This isn't a joke

[JimL]

I don't know how many here have actually had a BG at gun point, but I've had thoughts about the old issue related to people having a gun thinking it will scare the BG into submission.

(I have STRONGLY advised people not to have a gun unless they are absolutely certain they can "do the deed," because the BG will know if they are bluffing, take the gun away from them and use it on them.")

Now here's what's been running through my mind in this mind-set regard and whether a BG will take you and your gun seriously. Perhaps a BG might think, "This joker doesn't have the guts to actually kill a human." It occurs to me to wonder how such a BG would react if you moved your point of aim from the heart to the family jewels. It strikes me that there would be some serious wheel-turning going on in the BG's head right about then. Maybe even some back-stepping.

There is, of course, the drunk/high factor to consider. And if the subject actually came up in litigation (the shooter is a twisted maniac out to maim somebody) you could always say you were going for a non-lethal pelvis knock-down (tricky at best).

What do you think?

[Lavid2002]

IMHO....

Not that much thinking goes on. Have you ever been in a car accident or other high-adrenaline situation?

If someone is pointing a gun at you the last thing I would do is call them out on the bluff...

[Bill DeShivs]

I have had 2 at gun point over the years. They know if they run, you can't shoot them-so that's what they do.

[TeamSinglestack]

What do you think?

If a situation requires immediate deadly force to prevent great bodily harm or injury, than deadly force will be immediately applied.

I have no intention of ever "threatening" to use deadly force, as it is either justified, or not, depending on the circumstances and state law. Even in non-castle doctrine states, citizens are not bound to a comprehensive escalation of force matrix as are LEO's or military.

Know your laws, and be able to justify your use of force if necessary.

[jgcoastie]

I read an article years ago that discussed aiming for the pelvic region. It was centered towards stopping an attacker armed with a contact weapon (knife, bat, club, etc). A considerable amount of attackers are often under the influence of narcotics and are difficult to stop with COM shots. The article recommended trying COM first and if the attacker did not stop; shoot them in the pelvis and shatter their pelvic bone. The reasoning was that if you shatter the pelvis, the attacker cannot continue their advances because the bone will not support their weight; regardless of their mental/drug state.

An added persuading factor is males are not fond of that particular area being targeted by anything, especially firearms.

It's all about stopping the attack, so use whatever means necessary.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by JimL: I don't know how many here have actually had a BG at gun point, ....

In many, if not most, jurisdictions one may not lawfully point a gun at anyone unless force, usually deadly force, is justified. That does not mean that pointing a gun constitutes deadly force per se, nor does it mean that one may shoot if the immediate threat dissipates upon the presentation of the weapon. It does mean that one may do so only to defend against imminent danger of the unlawful use of physical force, and in most places, deadly force.

...but I've had thoughts about the old issue related to people having a gun thinking it will scare the BG into submission.

Not sure what you mean.

You do not want the "BG" to "submit." You want him to not successfully attack you or a third person, either by his own volition or, if immediately necessary, by his being incapacitated.

"Holding" him is not a good idea at a all, if that's what you have in mind. You may not lawfully shoot to prevent his departure except under very rare circumstances, and you sure as heck do not want to expose yourself to the risks attendant in a citizens arrest. You don't want to shoot him inadvertently. You don't want an accomplice to ambush you while you are preoccupied. And you don't want to be standing around with gun in hand to be mistaken for a "BG" by first responders who may have been summoned by others, or by another armed citizen.

Or if I missed your point: you produce the weapon when and only when you are justified, with the intent to shoot unless by chance the situation changes to the better very, very quickly, and not with the idea of using the weapon to "scare" him.

It occurs to me to wonder how such a BG would react if you moved your point of aim from the heart to ...you could always say you were going for a non-lethal pelvis knock-down (tricky at best).

BAD IDEA!

First, deadly force is deadly force. Second, I would not want to try to justify a shooting in which I had had time to select where upon the body I intended to shoot someone.

If you are justified in shooting, you will likely have to try to hit him anywhere in his torso that you can, very, very quickly and probably repeatedly.

What do you think?

1. AS TeamSinglestack says, know your laws, and be able to justify your use of force if necessary.
2. Get some training.

[45Gunner]

A friend of mine who was a LEO used to teach gun related self defense to women. He always taught to aim a gun at a BG's junk. Almost every guy knows that a woman would not think twice about doing that but would have reservations about shooting him in the head or chest.

[Hog Hunter]

IMHO a "BG" is someone that puts you or one of your loved ones life in danger, and in that instant, Shoot to kill without hesitation.

