2 men attempt strongarm robbery on CCW

[youngunz4life]

I am not doubting the victim or the police, but in the video it does seem that the 2nd BG is in the store during most of the confrontation. Secondly, I thought I saw him come out only when his buddy was in trouble. If that is the case, his sentence might be much lighter. Now if he confessed to robbery, then he is in more trouble.

[threegun]

I am awaiting the cabal of empty chamber acolytes to chime in. You know, the Israeli Method dudes.

I carry one in the chamber at all times period. I am anti empty chamber carry. That said it is not only possible but quite easy to load the chamber one handed. It is part of a drill I practice which simulates loosing use of one arm during a shootout and needing to reload. You simply run the gun down your pants thru the waist,belt,pocket area on the side. The rear sight will drag on the pants and get pulled back loading the pistol.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

You simply run the gun down your pants thru the waist,belt,pocket area on the side. The rear sight will drag on the pants and get pulled back loading the pistol.

Ahhh...The dreaded "Israeli" draw technique...
http://pistol-training.com/archives/183
Too much controversy for that one on this thread...lol

[threegun]

Controversy or not there are folks who simply refuse to carry chamber loaded. Learning how to load with only one arm could be useful for me should I have one arm injured during an attack. For the empty chamber guys its a must.

[Nnobby45]

You simply run the gun down your pants thru the waist,belt,pocket area on the side. The rear sight will drag on the pants and get pulled back loading the pistol

Good luck to you with the "run the gun down your pants leg" method when you're under physical attack. Same for Israeli style.

Yes, those methods may work when those violently assaulting you are at a distance, but how much have you practiced with people simulating punching, stabbing, or hitting you with blunt objects up close? Or while they're dragging you out of your car?

Not saying that practicing one handed skills isn't potentially life saving in some situations.

I'm not an expert nor an operator, but it seems that skills that create enough space to draw your weapon and shoot might serve one better in a high % of real incidents.

Like the very typical incident in the video, for example.

[youngunz4life]

same goes for any 'surprise' attack from a bear or anything for that matter. the weapon needs to be carried "hot"

[pax]

I just deleted a handful of very off-topic posts. Please try to stay with the original subject of the thread, keeping in mind that this is the Tactics and Training area of the site and that posts here should reflect that.

Thanks!

pax

[Don Glock]

i would have jumped out of the car and rolled on the ground while shooting like in die hard

[GoOfY-FoOt]

i would have jumped out of the car and rolled on the ground while shooting like in die hard

COME ON!!!!...I'm tryin' to drink, here..!!!!!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by 308lover

Another thing: Prosecution likes to charge people defending themselves with multiple shots. However as we see, the danger doesn't end, it's best to shoot to kill. Excessive firing should not be prosecuted. The Jerome Ersland case comes to mind.

I think you are confusing different concepts here. Normally the law does not allow you to kill people or do things that a reasonable person would anticipate as causing death or serious injury in another person. The law makes an exception for this in certain circumstances. For example, if you face an immediate, unlawful threat of death or serious bodily injury, the law will allow you to use lethal force to protect yourself.

Even though we recognize that death may be the result of using such force, the purpose is not to kill the attacker; but to stop the threat. When the threat ends, you must stop firing, regardless of whether the attacker is alive or dead. Often, it will take more than one handgun round to physiologically force an attacker to stop; but every single round you fire must be justified under the law.

Jerome Ersland was not prosecuted or convicted for "excessive firing." He was prosecuted and convicted because his earlier shot had left his attacker unconscious and lying on the floor. The threat from that criminal was non-existent - yet Ersland reloaded his firearm and returned and fired five rounds at him as he lay on the ground, unconscious. It wasn't the number of shots that got him into trouble, it was continuing to fire after a reasonable person would not have perceived a threat existing.

So the key here isn't the number of shots you fire; but being able to justify a continuing threat at the time you fired each one of them.

[Ringolevio]

Bartholomew Roberts:

Even though we recognize that death may be the result of using such force, the purpose is not to kill the attacker; but to stop the threat. When the threat ends, you must stop firing, regardless of whether the attacker is alive or dead. Often, it will take more than one handgun round to physiologically force an attacker to stop; but every single round you fire must be justified under the law.

Thank you, B.R., for reminding us of this important principle of armed self-defense.

Even a casual remark such as "If someone attacks me I will shoot to kill", made years before, will come back to haunt you and be used against you should you ever have to use lethal force.

And the flip-side of that is that any remark that you didn't shoot to kill, but deliberately tried to only wound the subject, will similarly be used against you, on the grounds that if you had that option, you probably had the option to not shoot at all.

Aim only for the center of mass and shoot only till the threat is neutralized. If the subject happens to die, that is merely an unfortunate side effect of having been stopped by bullets.

[threegun]

Nnobody45, I simply stated it as possible and quite easy to perform. Doing so while getting beaten is another animal, possible yet potentially costly. The folks who choose to carry chamber empty must live with its limitations.

