Why and when would you pull the trigger?

[Groundhog]

A quote in another thread got me thinking. It was:

Some guy I couldn't find said:

a cell phone and some credit cards are not worth ending someone’s life over. You don’t shoot someone to punish them for their bad deeds, you shoot them because if you don’t you will likely die. I think it is a great mistake to kill someone over material items.

While I am a huge proponent of every scenario being different and a judgement call, engage brain, etc., this got me wondering about the "general" reason you would consider using lethal force. A lot of folks say they are unwilling to use it to protect property. Some are. But what about that situation when someone is pointing a gun at YOU but says they only want property?

JohnKsa said:

Armed robbery is grounds for use of deadly force, NOT to allow you to shoot someone to retain property but because it is absolutely abhorrent to any sort of civilization to allow a criminal to bargain with you for your OWN LIFE.

You're not shooting someone over your wallet and credit cards, you're defending your LIFE against a person who says that AT BEST it's only worth what you have in your pockets.

And I think that sums up my view on it "AS A GENERAL RULE". If someone is pointing a gun at me and threatening me with anything, robbery, arse whoopin, foot massage (durn fetish muggers...), etc., they have threatened me with lethal force and have crossed the line of where I feel comfortable with retaliating. I'm not saying I would or even should engage in a situation like this. But I am saying, it would be past my moral "NO GO" or "think veeeery carefully" point. In my mind, I'd have the green light.

So, where do you folks stand at this point?:eek:

I am not trying to get into the details here but if you feel the need to go into that to explain your position, it's not like I can stop you! :D

[jfrey123]

Maybe my rant on that other post should've gone here lol... :eek: Better place without going offtopic.


When they pull a weapon on you, they've made their intent clear. There are no guarentee's for your safety unless you make them yourself. They may decide the want no witnesses to the "smaller" crime of robbery, or they might have decided before hand to kill their target regardless.

BG pulls a gun on me, there's gonna be a fight until one of us is down or he's running with his tail between his legs...


Disclaimer: This internet commando would like to sound big and macho in front of his screen, and whole heartedly believes this is what he would do. If something like this ever happens to him, he will be posting the result here.

[Xenia]

If they pull a gun on me and ask for my measely little bit of money or my out of date cell phone I would put the money and cell phone on the ground and back away at an angle to him and go for cover.

If they already have their gun drawn, I am not going to go for mine. That is an invitation to get some nasty pits of metal and lead in parts of my body.

If I go for cover, I will get my gun and if I feel no innocents are likely to get shot behind the BG, I would shoot when they go to pick up the money and cell phone for I would have no reason to believe that a BG who does armed robbery would be true to their word and not shoot me when they find out I had nothing of real value and a very out of date cell phone that most people would have thrown away by now.

[revjen45]

If I feel I am in danger of being killed or maimed.

[Technosavant]

Why pull the trigger?

To protect yourself, your family and loved ones, and maybe even an innocent third party from violent felonies such as murder, arson, rape, or the like.


When to pull the trigger?

When there is a clear and present danger to the life of a confirmed innocent person, you are sure of your target and what is beyond it, and your weapon is on target.


/Wow, that was easy to explain.
//I expect it will be MUCH harder to practice...

[Arizona Fusilier]

Anyone threatening lethal force, regardless of their alleged goals or limited criminal objectives, is worthy of a bullet.

Getting it done on someone who already has the drop on you is problematic, and perhaps a completely different subject.

[FS2K]

While every situation is different, the answers to your questions seem obvious to me.

I agree with what Technosavant said whole heartedly. This question reminds me of all of the posts having to do with Home Invasion scenerios, another topic dealing with the issues of Why? and When?

Not every situation calls for the use of deadly force, and there's nothing cowardly with complying to a criminals demands with the intent to preserve life. Having a firearm on you does not mean that you must use it, or for that matter, draw it in every situation just because you had it handy. I fear that far too often the mentality portrayed here celebrates the use of firearms with deadly force (with posts like "What is the "BEST" 9mm round?" or "What gun do you have next to your bed?" etc.") and while most of these posts do not address the question directly, the heart of most of these questions lay in the most basic "What kills best?" Plain and simple.

Now, I'm not saying that the need to use deadly force never arises, or that people should somehow train to wound and not kill, what I am saying is maybe the questions should be "When do I draw my weapon?" and "What are the reasons I should?" because make no mistake: drawing your weapon commits you to using lethal force, only the situation dictates whether you do or not. Everytime you draw your gun you should be 110% prepared to use lethal force, otherwise why draw it?

[joab]

I think Savant and Arizona pretty much answered everything

When they produce a gun they have shown the limits they are willing to go and the limits you must go to get out of the situation

[Thunderhawk88]

If someone confronts me or my family with a weapon, for any reason, I feel I am then free to fire (so long as I have a safe opportunity to draw my weapon). But if someone is breaking into my truck, or stealing a wheel-barrow out back, and attempts to run when I confront them, no, that is not a time to shoot.

[WhiteFeather93]

Very good topic and I think you have gotten to the heart of a lot of recent topics.

I believe as most here have said that each situation is to be addressed differently. While the need for drawing may be present and I agree you should be ready to end a life when you do so, there are exceptions with that being said. If the person pointing a gun at you is not ready to end your life and out of desperation has begun this act they might not be as hostil as they were when they drew down on you or someone else.

Example A:
While shopping at your local market somone pulls a gun and points it at the clerk 8 feet in front of them. You are standing 3 feet behind them on a 9 o'clock position. They are quakeing and obviously nervous. They are not paying attention to anything going on around them. You quietly and calmy bring your sidearm to inches from their head and begin to calmly demand they lower their firearm at once. They comply...

Example B: While returning home from a night out you pull into your driveway and find two males fighting on your front lawn. One produces a gun and points it at the other. You get behind your vehicle and produce your sidearm. The male with the firearm raises his hands but does not release the gun...

While I agree that when someone threatens you with deadly force you are more than justified in defending, I think each situation has to be acted upon in its own fashion. Training and discussing these topics are essential into prepareing for these situation. Because when the time comes you have seconds and much less concentration to decide on the spot.

[The Tourist]

As a younger man, I would have answered this question very differently, indeed.

And as an older man, my mindset has changed not because of the world, but because how the world has change for me.

There is not secret that I have lived my life in two halves, and I have some regrets. Not over the deeds, but more to the people I may have hurt and how those actions can never be taken back.

Frankly, I got that big "second chance" I never really deserved.

To that end, I can only permit action needed to save someone else, even if it's only my dogs. If I cannot discern some good of this action and operate from some moral compass then the action is somehow flawed for me.

Most people paint the scenario as a "you and him to the end" argument that leaves no alternative. I don't believe reality lives by a formulated debate. I do not believe a hardened, trained, deranged psychopath with layers of modern weapons and a sacrifical agenda often presents himself.

Muggers, cat burglars, saloon bullies and other loud mouths are actually quite tame. There is a very tall, well muscled female triathlete at my gym who could really inflict damage and scares me much more.

I have several very nice Tussey automatics, and I never wish to hurt anyone, ever.

[Tim Burke]

But what about that situation when someone is pointing a gun at YOU but says they only want property?If he only wants property, he needs to figure out a way to get it that doesn't involve threatening me with death.

[epic4444]

If someone got a gun pointed at me imma point my gun back...same with a knife...they got a knife and its coming at me...my guns going to be pointed at them and if i see fit then ill use deadly force...not for the sake of money but for the sake of my life over theres

[PTR 91]

Weapon or not as far as I know if you feel your life is in danger then you can kill the person if you must, but i'm sure shooting out their knee caps will slow they down without killing them. My point is if I came home and someone is kicking open my front door, i'm gonna jump out and say lay face down on the ground with your hands and legs spread out and then call the cops. If they run off I won't shoot but I will call the cops. If they come at me to do harm, well i'm going to throw some lead.

[w_houle]

I have not been in any situation where I had to put this to the test, but the way I figure it is two ways. First, the BG came to the party with his dance card out so he had to know that being shot was a possibility. On the other hand it would be best to try to end the situation without shooting.

[Acosta]

I'll pull the trigger if I feel that my life or the life of others are in danger, not over property... :-)

[MikeG]

Quote:
But what about that situation when someone is pointing a gun at YOU but says they only want property?

If he only wants property, he needs to figure out a way to get it that doesn't involve threatening me with death.
__________________


I don't think you can trust an armed robber's word that they only want property. They've already demonstrated a willingness to breach social convention and the law. They might use that statement to gain compliance and still do as they please. I note an increasing number of criminals who go ahead and shoot or otherwise harm their victims. Whether they do it for thrills, to leave no witnesses or another reason is irrelevant to the victim. Instead of overanalysing their motives, distill it down to resisting force with force

[RJay]

The hardest thing to learn is when not to pull the trigger, this gos also when not to even show your weapon. When to shoot is easy to learn. Just MHO based on the real world.

[tony pasley]

Why: I believe that there is no chioce
When: when I come onto the target.

[Lurper]

This is a pointless question if it is asked from a morality standpoint because it is an individual decision. From a legal standpoint it is clear. Stated intent doesn't matter if the assailant has a weapon. If you are in fear of serious injury or death or under the threat of serious injury or death to yourself or someone else, you are justified.

Trying to talk someone into dropping the weapon or to surrender is not necessary nor really wise. That is what LEO's are for. Any hesitation can get you killed. Know your state's laws and the parameters they set, then act accordingly.

[Ruthless4christ]

living in a country where there is barely any Legal liability at all it all boils down to social and moral choice. The art of reading into someone’s character and intentions becomes honed very quickly. Driving through an unfamiliar town late the other night and pulling up to a store to ask directions, two men drinking cokes get up and put their hands on their pistols(one man drawing)
I realized immediately that they were just waiting for me to display my intentions and as son as I did they sat down. In their mind I was the potential threat and I need to respect that.

If I were less prudent I could have been threatened and done something rash, ending the night on a very different note.

Alertness and awareness, and the art of listening to people can give you the jump start on survival.

I witnessed a man in his home, when three men who had been drinking came on his property, they had been shooting rounds off with browning hi-power 9mm and stumbled in front of his store demanding cigarettes(pistols drawn) he pulled up behing them about 20 feet away with a marlin semi-auto .22 rifle, fired several rounds off in the air and then held them at gun point till they left(their guns all lowered)

When do they deserve to be shot at? Unfortunately for them, once they do something disqualifying them from the natural protection of society. It varies per individual but once they have ejected themselves from that club, they are automatically downrange.

[jfrey123]

Driving through an unfamiliar town late the other night and pulling up to a store to ask directions, two men drinking cokes get up and put their hands on their pistols(one man drawing)

In their mind I was the potential threat and I need to respect that.


How the heck is this response justified??? You're going into a place of business! That alone is not a justified reason for the two citizens enjoying cocacola to point guns at you!

Holy sidearms Batman, even on our trigger happy forum, at least one of those guys should've been going to jail. For me, some guy in a store parking lot pulling a gun on me would've started a gun fight. I sure as hell wouldn't be respecting their urge to pull a weapon on me, a lost citizen.

For me, their force toward you, and your following "justification" and respect of said force is mind blowing! :D

[Ruthless4christ]

You have to understand I am giving you a scenario from the Central American point of view. Gunfights take place here everyday, and in the remote area I was in, it was to them “odd” for a car with tinted windows to pull up at that time of night. (you have to understand this town is made up of dirt roads, and the “store” is a tin shack.:cool:

Here there is no law, mostly just what the neighborhood implicates for itself. I guess it does get kind of stressful sometimes but that’s the third world. Fortunately for you guys back in the land of the free you don’t have to deal with this extremism but it can help put things in perspective.

[BillCA]

Groundhog,

In general, I think we are in agreement in so far as an armed assault is concerned.

If someone is threatening you with a weapon (gun, knife, broken bottle, baseball bat, tire iron, etc.) to obtain your property (money, wallet, iPod, iPhone, etc.) it is implicit in the situation that they are willing to inflict grave bodily injury or death upon you to obtain what they desire. In essence it is tantamount to them proclaiming "I will cripple or kill you, if you don't comply".

That's an invitation to be the test target for JHP ammo.

Less clear is when threatened by an individual who is not armed or not obviously armed. Or perhaps he's "armed" with something not usually perceived to be a serious weapon -- i.e. a leather belt, a piece of garden hose or electrical cord.

Also less clear is when other factors such as time, place and your status are involved. For instance, if you are at a party or gathering at another person's house and the slightly intoxicated host threatens you with a knife for your bashing his favorite candidate for office (or whatever reason). Certainly if he threatens, the proper course is to leave the location. However, if he attacks with the knife and you have a clear shot, do you? Or do you call for help from others?

Unarmed conflicts are another matter. I know that currently I could not go toe-to-toe with some 25 year old punk. Others who lack physical conditioning, have debilitating injuries or ailments are in similar situations. The question here is once physical force is threatened by someone of apparent superior strength and condition, when do you justify the use of lethal force?

[jfrey123]

Sorry Ruthless, I didn't pay attention to your location when responding to your story. Regardless, that is a crappy way for any business man to do business. ;) But if there are no law enforcement of any kind anywhere, then so be it.

[JoeBlackSpade]

In the case described, they've already pointed their weapon at you. It is not possible for the situation to get any more serious.

From a moral or legal perspective, there's nothing else left for them to do to "justify" putting 2-to-the-head, 1-to-the-chest. Merely drawing your weapon, for example, on a law enforcement officer will get you dropped. The question here is not "should I", or "can I". The question is "how do I get out of here alive?"

The main problem here, for me, is they've already gotten the drop on me. I must have been less than vigilant, perhaps lost in thought, to not recognize my surroundings, and the approaching assailant(s). At this point, the only way to survive is to use my HEAD, not my weapon.

As a general rule, keep your eyes on their eyes, speak softly, saying "o.k., o.k., no problem, you are the boss, no problem, you are the boss". hands away from body, palms out, moving slowly for the wallet, slightly crouched down. Make your body smaller, and lower to the ground, with your body bladed to the weapon. From this position, you present a slightly smaller target, and you can leap/roll away behind cover *IF* he starts shooting. In many cases, a street thug that starts shooting is NOT going to impact with lethal force. I've read of one account where a police officer and a thug traded rounds inside an ELEVATOR in a shopping mall. 22 rounds fired. 1 impact. Non-lethal. Subject apprehended successfully, with a minor wound to the foot.

If his weapon is in physical contact with me, i.e., small of the back or to the face, I am going to push my body against the weapon slightly to create positive pressure. From here, I can use one of many effective disarming techniques. If you don't know any, you can get instruction from a good Krav Maga instructor.

[Hallucinator]

If my life, or that of my loved ones, or of an innocent person, is being threatened by someone.

I never go near a gun when I am angry; only when I frightened for my life.

[wingman]

Pulling a trigger is a last resort and for sure have a good lawyer. Live by that
and perhaps it will go well.;)

[thinktwice]

If someone pulls a gun on me....either he's gonna walk away, or I am gonna to walk away! Of course if the bg catches me by surprise and already has his gun drawn and I don't. I would have no choice but to either comply or die, so in that case I would do whatever it takes to keep from getting shot.

[rampage841512]

As a general rule, I would only pull the trigger when I or someone else was in danger of serious injury or death and I would only do so when I had a clear line of fire and was sure of where my bullets are going to go. However, Murphy being the prick he is I would/will adapt or change this rule depending on my reading of a given situation.

[Night Watch]

:rolleyes: Hmmm .... good subject!

I'll admit to being slow to pull a gun. (Yes, I've had several occasions.) Me? I won't draw unless I fully intend to fire; and, if I'm going to pull the trigger, then, it's got to be for either the preservation of life or future health.

While I very well might use a gun to stop a carjacking, (Because a carjacking is very dangerous as well as very up close and personal.) I wouldn't use a gun to stop an ordinary car theft. If someone gets into one of my vehicles while it's parked out in the driveway and drives off, I won't pepper him with, 'hot lead' as he goes down the road.

On the other hand, if somebody tries to stick a gun in my face to order me out of my vehicle, well ... from that point on, I don't think either one of us is going to have a good day! I know that I would draw and instantly fire, thrice, BEFORE the other guy's gun barrel was leveled on me; and, like I said, I'll admit to being slow to pull a gun. Just don't threaten me with deadly force or dire physical harm; and, we'll get along fine together.

There is another question here; 'How do you know when you're truly in danger?' The answer for me involves a combination of: training, experience, cold nerve, and a Christian willingness to not snuff out someone else's life without giving him benefit-of-doubt by waiting a moment, or two, longer than might be practical.

In short, if I'm not 100% certain about the other guy's intentions AND, also, believe I've got that final moment I need to act, then, I will wait - even to well inside of Tueller's famous 21 foot personal safety zone! I have and will continue to apply these personal standards of armed behavior to all confrontational situations which do NOT include the other guy's use of a firearm.

With guns, it's a whole different set of rules: Whenever you face a gun you've got zero reaction time and need to remember to act accordingly! ;)

As a general rule, keep your eyes on their eyes, ...

No, my friend, it's NOT their eyes that you have to watch. Sometimes you can't even see the eyes. It's the hands! Monkeys always do evil with their paws. Watch the entire head, the shoulders, and the hands; and, then, you'll know exactly when to begin firing.

[120mm]

Interesting discussion.

I have a "bone to pick" with the well-used phrase, "deadly force should be your last option".

I would suggest that sometimes it should be the FIRST option. Tactics are not always linear, and sometimes you may put yourself or others in danger by not shooting.