[Sefner]

I have heard the pelvic bone shattering idea bandied about... I think the only application it has is the first shot of point shooting. Start at the pelvis, and use the recoil to work your way up to the chest/head. The idea would be to try to land that quite difficult pelvic-bone-shattering shot (which is so unlikely that I wouldn't rely on it, thus the follow up shots), but knowing that it probably won't hit, attempting other lethal hits. You should never shoot to "incapacitate", or as the movies say (and I've even heard some anti-gun people say) "for the legs" because that won't stop someone under the influence (or even someone not under the influence), is a much much harder target to hit than COM, and will land you in court with a lawsuit.

Now the idea of scaring a BG off by threatening his manhood... I think a situation would unfold too fast to think of that strategy and I question its effectiveness. It seem too "Hollywood" to work in the real world. I would probably not attempt to point my gun at his groin if he did not stop his crime when I had it pointed at his chest. I would assume that individual is not in the right sate of mind (cuz he is ignoring a gun pointed at his chest after all).

[Gonzo_308]

I personally see it this way. If I had to draw my ccw, we're long past the point of talking and threats.

[Skans]

Turn the table - what would you do if a BG was holding you at gunpoint?

Me, personally, I'm not hanging around to find out if the guy is a murderer or not - I'll run if I can...preferably not in a straight line. I expect that the BG is going to try and do the same.

[booker_t]

As a civilian, if I pull a firearm on an attacker I'm pulling the trigger unless they immediately cease the attack as I draw. There are no intermediate levels of escalation between drawing and firing. Until I'm ready to deploy lethal force to stop an attacker, the gun stays holstered.

I'm going to approach this somewhat differently though. Why do you choose the projectile that you do? If self/home defense is the objective, then immediate incapacitation is the intended result. Stopping an attacker through deployment of lethal force means incapacitating them. Immediate incapacitation is the result of damage to the central nervous system or major organs. You cannot control the attacker's mental state, whether they are on drugs or not, what their objectives are, you have absolutely no control and often no a priori knowledge, so focus on what you can control. To immediately stop an attacker by damaging the CNS, you must destroy one of its structures. Hence, you must have a projectile able to penetrate with sufficient energy to destroy one of those structures, after being properly placed in the head, neck, or body.

If you don't hit one of these major structures, the other method of incapacitation is massive blood loss. This takes time, on the order of 10 seconds to several minutes given the nature of the wounds, the individual, and the individual's mental state.

Not saying that a pelvic shot is a bad shot, if you can place it accurately, or if it's the best shot you have. If your attacker is wearing heavy clothing or even perhaps a vest and you only have a .32 mouse gun, then a torso shot isn't going to immediately incapacitate even at close range.

[CWPinSC]

Pelvis shots? "Jewels" shots? Giving warnings? :barf::barf::barf:

If I'm justified in drawing my weapon, then I'm justified in shooting - and I will, probably with no warning. No law says I have to "warn". At that point, I won't give him time to attack me while I'm talking him to death. He MAY get a brief "STOP" AFTER I have him sighted and 5.5 pounds of pressure on a 6 pound trigger.

Shoot to wound? Not hardly. A shot that only wounds gives the BG (who may indeed be on the ground) opportunity to produce his own weapon and use it. I think the BG's reaction to a muzzle pointed at his left eye would be a lot more than from a muzzle pointed at his left nut. COM always and not one but 3-4. I'll shoot to immediately incapacitate. My life is in danger - I want him stopped - NOW. I'm not shooting to kill, but "dead" is a sure stop.

[Gonzo_308]

You're shooting to "terminate the threat".

I dont care if the threat has ADD and spies something shiny and wanders off or if they fall over in a heap.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Frankly, I think that if being shot in the heart (dead) doesn't bother somebody then getting shot in the groin (Ow.) is not going to bother them either.

No offense, but any theory to the contrary is relying a little too heavily on 5th grade playground knowledge of that region and it's effects, IMO.

[FreakGasolineFight]

I don't mind the idea of a shot to the crotch. It seems like it's possible that a BG might call your bluff if you hold a gun in his face (i.e, assume that you wouldn't actually shoot) but I don't think anyone's going to gamble with his berries. I know I wouldn't.

[stephen426]

For all of you shoot first ask questions later guys...

Say you get home and you notice your home has been broken into. Honestly, how many of you would actually call the police and wait for them to clear the house (especially if police response time is bad in your area) instead of going in and checking things out for yourself? I am certain that anyone going into their house would go in with a weapon drawn. If you come across the burglar, are you going to shoot him if he is unarmed? What if he just decides to walk back out the front door? Are you going to try to detain him? Let's say you do decide to wait for the police to show up and the burglar walks out while the police have not yet arrived. So far, he has not made a threat or shown he has a weapon. Do you still "drop him" as some of you claim? This is probably the type of scenario the original poster was referring to. If the bad guy has a weapon and he doesn't drop it, I would have no hesitation shooting. I would not shoot if the bad guy surrendered or attempted to leave (assuming I am not in the way).

