|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 14, 2011, 12:23 AM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Eagle Eye...
... you said yourself, in many jurisdictions, it's a threat to oneself OR OTHERS.
If the guy turns his back on me, but is still threatening the clerk, then it's quite possible that a shooting would be legally justified. Whether it would be tactically sound is another matter entirely. And one had better be extremely sure one understands the situation before defending a stranger; sometimes, the apparent BG is a plainclothes cop making an arrest, for instance. But plainclothes cops don't typically hold up convenience stores. |
April 14, 2011, 07:14 AM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 10, 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 178
|
Leake & OldMarksman --
Read the other posts. I think my comments will make more sense. Please don't take them out of the context of many posts before mine. I don't have the time to pull a dozen quotes out specifically. Go read them. |
April 14, 2011, 07:58 AM | #79 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Perhaps, and I'm guessing here, you are mixing three questions: (1) What to do in the clerk-at-gunpoint-scenario; (2) whether one would likely survive if one were to draw on someone already holding a gun; (3) when one is justified in shooting in self defense. If so, perhaps, when you say "You can't use your gun unless he goes first", which is nonsensical, you are trying to paraphrase advice that a civilianshould not intervene in the clerk scenario unless things have gone beyond the point of no return. Or not. Your statement "if he does not produce a gun, you can't produce yours" makes no sense at all. If someone poses an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and if you have not other means of avoiding the threat, you do not have to wait until "he goes first". Quote:
|
||
April 14, 2011, 10:10 AM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 10, 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 178
|
I am really poking fun at those who made these sorts of statements throughout the thread. I am trying to show that the conflicting comments make no sense. It is others who have made those statements in words that I have paraphrased and shortened. These are not my comments and thoughts. I am saying that if all these sorts of statements made by others were true, that they are so conflicting that one may as not carry.
This has obviously been lost on you and perhaps on others, so I give up. I do carry. I will not continue to engage in a battle of wits with those who are obviously unarmed. I have therefore retreated. Lighten up. |
April 14, 2011, 10:14 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Your sarcasm was too well masked, Eagle Eye. Thought you were being sarcastic at first, but then in your example of the clerk turning his back, you left out reference to third parties entirely.
Problem there is, if the guy were retreating and there were no third party, you'd have potential legal problems with a shoot. So, it suddenly became muddy as to which of your points were sarcastic and which were serious. |
April 14, 2011, 11:03 AM | #82 | ||||||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Where did that come from? I did not see that in the thread. Quote:
Quote:
The first one simply says that one must be justified to use deadly force justified; no reason for not carrying--just the law. Much of the gist of the thread had to do with whether it would be prudent for a civilian to intervene in a store robbery by shooting at the robber; one does not carry to shoot people who rob stores. Finally, the fact that it would probably be foolhardy to try to draw and shoot should one have a gun pointed at him point blank ((3) and (4)) does not indicate against carrying in any way. It simply highlights the need for situational awareness and for avoiding such situations. Where are the supposed contradictions? |
||||||||
April 14, 2011, 02:26 PM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
Quote:
These what if threads are fun only, I would never expect anyone posts here to do as they say they will do. I seen a guy freeze up 100% when fired upon, I dove under the truck. Think I will go hunting, Last edited by markj; April 14, 2011 at 03:29 PM. |
|
April 14, 2011, 02:57 PM | #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 9, 2011
Posts: 178
|
I wouldn't fire the first shot. The BG might just leave if he gets what he wants. But if the BG started shooting at people, I'd try to intervene. One thing though, I wouldn't want to shoot any innocent people, so I'd need to shoot from a distance where I was confident of not missing. So really, really close then.
|
April 14, 2011, 03:15 PM | #85 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
At some point in that sequence you will lose your ability to act. You may be well advised to seize the opportunity while you can, if it is pretty clear that the situation is really going downhill. |
|
April 14, 2011, 04:11 PM | #86 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
Once the bad guys attention is turned on me or if the bad guy starts shooting, its on.
|
April 14, 2011, 04:34 PM | #87 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
|
In my CCW class, the instructor posed the question, what would you do if you came out of a bathroom at a convenience store and saw the clerk held at gun point. His answer, go back inside the bathroom and lock the door.
He then went into a discourse about automatic reflexes and how just the startle reaction in someone with his finger on the trigger could get the clerk killed. To put a person down with a gun to someone else's head, you have to hit the midbrain. Otherwise, simply shooting someone could get the person killed on the other end of his gun. In this situation, you might end up the owner of a nice lawsuit by the victim's family. His advice, conceal in good cover and take up a defense posture, armed and ready, but don't intervene UNLESS the perp is shooting already. Having a permit to a gun does not mean that we are LEO's in any sense of the word. Fortunately, most robberies do not involve murder. No way to tell the difference upfront, so taking a conservative role is the safest for all involved in most situations from all that I have heard. The examples previously of LEO's who likewise don't intervene when off duty is a really telling post. |
April 14, 2011, 11:04 PM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 9, 2011
Posts: 178
|
Quote:
Yes, true. Hesitation can be deadly. The trick is in identifying that moment. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|