And sometimes it's better to talk to the police, after a righteous shoot, too.

[PPGMD]

This is kind of a hard question to answer, because it not only depends on the event, the criminal enterprise of the area (are the local thugs known to shoot the victim), your mindset, but also (and most importantly) state and local (case) law.

In Florida the onus is on the shooter because our laws are very broad, and have been interpreted as such by recent case law.

Now my opinion if this occurs in my house, and I illuminate you, and you either charge me, or have any type of weapon, fire at will unless you are leaving, and it's legal too.

On the street it really depends on the threat, but armed robbery and rape would be a shoot scenario if there was a clean shot.

[Shawn Dodson]

If you're threatened with violence then it's not a *property* crime.

[Groundhog]

I have a "bone to pick" with the well-used phrase, "deadly force should be your last option".

I would suggest that sometimes it should be the FIRST option.

I think this was meant rather like the old adage that you find something you lost in the last place you look.:D In essence, your first option can be your last option in some situations. You just have a lot of folks here trying to make sure the Rambo effect isn't what is advocated in what they say.

[Doublestack]

I truly believe that it is an inherent trait (especially in men) to stand ones ground. At the first sign of a serious threat, (ie: being approached and seeing a gun as it is being drawn) how many of you would even consider turning tail and running away even if you were armed?

How many would seek nearest cover and draw your own weapon?

I practice a lot, compete a lot, and carry a lot. While I am not going to win any IDPA championships, I can draw from concealment and hit center mass in under 2 seconds, so if at all possible, I would............ beat feet out of there as fast as I could, put distance and cover between myself and the bad guy, have my weapon drawn, keep a close eye on him, and call the cops!

When to pull the trigger? When there is absolutely no other option.

Many "What would you do if...." scenarios have been posted here and on other forums. Most of the replies I see are shoot or comply. What the hell is wrong with removing yourself from the situation rapidly if it is possible? I almost never see this response posted.

I think it is because most of us are naturally wired to take a stand. This is all well and good when weapons are not involved. When they are, getting away from the danger, if possible, beats putting a hole in someone, or worse getting a hole put in you.

DS

[MosinM38]

It ALL depends PER situation...
Personally...... If a person has a gun OR a knife pointed at me, a family member or friend that is authorization for deadly force. Weather or not he is only asking for money or what. That weapon is still pointed at me.

[David Armstrong]

One way to look at the issue is to expand the question: "Why would you willingly change an armed robbery (or other incident) into a gunfight?" Most criminal events that involve deadly force start out that way. If you haven't been shot/stabbed/beaten/etc right off the bat there is a very small chance of being shot/stabbed/beaten/etc later on. Criminals tend to threaten in order to gain compliance, and as long as that compliance is there the event rarely escalates. The key, IMO, is being able to determine with some degree of accuracy when that escalation is occurring, and not doing things to up the violence level yourself. Shooting is a last resort, not a first choice. As Doublestack put it, "When to pull the trigger? When there is absolutely no other option." And once you pull the trigger you have eliminated a lot of other options you might have been able to use.

[BillCA]

Mr. Armstrong,

I'll disagree with your statement
If you haven't been shot/stabbed/beaten/etc right off the bat there is a very small chance of being shot/stabbed/beaten/etc later on.

Don't ever count on that. That small chance may be your own death sentence. To wit:

The fellow who owned the neighborhood liquor store complied totally with his Samoan armed robbery suspect and was shot as the thug left the store -- twice. Fortunately he survived.

A few years ago while I was in Las Vegas, a convienence store operator complied and was forced into a service closet, then shot six times. He did not survive.

Two years ago, thugs broke into a local restaurant in the early AM, forced the manager to open the safe. Five employees complied in every way. The manager was shot in the back - now has limited use of his left arm - and a 62 year old cook was severely pistol-whipped and lost an eye. Both people were injured after the crooks got what they wanted. The thugs were debating one thug's suggestion that "we cap 'em all" but they were interrupted by a delivery truck pulling up.

Anytime someone uses a threat of violence there are 3 things to remember;
1. He expects you to comply out of fear;
2. It is implicit that he will kill/cripple/maim you at his whim;
3. There are no guarantees he will respect your compliance and not hurt you.

I refuse to let my fate be dictated to the whim of some thug who thinks laws are only for the weak and timid.

[Night Watch]

:rolleyes: I, too, don't agree with the opinion that -

Originally posted by David Armstrong
If you haven't been shot/stabbed/beaten/etc right off the bat there is a very small chance of being shot/stabbed/beaten/etc later on.

I'm aware of numerous instances where aggressive thieves, 'needed' to experience an overwhelming sense of control over their victims and freely chose to use their guns or knives immediately before leaving the scene of a crime.

After an attack these people are going to return to a generally downtrodden daily existence; their lives are largely dissatisfying. They live with an unusual sense of inferior being that normal people would find difficult to understand. These misfits often appreciate their disadvantages, understand their dilemma, are irrepressibly angry, and want to get even! :mad:

For many of these people, I don't think their violent antisocial behavior is just about robbery; I believe that many sociopaths will actively seek to attack and rob you for the, 'pure rush' of finally being powerful and in control! Remember, in order for, 'control' to be real, it must be exercised; and, 'power' is worthless unless you have a chance to use it!

Like I said, for many of these people, I don't think it's just about sex or money. You CAN count on them to use their weapons! Most of these guys don't rob you because they simply need money; they rob you because they're angry, hold onto an active social hatred for people in general, and need to create some sort of social situation where - no matter how brief - they can feel powerful and in charge.

After they get your money, or your virginity, or whatever, that's when many violent thieves are really going to want (or need) to hurt you! Many times, compliance only forestalls the inevitable - Which is YOU bleeding! :eek:

In my opinion, for reasons most normal people won't anticipate, the last few seconds of many robberies and assaults are often the most dangerous! ;)

[David Armstrong]

I'll disagree with your statement
That is fine. One can disagree all they want, but one should also find out what the facts are.
Don't ever count on that.
True, don't count on it. Again, though, that doesn't change the facts, which are as stated.
That small chance may be your own death sentence.
Just as starting the shooting may be your own death sentence. There are variables either way to be considered.
Anytime someone uses a threat of violence there are 3 things to remember;
There is also a 4th thing:
If you haven't been shot/stabbed/beaten/etc right off the bat there is a very small chance of being shot/stabbed/beaten/etc later on.
Feel free to make a choice, but let's make choices based on accurate information whenever possible. My $.02.

[David Armstrong]

I, too, don't agree with the opinion that
As mentioned, feel free to disagree, but recognize the facts. What I said is not an opinion, it is a fact.
I'm aware of numerous instances where aggressive thieves, 'needed' to experience an overwhelming sense of control over their victims and freely chose to use their guns or knives immediately before leaving the scene of a crime.
Such instances are quite rare in comparison with those where that does not occur.
Like I said, for many of these people, I don't think it's just about sex or money. You CAN count on them to use their weapons!
I'm aware of what you said, but I'm also awqre of what the research into this sort of stuff reveals. I'll deal with facts anytime they are available as opposed to what someone says or thinks.

[45Marlin carbine]

lots of points to consider, if the BG had the 'drop' on me you better beleive I'm telling him 'Be cool here's wallet' then backing away looking for any moment he may be distracted enough for me to get my weapon out, while still withdrawing.
this doesn't seem to be a 'home invasion' sort of scenario but rather a street surprise type of situ. an ambush sort of thing. probably the worst situation.

[Night Watch]

Originally posted by David Armstrong
As mentioned, feel free to disagree, but recognize the facts. What I said is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Me too! Source? My own family.

(idem)
Such instances are quite rare in comparison with those where that does not occur.

:rolleyes: Actually, no they’re not! I get reminded of how these sociopaths really think every time I walk into my favorite gun shop and look at the proprietor’s head. No (sane) reason in the world for him to have been savagely butt-stroked just before the robbers left the store!

He was outnumbered 3 to 1. They were armed with pistols and an AK-47. He did exactly as he was told and offered no resistance. He lay down on the floor and let them take whatever they wanted. All he asked was that they not hurt him. Their response? Just before leaving, they hit him hard enough to almost kill him! It didn't have to go down like that. :mad:

On the other hand, my wife refused to comply when two, 'bangers' tried to hijack her new car. She was able to escape and got to keep her car, too. What do you think would have happened to her if she complied and allowed them to get into that car with her? (She's an attractive woman!) ;)

Well, feel free to sight your sources. Something from big corporate America or the liberal left, perhaps? Maybe you should get some real world experience by working the night shift at your local, 'Stop & Rob' for awhile. We, all, know how well compliance and non-aggression have worked for these people!

THE PICTURE OF COMPLIANCE -
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h39/Me_2U/DamnedSheep.jpg

:) Well ... Now that I've got that off my chest: To be perfectly fair, some degree of (initial) compliance might be necessary. For instance: I DID tell my wife that she should have immediately surrendered the car key by tossing it on the ground in front of her and, then, made a fast break for the front of the building while screaming into her cell phone for help!

Her reply? She said; 'We just bought that car!' Then, she asked me to give her one of my guns which she, now, frequently carries. (Great lady!) :D

Here, it's very interesting reading:

Jewelry Store Robberies (http://www.jckonline.com/article/CA635279.html)

As you'll note: Some store owners made it; and others did not. (1) At M&M Jewelers, compliance did no good at all. (2) A complete lack of weapon training and gross unfamiliarity with his gun were prime failure factors at DFC Jewelers. (3) A gun once saved the merchandise - and the day - at Newton Jewelry; but, the owner has said that, because of, 'insurance reasons', he'd never do it again. (May he live so long!) (4) At Beverly Hills Jewelers, a gun(s) again saved the day; and (5) at Paradise Jewelers, a nice old lady lucked out by immediately cooperating and just got tied up.

So, yes, I suppose if you're a nice old lady compliance might, very well, be the only way to go! I'll say this: I would never have given a gun to my very own mother because no amount of training would have prevented that woman from promptly finding a way to shoot, either, herself or one of the neighbors with that fascinating device!

[David Armstrong]

Me too! Source? My own family.[QUOTE]
That's nice, but almost by definition anecdotal information is fairly irrelevant in small doses when one wants learn something about general behaviors.
[QUOTE]Actually, no they’re not!
Nice claim, but contradicted by the facts. In violent crimes if one is not injured right away and barring other variables the chance of getting hurt seriously is a very small percentage. If you have some data other than a few personal stories I'd be glad to examine it.
Well, feel free to sight your sources. Something from big corporate America or the liberal left, perhaps?
Yes, that bastion of liberalism known as the FBI has such a record of distorting the data. Strange that it is used by virtually everybody.
Maybe you should get some real world experience by working the night shift at your local, 'Stop & Rob' for awhile.
In my younger days I worked quite a bit in just such a situation, and also continued to do so P/T after becoming a LEO, so I'd suggest you might want to find out what you are talking about before you accuse people of needing or lacking in any certain experience.
Here, it's very interesting reading:
Nah, I find general anecdotal stories to be fairly useless. When you get numbers up into the sefveral hundred, or preferably thousands, then you can accurately determine trends, probabilities, etc. You might try reading something like the UCRs to see how your perceptions differ from reality.

[mikejonestkd]

Night watch,

I suggesting using google and typing in David Armstrong McNeese. There should be enough for you to read about for a while on the topic and David's qualifications.

The facts are out there and David knows them.

[Night Watch]

:rolleyes: What are ya, ganging up on me?

Night watch,

I suggesting using Google and typing in David Armstrong McNeese. There should be enough for you to read about for a while on the topic and David's qualifications.

The facts are out there and David knows them.

Other than the curious coincidence that he looks like my twin brother and writes fairly well, I’m not overly impressed. I, also, come from a family that is famous in, both, state law-enforcement AND education; but, so what, that’s to my ancestor’s credit more than it is to mine.

I, still, don’t agree with much of what he has to say; and, I’ve decided to ignore the little, ‘hissy fit’ he’s thrown above. You can be wowed if you want to; that’s your business. I’ve got better things to do; and, I’m going to drop this, now. ;)

[David Armstrong]

I, still, don’t agree with much of what he has to say;
As mentioned, whetehr one agrees with what is said has no bearing on what the facts are. One can deal with facts or with what they think. I know which I think will give the best result.
I’ve decided to ignore the little, ‘hissy fit’ he’s thrown above.
:confused:

The facts are out there and David knows them.
Thanks, Mike. The problem is that the more facts I learn the more I realize how many more facts there are to learn!:D

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Gee, Dave - I was teaching research design in Intro and railing against making decisions based on a vivid instance as compared to collecting enough data to make a reasonable analysis.

Not everyone can get that principle.

I have an theory (haha) - folks imagine how they, dipped in gun theory and fighting, will act in an incident. They see themselves as heroes and winners in combat - they don't think about the total outcome. Thus, being successful by acquiesence in the typical stop and rob or bank robbery is a threat to this word view of themselves.

The correct world view (IMHO :D) is that one has a realistic view of the options and abilities. One acts for a goal which is to survive using a path that has the best possibility of such. If the goal is to make a statement - then of course start the fight. If the goal is to save one's skin - then choose a path that maximizes that outcome. One can deal with hurt feelings later.

Now, of course, do I follow my own advice - at the NTI I started one gun fight and a disarm that judges thought I should have let go down. Then I blabbed and got killed when they thought I should have fought harder. Whatever - the point is that there are no dichotomous rules guaranteed of success. One shouldn't futter around but one should think.

If you read victimology studies in the CJ literature - you know there are no guarantees about outcomes - there are just odds.

[threegun]

The problem with probabilities as it relates to life and death scenarios is that you DIE if wrong.

Action on the other hand may reduce your chances of survival statistically but it allows you a fighting chance in every scenario.

If my life is at risk, I'm going down fighting. Even though dead is dead I would rather my death hinge on my skill and luck than some bad guys decision.

[David Armstrong]

Not everyone can get that principle.
True, and more problematic, I feel is as you further state---some don't even want to get the principle.
If you read victimology studies in the CJ literature - you know there are no guarantees about outcomes - there are just odds.
That's about it. And what I always find so curious in instances like this is why people would intentionally handicap themselves by knowing as little as possible about what the odds really are. You can live or die as the result of various actions and choices, it would seem that one would want to decide on the action or choice with the best information available to maximize the live chances and minimize the die chances.

[threegun]

Most criminal events that involve deadly force start out that way. If you haven't been shot/stabbed/beaten/etc right off the bat there is a very small chance of being shot/stabbed/beaten/etc later on. Criminals tend to threaten in order to gain compliance, and as long as that compliance is there the event rarely escalates


Probabilities and percentages are a must for Texas Holdem or the stock market. If your wrong you lose money. In a criminal scenario its death. That raises the odds in my book well beyond anything that the FBI's uniformed crime report stats indicate. That might be hard for some internet forensic gunfight analyst to understand but it is the real world.

[Justme]

I get it, only play the odds in poker or the stock market, if your life is at risk do whatever you feel like and ignore the odds.:rolleyes:

[threegun]

I get it, only play the odds in poker or the stock market, if your life is at risk do whatever you feel like and ignore the odds.

No you don't do whatever you feel like....come on man. Why do you even carry? Odds are that the use of your gun will escalate the situation and increase the likelihood that you die.

Odds when they relate to life and death aren't the same.

If 10 armed men in a room were told that one might die if no action is taken or two might die if action is taken what do you do? Since death is final I believe I have to act despite the increase in danger doing so. Precisely the reason I carry. So that I can determine my fate not some scumbag.

[Justme]

You are well within your rights to act in an illogical and counterproductive way. I know people who will drive 30minutes out of the way because they want to avoid a 15 minute traffic jam. It's the same thing. To some people control is more important than life itself.

[threegun]

To some people control is more important than life itself.

You post as if acting equals death and not acting equals life.

Both are wrong. My training guarantees a fighting chance and being in control. Playing the odds guarantees nothing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The odds are just information as to likely outcome. The point is that one should know that some situations are better not escalated. You have to make the final call but it is better to know what happens and when then not.

Simple point.

[Justme]

You post as if acting equals death and not acting equals life.

Sometimes that is true. Sometimes the inverse(or is it converse?) is true. This is what you should base your decision on, not on which will give you the most control over the situation.

[Lurper]

The odds are just information as to likely outcome. The point is that one should know that some situations are better not escalated.
The problem with that Glenn, is there is no way to know which ones should and which ones shouldn't. IMO, it is much more desireable for me to make that decision than the BG if at all possible. Sure most incidents probably don't result in the BG killing or injuring the victim, but I am not willing to leave that decision to chance. No one can tell me which criminal is more or less likely to kill, therefore I assume every one of them is a killer. I think it is rather disigenuous to condemn those who would choose to act as the default choice. Maybe it has nothing to do with " . . . dipped in gun theory and fighting, will act in an incident. They see themselves as heroes and winners in combat . . . " and more to do with seeing one's self as surviving an incident.

[Groundhog]

Maybe all you guys just over-analyze stuff. I seriously doubt very many people think along these lines when confronted with a possibly lethal situation. At that time, either training or instinct rules.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oh, Lurper - I'm just arguing for knowning the facts. I don't disparage a reasoned choice. I just don't respect the view that the facts are irrelevant which is the flavor of some.

For the record, at the NTI:

1. One year, a dude ran in and shot the banker. I was meek. He shot me on the way out.
2. This year, nut runs in and shoots the judge - I try a disarm - criticized for doing that. He was going to just run out (well, how did I know that - last time I was shot)
3. Guy with gun starts to rob a store - I challenge, we get into gun fight. I shoot him. Well, I should have stayed low and let him leave. I said, he had a gun and I couldn't trust him to be rational.

