The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 6, 2006, 01:08 AM   #26
Edison Carter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2005
Posts: 111
That's fine jibjab,

didn't ask, didn't offer.

Neither do I plan to be flinging lead downrange into bystanders,
and expecting casualties to just "suck it up".

I'm NOT a cop, I'm NOT a ninja, I'm NOT GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip.

I have the right to defend myself, I have the LEGAL OBLIGATION
to protect my family. That includes not getting embroiled in defenses
of avoidable SD shootings, or lawsuits by sue-happy bystanders.

If the bystanders in the next mall shooting don't want to get shot,
they should have armed themselves.

Darwinian, yea, whatever.

I don't feel guilty about not being the hero at the last mall shooting when
I wasn't near it, and I won't be guilt tripped about getting my family
out of harms way when I hear gunshots. Running back towards the gunfire?
Tactically and legally foolish, but I won't stop you.

I've had enough trouble come my way, uninvited, without looking
for some "heroic fantasy" to inject myself into.

EC
Edison Carter is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 01:27 AM   #27
joneb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2005
Location: Central , OR
Posts: 1,731
Excuse me EC, I respect your position, I would wager if you were in the mix and armed, with your family in harms way you might post differently ?
joneb is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 02:47 AM   #28
Edison Carter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2005
Posts: 111
If my family and I were in the mix, my first priority is their safety,
I get them out of danger if I possibly can.

My second priority is my own. If I get shot to rags, my family does
not hit the insurance lottery. If I get sued, my family gets impoverished
by legal bills.... I doubt I'll see a legal fund established for me.

I've read plenty by Ayoob, and others, and taken CCW classes in Two
states... My understanding of the laws is that shooting in defense of
myself or my family is going to be pretty legally defensible.....
with no guarantees as to outcome.

Defending strangers, or chasing down gunfire, and the legal ground gets shakier.


EC
Edison Carter is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 07:02 AM   #29
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Edison C, If your family was ever going to be on of those 20 strangers in the mall, I would bet that you would trade all your family assets in for the help of a stranger ("hero").

Nobody expects someone to act in a manner that would endanger their own family or strangers, nor is it expected that a civilian seek the source of trouble. What I find hard to swallow is how you can so easily disgard the lives of 20 people that you could have helped. I would have trouble mentally knowing that I could have helped but I didn't and they died as a result. I don't feel like that is being a "wanna be hero" but rather the right thing, the American thing, to do. I certainly would hope that someone helped me and mine if the role was reversed.
threegun is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 07:06 AM   #30
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
here is what pertains to me:the indiana constitution........Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 09:12 AM   #31
Mikeyboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2005
Posts: 1,231
This is a re-hash of a thread that was started a few days after the incident occured. My take is simple, don't play Rambo with your pistol against a guy with a far superior weapon. Your family comes first, if your with your family and you can get out..GET OUT. If your real close and your have an easy shot at the guy, and your confident you can do it, then do it. The story was the CW carrier froze when he seen the guy and saw he was a baby faced teenager. He thought he could talk the guy down and he thought wrong. Some people think that a CW permit somehow makes them a member of law enforcement. IT DOES NOT. Rushing to the area with your "baby Glock" and trying to close in and engage a guy with a rifle is stupid. Not only can you easily get gunned down at 100 yards, but your fire can injury and kill innocent bystanders. Also your gun and gunfire will just confuse responding LE. If you have a clear, close range shot at the the guy's head and you want to take it, then take it. If the guy is shooting at you and your family, shoot back. Otherwise just because you go to the range and shoot at paper all day does not make you a natural born killer. Do not be critical, and say "I would have done this or that" WHEN YOU NEVER TOOK A LIFE YOURSELF

We are a just a bunch of virgins giving sex advice.
Mikeyboy is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 11:33 AM   #32
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Mikeyboy, I'm a recent member and didn't know that this thread was already posted....sorry. I do think it is important to make folks think about this before it happens to them. You have to make up your mind one way or the other if you are willing to use the gun you carry. If your answer is no or I don't know....then don't carry. You have just insured that you won't use it anyway. Those willing to protect themselves should train often, both mentally and tactically, to reduce the chances of freezing up in the face of danger.

