not some half-baked liberal idea of maliciousness.

[FrankDrebin]

Also, just want to remind people that shooting center of mass isn't always to the chest - if your attacker for instance is behind cover/concealment, COM is center of whatever part of him is showing.

If the guy who is shooting at you is behind concealment, why can't you just shoot through the concealment? If you see his shoes sticking out from behind the curtains, you're not gonna aim for his feet are you?

[shield20]

Now that would be silly wouldn't it Frank? :)

Point taking on cover vs. concealment!

[Doug.38PR]

I was told in my CHL class that "courts don't usually like headshots because they feel it's 'excessive force'" He also added, "even though the criminal is probably somebody that should have been executed 10 years ago by the court."
Headshots are not the best idea anyway for this reason: The head moves, the chest doesn't. Plus the head is a smaller target.
I personally wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone in the head if I thought I had to (like if I saw he was puffed up with body armor or if his head was exposed from behind cover like a car or something the bullet wouldn't likely penetrate.) S---w the idiot judges and DAs. I am alive that's what counts.

[JohnKSa]

If you told the police or the court that you intentionally shot for the head, then your error was blabbing--not where you placed your shots.

Shooting a moving target with a handgun while under severe stress does not lend itself to precise shot placement. I don't think it would be easy to prove that a head shot was intentional unless you help them out by admitting it was.

I'm not saying to lie--just reminding you that you don't have to testify against yourself.

[FrankDrebin]

Somebody post one case where a police detective, prosecutor, judge or jury put someone in prison or even found them guilty because they shot an assailant in the head instead of the chest, or admitted they were aiming for the head when they had a legitimate reason to shoot. Just ONE case. There must be such a case out there somewhere where someone told a shooter with a legitimate reason to shoot that a headshot was "excessive force".

[JohnKSa]

Frank,

I'm not arguing that point--I'm just saying that it doesn't even have to be an issue unless the shooter decides to testify against himself.

[CarbineCaleb]

Well, I think that shooting for the head is malicious alright, as is shooting for the chest. They don't call it deadly force for nothing! To me, the only thing that justifies shooting someone is the threat of being killed - in such cases, it's kill or be killed, so once we get to that point, I don't have any problems justifying that on a personal level.

When it comes to a jury, well, a jury is made up of human beings, and although I think that the law will be carefully explained to them, I also think that jurors will all have some subjective nature to their judgements. In that regard, it might negatively influence some jurors if they believed you were "shooting to kill".

As JohnSka mentioned however, your intended aiming point will be pretty hard to either know or prove for anyone else. Judging by the historical performance of people in shootouts, your intended aiming point is only a rough guide as to where the bullets will go in most cases anyway!

[FrankDrebin]

Frank,

I'm not arguing that point--I'm just saying that it doesn't even have to be an issue unless the shooter decides to testify against himself.

I was responding more to the guy before you. I hate hearing that people are making money to impart information and saying things that they can't back-up. Ayoob being one of them.

[mvpel]

Well, considering you live near the semi-perennial murder capitol of the US - unless you live in Virginia, how often do you hear about defensive shootings in the first place, let alone the years-later legal aftermath? And if you live in Virginia where self-defense isn't prohibited, perhaps you don't have the kind of prosecutors that exist in other, more benighted areas of the country.

[OBIWAN]

I agree with Ayoob on one point....

Some lawyer can/probably will do anything to cast your defensive actions in a bad light....especially in the event of a civil case.

However...if you are justified in shooting.....where your bullets hit is unlikely to be an issue

[Superhornet]

Your heart's a thumpen, your adrenal is pumpin, you knees aquaken, your hand is shanken........How many can hit a six inch circle moving at a high rate of speed toward you at 5 yards under those circumstances ??? Center mass and the perp don't last......IMHO of course..

[mvpel]

Ayoob has served as an expert witness on a long list of civil and criminal prosecutions regarding defensive force, so I suspect that he could back up what he's saying if he felt comfortable blabbing in public about the specifics of the legal difficulties of the individuals he's worked with.