I've been all over the place on judging actions. I just argue for knowing the typical pattern as useful info. That's my simple point.

[David Armstrong]

The problem with that Glenn, is there is no way to know which ones should and which ones shouldn't.
But wouldn't you think you are more likely to be able to figure out should/shouldn't the more information you have?
Sure most incidents probably don't result in the BG killing or injuring the victim, but I am not willing to leave that decision to chance.
But either way one has to address the element of chance, so should one go with the optimal chance or not?
I think it is rather disigenuous to condemn those who would choose to act as the default choice.
I can't speak for Glenn, but I don't think that is the case. Certainly it isn't for me. I condemn those who choose to act without considering what the facts are. Doing so, almost by definition, prohibits a good choice. If one develops a default based on "the BG is always going to try to kill me and I will always win without getting hurt if I fight back" is, well, faulty.
No one can tell me which criminal is more or less likely to kill, therefore I assume every one of them is a killer.
Actually one can tell which criminal is more or less likely to kill, with varying levels of accuracy. Because one cannot do so with 100% accuracy does not mean it should not be done.

I just argue for knowing the typical pattern as useful info. That's my simple point.

Amen!

I get it, only play the odds in poker or the stock market, if your life is at risk do whatever you feel like and ignore the odds.
That's a great point. We use the odds to help us determine the best action in virtually everything we do in llife, why some think they should be ignored when dealing with life and death just doesn't make much sense. You don't need to let the odds determine your actions all the time (such as bluffing in poker) but they can sure help you.

[Lurper]

The problem is that they aren't really facts, they are statistics. The key element that cannot be factored in is the human element. Even though many therapists want to say that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, that is not true. If it were - once a junkie always a junkie, once a thief always a thief. As it applies to this topic, that means just because the BG didn't kill/injure his last victim bears no relevance to what he will do this time. I am not dismissing the fact that your actions may induce an outcome that would not have happened otherwise. What I am saying is that there are no facts that can tell you as a victim in the moment the incident occurs who is more likely to kill you or not. Thinking that there is is a recipe for disaster imo. Therefore, since it may be my last stand, I will decide what action I take.

But wouldn't you think you are more likely to be able to figure out should/shouldn't the more information you have?
That information isn't applicable on an individual basis. Sure, it applies in a broad sense and a sociologist or criminalist may be able to predict what is LIKELY to happen with reasonable certainty, but they cannot predict what WILL happen with any degree of certainty. From 30,000 feet up, all of the data and statistics make sense, but from down and dirty looking down the muzzle of a gun or at the blade of a knife, you can throw all the data away, it don't mean squat.

If one develops a default based on "the BG is always going to try to kill me and I will always win without getting hurt if I fight back" is, well, faulty.
As opposed to the mindset that: "statistically in 80% of the cases, no one is hurt, so I should just passively let him have his way with me and begone?" A more realistic mindset would be: "If I am presented with the opportunity to escape, I will take it. When that option is removed, I will fight with every fiber of my being and will not give up until I have taken my last breath."
There is no false bravado or Ramboism to that statement. Visualizing yourself as victorious in situations like this is a positive action. Would you rather someone see themselves as a victim? Seeing yourself as a winner, you will be much more likely to act decisively than if you don't.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A more realistic mindset would be: "If I am presented with the opportunity to escape, I will take it. When that option is removed, I will fight with every fiber of my being and will not give up until I have taken my last breath."


No, a more realistic mindset is:

1. If I can escape I will
2. In certain instances, the crime will go down and no one will be hurt.
3. I have to evaluate if this is the case here before I start the gun fight.
4. If I think that it will progress to people being hurt (me or the ones I care about), then I take action.

Not knowing that a pattern of crimes usually end without someone being hurt is again ignoring knowledge. Saying it is statistics and not facts really doesn't mean anything. I'm not in the mood for a behavior prediction lecture but are arguing like the following. Cigarettes cause health problems in most people, however some people don't have those problems. Thus, knowing that smoking may predict health problems in most but not all is useless and you will smoke.

Maybe not a perfect analogy but close.

Are you better off knowing that bank robberies usually don't end with violence so that you don't automatically start a gun fight that might go badly. Might be statistically of interest that a percent of robberies have a backup unknown to you, so that if start the gun fight, surprise!

About looking down the muzzle of a gun and the odds meaning nothing:

1. Bank robberies usually go well. You see the gun and you let it go down. I think that only 4% have violence.

2. You look at the muzzle of the gun and draw your gun - what's the comparable odds of that going well?

We all make our choices. Arguing for the automatic gun fight as compared to the reasoned gun fight is a style you will have to choose.

[MyXD40]

I think the most efective way to get your point accross that you're not scared to pull the trigger is to drop the mag, and chuck it at the BG.

[Lurper]

I never advocated "automatically" starting a gunfight. What I am saying is you can cite all the statistics in the world, but in the situation you have no way of knowing whether your assailant is in the minority or the majority as far as resulting to violence goes. You also cannot relate his past behavior in terms of violence to this particular incident because a whole new set of variables is introduced. In short you don't know what he is going to do! We agree on a lot of things, but I think saying that classifying this stuff as "information" that should be considered when making a life or death decision is a stretch. IMO, the only information that should be considered is the situational information and the knowledge of your own ability.

Bank robberies usually go well. You see the gun and you let it go down. I think that only 4% have violence.
Big difference between a Bank robbery and someone robbing you at gunpoint. I would be less inclined to act due to the situation, but you still don't know whether you are in that 4% or not. The scary part to me is that I don't get to make that decision. Another point I am trying to make is that it is a judgement call. It is not a mathematical equation where you can say I know that x+y=z, therefore 2(x+y)=2z. The only real valid information you have is the information presented to you by the situation. You evaluate and make a judgement based on that information.

You look at the muzzle of the gun and draw your gun - what's the comparable odds of that going well?
For me the odds are pretty good but that's because I train constantly and have a yardstick to measure by. However, that also illustrates another set of variables. Once an action is initiated another large set of variables is introduced which makes duplicating an outcome impossible.

I'm not arguing that you should automatically start a gun fight. I am certainly not arguing that you should submit to the BG's wil. What I am saying is that the decision should be situationally based, not statistically based.

[threegun]

"If I am presented with the opportunity to escape, I will take it. When that option is removed, I will fight with every fiber of my being and will not give up until I have taken my last breath."


Lurper, My feelings exactly.

Someone said that I shouldn't start a gun fight with an armed bad guy who has yet to display violent behavior because stats say they won't. I disagree because, as stated by Lurper, humans are unpredictable and because death unlike poker is final. So being wrong is not an option.

Should I pass on an opportunity to end the threat simply because it increases my odds of getting hurt? I don't think so. Because my crystal ball broke and I can't be 100 percent sure of the prefered non gunfight option. Thats my point

Pretty simple.

[RockyMtnTactical]

"If I am presented with the opportunity to escape, I will take it. When that option is removed, I will fight with every fiber of my being and will not give up until I have taken my last breath."

It's hard to argue with this.

It's hard to add much more to it as well.

[tegemu]

I think along the lines of the Florida law. If someone is about to kill me or someone else or to commit serious harm, and has the capability, or is about to commit a forcible felony. I will shoot.

[threegun]

Here's something else to ponder.

Odds and stats for those who decide to fight I would argue are skewed as well. I don't know many folks with the skill of say Mr. Lurper getting into gunfights. Heck I am far better with a firearms than most folks and have never been in a gunfight. In fact most of the gunfight folks that I know (including customers) have little skill and no tactical training. Oh and all survived and most won.

Since the vast majority of armed citizens have little or no training the stats are skewed to the negative for folks involved in a shootout.

[David Armstrong]

The problem is that they aren't really facts, they are statistics.
Ummm, I'm not following you. Statistics ARE facts (assuming one is following the basic rules of the game).
The key element that cannot be factored in is the human element.
Sure it can, and you do it all the time with other events. Why should a criminal event be any different? Again, just because you can't do it with 100% accuracy doesn't mean it is useless.
Even though many therapists want to say that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, that is not true.
I think you are confusing a "best indicator" with an "absolute predictor."
As it applies to this topic, that means just because the BG didn't kill/injure his last victim bears no relevance to what he will do this time.
I'm sorry, but that is just not correct. Again, it may not be the only factor, and it may not be accurate 100% of the time, but it does have some relevance. Who do you think is most likely to kill you, the robber who has shot 9 of his last 10 victims or the robber who has never harmed anybody in his 10?
Therefore, since it may be my last stand, I will decide what action I take.
I agree. I just think the decision should be based on an accurate understanding of as much information as possible.
Sure, it applies in a broad sense and a sociologist or criminalist may be able to predict what is LIKELY to happen with reasonable certainty, but they cannot predict what WILL happen with any degree of certainty.
So, would you rather base your decision on what is LIKELY to happen with a reasonable degree of certainty, or on some stuff you just make up without anything to support it?
As opposed to the mindset that: "statistically in 80% of the cases, no one is hurt, so I should just passively let him have his way with me and begone?"
I'm not aware that anyone has suggested any such behavior, so it is somewhat deceptive to present it that way.
A more realistic mindset would be: "If I am presented with the opportunity to escape, I will take it. When that option is removed, I will fight with every fiber of my being and will not give up until I have taken my last breath."
How about the option "I will do everything I reasonable can to reduce the potential for damage to me and my loved ones" as a realistic mindset? If that invovles fighting, great, go to it, but there are other options to be considered.
Would you rather someone see themselves as a victim?
No, I would rather someone understand the realities and likelihoods of their actions and make an informed choice based on that.

[BillCA]

Wow... talk about over analyzing things!


Defensive gun use (DGU) incidents require a threat the life or limb. The guy with a gun threatens to kill or maim to get what he wants.
In an incident, I don't know the history of this gene-tampered turkey with a weapon. He may not be in that 4% or kills his victims. I do know that he's threatening my life or the lives of others right now!
When at gunpoint, you must presume the BG will use the gun. That's his force, his threat. Sure, if you draw your odds of survival may be low. But low odds are significantly better than zero odds.
To completely capitulate and do nothing means leaving the decision whether you live or die up to the BG. He's already shown poor decision-making skills (otherwise he wouldn't be robbing you) and he may not have any mercy or empathy in his soul. This is not the kind of person I want deciding my future!
Countless beatings, homicides and rapes have occurred as the result of a robbery that started off with a simple demand for money. Because the incident does not start with wanton violence does not mean it will end the same way.
Armed robbery is a threat to my life. I can get more money. I can get new credit cards and ID. I can buy a new iPod or cell phone. But my life is mine and I cannot replace it. Threatening to take life itself is the worst of all crimes. If he's willing to do that, through his threats then I am under no obiligation to believe he's suddenly overcome with truthfulness when he says gimme the money and you won't get hurt.
Talk about odds or statistical probabilities or psychological profiles all you want. When it comes down to it, someone is putting you or others in danger. It is their actions, facial expressions, body language and words that will be the most important factors in deciding if/when to employ lethal force.


I'm not advocating that you engage in every circumstance but to rely on some statistical probability when you don't know all the factors may also get you killed. It may be that 96% of robberies end without injuries, but how do you know if the one you're involved in is the 97th one today?

[45Marlin carbine]

would be interesting to see the response of the people that have been murdered if they could give an answer to the question and add to it 'if you had been armed'

[Lurper]

Ummm, I'm not following you. Statistics ARE facts (assuming one is following the basic rules of the game).
They are not hard facts in that you cannot reach into the universe, pull out one sample and say what the outcome will be. You can only say that if he falls within the standard deviation, he is x% likely to do X. You don't know how many points away from the mean in either direction (which changes the odds) or even if he is a statistical outlyer. Also, you (as a victim) usually have no way of knowing his past behavior, so you cannot even begin to extrapolate where he falls in the sample. So while academically that "knowledge" may be useful, from a practical standpoint it is not (as is so often the case). Additionally, with any given sample each incident involves millions of new variables that weren't involved in the last incident which makes each incident virtually unique. Was the victim a male or female? Was he more or less passive than this one? Was the last one armed? Did he/she resist in any way? Was the BG high last time or this time? Was the sun shining in his eyes? Did he get laid last night? All of these factors can have an effect on the outcome. I don't think that in a one on one single incident basis anyone has the luxury of relying on these statistics. There are plenty of cases of BGs escalating the level of violence as their crime careers progress and you have no way of knowing if this is the time when he chooses to cross the line from robbery to homicide. It's sort of like what they say about home land security: we only have to be wrong once to have devastating consequences.

[threegun]

would be interesting to see the response of the people that have been murdered if they could give an answer to the question and add to it 'if you had been armed'

One thing is for sure.....they would crap all over statistics!

I would rather rely on my abilities with a defensive firearm for survival than some badguys decision. I believe thats why we carry isn't it.

It's sort of like what they say about home land security: we only have to be wrong once to have devastating consequences.

Precisely my point. If I am wrong I die.........without a chance to fight. If I am wrong in choosing to initiate a shootout and die...........at least I had a fighting chance and no one can predict if I would have lived had I not acted.

So am I to pass on a golden opportunity to end a threat if said threat hasn't displayed physical violence yet? I don't think so.

I can tell you this. When trouble happens you ain't gonna have time for stats. If I would have pondered the stats before addressing the threat when it almost happened to me I would have gone from even in the reactionary curve to behind in a literal flash.

[LadySmith]

I would not rely on the mercy of an armed felon. Compliance and a close call...

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070911/NEWS01/709110333/1321/NEWS

Burglar killed; homeowner hurt
Frank X. Mullen (FMULLEN@RGJ.COM)
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
September 11, 2007
A Reno man was wounded as he disarmed a burglar in his home and fatally shot the intruder Monday afternoon, police said.
Reno police Sgt. Ray Leal said a resident in the 400 block of Brittany Avenue was confronted by the gunman when he arrived at home about
1:35 p.m. The burglar, a 43-year-old Reno man whose name was withheld, ordered the resident to crawl to the bathroom at the end of the hall and remain there while he resumed the burglary.
After a short time, the burglar placed a gun to the resident's head. The man told police he believed he was about to be shot and turned his head as the gun discharged.
He then jumped to his feet and struggled with the suspect for the gun, sustaining two gunshots to his upper body, but managed to wrestle the gun from the intruder and shoot him.
The resident was treated at Renown Regional Medical Center for non-life-threatening injuries.
"I don't believe the two men knew each other," Leal said at the scene.
Detectives can be reached at 334-2115 or Secret Witness at 322-4900.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Again, this thread is going nowhere. Same old blather based on a refusal to understand the basic issue in favor of heroic posturing.

[Groundhog]

Maybe we like blather! Ever think of that? Huh?! HUH!?

[pax]

To some people control is more important than life itself.

I've been watching this thread for a few days and this comment kept niggling at me.

I think it bothered me mostly because it sure seems to me that in some situations, control actually is more important than life itself.

For instance, if there is no doubt at all that you are going to get killed in the end, would you rather


die quickly and relatively painlessly? or
die slowly, in agony, while being tortured and watching your entire family be killed just as slowly and just as painfully?


Given those two options, and only those two, which one would you choose? (I'd take card #1 myself; in such a simple case, being able to control the manner of my death would be more important to me than living.)

Of course, life isn't so simple. The BTK killer, for instance, never told people that the above was the choice they were making when they decided whether or not to cooperate with him. Instead, he told them that if they cooperated, they wouldn't get killed. Or that, if they cooperated, he would let their loved ones go. His victims usually believed they had a choice between


cooperating, staying alive, and saving their loved ones' lives too, or
not cooperating, and getting killed, plus having their loved ones die.


Given a choice between those two options, anyone in their right mind would cooperate.

But guess what? Psychopaths lie. That's what they do. They are generally really good at lying. The actual choice the BTK killer was offering was a bit more bleak. His victims actually had a choice between


fighting to escape, and maybe getting killed quickly, or
not fighting to escape, and definitely getting killed slowly and painfully while watching everyone they loved get killed just as slowly and just as painfully.


Cooperating and surviving was not among the cards BTK put in play.

So the question becomes, how do you know whether you are making a deal with an ordinary, decent criminal or whether you are talking to a twisted, violent psychopath with a sadistic streak?

Answer: you don't. Psychopaths are good at lying. Remember that. There are no guarantees.

If you know the odds, you have a slight advantage when you choose your course of action -- simply because you are more likely to know what realistic possibilities are actually among the cards in play.

For example, if the assailant wants to shove you into his car and take you to the place experts call "Crime Scene #2", you can take it pretty well as a given that you are going to die anyway so you might as well fight back right here and now. No matter how bad your immediate odds appear to be, they aren't going to get any better once he gets you inside his vehicle and away from potential witnesses. Offered the choice between getting in the car or not getting in the car, your actual choice is between getting shot right there with potential witnesses around, or dying a slow death by torture in the woods somewhere. Knowing the odds of survival if you cooperate also lets you know which cards are in play.

As Glenn pointed out, bank robberies traditionally create a fairly low risk of bystanders getting killed. Normally, bank robbers just want to grab and go. So you can probably gamble on cooperation in such a circumstance ... unless the criminal(s) begin tying people up, or shepherding them one by one into a back room, or ratcheting up the violence in some other way. The odds change as soon as the criminals begin putting cards on the table.

However. Keep in mind that in cooperating, you are rarely facing the simple possibilities of


cooperate and live or
fight and die.


