Colin Noir on self defense shooting

[4V50 Gary]

Shooting of criminals are up. Be sure you are within the law and know your local/state laws. Colin Noir comments on self defense.
https://youtu.be/jzHTrG3EYhM

[TunnelRat]

Link shows as broken, at least on my phone.

[Shane Tuttle]

Link works for me.

[TunnelRat]

Weird, I’ll have to try from a desktop.

Edit: Yeah works fine that way.

[Limnophile]

Thanks for the link to to commercial.

[cptjack]

when you sell MERCH you are more inclined to make money than your cause

[chupps]

regardless of the commercial and MERCH comments, it's still great advice. My conceal carry class was instructed by a retired deputy sheriff. He stressed the civil liabilities of pulling your weapon. I'll never forget the example he used of coming across a man beating a woman outside a convenience store. What happens if you shoot the woman beater and the woman comes at you asking "why did you shoot by boyfriend?"

No doubt senior members of this forum look at this as old news, but every day there are new members that need this advice.

[Limnophile]

Originally Posted by chupps

rI'll never forget the example he used of coming across a man beating a woman outside a convenience store. What happens if you shoot the woman beater and the woman comes at you asking "why did you shoot by boyfriend?"

What an odd example to use and fixate upon. The relationship between the woman beater and the woman being beaten is irrelevant.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Limnophile

What an odd example to use and fixate upon. The relationship between the woman beater and the woman being beaten is irrelevant.

No, it is NOT irrelevant. Not if the woman you perceived as a "victim" is going to turn on you and file charges against you or sue you rather than thank you for saving her.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Not if the woman you perceived as a "victim" is going to turn on you and file charges against you or sue you rather than thank you for saving her.

More than that, she may become belligerent and attack you in the moment.

To be clear I'm not saying a person should or shouldn't help a third party, but I do agree that the reception of aid may not be what you assume.

[JohnKSa]

What an odd example to use and fixate upon. The relationship between the woman beater and the woman being beaten is irrelevant.

A guy I work with tells a story about an acquaintance of his. I haven't tried to verify details so it might not be true, but it is instructive so I will repeat it here.

A marine was returning from leave and saw a disheveled woman walking down the side of the road, apparently in distress. He stopped and at that point could see that she was quite young and appeared to have been beaten. He asked if she needed help and she said her boyfriend had beaten her up and stranded her. She asked for a ride home.

When he got her home, it turned out that she was underage and lived with her parents who, naturally, immediately wanted to know what had happened to her. By this time, she had decided she didn't want her boyfriend to get in trouble so she told her parents that the marine did it. They called the cops and the marine was arrested. Naturally, the topic of sex came up and she "admits" they had sex but refuses a rape kit, saying that a condom was used.

He has no good defense other than to say: "Did not." and, to top it off he can't get out on bail in time to make it back to base and ends up AWOL in addition to his other new legal problems.

All that to say, it is wise to be really careful when you try to help someone, especially someone involved in a domestic violence situation. It's not uncommon for the victim to turn on the person helping them to protect their victimizer.

[Willie Lowman]

No, it is NOT irrelevant. Not if the woman you perceived as a "victim" is going to turn on you and file charges against you or sue you rather than thank you for saving her.

Years ago I worked with a guy who did just that. Shot a man who was beating a woman. She took him to court for shooting her boyfriend. It does happen.

[Limnophile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

No, it is NOT irrelevant. Not if the woman you perceived as a "victim" is going to turn on you and file charges against you or sue you rather than thank you for saving her.

If you reasonably diagnose the beating being administered as posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the woman, you are lawfully authorized to use deadly force to stop the forcible felony, regardless of the relationship between felon and victim. If your diagnosis was correct, the woman's body will be replete with forensic evidence in support of your action. If the beating is less serious, you are lawfully authorized to use nondeadly force to stop the assault or to effect a citizen's arrest of the assailant.

When I got my CPL and first carry pistol in 2012, I decided to take a class. It had been a while since I had done serious shooting, and I wanted the relevant law explained. The instructors skipped the law other than to pass on nonsense about Bellvue, WA prohibiting carry with a round chambered (municipalities are prohibited from enacting their own firearms laws). They emphasized it was only appropriate (i.e., wise) to use a firearm to defend yourself or a loved one.

