|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 5, 2019, 08:10 AM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
I can just see an airline pilot faced with the choices Sullenberger faced on January 05 2009 using some of the logic here.
NTSB: Why did you crash into downtown Manhattan? Sullenberger: My intent was to have a safe outcome so I simply aimed for the largest building I could find and flew the airplane into it knowing the passengers had a chance of survival. What really happenend: NTSB: Why did you ignore the ATC suggestions to land at LGA, JFK, or EWR? Sullenberger: Because my intent was for all the crew and passengers to survive so I placed the aircraft down in the area most likely to return that result. |
October 5, 2019, 08:53 AM | #52 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
You need 508: Quote:
|
||
October 5, 2019, 10:15 AM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Nothing you have posted changes the fact that shooting someone is the application of deadly or lethal force. Intent has nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter who you are or your reasons for doing it. Again your perspective is rather unique and does not inhabit our legal system as a concept.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
October 5, 2019, 10:33 AM | #54 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,452
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||||
October 5, 2019, 11:19 AM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
LEOs give terrible legal advice.
I had one LEO tell me that if you had to shoot someone on your property to drag the person into the house afterwards... just to be safe. I also was told by a LEO that a problem I had would take a long expensive court battle to fix... the officer had mis-identified me as a violent felon on parole during a traffic stop; which was an awkward situation to be in because I was also in the possession of a couple of firearms, but a five minute phone call to the DA’s office cleared it right up on my own. |
October 5, 2019, 11:22 AM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
That is the intent of stimulus response training. |
|
October 5, 2019, 11:24 AM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
The LEO's that mentioned that were not deputy Fifes or patrolman. They were quite high up on the LEO food chain with almost everyone having graduated law school before joining their organization. |
|
October 5, 2019, 12:24 PM | #58 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
Quote:
Like engineers, DOCTORS, and many other professions, a diploma is not a guarantee of competence, let alone excellence. We (as a society) expect it to be, we assume it is, but reality is, it's not. It's like a driver's license. All it really means is that they passed the required tests, at the time they took them.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
October 5, 2019, 12:51 PM | #59 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|||
October 5, 2019, 02:00 PM | #60 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,986
|
Quote:
Justified deadly force is not about killing people or intending to kill people, it is about preventing violent criminal activity in certain limited circumstances. It is accepted that the use of deadly force may result in the death of the attacker, but the death of the attacker is not the goal, it is just a possible and accepted "side effect" of the use of deadly force. The law acknowledges that you may, under certain circumstances, need to use deadly force to prevent serious violent crimes from taking place or from being completed, but it does not give you the right to kill. Everyone understands that death may result, but while the attacker’s death is acceptable as a possible consequence, it is not the goal—the goal is preservation of innocent life. Keeping the proper goal in mind will help insure that you never overstep the justification in the law. Deadly force laws are put in place to save innocent life, not to legalize killing. I’ve heard it said that the distinction between the use of deadly force and legalized killing is simply semantics, but that misses some important points. Our goals drive our actions and our speech. It is a tremendous mistake to fall into the mindset that the attacker's death is the goal for several reasons. First of all, it creates a situation where the defender may take unnecessary risks to kill the attacker when the situation could actually be resolved with less danger to the defender. It can also generate a tendency for the defender to take actions that may later call his motives (and therefore the legality of his actions) into question. Remember the defender’s motive/mindset can be an important component of justifying self-defense. Finally, an improper mindset can increase the chances that the defender will make what appear to be self-incriminating comments to others. That can happen before or after the incident. It's important that this not be misinterpreted to mean that defenders should shoot to wound. One of the common requirements for the justification of deadly force is the realization by the defender that there is no other reasonable option for preventing the crime in question. If the defender, by his actions makes it clear that he does not believe that the situation was really a life or death scenario (by intentionally missing, or by intentionally trying NOT to cause a serious or life-threatening injury—i.e. attempting NOT to use deadly force), those actions may be legally interpreted as evidence that the defender did not believe that deadly force was the only reasonable option for resolving the situation. That would, by definition, eliminate the justification for using deadly force and could classify the behavior of the shooter as criminal. In a widely publicized case in Florida, a woman fired a warning shot and was jailed as a result (although she did win the right to a retrial). The courts ruled that she could not claim self-defense because her actions and statements made it clear she hadn’t intended to use deadly force. Since she clearly didn’t feel that deadly force was warranted, therefore she had no legal justification for firing the gun in a situation that endangered bystanders. You should shoot to stop the attack (not to kill and not to wound), but only if shooting is the only reasonable way to resolve the situation. If you find yourself wondering if you should shoot, if you can get away with “winging” the criminal, or if you should just aim near the attacker to scare him instead of aiming at him, you should almost certainly hold your fire. Deadly force should be viewed as a last resort. Shooting someone, or even shooting at (or in the general direction of) someone is legally considered deadly force. That is true even if you aim to wound. Aiming close to someone but intentionally missing is almost certainly a criminal act since it implies that there was no intent by the defender to use deadly force and therefore eliminates the ability to claim justifiable self-defense to defend against the charges which will be brought against the shooter. https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=557919
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
October 5, 2019, 03:20 PM | #61 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
From PAGE 1 Quote:
That is followed by two pages of claims the use of deadly force is not about the intention of using deadly force. |
||
October 5, 2019, 03:30 PM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
The case in Florida is a great example. Here the law says since you did not intend to use deadly force the perception of threat was not there to claim self defense. I agree with that. The flip side to that same logic is when the decision is made that deadly force is appropriate, the mindset MUST be the INTENT is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively. You most definitely must by law intend to apply actions that will likely result in death. Last edited by davidsog; October 5, 2019 at 03:37 PM. |
|
October 5, 2019, 03:43 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2010
Location: Washington state
Posts: 401
|
" the mindset MUST be the INTENT is to apply lethal force quickly and effectively. You most definitely must by law intend to apply actions that will likely result in death."
