PDA

View Full Version : If all else fails and you have to fire, does the size of the BG matter?


cloud8a
June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM
If all else fails and you have to fire, does the size of the BG matter?

For instance a 300 pound 6'5 bad guy and your CCW .380. (just an example)

MosesMosley
June 17, 2009, 12:55 AM
shot placement.......

Kyo
June 17, 2009, 01:00 AM
well, yes shot placement. but lets say you aren't a perfect shot every time. The 300 pound guy has much more muscle than me, a 150 pound guy to absorb those .380 bullets. I would argue that because I have less mass for the bullet to dig through, I would be more hurt by each shot compared to the 300 pound guy.
So, yes the size of the BG does matter. It sure will legally anyway. if I am 150 and the guy I shot is 300, im pretty sure I will walk if it was real self defense without provocation

cloud8a
June 17, 2009, 01:03 AM
the BG has a gun
the BG has a knife
the BG is charging you from 20 feet, he is huge, should SD training always incorporate a head shot.

I am thinking of bear stories gone bad. Not that big BG's equal big bears but you could replace wildness with 'on drugs'.

scottaschultz
June 17, 2009, 01:04 AM
There is no "magic formula" for selecting what size of round to use on a specific size of person. If you have to shoot, shoot what you have and make it count!

Scott

MosesMosley
June 17, 2009, 01:08 AM
totally, no one is 100% accurate. But the bigger the guy, the bigger the target is. If hitting a "300lbs+" in the chest is too hard, then carrying a gun probably isn't too good of a idea. I am far from a great shot, but with a big target + close range(would have to be in order to be SD) isn't hard. Of course SD situations are different then target practice but it still applies. If worried too much about it, carry a spare mag or 2.

Maromero
June 17, 2009, 01:11 AM
well, yes shot placement. but lets say you aren't a perfect shot every time. The 300 pound guy has much more muscle than me, a 150 pound guy to absorb those .380 bullets. I would argue that because I have less mass for the bullet to dig through, I would be more hurt by each shot compared to the 300 pound guy.
So, yes the size of the BG does matter. It sure will legally anyway. if I am 150 and the guy I shot is 300, im pretty sure I will walk if it was real self defense without provocation

Man... Chronicles of trouble brewing. Boy you better change your mindset or you will end up with a world of trouble.

Kyo
June 17, 2009, 01:24 AM
if you think you can judge a mindset from one post then work on yours. I keep out of trouble just fine. the point of what I was saying is that people of different sizes are affected by bullets in different degrees, IE how bad it disrupts their body's normal function. the last part was also true, its called disproportion of power

cloud8a
June 17, 2009, 01:24 AM
A spare mag might not do in close quarters. does a head shot need to be incorporated in SD training? Are small caliber guns not a good idea for CCW?

I read an article a long time ago, and I would love to cite it here but can't, that after the 1st 2 rounds to center mass any other center mass shots would have little immediate shocking effect to a BG. The idea of the article was the importance of making the 3rd shot a head shot.

I do not practice enough to have confidence in BANG BANG chest BANG head.

So should one consider large high power guns?
what if you do and go with a .44 mag and fire on a 17 year old 130 pound kid or a 115 pound 22 year old because you were prepping for the 300 pound BG?

my point being you can be in a life or death SD situation with any size human, and if size matters, then what do you choose for CCW?

DougO83
June 17, 2009, 01:29 AM
what if you do and go with a .44 mag and fire on a 17 year old 130 pound kid because you were prepping for the 300 pound BG?


I fail to see why size of BG v. caliber is an issue at all. Carry the largest caliber you are comfortable with and can legally CC. It does not legally matter if you are in fear of your life enough to draw a .380 on Hulk Hogan on steroids coming at you with a machete or a .50 DE on vern troyer attacking your shins with a box cutter. Both can be deadly force situations. Deadly force can be used in both instances...

I do not practice enough to have confidence in BANG BANG chest BANG head.

Respectfully, if you do not practice enough to be confident in a COM shot, you probably would be better served not to carry. Everyone gets the shakes when they shoot, I have been told by a few I have been fortunate so far, but you have to learn to control your shot. If you are not practicing enough to feel capable of doing so, please do not carry. Not only for the safety of those around you, but for your own legal sake...


