I'm new to all this and don't have much training, but I went outside to watch cars going by a bit and think about this.
In my limited imagination I don't see too many possibilities of having a clean shot in this scenario. You all probably have WAY more practice and training time than me, but in most of the ways I imagine this playing out, I think I'm going for my car to give chase and not taking the chance of hitting my girl.
There are a couple of ways I could imagine this that I would try the shot, but that would entail a PERFECT presentation of the car and driver to my position. Anything less and I'm taking my chances with following (I have WAY more training and experience in competitive high speed driving than I do with firearms. They WON'T lose me).
Once I've been at this longer my answer might change, but I am very aware of my limitations.
Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang
Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang
(1911 7+1 then 7)
I'd shoot every adult in the car, if possible. Through the windows, the doors, wherever possible. I'd shoot the tires if there was no human target. I'd shoot whatever I could to stop them.
If you hit your child they can get medical treatment. If they get out of site with your child, your child is dead.
first thing I do is memorize his plates (a glance will do this if you have training) along with make and model of car, and description of the abductor. Then, yes, I would go for my Walther PPQ, and I would stop that threat where he stood. I would fire while running toward the threat, closing to engage. I would also fire at the car tires. Even if he avoids being hit, his car won't go very far.
That's my initial reaction in the first 3 to 5 seconds of thought on this topic. This is why we train for threats by taking classes from people like Rob Pincus, James Yeager, and the like. This prepares you to think on your feet, respond without freezing up, and know what to do when you need to do it.
This is a scenario where I would not hesitate to the pull the trigger and take the lives of anyone involved in threatning my children.
WebleyHunter, good scenario. Made my blood boil and I don't even have any kids. A nightmare experience that is at least thought of ahead of time. No good answer but best thought of as I said ahead of time.
Would a kill shot be legal though? In Indiana...
Just another reason I only carry my 1911, snubs are good for ten feet or so, and yes I carry it inside the house and out. If the vehicle is headed my way I will light up the drivers side, most vehicles have electric components in that area that are essential vehicle operation, like the main fuze box and other things if hit could cause a shutdown of the car. After a few hits and it isn't stopping as it get's closer, put some rounds in to the driver. If it is headed away, Tires or the driver will make the list, which ever is open to my view.
No a tire hit won"t put a stop to the car immediately, but with a half inch hole, it won't take long before it leaves a trail of tire marks I can follow, if needed.
I still don't do hypothetical.
sent from my phone using swype. pardon the spelling.
I am a grandparent. I have given this scenario very much thought. If it is an attempted kidnapping, Sexual assault on my Children/Grand Children......SOMEONE WILL GET SHOT !
In Texas: Texas Penal Code...
9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.
That's the statute, now my feelings, if I were certain it was my child/grandchild, or say a known neighbor's child. I would do whatever was necessary to stop the kidnapper up and including deadly force....no question.
slide stop broken ?
Originally Posted by MountainPacker
...now read it the way it's written now...and I added Deadly Force in Defense of OTHERS...which applies
...gotta get rid of that old source...
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.
Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Originally Posted by USM1976
Originally Posted by Snub44
MY source was not from my book but rather from an obvious outdated website with the Penal Code. I checked my book and it contains what you have.
...yep...the web's full of cwap...:wink: we all know that!!!
...I use the State's PDF of the CHL16 when it contains what I want...it was printed Oct 2012...
Fantastic first post. Welcome to the board.
Originally Posted by indyguy