Where I draw the line
This is a discussion on Where I draw the line within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by CJ810
Is that in SC or is that the standard in all states that allow CC? That seems kind of vague. What ...
October 2nd, 2009 06:44 PM
Most CWP courses teach "shoot to stop the threat." If the guy is down and not menacing you any more, you can NOT keep on shooting. I realize this is a judgment call, and the adrenaline/heat of the moment will probably have most of us emptying the magazine. We'd all like to think, in a perfect scene/world, that we're not cold blooded killers - but I agree, if threatened, that's just what we might have to become.
Originally Posted by CJ810
October 2nd, 2009 07:18 PM
A few years back I walked into the middle of a robbery.
I was visiting my Dad at the hospital (5th floor). I left his room, rode the elevator down to the 1st floor, stepped out of the elevator, and two BG's had their weapons drawn. They were robbing the credit union in the lobby of the hospital.
They looked at me and I looked at them.
I took one step back onto the elevator and the door shut. I went back to Dad's room, turned on the TV, and watched all the action as tv crews had arrived.
Back to the OP...
I wouldn't draw my weapon unless I felt my life was in danger.
"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
October 2nd, 2009 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by varob
That mistakes the actions of the criminals for the victims, doesn't it? Seems to me the victims will, in such circumstances, have run through their basic, limited set of choices and be forced into the corner where little choice is left for them.
So, if being forcibly dragged into "the back room" doesn't constitute the last moments of one's life, what does? How does one clearly distinguish that such actions CANNOT be the prelude to the obvious next step (murder of witnesses)?
Deciding to stop the herding hardly represents first choices. It absolutely is firmly digging in the heels at what has all too often proved to be one's last. Let's make certain we're clear on the definitions, here.
Originally Posted by Keltyke
I've had a few courses in which much photographic evidence was presented from security video cameras in small business where the forcible herding of people resulted in the execution of people soon afterwards. We, too, were taught to view the series of escalations by felons as stopping at the "top rung" of the ladder when it reached forcible herding into "the back room." Beyond that step, there are no additional places to go ... except elimination of witnesses.
varob: Are you willing to bet your life on the hopeful thought that the forcible herding of you and your child into the back room does not constitute the last thing you'll ever do? That's a fairly dangerous recommendation, telling people they should bet their lives and the lives of their loved ones on the expected good nature and decency of armed felons who are in the process of making excellent impressions of murderers preparing for their final acts of crime.
October 3rd, 2009 03:07 AM
Thank you for all the feedback. There is another video that shows the gun clearly pointed at the clerk. Maybe I wasn't too clear, but I would only pull my gun if there was a threat. In this instance there was a threat as soon as he pulled the gun. Even at that I probably wouldn't pull my gun if I didn't think he would turn his focus to me. If he was focused on the money and just wanted a quick getaway, who cares. And no, I wouldn't chase him out the door. However, I would not be "herded" to the back of the bank. Herded is different in my mind than if he said something like "you all go over there" as he was headed toward the door. Several others said it best, that moving you to another section, tying/binding you, and telling you to lay down, are just the steps ahead of an execution.
The feedback on my comment that I would yell a command first helped me a lot in running through several scenarios. Given the situation as it unfolded and the surprise factor and the fact that his gun was already drawn, I would just shoot. Any, just to stop the threat. I wouldn't consciously shoot him down in two then go over and put another in him. Thanks for the great feedback!
"I wish I would have done the hard things when they were easier to do."
October 3rd, 2009 07:51 AM
In Texas I do not think I can carry into a bank, I may be mistaken, so it would have been a mute point for me. Im curious are there states that allow carrying in banks?
October 3rd, 2009 08:51 AM
I know in NC you cannot carry in any financial institution.
There is really almost no reason to ever go into a bank though. They have ATMs and drive-through tellers and online banking. I go into a bank lobby maybe once every 4-5 years.
As far as "shooting to stop" this isn't usually defined in specific legislation (that I have ever seen). Instead its based on case law from precedents. I believe the standard recommendation goes back to Jeff Cooper and has been taught for years is two bullets center mass, then one to ocular cavity if the threat persists. If you do this, you're doing what lots of people have done and what it will be easy to find expert witnesses to testify to as correct procedure.
What you absolutely do NOT want to do is "shoot to wound". If you shoot to wound, you are basically stating that there is not a deadly threat present and you are just using a deadly weapon to hurt someone in response to maybe a lesser threat or a the recent absence of threat. You never shoot to wound, you shoot to kill.