[BreacherUp!]

Shield20 said: There is a school of thought that says if 2 shots to the chest doesn't stop him, more probably won't help because the target has stopped feeling pain due to the body's natural reaction. Better to turn him off NOW with a shot to the head if possible.
I too read about this school of thought. Some MD wrote that inflicting the most amount of damage to the body before the body responds physiologically to the damage was a way to put someone down (this is paraphrased, of course) i.e. shooting two shots in rapid succession. Not a doc, but it sounds reasonable considering how the body copes with traumatic injuries.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Been discussed on this forum, thehighroad, glocktalk. Consensus of all intelligent people is that a head shot in the course of defending yourself is legitimate. The "stop" usage by the instructor is a moronic misinterpretation of what 'stop' means.

I've been in LFI-1 and Ayoob never said this.

Some gun instructors are ... :mad:

[stevelyn]

Head shots malicious?

Nope. Just insurance.

If headshots were malicious, why would police firearms instructors teach Failure-to Stop (Mozambique) drills to every academy recruit and veteran officer during in-service quals? ;)

Targets are: Computer (brain), Mobility (pelvis), and Lifesupport (vital organs) That's why they's labeled "A" Zone on these areas (pelvic region excepted).

Also be aware that Center-of-Mass is also center of target presented, not just a human torso.

[Bravo25]

FrankDrebin Quote:
Better Judged By 12, Than Carried by 6.



I'd prefer to avoid both.....it's virtually always doable.

If involved with a shooting there are two things that are almost certain. You are going to be invited downtown to that building where all the cruisers, and uniforms are. You most likely will be charged, and it will be left to the DA to decide where it goes.

JohnKSa If you told the police or the court that you intentionally shot for the head, then your error was blabbing--not where you placed your shots.

Shooting a moving target with a handgun while under severe stress does not lend itself to precise shot placement. I don't think it would be easy to prove that a head shot was intentional unless you help them out by admitting it was.

I'm not saying to lie--just reminding you that you don't have to testify against yourself.

This is sound advice. Remember that in todays society, defending your life, usually requires you to do it twice. Explain only that you felt your life, or the life of another was threatened, this is why, and I shot. Anything else should come from your lawyer. You will most likely need one for the civil trial either way it goes.

[FrankDrebin]

If involved with a shooting there are two things that are almost certain. You are going to be invited downtown to that building where all the cruisers, and uniforms are. You most likely will be charged, and it will be left to the DA to decide where it goes.

It's highly, highly unlikely that you will be charged as the result of a legitimate self-defense shooting. It's certainly not even close to "almost certain". Correct me if I'm wrong, but "charged" means you stand in front of a judge at an arraignment and he tells you what you're charged with. Until that time, you're not charged. The police may complete a warrant request as a matter of course and forward it to the prosecutor who THEN makes the decision to approve the charges or not.

Same thing goes for a civil trial. Despite what Masaad Ayoob says, you're a lot less likely to be sued than not after a legitimate self-defense shooting. I'd like to hear see any empirical evidence to the contrary. Lawyers don't like to work for free. If the guy you shoot doesn't have a case, he's not going to get a lawyer on a contingency pay scale. Just don't shoot a rich guy.

[mvpel]

Depends on what state you're in, as always.

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, I think that shooting for the head is malicious alright, as is shooting for the chest. They don't call it deadly force for nothing!

Now that is something I can agree with! For the person on whom lethal force is being used, it is all pretty malicious, but that is a personal view, not a legitimate legal view.

I was told in my CHL class that "courts don't usually like headshots because they feel it's 'excessive force'" He also added, "even though the criminal is probably somebody that should have been executed 10 years ago by the court."

Various instructors may spout this crap, but they don't have any real backing to support the claim, at least none I have heard of. I find that a lot of instructors pass out garbage they read by gun writers in gun rags as if it was somehow true, such as only using guns or ammo that the local cops use as a means by which to reduce liability in court. There is no actual court case that supports the claim, but instructors spout it as if it was true at some schools.

