Originally Posted by
Eaglebeak
I have to agree (in respective order) with high pockets and tookerw1040 because (a) there are too many possiblities, (b) even with detailed and identical scenarios, no two situations, responses, and possible outcomes will ever be the same, and (c) you must always keep in mind that your use of deadly force will have to be convincingly explained later in a court of law that you were justifiably and imminently afraid for your life (or someone else's) and there was absolutely no other alternative by course of action or avoidance to pursue at the time.
It's easy for any of us to sit around and conjure up some hypothetical scenario and seek opinions on how the scenario should be handled and/or played out; but everyone's opinion may be totally right or totally wrong with the same scenario because I can promise that even the simplest of scenarios with completely identical factors will never be the same. Actions and/or inactions will always be different because different individuals and unknown circumstances will make the scenario often evolve in totally different directions in a single heartbeat.
While this relates to military action in a combat zone, the different possible outcomes to an identical scenario apply nonetheless to LE or civilian SD situations as well. This isn't highly complicated and has only one factor to consider instead of a whole grocery list......
You are cautiously walking into a burned-out jungle village after a major firefight, and there are many civilian casualties of collateral damage - most of whom you can't help or are beyond help. You see an unarmed little girl less than 12 years old sitting in front of a burned-out hut shivering and weeping hysterically. You use your best broken Vietnamese to say "do not be afraid, we will not hurt you".
Situation (a) - she raised her head holding one hand with the other that was missing three fingers and bleeding profusely - we doctored her up best we could, helped her find what was left of her family, and left them all the C-rations we could spare before moving on.
Situation (b) - she raised her head holding a grenade in her hand and pulled the pin - we cut her to ribbons with fire from three 16's before she could toss it, and all of us hit the ground.
Obviously, offering a can of C-rations to the grenade girl would have been fatal for all of us; and fragmenting the wounded girl would have unnessarily taken a life and had all parties concerned paying a heavy price in conscience and at an ensuing court-martial.
I apologize for making light of all the hypothetical scenarios I keep seeing presented because each and every one could have dozens of potential outcomes and courses of action that will always be different from the individuals involved and the fluid progression of their actions, actions of others, and changing circumstances that will continuously affect the decision and potential risk involved in choosing to use, or not use, deadly force with each passing split-second of the event's progression. What may have had the best outcome in one instance could easily have a totally different outcome with an identical scenario.
That's why it's impossible, futile, and foolish to plan or opinionate the proper (or improper) actions in even the most simple defensive scenario like it was an orchestrated offensive tactical maneuver because that's just not the way it is in reality when it comes to a shoot or don't shoot decision that you will have to fully justify later in court - or regret later in jail.
