Why carry compact?

[BillCA]

Fight vs. Flight

I'm all for vacating the area if someone starts shooting. It's the prudent thing to do, especially if you are with friends and family members. Given a safe opportunity to get out of the kill zone, I'll take it. Heck, if I judge the odds are on my side, I might even take a "risky" chance to get out of the kill zone. They can't kill you if you ain't there to be kilt.

Otherwise you seek cover - or at least concealment - from the shooter(s). Cover provides protection from bullets while concealment merely shields you from view.

The next question, when you are armed, is do you engage the shooter from cover? That will depend on a myriad of factors. Those factors will include the "quality" of your cover, distance to the shooter, the gun & ammo you're using, whether the shooter is facing you, advancing on your position or walking in another direction, the weapon(s) he's using, the number of people moving around, etc, etc.

I wouldn't advocate engaging a rifle-armed shooter at 70 yards who is wearing body armor or a long trench coat when you're armed with a snubby .38 or a pocket pistol. Probably not even a .45 or .44.

A shooter firing in your direction means you should be behind cover, not poking your head up to watch him like a Prairie dog. You should be evaluating where the next nearest cover is and coming up with a plan to extricate yourself from the kill zone.

I think most people imagine themselves finding cover then eventually seeing the shooter from their concealed position. If the shooter is facing away or his attention is elsewhere, you may have a chance for a well aimed shot if he is within your effective range.

[BillCA]

Zincwarrior,

You wanted an example of a situation where a shooter had a ~50-yard shot inside a shopping mall -- Oregon a few years ago. The shooter was concealed inside a store, had a visual on the shooter and willing to drop the hammer on him and waiting for him to get a little closer -- until the shooter turned around and he saw the shooter was about 14 years old. Alas, instead of taking the shot -- and the heat from authorities & media for shooting a child -- he holstered his gun and tried to talk the kid down. As a result he was shot and paralyzed. The outcome was a result of poor decision making.

***How on earth is someone popping effective rounds at you in a parking lot from 50 yards? It must be an empty parking lot. Again, to quote the movide Dodgeball “duck, dodge, duck, dodge, duck”
in a parking garage, perhaps.

I did not say someone was shooting effective rounds, that's your interpretation. That said, friends and I were late getting from dinner to a movie theater to see a new movie. We arrived just after a drive-by shooting in the parking lot. From info we received, the shooters drove by the crowd, located their target, fired 8 -10 shots, drove up an aisle and were forced to stop for 10-12 seconds by a car backing out about 40-50 yards down the aisle. (Surprisingly the only person injured was hurt falling on a sprinkler head in the bushes. They hit no one).

***Again, it must parking garage. Absent being the President who exactly is taking a shot at YOU at 50 yards?

You or I do not need to be the target of the shooting. Other unarmed people may be the target and you have a clear visual on the shooter. Then it's your choice to engage or to do nothing.

At least knowing that you can make the shot helps increase your options for survival.
***NO it means you're wasting valuable training time on nonsense.
Perhaps. Or perhaps you only think it's so. Or maybe it is possibly beyond the limits of many modern pistol shooters.

It simply is not that far away given our daily lives. In the area where I live, 150' (50y) is about the distance, diagonally, across the intersection of a 6-lane arterial street and a 4-lane street. It's also about the distance between the East/West front doors of our local Safeway grocery store.

We originally trained on shooting at 50 yards - standing, prone and kneeling. Even with the weak hand (and making those shots was a bear).

I'm trying to contemplate the self defense situation where one legally defends oneself in a 50 yard shootout with someone.

If you include "defense of others" it doesn't become very hard. However, I suspect you wouldn't, so let's try the Apartment building shooter on the 4th floor and you're behind a car parked on the street. Of course, you're not going to engage him with a snubby .38 or your M&Pc.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by fullsize only

. . . . If you fire to stop a thug during or after he has committed a violent felony, you can engage. That's the law where I live. . . . .

