Why and when would you pull the trigger?

[CrazyIvan007]

a cell phone and some credit cards are not worth ending someone’s life over. You don’t shoot someone to punish them for their bad deeds, you shoot them because if you don’t you will likely die. I think it is a great mistake to kill someone over material items.

This argument is flawed. During the muggging, you have no idea if they are going to kill you when they are done. During the mugging, you are in fear for your life.

And to think beyond the mugging itself and put a bit of a philosophical comment to this: Having your ID stolen can lead to identity theft. Identity theft can ruin your way of life. For many people, they have so many problems, they might as well have been physically harmed or killed. It can cause stress which can later lead to health problems and can, in some cases, cause terminal health problems, like heart failure, etc...

So, if you are being mugged, I have no problem shooting someone. During most muggings, they assualt you physically, even if a little bit. They cause harm to you physically; they must strong arm you to get you to do what they want. Under state law here in Colorado, you can use lethal force in a case where you are about to be or are being assaulted physically. Short of that, they may hold you up at gunpoint, which definitely causes "fear of imminent bodily injury" which also allows you to use lethal force.

[pax]

Thanks, Lurper, found it.

pax

[David Armstrong]

you can use lethal force in a case where you are about to be or are being assaulted physically.

Quite a bit of difference between when you can shoot and when you should shoot, and that is the crux of the problem, IMO. You think there is a problem dealing with ID theft? Try dealing with the aftermath of a shooting!

[CrazyIvan007]

If someone is trying to steal from me by a confrontation or assault me or attack me physically, whether it be armed or not armed...they deserve to get shot. No crux in my mind. It is allowed by law, and I am glad. I don't care if it is for my wallet, or just to attack me. I will not stand for it. It is black & white. Live & let live. If they don't let me go on with my peacefull self, then they don't deserve to go on with their evil self either.

Besides, many times...small things such as theft by assault can lead to many other things like rape and murder. You never know who you may be saving along the trail in the future of the assailant.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with the post trauma of shooting someone than allowing them to go through with it without a fight and perhaps raping someone, killing someone or beating up someone's grandma for her social security check later. If you let a dog eat off the table, sooner than later he will be sitting on the chair next to you eating off of your plate.

I wouldn't shoot to kill, but if I didn't do something to cause the person to think twice before attacking someone else, then I would feel partially at fault for anyone they may hurt in the future. Would you not?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When you say you wouldn't shoot to kill - what do you mean? Do you mean to specifically wound? That seems the implication as compared to the commonly used 'shooting to stop' which implies the use of lethal force.

Clarify your position a touch, if you would? Note this is a trap question as it may indict your level of knowledge and training in using lethal force.

BTW, dealing with the PTSD consequences of shooting someone is not trivial as the police know.

So, I get the feel that some folks would shoot a fleeing 5 year old hightailing out of the candy store with an Almond Joy to protect society from future crime. Is that what you mean?

[CrazyIvan007]

I wouldn't shoot to kill.

I wouldn't shoot to wound.

If the level of force required to dissolve the situation was to shoot and was within the law, then that is what I would do. Neither to wound or be fatal would be my goal. Being wounded or killed is the fault of the assailant. My only fault and my only goal would be first to protect myself, my property, those I care about or someone who cannot defend themselves. Secondly, excercising my rights, and thankfully that is not illegal, would be the only other thing I would be doing.

Shooting someone, of course, is not a walk in the park and must be taken seriously. I have spent hours and days reading through the laws and contemplating my response. Preparedness never can always 100% dictate your reaction when what you have prepared for comes to pass, and you hope it never does come to pass, but it definitely gives you a bit more ability to handle the situation if it does happen.