RE: the head shot. When I took my commission class, I earned the nickname of "Dead Baby." I told my SGT that I was going to put every round that I sent down range into the head of the silhouette. I missed 1 and it went right over the shoulder of the "person." SGT said "Well, he missed the bad guy, so now we got a f-in dead baby on our hands." Referring to the fact that the errant round could have hit a child. A macabre display and discussion followed, but it certainly taught me the value of not looking for a headshot.

Kyo
June 17, 2009, 01:33 AM
You would argue that the different calibers do affect different sizes of people in different ways. Like you just said, a small guy might be affected more by the 45 than the big guy. It would be physics that proves this. The bullet is constant, but the mass it is entering is what is varied. Like a car crashing into a parked one. The heavier car will be pushed less because it has more weight/mass
EDIT- so how far away of a COM shot would you argue you need to be in order for you to feel that a person is ready to carry?

DougO83
June 17, 2009, 01:44 AM
Kyo, the failing of the car argument is that vehicles do not go into shock. I am 6'2" and 270#. I was shot in the shoulder with a .25 and I got sick to my stomach. You could shoot some behemoth with a .22LR and he could flip out simply from being in shock.

This whole issue seems to be a non-issue to me. I don't wake up and think "I might be in an area with a bunch of abnormally sized men, I should pack something bigger than my .22." I just always grab the .357Mag. It is the weapon that I am most capable and comfortable with.

Also, I do not understand your questions about COM. All I can say without clarification of the question is these two things: If someone is not confident in their shooting ability, they obviously should not be carrying AND some states, like my home state of TX, have a "maximum range" for SD shots. I want to say it is about 20-odd feet. There is a reason CHL classes teach and practice shots at the distances they do...

cloud8a
June 17, 2009, 01:50 AM
Doug083

I would not say that only a person expert in head shots should be the only ones who can CCW.

Everyone is responsible for what is behind the target. That being said you have a hydra headed deal here, caliber, SD training for head shots, and confidence in head shots VS. caliber.

Kyo
June 17, 2009, 01:51 AM
yea, but you said you got sick to your stomach. that can be both physical and mental. a smaller person might have thrown up, or went unconscious. thing is, we don't know if it was mental or physical that did it. how can we tell?

DougO83
June 17, 2009, 01:53 AM
I would not say that only a person expert in head shots should be the only ones who can CCW.

This is exactly what I said. Read the little story I posted for Kyo. That story is a perfect example of my lack of confidence in my own ability to make headshots. I missed 1 out of 50 and will not try for one in an active shooter scenario because of that. I do not want to miss a critical shot and harm an innocent person. However, expertise is not the issue. Confidence is. You said you do not practice enough to be confident in a Mozambique shot. So...we have two problems here: a lack of confidence and a lack of practice. You know what they say "perfect practice makes perfect."

Everyone is responsible for what is behind the target. That being said you have a hydra headed deal here, caliber, SD training for head shots, and confidence in head shots VS. caliber.

You mis-read, cloud, I specifically said Respectfully, if you do not practice enough to be confident in a COM shot, you probably would be better served not to carry I am referring to your admission that I do not practice enough to have confidence in BANG BANG chest


kyo

yea, but you said you got sick to your stomach. that can be both physical and mental. a smaller person might have thrown up, or went unconscious. thing is, we don't know if it was mental or physical that did it. how can we tell?


Sorry for mentioning that as it seemed to distract from the point, which is two-fold: You cannot know ahead of time what size BG you may be forced to shoot and it is impractical to pack enough weapons in enough different calibers to cover all your bases AND practice=confidence. If you do not have confidence in your shooting ability, you owe the public the favor of not carrying...I am 100% confident in the fact that I will hit what I shoot. I practice monthly. If I miss an unacceptable amount of shots while at the range (determined by the weapon being fired) I buy another box of shells and shoot until I am satisfied. I know this may sound extreme, but I carry a weapon for work and have to be dang sure that I only hit what I need to.