I read a case here in TN about a gentleman who shot a man wielding a knife in a bar fight and then after he fell down went and finished him off with a head shoot. He went to jail for manslaughter as the assailant was no longer a threat. Seems like your time to act can be very short.

There was a similar case in Utah. I believe they tried the ‘good guy' for murder. If the bad guy is no longer a threat, then shooting him in the head or anywhere else for that matter, is probably going to be legally a bad thing. You don't get to use lethal force on folks who don't pose a threat to you.

Yes, when you are shooting somebody and they fall to the ground, incapacitated, you may not have any more time to deliver more shots. You may have no more time than your first shot. Executing a downed badguy who is not a threat to you at the current time is a vigilante act and is illegal.

Then again, you may put 9 rounds into a guy's chest over the course of 30 seconds while the guy continues his attack on you. That is a LOT of time you didn't attempt to shoot him in the head for a CNS shutdown.

[Bravo25]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "charged" means you stand in front of a judge at an arraignment and he tells you what you're charged with

Well to adress the following post first, yes it depends on what state you are in. That was my broad brush. My appologies. However, in a lot of states the police aresst you, read you your rights, and then obtain information. (In a perfect world anyway. Keep in mind if they can get you to volunteer information without reading you the miranda, it is admissable.) It is then that they will '"charge" that you have violated some crime. In this case most likely homiside. or manslaughter. Remember it is not up to a LEO to decide guilt or innocence, or even to decide "justified", they are there only to enforce the law. The law says (loosely translated) that once an individual dies, there must be an answer for it. It is then sent to the DA who will review the case and decide what to do with the charges.
Here where I live, even LEOs that are involved with shootings will be reviewed by the DA. (another pet pieve of mine. LEO should answer to citizen councils, but that is whole different topic)
What you elude to is the beginning of the trial phase, and in particular is the arraignment, as you stated.

[FrankDrebin]

(In a perfect world anyway. Keep in mind if they can get you to volunteer information without reading you the miranda, it is admissable.)

If the police "get you" to volunteer any information while in custody without a Miranda waiver, it is most certainly NOT admissible.

It is then that they will '"charge" that you have violated some crime. In this case most likely homiside. or manslaughter.

There is no such criminal charge of "homicide".

The law says (loosely translated) that once an individual dies, there must be an answer for it. It is then sent to the DA who will review the case and decide what to do with the charges.

Which law would that be? And what happens if there are 5 witnesses who saw the shooting and tell the responding officers that it was self-defense? They have no probable cause to believe the shooter committed a crime, and no probable cause to arrest him. At most, they have reasonable suspicion to detain to get his name and his story if he wants to give it. You don't automatically get arrested when you shoot someone in self-defense. The standard of probable cause still applies.

What you elude to is the beginning of the trial phase, and in particular is the arraignment, as you stated.

What I alluded to is that you are not charged until a warrant is presented to the court and you are brought before a judge and arraigned. You may be in custody, but you're not charged until the judge reads the charges to you. That's why most police departments won't release the names of arrestees to the news media before the arraignment......because they haven't been CHARGED with anything yet. This rarely happens in a legitmate self defense shooting. In other words, in the vast majority of self-defense homicides, there are never any charges brought against the homicider. You are NOT likely to be charged with anything as the result of a legitimate self-defense shooting. Nor are you likely (read, 51% of the time) to be sued.

[LAK]

Bullets; whether one or a dozen, whether they are marketed under the name of "Surgeon's Nightmare", or "Recovery Friendly", whether aimed at the big toe or the brain ... are considered deadly force.

If you are justified in using deadly force, a bullet in the brain or the upper spine (both quite likely to cause death) is your best bet - if you can do it.

[jburtonpdx]

I was told in my CHL class that "courts don't usually like headshots because they feel it's 'excessive force'"

Bullets; whether one or a dozen, whether they are marketed under the name of "Surgeon's Nightmare", or "Recovery Friendly", whether aimed at the big toe or the brain ... are considered deadly force.

