The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 29, 2012, 12:18 AM   #26
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 688
Quote:
I consider that a distinction without a difference.
It is an important difference, not just a distinction. Defense, including self defense, is to prevent harm to the intended victim - it is not to kill the the attacker.
__________________
NRA Life Member - RMEF Life Member - Vietnam Vet
lefteye is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 04:42 AM   #27
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,101
I suppose another difference between me using less lethal rounds for HD and the police using them, is that the police would be going on the offensive - and therefore more likely to run into a less violent criminal. If I ever shoot someone in my house they would have pretty much had to have already killed my dogs and then come upstairs.
Lots of great feedback and points I hadn't thought of though.
Seems like the general consensus is that while less lethal has a role, it's not really home defense.
dayman is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 09:02 AM   #28
lawnboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
Quote:
Quote:
I consider that a distinction without a difference.
Quote:
It is an important difference, not just a distinction. Defense, including self defense, is to prevent harm to the intended victim - it is not to kill the the attacker.
It can be an important administrative difference, for the paperwork and for legal reasons. But mentally and psychologically and in my personal preparation and training I've decided not to play that game. Because that's what I consider it; a game. With words.

When I fire a rifle at a deer my target is the area in the chest cavity where the vitals are concentrated. I do this with the intent of a quick, sure, humane kill.

Were I to fire a pistol, shotgun or rifle at a human aggressor my target would be the area of the chest cavity where the vitals are concentrated. I would do this with the intent of a quick, sure kill (there isn't anything humane about shooting a person).

The "stopping" part is the incidental byproduct. I do not see a way around the fact that if I fire a deadly weapon at someone I have to admit that I'm intending to cause that persons death. I may not actually cause it, but it must be considered in my intent.

I feel it is important not to kid myself as to what I'm preparing, equipping and training for. If others see it differently and it works in their mind that's great. But consider my argument and see if it contains any untruth or inaccuracy.

If stopping is the goal we should choose tasers, nightsticks and OC, rather than firearms.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum

"A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields

Last edited by lawnboy; March 29, 2012 at 09:09 AM. Reason: added a line for clarity
lawnboy is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 10:09 AM   #29
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawnboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
...most of us, at least those who understand our rights and responsibilities, would be shooting to stop that assailant. It's entirely possible that his death would be a result, but his dealh is not our intent. Our intent is to prevent him from killing or seriously injuring us or a loved one.
I consider that a distinction without a difference. I do not point a gun at anything I'm not willing to destroy. This means, to me, that if I were to follow through and fire at a living person my intent would be deadly. I see no truth in claiming otherwise.

I've considered the "intent to stop the attack/attacker" argument and I've decided to reject it.
It may be a distinction without a difference to you. But it most certainly is not to our laws and in our courts. It will not be to a jury if you are unlucky enough to face them following your using force in self defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawnboy
...Were I to fire a pistol, shotgun or rifle at a human aggressor my target would be the area of the chest cavity where the vitals are concentrated. I would do this with the intent of a quick, sure kill ...

The "stopping" part is the incidental byproduct. I do not see a way around the fact that if I fire a deadly weapon at someone I have to admit that I'm intending to cause that persons death. I may not actually cause it, but it must be considered in my intent....
Yet the majority of people shot survive, and your legitimate purpose of self defense is served by the assailant being stopped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawnboy
...consider my argument and see if it contains any untruth or inaccuracy...
Not only are your argument untrue and inaccurate, they are also perverse fantasies.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 10:50 AM   #30
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
Posted by lawnboy: If I'm firing a gun at someone I'm trying to kill them.

I've considered the "intent to stop the attack/attacker" argument and I've decided to reject it.

I would do this [shoot at the vitals] with the intent of a quick, sure kill ...

I do not see a way around the fact that if I fire a deadly weapon at someone I have to admit that I'm intending to cause that persons death.
Should the lawful use of deadly force in self defense result in death, and should the totality of the evidence support the defender's contention that the act was lawful, the investigators, the charging authority, and should it come to that, the triers of fact in a court of law can be expected to decide that the at had been justified.

However, there is always the possibility that forensic evidence or earwitness or other testimony might cast doubt on whether the defender had used only the amount of force reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent threat. The number and timing of the shots, the condition of the deceased, the location of entry wounds, and so forth could enter into the picture and put the defender's testimony and credibility in question.

Should that happen, the defendant's case would not be helped by his or her having made comments in a public forum indicating a possible predisposition toward willfully causing the death of another human being.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 11:24 AM   #31
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawnboy
The "stopping" part is the incidental byproduct. I do not see a way around the fact that if I fire a deadly weapon at someone I have to admit that I'm intending to cause that persons death. I may not actually cause it, but it must be considered in my intent.
The law allows you to use deadly force to protect yourself or others in certain limited situations. It is recognized that using this type of force can lead to death or serious injury; but it is allowed legally because sometimes that is the level of force necessary to stop an immediate threat.

However, the important distinction here is that the law does not authorize you to kill anyone. Once the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury subsides, you are no longer legally authorized to use deadly force.

