Excessive Defense - Page 2

troy_mclure · January 3, 2009, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Maybe where you live, but I was speaking to a LEO friend of mine and his department is teaching triple taps to the central nervous system (in line with the spinal cord) with the final shot to the head. Seems like their thought process is to stop the threat by killing the bad guy.

thats the fastest/surest way all right, and probably the least expensive in the long run.

FyredUp · January 3, 2009, 11:31 PM

Just a dumb question here but has any body contemplated the psychological effect of trying to stop a bad guy by shooting him in the groin?

I know, I know, there is something not quite kosher about doing that but hear me out. How many guys do you think will have the will to keep fighting while they wonder if you just shot their ummm...equipment off?

Is this a stupid idea? I am being 100% serious here.

FyredUp · January 4, 2009, 06:41 PM

Hmmm, guess my question was too shocking? Or perhaps too embarassing?

Sorry I didn't mean to kill the thread with an offbeat but serious question.

JollyRoger · January 4, 2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Just a dumb question here but has any body contemplated the psychological effect of trying to stop a bad guy by shooting him in the groin?

Not exactly a great cold weather target - better be a marksman.

FyredUp · January 4, 2009, 07:06 PM

Quote:

JollyRoger

Quote:

Just a dumb question here but has any body contemplated the psychological effect of trying to stop a bad guy by shooting him in the groin?

Not exactly a great cold weather target - better be a marksman.

Excellent answer. Too bad I now have to clean soda off my lap top screen. Damn you had me laughing out loud!!

quinn2187 · January 4, 2009, 07:12 PM

fryed up the act of shooting to stop the threat is the wording of the action. you do not shoot to kill you shoot to stop the threat. and yes we trained that way too. but if the bad guy goes down and is not dead but can't harm you anymore you have to stop shooting him.

JasonG · January 4, 2009, 07:56 PM

Hmmmm........
20ga. Camo shotgun
#6 "BIRD" shot
Point and groin and pump away....
Sounds very safe to a jury. Little ol' bird shot sounds less menacing than a big bad SLUG.
I know #6 to the groin would make me think twice ! !
And its a lot easier to find than 20ga. buck.
In line with JollyRogers comment:
I was recently trying to convince my brother that his mossburg 500 with extended tube, collapsable stock, laser, maglite and foregrip don't look as innocent as an old camo brush hunting gun. "Its what I use to hunt squirrels and birds. It was the first thing I grabbed." ('cause it lives behind the bedroom door!)
Even my semi-anti mom saw it and said "Does this mean we're having quail for supper?" she'd choke if she saw my brothers.
I hope this dosent revive the "Pink gun named fluffy" thread

Nnobby45 · January 4, 2009, 08:27 PM

If you're prosecuted, it's because someone wants to put you in prison, and likely (though not always) actually believes you belong there.

Laws were written by lawyers. That they're open to (sometimes wide) interpretation is more likely by design than not.

webhead · January 4, 2009, 08:44 PM

FyredUp, guess you don't watch South Park. It's just wrong to shoot someone in the groin. ;-)

And for shooting to kill versus shooting to stop a threat..... sounds like a PC statement that they teach. Also sounds better in court. But be real. How do you know the threat has been stopped? When it stops moving. A euphemism is the correct term but guess that's not PC either so now it's.... well....PC.

quinn2187 · January 4, 2009, 09:02 PM

i will give an example. i had a guy pull a gun on me. i quickly shot him twice in the mid chest (one off to the left side a few inches). he hit the floor almost immediatly and was incopacitated, gun dropped well out of reach. there was no way this guy could harm me or my partner anymore. therefore i shot until the threat was gone. if i would have continued balistics would have shown that he was on the ground for some of the wounds. and since the threat was over it would have become a criminal act. and i am too pretty for prison. now if he would have died because of the two bullet wounds he recieved then everything would have been fine still, as long as i stopped shooting after the THREAT was gone. so its not just PC to say shoot to stop the threat.

retti5 · January 4, 2009, 10:41 PM

so ya shoot the guy twice, he falls to the ground dead. gun is still in his hand and you are pumped on adreneline. ya put two more in him cause he still has gun?

i think yes.

i was listening to local police practice at range the other day. sounded like this "freeze, bang bang bang" some of the times the last e in freeze and the bang were mixed together.