October 3rd, 2009 08:56 AM
I can and do in Michigan.
Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.
October 3rd, 2009 09:08 AM
Originally Posted by Karter
I would suggest a little different tack be taken, since this can also get you into a legal cauldron of your own making.
That legal minefield you mention? That same minefield that exists with shooting "to wound" also exists with the shooting "to kill."
If you show proof via your own hand that you used a lethal weapon to merely wound a person, then some energetic types can say this is proof you weren't actually facing a lethal threat, just as you say. That can look very bad to a jury of peons, who are all to willing to believe what they're told ... if it's told "slick" enough.
If, however, you show proof via your own mouth that you desired the death of the other person, then the same energetic attorney types can latch onto that as a big greasy nail in your legal coffin. Proof that you desired the death of the other person, and that you worked things to end up with exactly that. That also doesn't look good to a jury of peons.
This is why shooting "to wound" and "to kill" isn't recommended by the top self-defense trainers, 'cause the legal machine is a son of a gun once it gets started.
SHOOT TO STOP, and then STOP when the threat no longer exists.
If by chance that ends up with an injured BG, a disabled BG or a dead BG, so be it. But, it won't be due to your planning it that way, or wanting it that way. It will end up because that's the way the BG's actions required it to end up. The moment the threat to you and yours stopped, however, you stop. If you scan your state's statutes, you'll almost certainly find there isn't any justification for you to use force on another beyond that point. THAT is why you can quickly get into hot water if you're killing people when (essentially) there's no threat.
October 3rd, 2009 09:16 AM
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.
October 3rd, 2009 09:24 AM
Yes, but desiring the death isn't something you want to go on record as saying. It can be twisted.
Originally Posted by Karter
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.
What you say in a court room, and what you intend to do are two different things.
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.
October 3rd, 2009 10:21 AM
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.
October 3rd, 2009 11:53 AM
You really do say "Daddy"! So, maybe you really weren't insulting me when I was talking about my "Father" or "Dad" and you replied about my "Daddy"!
Originally Posted by BikerRN
Good stuff, I'm really happy to see that!
As for the topic, this is a scary mess to be in. Here in Corpus, the few bank robberies there are, no one is usually injured, so I might not be that inclined to draw. If they came in shooting and I had no way out, it might be another story.
If they start moving us to another room or want to take one of us with them, that might also be a time we might need to act.
HKtexas My understanding of banks in Texas is the same as hospitals, municipal buildings, State Capital, etc. As long as there is no 30-06 sign, we can carry.
here's a couple helpful links I found for you -
TCHA: Civilian Carry
Concealed Carry in Texas | Facebook
Letter to the editor: Concealed guns allowed in more places than some would think - Opinion
And of course - Handgunlaw.us - Follow Law Links at the top
USA Carry - Open and Concealed Carry Information and Community
Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~Paul Howe
October 3rd, 2009 11:55 AM
I'm not sure you are right about this. What does it mean to use deadly force? It certainly implies an acknowledgement that death is a likely outcome. Do I desire the perp dead for the sake of him being dead? No, but by using deadly force I've made a conscious decision - more or less - to kill the perp.
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
Its well documented that using a firearm without the intent of applying deadly force is a quagmire - there are people in jail because they fired a warning shot, or a wounding shot before firing a fatal shot. That is why when you employ a firearm in defense you either stop with a verbal warning (if that stops the threat and you have the opportunity to offer such a warning) or you intentionally apply deadly force as long as it is necessary to stop the threat.
The fact that I, the cops, the medical responders, the prosecutor and the public all also prefer he actual DO die from his wounds is really pretty immaterial to any legal exposure I might face, which is judged based on my actual actions and the facts of the case, not my wishes or feelings about it.
October 3rd, 2009 02:11 PM
Regarding your response to ccw9mm's quote, desire and ability are two very different things. Stay void of the desire - YES; stay void of the ability - NO.
Originally Posted by Karter
October 4th, 2009 01:10 AM
If this guy had a gun and was tying people up, i would cap him without a thought. If you don't that gives him all the power to do what ever he wants after he has tied you up. And no jury or judge would think other wise, You just stop a bank robber.
Originally Posted by Keltyke
By sgtD in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: March 21st, 2009, 08:51 AM
By Jaystekan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 23rd, 2007, 12:02 PM
By Serenity in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: August 9th, 2007, 02:24 PM