The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Ruark · November 15, 2010, 01:15 PM

Funny - the "quote" button disappeared...

Gearchecker: "If you're threatened to the point where you feel the need to pull and fire your weapon, you must be in a frame of mind to absolutly stop that threat, and that warrants deadly force. If you can shoot to disable, isn't the argument strong enough that your opti on to flee would possibly have been greater? "

Agreed, but you have an obligation to use the minimum amount of deadly force, as long as it stops the attack.

If an assailant is walking towards you with a knife 10 feet away and saying he's going to kill you and the "run away" option is off the table, you're advised not to empty ten clips into him or shoot him with an RPG.

UNLESS circumstances simply made it impossible, I would definitely take his foot or knee, because that's all that would be necessary to stop the threat.

I started thinking about this a few years ago when an incident happened that was on the news. A police officer was called to a scene. Upon arriving, a very agitated, obese woman was standing outside the office of an apartment building, yelling towards the door. She was angry with the management; she hadn't paid her bill in several months and they had told her to move out. She was holding a large kitchen knife.

The officer told her to put down the knife. She ignored him and started walking towards the office door, holding up the knife. The officer couldn't physically intervene or block her because he was about 10 feet from her, to her side. He pulled his weapon and killed her on the spot with several COM shots. This was in mid-afternoon, in the wide open, in broad daylight, in front of many witnesses.

I often visualized myself in the same situation; why in the WORLD didn't he just shoot her in the foot? It would have "stopped the threat," to use the popular language; she would have been disabled instantly, and of course as an on duty LEO he could have EMS there in a matter of seconds. Of course an investigation was conducted, and the shooting was found to be justified under all the usual "deadly threat, deadly force" principles.

Been thinking about it ever since.

- Ruark

November 15, 2010, 01:15 PM	#7
Ruark Senior Member Join Date: November 12, 2010 Posts: 227	Funny - the "quote" button disappeared... Gearchecker: "If you're threatened to the point where you feel the need to pull and fire your weapon, you must be in a frame of mind to absolutly stop that threat, and that warrants deadly force. If you can shoot to disable, isn't the argument strong enough that your opti on to flee would possibly have been greater? " Agreed, but you have an obligation to use the minimum amount of deadly force, as long as it stops the attack. If an assailant is walking towards you with a knife 10 feet away and saying he's going to kill you and the "run away" option is off the table, you're advised not to empty ten clips into him or shoot him with an RPG. UNLESS circumstances simply made it impossible, I would definitely take his foot or knee, because that's all that would be necessary to stop the threat. I started thinking about this a few years ago when an incident happened that was on the news. A police officer was called to a scene. Upon arriving, a very agitated, obese woman was standing outside the office of an apartment building, yelling towards the door. She was angry with the management; she hadn't paid her bill in several months and they had told her to move out. She was holding a large kitchen knife. The officer told her to put down the knife. She ignored him and started walking towards the office door, holding up the knife. The officer couldn't physically intervene or block her because he was about 10 feet from her, to her side. He pulled his weapon and killed her on the spot with several COM shots. This was in mid-afternoon, in the wide open, in broad daylight, in front of many witnesses. I often visualized myself in the same situation; why in the WORLD didn't he just shoot her in the foot? It would have "stopped the threat," to use the popular language; she would have been disabled instantly, and of course as an on duty LEO he could have EMS there in a matter of seconds. Of course an investigation was conducted, and the shooting was found to be justified under all the usual "deadly threat, deadly force" principles. Been thinking about it ever since. - Ruark Last edited by Ruark; November 15, 2010 at 01:31 PM.