Shooting a child running out of a store carrying candy is outside of the law. The child poses no threat to anyone. You are not legally able to shoot a person in such a situation. You can not shoot a shoplifter, no matter what age. Shoplifting is a non-violent act. Now, shoplifting while pointing a gun at you or brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner is armed robbery, and IS a violent act. Or, if they broke in after hours to steal something and you happened to be there, you are within the law if you choose to use a level of force up to lethal force to protect yourself and your company's property. Law surrounding the use of lethal force outlines your ability to defend yourself, your property or someone else who is in danger. Lethal force is available if you are being physically harmed or hold a reasonable belief that you will be physically harmed. There is no outline telling you at what level of physical harm you are allowed to shoot someone, because there is no such thing. Physical harm or reasonable belief that you will be subject to physical harm at any level is a level which legally allows you to use appropriate force, up to and including lethal force, to dissolve the situation.

Pretty much, falling victim to a violent act, beit armed robbery, assault, rape, mugging, breaking and entering, etc...grants you the right to defend yourself with "the appropriate amount of force up to and including lethal force" to stop the assailant from proceeding to cause anymore harm to you, your property, your family or a someone else, their property or their family.

And I will tell you again. If someone commits a violent act either against me or in my presence, as of right now, I have no problem using force, up to and including lethal force, to stop them. I feel obligated to do so. I suppose I will have to deal with the post trauma. But, to me...I would rather suffer through that than put someone else in danger by doing nothing.

[David Armstrong]

If someone is trying to steal from me by a confrontation or assault me or attack me physically, whether it be armed or not armed...they deserve to get shot.

Irrelevant. What one deserves and what is a good choice are not one and the same.

You never know who you may be saving along the trail in the future of the assailant.

Yes, you never know. The person you shoot and kill might have gone on to discover a cure for cancer too. So "what if" is fairly silly to play.

If they don't let me go on with my peacefull self, then they don't deserve to go on with their evil self either.

But by taking action you might be creating more problems for yourself and your family. Is it really worth $20,000 in legal fees, or your family losing their home, or other assorted indignities just to keep what is in you wallet?

If you let a dog eat off the table, sooner than later he will be sitting on the chair next to you eating off of your plate.

Having done just that for 40+ years, I have yet to find a dog sitting next to me in the cahir eating off my plate. You seem full of interesting platitudes but little real substance.

Would you not?

No, of course not. Why should I? I didn't run over a sudent who was jaywalking today. Should I feel bad if later on he does something bad?

[CrazyIvan007]

DA,

If you want to go through life letting people get away with violent crime, that is your perogative. For myself, I believe that stance is wrong. In my opinion, those who allow people to get away with such crimes aren't much better than the offenders themselves. The odds of someone who holds up a liquor store one day going on to figure out a cure for aids or something is highly unlikely. If you can provide any information or stories where a violent criminal has gone on to make some groundbreaking discovery, then let's talk about that. But your conclusion is flawed.

I would only use force were it a violent crime and as outlined by law.

Perhaps my philosophy and metaphors were a bit short of proving a point 100%, but I know you aren't stupid and you know what I was saying.

But by taking action you might be creating more problems for yourself and your family. Is it really worth $20,000 in legal fees, or your family losing their home, or other assorted indignities just to keep what is in you wallet?

Yes...yes it is worth it. I will not allow my freedoms to be stomped on without a fight. My wallet is mine, not theirs. They have no right to it, whatsoever. I don't care if I have 1 dollar or 10,000. They have no right to violently strip me of my posessions illegally. I do, however, have a legal right to defend those posessions and myself with force against it being taken violently. And, I will act on that right. I will not be a silent victim. Go ahead and do whatever it is you would do. I don't care how you would handle yourself. I would hope you would defend others who can not defend themselves with a certain amount of force if needed to protect them. But, I could care less what you do to protect yourself. That is your choice.

As far as legal fees arising from defending against someone, I pay the NRA for defense council insurance. The costs may surpass their coverage, but it is certainly a help. And, as many have said here in other threads...judgement by 12 is better than being carried by 6.

[Lurper]

If you want to go through life letting people get away with violent crime, that is your perogative. For myself, I believe that stance is wrong. In my opinion, those who allow people to get away with such crimes aren't much better than the offenders themselves.

This is a real dangerous philosophy. It is not up to you to decide who should live or die. Nor is it up to you to decide who gets away with what. The only thing that is up to you is when you feel you are in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Then you are justified in using lethal force. To make this philosphy part of your personal doctrine is asking for trouble.