You apply lethal force in order to stop the threat. That does not mean you intend to kill. You must understand that your goal is to stop the threat. Lots of people shot by handguns (and sometimes by rifles) do not die. What if you apply lethal force, and the bad guy goes down, stopping the threat, but he is not dead. Do you walk up and administer a coup de grace? I think not. |
October 5, 2019, 05:23 PM | #64 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
You really are badly confused about the whole intent of dealy force thing. However I am more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Simply post a legal reference or case that supports your position. Since there are none that I know of this might take a while. Quote:
Because: 1 - they are dumb enough to try to give you advice when they don't know what they are talking about. And 2 - Are likely violating their LEA policy when doing so. So I would never ask one for advice and ignore it if it were offered freely as it is probably going to be wrong and represent their personal opinion and not one of the agency that they represent.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
||
October 5, 2019, 05:42 PM | #65 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
So EXACTLY what is so flawed about the fact stimulus response training is used to overcome our natural instincts not the kill? Specifics is nice instead of emotional appeals. Quote:
Quote:
It is required reading at SWCS.... So my statement: I hardly think my perspective is unique, you just do not recognize it. Every LEO organization and military unit in the nation uses stimulus response training when they wish to overcome our instinctive inhibitions against killing our own species. That is the intent of stimulus response training. The fact you have no idea what I am talking about is well...expected. |
|||
October 5, 2019, 05:47 PM | #66 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Quote:
Then the application of deadly force ENDS and a new phase begins. We shift into a different mode moving down the force continuum to an appropriate level to effect arrest. To suggest that the intention to not kill is part of the deadly force application process and not something else is to water down and make the application of deadly force confusing. It will result in dead officers and soldiers too. Yeah...certain units in the Military Inventory are target selective. Every time you pull the trigger, there is a "shoot or do not shoot" evaluation. Last edited by davidsog; October 5, 2019 at 05:58 PM. |
||
October 5, 2019, 06:15 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
I guess you keep conflating the issue of stimulus response because your actual position of "shooting people not being lethal force" is completely unsupportable.
So one more time just be clear and concise please support that position with any kind of case law or legal opinion whatsoever. Other than your own opinion which like I said is pretty unique.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
October 5, 2019, 06:40 PM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
I said that if the intention was not to be lethal, then LEO would not be trained to shoot the bowling pin. They are trained to target the most lethal areas with most likely chance of achieving a hit in those lethal areas. They achieve this thru stimulus response training that ensures the lizard brain in the absence of conscious thought will act appropriately and shoot with deadly intent into the most lethal areas of the human body they are targeting. It is simply a medical fact being shot in the shoulder or arm results in fewer gunshot deaths than being shot center mass in the chest or pelvic girdle. So as I said earlier, your point is valid but unsound. Last edited by davidsog; October 5, 2019 at 06:45 PM. |
|
October 5, 2019, 06:46 PM | #69 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
The military trains soldiers to kill, in combat. For them, it is the most efficient method, preserving our troops and not having to spend resources caring for wounded prisoners.
If you kill the enemy, enough, you win. That's the goal. This is NOT the goal of our Police, or the goal of the private citizen defending themselves. Do not confuse the two, they are separate, and pointing out that our DI's trained us to "Kill, kill, KILL!!!" has NO bearing on the use of deadly force for citizen defense, or even police duties. We use deadly force, because the precise level of force needed to stop an attack is unknown, and unknowable, and even if it were known, there is no way to use "just enough" and have it work, 100% of the time. So, we opt for deadly force, knowing it can kill, because it has often stopped threats short of killing, and also because killing DOES always stop the threat. Either way, the threat is ended, THAT is the goal. If the bad guy happens to die as a result (a reasonably foreseeable result) that's their tough luck. "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is pretty apt, sometimes...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
October 5, 2019, 06:48 PM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
That isn't what you said. You can change it now if you like but what you wrote was:
Quote:
Please note that seven other posters interpreted what you wrote exactly the same way I did. And it seems I am the one confused? Well you are half right. I'll accept you walking back your statements in good grace, since we both know that what your wrote is not supportable.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
October 5, 2019, 06:55 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
The military shoots at man shaped targets in basic training and all throughout. No bowling pins.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
October 5, 2019, 06:55 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
We put too much emphasis on non-lethals and target discrimination. Guys got killed in the house. I distinctly remember their being one cartoon target that when used with the flashlight pasty was very hard to distinguish from a gun barrel under a taclight down the hallway. Guys would hesitate and really take their time because a bad shoot could mean the end of your training. Well, that taught them to really hesitate in combat and several paid the price. The reality is people act accordingly in the circumstances they are in. In other words, those in the fight, get in the fight.... Those not in the fight get away from the fight. Hands Kill. Once we changed our mindset our casualties decreased without a subsequent increase in bad shoots. We still maintained our perfect record up as of the time I left. So yeah, as others have said...words and terminology is important. Just not in the fashion they are using them. |
|
October 5, 2019, 06:57 PM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
|
|
October 5, 2019, 06:58 PM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
What is so hard understand or are you so arrogant as to insist your version is correct? |
|
October 5, 2019, 07:02 PM | #75 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Great but you wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
||
|
|