If you are justified in using deadly force, a bullet in the brain or the upper spine (both quite likely to cause death) is your best bet - if you can do it.

Exactly LAK. Deadly force is deadly force, there is no room left for "excessive". Dead is dead, kind of like people saying "a little bit pregnant", 0 or 1 on or off yes or no there no middle ground with deadly force.

Shooting is deadly force, whether you shoot to maim, stop, kill, scare, whatever you say, if you shoot the gun at the person that is posing the threat to you, you are employing deadly force there is nothing more excessive.

If deadly force is justified I am going to shoot because I am going to live through the situation. I am going to see my family again, I am going to feed my dogs again, I am going to work, sleep, eat dinner, etc...

All that said it is possible the BG will live, sue you, the DA may be a gun grabber, the local police chief may not like "uppity citizens" whatever. In my mind none of that matters if somebody is about to hurt my family or me. All that other crap can be dealt with. I am prepared and willing to do what has to be done to protect my family and myself from death or grave bodily harm head shot, center of mass shot, whatever.

[Bravo25]

FrankDrebin

As this banter between you and I seem to have taken this thread off course, and you appear to enjoy the argueing for arguement sake, I will take this opportunity to conceed your apparent superior, and unmatched knowledge of the things relating to law. I will refrain from further post of off topic items in this thread so that you too may return to the issue at hand.
I would perhaps suggest that as you don't seem to recognize that homicide, and manslaughter are capital crimes which will be investigated, that you remember what a once wise man proclaimed. "The man that would have himself as a lawyer, has a fool for a client". I will take comfort in knowing that I, for one, won't take such an obtuse approach to legal dealings should I ever find myself in this situation.

[shield20]

In NY, "in any prosecution for an offense, justification as defined in sections... is A DEFENSE.

ALSO though "...conduct which would otherwise consititute an offense is justifiable AND NOT CRIMINAL when:"...standard SD stuff...

Seems it could go two ways - get charged with an offense (probably 1st degree assault) and show/prove justifcation as a defense in court; OR have it investigated/seen as justifiable in which case no criminal action has taken place in the 1st place.

[Blind Tree Frog]

convicted of shooting someone because he told the police or prosecutor he was shooting to wound. Where does Ayoob get this stuff? Does he make it up? When choosing between Ayoob's statements, or of the anonymous person online claiming to be a cop somewhere, I'll choose Ayoob's statements every time.

Simply, his statements are the same as the cops who taught my CCW class. Personally, I'm going to listen to what the people that would be arresting me are going to say about what i can and can't do.

[buzz_knox]

One of the specific instance Ayoob aluded to is where a person used deadly force to stop a stomping attack by a group against himself and his brother. When questioned about why he used deadly force, he stated that "he didn't want to get his butt kicked." Unfortunately, his attorney didn't follow up by talking about disparity of force, the serious and life threatening injuries that can come from "getting one's butt kicked" etc. The jury was left with the defendent stating that he didn't want to get beat up so he shot someone. Bad witness prep, bad lawyer, bad result. Happens all the time in non-defensive shooting cases, so why should it be a surprise it happens here?

If I'm ever in a shooting, whether or not I will face charges depends on how the investigator, the prosecutor and the public sees the shooting. It's only a good shoot if a reasonable person would find it as such. It's my job to start the ball rolling for such a determination by explaining why I shot, and why it was reasonable. I can easily articulate why a head shot is a valid and justifiable technique, and that it is taught by the best instructors (including those who probably taught the cop doing the investigation).

[shield20]

Buzz,
Who would you explain this to? Ayoob also suggests shutting up until your lawyer is present. Others have said being in the right and explainign that right off the bat makes you a "good guy" and may get the cops/investigators on your side 'quickly'.

In general: Would you (any 'you' out there) take the stand if charged?

[buzz_knox]

Who would you explain this to? Ayoob also suggests shutting up until your lawyer is present. Others have said being in the right and explainign that right off the bat makes you a "good guy" and may get the cops/investigators on your side 'quickly'.