Originally Posted by fullsize only

There are situation where shooting out a tire is legal, maybe not a robber, but in certain situations. And shooting a warning shot in the air DURING a crime in progress not just for fun, is justifiable. And as for the bullet coming down, myth busters killed that one. People, there are situations where all of these actions are justifiable, if done With a crime in progress. I don't know where you live, but in arkansas, during a violent crime all of the so called irresponsible actions that you speak of, is justifable during a crime in progress. Research your laws, it may be legal for you to stop a violent act as well. And not just on yourself.

I've edited a few parts for emphasis. I gather from the above posts, fullsize only, that you live in Arkansas. sigcurious is correct. Arkansas Code Annotated 5-2-607 covers the use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. I've copied and pasted it for your convenience.

5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:

(1) (A) By retreating.

(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:

(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or

(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or

(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.

(c) As used in this section:

(1) "Curtilage" means the land adjoining a dwelling that is convenient for residential purposes and habitually used for residential purposes, but not necessarily enclosed, and includes an outbuilding that is directly and intimately connected with the dwelling and in close proximity to the dwelling; and

(2) "Domestic abuse" means:

(A) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members; or

(B) Any sexual conduct between family or household members, whether minors or adults, that constitutes a crime under the laws of this state.

HISTORY: Acts 1975, No. 280, § 507; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-507; Acts 1997, No. 1257, § 1; 2007, No. 111, § 1; 2009, No. 748, § 2.

A few other statutes could come into play, but I'm not convinced that they're relevant here. In the first of the above-quoted posts, you stated that it is legal to "engage" after somemeone has committed a violent felony. That's wrong. Take a look at 5-2-607 above. It includes "committing" and "is about to commit." It does not include "had committed" a violent felony. Nor have I ever seen an Arkansas case holding a shooting justified where the person shot "had committed" a violent felony, or any other crime, for that matter.

As for warning shots and shooting tires, I am unaware of any Arkansas law that even addresses those things. If you're aware of any Arkansas statute that even mentions them, I would appreciate a citation. Otherwise, whether any of them would be justifiable . . . well, that's what we call a "jury question."

I would, however, agree with the statement that anyone wishing to carry a firearm should research the laws in his or her jurisdiction.

[David White]

Originally Posted by fullsize only

There are situation where shooting out a tire is legal, maybe not a robber, but in certain situations. And shooting a warning shot in the air DURING a crime in progress not just for fun, is justifiable. And as for the bullet coming down, myth busters killed that one. People, there are situations where all of these actions are justifiable, if done With a crime in progress. I don't know where you live, but in arkansas, during a violent crime all of the so called irresponsible actions that you speak of, is justifable during a crime in progress. Research your laws, it may be legal for you to stop a violent act as well. And not just on yourself.

I live in Vermont. Vermont is about as gun friendly as you can get yet each of the actions you list would be breaking the law.
Don't think I would see any jail time, just fines and some evil looks from responding LEO's.

[David White]

By the way, I only carry a full sized duty weapon, daily.
There is no permit required in Vermont to carry openly or concealed so I could care less if I print or not.
For retail work, I will dress around my gun and after four years I've yet to be "outed". Could care less even if I am outed.

[fullsize only]

I stand corrected. I should have said commiting instead of committed

[fullsize only]

Did you know that fleeing thd scene of a felony is a felony. It is left to the discrection of the district attorney, but I dont think a DA got to be a DA by not decaring driving away from a crime you committed a felony.

[Edward429451]

warning shot in the air DURING a crime in progress not just for fun, is justifiable.

Justifiable or not, it's a bad idea to shoot in the air. It's reckless. I have used a warning shot two times, once against a dog, and it did turn him. Once against a man, and it did turn him. BOTH shots were into the soft ground. If you're in a asphalt parking lot then obviously it would be no better than shooting in the air.

Warning shots are generally a bad idea, I know this, but I really did not want to shoot him unless he forced me too! I had already drawn to low ready and he thought about it for 2 seconds and then advanced towards me! I put one in the ground and took a couple steps back, I had time to shoot him if I needed. At the shot he decided to break off the attack (thank God!)