I am sorry if I was unclear, guys. I am trying to figure out the mentality behind the OP and providing a little insight as I can...

cloud8a
June 17, 2009, 02:10 AM
I understand Doug what you are saying. But confidence only goes so far. Of course practice, practice, practice. But there are too many variables to say only those who practice as much as you do should be the only ones who CCW.

I can say that all the commission classes and refresher courses I have taken none ever focused on head shots. That never caused my renewal to be revoked in Texas.

I do not disagree with you on the importance of honing your skills, but I do think there is a point were one could be too confident.

DougO83
June 17, 2009, 02:13 AM
But confidence only goes so far.

IME practice breeds skill which breeds confidence.


Of course practice, practice, practice. But there are too many variables to say only those who practice as much as you do should be the only ones who CCW.

I don't think people who practice as I do should be the only ones who CC, I even say that my methods may be a bit extreme. I just think that someone who proclaims a lack of confidence shouldn't CC. Would you feel comfortable if you overheard a LEO saying that he/she did not know if they could make a critical shot if the SHTF? I wouldn't...

I can say that all the commission classes and refresher courses I have taken none ever focused on head shots.

Neither did mine. That was what I said. My SGT and I made a bet of sorts that I could not put all the shots down range into the head of the silhouette. He was right and proved a very good point and certainly hammered a message home for me.

That never caused my renewal to be revoked in Texas.

I don't understand the bearing of this statement, please explain.

I do not disagree with you on the importance of honing your skills, but I do think there is a point were one could be too confident.

This is where we must agree to disagree. I am very confident in my shooting abilities. I don't want that moment to come (God Forbid it anyway) and I hesitate because I have not practiced enough to know I can make the shot count. Like I have said in other threads, I carry a weapon for work, so my shooting ability is as much a necessity as extra ammo.


You keep missing my point. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT HEAD SHOTS! I refuse to try them because of my training class experience. I have now said it 3 or 4 times. A head shot is not realistic in an SD scenario and, therefore, a non-issue...that was my point. You said you lacked the confidence to make even the COM shots. That is why I said that if you don't practice enough to feel confident you shouldn't carry...Mind you, this is my personal opinion. The moment that I do not feel that I am a competent shooter, I will put my weapons away...

cloud8a
June 17, 2009, 02:35 AM
O.K. I think I get you now.

What was meant by the revoked in Texas thing was they never made us practice head shots. Center mass proficiency is what got us our renewal in Texas.

What I meant by BANG BANG chest BANG head, was only the BANG head part. I felt that BANG BANG BANG chest was where I was confident. I was not so sure about 3rd shot being head, MY best bet.

That is what caused this thread I guess if training calls for the 3rd shot to be head and you do not want to risk that are there other options besides putting everything into center mass.

And all of that is anchored in the idea of training the 3rd shot to be a head shot at all.

DougO83
June 17, 2009, 02:42 AM
Ahh...gotcha now...I never would advise a head shot. Not with a handgun...with a long gun, at a distance, with a clear shot, etc...maybe...

JohnKSa
June 17, 2009, 03:13 AM
The 300 pound guy has much more muscle than me, a 150 pound guy to absorb those .380 bullets. I would argue that because I have less mass for the bullet to dig through, I would be more hurt by each shot compared to the 300 pound guy.
So, yes the size of the BG does matter.The amount of tissue destroyed by a handgun bullet is miniscule in comparison to the bodyweight of even a small adult. Around a tenth of a percent of the total bodyweight.

Assuming that the bullet destroys about 2.5 oz of tissue then in a 300lb person the tissue destroyed by a handgun bullet might be 0.05% while for a 150lb person the tissue destroyed might be 0.1%.

What it comes down to is that if it's not the right miniscule amount of tissue destroyed then nothing's going to happen unless the person decides to give up/leave. Doesn't matter how big or how little they are.

It does have a lot to do with pain tolerance or determination, neither of which has anything to do with size....some states, like my home state of TX, have a "maximum range" for SD shots. I want to say it is about 20-odd feet.I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing in TX law that suggests anything like this. I don't know where you got that information, but the best I can say is that someone was being extremely "creative".

DougO83
June 17, 2009, 03:35 AM
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing in TX law that suggests anything like this. I don't know where you got that information, but the best I can say is that someone was being extremely "creative".