Quote:
I feel it is important not to kid myself as to what I'm preparing, equipping and training for. If others see it differently and it works in their mind that's great. But consider my argument and see if it contains any untruth or inaccuracy.
I'd agree that it is important to understand that using deadly force in self-defense is serious business and that it can disable someone permanently and even kill them. You should not be using it if the stakes aren't that high. However, the problem with your approach is that intending to kill is a different thing than intending to stop. When you shoot a deer through the vitals, you don't call 911 and request an ambulance. You don't have to worry about other deer testifying as to whether your use of force was legally justified. The deer analogy fails on a number of levels. While the difference may seem like a small one to some people, it is a critically important one and people who do not grasp it can end up in prison, a la Jerome Ersland, even when the initial use of deadly force was perfectly justified.

Quote:
If stopping is the goal we should choose tasers, nightsticks and OC, rather than firearms.
We use tasers and OC when there isn't an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death. We do that because these devices are less effective at immediately stopping a threat than a firearm and we can afford to take that chance when lives aren't on the line. A nightstick can be as much of a lethal weapon as a firearm depending on how it is used but it has the disadvantage of a very limited range and good physical condition in order to use it. A firearm can be used by a 5'5" 110lb woman against a 6'2" 220lb male much more effectively than a nightstick can.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 11:39 AM   #32
lawnboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
Quote:
Not only are your argument untrue and inaccurate, they are also perverse fantasies.
I clearly disagree with you. It would seem to me that the perverse fantasy is that one can use a deadly weapon against someone without intending to cause that persons death. Compared to that my thoughts are the conservative approach.

I've been careful in my comments to avoid poking fun at anyone elses viewpoint. I've been careful to state my thoughts, beliefs and conclusions as just that, not as some type of Recieved Wisdom or special Revelation. You've not been so careful. I suppose I should expect this once in a while but it always comes as a surprise from someone in your position.

Quote:
However, there is always the possibility that forensic evidence or earwitness or other testimony might cast doubt on whether the defender had used only the amount of force reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent threat. The number and timing of the shots, the condition of the deceased, the location of entry wounds, and so forth could enter into the picture and put the defender's testimony and credibility in question.
All good points. Believe me when I say that I've considered this. I would not consider myself prepared to use a firearm in self defense unless I had. But as the old saying goes, the first casualty of contact with the enemy is the Plan. All we can do is prepare as best we can and trust ourselves to make good decisions should push ever come to shove.

Quote:
Should that happen, the defendant's case would not be helped by his or her having made comments in a public forum indicating a possible predisposition toward willfully causing the death of another human being.
This may be true too. I just happen to think that the fact that one has taken classes, belongs to a membership pistol range and practices hitting what they aim at under pressure will tend to make whatever one posts here somewhat irrelevant should that person ever be judged. I believe it will be clear to any reasonable person that such a person intends to hit the vital part of the target whether it is actually said or not. Obscuring it with words doesn't seem right to me.

I think what may be happening here is a bit of unclearness on my part. I do not intend to say that my self defense plan is to keep shooting until an assailant expires. But my contention is that it must be acknowledged that EVEN A SINGLE SHOT carries with it a strong potential of causing that death. Especially a well aimed shot, with a serious round, fired by a shooter who has taken on the responsibility to get trained. Once again, I think acknowledging this is an important part of preparation. I don't see why acknowledging this strong possibility of the worst case outcome in our thinking is such a problem for some.

Law enforcement people have different duties and responsibilities than people merely protecting themselves and their loved ones and property. I'm not in law enforcement. But I can see where less lethal may be part of their plan.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum

"A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields

Last edited by lawnboy; March 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM. Reason: added a 2 paragraph at the end
lawnboy is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 12:10 PM   #33
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawnboy
...It would seem to me that the perverse fantasy is that one can use a deadly weapon against someone without intending to cause that persons death. Compared to that my thoughts are the conservative approach...
Balderdash!

Bartholomew Roberts put it beautifully:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
The law allows you to use deadly force to protect yourself or others in certain limited situations. It is recognized that using this type of force can lead to death or serious injury; but it is allowed legally because sometimes that is the level of force necessary to stop an immediate threat....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
...I'd agree that it is important to understand that using deadly force in self-defense is serious business and that it can disable someone permanently and even kill them. You should not be using it if the stakes aren't that high. However, the problem with your approach is that intending to kill is a different thing than intending to stop. .... While the difference may seem like a small one to some people, it is a critically important one and people who do not grasp it can end up in prison,...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawnboy
...I believe it will be clear to any reasonable person that such a person intends to hit the vital part of the target whether it is actually said or not. Obscuring it with words doesn't seem right to me...
One trains to shoot in a self defend encounter for particular parts of a threat, because doing so is the most likely way to quickly stop the threat before he can injury you or a loved one. The mechanics of stopping a lethal threat have been discussed here at length. For example, see this post.

As far as what a reasonable person might think, the fact that you are so insistent that if you had to shoot someone in self defense you would be intending to kill, I'm afraid says something about you and your values that will not be taken well by those who might later have to decide if your use of lethal force was justified.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 12:41 PM   #34
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
Posted by lawnboy: I just happen to think that the fact that one has taken classes, belongs to a membership pistol range and practices hitting what they aim at under pressure will tend to make whatever one posts here somewhat irrelevant should that person ever be judged.
Not likely at all.

