Psychological vs. Physiological

[TunnelRat]

Should we be prepared to render physiological damage should it come to that? Yes we should. But we should also understand defensive handguns are actually pretty poor at rendering QUICK physiological stops. We need to have, to the best of our abilities and the concessions we make, some plan beyond the use of a handgun the same as we must have some plan in case we fail to produce a psychological stop by display of a weapon.

I do and don't agree with your first part. There are plenty of people that have been killed quickly with a handgun. If you disable a person's central nervous system or cause a sudden and dramatic loss of blood that person is likely going down. The issue is typically more in getting the shot placement and/or penetration to hit the critical area. While a rifle or shotgun do have significantly more power, they also come with the added advantage of more points of contact with the weapon and a greater ease to get that shot placement. There have also been people that survived multiple shots with a long gun, again because of poor shot placement. Obviously shot placement under stress isn't a given. I've been in force on force scenarios where I missed people at distances that I'd laugh at on a square range. I wasn't getting a good sight picture. But that wasn't a failing of the handgun, it was me.

I also see these two responses, psychological or physiological, as pretty different in intention. If I'm actively discharging rounds at another person it's because I'm trying to stop a threat and I've determined lethal force is potentially necessary (not that you shoot to kill, but even a single shot of a handgun can potentially kill another person so discharging a round is a serious consideration). The psychological display of a firearm is because I've determined that my adversary's motivation is not strong enough to endure a show of force. While I might go to a physiological stop if the psychological fails, the reverse isn't true for me. If I shoot someone multiple times and that person continues to be a threat I'm not now switching to scare them psychologically. Either the pain and injury resulted in compliance or it didn't. Teaching people to shoot until the threat stops isn't always easy, and is demonstrated in that convenience store shooting.

To me displaying a firearm escalates a situation dramatically. I don't think expecting compliance from such a display is a given (nor am I saying you said that either), and to an extent I've been conditioned by my training to believe that to be a strong likelihood. In that event I'd rather see someone deescalate, avoid, and escape rather than display a firearm with the assumption of compliance. If you do have to go the psychological route, as you said understand that it may need to be followed up immediately with a physiological attempt, depending on the individual.

[Lohman446]

I think we have a slight disagreement on terminology

Physiological stop: Unable to physically continue the attack due to the nature and extent of injury

Psychological stop: physically able to continue the attack but unwilling to. To me if you shoot someone and the injury does not prevent them from being able to physically continue the attack but they decide not to (due to pain, fear, whatever) its still a psychological stop. There are a lot of reasons an attacker may stop the attack when still able to physically carry it out and these would be psychological stops to me (absent the attacker succeeding and stopping because of success).

[TunnelRat]

I don't think I disagree with your terminology, though I didn't realize you were combining psychological and physiological attacks into the psychological attack. In your definition of a psychological stop you're allowing the notion that it might need to include an attempted physiological stop. While there is a point of assessing a situation and seeing if the assailant has changed his/her behavior, there's also a danger. If you stop too quickly or too much that allows the assailant to potentially do you harm. This is seen in the convenience store robbery. The mother and daughter both shoot the assailant and then stop, seemingly hoping that he will stop his attack (and potentially from them likely not wanting to kill someone). The assailant uses that hesitation to close the distance and become even more of a threat. Willingness to commit fully to the defense is important, which you did mention before I believe. You had also made this comment:

In the end the concessions made by the women defending themselves were not so great as they could not overcome their attacker.

While true, I think there is a certain level of danger in this. The assailant took their firearm and attempted to kill them with it. Had the firearm had more capacity they could likely have died. Those concessions could have cost them their lives. While I understand I'm using "could" here a lot, it's because I really do think that trying to stop an attack by inflicting a specific amount of pain that stops motion but doesn't pose a lethal threat and then monitoring for that reaction is both very difficult and potentially unwise.

[TailGator]

I agree with Lohman446's definition.

And I think people greatly overestimate the effect of blood loss in the short term. It takes the loss of a great deal of blood to make someone lose consciousness. I had a surgery professor whose favorite line was "Significant bleeding is that which you can hear." A certain stop from blood loss takes from several seconds at a minimum, and without hitting a blood vessel with a very short one-word name, like "aorta," can easily take minutes if it happens at all. First the person has to lose enough blood to cause a compromise in brain function, and then the brain has to run out of reserve functional capacity, which itself takes a few seconds.

The guy in the convenience store video being discussed in another thread was said to be hospitalized, right? So it was likely a psychological stop even then - him feeling like he was in bad enough shape to quit. A physiological stop in that situation of a protracted fight would very likely have had to be fatal.