It may be against the law to fire warning shots, but can be shown to be a prudent decision if the circumstances are right.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by fullsize only

Did you know that fleeing thd scene of a felony is a felony. . . . .

Did you know that it's not? Here's the Arkansas statute on fleeing:

(a) If a person knows that his or her immediate arrest or detention is being attempted by a duly authorized law enforcement officer, it is the lawful duty of the person to refrain from fleeing, either on foot or by means of any vehicle or conveyance.

(b) Fleeing is a separate offense and is not considered a lesser included offense or component offense with relation to other offenses which may occur simultaneously with the fleeing.

(c) Fleeing on foot is considered a Class C misdemeanor, except under the following conditions:

(1) If the defendant has been previously convicted of fleeing on foot anytime within the past one-year period, a subsequent fleeing on foot offense is a Class B misdemeanor;
(2) If property damage occurs as a direct result of the fleeing on foot, the fleeing on foot offense is a Class A misdemeanor; or
(3) If serious physical injury occurs to any person as a direct result of the fleeing on foot, the fleeing on foot offense is a Class D felony.

(d)(1)(A) Fleeing by means of any vehicle or conveyance is considered a Class A misdemeanor.
(B) A person convicted under subdivision (d)(1)(A) of this section shall serve a minimum of two (2) days in jail.

(2) Fleeing by means of any vehicle or conveyance is considered a Class D felony if, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, a person purposely operates the vehicle or conveyance in such a manner that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.
(3) If serious physical injury to any person occurs as a direct result of fleeing by means of any vehicle or conveyance, the fleeing by means of any vehicle or conveyance offense is a Class C felony.

(e) Regardless of the circumstances in subdivisions (c)(1)-(3) of this section, if the defendant is under twenty-one (21) years of age and has not been previously convicted of fleeing, the offense of fleeing is a Class C misdemeanor.

(f) In addition to any other penalty, if the defendant is convicted of violating subsection (d) of this section, the court shall instruct the Office of Driver Services of the Department of Finance and Administration to suspend or revoke the defendant's driver's license for at least six (6) months but not more than one (1) year.

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-125 (West)

Originally Posted by fullsize only

It is left to the discrection of the district attorney, but I dont think a DA got to be a DA by not decaring driving away from a crime you committed a felony.

What, exactly, do you think is left to the prosecuting attorney's discretion? Sometimes, the actions of a defendant can fit into several different crimes, but the PA (Prosecuting Attorney) doesn't get to just "declare" that driving away from a crime is a felony. If the General Assembly had said that it was a felony, it would be up to the PA to decide if the charge could be supported, though.

I'm not picking on you, fullsize only, I'm really not. However, it is beginning to sound like you've been given a lot of bad information about Arkansas law. Here's a link to the Arkansas General Assembly: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assemb...ages/Home.aspx. From there, on the left side of the page, you'll find a link to the Arkansas Code Annotated. It's free, and it's a good place to start. Title 5 contains the Criminal Offenses, and the justification defenses, like when you're allowed to use deadly force in self-defense.

[fullsize only]

The laws you posted refers to fleeing the police. But what you posted does not refer to a criminal who has just committed a felony. Fleeing is a misdemeanor, but becomes a felony when you leave the scene of a felony commited if determined by the PA. Say if the criminal shoots someone steals their car, and flees the scene. Law is hard to interpret. I get my advice from asking lawyers questions. Its these minor details that make having a lawyer a valuable thing when things happen. Your posts are the law, but when you place the statutes and particular situations together, a lot changes. If what you do saves lives, stops a violent crime, and you act with the intent of stopping a crime, you should be fine.

[Spats McGee]

fullsize only, I am a lawyer. I am an Arkansas lawyer, and have been so licensed for the past 10 years. I'm unaware of any Arkansas law that has the effect that you've mentioned.