There may not be, John, there are, however, many instructors who will tell you that you will be damn hard-pressed to prove that you felt that your life was threatened by someone over roughly 21 feet away...

Sixer
June 17, 2009, 03:56 AM
Simple answer has to be YES. How could size not matter? Sure, shot placement is the key and size won't matter in every case. However, if you're 350 lbs chances are that even a COM shot is going to have to travel through more tissue, fat, or muscle before it reaches any vitals. Nobody is bullet proof, but if you're gonna get shot you would be better off to have some extra padding.

teeroux
June 17, 2009, 07:00 AM
Yes it matters the thicker they are the more stuff there is to deflect the travel of the bullet.

Dingoboyx
June 17, 2009, 07:05 AM
Just keep shootin' :rolleyes:

hogdogs
June 17, 2009, 07:28 AM
2 CoM, reassess... if more are needed and rounds are getting low, a head shot may be in order.
Brent

mp25ds4
June 17, 2009, 09:21 AM
big sometimes doesnt matter I know some huge guys that are P****, just shoot what you can and get away to give the pain time to set in

stargazer65
June 17, 2009, 09:27 AM
Size doesn't matter, it's all in how you use it.

easyG
June 17, 2009, 09:34 AM
Yes, size matters.

As a general rule of thumb, bigger animals require more powerful rounds, to stop them quickly, than smaller animals require.

A .22LR for a squirrel? Yes.
A .22LR for a Kodiac Brown Bear? Only if you have a deathwish!

Mello2u
June 17, 2009, 11:20 AM
cloud8a

If all else fails and you have to fire, does the size of the BG matter?

For instance a 300 pound 6'5 bad guy and your CCW .380. (just an example)

Size of your target is but one of the infinite variables that can have an effect on the outcome of a shooting. It should be obvious that the bullet will have to penetrate more tissue to traverse the torso of a 6'5" 300 pound assailant compared to a 5' 5" 130 pound assailant.

Consistent reliable deep penetration is only one thing that should be taken into consideration when choosing the performance of the cartridge and bullet that you will carry and bet your life on. All you will have when you need to defend yourself is what you have chosen. You can't say wait a minute let me get my more powerful gun. You carry what you choose and deal with the performance that it provides.

I have seen the results of a 6'9" 320 pound 22 year old shot 7 times with a .25acp. He was able to run around a parking lot for about 30 seconds as he was being shot trying to run away from his attacker. By the time I rolled onto the scene, he was face down and unresponsive. From witness statements, I arrived on the scene about a minute after the shooting.

This is why I have chosen to carry the 10mm auto 200gr @1250fps. Controllable, fast and accurate in a package I can carry all day concealed with an extra magazine and a flashlight. It may be more than enough for most situations, but it will also more likely be enough for all situations.

On the issue of shot placement, it is critical. However, remember that shot placement is not a two dimensional thing. It is three dimensional. It is not only where the bullet enters the target, but what it destroys on its path through the target that matters more.

MLeake
June 17, 2009, 11:35 AM
Not sure what instructors are teaching that it's hard to justify a shoot outside of 21 feet.

The significance of 21 feet, as taught to me by USMC and USN instructors, is that the average shooter will not be able to draw, aim, and fire before a knife wielding attacker can close 21 feet. IE 21 feet is the MINIMUM distance to begin engaging a threat.

buzz_knox
June 17, 2009, 12:04 PM
The 21 foot "rule" is based on Tueller's work. It showed that an average person can cover 21 feet and inflict a lethal wound via a blade or strike within 1.5 seconds. It was just a test and not a rule, but has inappropriately been put forth as such.

Recently, the actual threat distance has been increasing in recognition that people once reaction time is taken into account, 21 feet is danger close. If someone is holding a knife at 30 feet and yelling that he/she is going to gut you like a fish, you do not have to wait until they cover 7 more feet before drawing your weapon

As for not being able to defend a shot at 22 feet, 23 feet, etc, I'd suggest that anyone who asserted this needs to rethink what they are teaching. To argue that point is to argue that if you are taking fire from 10 yards away (the length of a hallway, a large conference room, a very small store, etc), you would be in trouble if you returned fire. Heaven forbid you take incoming in a parking lot, shopping mall, Wal-Mart, or from a tower at the University of Texas.

