I have a legal question to pose. I have been debating a topic with people I work with in my unit while sitting around in Afghanistan. Question: How many shots is too many?
In my military training we are taught to neutralize the threat (Which I translated to civilian terms as anything to win a fight) IE, why I have a light a laser attached to my G23 IOT make the BG quit (I hope) before I have to use deadly force.
My training had taught me to fire two controlled but rapid shots to center mass, reevaluate and continue to engage if there is still a threat of loss of life or injury.
I was told that in North Carolina where I will be carrying since I’m stationed at Fort Bragg could get me into legal trouble as multiple shots could be over kill. Not that I'm going to dumb 16 rounds of .40 cal into a BG.
I’m just trying to get peoples input on this possible legal scenario.
In my military training we are taught to neutralize the threat (Which I translated to civilian terms as anything to win a fight) IE, why I have a light a laser attached to my G23 IOT make the BG quit (I hope) before I have to use deadly force.
I think this part has been over-looked in this thread, so far.
Do not use a laser sight for that purpose.
To borrow from a popular movie quote: If you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk about it. And don't stand there waiving a damn laser at him.
When I instructed MOUT classes I would tell my students to "Kill the target until it is dead". I dont believe the same applies in the civilian world. If I was to teach a civilian class it might go like this "Shoot the threat until it is no more". That may still be too harsh for some of the liberals, but it is as close to politically correct as a self defense situation will ever be. Controlled pair, reassess over the top of the still aimed pistol, controlled pair would seem to be a good practice. When one is shooting because they fear for their life, they are going to resort to whatever training they have had. Some people will have no training and will dump the whole magazine without thinking twice and will probably only hit the threat a few times. Others will place well aimed shots because they have basic fundamentals instilled in them and will eliminate the threat faster. As has been said by others shoot until the threat is gone, whether that is 1 round or 22 it will be determined by you, the one who is threatened.
12smile- I believe you are asking for trouble by shooting the threat once it is down. It sounds like a great plan and looks cool in movies, but I am 98% sure it would land you in jail or find you paying huge bucks outta your pocket after a civil suit is filed. Just think about the BGs testimony in court " Once he shot me I saw the error of my ways and envisioned a life of working hard and earning my money, but then he shot me again and now I am permanently handicapped and will be unable to provide a legitimate income to support my family (sniff, sniff, wipe tear)"
Everything comes down to TESTIFYING in court, if you fire your weapon five times... then your accountable for why each bullet/projectile was fired and where it hits. Good Luck.
After a self defense shooting I'm guessing most folks wouldn't be able to remember how many rounds they fired. If you truly are in fear of your life I would expect that all rounds would be expended into the bad guy. If you re-loaded and continued to shoot when the bad guy was down then you might have a problem.
I seriously doubt a DA would try to make an issue out of how many rounds were fired by a civilian in a situation where there was a clear bad guy vs good guy scenario and the good guy emptied his gun in a couple of seconds.
Before anyone posts a story about how this actually happened, I'm not talking about a domestic dispute situation, or some other situation with extenuating circumstances. I'm talking about bad guy breaks into home, gas station robbery, etc.
My instructor always told me it would be better for you when the cops rolled up if you were standing there in a trance pulling the trigger over and over on an empty cylinder! :tired:
I read somewhere once that the average person that gets into a gun fight for there first time does not think at all and emptys every round they have and continue to dry fire for several second because the adrenalin takes over your brain and tells you to run or fight you chose fight so your body does the rest for you so in order to really say you would just double tap you would probably have to be trained and have been in a real situation to be able to control your emotions. just a thought on some stats i read once. we can all dump 100 of rounds at a paper target but untill there is a pulse in the paper its not the same.
There's no rule that says someone laying down isn't a threat. He could easily still move to fire if he has a gun. So there should be no qualms about shooting again, if need be, just because someone is on the ground.
As to training with pre-conceived shot counts, LEO have DIED doing this. Popping two into the BG and automatically holstering, just like they did at the range. BG then shoots back. People have been killed with shot up hearts, yet still continue to function for several seconds after "death" running only on adrenaline.
As the saying goes "Do NOT shoot until you think he's dead, KEEP shooting until HE thinks he's dead"
There's no rule that says someone laying down isn't a threat. He could easily still move to fire if he has a gun. So there should be no qualms about shooting again, if need be, just because someone is on the ground.
I agree with the fact that a downed bad guy could be a threat. I was asking in the civilian world what would be considered to much. I've trained with specialized units of the military to fire fire two controled rounds to center mass then reevaluate the threat. If it's still a treat reengage with 2 more. If its still a threat go with head shots. But Ive heard in some states such as CA, MA, NY and such this could be conceared obsessive force.
