Defensive Carry banner

Where I draw the line

3K views 44 replies 34 participants last post by  Spec 
#1 ·
This happened earlier this week here in Spokane, WA
This happened at my bank a mile from my office:

FBI releases bank robbery surveillance video - KHQ Right Now - News and Weather for Spokane and North Idaho |

For the most part I've decided that I'll act to protect myself, family, friends, and others when I know the situation. However, I read either here or in a magazine that you have to decide at what point you will not let the BG get to. I agree that I will not let a BG take me to another room (backroom) or tie me up, or make me get on my knees or lay down. If it's just money or property they are after I don't think I'd act because those material things can be replaced and don't impact me and aren't worth me wasting my time in court for the slimebag. But I do know if I was at this place at this time he would not have made me/us move or tie us up. Seeing the quick ways these
things go on some survellance videos I would have drawn, yelled a command then triple tap. Your comments?
 
#39 ·
Right so that is great theory crafting, but my comments above reflect exactly what you are saying. Two shots center mass, if threat persists then one to the brain pan. This is pretty standard "shoot to stop". It also has the advantage of quite likely killing the person.

What you say in a court room, and what you intend to do are two different things. If I shoot someone, I want him dead. I don't want him suing me. I certainly don't want him paralyzed and suing me. I'd much rather face a wrongful death suit from relatives of someone we can easily paint as a no-good BG than a crippled-for-life-suit from a living eye-witness/victim.

Obviously, if I follow prescribed procedure and he isn't dead I don't go empty my clip into him (although cops will). So you have to stop somewhere but that doesn't change your intentions. When I say center mass I mean heart and lungs and I'm using ammunition that I know will penetrate the chest cavity to 10-12 inches, expand and cause incredible amounts of damage that he will not survive from for long.
 
#40 ·
[Mozambique] is pretty standard "shoot to stop". It also has the advantage of quite likely killing the person.
Yes, but desiring the death isn't something you want to go on record as saying. It can be twisted.

What you say in a court room, and what you intend to do are two different things.
Who's to say your willingness to kill didn't result in that little bit of extra something that pushed it over the edge? Who's to say your desire to kill didn't pump up the volume in the encounter such that the dead man is the result? Who's to say your desire to kill wasn't what made the difference? It can be twisted ... that's all I'm saying.

I don't disagree with what you've said about wanting and preferring certain things in court. I don't disagree with what aims you really have at heart. But then, it's almost certain I won't be on a jury of your peers judging you.

However, what others are going to remember, and what others are going to understand once your writings and prior statements have been unearthed, is what came out of you verbally and in writing. A jury is a malleable thing, if history proves nothing else. All things considered, I just think it's obvious that staying far away from a desire to kill others is in our best interests. Nothing can be gained by expressing a desire to kill, let alone actually having such a desire. While, OTOH, the laws allow stopping the threat in all its forms, generally including lethal force as the victim finds it necessary (via the "reasonable man" standard). Fine line, perhaps, but there it is.
 
#41 ·
Bank robber + robber's gun drawn = Draw and fire if the situation permits.


The gun he just presented has no other purpose in this scenario than to threaten severe bodily harm or death to whoever the robber is facing. The question of whether or not the robber intends to kill anyone is a question I would rather not find the answer to since one option leaves a dead customer or teller.

The benefit of the doubt must go to the teller or customer, not the robber.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top