It isn't quite that simple. Instead, you are actually gambling between


cooperate and live without injury
cooperate and live with crippling injury
cooperate and get killed quickly
cooperate and get killed slowly, painfully, horribly
fight and live without injury
fight and live with crippling injury
fight and die from a bullet (which is usually a relatively quick death).


Put each of those outcomes on a set of cards and shuffle the deck randomly. Pick a card ...

Which outcome happens once you cooperate is utterly outside of your control.

But if you decide to fight back, you can significantly improve your odds of a good outcome by getting training in both shooting skills and defensive tactics. If you absolutely must fight back, fighting back skillfully creates far better odds than fighting back clumsily.

Get training. Be realistic about your skill level. And be smart enough to know which cards are actually in play and which cards are simply not available.

pax

[Lurper]

Amen Pax!!!
I would only add that for me: I know what I will and can do. I cannot know what the BG can and will do. Therefore I will do what I can based on the situation. No matter what the outcome, I will know that I made the choice and that I decided whether to take a stand or not. I refuse to let someone make that choice for me. If that means control is more important than life, so be it.
Glenn, some of us have BTDT and it has nothing to do with posturing.

[threegun]

Heroic posturing? Failure to understand the issue? Glenn we understand the issue buddy. It isn't rocket science to understand what odds and probabilities are. We are willing to accept the statistical increase in danger. You may not be and thats your business. It isn't heroic posturing its a "going down fighting" mentality. Just don't come on here making it look like those who disagree with you are issue dumb.

[David Armstrong]

Wow... talk about over analyzing things!
Well, I question if it is possible to overanalyze life and death issues with multiple variables, but you don't actually have to do a lot of analysis. It is pretty simple, IMO. If the BG has not already severely harmed you, the odds are that he will not do so given normal situations. If you start shooting at him, however, there is a 100% chance that you will be involved in a gunfight.
When at gunpoint, you must presume the BG will use the gun.
No, not any more than that you must presume he will not use the gun. Again, the odds are that the latter presumption is the more likely, but that is only part of the equation.
To completely capitulate and do nothing means leaving the decision whether you live or die up to the BG.
Agreed, which is why nobody, AFAIK, has suggested you should completely capitualte and do nothing. Thus, I must wonder why so many people in the "shoot the BG" group keep bringing it up.
Countless beatings, homicides and rapes have occurred as the result of a robbery that started off with a simple demand for money.
And countless more robberies have been completed without any physical harm to the victim.
It is their actions, facial expressions, body language and words that will be the most important factors in deciding if/when to employ lethal force.
Agreed again, but that does not mean one should disregard any or all other bits of information that can be of importance to the decision.

[David Armstrong]

They are not hard facts in that you cannot reach into the universe, pull out one sample and say what the outcome will be. You can only say that if he falls within the standard deviation, he is x% likely to do X.
That has nothing to do with whether or not they are facts. Statistics ARE facts, but like all facts you cannot use them for anything you want. You have to use the facts within their appropriate sphere.
So while academically that "knowledge" may be useful, from a practical standpoint it is not (as is so often the case).
We'll have to disagree. It is quite practical. It seems you are arguing that if we cannot identify which driver is intoxicated at any given time we should treat all drivers as if they are intoxicated at all times. I may be misunderstanding the point, and if so apologies in advance.
Additionally, with any given sample each incident involves millions of new variables that weren't involved in the last incident which makes each incident virtually unique.
Sorry, but that is somewhat irrelevant. All incidents are virtually unique. But it is all those unique incidents that provide us with the data to describe most incidents. And many of those unique elements have little bearing on the issue at hand. SOme BGs carry revolvers, some carry autos. But they come together into a grouping of "carrying a gun." Unless there is some difference in use patterns, the type of gun doesn't matter much.
I don't think that in a one on one single incident basis anyone has the luxury of relying on these statistics.
Then I tend to ask what will you rely on? If you are making decisions you have to rely on something. Wouldn't be nice to rely on accurate, factual information that has some relevance to the problem at hand?
It's sort of like what they say about home land security: we only have to be wrong once to have devastating consequences.
So, staying in that same context, we should never allow any airplanes to fly in the U.S. again? Or should we take as much information as we can get to decide what to do?

[David Armstrong]

I would not rely on the mercy of an armed felon.
As mentioned, I'm no t aware of anybody suggesting any such thing, any more than I would rely on iloated news stories to determine the likelihood of things happening.

[Justme]

It's really hard for people to face reality. Many people endow guns with mythical powers and then have a hard time when faced with the fact that they are just tools, and as tools the most important factor is who is using that tool.

A gun does not grant omnipotence and there are situations where use of a gun will cause more harm than good. In fact, and the statistics bear this out, there are more situations where using a gun will make the situation worse than there are situations where gun use will make the situation better. If you know and utilise this information you will have better outcomes, if you ignore this data and think your gun has mystical powers and is the right answer to every question you will have worse outcomes.

Furthermore I think the "death before dishonor" crowd are mentally ill and need help. It can be argued that pain and torture leading up to death is worse than death, but loss of honor being worse than death is just warped, not least of all because honor is impossible to define, with any definition relying greatly on circumstances and culture.

[David Armstrong]

So the question becomes, how do you know whether you are making a deal with an ordinary, decent criminal or whether you are talking to a twisted, violent psychopath with a sadistic streak?
FWIW, that can be asked about anybody, not just criminals. So, should you treat everone as if they were violent psychopaths? Or do you rely on the fact that true psycopaths are quite rare, even in the criminal world?
If you know the odds, you have a slight advantage when you choose your course of action -- simply because you are more likely to know what realistic possibilities are actually among the cards in play.
Great summation of the issue, which many keep missing. Nothing is guaranteed, but you get closer to the guarantee by knowing what the odds are.

[Creature]

A gun does not grant omnipotence and there are situations where use of a gun will cause more harm than good. In fact, and the statistics bear this out, there are more situations where using a gun will make the situation worse than there are situations where gun use will make the situation better. If you know and utilize this information you will have better outcomes, if you ignore this data and think your gun has mystical powers and is the right answer to every question you will have worse outcomes.

+1.
Very eloquently stated.

[threegun]

A gun does not grant omnipotence and there are situations where use of a gun will cause more harm than good. In fact, and the statistics bear this out, there are more situations where using a gun will make the situation worse than there are situations where gun use will make the situation better. If you know and utilize this information you will have better outcomes, if you ignore this data and think your gun has mystical powers and is the right answer to every question you will have worse outcomes.

Justme, Then why carry at all? For the extremely rare occassion in which a gun betters your odds?

[Lurper]

It's really hard for people to face reality. Many people endow guns with mythical powers and then have a hard time when faced with the fact that they are just tools, and as tools the most important factor is who is using that tool.

If you really believe that it is who is using that tool, why do you insist that everyone use it in the same situation you would the same way you would and condemn those who wouldn't?

A gun does not grant omnipotence and there are situations where use of a gun will cause more harm than good. In fact, and the statistics bear this out, there are more situations where using a gun will make the situation worse than there are situations where gun use will make the situation better. If you know and utilise this information you will have better outcomes, if you ignore this data and think your gun has mystical powers and is the right answer to every question you will have worse outcomes.

I'd like to see the data that supports these contentions. Perhaps you could cite said statistics.


We'll have to disagree. It is quite practical. It seems you are arguing that if we cannot identify which driver is intoxicated at any given time we should treat all drivers as if they are intoxicated at all times. I may be misunderstanding the point, and if so apologies in advance.
A better analogy would be that we need to treat all dui drivers like extreme dui's because we cannot tell how inebriated they are. Again, I have no way of knowing where my assailant falls in the sample. One can argue that I have 70% chance of being robbed and surviving without violence, but does that mean if I am in that 30% and he kills me that I am less than 100% dead?

Sorry, but that is somewhat irrelevant. All incidents are virtually unique.
Which is my point. It's easy to say that it's irrelevant when you are not the one involved in the incident. I would argue that the stakes are much higher when it is you involved. Again, there is no way to now the likelihood of the actions taken by your assailant without knowing his past patterns. Therefore, the most applicable information is situational. The only information that is totally relevant is the information you gather at the time the incident happens.

So, staying in that same context, we should never allow any airplanes to fly in the U.S. again? Or should we take as much information as we can get to decide what to do?
No, what we should do is take action to down a hijacked plane in spite of the fact that most hijackings end without violence.

[Lurper]

I just happened to run across this this very afternoon:

Based on nationally representative samples of crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Surveys, victims who use guns for self-protection were less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all. For example, among robbery victims who used guns, only 17% were injured and only 31% lost property, compared to 25% inury rates and 88% property loss rates among victims who did not resist at all, and 33% injury rates and 65% property loss rates among all robbery victims.

Excerpted from Gun and Self Defense By Gary Kleck Ph.D

[Justme]

Yes Lurper, those stats support the theory that there are indeed situations where a gun is a valuable self defense tool. My point is that sometimes it makes sense to use a gun and sometimes it makes sense to keep it in your pocket, that should not be a controversial statement. The tricky bit is knowing when to draw your weapon and when to leave it in your pocket, or for those who don't own a seecamp or keltec yet in your holster.

The most valuable self defense tool you have is between your ears,. use that first. That's all I'm really saying

[Cremon]

drawing your weapon commits you to using lethal force

Absolutely!

[Cremon]

So the question becomes, how do you know whether you are making a deal with an ordinary, decent criminal or whether you are talking to a twisted, violent psychopath with a sadistic streak?

If he pulls a weapon on me, he is now the most twisted SOB since Jeffrey Dahmer or (fictitious) Hannibal Lector. This guy has just decided my life is worth at MOST whatever I have on me and whether he knows it or not - he just bet his OWN life when he made his final decision to go through with the robbery. Whether or not he gets a chance to retract that bet depends on what happens in that period of time between when he first makes me go to condition red and when I get the opportunity to draw my 4516.

[threegun]

My point is that sometimes it makes sense to use a gun and sometimes it makes sense to keep it in your pocket, that should not be a controversial statement. The tricky bit is knowing when to draw your weapon and when to leave it in your pocket,

All we are saying is let the situation tell you what to do not the odds makers.

[Justme]

When you let the situation evolve and decide what to do based on the details, you are letting the odds, as you know them from past experiences, inform your decision making and ultimately your actions.

The problem is that you might take anecdotal evidence from gun sites like this and apply that instead of applying reality. A person who spends very much time on here could get a wild west or combat zone mentality that is actually very dangerous to have in the real world, since it is based on the paranoid comments of a few people rather than collected facts from the real world.

And make no mistake, the same "control issues" that propel us to spend time getting a CCW permit and concern ourselves with handgun purchases come into play. All I'm saying is to be aware that we have those control issues and don't let them lure us into making foolish decisions.

On a side note, "control issues" really do affect people's lives. Upper middle class white women are perhaps most affected, the theory being that they are used to being in control. In the study of assisted suicide I did upper middle class white women are the group most likely to take end of life matters into their own hands. They are used to being in charge and would rather end their lives on their own terms than wait for health concerns to follow their own course. I think this is the same mentality that would perhaps cause a CCW gun owner to take his chances in a firefight when perhaps it would be wiser to let things unfold on their own.

[threegun]

Justme, For me it is a "I just don't know for sure" thing.

Try this scenario. You are in a room with 3 exit doors. One is locked. Of the other two doors a single bad guy awaits on the other side of one door to shoot it out with you. You can get a key for the locked exit door by pulling the trigger on a 6 shot revolver loaded with one round (Russian Roulette style) while the muzzle is point at your stomach. You can also choose to exit one of the other 2 exit doors.

What do you do and why?

[Lurper]

When you let the situation evolve and decide what to do based on the details, you are letting the odds, as you know them from past experiences, inform your decision making and ultimately your actions.
Absolutely not! When you let the situation evolve, you are making a judgement call based on what you can see, hear, feel and smell AT THAT MOMENT. To let the odds be the sole factor you consider before acting is folly. Sure, you can say that most of the time robberies end w/o violence, but you don't know if your assailant falls into the majority (non-violent) or minority (violent) or transition (from or to violent/non-violent) group and you have no way of ever knowing.

The problem is that you might take anecdotal evidence from gun sites like this and apply that instead of applying reality. A person who spends very much time on here could get a wild west or combat zone mentality that is actually very dangerous to have in the real world, since it is based on the paranoid comments of a few people rather than collected facts from the real world.
You mean "anecdotal" evidence like that from Kleck I cited earlier? In the "real" world, people die. Robbers kill and injure people everyday, regardless of how good or bad someone is, race, religion or gender. That is the real world. When you are robbed, you have two basic choices; comply or resist. You may choose either one, but that choice should be based on what is in front of you at that moment, not some set of statistics from a study put together by some organization who doesn't have a gun pointed at thier heads.

Calling this a "wild west or combat zone metality" is way over the top. By the same token, you could say those who choose to stand their ground in their home rather than retreat (especially a woman) possess the same mentality. Which is pure hogwash of course. As far as the real world goes, some of us do this for a living and have BTDT and while our opinions may differ, those opinions are based on something other than what I hear other people say or read on a forum without checking it out. So to imply that those comments are paranoid ramblings not based on fact is a bit inaccurate and insulting.

[Lurper]

Quote:
drawing your weapon commits you to using lethal force

Absolutely!
What?!?!?!?! Are you trying to say that if I draw my weapon I have to shoot? :eek: I'd like to see the rationale for that.

[Justme]

You should never ever draw your gun until you believe that the situation calls for lethal force. Some people disagree with this attitude, I think they are wrong. If I draw a weapon I will shoot, if I shoot I will shoot to stop the threat( as opposed to shooting to kill, in a legal sense the killing is accidental and collateral to the act of stopping the threat).

If you draw a weapon with some misguided mindset that the mere presence of a gun will make all your dreams come true...well I think you are wrong.

[Lurper]

If you draw a weapon with some misguided mindset that the mere presence of a gun will make all your dreams come true...well I think you are wrong.
This in spite of the fact that in only a few thousand of the 2.5 million estimated annual DUG incidents, shots are fired. Seems like statistically the odds overwhelmingly suggest that just producing (or mentioning) you have a gun will end the confrontation. Aren't you going to use those statistics to base your decision when to draw on?

How about the idea that it is smarter to have the gun in your hand when you need it as opposed to having to draw first. You know, like Dennis Tueller demonstrated with his exercise?

[threegun]

If I draw a weapon I will shoot, if I shoot I will shoot to stop the threat

How about a bad guy capitulating at the sight of your weapon? You pulled your gun and he instantly dropped his. What about 3 or 4 men threatening you but unarmed? If they attack you are justified however they stop and run when you pull.

Pulling and shooting in the above scenarios might get you indicted.

[Cremon]

What?!?!?!?! Are you trying to say that if I draw my weapon I have to shoot?

Lurper, when you draw your weapon, you are crossing a line. You do not have to shoot whenever you draw. But EVERY time you draw, you have to be aware that you might have to shoot it, yes!! When you draw your weapon, you mentally make a commitment that you are going to shoot if you have to. You have crossed the line - your gun is now visible. If you do NOT make that commitment to yourself, you will probably be face down on the pavement by the end of the encounter.

Don't EVER draw a weapon without being prepared to use it. It is stark foolishness to believe that merely flashing a gun will make a BG run away. That is an inherently DANGEROUS attitude to have. When you draw your weapon, you have just made a very big decision and you are now betting your life whether you are consciously aware of that or not at the time you do it.

As experts like Massad Ayoub have said - when you make the decision to draw your weapon, the entire situation should be resolved in 3 seconds or less. Even police will tell you they are always mentally prepared to shoot when they draw. If you draw a gun thinking to threaten only, you're not giving your bet (stakes=your life) good odds to win on.

[Justme]

I don't know threegun. If I draw my gun it is because I feel my life is in immediate danger. I know it's not impossible that the BG might see me draw a gun and drop to the floor with his hands out, but it doesn't seem a likely scenario. I practice drawing, racking the slide and firing in one smooth move, it happens very fast, not enough time, I hope, for the BG to make any move one way or another, that's the point.

Depending on circumstances I might give the BG time to escape before I draw. I might say something like I am armed and prepared to fire, get out now.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Why does one have to rack the slide when ones draws?

Just gets better and better. Now we start the Israeli carry debate. :D

[cryption]

In texas, it is your responsablity as a civilian to stop the comission of a felony by any means necessary, including the use of deadly force. If you see a felony beign comitted, try and place them under citizen's arrest (a great help to us LEOs) or shoot if necessary. It isn't attempted homicide if you shoot below the waist.

[David Armstrong]

In texas, it is your responsablity as a civilian to stop the comission of a felony by any means necessary, including the use of deadly force. If you see a felony beign comitted, try and place them under citizen's arrest (a great help to us LEOs) or shoot if necessary. It isn't attempted homicide if you shoot below the waist.
As I have to mention every now and then, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. There is so much wrong with that it is hard to figure out where to start. There is NO responsibility as a civilian to stop a felony, much less by any means necessary. In fact, using deadly force to stop many felonies is prohibited. Putting people under citizens arrest, a rather iffy proposition, is not a great help to LE in most incidents, and shooting a person ANYWHERE is generally considered to be an attempted homicide.

[Lurper]

You're talking apples and oranges there is a huge difference between saying "when I draw my gun I will use deadly force" and "when I draw my gun I will be prepared to use deadly force."

It is stark foolishness to believe that merely flashing a gun will make a BG run away.
It is not "stark foolishness". As has been shown countless times, in the vast majority of DUG incidents just the presence of a gun ends the encounter. Also, usually you will be in a more tactically sound position if you already have your gun in your hand, not in the holster.