[Lohman446]

I really do think that trying to stop an attack by inflicting a specific amount of pain that stops motion but doesn't pose a lethal threat and then monitoring for that reaction is both very difficult and potentially unwise.

To a degree. Chances are you are trained, once shooting starts, to shoot until the threat stops and then, if the threat restarts, to start shooting again. "No one" is trained to shoot until the subject is physically unable to continue the attack. Once aggressive behavior stops and compliance is gained or the attacker retreats you are not permitted to continue shooting. So we start to attempt to consider intent.

I'm shooting center of mass because that is most likely to hit and most likely to stop the aggressive actions of an attacker. Frankly I don't care if the attacker stops because he or she decides to end the attack or because he or she is physically unable to. I am not for a moment suggesting one "shoot to wound" but I am also not suggesting one is "shooting to kill"

Our discussion about psychological versus physiological stops is a matter of discussion. To me a pure QUICK physiological stop is extremely unlikely with modern defensive handguns. They are useful to discussion because it allows us to see why others prepare the way they do and the thought process behind such preparations

[TunnelRat]

To a degree. Chances are you are trained, once shooting starts, to shoot until the threat stops and then, if the threat restarts, to start shooting again. "No one" is trained to shoot until the subject is physically unable to continue the attack. Once aggressive behavior stops and compliance is gained or the attacker retreats you are not permitted to continue shooting. So we start to attempt to consider intent.

Right, and I'm saying there are caveats to that that need consideration. It's not about shooting to wound or shooting to kill. It's about shooting to stop the threat, and whether the threat is or isn't active isn't always easy to determine. What's the difference between retreating and running to cover?

I'd also add that I personally see threat evaluation after shooting someone as a bit different than the earlier conversation about stopping a fight by just showing a firearm.

As for this:

To me a pure QUICK physiological stop is extremely unlikely with modern defensive handguns

I would agree more people are shot than die from handguns, or firearms in general. Some people die from one shot, some survive multiple. While I get your point, I'm sort of left with a, "Well, yeah", reaction. Are you presenting or arguing for some kind of alternative? If that alternative is the person will stop because of psychological factors, I think while that's definitely possible it's not guaranteed. Are we talking just displaying a firearm? Are we talking shooting said person? Multiple shots? I don't think anyone knows the level of force required to stop some random person on the street. My point this whole time is assuming anything can get you killed. You have to assess the situation and reassess as it evolves.

[Lohman446]

We may have somewhat the same conclusion we are just taking different paths to get there and perhaps different paths away from it. When I carried an NAA mini I used to make the comment that I wasn't certain five shots of .22 would do the job but a few holes in an aggressor would likely make him or her easier to deal with if the situation reached close contact distances. But the same holds true with any number of firearms.

It seems you want to stress the premise that the presence of a gun is not some magical talisman. One should not count on it to produce a quick psychological stop. Its a valid premise though I think it can be overstated as well. Still its a valid premise and we must be prepared for when simple brandishment or even assault with a firearm (the threat of using the gun not the actual use) does not work. I agree with you on the premise.

We must be prepared to actually USE the firearm in question. The distinction I am trying to make here is even the competent use of a firearm should not be depended on to create a physiological stop.

You must be prepared for what happens if you shoot and hit (or miss) an attacker and he or she does not stop. What then? What about after 5, 15, or 30 shots and the threat is still present. I think this is the point of training that many fail to consider. The gun cannot be depended on to create a physiological stop of violent action.

A Ruger SP101 for instance likely makes a very effective club though.

[Lohman446]

The assailant took their firearm and attempted to kill them with it. Had the firearm had more capacity they could likely have died

There is a saying out there that if a violent attacker ever kills me with my firearm he will have to use it to beat me to death because it will certainly be out of ammo. Maybe there is some point where capacity beyond your capability to effectively use it becomes a cause for concern rather than comfort.

[TunnelRat]

If it can't be depended on to create a physiological stop then it sure can't be depended on to create a psychological stop. At some level we do depend on it though, because otherwise it gets a bit silly. For instance, I carry with a compliment of 30 rds of 9mm. If that fails, I have a knife. If that fails, I have me. What if I'm against a BJJ champion though and my gun explodes in my hand and a tsunami strikes at the same time? At some level all of us say, "That's enough", because you can what if until the cows come home. What are the chances of needing a firearm in the first place? What are the chances that the attacker doesn't stop either physiologically or psychologically from being shot? What are the chances he or she doesn't stop after being shot and stabbed and punched and kicked? I get being prepared, I get contingencies, I'm all for people learning martial arts. At some point you're working to mitigate something with a probability that becomes extremely small and my time and money are finite and I'd be better off planning for something else.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

There is a saying out there that if a violent attacker ever kills me with my firearm he will have to use it to beat me to death because it will certainly be out of ammo. Maybe there is some point where capacity beyond your capability to effectively use it becomes a cause for concern rather than comfort.