I can understand the legal and financial wisdom of not using force to defend another who is not related, but I believe such choice is immoral if one has the ability to stop the crime. It is sad that in our "progressive" society one can't be shocked if a Soros-bought prosecutor bends the law to bring you up on charges for doing the right thing, but sitting back and allowing someone to die and the felonious assailant to get away would be, I'm thinking, very hard to do.

[Limnophile]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

More than that, she may become belligerent and attack you in the moment.

A victim who turns around and attacks her savior, who happens to be holding a smoking sidearm, is begging for a Darwin Award.

[Limnophile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

A guy I work with tells a story about an acquaintance of his. I haven't tried to verify details so it might not be true, but it is instructive so I will repeat it here.

Interesting story. Sounds like another reason to install a dashcam that records video both forward and rearward, as well as sound. Also, in this day and age, it might be wise, upon learning of the crime, to pull out your cellphone to report it to police while you gentlemanly await for the police to arrive to handle the matter.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Limnophile

I can understand the legal and financial wisdom of not using force to defend another who is not related, but I believe such choice is immoral if one has the ability to stop the crime.

There is a concept known as "situational morality" that applies here. The classic example to illustrate the concept is a police officer in a patrol car. Officer gets a call about a bank robbery in progress. He turns on his lights and sirens heads for the bank, runs a red light and t-bones a car who had a green light and didn't hear the siren. Legally and morally, the officer is in the clear.

Another officer is on routine patrol and decides he wants to leave his patrol area and go home for lunch. He lives on the other side of town so, in order to get there quickly, he activates his lights and siren. He runs a red light and t-bones a car who had a green light and didn't hear the siren.

Physically the exact same scenario, but morally quite different.

So you decide that you MUST intervene with deadly force if you see a guy pounding on a woman. You know nothing about the people or what led up to what you see taking place, but you decide that you MUST intervene because ... morality. You shoot the guy, the woman tells the cops you shot her boyfriend/husband/brother for no reason, you get arrested, charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, your life savings are wiped out, you lose your job, and maybe you go to prison.

Your family is now without a husband and father, and has no income. All because you had to intervene in a situation that didn't affect or involve you in any way.

Morality?

Morality isn't always black-and-white.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

So you decide that you MUST intervene with deadly force if you see a guy pounding on a woman. You know nothing about the people or what led up to what you see taking place, but you decide that you MUST intervene because ... morality. You shoot the guy, the woman tells the cops you shot her boyfriend/husband/brother for no reason, you get arrested, charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, your life savings are wiped out, you lose your job, and maybe you go to prison.

Your family is now without a husband and father, and has no income. All because you had to intervene in a situation that didn't affect or involve you in any way.

It’s also completely possible that the woman doesn’t charge you, or that there are third party witnesses and/or recording devices that provide additional evidence, and you are cleared.

In the past here I’ve shared stories that cover the other side of this, that being people that are assaulted through seemingly no fault of their own and others watch as that person is assaulted and/or killed, unwilling to help. You’re right that legally they owe the other person nothing and intervening can have serious implications. But as someone that is a husband and a father, like the situation you mention, part of me does hope that if my wife and/or child are assaulted and I’m not there and others are capable of intervening, that someone might choose to do so. I don’t “expect” that to be the case, but we’ve had situations in the news where people didn’t even call the police. A conscience is a thing. Beyond the monetary and physical implications of intervening are the potential psychological effects of not intervening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octobe...on_SEPTA_train

I think it’s completely reasonable to consider the negative outcome, but it doesn’t make it the only possible outcome. I think in the end the goal is that the person engaging in defense of a third party be aware that their “help” may not be received as intended. Whether that person decides to intervene is on them. I can think of instances where I would or wouldn’t intervene. I also think it’s extremely important for people that carry firearms to not see the firearm as their only or first tool. Even if you choose to not intervene physically, be a good witness, alert the authorities and stay around (if possible to do so safely), to provide information to responding officers.

[JohnKSa]

Interesting story. Sounds like another reason to install a dashcam that records video both forward and rearward, as well as sound. Also, in this day and age, it might be wise, upon learning of the crime, to pull out your cellphone to report it to police while you gentlemanly await for the police to arrive to handle the matter.

The story was from before cell phones were common, now we have a lot more options for protection.

A good way to handle something like that now, as you say, would be to immediately call the police as soon as you determined that it was likely a crime had been committed and let them come and sort things out. Of course, these days it's less likely that such a thing would happen in the first place as the girl would have likely called someone on her cell phone to come get her.