His suggestion is actually to do both, start them on your side then shut up.

Step 1: "Officer, this man attacked me and tried to kill me. I shot him because I was in fear for my life. I will press charges."
Step 2: "These people were standing here when it happened, his gun/knife fell there, and mine is here."
Step 3: "I hope you understand but I just went through something traumatic. Please call an ambulance. I'll cooperate fully after I get checked out."
Step 4: shut up and call an attorney.

[FrankDrebin]

As this banter between you and I seem to have taken this thread off course, and you appear to enjoy the argueing for arguement sake, I will take this opportunity to conceed your apparent superior, and unmatched knowledge of the things relating to law. I will refrain from further post of off topic items in this thread so that you too may return to the issue at hand.

Well, your're partially right, because I DO like arguing for the sake of arguing. However, in this case, I only replied because I know the stuff you're posting to be blatantly WRONG. There's nothing obtuse about it. Instead of being sarcastic, why don't you try to learn something. There are people who will gracefully admit when they're wrong, and there are those who will rationalize their mistakes all day long. You seem to be among the latter.

I would perhaps suggest that as you don't seem to recognize that homicide, and manslaughter are capital crimes which will be investigated.....

There you go again!!! I'm going to address this because some people may be taking what you're saying to be true: First "Homicide" is no more of a crime than "Operating a Motor Vehicle". "Homicide" is no more than the killing of a person. You have crimes like First Degree Murder, Negligent Homicide, Manslaughter, etc...THESE are crimes just like "Operating A Motor Vehicle Without A License" or "Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated" are crimes. There is no such crime of "Homicide".

Secondly, I would suggest that since you seem to like to just throw around words, the meaning of which you don't know, you should post the elements for the crime "Manslaughter". THEN, post the maximum sentence. THEN, tell me in what state of the union the crime of "Manslaughter" is punishable by death. You DO know what the term "capital crimes" means don't you? MANSLAUGHTER IS NOT A CAPITAL CRIME ANYWHERE IN THIS NATION!!!

When choosing between Ayoob's statements, or of the anonymous person online claiming to be a cop somewhere, I'll choose Ayoob's statements every time.

I prefer not to take anyone's word for something that I can readily verify for myself. Whether that person is a 30 year street cop veteran of the South Bronx, or, like Ayoob, a part time cop on a 3 officer department who MIGHT take one or two barking dog reports in a month. Literally. Instead of taking the word of a guy who makes a full time living writing about what he does part time, why don't you call a homicide cop at a busy police department and ask him how many legitimate self defense shooters he's seen prosecuted? I mean, if you really want to know that is.

[buzz_knox]

Instead of taking the word of a guy who makes a full time living writing about what he does part time, why don't you call a homicide cop at a busy police department and ask him how many legitimate self defense shooters he's seen prosecuted? I mean, if you really want to know that is.

If I were to do that here, I would get forwarded to the public relations department, who would then refer me to the DA's office, who might or might not discuss it.

By the way, there is something majorly wrong with your proposition. By definition, a legitimate self-defense shooter is someone who's shooting has been determined is legitimate. It's the effective equivalent of saying "ask a sex crimes cop how many times a partner to a perfectly consentual sexual act has been charged with a sex crime." Actually, the answer to that is more than a few, but I digress.

[FrankDrebin]

If I were to do that here, I would get forwarded to the public relations department, who would then refer me to the DA's office, who might or might not discuss it.

Then go to a cop bar and ask around.

By the way, there is something majorly wrong with your proposition. By definition, a legitimate self-defense shooter is someone who's shooting has been determined is legitimate. It's the effective equivalent of saying "ask a sex crimes cop how many times a partner to a perfectly consentual sexual act has been charged with a sex crime." Actually, the answer to that is more than a few, but I digress.