Or I could ask if they had more capacity in the first place would they have had more opportunities to deliver a fight ending shot (psychological or physiological) before the assailant closed that distance?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[shafter]

A lot of my self-defense focus has been on the physiological because that works regardless of the mental state of your opponent. But I’m reminded of a conversation I had with JohnKSa and Glenn Meyer after a Firearms Law CLE where John made a very observant remark on the psychological value of weapons.

I think if you're facing a sane and rational opponent there might be something to the psychological value of a weapon, but for the most part I would think that to most people a gun is a gun; point it at them and they won't be asking themselves if it's a 22 or a 44 magnum. Furthermore, I think the most likely opponent for most of us is one that isn't sane or rational. There's likely drugs or alcohol on board and that changes everything.

[Lohman446]

Or I could ask if they had more capacity in the first place would they have had more opportunities to deliver a fight ending shot (psychological or physiological) before the assailant closed that distance?

I think it much more likely that lack of ammunition becomes an issue before having too much especially in the hands of a competent individual. I just found it interesting that, in the convenience store case, the lack of ammo may have had a benefit.

Your point about the what if considerations. I think you have hit on something I like. We all make concessions. For instance I know that should a group of competent and determined individuals attack me I am unlikely to survive it so I do not prepare for having four people attack me. Really I'm just hoping, if I am ever attacked, that the individual is neither competent nor determined and runs at the first sign of resistance. Does it mean I am not prepared to escalate further? No. But if a single competent and determined individual attacks me at a time and place of his or her choosing I'm already on the wrong side of the odds.

[stinkeypete]

Re: the convenience store video

I suddenly wonder if the criminal’s return (in the face of two handguns) might not have been influenced by the workers at the store being women that despite relative competence to defend themselves, do not project the same aura of say two huge tattooed biker dudes (who may in fact be the nicest men you would ever meet) that look downright scary.

To clarify, women can be just as lethal as men but in our society I feel women are generally considered less dangerous than men. This might be a small bit of the “psychological” aspect.

My immediate question is “what the heck was going on in that store?” From the limited footage, it appeared the women were shooting at a fleeing attacker who then initiated another attack. That’s neither here nor there- I would be shocked if anyone in that action knew exactly what was going on.

Grim stuff.

[TunnelRat]

I just found it interesting that, in the convenience store case, the lack of ammo may have had a benefit.

True. The world is a strange place.

Your point about the what if considerations. I think you have hit on something I like. We all make concessions.

It's the unfortunate reality. Ideally if I knew when and where someone was going to attack me, I wouldn't be there. To this day I don't know how much firearm is or isn't "enough" for carry. I know what I've chosen for myself based on what I'm willing and able to carry, but others come to different conclusions (both more and less). Are they or I "wrong"?

To bring it full circle, since we can't depend on firearms or people for either guaranteed psychological or physiological stops to be a thing, considering the possibilities and constantly reassessing the situation seem the best bet. The threat of force or the use of less-than-lethal force may or may not dissuade someone. If it does then don't kill someone unnecessarily. If it doesn't then someone carrying a firearm has to be willing to use lethal force. In that possibility, be prepared for adversaries that may not stop so easily. Alternatives like edged weapons, martial arts, etc, are a good thing to have in your pocket.

[Nanuk]

For all the talk about criminals that do not care about being endangered we seem to be ignoring something that used to be true: most encounters where a would be victim draws a firearm end without injury to the victim and without a shot being fired.

Is this no longer true?

Where did you come up with that?

A person is not by definition a criminal until he victimizes someone. You can't use deadly force to protect yourself unless justified, so how would you justify deadly force if not being attacked to the level that deadly force is the appropriate response?

I can only speak of 40 years of dealing with criminals. Maybe they are nicer where you live.

[FireForged]

Where did you come up with that?

A person is not by definition a criminal until he victimizes someone. You can't use deadly force to protect yourself unless justified, so how would you justify deadly force if not being attacked to the level that deadly force is the appropriate response?

I can only speak of 40 years of dealing with criminals. Maybe they are nicer where you live.

well said..