But by taking action you might be creating more problems for yourself and your family. Is it really worth $20,000 in legal fees, or your family losing their home, or other assorted indignities just to keep what is in you wallet?

By not taking action you are leaving yourself at the mercy of the criminal's whim. Also, many states shield you from civil action if your shooting is justified. If it is clearly justified, there won't even be a trial so the implication that if you shoot someone you will incur huge legal expenses isn't accurate.

The question is if one should make that decision based on accurate information and facts and as full an understanding of the reality of the event as is possible or if one should base that decision on wild fantasies and fictions.

Having a gun or knife pointed at you is hardly fantasy and fiction. If you feel you are in danger of serious injury or death, you should shoot.

[CrazyIvan007]

This is a real dangerous philosophy. It is not up to you to decide who should live or die. Nor is it up to you to decide who gets away with what. The only thing that is up to you is when you feel you are in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Then you are justified in using lethal force. To make this philosphy part of your personal doctrine is asking for trouble.

First, I said I would not shoot to kill. So there goes your idea that I am making a judgement on who lives or dies. I would use force to defend and to dissolve the harmful situation. It is the violent offender who takes the honor of deciding who lives or dies.

Second, by law, I am granted the ability to take action against an ensuing violent crime, so it is up to me whether I allow a person to get away with it or not by engaging myself against them.

Third, I agree that if I feel myself or someone else is in danger, I am justified legally and morally to use a certain level of force, and that only reinforces my statements above. Doesn't mean I will always choose to engage, but I do have the justification were I to choose to do so.

[David Armstrong]

If you want to go through life letting people get away with violent crime, that is your perogative.

Actually I spent a significant part of my life catching folks who commit violent crime. I've also had the opportunity to see what happens to those who fight back, which gives me some realistic perspective on the issue rather than just a lot of wild guesses.

For myself, I believe that stance is wrong. In my opinion, those who allow people to get away with such crimes aren't much better than the offenders themselves.

One is certainly entitlted to their own opinion. However I would suggest that "letting them get away with it" is quite different from "not making things any worse for you and your family."

The odds of someone who holds up a liquor store one day going on to figure out a cure for aids or something is highly unlikely.

You mean sort of like the odds of someone changing from muggings and robberies to becoming a murderer???

But your conclusion is flawed.

What conclusion?

Yes...yes it is worth it. I will not allow my freedoms to be stomped on without a fight.

I'm not aware of any freedoms that are stomped on when you respond to a crime with good sense instead of emotion. But if it is worth $20,000 to you to avoid losing $10 and some easily replaced cards, I'd suggest it is going to be difficult for us to have any sort of rational conversation.

And, as many have said here in other threads...judgement by 12 is better than being carried by 6.

True, but not being carried or judged at all is even better.

[Justme]

The rather ironic twist on the whole judged by 12 comments is that the people who make it are fairly certain what that judgement would be. However, the further from mainstream thinking you go the less likely the judgement is going to be to your liking.

[David Armstrong]

By not taking action you are leaving yourself at the mercy of the criminal's whim.

Not really. You can always escalate your response if needed. Going along because that is best at Point A in the encounter does not mean you have to go along with everything at all points. Deciding not to take action at one point doesn't mean you never can take action in the future.

Also, many states shield you from civil action if your shooting is justified.

Yes, some do. But a lot more don't. And of course you do have to show it is justified.

If it is clearly justified, there won't even be a trial so the implication that if you shoot someone you will incur huge legal expenses isn't accurate.

That is a very questionable statement. There have been a whole lot of trials where the shooting was clearly justified; and you also don't have to have a trial to run up lots of expenses.

Having a gun or knife pointed at you is hardly fantasy and fiction.

True, and nobody suggested otherwise AFAIK. But that has nothing to do with the statement that was made either.

If you feel you are in danger of serious injury or death, you should shoot.

And figuring out if you are in danger and how severe that danger is should be based on accurate information and facts and as full an understanding of the reality of the event as is possible, not on wild fantasies and fictions.