This sounds like a case where an instructor heard about the Tueller Drill and decided to play lawyer.

Putting firm limits on how far away from someone before self-defense is justified stopped being realistic when the first ranged weapon was introduced (i.e. when Og discovered he could throw a rock).

easyG
June 17, 2009, 12:23 PM
Significance of 21 feet
Not sure what instructors are teaching that it's hard to justify a shoot outside of 21 feet.

The significance of 21 feet, as taught to me by USMC and USN instructors, is that the average shooter will not be able to draw, aim, and fire before a knife wielding attacker can close 21 feet. IE 21 feet is the MINIMUM distance to begin engaging a threat.
Point taken.
But you cannot disregard the fact that deployed military personnel have different rules of engagement than U.S. civilians on the street.

Let's say that you're on a public street and you see a guy about 30 feet away from you, who happens to be carrying a baseball bat, and he's walking your direction, closing the distance at a steady pace.
No threats whatsoever have been made toward you, but he is walking toward you.

He might be a guy who just came from a ball game.
He might be a guy who just bought a baseball bat for his kid.
Or he might be a guy who plans to crush your skull once he gets closer.

But until he makes a threatening remark or demonstrates obviously threatening behavior....
You don't have any LEGAL right to demand that he stop or change directions or drop the bat.
You don't have any LEGAL right to prevent him from walking right up to you.
You don't have any LEGAL right to even make him respond to any remarks you might make.

And you will have a very hard time explaining to a jury that you shot a guy simply because he was walking your direction, on a public street, while carrying a baseball bat.

IN OTHER WORDS.....

In the U.S.A. it is virtually impossible to prevent a street thug from closing the distance toward you unless he is stupid enough to threaten you at a distance.
And that is extremely rare.
Street thugs and muggers rely upon surprise and the ability to get close to their victims and they're usually smart enough to not tip their hand until the last second.

There's nothing wrong with practicing distance shooting.
But you should also practice shooting at arm's length distance, because THAT'S where you most likely to be attacked and have a justified defense.

OJ
June 17, 2009, 12:47 PM
Big guys are easier to hit - :rolleyes:

But I think the question comes down to something else - we had an incident here were the "man of the house" confronted an intruder who broke in the front door - he saw the intruder was "just a teen-aged kid" and didn't shoot him. The intruder, however, had no such concern about shooting the armed man of the house - who had failed to protect his wife and two children.

:barf:

bdturner
June 17, 2009, 12:48 PM
Someone somewhere has walked away/survived after being shot with everykind of handgun round on the market including shotgun rounds. Many of these BG's lived and were able to cause great injury to the person doing the shooting. There is much more to think about than just the caliber of the weapon you choose. Shot placement, tactics, reloads, shoot and move, your ability to put multiple shots onto a moving target under stress.

MLeake
June 17, 2009, 02:32 PM
Or you could say that a threat identified inside of 21 feet is probably going to injure you while you employ your defensive tactics. I agree that training for close-in encounters is a good idea, but this has less to do with ROE than the fact that sometimes the BG will surprise us.

This is kind of like martial arts instructors saying that if you fight a guy who has a knife, expect to get cut. You have to mentally prepare for that probability.

OJ
June 17, 2009, 03:03 PM
A couple of years ago, we had an incident where a guy (turned out to be a known serial repist - well over 200# - who had left one of his victims to die in the past) tried to break in the back door of a little old lady who wouldn't have weighed 100# fully dressed. She had a 38 special revolver she had instruction for defensive use and how to shoot it.

He ignored her shouting and did break in the door. She emptied her revolver at him - hitting him five of the six she fired. He retreated and got in his car to escape but, blood loss took its toll and he passed out and ran into some parked cars - drawing the attention of th cops and identified him at the hospital as being a "wanted" type and arrested him and broiught him to justice.

Meanwhile, this little old lady did the best thing she could - reflecting her good instruction - she first reloaded her revolver and then dialed 911 !!

The outcome was she was named "Citizen of the Year" - and - also convinced my wife she could use a gun for her personal defense !!!