With the little training I've had, the instructor told us more than once - "Fire until the target falls off the front sight, and then assess the situation." Basically once he's down, assess what's going on. If he's still trying to fight, neutralize the threat. If he's lying there, bleeding out, regretting he messed with you... keep him covered and call the cops.
To even think about, let alone verbalizing in a public forum, the excessive force to a downed and non-threatening opponent to "teach him his lesson" or to "teach him to stay down" is downright absurd. Yes, there's a pride in all of us that says, "How dare he attack me," but rub your two brain cells together before you act on that impulse - and certainly don't feed it by fantasizing how you would hurt him in that situation.
There is no way, at least in any autopsies I've seen, where it was ever determinable which shot killed the person. Whether it was the first shot, or the 25th. So, to say it was "over-kill" because they were shot 4 times, are you so sure the 4th wasn't "the one" that stopped them ? How would you know ? No-one performing an autopsy can tell you either.
Not shooting after they are down ? Are some of you guys serious ? You think just because someone hits the ground they are going to quit shooting at YOU ?
Many times the person on the ground will keep shooting.... many cases both of LEO's and BG's on the ground wounded and still taking out the other person.
As long as someone poses an imminent threat of death or severe injury, continue firing.
Once they no longer pose such a threat, cease fire as soon as possible, make sure there are no other attackers, and contact police if you haven't already.
NEVER knowingly attack someone who does not pose such a threat, such as 'shooting in the knee' or whatever. This is just ridiculous. In a SD situation you need to do everything you can to get the law on your side, and things like this could radically turn things against you. :twak:
If you think you should shoot someone in the leg to 'teach them a lesson' or 'just to be sure', I think you have the wrong attitude about carry. An attitude of using your CC in retaliation is completely opposed to what most CCers stand for. Good people don't seek revenge through force.
If you think you should shoot someone in the leg to 'teach them a lesson' or 'just to be sure', I think you have the wrong attitude about carry. An attitude of using your CC in retaliation is completely opposed to what most CCers stand for. Good people don't seek revenge through force.
Bernard Goetz didn't fare well in court with this strategy. He was acquitted, but the DA came at him with "both guns blazing," so to speak, for what had appeared to be punishment and "extra" rounds fired at the scene. Such a tactic can end up being very expensive, irrespective of whether you feel it's right or wrong.
I dont think anyone was saying to not shoot the THREAT when it is down, but to not shoot a BG if he is down and no longer a THREAT. I could be wrong though.
The NYPD did a study about a year after switching from revolvers to semi-autos, and it revealed that officers fired more rounds in similar type shootings with the higher capacity magazine than previously with revolvers. This notion that training will govern our instinct to survive is a pure fantasy.
I disagree with your translation. In civilian terms, it translates as "stop the threat." Excessive force doesn't require "too many" shots. Any use of deadly force might be viewed as excessive, depending on the circumstances. In fact, any use of violent force, including bare hands, after the threat is neutralized, might be deemed excessive.
... IE, why I have a light a laser attached to my G23 IOT make the BG quit (I hope) before I have to use deadly force.
This sounds like choosing a pump action shotgun in hopes that the sound of cycling the action will deter the BG. You cycle the action to load the shotgun, period. You use a laser sight system to aim your weapon, period.
...My training had taught me to fire two controlled but rapid shots to center mass, reevaluate and continue to engage if there is still a threat of loss of life or injury.
Controlled pairs are commonly taught in civilian defensive pistol courses, too. Honestly, if you've been trained to use controlled pairs, repeating as necessary to neutralize the threat to yourself, then you are in pretty good shape, assuming the situation requires deadly force.
...I was told that in North Carolina where I will be carrying since I’m stationed at Fort Bragg could get me into legal trouble as multiple shots could be over kill.
Civilians train controlled pairs all the time, to the point that it almost becomes a single act. I wouldn't be worrying about the use of one shot versus two in a situation that requires deadly force. I would be more concerned about the judgement, in the civilian world, that deadly force is required. Making that call is likely to be the element that receives the most scrutiny.
How a lawyer will characterize your actions, and how a jury will interpret your actions, are beyond your control even under the best of circumstances. You don't have any way of knowing or predicting that. All you can do is do your best to stay within the law, wherever you are, and use your best judgement to apply the least amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, up to and including deadly force.
First of all - thank you for your service, skysoldier.
IMO - it is simply about removing the threat. Your military training of two quick shots to centermass will normally remove any threat unless the BG is wearing body-armor - if that is the case, your problems are much more serious than round-count.