[David Armstrong]

First, I said I would not shoot to kill.

Once you shoot, whether or not someone is killed or not is pretty much out of your hands. If you shoot you better plan on somebody dying.

Being wounded or killed is the fault of the assailant.

Sorry, but there is so much legal precedent against that thought it is amazing. Assailants generally cannot claim self-defense, but that is far different than being held at fault for any injuries they might receive.

I have spent hours and days reading through the laws and contemplating my response.

Maybe instead of reading and contemplating you should take a few courses taught by folks who are familiar with this field. It might be an eye-opener.

There is no outline telling you at what level of physical harm you are allowed to shoot someone, because there is no such thing. Physical harm or reasonable belief that you will be subject to physical harm at any level is a level which legally allows you to use appropriate force, up to and including lethal force, to dissolve the situation.

I don't know Colorado law, but that is incorrect in several other states. So, you are saying that if I twist your ear with my hand and cause you physical harm (an ear bo-bo) you can shoot me???

[Redneckrepairs]

Just as in Real life , When and Where I would use lethal force is too complex an issue for an internet thread . I would if both justified by law and my own code . I would not if i felt i should not or it was illegal . I cannot give anyone a more honest answer than that .

[CrazyIvan007]

You mean sort of like the odds of someone changing from muggings and robberies to becoming a murderer???

What????

The greater majority of violent crime offenders hold a history of crime, whether it be other violent crimes or simpler crimes.

I haven't seen any ground-breaking doctors or scientists who have "Armed Robbery" on their record.

"Wild Fantasies and Fictions"

???

They are neither fantasy or fictions.

Being robbed at gunpoint or by physical assault is a violent act. That is the REALITY!!!! I will respond to it logically, tactically and appropriately. If I am not in a position to defend myself, I will not. I am not going to go for my gun or lunge myself at an offender who is 10 feet away asking me to throw him my wallet.

I'm not aware of any freedoms that are stomped on when you respond to a crime with good sense instead of emotion.

emotion? EMOTION? Good Sense tells me that my wallet is MY WALLET. I don't care how much money I have in it. You are not entitled to take it forcefully. How is that "emotion" ??

I am not a fancy pants "Oh poor offender got himself a person who fights back" kinda guy. I am a "Hell yea! Maybe that will make the next guy think before they try to harm a law-abiding citizen."

Perhaps you were a cop, perhaps you were a lawyer. I don't know, you are very discreet with your past here in this thread. But, to me, you certainly seem like the kind of guy who wants victims to bend & do the will of the offender. Maybe we should allow illegal aliens to have their way and hand over all of our identities and our financial support without fighting back? Perhaps we should free all the criminals who reside in the prisons of this great country because we don't want to fight back and they should be allowed to act any way they would like without recourse.

The stark reality is that police, government and emergency crews can not be there to help you 100% of the time. If you are not willing to or prepared to act to defend yourself or others who can not defend themselves, then you have a bad problem. Should a disaster happen in your area, you will be one sitting on your roof with a big "HELP ME" sign. Me, personally...I will do what is necessary to survive and help others survive.

I am not trying to attack you. I would bet you are a good citizen and responsible gun owner. I just disagree with your opinion and methods. I do know, however, that we both would act within the law, which is mutual.

[gvf]

If I was robbed with no weapon shown or evidence of one, I'm not sure what I'd do. A student of mine was stopped on the street and quickly crowded in by someone who said: "give me your wallet', my student said "no" and before a second was out he had a broken jaw, now wired shut for the 5th week. Unfortunately he is a singer, is studying that at University, and this has really put him back. Plus he owes $2000 which insurance leaves him as his co-pay. He already has a disability to begin with, and it is too bad this happened to him. He works very hard.

If I was armed and this had happened to me, not sure the speed and surprise may not have landed me in the same predicament. What I hope I would have done is back off a couple of steps and when he demanded, either trot or show the gun with my hand on it. A move towards me: ? Again I don't know. BG was stupid as a cop was 10 feet away so he was immediately arrested. No weapon. So, I don't know what the repercussion of shooting would have been. I'm 60 though, not 21, I've had medical issues that might make a blow in the wrong place cause for a critical medical emergency. Out of fear of that and a strong blow from a big guy 40 years my junior, I may have become afraid and shot.