as stated before, it is better to be judged by 12 then carried by six.
i also believe a gun is just like a rubber, better to have one and not need it then to need it and not have it

FM12 · January 4, 2009, 10:58 PM

Actually there's no requirement to yell "freeze", "put 'em up" or anything else. If the three required elements are met (ability opportunity and jeopardy) go directly to SHOOT. No verbal warning/challenge/orders required.

mskdgunman · January 4, 2009, 11:07 PM

I can only speak for Florida but as for shooting the guy with something less then lethal (ie birdshot) from what is considerd a lethal weapon (a shotgun) may not be a good idea. If you do not think that deadly force is justified, you should not shoot. Thats why cops (in our area at least) can't do the infamous "Warning shot" because any discharge of a weapon is considered deadly force whether or not you actually intended to kill the guy. So, if you say, well, I just wanted to scare/wound him.....look for an indictment to follow shortly thereafter.

Now, if deadly force is justified, there is no limit on the manner in which it can be applied. Take for example the batons we are issued. We're taught not to strike certain areas that are likely to cause death or great bodily injury, the head being one of those. Now, consider that I'm in an up close confrontation hands on with a BG and I have my baton out. BG pulls a knife and the rules change. The head is now a viable target because I'm justified in deploying deadly force. Why did I use my baton instead of my sidearm? I had the baton in my hand and his head was available. Of course, if I can withdrawl and go to my handgun, thats my first choice.

Someone standing in front of my patrol car pointing a weapon at me and it puts me in fear for my life? Do I get out and engage or simply run him over? I choose to stay with the 2000 pound battering ram that provides at least a little cover. Either way, the guy is dead and my actions will be judged by the facts as they were available to me at the time of the incident.

"Why did we shoot him 96 times? We ran out of ammo." - Sheriff Grady Judd, Polk County Florida after the shooting of Angelo Freeland who had murded D/S Matt Williams and his K-9 partner Diogi. (Not necessarily a fan of his but he got it right that time so I'll give him due credit for guts)

Mountain Man · January 5, 2009, 12:31 AM

Their is no such thing as excessive force when the object is to kill.

jfrey123 · January 5, 2009, 09:40 AM

Object is to stop the threat.

FyredUp · January 5, 2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

webhead:

FyredUp, guess you don't watch South Park. It's just wrong to shoot someone in the groin. ;-)

And for shooting to kill versus shooting to stop a threat..... sounds like a PC statement that they teach. Also sounds better in court. But be real. How do you know the threat has been stopped? When it stops moving. A euphemism is the correct term but guess that's not PC either so now it's.... well....PC.

Avid South Park fan. Butters and Kartman holding back the Chinese hourds. Butters manages to shoot everyone he shoots at in the nuts.

I guess I thought that getting shot in the groin would stop the average guy because he would worry that he was missing some parts from his fun factory.

Moreover, what I am getting from most posters here is double or triple tap to the chest. If it kills them the threat is stopped, if they go down, re-evaluate and if necessary shoot them some more. Seems logical to me. I am prepared to do what is necessary to protect myself and my loved ones. I would much prefer not to ever be put in that situation, but, if I am going to have the gun in my hand the decision to use it if necessary has already been made.

David Armstrong · January 5, 2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

David: Excellent point. I think what juries may be considering is "defensive" as opposed to "offensive". Whaddya think?

It's quite possible, but we should also remember that juries are not all the same. What impacts one jury as a big deal may not concern another, and how the DA presents the case will have some influence, and so on. But yes, I would think that something "offensive" in nature as opposed to "defensive" could certainly be problematic, and that goes beyond just the weapon.

Quote:

May I respectfully suggest that people who are concerned about the legal issues concerning armed self-defense check out the following link, and read some of the back issues of our E-Journal.

Another big plug for Marty and his group. I've got my network, attorney, support system, and so on well-developed over the years, but anyone who does not, or anyone who is not clear on legal issues, should take a long hard look at the Armed Citizens Network program. Seems like a very good and wise investment.

BuckHammer · January 5, 2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mskdgunman

Thats why cops (in our area at least) can't do the infamous "Warning shot" because any discharge of a weapon is considered deadly force whether or not you actually intended to kill the guy.