:D

raftman
June 17, 2009, 03:45 PM
I am no expert so I look at it from the perspective of logic, sort of like a "thought experiment" as Newton would have performed since there was no way to create a friction-free environment and what not.

Yes the size of the BG matters. The way to determine if a given variable "matters" is thinking about whether the outcome will be different assuming all other factors remain perfectly constant. So in this case, assume we're talking about the same exact ammo, fired at the same distance, with exactly the same shot placement, etc and the only variable is the size of the BG, it's only logical to think the outcome will be different if a BG weighs 300 pounds rather than 130.

However, as others have pointed out and I will try to summarize, this variable alone is too wide in its implications, and there are too many possibilities to ever be perfectly prepared for, when you take into account ALL of the possible variables, it becomes clear that this is an equation for which no one solution satisfies all of the criteria. There's nothing out there that will be the best choice for all situations, there's only something that will be the best choice for you in most situations.

Archie
June 17, 2009, 10:16 PM
"If all else fails..." means the intent and threat is deadly, present and impending.

I'm not going to not shoot because I think shooting him may make him angrier. He's already decided he's going to kill or hurt me as much as he likes. If he's big and my gun won't stop him, I'm going to die on my feet.

If he's a little wimpy guy, he's still presenting - intending - an impending, deadly and present threat.

JohnKSa
June 17, 2009, 11:58 PM
...however, many instructors who will tell you that you will be damn hard-pressed to prove that you felt that your life was threatened by someone over roughly 21 feet away...It depends heavily on the circumstances. For example, there are a couple of places in my house that offer an unobstructed view to other portions of the house that are up to 10 yards (well over 21 feet) away--but it wouldn't be difficult at all to demonstrate that a person who illegally entered my house was a threat even though he was over 21 feet from me at the time I fired on him.

Although, in general, it's going to be harder to justify a self-defense shooting the farther away the attacker is, that's completely different than saying it's illegal to shoot someone who's more than 20 some odd feet away regardless of the circumstances. I'm not aware of any self-defense law anywhere in the U.S. that puts a limit on the allowable distance for a justifiable shooting.I'm not going to not shoot because I think shooting him may make him angrier. He's already decided he's going to kill or hurt me as much as he likes. If he's big and my gun won't stop him, I'm going to die on my feet.From a more practical standpoint, you may end up fighting hand-to-hand with the attacker. It certainly won't hurt your chances to have poked a number of small holes in the attacker before you have to mix it up with him. It could easily make the difference between winning and losing--living and dying.Yes the size of the BG matters.EVERYTHING matters.

The question isn't "Does it matter?", the question is: "Does it matter enough to worry about?" Assuming that the handgun/ammo combination provides sufficient penetration, then the size of the attacker is not something that matters enough to worry about. Other factors such as: pain tolerance, attitude/determination, physical fitness, presence of mind-altering substances, and YES, shot placement, all matter more than the size of the attacker.

Here's a helpful hint to remember when trying to analyze a situation. If you find that you have to create artificial situations/made up scenarios and must eliminate/ignore a lot of other real-world factors in order to demonstrate that a particular factor is important then that's a HUGE clue that particular factor probably isn't that important.

Jim March
June 18, 2009, 01:37 AM
As a fairly big guy myself, I do think it likely I can soak up more damage than most and keep going, at least for a bit. I'm 6'4" and a tad over 300lbs mind you.

But I'll tell you what will make a bigger difference.

Let's say two identical twin brothers get shot at different times with the same caliber and type of bullet in the same place. But in one, it's an accidental shooting of some sort and the guy doesn't believe MORE incoming fire is on the way. In other words, he's not "in a fight for his life".

The other guy shot IS shot in the middle of an ongoing life-or-death fight...or he's getting chased by a bear or whatever.

I guarandamntee you the guy fighting for his life is far less likely to even NOTICE getting shot, let alone get secondary effects like nausea. The difference in relative effect of each round (near term anyhow) will be enormous, "order of magnitude" different.

People in mid-fight can and often will shrug off massive, gory and disgusting damage and keep on coming. Blood spurting, mortally wounded, "limb dangling from a single tendon" level stuff. The Miami '86 FBI shootout was a prime example.