[CrazyIvan007]

gvf, you have brought up a good point.

Of course a person has to guage the situation and take the best course of action. I am a somewhat muscular beefy guy, 6'1, 275. So if someone tries to take something of mine without trying to take it at gunpoint, they are fixin for a hurtin.

Now, should I be surrounded by 6 guys around my size, I would react differently.

Adapt & overcome I suppose.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ever see the little guy with a knife vs. Mr. Muscle demos. No offense but one of the steps to lose credibility on a list like this is to proclaim one's physical attributes such that no one will mess with you.

Also, proclaiming how you will shoot someone so easily as you did for spurious reasons and not understand the use of lethal force is another way.

[CrazyIvan007]

Ever see the little guy with a knife vs. Mr. Muscle demos. No offense but one of the steps to lose credibility on a list like this is to proclaim one's physical attributes such that no one will mess with you.

I never said my size would divert anyone from doing something to me. I said if they did do something to me, they are fixin for a hurtin.

Also, proclaiming how you will shoot someone so easily as you did for spurious reasons and not understand the use of lethal force is another way.

Hmm...I said after gauging the situation quickly, and if I were to engage the offender(s), I would respond with an appropriate amount of force if I were to fall victim to or witness a violent crime. First, I never said I would shoot first. Second, I never said I would shoot for no reason at all. So, I hardly see how that is wrong...

Ya'll who believe this stuff is wrong or not determined to be the right thing to do...well you need to read the laws. Law allows a person to react with an appropriate amount of force to any violent act, no matter what the level. And, I believe that is right. You need to not carry a gun with you if you are not willing to use it. You need to continue to pretend nothing bad happens and if it does, you will bend & do the will of the offender. Congrats. I'd rather be dead than surrender my liberty and idea of justice if even for a temporary amount of time.

To sum it up from my position... If someone does something I believe is harmful to others or myself, if a violent act ensues...I will react accordingly. Should that be using force, then fine. From tackling the person to using lethal force....I will try to make the best decision. But, I am not going to sit & worry about the aftermath. I am going to react to the situation properly and within the law. Offenders of peace should be dealt with accordingly. Beit being sued in civil court for spray painting a building or biting a bullet for attacking an elderly woman...I believe Justice will survive. Justice will not always be properly served, but it certainly should...and I will do my part to be sure it does happen if even just a little bit more.

Listen to Garth Brooks' song "The Change" ...It's all me baby!

I've explained myself enough here, and I am done with this thread. Continue to flame on.

[Lurper]

Not really. You can always escalate your response if needed. Going along because that is best at Point A in the encounter does not mean you have to go along with everything at all points. Deciding not to take action at one point doesn't mean you never can take action in the future.

Gee, sounds like what I have been saying.

Quote:
Also, many states shield you from civil action if your shooting is justified.

Yes, some do. But a lot more don't. And of course you do have to show it is justified.

Quote:
If it is clearly justified, there won't even be a trial so the implication that if you shoot someone you will incur huge legal expenses isn't accurate.

That is a very questionable statement. There have been a whole lot of trials where the shooting was clearly justified; and you also don't have to have a trial to run up lots of expenses.

Depends on the state. In AZ, the state has to prove the shooting was not justified, not vice versa. While in some cases that may mean there is a trial, in clear cut cases there will not. Which is why I always advocate:
Know your state's laws!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ivan - you continually miss the point. Having the legal right to use force doesn't mean that it is the best option in a situation. Nor does not using it in a situation if you think that not using (even if it is legal) is a better outcome for your physical safety and that of those around you. Nor does making the decision not to use lethal force imply some philosophical or moral weakness. You might think so but that view is a less sophisticated level of analysis. Not starting the gun fight, even if legally justified, is a major decision point taught in the more advanced civilian FOF classes and to the LEO also.