[Don Glock]

COME ON!!!!...I'm tryin' to drink, here..!!!!!

hopefully my post didn't cause you to cough it up on your keyboard LOL

[youngunz4life]

I confess many times I want to say that but instead say something like 'eliminate the threat'. It's like I know I am doing something wrong when I say it the way I want to. political correct at it's finest or I guess legal correct might be a better term.

[MikeNice81]

Aim only for the center of mass

Why?

If the threat is continuing and you only have one bullet left what do you do? Do you save it for yourself? Do you perform a head shot and hope it works? Do you shoot center mass and hope this one instantly stops the threat?

You have a five shot revolver and 3 gentleman aproach you. One of them pulls a knife and threatens your life. Do you only shot COM and hope you stop the first one in two shots? Do you modify your failure drills to give yourself a fighting chance?

I'm not saying that these are common scenarios. I am saying that blanket statements often ignore the nuances of self defense.

[Alaska444]

Looks like Billy Blackburn Jr. has changed his facebook page since I can't find it by a search, nor on his sister's site either. I hope he gets to go to a room with a view and lot's of shower friends soon. Creeps like that will only hurt someone before they are stopped. I would never have allowed the weirdo to approach me like that without challenging him especially knowing he has a friend in the store as well. Probably taking evasive actions early would be the best and CARRYING his CCW weapon on his person at ALL times. If he had gone to the other side of the car, the creep probably would have jumped in the drivers seat and had his gun first. He should have assumed a tactical position earlier in the confrontation and challenged his intentions early. Allowing the creep to sucker punch him was not the way to go. He was lucky it wasn't a worse outcome for him.

[Nnobby45]

Nnobody45, I simply stated it as possible and quite easy to perform. Doing so while getting beaten is another animal, possible yet potentially costly. The folks who choose to carry chamber empty must live with its limitations.

OK, I mis-understood and thought you were applying those tactics to the situation under discussion.

Yes, I'm for learning all kinds of different skills that might be useful in different situations.

[booker_t]

Aim only for the center of mass

You do realize that "center of mass" for most human beings is actually located somewhere around the lower-to-mid abdomen, right?

I really, really hate that term "center of mass." Mid-sternum would be far more accurate, anatomically and physically speaking.

[TylerD45ACP]

Was that fatal? Still it looks like the 45 ACP stopped the attacker into complete incapacitation. Any thoughts?

[youngunz4life]

tyler, he was shot twice and the Dr's stabilized him+saved his life.

I don't care how drunk he was(I still think alcohol turns people to plastic more than the crack or whatever - as in saves people in car accidents, etc), I think he probably would've died with a better ammo choice.

as far as center mass...mikenice no one said you can't 'do what you gotta do' in certain life threatening situations. I don't think when you kill the perp with the headshot that your lawyer or commonsense is going to allow you to tell the cops or DA that you shot to kill or aimed for a headshot. Even in military and LE training the instructors tend to refrain from allowing headshots that are on purpose. For one, your odds are less. The center mass has a better opportunity to hit some major organ or something to stop and/or eliminate the threat. now if you trust your accuracy 100%.....

[9mm]

Shoot to kill is the wrong term, police shoot to "stop" shoot in the center to stop the threat. You never aim for the arms or legs to wound.

[MikeNice81]

Young, my only point was that blanket statements tend to ignore nuance.

I personally know a cop that used a head shot to stop a violent criminal. They guy had been shot two or three times with 180gr .40S&W Federal HST. One bullet had completely collapsed one lung. The criminal still managed to wrestle another cops gun away. So, cop #2 shot him in the head.

"It was less than fifteen feet and he now had a gun. I wasn't taking a chance that he would get the chance to fire. At that point it was obvious he was willing to do anything to stay out of jail."

The guy had a collapsed lung and severed brachial tube. Plus at least one bullet lodged in his intestines. He would have died eventually. Eventually was too long to wait. So, the necesary action was taken.

There are times when it can be articulated that a head shot was necessary to stop a threat. It isn't advised and it isn't something I would normally recomend. More often than not a good double tap between the nipples will end an atack. However, limiting yourself with never can get you killed.

I practice failure to stop drills. With my new 17 shot 9mm I don't anticipate much need. With my 5 shot .38spl I can see a real need even if it is only a two-on-one situation.

It is an extreme measure and you better be sure you can articulate a reason for taking such a measure. However, it isn't the instant conviction some on the internet believe.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

hopefully my post didn't cause you to cough it up on your keyboard LOL

No worries...I turned my head just in time to avoid giving my monitor a Coca-cola shower...

Hey!!! I just realized that I am the "anti-bruh". My coke went out my nose instead of up it !!!

[TylerD45ACP]

Interesting. The human body is alot tuffer than I think we give credit for. The last 1/4 of the video wouldnt load didnt see it.

[Nnobby45]

You do realize that "center of mass" for most human beings is actually located somewhere around the lower-to-mid abdomen, right?

Not for those of us who consider center mass, for tactical reasons, the chest rather than the whole abdomin. For some of us, the upper chest.

I'll leave it to others to argue over the technically correct anatomical definition. I'm for the tactical definition.