You’re right that legally they owe the other person nothing and intervening can have serious implications. But as someone that is a husband and a father, like the situation you mention, part of me does hope that if my wife and/or child are assaulted and I’m not there and others are capable of intervening, that someone might choose to do so. I don’t “expect” that to be the case, but we’ve had situations in the news where people didn’t even call the police. A conscience is a thing. Beyond the monetary and physical implications of intervening are the potential psychological effects of not intervening.

There are various ways you can mitigate the risk to yourself, but if you intervene, there is no way to eliminate risk completely. As with any risk, everyone has to make their own decision as to what they are willing to take on.

It's not that the negative outcome is the only one that should be considered, but it is certainly true that if there is a negative outcome, it has the potential to be truly life-changing.

If you're the kind of person who feels like you wouldn't be able to live with yourself if you saw a dispute/domestic dispute and didn't intervene, you need to develop a careful and thorough strategy to minimize your risk and to give yourself tools to work with. Maybe look into martial arts training, or start carrying less-lethal tools that might help you reduce the situation with less likelihood of severe injury or death and therefore less likelihood of prosecution/ill-will afterwards. Maybe see about getting some crisis negotiation training. If there's a common second language in your area, you might want to learn it so you could have a better idea of what is really going on if the participants are not speaking English.

If you know you won't be able to keep from intervening, at least give yourself some solid options and tools to resort to besides a firearm.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It's not that the negative outcome is the only one that should be considered, but it is certainly true that if there is a negative outcome, it has the potential to be truly life-changing.

If you're the kind of person who feels like you wouldn't be able to live with yourself if you saw a dispute/domestic dispute and didn't intervene, you need to develop a careful and thorough strategy to minimize your risk and to give yourself tools to work with. Maybe look into martial arts training, or start carrying less-lethal tools that might help you reduce the situation with less likelihood of severe injury or death and therefore less likelihood of prosecution/ill-will afterwards. Maybe see about getting some crisis negotiation training. If there's a common second language in your area, you might want to learn it so you could have a better idea of what is really going on if the participants are not speaking English.

If you know you won't be able to keep from intervening, at least give yourself some solid options and tools to resort to besides a firearm.

To the first point, I don’t deny the potential for a life changing result from intervening. I believe my comments acknowledge that as a possibility. Even in the event you helped a third party and the person was gracious, you have engaged in an action that will likely have repercussions, including but not limited to a police interaction and a potential investigation. This is true outside of the use of force, even in just functioning as a witness.

To your second point regarding additional options, while I agree I would add that my last paragraph explicitly mentioned not treating the firearm as the only or first option in terms of response. I gave tips on being a good witness, your points are certainly valid in terms of developing a broader array of options if a person chooses direct intervention.

This is a topic about which I have invested significant time and money into training and my own personal thought. I have no illusions or desire to be a hero. On a number of occasions I have deliberately not intervened and functioned solely as a witness, because of my estimation of my involvement escalating the situation beyond its current state and the fact that an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury had not developed. My point above was that I could understand a person choosing to intervene, but that such a person should be aware of the potential consequences of that involvement, which others have covered and I mentioned myself earlier.

[Adventurer 2]

I feel like more people are falling apart (Covid inflation crazy government) I stay out of Baltimore and DC - as their respective mayors have let the criminals know they are on their side. I don’t think I’m stepping in for someone I don’t know because I’m not willing to pay the expenses for a strangers safety. In the last year I’ve installed surveillance systems for three loved ones. I already have one. I bought a dash cam as I’ve seen more road rage this year than ever before. I believe I’m responsible for my own safety and I train like it. I’m never going to brandish (not worth the cost) - if I’m drawing my firearm, I’ve made the decision to shoot (and if it costs me $$$$ I’m okay with that because myself or someone I care about is worth up to everything I own). In the last year I bought the shooting illustrated publication on concealed carry and also downloaded a Humble Bumble package related to concealed carry. I feel like the threat of violence is higher than it has ever been where I live and I’m doing what I can to be prepared.

[Limnophile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Morality isn't always black-and-white.

We know where you stand on the issue of moral relativism, a dysfunctional concept designed to subvert Western Civilization.

[mehavey]

moral relativism....

Lethal defense of one's self or of others . . .
is ALWAYS a lesser-evil choice.
Always...
as is most of life.

"Black & White" does not exist in the real world.
It is that conundrum that "decent" men must always live with in making decisions.