I will add : there are criminals who deal in violence, expect to do violence, expect resistance and have come to terms with the fact that its part of business. Then there are criminals who behave criminally and boldly only when risks and resistance are low. How someone responds to the display of a weapon will significantly depend on the nature of the criminal not some stat in a book.

On Stats.. please remember that stats are derived from facts and circumstances which are reported. There can easily be more unreported violent happenings than reported violent happenings so just keep that in mind when you consider stats and something important. There are neighborhood where gun fire can regularly go unreported and there are neighborhoods on the other side of town where people call 20 times a night about noisey stereos.

[JohnKSa]

A person is not by definition a criminal until he victimizes someone. You can't use deadly force to protect yourself unless justified, so how would you justify deadly force if not being attacked to the level that deadly force is the appropriate response?

In many areas, the state must presume justification for deadly force exists if someone breaks into an occupied residence and the resident uses deadly force.

That would be a situation where the resident could immediately, and legally resort to deadly force without being injured first. We do see cases where a break-in is resolved by the presentation of a firearm without any injury on either side when the person who broke into the house flees.

There are also other situations where a person might be justified in using deadly force even without being injured. If the attacker displays a weapon during the commission of certain crimes, for example, that will often provide justification for the victim, though uninjured, to legally respond with deadly force.

[Lohman446]

Where did you come up with that?

A person is not by definition a criminal until he victimizes someone. You can't use deadly force to protect yourself unless justified, so how would you justify deadly force if not being attacked to the level that deadly force is the appropriate response?

I can only speak of 40 years of dealing with criminals. Maybe they are nicer where you live.

I probably should have left out the caveat that the victim is not injured in my original statement. Not probably I should have.

However you are not making the counter argument that a drawn firearm most often requires shots to be fired in order to resolve the situation are you? You are simply pointing out the flaw in my original statement that is likely resolved by dropping the without injury part (no idea why I included that)

[Nanuk]

In many areas, the state must presume justification for deadly force exists if someone breaks into an occupied residence and the resident uses deadly force.

Absolutely.

That would be a situation where the resident could immediately, and legally resort to deadly force without being injured first. We do see cases where a break-in is resolved by the presentation of a firearm without any injury on either side when the person who broke into the house flees.

Absolutely, but I do not think that is the majority of incidents though.

There are also other situations where a person might be justified in using deadly force even without being injured. If the attacker displays a weapon during the commission of certain crimes, for example, that will often provide justification for the victim, though uninjured, to legally respond with deadly force.

Correct, but they are still at that point the victim of a violent crime as the threat to use violence many times equates to the use of force. In my state for example the threat to use deadly force does not rise to the level of deadly force, but couple with other factors it could. That is why I always tell people to be able to articulate why they did something.

[Nanuk]

I probably should have left out the caveat that the victim is not injured in my original statement. Not probably I should have.

However you are not making the counter argument that a drawn firearm most often requires shots to be fired in order to resolve the situation are you? You are simply pointing out the flaw in my original statement that is likely resolved by dropping the without injury part (no idea why I included that)

Correct. I agree with most of what you are saying about capacity, ability to use capacity etc.

[armednfree]

The fact is most assaults have an objective. The criminal makes the same risk analysis that everyone else does. Also that risk analysis can be effected by some substance (why do you think they feed you with booze in Vegas), mental health or emotions like rage.

Now, the criminal risks several things right off the top. He could get caught, but that's not a big deal because he's probably been caught before or know's many who have. He might go to prison, which he has probably been to before or which is a norm for his culture.

It's like a deck of cards, and what you did was put a card in there that says, "You die right here and right now." You can see how that might change to result of his analysis. You can also see how he would try to distance himself should that card be turned.

Also is the fact that you and I, as normal people, use violence as a last resort. In that culture violence is a first resort, or nearly a first resort. They have no moral or cultural impediment to using it. Just that fact put them a step or two up in a violent encounter.

27 years Corrections.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

Where did you come up with that?

A person is not by definition a criminal until he victimizes someone. You can't use deadly force to protect yourself unless justified, so how would you justify deadly force if not being attacked to the level that deadly force is the appropriate response?

You seem to be conflating two concepts here. A criminal becomes a criminal the moment he initiates a contact with another person for the purpose of committing a theft, robbery, or fraud. The victim is a victim the moment the criminal act is set in motion, regardless of whether the crime is carried through to completion or is interrupted and the criminal flees.