I agree with your assesment of what to do. For me the impulse to help is driven purley from the "if the shoe was on the other foot" feeling not any desire to be a hero.
threegun is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 11:49 AM   #33
Springfield XD40 Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2006
Location: Florissant Colorado
Posts: 431
Here's my take on it. If the assailant was mowing down innocents with his rifle, then I would take him out, if I was close enough and had a good shot. If he was just waving the thing around and firing it, I would try to make my escape, not worth the legal aftermath. If innocents were getting killed, then I'd take him out.
Springfield XD40 Man is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 02:46 PM   #34
Edison Carter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2005
Posts: 111
Talk is cheap, guys.

Stop swinging those macho keyboards and try to hear what I'm saying.

If you carry a gun, and you have not done any more training than the
minimum for your carry license, you are hardly any more use to
anybody than a little old lady with a knitting needle.

If you carry a gun and you have little more than a vague idea
of "if something happens I'll SHOOT the bad guy", you are a fool.

Carrying a gun is a serious responsibility, and perhaps it deserves
some serious THOUGHT? So all I'm saying is, think it through, think
through scenarios, and read up on what happens to people who
draw their weapon in self defense. It isn't always pretty .

If you kill a berserker in the mall, WELL GOOD FOR YOU!

If you see some gangbangers beating each other, cross the street to
intervene, fire a warning shot in the air and put a bullet in a kid's spine
100 yards away, don't be surprised at the consequences.

EC
Edison Carter is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 03:17 PM   #35
DBOUNCE1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2006
Location: OMAHA
Posts: 189
if your gonna carry you need to be prepared
__________________
KICK THE TIRES AND LIGHT THE FIRES
DBOUNCE1 is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 03:39 PM   #36
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
If no one is willing to act for the fears you have pointed out (well deserved fears BTW) and your family is hurt or killed as a result what then? I agree that anyone who is going to carry should train as much as possible. I just hope that if something similar goes down with my family in the mix, people with a do nothing mindset aren't the only ones at the scene.


EC, Listen this might be an isolated case but it is my only expierience. I train regularly on drawing, front sight location, and firing. The day I thought I was going to have to shoot a would be robber, I drew, found the front sight, and began to squeeze the trigger. Thankfully this idiot had only a bb gun and I was able to recognize it as such before shooting him. He went on to pull and point this bb gun at my coworker, saying after that he wanted to scare him before trying to pawn it. My point is this highly stressful spur of the moment situation happened to me and I reverted automatically to my training. No hesitation, just smooth reaction. I did get the slow motion feeling despite having a sub 1/2 second draw. I also expieirenced some tunneling of my vision and some loss of hearing. All in the blink of an eye. The most important thing is that I didn't freeze. I believe if you are willing to shoot if forced and you train alot, most people will not freeze but rather react.
threegun is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 05:33 PM   #37
Dennis2
Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2006
Posts: 24
Lawyers and Good Intentions

Being in a mall or crowded place, that assumes many people are present, both visable and invisable, in the heat of the moment. Even if someone goes on a shooting spree does not relieve you of personal liability. You are an individual acting on your own, not backed by security, law enforcement, likely not officially trained and documented as "saviour". Business and government have the resources and insurance to cover their legal costs (a fortune) to cover greedy lawyers and court costs. Should you shoot and miss / recochett (sp) and hit an innocent by-stander, they will own everything you have in court. In addition, you will spend many days with court proceedings because of your involvement whether absolved or not. You could be a "hero" at that moment, but human nature will drag you ass to court if everything was not picture perfect. Personally, I would not intervine unless myself and/or family were in immidiate danger. Just something to chew on...
Dennis2 is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 06:01 PM   #38
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Dennis2, I completely understand your point however if it was your family in harms way would you want them helped? Thats my problem. I would want the help for mine thus I feel obligated to help if I can without jeopardizing family or other innocents. I will not actively seek tthe source of trouble as that is law enforcments job.
threegun is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 06:26 PM   #39
newcastlejudo
Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2005
Posts: 23
The military had the same problem in WW1 or 2 and then in Korea. Something like 0nly 25-50% of the shots were actually aimed fire. Humans are not naturally going to kill another human. Any species for that matter is not generally going to kill their own..sure there are some differences. The military had to divise a way to desensitize people to killing. For one they switched from bullseye targets to silhouettes (human outline). Human looking targets for bayonette training instead of tires or boxing bags. War games with laser training , ect. First person shootem up games have done a lot for dehumanizing/desensitizing kids in killing other kids/people and yes the military is using them too. There is an article on line somewhere that talks of how the military trains soldiers. Desensitizing oneself to kill sounds like a bad thing but in reality it is a needed if you want to be able to kill someone else with a measure of success when under stress.
newcastlejudo is offline  
Old March 6, 2006, 06:37 PM   #40
quinine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Posts: 3
The only question?