As for intimidation factor for the purpose of keeping the bad guy from "trying anything funny", I think demeanor has more to do with it than anything. If you issue a stern warning and you "look like you know what you are doing" with a gun (not trembling or fumbling with it), there is much less chance of the bad guy resisting. I'm sure his experience also has much to do with it. Experienced criminals can probably "read" a person's "resolve" very easily and will react accordingly. I don't think aiming at the family jewels will do much if the right demeanor and level of aggression is not present.

If you have a double action to single action pistol or a revolver, you could cock the hammer back if the bad guy shows any attitude. This goes without saying, but be sure to use extreme caution as the trigger pulls are much shorter and lighter. I have a Crimson Trace laser mounted on my carry gun. While I shoot perfectly fine without it, I think it could add to the intimidation factor. If it makes the bad guy more likely to surrender without having to shoot him, it was well worth the money.

Several people have posted their personal experiences about the aftermath of a shooting. Despite the chest pounding and bravado we tend to display on these types of forums, most of those who have "been there and done that" say it is pretty traumatic. Many shared that it was a major hassle including dealing with the police, having someone clean up the "mess", and legal fees for defending wrongful death suits from families of deceased scum bag. While I'm sure that they would do it again if they had to, there is much less bravado and chust thumping because they know everything that a real shooting entails. I sincerely hope I never need to use my guns for self defense, but if it came down to the my safety or the safety of my family, I would not hesitate.

[sakeneko]

Stephen426, unless there was a child or vulnerable adult in the house, I'd back off, call 911, and wait for the police. 100% of the time. There is *no* stuff that's worth an armed confrontation and possibly someone's life, not even that of a lowlife burglar. Let the police handle it.

[primetime]

bookert - As a civilian, if I pull a firearm on an attacker I'm pulling the trigger unless they immediately cease the attack as I draw. There are no intermediate levels of escalation between drawing and firing. Until I'm ready to deploy lethal force to stop an attacker, the gun stays holstered

I agree 100%... If I pull, I'm using it..There will be no hesitation once my weapon is drawn on a BG...none.. Unless of course, the BG immediately fleas upon sight of me drawing my weapon..

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Read some of Mas Ayoob's reports on how cocking a hammer can go very badly wrong. Don't do it.

Also, once again - good training classes can help you work through these scenarios.

Going into to check for yourself as compared to waiting awhile for the cops?

1. Get ambushed
2. Shoot an innocent - that's happened a few times.

[armoredman]

Shooting to wound frys your justified use ofdeadly physical force, because misusing deadly physical force in such a manner tells the judge, and jury, that you yourself didn't believe you had the right to use deadly physical force. The prosecutor will make sure they see that point of view. You will default to your highest level of training, which for most people is centor of mass.
Threaten gangbagers and thugs with a gun? Some will run, but I wouldn't try it; most of them have already been shot, survived, and really don't want to do it again, so if they think you are just threatening without the stones to use it, you may be disarmed and killed. I work with violent felons, and this is thier mindset. Pointing a gun at them without shooting is a serious disrespect issue, and you must be corrected. At the cost of your life.
As for the home question, yes, call PD, nothing inside is worth your life, but in AZ, the law specifically allows for deadly physical foirce to prevent burglary in the 1st and 2nd degree, being burglary of an occupied structure and armed burglary. I don't reccomend going inside to he-man clear your home, leave that to the professionals with vests and backup. If you absolutely have to, as stated, for defense of a vulnerable adult or child, then do what you have to do, and the law is pretty much on your side in this state. The courts will decide much later.

[MilProAkron]

I tend to agree with the idea that if you have to pull your gun, deadly force, as defined by your local laws, should already be authorized. In my own mind, I never intend to pull my gun unless I am authorized to use it. Yes, there are varying degrees of threat and pulling your gun may occasionally be enough to defuse a situation and make a perp flee, but you shouldn't think that everything will be ok if I just pull my gun out.

Over my career I made over 1,000 apprehensions UNARMED. Which is crazy, but hey, that was part of my job. In general, when a bad guy is caught, their initial reaction is to try to run away. Most of them are also smart enough to know that even the police can't just shoot someone for running away from them. So, its reasonable to believe that if approached by a BG, and you pull your weapon, he may turn and run. At this point, the threat to you is over. Letting him run away is your best legal option. Over the years I've never had to pull my gun on an individual, but I did diffuse a situation by pulling my jacket open and revealing my concealed firearm. In that case, I knew the person creating the threat was unarmed and he was far enough away that I could have drawn on him if necessary.