Also, cops don't want to do the paperwork that would come with an action like a warning shot, whether they actually can or not. According to LEOs that I've talked to, they are accountable for every shot, and have to fill out paperwork for every shot they fire.

quinn2187 · January 5, 2009, 06:58 PM

to clarify my instance the guy dropped after being shot twice, gun out of his hand now and well out of reach, so there was no threat. if he would have dropped and still had gun in his hand it would be different. but it explains the shoot till the threat is gone not shoot to kill. in my instance one gets you 3 days off with pay the other sends you to prison. pretty cut and dry

webhead · January 5, 2009, 07:37 PM

I'd like to know why 2 shots? Why not 1 or 3? And why did you shoot him mid chest? Isn't that the most lethal type of shot short of a head shot?

So you employed lethal force to stop the imminent threat. How? By shooting, in this case, 2 times to the chest. If he survived, I call that lucky. Sounds like the way to stop a lethal threat is to try to stop it from moving, heart included. Euphemism.

BTW, I'm glad you and your partner are fine.

onthejon55 · January 5, 2009, 07:50 PM

Just depends where you live. In some states using anything other than the telephone to call the police is excessive and in others there is no such thing as excessive.

badguybuster · January 5, 2009, 08:01 PM

The term and practice of "double tap" came about due to the persistant issue of violent offenders not stopping with just one hit. Common physics dictates that in order for a projectile to hit with enough force to knock down an opponent it must leave the source with the same force (hence, knocking over the shooter). So to effect the same result without that issue at double tap is used: one to better the odds of a "stop" and two to better the odds of disabling said offender. Well, that is my two cents anyway. Oh, I am a former LEO.

GreyOne · January 5, 2009, 08:10 PM

To the OP's question, I will point out that a shotgun is normally a hunting weapon. I hunt deer occasionally with a rifle sighted shotgun, using buck shot. That gun is my first choice for self defense in my home. I know it functions, it is loaded with good ammo for the purpose, and it is not some tricked out tacticool gun for a DA or jury to get sidetracked over. Most likely any jury member who shoots will have a similar gun at home. It removes one of the emotional issues , and if the underlying shooting was justified, it makes a criminal trial unlikely. Here in Texas, that means a civil case is probably not going to fly either, under our version of castle doctrine.

quinn2187 · January 6, 2009, 03:27 PM

webhead the two shot is just a coincidence, the bad guy went down immediatly (i guys a .40 slug against the spine does that sometimes). and your right the force you use does have a good chance of killing someone. i guess the best way for me to describe the difference is:

shoot to stop the threat=shoot knowing that your actions might very well kill the intended target but once he is unable to harm you and the threat is over your stop shooting, alive or dead.

shoot to kill=you shoot and keep shooting, if the threat remains or not, until you believe that the target is dead.

my opinion anyways. and thanks for the nod for the win.

Nnobby45 · January 6, 2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

But be real. How do you know the threat has been stopped? When it stops moving. A euphemism is the correct term but guess that's not PC either so now it's.... well....PC.

There are actually laws, as Quinn points out, that govern the use of deadly force. I don't think shooting your assailant until he stops moving is part of that definition in any state I'm aware of. Once your attacker is no longer a threat to harm you ( even if he's still moving), further action on your part becomes a criminal act. And then there's those civil issues as well.

I think we need to look at things the way men and women on the jury will be instructed to look at things, rather than how we and our friends in Abe's Bar after work tend to see the issue.

Put another way, it's the way the law works, not our personal feelings.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

January 4, 2009, 07:56 PM	#32
JasonG Senior Member Join Date: August 14, 2008 Posts: 209	Hmmmm........ 20ga. Camo shotgun #6 "BIRD" shot Point and groin and pump away.... Sounds very safe to a jury. Little ol' bird shot sounds less menacing than a big bad SLUG. I know #6 to the groin would make me think twice ! ! And its a lot easier to find than 20ga. buck. In line with JollyRogers comment: I was recently trying to convince my brother that his mossburg 500 with extended tube, collapsable stock, laser, maglite and foregrip don't look as innocent as an old camo brush hunting gun. "Its what I use to hunt squirrels and birds. It was the first thing I grabbed." ('cause it lives behind the bedroom door!) Even my semi-anti mom saw it and said "Does this mean we're having quail for supper?" she'd choke if she saw my brothers. I hope this dosent revive the "Pink gun named fluffy" thread __________________ "Bones, what killed him ?" "Acute lead poisoning Jim....." ST-TOS#61

January 5, 2009, 09:40 AM	#40
jfrey123 Senior Member Join Date: July 7, 2006 Location: Reno, NV. Posts: 1,026	Object is to stop the threat. __________________ Rock out with your Glock out!