New poster folks so please bear with.

I totally agree with EC on this matter.

Even in the event that your family is not immediately in harms way, the legal aftermath can destroy your family and their security as effectively as the BG's bullet.

Each of the innocents in this scenario is responsible for their own security.

What I mean is, none of us (since we have taken no oath, or are paid to serve and protect) has an obligation to protect strangers.

And since those others will in all likelihood not provide a dime to your legal defense, your first priority is to your family.

I'm not saying don't respond.

I'm saying survey the situation first.

Will any of you feel great for reacting after the fam loses the home in the civil suit? What about possible jail time and those legal expenses?

What if you accidentally shoot the little girl? Will all see you as the "hero" then? What about your mental health after you shoot the little girl?

"the idiot that thinks he has something to say
quinine is offline  
Old March 7, 2006, 06:42 AM   #41
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Quinine, I'll pose you the same question.

If it was your family in harms way would you want them helped? If the answer is yes then how can you not help someone elses? Provided you can without endangering other citizens or your family of course.
threegun is offline  
Old March 7, 2006, 09:05 AM   #42
LICCW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 25, 2005
Posts: 266
GI Joe

I just thought I should mention that, in fact, I am GI Joe with the King Fu grip
LICCW is offline  
Old March 7, 2006, 11:14 AM   #43
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,676
The answer is what is important to you:

1. A set of values that necessitate helping others even if that puts you at risk.

Thus if you get hurt, that is acceptable as your value set is such that the helping is more important.

2. A ruthless focus on your own survival such that you get through. If others don't - that is not your problem. Also part of this is a ruthless view of my family's well being. Even if they are not there but I become a hero and get shot (like no-shoot mall dude), their lives are disrupted quite negatively. Why should I do that for a stranger?

One can argue about where the value set comes from. Some think it comes from a reasoned philosophy or supernaturally given set of principles. Others think that is part of built in sociobiological principles based on maximizing your gene pool's survival.

Altruism is very complex and it is not just based on the surface views of morality some expound on the Internet.

Even with highly trained and capable folks, the intervention debate is never clear cut. I remember Holschen or Farnham saying (duh), what we say in training and what we do may be quite different at the moment of truth.

We know that all kinds of factors influence the go/no go helping decision.

If I saw a child being kidnapped that's a go. Two adult males pounding on each other, that's a no go. Why? That's the altruism lecture.

I'm working on a project to examine this right now with help from last year the NTI folks and this year the Polite Society gang (many thanks).
__________________
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  
Old March 9, 2006, 04:15 PM   #44
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Glenn, The other day my 9 year old got up and moved several chairs blocking a man in a wheelchair from getting to a table. Was that devine intervention or genetics, or was it hard working parents teaching their kids properly? The first two I don't understand. The proper upbringing I do. Post the outcome of your findings as it sounds very interesting. Would it be possible to ask the participants in your project what kind of upbringing they had? Just to see if it has any relevance.
threegun is offline  
Old March 12, 2006, 09:40 AM   #45
DunedinDragon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2006
Posts: 198
I would hope if I'm faced with this type of situation I'm able to remove any emotional content from the decision such as harm to a family member. Who knows what prompted this guy to put not fire...it could be anything. None of us know what we are capable of until the moment arrives, but given this scenario I know a couple of things I took away from it.