Sorry if I'm grossing anybody out but y'all need to be mentally prepared for that...whether it's YOU wounded or an assailant.

JustDreadful
June 18, 2009, 02:01 AM
The question isn't "Does it matter?", the question is: "Does it matter enough to worry about?"

There you have it







But until he makes a threatening remark or demonstrates obviously threatening behavior....

You don't have any LEGAL right to prevent him from walking right up to you.

Of course you do. You have no LEGAL obligation to converse with anyone. You can move away from anyone, say "Stay away from me," etc. Someone with a baseball bat, following a person who has made known their wish not to be followed, probably isn't shootable, but he's headed in that direction

cloud8a
June 18, 2009, 02:04 AM
Oh My God I have never read about the Miami 86 shoot out! I just read about it on wiki. Sorry I am young and am just blown away at the moment. The O.K. Corral? What is that. Somebody start a thread on this or direct me were to read about it on TFL.

again sorry continue with the big BG thing.

JohnKSa
June 18, 2009, 02:40 AM
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/shooting.htm
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=52070
http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=335099
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237975
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166547

cloud8a
June 18, 2009, 02:48 AM
thank you Johnska.

DougO83
June 18, 2009, 03:46 AM
It depends heavily on the circumstances. For example, there are a couple of places in my house

Castle Doctrine. I don't have to prove crap if someone has forced their way into my home. It's a totally different ballgame. Inside a home is a totally different animal than out on the street.


that offer an unobstructed view to other portions of the house that are up to 10 yards (well over 21 feet) away

I guess it is a matter of perception, but a mere 9feet does not constitute "well over" 21feet. That's just me. Again, it is in your home. I was referring to SD in general. I should have specified that I was not referring to HD scenarios.


Although, in general, it's going to be harder to justify a self-defense shooting the farther away the attacker is, that's completely different than saying it's illegal to shoot someone who's more than 20 some odd feet away regardless of the circumstances.

I don't know if it's legality or practicality that brings this on. It was taught in my commission course. Part of it is all about intent. Like somebody said with the baseball bat analogy, I can't guess your intent until you close on me.


I'm not aware of any self-defense law anywhere in the U.S. that puts a limit on the allowable distance for a justifiable shooting.

Nor am I. Then again, Texas is the only one that makes any difference to me. I need to see if I can find my instructor's phone number and see where he got that information.

easyG
June 18, 2009, 08:33 AM
Of course you do. You have no LEGAL obligation to converse with anyone. You can move away from anyone, say "Stay away from me," etc. Someone with a baseball bat, following a person who has made known their wish not to be followed, probably isn't shootable, but he's headed in that direction.
Correct, you have no legal obligation to converse with anyone.
But just because you say "stay away from me" on a PUBLIC STREET, that does not mean that anyone must obey you request.
Yeah, I could legally follow you down every public street in the USA, begging you for a dollar, while carrying a baseball bat all the while, and you could shout "stay away" and "stop following me" until you were blue in the face, but it wouldn't matter.
It's perfectly legal.
And you can't legally shoot someone for following you down a public street.

Private property is a horse of a different color! ;)

BillCA
June 18, 2009, 09:51 AM
Kudos to Mello2u for giving a good answer to the original post. I think that's a fair assessment.

I'll add that a 6'5" 300-some pound assailant will have more body mass to penetrate just due to his sheer size. But it is also the content of that body mass that can make a big difference in performance.

If that big man is Fat Albert with rolls of jell-o like fat around his middle and torso, it will react differently than if the guy is training to be a 320-lb tackle in the NFL. Muscle tissue is denser with less liquid per cm³.

A coroner tells me that he sees the damage JHP ammo does and that on fat/obese people, they tend to open earlier because the hydrostatic forces from the soft liquid-like fat tissue - like shooting into water. That and the fat layer is usually over their smaller muscle tissues. He says abdominal shots on fat people are generally recovered at or in front of the midline of the body's depth. Bullets in thinner people tend to stop towards the rear parts of the body.

One should keep in mind that the sternum (breastbone) rarely has much to cover it -- muscle or fat -- in your average person. So those COM shots on even a big guy should work just as well as on a skinny one.