Edited to add: Fleeing can become a felony, as you noted, but based on the statute above, the operative fact appears to be how one flees (for example, "a person purposely operates the vehicle or conveyance in such a manner that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person" Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-125 (West)), not the crime from which a person flees.

[fullsize only]

So if some shoots a person, carjacks another, I watch see it and I engage him and stop him, by shooting his tire out, firing a warning shot, or neutralizing him, I go to prison for stopping him?

[sigcurious]

5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:

(1) (A) By retreating.

Strictly based on the law in AR, it seems like you would be on thin ice.
A)Back to the committing or about to commit...the act is done...the BG is no longer using force while driving away in a stolen car.
B)How would you explain that you could not safely retreat from a car driving away from you?
C)You still have not cited anything that supports your opinion that warning shots are allowed, particularly when fired in the air.

[fullsize only]

Is grand theft auto not a felony? Is gta over once the perp has posession of the car or does it begin? If I fire a warning shot nd stop the criminal am I going to prison? Will a judge take my license? If I take o shot and pop his tire and he isn't allowed to get down the road and begin a hi speed chase, Am I going to prison , will I lose my license? I would think that would be a responsible move. Do I trust my g17 to make that shot with one bullet, even at 50yds? Yes I do, even under stress. Would i hesitate, no, I'm pretty sure stopping a violent felon is still legal.

[sigcurious]

Grand theft auto in itself does not inherently include force or violence, without looking up more specific AR law for you, in many states it can be felony or misdemeanor.

You're overlooking parts of the law, such as the duty to retreat and the use of force or violence. Yes in your example violence was used, but in your example, the violence was over, then deadly force was employed to stop a fleeing BG, and again...how do you explain that you could not safely retreat from that situation?

Furthermore, you have yet to cite statute or case law that supports your opinion. Where are the statutes and/or case law that support deadly force after the fact? Or warning shots? Or shooting out car tires?

[rodeo roy]

In the state I live in you in the scenario you have described you will get jail time at least 2 years for committing a felony for firing the gun plus more time.

Gun laws have been changed to allow people to carry guns to defend themselves not act to stop, detain, contain or apprehend persons commuting crimes. You can and should act only if that violent act is directed at you and no other means of escape are available to you. Now we know all of us would break that law to protect our family. For me I would not use deadly force to protect property.

Your scenario is a le issue to me nothing about what you describe would to me be a wise choice

[Spats McGee]

As for GTA, I'd have to go look at the Arkansas criminal code. I'm pretty sure that "GTA" goes by some other name here.

fullsize only, one of the first things that I learned in law school is that the devil really is in the details. I can't give you a hard and fast answer with the examples that you've given. For one thing, the examples you've given involve something more akin to a citizen's arrest, rather than an SD shooting. There's a different legal statute for defense of property, Ark. Code Ann. 5-2-609:

A person is justified in using nondeadly physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes the use of nondeadly physical force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's:

(1) Commission or attempted commission of theft or criminal mischief; or

(2) Subsequent flight from the commission or attempted commission of theft or criminal mischief.

Note, however, that it refers to NONDEADLY force. Is shooting out a tire "nondeadly?" Off the top of my head, I don't know.

As for stopping a violent carjacking by shooting the carjacker, again, the devil is in the details. Let's say that I know that there's only one person in the car, and that the carjacker shoots the driver in the head, instantly killing him, hops in the car and drives away. Can I reasonably believe that the carjacker still presents an imminent threat of death of substantial bodily harm to the driver? Compare that to a scenario where I see a "Baby on Board" sticker on the car and hear crying after the gunshot. In that case, can I reasonably believe that there's a baby in the car and that the carjacker poses an imminent threat of death of substantial bodily harm to the baby?

sigcurious, if you'll read the retreat section carefully, you'll see that, when it comes to defense of a person, there's not much of a duty to retreat in Arkansas:

5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:

(1) (A) By retreating.

