This is a discussion on You're Both Wounded: What is your priority? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Secret Spuk All you guys who shoot the perp after he's down may get to share the same cell with him if ...
Combatant down, survey the area and make sure the man down is the only threat. After a very quick assessment... reload if possible, while screaming for help... Grab the phone and hope I can be remain cohesive to give good enough info for the Doc's to get to me While still breathing. Continue to make sure the enemy is alone and no longer a threat until help arrives.
Did I mention I'd be screaming for help?
Get the U.N. out of the U.S.
Get the U.S. out of the U.N.
IIRC there is no "overkill" law in Texas. 1 hole or 100 holes, doesnt matter. I'd make dang sure he was not gonna get back up. One less thing to worry about while seconds count and I am fighting to save my own life.
"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." - Leonardo da Vinci
MitchellCT, Thank you for that last post. It was a very good analysis of the situation and brought up and organized several points I had not been sure about. Good things to think about in this kind of a scenario.
One of the issues people have with this and other issues is that they are approaching these scenarios in a segmented manner, as if they are a puzzle in which all the pieces don't quite fit.
The tactical issue - solve problem #1, then everything else is #2...
The legal issue - can't shoot a man too many time, in the wrong way or at the wrong time...
The medical issue - how do you administer self aid if the tactical issue isn't solved, and what do you do if the tactical issue seems to conflict with the legal issue?
That's the normal approach - to break things down and deal with them in bite size pieces.
Well...that approach sucks. It's terrible.
It may work within each issue, but not for a problem solving approach.
You can't solve a tactical problem effectively (I mean problem #1 AND #2) if you don't know what your rules of engagment are, and how you can operate effectively, competently and ruthlessly within them.
Skill sets have to be learned individually - but not to the exclusion of others.
You can do a great first aid class focusing on major injuries...but it doesn't do much for an active shooter situation if you didn't address how to render care under combat conditions, even if that's only how to move someone safely to cover or plug a hole while maintaining a watch for an killer.
Legal class...it's all well and good to do theory...but what's the use if you don't have any practical understanding of a use of force encounter, how fast things go, and so forth.
Tactical classes...yeah, yeah...you can clear a structure solo like a ninja. But do you know when you should or should not shoot?
Segregation is death.
If we're going to be prepared at all we have to think through scenarios wherein our options suck and wherein we accept that we are not all ninjas and things could go wrong.
I was discussing this scenario with JD (we run a LOT of scenarios together) and we hashed out a lot of theories but in the end there were still a lot of questions which is what prompted me to post it here.
My two remaining hesitations were whether or not it could be legal to continue to shoot him and whether or not I want to risk the time to continue to shoot him if I've already noted that he is immobile.
Like I said originally, I'm getting the job done, then hiring MitchellCT if I'm still alive in the end and the prosecutor wants to make an issue of it.
They can't put my corpse in prison for making sure the guy wasn't just playing opossum if I'm dead too.
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."