Study a little anatomy and you should see that the top 2-3 inches of the sternum is almost an ideal spot to hit as there are half a dozen critical structures just behind it.

OJ
June 18, 2009, 11:18 AM
I think Jeff Cooper had it right when he said that when you are faced with defending yourself - you have two potential problems

1. Saving your life

2. Possible legal reprecussions

If you don't solve #1, you won't have to worry about #2 -

Sound reasonable to me -

:rolleyes:

JohnKSa
June 19, 2009, 01:20 AM
Castle Doctrine. I don't have to prove crap if someone has forced their way into my home.That's exactly my point. If they're in the house in TX it doesn't matter how far they are away, justification is not going to be a problem. That's just one example of a situation where distance almost certainly will not be a factor in determining whether the shooting was justified.I was referring to SD in general. I should have specified that I was not referring to HD scenarios.Even for SD in general, there is no legal distance limit. There isn't even a distance at which it will suddenly become harder to justify an SD shooting unless the attacker is armed only with a contact weapon.

The circumstances of the situation will determine whether the shooting is justified. Distance may or may not be a factor. The Arroyo shooting at the Tyler courthouse, is one example of a situation where distance wouldn't even be considered as a factor at all.Like somebody said with the baseball bat analogy, I can't guess your intent until you close on me.It's not always necessary to guess intent. Sometimes it's very obvious. The Colorado church shooting that took place a few years back is a good example of a situation in which "guessing" was totally unnecessary. The Killeen Luby's shooting is another.I need to see if I can find my instructor's phone number and see where he got that information.It's not "information", it's just made up nonsense. He may not have made it up himself, but someone did.

grey sky
June 20, 2009, 06:08 AM
The two COM and one to the head would be easyer as the agressor is advancing wouldn't it? Agressor keeps advaceing target gets bigger.

J.Smith
June 20, 2009, 06:45 AM
This is why advanced Pistol courses teach you to size up a threat if you have to shoot. You may only have a split second to size up an attacker, but that split second can save your life. As it is known you always shoot to kill, but in someone who closely resembles Andre the Giant, where is critical kill zone? Obviously there is alot more muscle, fat, and bone in between the vitals and the end of your barrel. In most articles I have read, the general consensus is that it is true that after 2 rounds to the chest, any subsequent shots to the same zone will have little immediate effect. I don't trust headshots, to much chance to miss or for the attacker to move, I like the system my training instructor told me and that was 2 to the chest and then stitch them up. First 2 shots go to the chest then you drop to pelvic height and the remaining 8 shots stitch the attacker right up centerline of the body. Gives the best chance to hit another critical organ and drop the attacker. The key in any defencive shooting is to shoot to kill. That is why it is so important to be as fast and accurate as possible regardless of the size of the attacker. Head shots also to me give off the perception that you couldn't have been in so much trouble if you had time to get sights on a center head shot. Think what a prosecutor could twist that into. Full magazine into the torso before the perp hits the floor. Once they hit the floor, I take cover and check to see whether they are still a threat. If they are wounded but no longer attempting to control their weapon, I use cover and wait for police. They go after the gun again, size up situation and respond.

Brit
June 22, 2009, 06:41 AM
It's not the size of the dog in the fight....

To an extent, all factors in a bullet's striking a person, has to do with mind set.

A person defending their 3 year old child, would need to be cut into small pieces before they quit fighting.

One of a group shouting threats, is creased by a bullet, 99 times out of 100 are legging it.

Your 300 lb-6'4" thug is basically meat/bones/and nerve endings.

The following not in any order of importance, they all are.

Tools, my own concept, lots of rounds, good ones, with a track record, mine for instance, Glock 19, 16 rounds of 127g ranger.

Skill, the ability to draw from concealment, and put multiple rounds out, in not much more than one second, small group at 10 feet, reasonable hits at 10 yards. Say 10" center chest. You moving them moving? Then things change in a hurry.

Human body, chest is a vacuum chamber, more or less, in it lives the lungs, heart, and at the back, the spine.

You do not count rounds (shoot twice and access! NO!) fire, fire, fire, thug goes down, shift aim, move. Three hundred or one hundred pounds? What do you think?