In texas, it is your responsablity as a civilian to stop the comission of a felony by any means necessary, including the use of deadly force. If you see a felony beign comitted, try and place them under citizen's arrest (a great help to us LEOs) or shoot if necessary. It isn't attempted homicide if you shoot below the waist.

There is just SO much wrong with that statement. I don't believe that any state requires you to stop the commission of a felony. Some allow you to, some also say that you may use lethal force to stop certain felonies, but none require you to intervene or place someone under citizen's arrest. The last sentence is so absurd that I won't even bother to address it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

DGU, not DUG - sorry, Lurper - comes from grading exams.

[Cremon]

It is not "stark foolishness".

Oh yes it is! If you draw your gun and you aren't ready to use it, you are a daredevil living on a lunatic fringe. When you pull out that smoke stick, you are taking a HUGE gamble. If you aren't mentally committed to shooting in advance, the split second you think you need to shoot, most people will hesitate. Pulling a gun out merely as a show of force is stupid, and even police will arrest you for doing something like that. It is illegal to pull out a gun in a situation where your life is not immediately at risk and they CAN charge you with assault if you do it in public.

If you're a gun flasher, you better HOPE like hell he falls for your bluff. Because if he doesn't, you are dead. Period.

The Armed Citizen Solution - a professional guide to concealed weapon carrying priveded by the US Concealed Weapon Carry association - speaks volumes about the legality and suicidal dangers of gun flashing.

[Lurper]

NP Glenn, it comes from dyslexic typing. lol

[Lurper]

If you draw your gun and you aren't ready to use it, you are a daredevil living on a lunatic fringe.
You really should read what I wrote again. You are missing the point entirely.
Let me back up a bit so that you can get a better look at the entire picture.
Drawing your weapon when you feel your life is threatened and not firing it is perfectly legal. There is nothing wrong with it, nor is it illegal. Needlessly displaying a firearm is. Saying that "drawing your weapon commits you to using lethal force" is akin to saying "if you draw your weapon, you must use it" (about every other class, there is a student who asks that very question). That is absolutely untrue. Moreover, having that mindset may cause some people to either hesistate drawing their weapon or think that they have to wait until the last possible second. Neither is true and both can be fatal. I think we can all agree that starting the confrontation with your gun in your hand is better than starting with it in your holster. As fast as I am, I would still rather have my gun in hand than in holster.

Secondly, of the estimated 2.5 million DGU (better Glenn?) incidents annually, only between 20,000 and 80,000 (depending on whose figures you use) involve shots being fired. In the rest of the incidents (which I think we can all agree is the vast majority), the mere presence or mention of a firearm ends the confrontation. So, it is not stupid, nor illegal, unwise or necessarily a bluff provided the basic criteria of threat of death or serious bodily injury is present.

[David Armstrong]

A better analogy would be that we need to treat all dui drivers like extreme dui's because we cannot tell how inebriated they are. Again, I have no way of knowing where my assailant falls in the sample.
Well, once again we have an impasse. All drivers are not dui drivers, any more than all criminals are killers. You should not lump either together, particularly when your conclusion is likely to be wrong. There are many ways of knowing how inebriated a driver is, and one can predict with a fair amount of certainty what percentage of drivers will be intoxicated, how intoxicated they will be, etc. Thus you might look at the driving experience differently based on driving at 2:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
Which is my point. It's easy to say that it's irrelevant when you are not the one involved in the incident.
Sorry, but I think you miss the point. What is irrelevant is looking at each element of each crime as a unique factor to be considered. All incidents are unique, but looking at unique incidents in aggregate gives one a pretty good idea of how the incidents will play out. thus the idea that each event is unique is irrelevant.
Again, there is no way to now the likelihood of the actions taken by your assailant without knowing his past patterns.
Sure there is. You know what he is doing now, and that helps you determine what actions are likely to be taken. When a driver turns on the left turn signal, it indicates a strong likelihood they are going to turn left. Sure, they might not do so, sure they might not have done so in the past, but it is fair to assume they are going to do so now. If your assailant is demanding your billfold, it is likely he is not going to rape you.
The only information that is totally relevant is the information you gather at the time the incident happens.
Sigh, that is just wrong, and in no other endeavor would such an idea even be considered. You are in essence arguing that, as an example, each NASCAR race is unique therefore past records of events, drivers, and so on are not relevant to discussing the likely outcome of the race.
No, what we should do is take action to down a hijacked plane in spite of the fact that most hijackings end without violence.
That might be a nice idea, but it has nothing to do with the question asked, as you may not know if a plane has been hijacked or not.
Based on nationally representative samples of crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Surveys, victims who use guns for self-protection were less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all. For example, among robbery victims who used guns, only 17% were injured and only 31% lost property, compared to 25% inury rates and 88% property loss rates among victims who did not resist at all, and 33% injury rates and 65% property loss rates among all robbery victims.

As happens so often, knowing the story behind the numbers can be important. The NCVS findings look good, but as it turns out the reason we see such success is that the victims tended to fight back only when the criminal was not comparably armed, so we don't really see an appropriate comparison to what we are discussing, IMO. Also of importance in that same study is the fact that victims who used guns to defend themselves only hit the BG 3% of the time, and in only 2% of the violent crimes did the BG fire his gun. Those times they did fire the gun were almost exclusively as a response to something the victim did that threatened them, which tends to show that the basic premise of "if not hurt initially you won't get hurt" is a pretty safe bet.

[David Armstrong]

It is stark foolishness to believe that merely flashing a gun will make a BG run away.
No, it is actually a pretty good bet. Again, understanding the facts can make a lot of difference. However, it is sort of funny to see Lurper commenting ' "It is not "stark foolishness". As has been shown countless times, in the vast majority of DUG incidents just the presence of a gun ends the encounter. ' thus defending one statement with the same type of support he is arguing is irrelevant in another post!:confused:

The Armed Citizen Solution - a professional guide to concealed weapon carrying priveded by the US Concealed Weapon Carry association - speaks volumes about the legality and suicidal dangers of gun flashing.
A dubious guide by dubious professionals offering dubious (and sometimes obviously erroneous) advice. Not a source I'd put a whole lot of faith in, IMO.
Pulling a gun out merely as a show of force is stupid, and even police will arrest you for doing something like that.
I don't see where anyone has suggested doing that. Yes, you don't pull a gun just as a display of force, but pulling it in no way obligates you to use it. One can make that show of force as part of an acceptable overall use of force decision without any trouble.

[Cremon]

You really should read what I wrote again. You are missing the point entirely.

Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here? You started it.

[Cremon]

No, it is actually a pretty good bet.

What, betting your life on gun flashing? Better YOU than ME. I won't make that gamble with MY life. I don't know about you, but I have a family that needs me. I don't play games with a responsibility like that. When I draw my gun, I am ready to use it. There's no bluffing from this cowboy.

A dubious guide by dubious professionals offering dubious (and sometimes obviously erroneous) advice. Not a source I'd put a whole lot of faith in, IMO.

Glad you qualified that with the IMO at the end. That is YOUR opinion. A lot of tactical training instructors endorse the principles they teach on that site for survival and with dealing with the legal ramifications after.

Your gun flashing might work sometimes. But counting on it every time is insane. There is no such thing as a Russian Roulette champion.

[threegun]

Justme,

I once had to draw my weapon on a customer who I believed was about to rob the shop where I work. As this bad guy began to reach into his trench coat in the area normally associate with a shoulder holster I decided to respond. As I began my draw pistol I noticed that the bad guy was pulling a gun from his coat. As I climbed his body with my front sight and began to depress the trigger (on my Glock) I realized that the pistol he was pulling was in fact a bb gun. In the span of 1/2 second (my draw speed back then) I was able to both note the type of gun (it was really big at that moment LOL) and stop from pulling the rest of the trigger. My point is you have time. I would have been justified as this dim bulb actually pointed the bb gun at my partner. He was trying to scare my partner. Thankfully I was able to stop and reholster my gun.

[Justme]

I would like to think I could stop if the situation changed, I am not at all sure I would be able to. I once crushed a guy's windpipe in a bar(an NCO club in England actually) because he insulted my then wife, to this day I don't remember making any concious decision, but my hand snapped up and I grabbed the guys throat. That is why I do not draw until I deem that the situation calls for firing, I'm not sure where my mental processes stop and muscle memory takes over. It's one thing to strangle a guy who probably deserved it(in all fairness my first wife was a whore so...), quite another to shoot someone.

[threegun]

Blinded by anger isn't the same as reacting to a life and death threat. I didn't have time for emotions until it was over.

[Justme]

Fear is an emotion too, just as strong as anger I would suspect. Like I said, I would like to think I could stop myself, but who knows. I have had car accidents from reacting too slowly to something like a person in front of me stopping suddenly. I had enough time to stop but my brain just couldn't believe that the nimrod in front of me actually slammed on the brakes.

Anyway, my point is that when I draw it is with every intent to shoot, therefore I don't draw until I have made the decision to also pull the trigger. While I would make every attempt to stop myself if the situation changed during my draw, I am not at all sure I would be able to.

I wonder if this is a case where less practice is actually better? If you practice drawing and firing often enough that it becomes second nature do you also increase the chance that you wouldn't be able to stop yourself firing if you register something amiss?

There are enough stories about cops who accidently shot kids with squirt guns and bbguns and such to make me worry that an inexperienced person like myself could easily make such a mistake.

[pax]

If you practice drawing and firing often enough that it becomes second nature do you also increase the chance that you wouldn't be able to stop yourself firing if you register something amiss?


Yes, you do.

But that doesn't mean less practice is better! It means you need more practice than you believe, and it means you have to actually think when you practice.

Any responsible training program incorporates "Shoot/Don't Shoot" decision-making as part of the training material. In addition to regularly practice draw and fires just as quickly as you can go, it is also a good idea to regularly practice drawing to low ready, assessing the situation, and then raising the gun to fire quickly only if the situation demands (you can have a friend give you a "shoot" or "don't shoot" verbalization to simulate this).

Similarly, most professional firearms instructors suggest students do not practice a simple Tap-Rack-Bang as the immediate action drill, instead using Tap-Rack-(assess and)-Bang -- with the part in parentheses being a very, very quick assessment of the target to see if it still needs to be shot (and it takes place while you are tapping and racking, so to an observer it looks about the same ... but don't leave that assessment out because the situation can change radically in just that split second it takes to clear a jam).

It is very irresponsible to tell people that they must fire every time they touch their holstered gun. This is simplistic and easy to train and completely incongruent with reality. In reality: you'd better not draw unless you are emotionally and legally prepared to shoot if it becomes necessary. When you draw, you must be able to articulate, in a court of law, why you felt it was necessary to draw the gun. And if you shoot, you must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger.

All of this is far more complex than most folks are prepared to accept, which is why conversations like this so often devolve into mere sloganeering. KISS, right? But ... it ain't simple, and you ain't stupid.

pax

The most dangerous untruths are the truths moderately distorted. -- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

[Lurper]

Anyway, my point is that when I draw it is with every intent to shoot, therefore I don't draw until I have made the decision to also pull the trigger. While I would make every attempt to stop myself if the situation changed during my draw, I am not at all sure I would be able to.
Some of you are really missing this point. If someone is kicking down your front door, are you going to keep your pistol holstered until they break through? You need to understand that drawing and firing are two seperate actions. If you think of and practice them as one, they will be. There have been a couple of times when I have had the sights aligned on someone (finger off the trigger even in SD situations) and they have decided to stop the confrontation. There have been times where I have drawn and not fired. Thinking that if you draw you must fire or thinking of them as one and the same is poor training.

Again, it is much faster and smarter to have the gun in your hand when the confrontation starts if possible.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A logical conundrum occurs to me with the door scenario. What if there is a threat and you don't have a holstered handgun?

You have a long arm. Are you compelled to shoot if you pick it up and look for the target? It's not holstered.

BTW, if you really crush a windpipe, do you kill someone and go to jail for it as it is inappropriate for an insult?

In TX, if you respond with force for an insult, it is not taken kindly to by the law.

Still waiting on racking the slide on the draw - such a trouble maker, I'm!

[Lurper]

A lot of tactical training instructors endorse the principles they teach on that site for survival and with dealing with the legal ramifications after.
There are many who don't endorse all of their principles and teachings, at least a couple have posted in this thread.

[gvf]

I think the "drawing weapon" question is also one of practicality: once it's out you're much more likely to use it out of an instinctive reaction. Is that bad? NO in some situations 'cause the time saved in not needing to draw will save you; in others, it will get you to shoot when you shouldn't and indicted.

When a family (most were attorneys) opened a restaurant/bar as a side business many years ago in my city, some cops came in to greet them and talk about security over a few cold ones. Cops told them: "If you're getting robbed: shoot him. If it turns out he didn't have a gun, he will have after we examine the crime scene"

[Lurper]

As happens so often, knowing the story behind the numbers can be important. The NCVS findings look good, but as it turns out the reason we see such success is that the victims tended to fight back only when the criminal was not comparably armed, so we don't really see an appropriate comparison to what we are discussing, IMO.
Not according to Kleck:
"These data indicate that victims who use guns for self-protection actually face less favorable circumstances than other victims, and that the post-self-protection injury rates for defensive gun use, low though they are, may still be misleadingly high compared to tother self-protection measures because victims who used guns faced tougher crime circumstances. More dangerous situations apparently prompt victims to adopt more dangerous self-protection measures. Two pieces of information available in the NCVS support this view. First, victims who used guns were substantially more likely than victims in general or victims using other self-protection measures to face offenders armed with guns — 32.7 percent of victims who attacked the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, faced offenders with guns, compared to only 6.8 percent of all victims who used self-protection measures, and 2.2 percent of all victims. Second, victims who used guns were more likely to face multiple offenders — 33.2 percent of victims who attacked offenders with a gun and 34.5 percent of those who threatened with a gun confronted multiple adversaries, compared to 20.6 percent of all those who used self-protection measures, and 6.2 percent of all victims. These findings are consistent with the view that crime circumstances likely to appear more dangerous to victims are more likely to push victims into using guns. They are contrary to the speculation that crime outcomes are better for gun-wielding victims merely because other circumstances of the crime made successful outcomes more likely." (pp. 291-92)


thus defending one statement with the same type of support he is arguing is irrelevant in another post!
Which post are you referring to? I'd be happy to clarify both positions if you'd like.



When a driver turns on the left turn signal, it indicates a strong likelihood they are going to turn left. Sure, they might not do so, sure they might not have done so in the past, but it is fair to assume they are going to do so now.
So, does that mean you should feel safe passing them on the right? Sure, the odds are in your favor that you could without incident, but you really don't know if they are turning left and will your insurance company give you a break because the odds were in your favor or is your car less wrecked? My point is that it boils down to a judgement call, that imo is better based on information gathered during the situation than statistics and it is hard to fault someone for whatever decision they make because they are the participant, not the observer.



You are in essence arguing that, as an example, each NASCAR race is unique therefore past records of events, drivers, and so on are not relevant to discussing the likely outcome of the race.
So, a NASCAR race is always won by the driver who is statistically most likely to win and has never been won by one who was statistically not?

[Justme]

In the end I did not "crush" his windpipe in a literal sense, but I did cause some damage which embarassed both of us, since the guy was sort of a friend. The whole point is that things sometimes happen faster than we can think. I'm sure most people think faster than me, good for them.

I didn't pick up your "rack the slide upon draw" hot potato because I do it that way and think it is best for me, I understand that others do not feel that way and it doesn't bother me. We all make subtle compromises that we feel comfortable with. To me the tactical disadvantage of having to rack the slide is outweighed by the safety advantage, other people can weigh those two things and arrive at a different solution to the safety/tactical advantage dilemma.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What is the safety disadvantage of having a chambered Kel-tec 32 ACP? IIRC, that is your carry gun?

If one proposed this fast reaction, why slow it down or carry an unsafe gun?

[David Armstrong]

What, betting your life on gun flashing?
Nope, nobody has said that. Thje point is that one can, and frequently does, defuse the situation without utilizing the maximum level of force that is considered legal. If the BG stops at the sight of the gun, you have won.
When I draw my gun, I am ready to use it. There's no bluffing from this cowboy.
You assume that flashing constitutes a bluff. It doesn't.
Glad you qualified that with the IMO at the end. That is YOUR opinion.
And the opinion of a number of other folks who know a whole lot about this business.
Your gun flashing might work sometimes. But counting on it every time is insane.
As with many, you try to argue about a position nobody has taken. Nobody has said count on it every time. Heck, nobody has said count on it at all.

[David Armstrong]

Not according to Kleck:
When in doubt, go to the source. The NCVS, which Kleck is using as his source, has as the first footnote the explanation that the data showed that most victims who fought back did so only when they had a leg up on the BGs. That is reflected, BTW, in other sources, directly and indirectly. Kleck will also point out that the small number of incidents used create a big question as to their validity in the larger population. If you want to play battleing sources, though, I'll pass on about a half-dozen that say fighting back tends to increase the chance and severity of injury to the good guy.
Which post are you referring to? I'd be happy to clarify both positions if you'd like.
The ones where you seem to disagree with looking at the probable odds and focusing on each event as unique, then using the probable odds and ignoring the unique.
So, does that mean you should feel safe passing them on the right?
It means it is a bit of data, information, that one can use to develop a conclusion on what to do.
My point is that it boils down to a judgement call, that imo is better based on information gathered during the situation than statistics and it is hard to fault someone for whatever decision they make because they are the participant, not the observer.
And I think it is better to develp that call based on understanding of the overall statistics as well as the current situation. IN fact, without the stats, you have no way to determine what the current situation is likely to indicate.
So, a NASCAR race is always won by the driver who is statistically most likely to win and has never been won by one who was statistically not?
Nope. But if you had to make a bet, which would you bet on? That is the whole point here. I like Danica Patrick, but I wouldn't have bet on her to win the first race she entered. The odds were against it.