OK, then I'll contend that you are not likely to be charged with a crime when you shoot someone who you reasonably believe to be about to cause you great bodily harm or death. Nor are you likely to be sued. This applies to "normal" people and not those who shoot someone for looking at them funny and then claim self defense. The number of people who are charged because their idea of "reasonable" differs from the prosecutor's is too small to change my position. We could go through the newspapers and post cases where a shooter claimed self-defense and determine if our idea of "reasonable" is the same as theirs. I think you'll find that anecdotally, you are not likely to be charged in self defense shooting. I'll even go one step further and say that in MI, you will not be charged for shooting a fleeing felon. This does not mean that the fleeing felon must be tried and convicted by jury between the time he commits his felony and the time you shoot him.

I'll go first....Also, this article is appropriate to the "shooting better than the cops" thread. The person in this story was not charged.

Police: Bar Owner Kills Two Robbers With Single Shot
Wayne County Prosecutor To Review Alleged Robbery, Shooting

POSTED: 8:03 p.m. EST November 3, 2003
UPDATED: 8:09 p.m. EST November 3, 2003

Two suspected robbers are dead after a former police officer and owner of a Detroit bar fired a single shot, Local 4 reported.
Video


Archive: Family Searches For Answers In Fatal Shooting





The robbery and shooting happened early Sunday or late Saturday at Adela's place on the city's southwest side.

Police say the 49-year-old woman who owned the restaurant -- a retired Detroit cop who was a former member of Mayor Coleman Young's security team -- tried to hold the suspects in the parking lot until police arrived. But when the two men attempted to speed away, and nearly ran over one of her employees, she fired a single shot that apparently struck both men, according to police.

"We've had some robberies in that area. We have some evidence now that may indicate that someone was robbed there and assaulted there. There attempted to be another assault against one of the employees, before the owner of this establishment fired one shot in an attempt to stop a fleeing felon," said Detroit police Inspector Marilyn Hall-Beard.

The two men -- Dorian Gordillo, 22, and Rosalio Becera, 33 -- were later found dead from a bullet wound in a car parked on the Interstate 75 service drive, according to police.

One of the men was reportedly still holding a beer in his hand.

Family members of Gordillo and Becera were initially confused over their deaths, Local 4 reported.

"He was a very good guy. He would never look for trouble. I don't understand what happened. I hope we can find some answers," said Barbara Gordillo, the sister-in-law of one of the victims.

Officers who had responded to the incident at the bar wrote down the description of the car that left the scene and later made a match with the vehicle in which Gordillo and Becera were found dead, Local 4 reported.

While the shooting appeared to be justified, the Wayne County prosecutor was expected to review the case to determine if the bar owner would face charges.

Ayoob has served as an expert witness on a long list of civil and criminal prosecutions regarding defensive force, so I suspect that he could back up what he's saying if he felt comfortable blabbing in public about the specifics of the legal difficulties of the individuals he's worked with.

Ah...so he COULD back his statements up....he just doesn't because they're secret??? What makes him an expert anyway? I saw him from start to finish at this trial www.larrynevers.com
if anything, I thought he helped the prosecution. (he was hired by the defense). Caveat: I never said that Ayoob said that people are LIKELY to be prosecuted and sued after a self-defense shooting. I'm just taking the word of the Ayoobian disciple who SAID he said that. But...if he DID say that, he's wrong and I'll back it up if anyone wants to go somewhere where gambling is legal and put up some dough! My definition of "likely" is : "1 : having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable""

Well, considering you live near the semi-perennial murder capitol of the US - unless you live in Virginia, how often do you hear about defensive shootings in the first place, let alone the years-later legal aftermath?

I COULD tell you if I wanted to, but I'm hiding my backround information like Massad!! I'd guess I hear about defensive shootings a couple times a month maybe? More if I talk to any of the homicide cops that month. As far as the civil suits, I can only tell you about the police shootings, but I don't know why same thing wouldn't apply to civilian shootings, especially since the regular citizens don't have the money that the city does. Most of the good ones don't result in a lawsuit, even with the deep pockets of the city. If a notorious officers is involved, maybe.