Quote:
I do not intend to say that my self defense plan is to keep shooting until an assailant expires.
No, but it is likely that you would have to keep shooting--that is, shoot more than once--until the assailant ceases to constitute a serious imminent threat. What actually occurred and why may not be clear, and evidence that a self defense encounter would be dealt with with the intent to kill could well tip the balance.

Quote:
But my contention is that it must be acknowledged that EVEN A SINGLE SHOT carries with it a strong potential of causing that death.
Of course, but that's a lot different from stating that one's intent would be to kill.

Quote:
Especially a well aimed shot, with a serious round, fired by a shooter who has taken on the responsibility to get trained.
The concept of "a well aimed shot" by a shooter who "belongs to a pistol range" does not square well with what one learns in self defense training.

The need to draw and fire very quickly at someone who presents an imminent threat and who is most probably moving very quickly most probably completely precludes the taking of a "well aimed shot". Qualified trainers teach firing several times as quickly as possible at center mass.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 01:04 PM   #35
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,951
As a moderator, is it my job to save people from themselves, from their own bad ideas coming back to bite them later?

Naw, I guess not. Wouldn't be much to talk about around here if it were.

But I think if someone who made bad-foolish statements on here ever did get involved in a shooting, I'll be sad that I didn't preemptively scrub the thread ... for him, and for all of us.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 01:18 PM   #36
lawnboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
I'll focus on the actual point of contention.

Quote:
But my contention is that it must be acknowledged that EVEN A SINGLE SHOT carries with it a strong potential of causing that death.
Quote:
Of course, but that's a lot different from stating that one's intent would be to kill
This is a place where I think reasonable people can disagree and still be reasonable people. I don't think that it is different and here is why:
  • proper training is designed to help you do your best under difficult circumstances to put round(s) in a certain part of the target
  • "center mass" is a term often used to define that certain part
  • on a human assailant, or BG if you will, that area known as "center mass" contains physical structures vital to the life of that person
  • we select our weapon system to be able to deliver an appropriate projectile capable of adequate penetration and expansion to cause damage to those structures
  • this may stop the assailant
  • and it may end his life in the process
  • we are aware of all of the above

Given this, I find it impossible to make the separation of intent that some appear capable of making. I don't think this makes me a monster or a mall ninja. I think it makes me thorough. And less likely to use deadly force in an inappropriate situation, since I freely acknowledge all of the possible consequences in advance.

Your way of thinking about it is good. But I think my way is better. If I thought your way was better I'd convert.

Quote:
As a moderator, is it my job to save people from themselves, from their own bad ideas coming back to bite them later?

Naw, I guess not. Wouldn't be much to talk about around here if it were.

But I think if someone who made bad-foolish statements on here ever did get involved in a shooting, I'll be sad that I didn't preemptively scrub the thread ... for him, and for all of us.
I thank you for your concern and for the obvious thought you've given to your duties and responsibilities.

I think this pretty much a semantic discussion at this point. My part in it is over now.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum

"A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields

Last edited by lawnboy; March 29, 2012 at 01:43 PM.
lawnboy is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 02:26 PM   #37
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawnboy
...Your way of thinking about it is good. But I think my way is better. If I thought your way was better I'd convert....
I'll be blunt. Your way of thinking about it is not better. It is wrong and foolish. To quote pax, it is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax
...bad-foolish...
Your changing your mind is not my affair. You're an adult and free to be foolish. The consequences to you of your choices and attitudes is not my concern.

However, it's my responsibility to be concerned, and I am concerned, that foolish ideas and attitudes not go unchallenged here so that perhaps others will not be misled to their grief. So for the sake of others who may have been reading your your posts here, I'll point out that your ideas and perspectives have been criticized and rejected by --
  • Pax, a well known author on self defense matters who is also a prominent instructor at the Firearms Academy of Seattle and a former student of Massad Ayoob;

  • OldMarksman, an alumnus of Massad Ayood's MAG-40 class who also has a legal background;

  • Bartholomew Roberts, a lawyer who is very well versed in self defense and use of force matters; and

  • Me, a retired lawyer (see my profile for my instructor credentials and training background).

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawnboy
...I think this pretty much a semantic discussion at this point...
It's more than a matter of semantics. How you choose to express yourself and present yourself to the world will be understand by others as a reflection of your value, character and attitudes.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 03:13 PM   #38
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,951
Closed for the obvious reasons.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old March 30, 2012, 08:56 AM   #39
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,732
Despite the righteous close, Pax allowed me to post:

I wanted to add this to the fray:

If one is interested in an excellent exposition of the rationales for killing in SD in modern juris prudence and the historical background - I recommend:

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199283460.do

Killing in Self Defense by Leverick. Mentions many of the issues here and references the RKBA world literature.

A dense but good read. It discusses the right to life as compared to SD, property, retreat, rape, killing vs. stopping, etc.

Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 1.42200 seconds with 9 queries