[Justme]

Glenn a keltec with a full magazine but no chambered round is inherently safer than one with a full magazine and one in the chamber. It is much harder to accidently chamber a round and fire it than it is to accidently pull the trigger. Both are unlikely, and I don't have a problem with someone else carrying with a round chambered, I just don't feel safe doing so.

[Cremon]

There are many who don't endorse all of their principles and teachings, at least a couple have posted in this thread.

No one said you HAVE to shoot when you draw - that was just you taking my post out of context - like I did yours. But every time I draw, I realize that I might have to shoot. I am prepared to shoot whenever I draw my gun - doesn't mean I will. And if someone is kicking down my door - my gun is drawn.

As with many, you try to argue about a position nobody has taken. Nobody has said count on it every time. Heck, nobody has said count on it at all.

You stepped into the middle of another argument and you probably had the good sense to read what both of us posted. I'm not criticizing you, though I responded to you in the same light that I did Lurper. He saw my post and played on the possibility that I meant you shoot every time you draw. I meant every time you draw, be ready to shoot - you pull a gun - be prepared to use it. Lurper is a smart guy which is why I believe he knew that in advance, but responded anyway because he saw an opportunity to take his own meaning from my post and reply with something that might make himself look witty. If you look at the way he worded his response, you'll see why I came to that conclusion. His overuse of punctuation to show emotion demonstrates the view that he felt he'd just struck gold when he saw my post.

I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to think that anyone else here really believes you have to shoot every time your gun leaves the holster. And I don't believe that Lurper did either.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is a grand debate about chambering. Given most DGUs have no shots fired, it will be nonissue for most.

However, if one really, really holds for this fast response view of drawing the gun, it makes no sense to add a significant time delay and increased probability of a screw up, esp. with a gun of relatively limited stopping power.

I think it was claimed by someone that no one could disarm him. However, it would seem to me that if you are forced in a retention situation to rack the gun, that claim might not stand up. BTW, that's why FOF training is useful, to see those close quarters situations that aren't the standard OK Corral gun fight.

One should not carry a gun that they fear for safety issues. It would make more sense if one wanted to carry a small gun to switch to a J frame.


But, that's really off topic.

I think most sensible folks in this thread conclude that:

1. Drawing the gun means it is a potential use of lethal force situation and the ocnditions have been met to use lethal force.
2. You don't have necessarily have to use lethal force if you think that the BG can be stopped or deterred by the presence of the gun
3. From a great deal of experience with many trainers by many people, no one legit argues that you must shoot if you draw.

[threegun]

Again a bad bet on an auto race and you lose money. A bad bet in an armed confrontation and you die. For those of you who wish to gamble with your life on the actions of a criminal more power to you. I will bet on my abilities with my pistol for my safety. I will treat each occurrence as potential death (because it is). Since no one can be assured 100 percent of being left alive I will not pass on an opportunity to end a threat. No stats can determine how individual events will end if gunfire is initiated or if the helpless victim approach is used.

If you are of the mindset that playing the odds is the way to go........then stop carrying. No need to carry because with very few exceptions using your gun only increases the danger.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Then how come in a couple of million DGUs per year, a couple of million BGs are not shot and the situation is resolved in the favor of the Good guy.

Why do quality trainers teach verbal commands and challenges?

Threegun, you still seem to miss the point, if I read you correctly. You treat the situation as a lethal threat but that doesn't mean you poop out your brains when it comes to choices.

[threegun]

My default is that this badguy might kill me. If I can stop them I will even if it means an increase in danger to do so.

If you are going to play the odds Glenn then why carry in the first place? Fighting back except in the rarest of occassions increases your chances of getting hurt. You guys keeps saying play the odds yet you all are carrying even though doing so increases the odds. Thats hypocritical.

[Lurper]

I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to think that anyone else here really believes you have to shoot every time your gun leaves the holster.
I don't really care to make myself look witty or not. I simply took you at your word. I believe the exact quote was "drawing your weapon commits you to using deadly force." As I mentioned, I have students who ask that question so it isn't unreasonable for me to assume that you meant it literally. My main point was that when possible you should draw your weapon when you feel your life is threatened, not wait until you made the decision to shoot. The small edge in time it gives you could make a difference. Based on your subsequents posts, it appeared that you disagreed with that. However, since your last post I think we can agree that you don't draw your weapon unless there is a threat and you are prepared to use it. Fair enough?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think everyone reasonable is saying this. You are prepared to use it. You don't have to use it. You can evaluate the situation to see if the shot is necessary.

Knowledge of likely outcomes in certain situations is useful knowledge in this process. It is just something you take into account. The probabilities don't force a decision but are part of the decision based on the best outcome you can calculate.

Some folks seem to think that if one says that the odds of a bank robbery having a low percentage of violence means that you automatically never shoot are missing the point, again.

[Cremon]

Fair enough?

Fair enough.

Truce.

[sw_florida]

so that writers can straighten out the flowering question marks?! I can keep in the background and sell ice cream, holster on, of course.

[threegun]

Some folks seem to think that if one says that the odds of a bank robbery having a low percentage of violence means that you automatically never shoot are missing the point, again.

If your goal is to survive the event and according to you guys the stats should be taken into account, then why would you shoot? David was pretty clear that we should not start the gunfight unless the bad guy becomes violent

"Why would you willingly change an armed robbery (or other incident) into a gunfight?" Most criminal events that involve deadly force start out that way. If you haven't been shot/stabbed/beaten/etc right off the bat there is a very small chance of being shot/stabbed/beaten/etc later on. Criminals tend to threaten in order to gain compliance, and as long as that compliance is there the event rarely escalates. The key, IMO, is being able to determine with some degree of accuracy when that escalation is occurring, and not doing things to up the violence level yourself.

The correct world view (IMHO ) is that one has a realistic view of the options and abilities. One acts for a goal which is to survive using a path that has the best possibility of such. If the goal is to make a statement - then of course start the fight. If the goal is to save one's skin - then choose a path that maximizes that outcome. One can deal with hurt feelings later.


Unfortunately in the real world if you wait for escalation by the bad guy you are probably dead before you can act. Some people seem to miss that point.

[Boris Bush]

I didn't read all of the posts, too long. Anyway, why would you NOT shoot? Material things today WILL evolve into much larger crimes. If they know they (the criminals) can get away with it they will push it to the limit and who knows where that will go? Killing them may just save someones life, you may not realize it or know it, but that is the way you should look at it...........

[Justme]

Material things today WILL evolve into much larger crimes.

One of the sillier things I've read in my life. Reminds me of those reefer madness movies that tried to convince everyone that one joint was going to turn everyone into a psychotic heroin addict.

Violence, the reason to shoot someone, and theft are fundamentally different behaviors. Plenty of thieves aren't violent and plenty of violent people aren't thieves.

[Boris Bush]

Justme

I just re-read the original post and wiped my brow..... An ARMED robber wanting only physical belongings on you should die. I don't know where you live, but where I grewup I had a friend killed because what little he had on him angered the robber so much they just shot him (robbers own words).

I hope you wear an expensive watch, drive a nice car, and carry alot of money. Most of time the most expensive thing I got on me is my SIG and I am more than glad to give it to anyone that wants it, but they gotta take the bullets first..........

[David Armstrong]

Anyway, why would you NOT shoot?
Maybe because you don't want to turn a robbery into a gunfight?
Killing them may just save someones life, you may not realize it or know it, but that is the way you should look at it...........
That is about as valid as "not killing them may cause them to turn their life around and they will invent a cure for cancer....." Too many folks seem to want to deal with crime according to what they see on TV instead of taking a little time to learn the facts.

[Boris Bush]

That is about as valid as "not killing them may cause them to turn their life around and they will invent a cure for cancer....." Too many folks seem to want to deal with crime according to what they see on TV instead of taking a little time to learn the facts.

I rarely watch tv and I do believe that where you live has a large impact on your view. I have three times used a pistol to stop crimes that were going to happen against me. Never fired a single round. Two of the times the bad guys (all three times there was more than one) started a retreat as soon as my hand found the pistol over my kidney, they didn't wait to see what I was packin'. The third wasn't convinced until I showed it to them. At home a blinding beam from a maglite made would be burglars change their mind on my neighbors house, and a 12 gauge racking another time did the job.

For my real job I get shot at all the time, and my carry weapon (not a pistol) is very accurate and violence of action has saved my life from contact range to 90 meters. If need be I do not think I would hesitate to defend myself, family or otrhers from a bad guy intent on doing bad, especialy if they knowingly continue with a legaly armed person on scene.

[David Armstrong]

If need be I do not think I would hesitate to defend myself, family or otrhers from a bad guy intent on doing bad, ....
I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. The question is if one should make that decision based on accurate information and facts and as full an understanding of the reality of the event as is possible or if one should base that decision on wild fantasies and fictions.

[threegun]

Wild fantasies and fiction have nothing to do with assuming that the bad guy threatening my life, might carry out the threat. Odds or percentages won't bring me back if I choose wrong based on them therefore I will assume that I might die and use any opportunity presented to eliminate the threat.

To say that folks who disagree with giving serious weight to odds and percentages in an armed confrontation are uninformed or living in a fantasy world is ridiculous and designed to antagonize.

One thing is clear though, waiting for escalation reduces your chances of survival if escalation happens.

[Lurper]

Here are the figures, decide for yourself:

The likelihood of an injury was the
same for victims facing armed and
unarmed offenders (26%); serious
injury was more likely from armed
offenders (7% versus 2%).

Offender use of firearms
Of incidents involving offenders
with firearms, victims —
! were shot (3%)
! were shot at but not hit (8%)
! were struck with a firearm (4%)
! were threatened with a firearm (72%)
! did not describe offender’s use of
firearms (13%).


Robbery and injuries
About half of victims of robbery by
offenders armed with blunt objects/
other weapons sustained an injury
during the crime.
About a third of victims of robbery by
unarmed offenders (36%) and offenders
armed with knives or sharp objects
(31%) sustained injury during the
victimization.
Offenders armed with any weapon
other than a firearm inflicted a serious
injury during about 1 in 7 robberies that
they committed.
Victims of robbery by offenders armed
with blunt objects/other weapons were
more likely than victims of robbery by
offenders armed with a firearm to be
attacked without a prior threat.


It should also be noted that in the majority of the cases where the victim was injured, the assailant injured them without warning (before, during or after complying). A victim was just as likely to be injured by an unarmed assailant as an armed one.

[pax]

Lurper ~

Source link?

pax

[Lurper]

National Crime Victimization Survey 1993-2001 and 2005, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Don't have the link handy - on my way out the door.

[CrazyIvan007]

a cell phone and some credit cards are not worth ending someone’s life over. You don’t shoot someone to punish them for their bad deeds, you shoot them because if you don’t you will likely die. I think it is a great mistake to kill someone over material items.

This argument is flawed. During the muggging, you have no idea if they are going to kill you when they are done. During the mugging, you are in fear for your life.

And to think beyond the mugging itself and put a bit of a philosophical comment to this: Having your ID stolen can lead to identity theft. Identity theft can ruin your way of life. For many people, they have so many problems, they might as well have been physically harmed or killed. It can cause stress which can later lead to health problems and can, in some cases, cause terminal health problems, like heart failure, etc...

So, if you are being mugged, I have no problem shooting someone. During most muggings, they assualt you physically, even if a little bit. They cause harm to you physically; they must strong arm you to get you to do what they want. Under state law here in Colorado, you can use lethal force in a case where you are about to be or are being assaulted physically. Short of that, they may hold you up at gunpoint, which definitely causes "fear of imminent bodily injury" which also allows you to use lethal force.

[pax]

Thanks, Lurper, found it. :)

pax

[David Armstrong]

you can use lethal force in a case where you are about to be or are being assaulted physically.
Quite a bit of difference between when you can shoot and when you should shoot, and that is the crux of the problem, IMO. You think there is a problem dealing with ID theft? Try dealing with the aftermath of a shooting!

[CrazyIvan007]

If someone is trying to steal from me by a confrontation or assault me or attack me physically, whether it be armed or not armed...they deserve to get shot. No crux in my mind. It is allowed by law, and I am glad. I don't care if it is for my wallet, or just to attack me. I will not stand for it. It is black & white. Live & let live. If they don't let me go on with my peacefull self, then they don't deserve to go on with their evil self either.

Besides, many times...small things such as theft by assault can lead to many other things like rape and murder. You never know who you may be saving along the trail in the future of the assailant.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with the post trauma of shooting someone than allowing them to go through with it without a fight and perhaps raping someone, killing someone or beating up someone's grandma for her social security check later. If you let a dog eat off the table, sooner than later he will be sitting on the chair next to you eating off of your plate.

I wouldn't shoot to kill, but if I didn't do something to cause the person to think twice before attacking someone else, then I would feel partially at fault for anyone they may hurt in the future. Would you not?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When you say you wouldn't shoot to kill - what do you mean? Do you mean to specifically wound? That seems the implication as compared to the commonly used 'shooting to stop' which implies the use of lethal force.

Clarify your position a touch, if you would? Note this is a trap question as it may indict your level of knowledge and training in using lethal force.

BTW, dealing with the PTSD consequences of shooting someone is not trivial as the police know.

So, I get the feel that some folks would shoot a fleeing 5 year old hightailing out of the candy store with an Almond Joy to protect society from future crime. Is that what you mean?

[CrazyIvan007]

I wouldn't shoot to kill.

I wouldn't shoot to wound.

If the level of force required to dissolve the situation was to shoot and was within the law, then that is what I would do. Neither to wound or be fatal would be my goal. Being wounded or killed is the fault of the assailant. My only fault and my only goal would be first to protect myself, my property, those I care about or someone who cannot defend themselves. Secondly, excercising my rights, and thankfully that is not illegal, would be the only other thing I would be doing.

Shooting someone, of course, is not a walk in the park and must be taken seriously. I have spent hours and days reading through the laws and contemplating my response. Preparedness never can always 100% dictate your reaction when what you have prepared for comes to pass, and you hope it never does come to pass, but it definitely gives you a bit more ability to handle the situation if it does happen.

Shooting a child running out of a store carrying candy is outside of the law. The child poses no threat to anyone. You are not legally able to shoot a person in such a situation. You can not shoot a shoplifter, no matter what age. Shoplifting is a non-violent act. Now, shoplifting while pointing a gun at you or brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner is armed robbery, and IS a violent act. Or, if they broke in after hours to steal something and you happened to be there, you are within the law if you choose to use a level of force up to lethal force to protect yourself and your company's property. Law surrounding the use of lethal force outlines your ability to defend yourself, your property or someone else who is in danger. Lethal force is available if you are being physically harmed or hold a reasonable belief that you will be physically harmed. There is no outline telling you at what level of physical harm you are allowed to shoot someone, because there is no such thing. Physical harm or reasonable belief that you will be subject to physical harm at any level is a level which legally allows you to use appropriate force, up to and including lethal force, to dissolve the situation.

Pretty much, falling victim to a violent act, beit armed robbery, assault, rape, mugging, breaking and entering, etc...grants you the right to defend yourself with "the appropriate amount of force up to and including lethal force" to stop the assailant from proceeding to cause anymore harm to you, your property, your family or a someone else, their property or their family.

And I will tell you again. If someone commits a violent act either against me or in my presence, as of right now, I have no problem using force, up to and including lethal force, to stop them. I feel obligated to do so. I suppose I will have to deal with the post trauma. But, to me...I would rather suffer through that than put someone else in danger by doing nothing.

[David Armstrong]

If someone is trying to steal from me by a confrontation or assault me or attack me physically, whether it be armed or not armed...they deserve to get shot.
Irrelevant. What one deserves and what is a good choice are not one and the same.
You never know who you may be saving along the trail in the future of the assailant.
Yes, you never know. The person you shoot and kill might have gone on to discover a cure for cancer too. So "what if" is fairly silly to play.
If they don't let me go on with my peacefull self, then they don't deserve to go on with their evil self either.
But by taking action you might be creating more problems for yourself and your family. Is it really worth $20,000 in legal fees, or your family losing their home, or other assorted indignities just to keep what is in you wallet?
If you let a dog eat off the table, sooner than later he will be sitting on the chair next to you eating off of your plate.
Having done just that for 40+ years, I have yet to find a dog sitting next to me in the cahir eating off my plate. You seem full of interesting platitudes but little real substance.
Would you not?
No, of course not. Why should I? I didn't run over a sudent who was jaywalking today. Should I feel bad if later on he does something bad?

[CrazyIvan007]

DA,

If you want to go through life letting people get away with violent crime, that is your perogative. For myself, I believe that stance is wrong. In my opinion, those who allow people to get away with such crimes aren't much better than the offenders themselves. The odds of someone who holds up a liquor store one day going on to figure out a cure for aids or something is highly unlikely. If you can provide any information or stories where a violent criminal has gone on to make some groundbreaking discovery, then let's talk about that. But your conclusion is flawed.

I would only use force were it a violent crime and as outlined by law.

Perhaps my philosophy and metaphors were a bit short of proving a point 100%, but I know you aren't stupid and you know what I was saying.