January 5, 2009, 08:01 PM	#47
badguybuster Junior Member Join Date: December 19, 2008 Posts: 6	Double Tap The term and practice of "double tap" came about due to the persistant issue of violent offenders not stopping with just one hit. Common physics dictates that in order for a projectile to hit with enough force to knock down an opponent it must leave the source with the same force (hence, knocking over the shooter). So to effect the same result without that issue at double tap is used: one to better the odds of a "stop" and two to better the odds of disabling said offender. Well, that is my two cents anyway. Oh, I am a former LEO.

January 3, 2009, 11:31 PM	#27
FyredUp Junior member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 673	Just a dumb question here but has any body contemplated the psychological effect of trying to stop a bad guy by shooting him in the groin? I know, I know, there is something not quite kosher about doing that but hear me out. How many guys do you think will have the will to keep fighting while they wonder if you just shot their ummm...equipment off? Is this a stupid idea? I am being 100% serious here.

January 4, 2009, 06:41 PM	#28
FyredUp Junior member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 673	Hmmm, guess my question was too shocking? Or perhaps too embarassing? Sorry I didn't mean to kill the thread with an offbeat but serious question.

January 4, 2009, 07:12 PM	#31
quinn2187 Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 2008 Location: ohio Posts: 110	fryed up the act of shooting to stop the threat is the wording of the action. you do not shoot to kill you shoot to stop the threat. and yes we trained that way too. but if the bad guy goes down and is not dead but can't harm you anymore you have to stop shooting him.

January 4, 2009, 08:27 PM	#33
Nnobby45 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2004 Posts: 3,150	If you're prosecuted, it's because someone wants to put you in prison, and likely (though not always) actually believes you belong there. Laws were written by lawyers. That they're open to (sometimes wide) interpretation is more likely by design than not.

January 4, 2009, 08:44 PM	#34
webhead Member Join Date: November 17, 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 30	FyredUp, guess you don't watch South Park. It's just wrong to shoot someone in the groin. ;-) And for shooting to kill versus shooting to stop a threat..... sounds like a PC statement that they teach. Also sounds better in court. But be real. How do you know the threat has been stopped? When it stops moving. A euphemism is the correct term but guess that's not PC either so now it's.... well....PC.

January 4, 2009, 09:02 PM	#35
quinn2187 Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 2008 Location: ohio Posts: 110	i will give an example. i had a guy pull a gun on me. i quickly shot him twice in the mid chest (one off to the left side a few inches). he hit the floor almost immediatly and was incopacitated, gun dropped well out of reach. there was no way this guy could harm me or my partner anymore. therefore i shot until the threat was gone. if i would have continued balistics would have shown that he was on the ground for some of the wounds. and since the threat was over it would have become a criminal act. and i am too pretty for prison. now if he would have died because of the two bullet wounds he recieved then everything would have been fine still, as long as i stopped shooting after the THREAT was gone. so its not just PC to say shoot to stop the threat.

January 4, 2009, 10:41 PM	#36
retti5 Junior Member Join Date: January 3, 2009 Posts: 5	so ya shoot the guy twice, he falls to the ground dead. gun is still in his hand and you are pumped on adreneline. ya put two more in him cause he still has gun? i think yes. i was listening to local police practice at range the other day. sounded like this "freeze, bang bang bang" some of the times the last e in freeze and the bang were mixed together. as stated before, it is better to be judged by 12 then carried by six. i also believe a gun is just like a rubber, better to have one and not need it then to need it and not have it

January 4, 2009, 10:58 PM	#37
FM12 Senior Member Join Date: February 5, 2007 Location: Monroeville, Alabama Posts: 1,683	Actually there's no requirement to yell "freeze", "put 'em up" or anything else. If the three required elements are met (ability opportunity and jeopardy) go directly to SHOOT. No verbal warning/challenge/orders required.