As to whether or not the victim is allowed to resist using deadly/lethal force, that's a separate question from when the act becomes a criminal act, or when the victim becomes a victim. The laws of each of the fifty states differ, so it's not wise to make generalizations -- although some generalizations do apply. One such generalization is that the determination of whether or not deadly/lethal force may be used is based on the perception of the victim, not the crook. That perception is, in turn, subject (if the case should get to court) to the "reasonable man" standard, but it's still from the victim's perspective.

Example: How many times have we read about crooks who try to stick up a store or a bank carrying a BB gun or an airsoft pistol? From the crook's perspective, it's a toy and not a lethal weapon, so victims "shouldn't be shootin' folk over a toy." From the victim's perspective, "He pointed a gun at me, so I shot him. I had no way of knowing it was a toy - it looked real."

Casting about the Internet for information on "statutes+deadly+force" I hit on a summary from the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research. It begins to summarize this issue -- for Connecticut:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0847.htm

A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

So, for Connecticut, a threat to inflict great bodily harm ("I'm going to beat the [bleep] out of you") is justification for using deadly force to defend yourself.

Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:

1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he is assisting a peace officer at the officer's directions;

2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or

3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.

Note, however, that this memo dates to 2002, so it's now 17 years old. Obviously, at that time Connecticut didn't have a "stand your ground" law, they had a duty to retreat -- except in the home or office, and only if retreat can be accomplished in "complete" safety. Tough call to make on the spur of the moment.

But the memo then goes on:

In 1984, the Connecticut Supreme Court articulated the test for determining the degree of force warranted in a given case. Whether or not a person was justified in using force to protect his person or property is a question of fact that focuses on what the person asserting the defense reasonably believed under the circumstances (State v. DeJesus, 194 Conn. 376, 389 (1984)). The test for the degree of force in self-defense is a subjective-objective one. The jury must view the situation from the defendant's perspective; this is the subjective component. The jury must then decide whether the defendant's belief was reasonable (DeJesus at 389 n.13).

In other words, the victim gets to decide whether or not he/she can use deadly force to defend him/herself based on his/her perception of the threat -- not based on the bad guy's intentions or excuses.

Geting back to the video (which, despite the thread title, was not a convenience store but a liquor store): Someone commented that the crook left and then came back. I went back and watched the video again, at reduced speed. I did not see the bad guy leave. It's apparently a small store. He did move over toward the door but, if he went outside, the camera didn't show it. So, the way I viewed it, he was still in the store, and he had a shotgun. We don't know if it was loaded, but it doesn't matter. The women didn't know but they had a right to believe it was loaded. A shotgun is a deadly weapon, so that means they had every right (IMHO) to use deadly force to defend themselves. As long as the guy was in that small space with a shotgun (and, arguably, even if he dropped it), he was still a threat.

If he had turned tail and left the store, then they would not be allowed to pursue him and keep shooting. Then you get to a situation like that pharmacist a few years ago who shot one would-be robber, pursued a second robber out of the store, then returned to the store, switched guns, and killed the wounded robber who was lying on the floor. In that case, the pharmacist was convicted of murder.

[10-96]

[QUOTESo I wanted to start a discussion on the aspects of firearms that have a strong self-defense deterrent but are maybe less practical in their physiological effects.][/QUOTE]
Not much input from me one way or the other on that. Well, OK, maybe a little input... I think that in terms of firearms, it matters a bit less than some like to think. Col. Cooper, and others, have wrote a bit about awareness and not looking like a perpetual potential victim. Sure, nobody can foresee every eventuality and sidestep every boogy man- but one should do what they can to eliminate any chance they can get.

Maybe more related- I remember one of the interpreters in Iraq said that typically the people around the Baghdad area and just about anywhere the Husseins had palaces and particular interests- they were not overly scared of our M-16's and pistols. He said what got their attention and made them nervous was the shotguns. He said seeing the Iraqi Police and Soldiery with rifles (AK's) and pistols was a common everyday thing, but then here come the Yanks with those spooky shotguns and .50's just gave them the willies.

It's D-Day plus 75 years today. Lets remember all those men.

[Nanuk]

Aguila,

Fair enough. The point remains that you cannot use force to defend yourself from a non event, unless of course you can articulate pre-fight posture etc. well enough that you can establish you know whats coming next.

[fastbolt]

I tend to agree with much of what Nanuk posted in post #15.

Good luck guessing whether someone is going to be afraid, intimidated or even willing to comply when they're facing a gun muzzle.

Someone might not want to be shot, but that may not mean they're necessarily afraid of the person holding the gun pointed at them, or believe the person would/could shoot them.