But by taking action you might be creating more problems for yourself and your family. Is it really worth $20,000 in legal fees, or your family losing their home, or other assorted indignities just to keep what is in you wallet?

Yes...yes it is worth it. I will not allow my freedoms to be stomped on without a fight. My wallet is mine, not theirs. They have no right to it, whatsoever. I don't care if I have 1 dollar or 10,000. They have no right to violently strip me of my posessions illegally. I do, however, have a legal right to defend those posessions and myself with force against it being taken violently. And, I will act on that right. I will not be a silent victim. Go ahead and do whatever it is you would do. I don't care how you would handle yourself. I would hope you would defend others who can not defend themselves with a certain amount of force if needed to protect them. But, I could care less what you do to protect yourself. That is your choice.

As far as legal fees arising from defending against someone, I pay the NRA for defense council insurance. The costs may surpass their coverage, but it is certainly a help. And, as many have said here in other threads...judgement by 12 is better than being carried by 6.

[Lurper]

If you want to go through life letting people get away with violent crime, that is your perogative. For myself, I believe that stance is wrong. In my opinion, those who allow people to get away with such crimes aren't much better than the offenders themselves.
This is a real dangerous philosophy. It is not up to you to decide who should live or die. Nor is it up to you to decide who gets away with what. The only thing that is up to you is when you feel you are in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Then you are justified in using lethal force. To make this philosphy part of your personal doctrine is asking for trouble.

But by taking action you might be creating more problems for yourself and your family. Is it really worth $20,000 in legal fees, or your family losing their home, or other assorted indignities just to keep what is in you wallet?
By not taking action you are leaving yourself at the mercy of the criminal's whim. Also, many states shield you from civil action if your shooting is justified. If it is clearly justified, there won't even be a trial so the implication that if you shoot someone you will incur huge legal expenses isn't accurate.

The question is if one should make that decision based on accurate information and facts and as full an understanding of the reality of the event as is possible or if one should base that decision on wild fantasies and fictions.
Having a gun or knife pointed at you is hardly fantasy and fiction. If you feel you are in danger of serious injury or death, you should shoot.

[CrazyIvan007]

This is a real dangerous philosophy. It is not up to you to decide who should live or die. Nor is it up to you to decide who gets away with what. The only thing that is up to you is when you feel you are in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Then you are justified in using lethal force. To make this philosphy part of your personal doctrine is asking for trouble.

First, I said I would not shoot to kill. So there goes your idea that I am making a judgement on who lives or dies. I would use force to defend and to dissolve the harmful situation. It is the violent offender who takes the honor of deciding who lives or dies.

Second, by law, I am granted the ability to take action against an ensuing violent crime, so it is up to me whether I allow a person to get away with it or not by engaging myself against them.

Third, I agree that if I feel myself or someone else is in danger, I am justified legally and morally to use a certain level of force, and that only reinforces my statements above. Doesn't mean I will always choose to engage, but I do have the justification were I to choose to do so.

[David Armstrong]

If you want to go through life letting people get away with violent crime, that is your perogative.
Actually I spent a significant part of my life catching folks who commit violent crime. I've also had the opportunity to see what happens to those who fight back, which gives me some realistic perspective on the issue rather than just a lot of wild guesses.
For myself, I believe that stance is wrong. In my opinion, those who allow people to get away with such crimes aren't much better than the offenders themselves.
One is certainly entitlted to their own opinion. However I would suggest that "letting them get away with it" is quite different from "not making things any worse for you and your family."
The odds of someone who holds up a liquor store one day going on to figure out a cure for aids or something is highly unlikely.
You mean sort of like the odds of someone changing from muggings and robberies to becoming a murderer???
But your conclusion is flawed.
What conclusion?
Yes...yes it is worth it. I will not allow my freedoms to be stomped on without a fight.
I'm not aware of any freedoms that are stomped on when you respond to a crime with good sense instead of emotion. But if it is worth $20,000 to you to avoid losing $10 and some easily replaced cards, I'd suggest it is going to be difficult for us to have any sort of rational conversation.
And, as many have said here in other threads...judgement by 12 is better than being carried by 6.
True, but not being carried or judged at all is even better.

[Justme]

The rather ironic twist on the whole judged by 12 comments is that the people who make it are fairly certain what that judgement would be. However, the further from mainstream thinking you go the less likely the judgement is going to be to your liking.

[David Armstrong]

By not taking action you are leaving yourself at the mercy of the criminal's whim.
Not really. You can always escalate your response if needed. Going along because that is best at Point A in the encounter does not mean you have to go along with everything at all points. Deciding not to take action at one point doesn't mean you never can take action in the future.
Also, many states shield you from civil action if your shooting is justified.
Yes, some do. But a lot more don't. And of course you do have to show it is justified.
If it is clearly justified, there won't even be a trial so the implication that if you shoot someone you will incur huge legal expenses isn't accurate.

That is a very questionable statement. There have been a whole lot of trials where the shooting was clearly justified; and you also don't have to have a trial to run up lots of expenses.
Having a gun or knife pointed at you is hardly fantasy and fiction.
True, and nobody suggested otherwise AFAIK. But that has nothing to do with the statement that was made either.
If you feel you are in danger of serious injury or death, you should shoot.
And figuring out if you are in danger and how severe that danger is should be based on accurate information and facts and as full an understanding of the reality of the event as is possible, not on wild fantasies and fictions.

[David Armstrong]

First, I said I would not shoot to kill.
Once you shoot, whether or not someone is killed or not is pretty much out of your hands. If you shoot you better plan on somebody dying.
Being wounded or killed is the fault of the assailant.
Sorry, but there is so much legal precedent against that thought it is amazing. Assailants generally cannot claim self-defense, but that is far different than being held at fault for any injuries they might receive.
I have spent hours and days reading through the laws and contemplating my response.
Maybe instead of reading and contemplating you should take a few courses taught by folks who are familiar with this field. It might be an eye-opener.
There is no outline telling you at what level of physical harm you are allowed to shoot someone, because there is no such thing. Physical harm or reasonable belief that you will be subject to physical harm at any level is a level which legally allows you to use appropriate force, up to and including lethal force, to dissolve the situation.
I don't know Colorado law, but that is incorrect in several other states. So, you are saying that if I twist your ear with my hand and cause you physical harm (an ear bo-bo) you can shoot me???

[Redneckrepairs]

Just as in Real life , When and Where I would use lethal force is too complex an issue for an internet thread . I would if both justified by law and my own code . I would not if i felt i should not or it was illegal . I cannot give anyone a more honest answer than that .

[CrazyIvan007]

You mean sort of like the odds of someone changing from muggings and robberies to becoming a murderer???

What????

The greater majority of violent crime offenders hold a history of crime, whether it be other violent crimes or simpler crimes.

I haven't seen any ground-breaking doctors or scientists who have "Armed Robbery" on their record.

"Wild Fantasies and Fictions"

???

They are neither fantasy or fictions.

Being robbed at gunpoint or by physical assault is a violent act. That is the REALITY!!!! I will respond to it logically, tactically and appropriately. If I am not in a position to defend myself, I will not. I am not going to go for my gun or lunge myself at an offender who is 10 feet away asking me to throw him my wallet.

I'm not aware of any freedoms that are stomped on when you respond to a crime with good sense instead of emotion.

emotion? EMOTION? Good Sense tells me that my wallet is MY WALLET. I don't care how much money I have in it. You are not entitled to take it forcefully. How is that "emotion" ??

I am not a fancy pants "Oh poor offender got himself a person who fights back" kinda guy. I am a "Hell yea! Maybe that will make the next guy think before they try to harm a law-abiding citizen."

Perhaps you were a cop, perhaps you were a lawyer. I don't know, you are very discreet with your past here in this thread. But, to me, you certainly seem like the kind of guy who wants victims to bend & do the will of the offender. Maybe we should allow illegal aliens to have their way and hand over all of our identities and our financial support without fighting back? Perhaps we should free all the criminals who reside in the prisons of this great country because we don't want to fight back and they should be allowed to act any way they would like without recourse.

The stark reality is that police, government and emergency crews can not be there to help you 100% of the time. If you are not willing to or prepared to act to defend yourself or others who can not defend themselves, then you have a bad problem. Should a disaster happen in your area, you will be one sitting on your roof with a big "HELP ME" sign. Me, personally...I will do what is necessary to survive and help others survive.

I am not trying to attack you. I would bet you are a good citizen and responsible gun owner. I just disagree with your opinion and methods. I do know, however, that we both would act within the law, which is mutual.

[gvf]

If I was robbed with no weapon shown or evidence of one, I'm not sure what I'd do. A student of mine was stopped on the street and quickly crowded in by someone who said: "give me your wallet', my student said "no" and before a second was out he had a broken jaw, now wired shut for the 5th week. Unfortunately he is a singer, is studying that at University, and this has really put him back. Plus he owes $2000 which insurance leaves him as his co-pay. He already has a disability to begin with, and it is too bad this happened to him. He works very hard.

If I was armed and this had happened to me, not sure the speed and surprise may not have landed me in the same predicament. What I hope I would have done is back off a couple of steps and when he demanded, either trot or show the gun with my hand on it. A move towards me: ? Again I don't know. BG was stupid as a cop was 10 feet away so he was immediately arrested. No weapon. So, I don't know what the repercussion of shooting would have been. I'm 60 though, not 21, I've had medical issues that might make a blow in the wrong place cause for a critical medical emergency. Out of fear of that and a strong blow from a big guy 40 years my junior, I may have become afraid and shot.

[CrazyIvan007]

gvf, you have brought up a good point.

Of course a person has to guage the situation and take the best course of action. I am a somewhat muscular beefy guy, 6'1, 275. So if someone tries to take something of mine without trying to take it at gunpoint, they are fixin for a hurtin.

Now, should I be surrounded by 6 guys around my size, I would react differently.

Adapt & overcome I suppose.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ever see the little guy with a knife vs. Mr. Muscle demos. No offense but one of the steps to lose credibility on a list like this is to proclaim one's physical attributes such that no one will mess with you.

Also, proclaiming how you will shoot someone so easily as you did for spurious reasons and not understand the use of lethal force is another way.

[CrazyIvan007]

Ever see the little guy with a knife vs. Mr. Muscle demos. No offense but one of the steps to lose credibility on a list like this is to proclaim one's physical attributes such that no one will mess with you.

I never said my size would divert anyone from doing something to me. I said if they did do something to me, they are fixin for a hurtin.

Also, proclaiming how you will shoot someone so easily as you did for spurious reasons and not understand the use of lethal force is another way.

Hmm...I said after gauging the situation quickly, and if I were to engage the offender(s), I would respond with an appropriate amount of force if I were to fall victim to or witness a violent crime. First, I never said I would shoot first. Second, I never said I would shoot for no reason at all. So, I hardly see how that is wrong...

Ya'll who believe this stuff is wrong or not determined to be the right thing to do...well you need to read the laws. Law allows a person to react with an appropriate amount of force to any violent act, no matter what the level. And, I believe that is right. You need to not carry a gun with you if you are not willing to use it. You need to continue to pretend nothing bad happens and if it does, you will bend & do the will of the offender. Congrats. I'd rather be dead than surrender my liberty and idea of justice if even for a temporary amount of time.

To sum it up from my position... If someone does something I believe is harmful to others or myself, if a violent act ensues...I will react accordingly. Should that be using force, then fine. From tackling the person to using lethal force....I will try to make the best decision. But, I am not going to sit & worry about the aftermath. I am going to react to the situation properly and within the law. Offenders of peace should be dealt with accordingly. Beit being sued in civil court for spray painting a building or biting a bullet for attacking an elderly woman...I believe Justice will survive. Justice will not always be properly served, but it certainly should...and I will do my part to be sure it does happen if even just a little bit more.

Listen to Garth Brooks' song "The Change" ...It's all me baby!

I've explained myself enough here, and I am done with this thread. Continue to flame on.

[Lurper]

Not really. You can always escalate your response if needed. Going along because that is best at Point A in the encounter does not mean you have to go along with everything at all points. Deciding not to take action at one point doesn't mean you never can take action in the future.
Gee, sounds like what I have been saying.

Quote:
Also, many states shield you from civil action if your shooting is justified.

Yes, some do. But a lot more don't. And of course you do have to show it is justified.

Quote:
If it is clearly justified, there won't even be a trial so the implication that if you shoot someone you will incur huge legal expenses isn't accurate.

That is a very questionable statement. There have been a whole lot of trials where the shooting was clearly justified; and you also don't have to have a trial to run up lots of expenses.

Depends on the state. In AZ, the state has to prove the shooting was not justified, not vice versa. While in some cases that may mean there is a trial, in clear cut cases there will not. Which is why I always advocate:
Know your state's laws!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ivan - you continually miss the point. Having the legal right to use force doesn't mean that it is the best option in a situation. Nor does not using it in a situation if you think that not using (even if it is legal) is a better outcome for your physical safety and that of those around you. Nor does making the decision not to use lethal force imply some philosophical or moral weakness. You might think so but that view is a less sophisticated level of analysis. Not starting the gun fight, even if legally justified, is a major decision point taught in the more advanced civilian FOF classes and to the LEO also.

Being the proactive shooter of potential criminals is not really part of current thought on the issue. It says more to the person wanting to be an avenger or get praise as being a hero.

As far as your physical prowess, as I said before, if you think that your size guarantees that you can put a hurtin' on someone, you need to take a knife class sometimes. It is an indication of naiveity on the issue. I once heard a policeman say that the scarest thing he ever saw was an 8 year old girl charging at him whirling a butcher knife like a tornado. She was a disturbed kid. Could he have beat her in a wrestling match - sure? Was she going to chop his arms to crap - oh yeah.

[CrazyIvan007]

What part of "Gauge a situation and Act accordingly" does not fit your outline of best judgement?

[DougO83]

Honestly, I did not want to read through 170 posts, so I apologize if what I say has already been stated.

First, I cannot gauge the intent of someone assaulting me, I am no mind reader. I do not know if they intend to kill me when they are done stealing my things or not. My best guess is that if they are brazen enough to assault a guy my size in the first place (I am not bragging, I'm a big guy), they are nuts enough to try to kill me. I will act accordingly. It is not a matter of my cash, credit cards, jewelry, peace of mind, sanity, or identity being stolen. It is a matter that should be regarded, IMHO, as life and death. Yes, all of the material items can be replaced, but is that the only intent of the thief? There is no way to tell. If the thief presents a weapon, I will risk my chance in court and/or jail.

Second, I will not shoot to kill. I work as an armed security officer currently. The correct, legal response when asked about a shooting is nothing like we 'firearms enthusiasts' are taught. We do not 'shoot to kill', 'only muzzle what we intend to destroy', or whatever else you wish to say. These terms, will most likely leave you legally screwed. Your best response is "I was in fear of my life and utilized my weapon to neutralize the imminent threat to my safety and well-being."

I honestly hope that simply stating "Leave me alone, I am armed!" would be enough to persuade the average schmuck to leave me be. If not, I hope the presentation of my firearm does the trick. I do not wish to take another's life, I have seen the hardship it can cause evryone involved, but I will not stand idly by and be taken advantage of. I will warn first, then do what is necessary (interpret this statement at will.)

Sorry for any ambiguity in the post, this is a public forum and I do not wish for my post to be used against me if I ever have to use deadly force.

[David Armstrong]

The greater majority of violent crime offenders hold a history of crime, whether it be other violent crimes or simpler crimes.
And most violent criminals drank milk when they were kids, so obviously drinking milk means you will grow up to be a violent criminal, right? Virtually everybody engages in misdemeanor/petty crime growing up. Many criminals become non-violent and stay that way. Most robbers don't become murderers.
They are neither fantasy or fictions.
If you aren't basing your decisions on reality, you are basing them on fiction. Those happen to be your only choices.
Being robbed at gunpoint or by physical assault is a violent act. That is the REALITY
Nobody has said otherwise, so what is your point?
I will respond to it logically, tactically and appropriately.
And how do you determine what is logical and appropriate without considering all the facts?
Good Sense tells me that my wallet is MY WALLET. I don't care how much money I have in it. You are not entitled to take it forcefully. How is that "emotion" ??
I think you just proved my point. Sorry, but if you want to make a situation worse just to defend your sense of machismo, that is emotion.
But, to me, you certainly seem like the kind of guy who wants victims to bend & do the will of the offender.
Further evidence that you tend to be responding with emotions rather than facts and logic. I want the victim to suffer the least amount of damage and loss of resources.
Maybe we should allow illegal aliens to have their way and hand over all of our identities and our financial support without fighting back? Perhaps we should free all the criminals who reside in the prisons of this great country because we don't want to fight back and they should be allowed to act any way they would like without recourse.
Maybe we should discuss what has actually been said instead of going off on emotional tirades?

Ya'll who believe this stuff is wrong or not determined to be the right thing to do...well you need to read the laws.
As mentioned elsewhere, maybe you need to quit reading the law and (A) go talk to a lawyer who is familiar with how this stuff works, bot criminally and civilly; and (B) get some realistic training.

[David Armstrong]

Gee, sounds like what I have been saying.
Sorry. I got thrown off with the "By not taking action you are leaving yourself at the mercy of the criminal's whim" comment. Postponing action or reserving the option for action does not leave one at the mercy of the criminal.

Depends on the state.
----
Which is why I always advocate:
Know your state's laws!

A very big +1.

[CrazyIvan007]

Here's a response DA,

Do your thing and I'll do mine. I'll be within the law. Where will you be? All the while you sit & contemplate the reality, the consequences, the event, the situation...the badguy could be making the last move that will put you in the ground.