Being the proactive shooter of potential criminals is not really part of current thought on the issue. It says more to the person wanting to be an avenger or get praise as being a hero.

As far as your physical prowess, as I said before, if you think that your size guarantees that you can put a hurtin' on someone, you need to take a knife class sometimes. It is an indication of naiveity on the issue. I once heard a policeman say that the scarest thing he ever saw was an 8 year old girl charging at him whirling a butcher knife like a tornado. She was a disturbed kid. Could he have beat her in a wrestling match - sure? Was she going to chop his arms to crap - oh yeah.

[CrazyIvan007]

What part of "Gauge a situation and Act accordingly" does not fit your outline of best judgement?

[DougO83]

Honestly, I did not want to read through 170 posts, so I apologize if what I say has already been stated.

First, I cannot gauge the intent of someone assaulting me, I am no mind reader. I do not know if they intend to kill me when they are done stealing my things or not. My best guess is that if they are brazen enough to assault a guy my size in the first place (I am not bragging, I'm a big guy), they are nuts enough to try to kill me. I will act accordingly. It is not a matter of my cash, credit cards, jewelry, peace of mind, sanity, or identity being stolen. It is a matter that should be regarded, IMHO, as life and death. Yes, all of the material items can be replaced, but is that the only intent of the thief? There is no way to tell. If the thief presents a weapon, I will risk my chance in court and/or jail.

Second, I will not shoot to kill. I work as an armed security officer currently. The correct, legal response when asked about a shooting is nothing like we 'firearms enthusiasts' are taught. We do not 'shoot to kill', 'only muzzle what we intend to destroy', or whatever else you wish to say. These terms, will most likely leave you legally screwed. Your best response is "I was in fear of my life and utilized my weapon to neutralize the imminent threat to my safety and well-being."

I honestly hope that simply stating "Leave me alone, I am armed!" would be enough to persuade the average schmuck to leave me be. If not, I hope the presentation of my firearm does the trick. I do not wish to take another's life, I have seen the hardship it can cause evryone involved, but I will not stand idly by and be taken advantage of. I will warn first, then do what is necessary (interpret this statement at will.)

Sorry for any ambiguity in the post, this is a public forum and I do not wish for my post to be used against me if I ever have to use deadly force.

[David Armstrong]

The greater majority of violent crime offenders hold a history of crime, whether it be other violent crimes or simpler crimes.

And most violent criminals drank milk when they were kids, so obviously drinking milk means you will grow up to be a violent criminal, right? Virtually everybody engages in misdemeanor/petty crime growing up. Many criminals become non-violent and stay that way. Most robbers don't become murderers.

They are neither fantasy or fictions.

If you aren't basing your decisions on reality, you are basing them on fiction. Those happen to be your only choices.

Being robbed at gunpoint or by physical assault is a violent act. That is the REALITY

Nobody has said otherwise, so what is your point?

I will respond to it logically, tactically and appropriately.

And how do you determine what is logical and appropriate without considering all the facts?

Good Sense tells me that my wallet is MY WALLET. I don't care how much money I have in it. You are not entitled to take it forcefully. How is that "emotion" ??

I think you just proved my point. Sorry, but if you want to make a situation worse just to defend your sense of machismo, that is emotion.

But, to me, you certainly seem like the kind of guy who wants victims to bend & do the will of the offender.

Further evidence that you tend to be responding with emotions rather than facts and logic. I want the victim to suffer the least amount of damage and loss of resources.

Maybe we should allow illegal aliens to have their way and hand over all of our identities and our financial support without fighting back? Perhaps we should free all the criminals who reside in the prisons of this great country because we don't want to fight back and they should be allowed to act any way they would like without recourse.

Maybe we should discuss what has actually been said instead of going off on emotional tirades?

Ya'll who believe this stuff is wrong or not determined to be the right thing to do...well you need to read the laws.

As mentioned elsewhere, maybe you need to quit reading the law and (A) go talk to a lawyer who is familiar with how this stuff works, bot criminally and civilly; and (B) get some realistic training.