1) Florida law allows us to stand our ground and fire without risk of legal or civil liabilities if it's reasonable to believe our lives, or the life of anyone else may be at risk. Therefore, in this case it's legally justified to shoot given that I KNEW he was shooting at people in the mall...the law in Florida should protect me both legally and civily.

2) Under no circumstances am I encumbered legally with the responsibility of giving someone a verbal order to "put down their gun." To some degree I see that as compensation for not having backup like a police officer has. Therefore, if I deem (1) to be true, I have no intention of calling attention to myself. I view myself at that point as more of a sniper and intend to use that to my advantage if at all possible.
DunedinDragon is offline  
Old March 14, 2006, 05:57 AM   #46
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
DoubleD, I didn't know that the new law protected us civily as well. Amen to #2. There is no way I'm giving up my position with anything other than.....BANG.
threegun is offline  
Old March 14, 2006, 05:59 AM   #47
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Glenn,
Quote:
Post the outcome of your findings as it sounds very interesting. Would it be possible to ask the participants in your project what kind of upbringing they had? Just to see if it has any relevance.
???????
threegun is offline  
Old March 14, 2006, 08:00 AM   #48
DunedinDragon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2006
Posts: 198
Quote:
DoubleD, I didn't know that the new law protected us civily as well.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...20032#0776.032

Pretty kewl, huh????
DunedinDragon is offline  
Old March 14, 2006, 10:23 AM   #49
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
DoubleD, Thanks. It is sickening that the media only report the preceived negatives in the law. I never read the law because I didn't plan on changing my reaction to a threat anyway......I will run first always if safely possible.

Do you know if it protects you from civil penelty brought by and innocent bystander? not that I intend on harming an innocent
threegun is offline  
Old March 14, 2006, 08:30 PM   #50
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,423
Edison, it isn't about being keyboard commandos or the like. It is about information. Mckown made poor use of information that he should have known long before he was shot at Tacoma Mall. If he actually understood his legal situation, then maybe he would not have stood up without a gun and yelled at the guy.

His story from his own words is posted here.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/l...-4853200c.html

Note that McKown apaprently had made up his mind long ago to defend others. In fact, the clasims he carried a gun to defend others (but not himself??).

I don't know which is tougher, trying to be able to pull a trigger to shoot somebody who is shooting people around you or being brave or stupid enough to confront the gunman without a drawn gun. Personally, McKown's story sounds a lot more like post hoc self glorification and excuses than reality. From what was shown on the TV of the mall and the positions of McKown and the shooter, much of the time the shooter would not have had people behind him that McKown was concerned about shooting with an errant round. So that doesn't fly. His claim of not knowing the law doesn't fly either. His statements that we was armed to protect others and that he tried to go after the gunman after he was shot seems to be for attention so that he can be a hero.

Here are my comments from here.... http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...ghlight=mckown


As near as I can tell from McKown's own statements, he should be the poster boy for NOT how to respond as a CCW person. In reading McKown's accounts, I am having trouble figuring out anything he did correctly. Heck, from his own accounts, it does not appear that the gunman even knew McKown had a gun as McKown was dropped by the gunman before he had a chance to draw it to use. Sure, he drew it early on, then tucked it in his belt because he didn't want to get in trouble for brandishing in the mall. This was legal information he should have known as a person licensed to carry.

You know, this is one of those examples where McKown probably had a little knownledge that screwed with his mind. McKown stupidly let a fear of legal consequence for brandishing override he thoughts to have the gun out and ready to use in a dynamic shooting situation. I will never understand why people are more fearful of potential/possible future minor legal problems than they are in fear for their own lives.

So the gunman shot McKown and continued to shoot McKown as McKown fell. It sounds like the gunman had better training than McKown and continued his followup shots until he felt McKown was neutralized.

I don't see where McKown or the other supposed CCW folks who didn't draw their guns either actually put up any resistence such that it caused the gunman to change tactics or stop shooting.

I really liked the part how he had planned to crawl after the gunman, but those other people stopped him. I am sure that after being shot several times and crippled, he would have been a force with which to contend, so much more power than before he was shot.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Reply

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 04:43 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 0.14116 seconds with 7 queries