[Bravo25]

From what I understand 2 shots to COM may momentarily halt your attacker, but may not stop him. This moment of hesitation is the point where the head will be the most still. If after the initial shock they continue towards you it is time to turn out the lights.

[big daddy 9mm]

I would aim for the chest but I do think IT is bad to shoot for the head if forced.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What?

[OBIWAN]

I like something I read by Pat Rogers recently

Don't wanna paraphrase...this stuff is golden!

One of the problems with training is how we define things.
For example, the Mozambique as Cooper taught it was a Hammer to the chest (the term "double tap" not being sufficintly definied), than pause to steady and take the head shot.
Having personally experienced this, my advice is that there isn't a whole lot of time to pause (unless you want to spend the rest of your life waiting for the perfect shot...). The Failure Drill is 3 rapid shots. We defined it that way at Gunsite as soon as Cooper sold the place.
Head shots are difficult and the brain is protected from kinetic energy, but let's face it. A shot to the jaw may not kill your opponent but it will probably end the fight.
Don't think so? Remember the last time someone laid one on your snotlocker? Remember all those little spermy things swimming before your eyes? What kind of immediate response could you have provided?
Even without it being a kill shot, it can keep him from killing you while you follow through, ease to reset, and acquire another flash sight picture- and start looking for someone else to fight.....
There are times that head shots are indicated, as well as elbows, feet and hands.
Pelvic shots are not normally viable, but if that is all you have available, it ain't gonna' make him feel any better either. Be prepared to follow up.

I teach it this way.
Standard response: Two rounds, center mass. (Don't get locked into this one)
Failure Drill: Hammer body, single brain. I don't use the term "head". I want it more defined.
Non Standard Response (NSR): Shoot center mass of what you have until the threat is eliminated.

The problem with an NSR is that a pistol may not be viable if your bad guy de jour is wearing a hard shirt, or leather jacket etc. All your in gun ammo will be expended for naught.
The NSR is excellent with an M4 of course, but we also teach Hammer Chest/ Hammer Head for specific reasons.

[Blind Tree Frog]

I prefer not to take anyone's word for something that I can readily verify for myself. Whether that person is a 30 year street cop veteran of the South Bronx, or, like Ayoob, a part time cop on a 3 officer department who MIGHT take one or two barking dog reports in a month. Literally. Instead of taking the word of a guy who makes a full time living writing about what he does part time, why don't you call a homicide cop at a busy police department and ask him how many legitimate self defense shooters he's seen prosecuted? I mean, if you really want to know that is.
Or I could do like I said, and listen to the cops that taught my CCL class who agree with Ayoob.

[Ranger325]

I know we're talking about a civilian situation here, but........

When Col Charlie Beckwith briefed President Carter and his Cabinet officers on Operation Rice Bowl, the Iranian Hostage Rescue mission, Warren Christopher (Dep Sec State) asked what would happen if any of the Iranians interfered with the Delta operators during the mission.

"Shoot them" was Beckwith's reply,
"Shoot them?" Christopher asked,
"Yes sir, twice in the head"
"Couldn't you just shoot them in the shoulder or something?" Christopher demanded.

So, yes I guess it is malicious.....................................

[FrankDrebin]

Or I could do like I said, and listen to the cops that taught my CCL class who agree with Ayoob.

You can listen to whomever you choose. Why do you suppose Ayoob has so much credibility by the way? Police experience? Because he writes magazine articles? What is it?

[CarbineCaleb]

Personally, I don't think that it follows naturally that Ayoob's part time police status would make his ideas inferior to those of a full time policeman.

One could claim that a mechanic understands a car better than an automotive engineer, because one works with cars all day, every day, and the other just sits at a desk. I don't think that's true though.

I am not trying to promote Ayoob either, but I don't think he should be discounted just because he's not a daily officer.

[Eghad]

In Texas this would fall under two sections

Deadly Force and Use of Force. You can use deadly force against deadly force. Force is used till the person attacking you stops. The guy that had the knife who was shot was down on the floor so he would be considered stopped. You cant run over and shoot him to kill him. Now if he gets off the floor and comes back at you you can use force to stop him again. Same with the guy who ran away from the car. You can use the necessary force to detain him for the police but you cant shoot him unless he progresses to use of deadly force.