Bottom line: Know your rights in your state. I don't consider a weapon an opportunity to intimidate. Its a tool used to save lives. Chances are, if I am in a situation where I have to draw, I'll be firing.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by stephen426: Say you get home and you notice your home has been broken into. Honestly, how many of you would actually call the police and wait for them to clear the house (especially if police response time is bad in your area) instead of going in and checking things out for yourself? I am certain that anyone going into their house would go in with a weapon drawn. If you come across the burglar, ...

How many? Well, I for one.

I suggest consulting a local criminal trial attorney. In many jurisdictions, should things go south, your defense of justification could be severely weakened, if not completely negated, by your having entered your home armed rather than having been in it when the unlawful entry occurred--at least under the so-called "castle doctrine" portions of the code. People have found that out the hard way.

Not to mention the risk of getting shot somewhere where it hurts.

Not to mention the risk of shooting an innocent.

All for no good reason.

If you have a double action to single action pistol or a revolver, you could cock the hammer back if the bad guy shows any attitude.

AAARGH! There's a reason for service and SD handguns having long trigger pulls. Has to do with physiology. As Glenn suggests, read Ayoob's accounts, and get some training.

As an aside, I was interviewing an attorney the other day for potential help if needed. He didn't meet my needs (no experience in self defense cases), but he said two things worthy of reflection:

1. People who do not need the services of an attorney are fortunate
2. Attorney's clients, whether defendants in criminal proceedings or on either side of civil cases, are usually very unhappy with the process if not with the results

I also prefer to not need the services of a surgeon.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Stephen426

Say you get home and you notice your home has been broken into. Honestly, how many of you would actually call the police and wait for them to clear the house (especially if police response time is bad in your area) instead of going in and checking things out for yourself?

I'm one.

Absolutely, positively, without a doubt. Whatever is in there, he can have. I will not kill, or be killed (never assume victory), over stuff.

I would get back in the vehicle, drive to a safe distance (a few hundred feet maybe) while on with 911, observe and report.

No way am I going in.

If I'm home in the event of a burglary, I will make every effort to hold up in the safe room. The only possible scenario that will get me out is if I have to gather the wife and/or kids. After that, it's 911 and a barricaded door. Anything that tries to come through that door gets shot. Anyone who doesn't either walks or gets arrested.

[CWPinSC]

It seems like it's possible that a BG might call your bluff if you hold a gun in his face

Is he gonna gamble his life you're bluffing? You won't gamble your "berries", but you will gamble your life? That's one brave BG. BTW - no bluff here.

Honestly, how many of you would actually call the police and wait for them to clear the house (especially if police response time is bad in your area) instead of going in and checking things out for yourself?

Unless I had family members inside, I would wait. I'd cover the exits as best as possible and wait. If he's still in there, it's suicide to go in. If he's left, there's no harm in waiting.

If you come across the burglar, are you going to shoot him if he is unarmed?

In that case, can you afford to wait and find out? In SC, Castle Doctrine is fully in force and the homeowner may assume the BG is there to harm him, not to just steal from him - and may act accordingly.

What if he just decides to walk back out the front door? Are you going to try to detain him?

Let him walk. Nope. At that point he's no longer a threat.

If the bad guy has a weapon and he doesn't drop it, I would have no hesitation shooting.

That's the bottom line. If he has anything in his hands and brings it up to a "fighting" position, I drop the hammer.

I think demeanor has more to do with it than anything. If you issue a stern warning and you "look like you know what you are doing" with a gun

In my CWP class, the Instructor was a 25 year veteran retired LEO. He demonstrated a street encounter by drawing, aiming, and commanding, "Stop or I will shoot you!" Even though he was aiming at a blank wall and nowhere near me, I was looking to crawl under the chair I was sitting on. Command posture and voice. THAT'S a worthwhile SD tool to practice on.

If you have a double action to single action pistol or a revolver, you could cock the hammer back if the bad guy shows any attitude.

As Mas and many others have said, not wise. Again, that's more of a "warning" the BG doesn't deserve. It also may convey (to a jury) that you were going to shoot no matter what happened.

Despite the chest pounding and bravado we tend to display on these types of forums, most of those who have "been there and done that" say it is pretty traumatic.

I can imagine it is, but compared to the trauma of being killed or watching a loved one killed, it's minor and I don't believe thinking about the possible repercussions later would slow me down any.