January 4, 2009, 11:07 PM	#38
mskdgunman Senior Member Join Date: December 28, 2008 Posts: 127	I can only speak for Florida but as for shooting the guy with something less then lethal (ie birdshot) from what is considerd a lethal weapon (a shotgun) may not be a good idea. If you do not think that deadly force is justified, you should not shoot. Thats why cops (in our area at least) can't do the infamous "Warning shot" because any discharge of a weapon is considered deadly force whether or not you actually intended to kill the guy. So, if you say, well, I just wanted to scare/wound him.....look for an indictment to follow shortly thereafter. Now, if deadly force is justified, there is no limit on the manner in which it can be applied. Take for example the batons we are issued. We're taught not to strike certain areas that are likely to cause death or great bodily injury, the head being one of those. Now, consider that I'm in an up close confrontation hands on with a BG and I have my baton out. BG pulls a knife and the rules change. The head is now a viable target because I'm justified in deploying deadly force. Why did I use my baton instead of my sidearm? I had the baton in my hand and his head was available. Of course, if I can withdrawl and go to my handgun, thats my first choice. Someone standing in front of my patrol car pointing a weapon at me and it puts me in fear for my life? Do I get out and engage or simply run him over? I choose to stay with the 2000 pound battering ram that provides at least a little cover. Either way, the guy is dead and my actions will be judged by the facts as they were available to me at the time of the incident. "Why did we shoot him 96 times? We ran out of ammo." - Sheriff Grady Judd, Polk County Florida after the shooting of Angelo Freeland who had murded D/S Matt Williams and his K-9 partner Diogi. (Not necessarily a fan of his but he got it right that time so I'll give him due credit for guts)

January 5, 2009, 12:31 AM	#39
Mountain Man Junior Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 5	Their is no such thing as excessive force when the object is to kill.

January 5, 2009, 06:58 PM	#44
quinn2187 Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 2008 Location: ohio Posts: 110	to clarify my instance the guy dropped after being shot twice, gun out of his hand now and well out of reach, so there was no threat. if he would have dropped and still had gun in his hand it would be different. but it explains the shoot till the threat is gone not shoot to kill. in my instance one gets you 3 days off with pay the other sends you to prison. pretty cut and dry

January 5, 2009, 07:37 PM	#45
webhead Member Join Date: November 17, 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 30	I'd like to know why 2 shots? Why not 1 or 3? And why did you shoot him mid chest? Isn't that the most lethal type of shot short of a head shot? So you employed lethal force to stop the imminent threat. How? By shooting, in this case, 2 times to the chest. If he survived, I call that lucky. Sounds like the way to stop a lethal threat is to try to stop it from moving, heart included. Euphemism. BTW, I'm glad you and your partner are fine.

January 5, 2009, 07:50 PM	#46
onthejon55 Junior member Join Date: October 23, 2008 Location: Evansville, IN Posts: 411	Just depends where you live. In some states using anything other than the telephone to call the police is excessive and in others there is no such thing as excessive.

January 5, 2009, 08:10 PM	#48
GreyOne Member Join Date: October 17, 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 19	To the OP's question, I will point out that a shotgun is normally a hunting weapon. I hunt deer occasionally with a rifle sighted shotgun, using buck shot. That gun is my first choice for self defense in my home. I know it functions, it is loaded with good ammo for the purpose, and it is not some tricked out tacticool gun for a DA or jury to get sidetracked over. Most likely any jury member who shoots will have a similar gun at home. It removes one of the emotional issues , and if the underlying shooting was justified, it makes a criminal trial unlikely. Here in Texas, that means a civil case is probably not going to fly either, under our version of castle doctrine.

January 6, 2009, 03:27 PM	#49
quinn2187 Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 2008 Location: ohio Posts: 110	webhead the two shot is just a coincidence, the bad guy went down immediatly (i guys a .40 slug against the spine does that sometimes). and your right the force you use does have a good chance of killing someone. i guess the best way for me to describe the difference is: shoot to stop the threat=shoot knowing that your actions might very well kill the intended target but once he is unable to harm you and the threat is over your stop shooting, alive or dead. shoot to kill=you shoot and keep shooting, if the threat remains or not, until you believe that the target is dead. my opinion anyways. and thanks for the nod for the win.