[pax]

You can listen to whomever you choose. Why do you suppose Ayoob has so much credibility by the way? Police experience? Because he writes magazine articles? What is it?

I have here sitting in front of me Massad Ayoob's nine page list of credentials and references.

How long would yours be?

He lists instructional experience going back for over 30 years, at 19 different schools.

How far does yours go back? How many schools are on it?

He's the National Chairman of the committee on police firearms training for ASLET. Who are you, again?

His personal training list looks like he got bored before he finished writing down all the courses he's taken and the places he's gone and the people he's trained with. How many could you list?

Sure, he only works "part-time" as a police officer. That's with the rank of Captain. He's in charge of training for his department. And he's been a cop since 1972. How long have you been in?

He's "only a part-time" cop because he trains between 800 to 1200 people a year, while appearing as an expert witness in various court cases, while writing more magazine articles, books, and other publications than most people have on their bookshelves.

He's got 17 lawyers in 12 states ready to swear that he's an expert in his field and knows what he's talking about. How many lawyers -- in how many states -- would say the same of you?

But go ahead and tear down the man's good name, anyway. :rolleyes:

pax

I've read more articles than he's written, so I'm the expert! -- some internet wag

[big daddy 9mm]

I meant to say that it is NOT bad to aim for the head if forced. .....its very effective. :D :D

[Mute]

Laws vary from state to state, but I can't name one that would consider the use of a firearm not to be the use of lethal force. You may choose to aim for his pinky toe, but as far as the courts are concerned, you had better be justified in needing to use the gun. Period.

[Double Naught Spy]

I have here sitting in front of me Massad Ayoob's nine page list of credentials and references.

How long would yours be?

It isn't the quantity, but the quality. Ayoob's articles are often rife with problems, poor math, poor assumptions, and misinterrpetations. It isn't as if his gun rag publications are peer-reviewed and I don't know that his books are either (or not).

Putting blind faith into the words of a self-described expert is not prudent especially when the expert's words don't hold up to scrutiny.

[pax]

self-described expert
Let's talk about self-described experts, shall we?

By definition, a "self-described" expert is someone that few or no other people would acknowledge as an expert, someone whom only himself would call an expert. A self-described expert might be, for instance, an anonymous somebody on an internet forum. The self-described expert probably does not have a single credential, possibly has never worn a badge, and probably has never taught a single class, but nevertheless holds forth as if he'd done all those things or had somehow simply absorbed the knowledge to criticize those who had. Of course, if you were to ask anyone outside of the self-described expert's favorite forum stomping grounds, well, no one's ever heard of the guy -- and no one except himself would give a rat's hind end for his opinion. That is what a self-described expert looks like.

A true expert, on the other hand, would have experience both as a student and as an instructor going back ... oh, say, three decades or so, and at a wide variety of schools. He would be quoted as an authoritative source in a dozen or more books. If he claimed knowledge of the law enforcement field, he would have references from major names in law enforcement in big cities across the nation. He might be the key instructor in several videos widely used in police training nationwide, for instance. If he claimed legal expertise, he would have more than a dozen lawyers ready to vouch for his expertise and professionalism. If he claimed expertise as a shooter, you could expect such a person would have at least a couple dozen major competitions under his belt -- and would have won or placed in at least a few of those. That's what an expert looks like.

Is an expert sometimes wrong? Sure. Is a "self-described expert," an anonymous internet nobody, occasionally right? Sure. But only a fool sneers at the expert simply because he is an expert.

*shrug* Suit yourself. Most folks do, anyway.

pax

As to the abuses I meet with, I number them among my honors. One cannot behave so as to obtain the esteem of the wise and the good without drawing on oneself at the same time the envy and malice of the foolish and wicked, and the latter is testimony of the former. -- Benjamin Franklin

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But that's the way to bet. -- my grandad.