One-on-one in the heat of it is a lot different than police situations where they can surround a suspect and make a best-guess judgement on how to proceed. When you are alone in a fight, being attacked...every moment counts and every moment neglected to reflect on the situation could be your last.

I'm not going to do anything stupid. I know the appropriate amount of force required for a given situation. If you can't accept that, well what can I say? Oh well...I will act within the law and within my own defense. Defending my rights is not acting on emotion. It is acting on my rights and in defense of the law.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but a person can not put every single thought down here, without writing an autobiography about it. So I apologize if I can not be as eloquent or mindful with my written words. But, other things I solidly disagree with. If I am being attacked, you can damn sure bet that I am going to react with force.

So, do what you would do and I'll do what I would do.

[David Armstrong]

Do your thing and I'll do mine.
I never contemplated otherwise.
All the while you sit & contemplate the reality, the consequences, the event, the situation...the badguy could be making the last move that will put you in the ground.
Many have tried, none have succeeded yet.
One-on-one in the heat of it is a lot different than police situations where they can surround a suspect and make a best-guess judgement on how to proceed.
Got some real bad news for you. One-on-one you are still making a best-guess judgement on how to proceed. You can try to improve the odds of that guess helping by basing it on reality instead of what happened on the last Rambo movie you watched or whatever other source you use.
I'm not going to do anything stupid.
I can only comment on what you say in your posts. What you actually do is beyond the scope of the discussion here.
I know the appropriate amount of force required for a given situation.
ANd that is certainly part of the issue. What you seem to keep missing is that it is ony part, not the whole thing.
Defending my rights is not acting on emotion.
No, of course not. How you defend and why are apparenlty an emotional issue for you.
If I am being attacked, you can damn sure bet that I am going to react with force.
There is the difference. If I'm attacked I am going to react in a manner that best enhances my ability to survive with the least danger to me, my family, and my personal resources. If that means force, I'll use force. If that means giving him my wallet, I'll give him my wallet. If it means running in circles like a chicken while crying like a little girl, I'll do that too. But whatever I choose it will be the best choice I can make at the time, not some ill-concieved notion based on emotions or pre-conceived responses.

[threegun]

If that means force, I'll use force. If that means giving him my wallet, I'll give him my wallet.

And here in lies the disagreement. You can't tell until its too late. You don't know until its too late.

[gvf]

Here's what I believe: what will likely happen in such a moment won't be a belief: it will be sheer, raw instinct, and it seems one of 3 instincts would likely take over: (1) the worst: absolute shock, stand there and stare; (2) an instinctive fear of impending death: you shoot; (3) a sense of "room", you flee, punch, kick, etc. I don't think an instinctive fear of the law will take over - it's abstract at that point.

And how will it all come out? As fate will have it, no doubt. And we hope our instincts meet reality as well as the law - and do our best to train to influence that. But ccw is no guarantee, it's a chance among others and one that otherwise would not exist. I think its best to know that. It may help keep us from being cowards or fools.

[David Armstrong]

And how will it all come out? As fate will have it, no doubt.
No doubt. But one can influence the fates odds a bit by understanding the realities and thinking about them in advance. It's not over until it is over, and one can always move up on the force scale if lower options fail. I would hazard a guess that most of the folks here that advocate all this shooting right away stuff have never been in a real gunfight, or probably not even done much FoF for that matter.
But ccw is no guarantee, it's a chance among others and one that otherwise would not exist.
Exactly. Giving up the wallet does not mean you can't still shoot if needed. You start with the BG has the drop on you and you are at a position of disadvantage. Nothing changes except the BG has your wallet and now anticipates compliance.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A left liberal should not only give up his wallet but ask the bad guy if he could write him a check and take him for a Mocha Latte. :D

Now seriously (if one can), the idea that you are frozen in terror is out there. However, for plain old FOG civilians, that's why FOF training is quite essential to give you a feel for the contingencies and some innoculation against the freeze. Of course, it is a touch expensive but well worth it. If one shoots a lot or competes a lot - you probably can save up the $400 for a local weekend to get a taste of the experience.

Again, I would note, that most of the FOF classes I've had are very deep into the contingencies of shoot/no shoot. Matches are always shoot'em ups.

[GalilARM]

I wake up in the middle of the night, see a guy in my driveway rooting around in my car, should I confront him? In theory, no. But if I did, and somehow in the course of it all, I felt threatened (like say he made some sudden movement toward the waistband area) then I could shoot him.

Now what if I wake up in the middle of the night and there is a guy just standing at the foot of my bed. Just standing there, not threatening me, and not trying to take my TV, etc. Just looking at me. I can and would still shoot to kill. You know why? Because I feel threatened. I still win the case. The guy is in my house, dead. As far as the police are concerned, he could have been doing any number of things that made me fear for my life.

I dont care about researching other laws for other states, only Texas. If you are in my house or on my property doing ANYTHING you shouldnt be doing, then you are in a bad pickle because I can say anything I choose to reinforce the fact that my life was in danger, and there isnt a thing you can do to argue that. After all, you would be dead.

If you have some moral issue with that then I invite you to come stay here in Waco with me for a while. I'll give it two weeks before your car is burglarized or you are "fake robbed" by a gang of wannabe thugs. You can criticize my thought process all day long, and that wont change a thing. There are so many people out there who dont deserve to breathe, but I dont get to make that choice. Only when you choose to try and step on my rights to safety and security does it become my choice.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, since I like playing the game of what ifs:

If you find a guy in your house in TX, standing over your bed, you have a reasonable case to shoot him. However, let's think about what you said.

Just looking at me. I can and would still shoot to kill.

After all, you would be dead

So you see the guy, you retrieve your gun and you shoot him. How do you predict he will be dead? Most people live through handgun shootings? No guarantee that you will hit COM or the brain stem or even a COM shot will be fatal. If the dude falls to the floor and you finish him off, forsenics will figure that out and you might charged.

Let's be clear - one needs to understand that a shooting outcome isn't necessarily a kill. So you need to think about that.

Take the shot to 'stop' the person and think about what to do if he or she is still alive. Don't ya think?

I've been thinking about the cliches of posting.

One that a good guy will always win the gun battle and kills the opponent with one or two shots.

The other is that one is a mighty physical specimen and no one will mess with and you will win any fight.

[Groundhog]

Glenn, Do you happen to know the stat for surviving pistol shootings? I had no idea that most people survived.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's very high. I heard a presentation by a doc at the NTI about it and with modern trauma care and fast response it's in the 90%. If it isn't an instant kill, you have quite a chance for making it.

Thus, in a dynamic situation, you quite likely might not make the money shot. Especially under stress.

It's different from our matches where you shoot at static targets and get 0s. Even those might be surivable.

I'm no great shot. I'm sure folks will claim that they don't miss. However, at the NTI, I've done some quite good shots but also, I made some fairly crappy ones. On a moving guy, I shot him in the lower back and arm. I've been shot and head grazed and shoulder it. I've also been shot to pieces by four guys.

My point is that you need not to assume you carry the day in the gun fight.

See you at a match, Greg!!

[Kreyzhorse]

I guess I have one automatic "take action" mode. I feel that if any one is in my house uninvited, that the only reason they are there is to harm me or my wife. If any one is in my home and fails to obey my voice commands to stop (if I have the ability to confront them from a distance) I will fire. I've played this over in my mind training myself if need be for this action and I believe in this strongly.

Outside of my home is a different story. While I certainly won't allow any one to harm my wife or myself, I don't know what the situation would be to cause me to pull my CCW. Too many scenarios to explain my response in each.

[David Armstrong]

It's very high. I heard a presentation by a doc at the NTI about it and with modern trauma care and fast response it's in the 90%. If it isn't an instant kill, you have quite a chance for making it.
Acording to an MD at one of Farnam's courses (MD is well published, IWBA member, etc) if one discards suicides the survival rate for handgun shootings is right at 95%.

[Kruniac]

Responding to "You cant finish the bad guy off when hes down" statement - Keep in mind that most shootouts/defenses happen in VERY fast order. In other words, the guy with the gun shoots until the other guy falls or he expends his munitions.

Hell, Ive even seen videos (security footage etc.) of gangbangers (and even wiseguys) shooting each other, and most always its just Aim, Shoot, Shoot, Shoot.

Who is really to say that the evidence pointing to me walking over to the perp, stopping at around <x> feet, and putting one round through the nose isnt the exact same as shooting until down, and the last round just happened to hit him where it counted?

Believe me - in a case someone entering my apartment with anything I remotely see as hostile intent, its these simple motions.

Get Mossberg. Aim Mossberg (I keep it chambered and beside my bed). Fire Mossberg at COM.

WHILE the bad guy is going down, these simple steps.

Pump Mossberg. Aim Mossberg at a slightly lower position, still at the BG.

...Then we have two versions. The versions the cops will hear, and the version that I will see.

#1 - Fire Mossberg at BG, without any hesitation. He just so happened to be on the ground, but I didnt think about that - I just wanted the threat to stop. After the second shot (this one), the BG wasnt moving.

#2 - Fire Mossberg at BG's neck/face area once, pumping another shell into the chamber in case of an attack. If the BG isnt moving (which he shouldnt be), call 911 and try to get over it.

So in short - The police will want to hear that you NEVER stopped firing until a reasonable moment passed, and NEVER specifically aimed to kill the BG. You will want to ensure that they know it was a frantic fluid event, and nothing more. Tragic.

What you will want to do is ensure that...
1 - The threat is eliminated (That means Dead.)
2 - You stick to your story no matter what, because your lawyer will tell you if you are fubar, and you can change details accordingly.
3 - Nothing civil or criminal will come of you defending yourself/family.

All this talk about forensics is warrented, but not if you consider the situations. If during an actual frantic gunfight a person can get hit (more than once!!!) while prone, due to rapid succession firing while training aim to pattern with the target's bodily movement (even if that means falling movement), then you could damn sure CLAIM that and get off one in the eye from a pistol.

We arent talking Goodfellas here - nothing point blank, but ill be damned if you couldnt get away with a 10-15 foot well aimed cheekbone hit.

Like I've posted before - many headshots occur during struggles for a firearm. Lesson learned? Either shoot to kill at 10-15 feet, where ballistics would show a consistant pattern with the "dropping" shots, and no suspicion would be roused, or (:barf:) give them the barrel-aside-the-cheek-pointing-upward-he-grabbed-my-gun shot, which I dont advise. Either way, dead perp who violated your freedom, home, and security.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Gee, I wonder why the professional police and forensic literature spends so much time on figuring out exactly what happened in a shooting when it is so easy to fake it to your advantage. :barf:

[Kruniac]

A stranger breaks into a home, with no connection whatsoever to the victim, and gets shot by the victim in what seems to be a self-defense case. The victim of the burglary is devestated by the events thus far, and has spoken through his lawyer to ensure that he doesnt say anything which can be used against him.

...Im sure the police are going to use every resource at their disposal to see what exactly happened, particularly if they have other cases. Lets be realistic here - I'm not saying Barrel Against The Head - BLAM!, but forensics isnt magic, either.

A pattern of fire in which the shooter continues to aim his pistol to follow the attacker's descent isnt excessive force, nor is it intentional mayhem, or anything else. It occurs naturally within the boundaries of a firefight. Keeping that in mind, if one DIDNT move towards the fallen attacker, but carefully aimed and fired one last shot, it -should- fit that pattern.

And being even more realistic - how many times has the "poor old man" who was attacked put an extra round or two in the "bad guy"? Consider it.

[Justme]

Setting aside the whole legal issue, do you guys have any ethical or moral lines over which you will not cross?

[CrazyIvan007]

Setting aside the whole legal issue, do you guys have any ethical or moral lines over which you will not cross?

The intruder pushed that line and made a decision for me when he broke into my house. I won't be held responsible for the lack of judgement on the part of a criminal.

Shooting someone is not a happy thing, but sometimes necessary. Laws governing the use of defense are, in my opinion, very morally and common sense based. "If you feel threatened, or are attacked, feel free to defend yourself."

That is the basic concept of self defense. It is legally and morally right, in my opinion.

Age, race, disposition, mental state, etc...have no bearing on threat level, as they can all pose equal amount of threat, and reasonable force should be used to cease that threat.

[David Armstrong]

Lets be realistic here - I'm not saying Barrel Against The Head - BLAM!, but forensics isnt magic, either.
Yes, let's be realistic here. Forensics is not magic, and it doesn't need to be magic. The prisons have a whole lot of folks in them who thought much like you seem to think. It's not magic. Don't any of you folks who post stuff like this do any research or reading on the subject before tossing out some of this stuff?

The intruder pushed that line and made a decision for me when he broke into my house.
So apparently you are saying that you will allow a criminal who does not have your best interests in mind to make a decision for you that can significantly mess up the rest of your life. Doesn't sound real smart to me.

[CrazyIvan007]

So apparently you are saying that you will allow a criminal who does not have your best interests in mind to make a decision for you that can significantly mess up the rest of your life. Doesn't sound real smart to me.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

If they choose to break the law, they are choosing to face the consequences...beit getting away with it, going to jail or peeing in a bag for the rest of their life or dying by getting shot.

Doesn't matter if I am the one they attack or if it is you. They dictate the level of force needed to stop them. Perhaps we each may react differently to a situation, but ultimately, they may make the choice that you will react to their attack by shooting.

[Justme]

Shooting someone has a very good chance of messing up your life for years to come, for a whole host of reasons of which getting caught up in the legal system is just one. You may well end up being held responsible for a decision that a criminal made.

Self defense laws are much more complicated than "if you feel threatened feel free to defend yourself". Do yourself a favor and read up on actual case law. The reason I say case law is that non lawyers often read the actual laws and think they know what the words mean when in fact that is not how the courts have decided to interpret the law. Remember, it's not your opinion of a law that matters it's the court's opinion defined by accumulated case law on the matter. Sometimes customs that have been in place for hundreds or even thousands of years impact what certain phrases mean in application.

[David Armstrong]

but ultimately, they may make the choice that you will react to their attack by shooting.
Sorry, I make that choice to shoot or not, and I make it based on what I feel is best. I don't make it based on what I think someone else is forcing me to do.

Nothing personal, as I feel you are really trying here, but I strongly suggest you get both some good legal advice and some good training, and see if that doesn't change things for you a bit.

[CrazyIvan007]

DA,

Please outline for us what would push you over the edge to take the shot. I would bet it closely matches mine.

To give a few examples:

Grabbing me in a violent manner with obvious intent to do me harm and knocking them a few does not make them back down.

Charging at me with a knife.

Drawing a gun on me (obviously if I have the opportunity only).

Shooting at me.

If I come up on a rapist, kidnapper or assaulter in the act and they do not heed my request for them to stop or they ensue on any of the above.


...Just a few.

[threegun]

CrazyIvan, DA would first have to access his vast statistical arsenal before deciding to shoot or not. The rest of us would react with the necessary level of force needed to end the threat. I agree that the threat and situation dictates what I do.

[David Armstrong]

Please outline for us what would push you over the edge to take the shot.
I don't get pushed over the edge to take shots. I take shots when it is in my best interest to do so. I don't shoot out of emotion, I shoot because I believe that is the best solution available to me to solve the problem at that time. Shooting is a last resort, not a first resort, and something I do on my cue, not on someone else's. MAybe that is the difference between those with experience and those without?? I find very few actual gunfighters who don't want to avoid gunfights.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A pattern of fire in which the shooter continues to aim his pistol to follow the attacker's descent isnt excessive force

Can't resist - in what movie did you see aimed fire follow a dropping person in a manner guaranteed to make a killing shot?

Fantasy BS. In fact, there is a study underway to deal with the following problem. A cop shoots a guy and he drops, the cop is still firing and the dropping guy takes one through the top of his noggin (given the angle of his head as he drops). The cop is charged with firing a finishing shot on a guy who is down. Because how else do you shoot someone through the top of his head?

Shooting swingers is a bear in matches. One tries for a good hit. But you guys who think you are going to guarantee a killing shot on a dropping target, as to differentiate from shooting someone on the ground, are just of baloney.

[Vanguard.45]

Just a couple of questions (and MY answers):

What is it a criminal takes when he murders someone?

Answer: Time (i.e. the time the person would have in the future to spend either at work or at leisure)

What is it a criminal takes when he steals property?

Answer: Time (i.e. the time in the past the person spent WORKING to acquire the funds to purchase the property the criminal now is taking from the victim)

Either way, the criminal is taking away TIME from the victim. Does the fact that the time is from the past rather than the future really all that important? I say NO!

Why is this so hard for people in the legal system to get?

Vanguard.45

[David Armstrong]

Why is this so hard for people in the legal system to get?
Perhaps because they disagree with your basic concept? I'm not sure i follow either. Are you posing that loss of time should be the criteria for determining criminal activity?

[threegun]

Looks like Vanguard is comparing property crime and murder to me. Showing the similarities in both. The fact that it boils down to both crimes taking time from the victim. He is dead on IMO. Property crimes should be treated more seriously is what I believe his point is.

[ghalleen]

While I am a huge proponent of every scenario being different and a judgement call, engage brain, etc., this got me wondering about the "general" reason you would consider using lethal force. A lot of folks say they are unwilling to use it to protect property. Some are. But what about that situation when someone is pointing a gun at YOU but says they only want property?

If I don't feel threatened, I wouldn't do what the BG wants (give him my wallet, keys, etc). So, if I feel like I have to do what he's demanding, it would only be because I feel my safety is being threatened, and that means I can protect myself using whatever force I have available.