This is not about math but about taking a BG out in a life threatening scenario. I would hate to see anyone in a situation where they failed to protect themselves or their loved ones due to worry about legal issues, and wind up being shot or killed themselves.
Awhile ago in Houston, TX, HPD got in a shooting where about 30 shots were fired within a minute or so, it was at one guy in a room they considered a threat to their safety. Most shots were fired by one officer. He emptied a mag. and reloaded and fired more shots.
You should heard the bleeding hearts crying foul. but the D.A. at the time gave an analogy , "if it is OK to kill a guy dead, it is OK to kill him dead, dead, dead."
However like they said in earlier replies, two quick shots to center mass of the bad guy usually is sufficient.
Total rounds fired are strictly based on if the threat still exists.
Rule of thumb, or at least it should be a rule of thumb, is based on military training. 2 quick, but well placed bullets to center of mass, then reevaluate the situation.
Reevaluation of the situation doesn't require you to holster your gun and ask the BG if he/she's done. Reevaluation can take place in 2 seconds, maybe less.
I train to shoot 2, reevaluate and shoot 2 more if necessary, reevaluate and shoot 2 more if necessary, reevaluate...
The "Reason" behind 2 shots can be directly linked to the Military, which is a GOOD thing for your legal protection.
Total rounds fired are strictly based on if the threat still exists. I totally agree. Shoot to STOP the threat. PERIOD...END OF DISCUSSION.
Rule of thumb, or at least it should be a rule of thumb, is based on military training. 2 quick, but well placed bullets to center of mass, then reevaluate the situation. Several folks on this thread have advocated the "2 shots to COM and evaluate" answer. I would like to know....what stops the BG from shooting you while you take that evaluation time? HMMMMM??? It is a proven fact that the human body can take/receive lethal rounds and continue to function for 15-20 seconds prior to hitting the ground. The two shot to COM and evaluate theory is OUTDATED and DANGEROUS to your health. You shoot until the threat is stopped. Then you assess, scan for additional threats, and top off your ammo...
Reevaluation of the situation doesn't require you to holster your gun and ask the BG if he/she's done. Reevaluation can take place in 2 seconds, maybe less. As stated above, those 2 seconds to reevaluate can/will cost you your life in certain situations. Shoot to STOP the threat regardless of the rounds it takes...If it's two rounds, then so be it, but you had best be sure the threat is stopped before you reevaluate the situation...
I train to shoot 2, reevaluate and shoot 2 more if necessary, reevaluate and shoot 2 more if necessary, reevaluate...Then Sir, I hope your training doesn't get you killed someday if/when you are presented with a life or death fight.
The "Reason" behind 2 shots can be directly linked to the Military, which is a GOOD thing for your legal protection. I believe you could possibly be incorrect in your two shot training being linked to the military...try this link: Mozambique Drill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (the Mozambique Drill or sometimes known as the Failure Drill)
I've posted some of my thoughts in bold above. The bottom line is the fact that the practice of 2 shots COM and potentially 1 shot to the head or groin is something that you can practice on the range to develop your shot placement. But to ingrain that into your motor/muscle memory so that in a life or death situation, you default to 2 shots COM and then assess, is a practice that could bring you FATAL consequences...Do as you wish. I shall shoot to stop the threat (put the threat down) and then assess/evaluate...JMO
In Kentucky the law is you only fire a firearm in a life and death situation. If you shoot to wound you will be in trouble. I was told by a few cop buddies and a couple of lawyers if you shoot a bad guy and don't kill him you had better testify that you tried to kill him and missed.
It comes down to your testimony on the stand, why you shot once or needed to shoot 50 times, justifying the use of deadly force and the amount of force needed is crucial. According To Your State Laws Apply.
...In my military training we are taught to neutralize the threat....I was told that in North Carolina where I will be carrying...could get me into legal trouble as multiple shots could be over kill...I’m just trying to get peoples input on this possible legal scenario...
Most of the time the right answer is something like until the threat is neutralized or you are no longer in fear for your life.
However there are jurisdictions that have suttle (and sometimes not suttle) differences. For example some jurisdictions have the castle doctrine in place, while others have a requirement to retreat.
Hopefully someone here can provided you with relevant information for that jurisdiction, and provide a place for you to verify it (maybe a state website).
Just to throw a wrench into the works, consider if you might be held to a different standard because of your military training (could work for you or against you).
No matter what, don't let this chatter as what to do here mess with your head in the sandbox. Keep to the training and ROE.
In the heat of action and passion, most people will probably simply empty their weapons, and not that accurately, usually from handguns. This may or may not be good but it is understood...unless somebody has the time and the mind to deliberately take aim at long range. "If you are far enough away to aim your gun, you are far enough away to run." Quote: Leon Harrison
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!