(emphasis supplied)

[TennJed]

Originally Posted by fullsize only

So if some shoots a person, carjacks another, I watch see it and I engage him and stop him, by shooting his tire out, firing a warning shot, or neutralizing him, I go to prison for stopping him?

You are still talking about firing warning shots? Please do not shoot in the air. It is very irresponsible

[sigcurious]

I'm still waiting for him to explain how a car being driven away stops him from retreating in complete safety or heck just standing there in complete safety.

The statute does provide latitude, in what constitutes a need to retreat, but I'm just going off the scenario fullsize made up, which says nothing about his safety or anyone else's safety being in question after the BG starts driving off. As you said Spats, there are possibilities in which there may be a continued threat to someones safety, however fullsize did not stipulate that in his scenario.

[fullsize only]

I agree with what you are saying. My whole attempt was mostly geared toward the devil being in the details and if put in the position, do you trust what you carry. If you have to take a long shot, do you trust what you carry? Fullsize guns give you the most range of capability within the law. Not harping on statistics or retreating, but all laws and details in your favor, EVERYONE, especially sigcurious and rodeo roy, do you trust what you have to make the shot? If not, why carry compact? You have the right to carry what you want, for comfort, concealment, performance, etc. That's the beauty of this country. But because life can bring things as elaborate as the discussions, laws and scenarios we presented today, why not carry what can handle the biggest part of these?

[fullsize only]

My main point wasn't just the details of laws, because it was too many to discuss in one posting, heck it took us days. My main point was if you were put in the sitution with all laws abiding, all details accounted for, all the stars and planets aligned, do you trust what you carry, if not, why carry it. By the way, in my state, other peoples safety can be taken in to account, not just mine. I guess the only way to answer your question is if the thug decides to shoot at all the witnesses or if he's driving in my direction but stilll retreating and willing to run over everyone in his path.

[fullsize only]

Honestly, I don't believe in shooting in the air, my idea of a warning shot is a nonlethal mark, I just said in the air because I saw on myth busters that a shot in the air is not dangerous because once the bullet loses momentum towards the sky, it doesn't fall with nearly enough force to penetrate a human skull or significantly damage anything.

[TennJed]

Originally Posted by fullsize only

Honestly, I don't believe in shooting in the air, my idea of a warning shot is a nonlethal mark, I just said in the air because I saw on myth busters that a shot in the air is not dangerous because once the bullet loses momentum towards the sky, it doesn't fall with nearly enough force to penetrate a human skull or significantly damage anything.

I posted a link from myth busters. Your post about losing momentum is very misleading. If you will go back and read what mythbusters actually said, it is far more likely for the bullet to maintain momentum and fall to the ground with lethal force. It is dangerous and stupid to shoot in the air. Please don't give out dangerous advice

[fullsize only]

You're right. I do apologize. But as I said, not what I would do. But you should go back and read the whole article. Or at least more than just the myth at the headline. It wss plausible, but it stated the bullet tumbles and loses momentum

[rodeo roy]

First and foremost I trust myself to be able to determine what is a threat to me and mine. I also know in the examples given, taking a 50yd shot for the purpose of self defense is unlikely. I could happen in some far reaching situation. I spend my training time on the things I deem more useful as everybody should, for you and others thats long shots with pistols and that's cool. I too have tried long shoots for fun, but it's not what I train.

When it comes to defense a getaway is as effective as an attack. At 50yds I think a getaway would be favorable to an attack or to the point defense with a gun. Any prosecutor would question why one did not run, escape, hid, drive off etc. What is the defense in court, "I was sure my full sized gun could make the shoot cause I practice gun fu" or "any one firing a gun in my vacinity is a threat so I took them down". You do know that compact guns can make a 50yd shoot, right.

I just have questioned the need to have to do it, others have pointed out and rightly so if it would be legal, in my state the cases purposed are not legal and for me not prudent or safe.

RR's rule for a gunfight, get home safe, by any means, and that may mean avoid the fight altogether. What has been described so far is street justice, not defense.