Great Replies by ccw9mm & Matt.
Everyone can learn something valuable from this thread.
This is a discussion on Question of the day: firearm self-defense "rules of thumb" within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by XD in SC Ayoob proved that the human body can react faster than the bullets flight, so the BG turned as the ...
I've seen a demonstration of this on TV, where the researchers played a video of a suspect drawing, firing, and whirling around to run away. They displayed this on a big screen and gave the TV reporter a training weapon and told him to fire as soon as the BG drew his gun. By the time the reporter pulled the trigger the guy was already turned around and running, so he would have shot the BG in the back.
Great Replies by ccw9mm & Matt.
Everyone can learn something valuable from this thread.
I did read the case study of Ayoob as expert witness in defense of battered wife shooting her husband multiple times with a .25. She kept pulling the trigger, in rapid succession; he turned, took a couple in back/side. Dropped dead at front door. She was acquitted.
I would like to add sort of a bottom line to this great thread. In most states, the use of deadly force is justified only if you reasonably believed that the threat you responded to put you in reasonable fear of your life or that of a loved one, or of serious physical injury. The problem is that the concept of "reasonable" is subjective, as to which, unless the so called "castle Doctrine" applies in your state, you will likely have the burden of proof. So, if you use deadly force, even if legally justified under the applicable statute or case law, there are many reasons that you may nevertheless face being indicted and having to defend yourself against a criminal charge of murder. The hard and tragic experience of others, offers us some useful guidence. For example, the police officer or investigator may be antagonistic to civilians carrying guns, or, depending upon who you shoot and when the shooting occured, the prosecutor may be acting to further his or her personal political ambitions, or may feel pressured by an influential family, or you may not have followed the advice offered by others on this thread to immediately consult an attorney and have said something against your interests. Even if you prevail at the criminal trial, you are likely to then face a civil action against you seeking damages. The cost of defending a criminal and/or civil suit can come close to bankrupting many average persons. So,the end result can be that you face a prison term with your family impoverished. The term"Justice" in our Criminal Justice System at times gets perverted for reasons entirely beyond our control
Now, I don't want to sound like I am preaching against carrying. I personally carry so that is not my intent. But, I do want to remind us all that carrying a gun is a double edged sword. We do so to protect ourselves and family, and we should do that. But if we are not fully aware of the laws which govern our carrying, or don't heed some of the great advice provided by others on this thread, and thus make a serious misjudgment, it can ruin our lives. So, lets all be careful out there.
Get a good lawyer. If you go to trial, take out a loan and hire Massad Ayoob as your expert witness. If you are dirt poor, he still might help. Mas has said he will only help people that HE is convinced are innocent.
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
If the Ramsey case did nothing else for us,it brought to light the fact that you are not obligated to say a damn word to the police or any one else,until a time and place of YOUR choosing.
You do not have to go to the police station if you are not under arrest.
If you are put under arrest and taken to the police station, you STILL do not have to utter a single word.
We all need to remember these rights that we have. -------
I hesitate to post, since I am in no way giving legal advice, simply because I'm not qualified!
I do know what my permit to carry training provided for me, and here's a summary. To use, or threaten to use, lethal force in self-defense, four things must apply:
1) You must be a "reluctant participant"
2) You must be reasonably in immediate fear of "death or great bodily harm"
3) No lesser force will serve, making deadly force necessary
4) Retreat is not practical
This whole question can be discussed, or even debated, here at great length, but these were the criteria on which I was trained in my state, and what I will use as my guide.
"It's a big gun when I carry it, it is also a big gun when I take it out” – Clint Smith
1. What if someones dragging your child into the back of a van. Either you shoot the cannibal in the back or watch the van and your kid head down the road.
2. What if, your exiting Wal-Mart and see some freak choking your wife in the parking lot. At 850 ft per second the bullet will close the distance faster than you will.
3. Any time I have to fire my weapon in defense its with the intent of stopping an attacker. I will fire untill the subject tells me to stop firing by either running away or laying on the ground.
For me, my weapons not so much about "self" as it is my familiy and friends.
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
One and two are BS. I agree with three. Kill them so they don't kill you. If they are dead, the threat is stopped and they won't get out of prison in 10 years on parole to try and kill someone again. We use these fancy phrases and blanket statements to try not sound vicious. "Shoot to stop the threat." Stop=dead, why cloud the issue? I don't use deadly force to piss someone off. I use deadly force to cause death, that is why it is deadly.
07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006
Probably the only home based FFL that doesn't do transfers.
Not wanting to be pedantic or relying on semantics but - while a BG may well expire I still do not think we have to talk purely of ''death to BG's". That is something way too easily used against us by those who would see us disarmed. ''All you want to do is kill" etc. Sure we use ''deadly force'' - but that does not always equate with death - it is potentially deadly force - so is a blow to a head from a slugger!Originally Posted by freakshow10mm
I am thinking of hits that could well take a guy down - and at same time disable so much that the risk is gone, and death might well not result. Mythical case - we shoot and happen to hit both the BG's gun hand/hands and at same time have that round or a subsequent one cause thoracic damage - the BG then having no useable hand function to continue shooting, as well as perhaps sufficient psycho trauma to certainly not want any more fight.No - I still will personally continue to ''stop the threat'' - it does to all intents maybe mean much the same finally but - it saves us a lot of grief over ''image''!I use deadly force to cause death
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
Most violent felons have been shot before- even if they "feel" it, they are less likely to stop with shock/surprise/etc., when it happens.(IOTW, it may take a higher dosing of repellent to be effective). Take a lesson from the homies- if its worth shooting, its worth shooting a bunch!
You can survive bankruptcy. You can survive garnishment. You can survive divorce and jail. You are unlikely to survive a round through the underside of your chin because you, "Fire two, and evaluate".
I think what Ayoob showed was not that the body can move faster than the bullet but that if the bad guy moves quickly enough, the shooter cannot change his reactions fast enough.
If you are REALLY in fear for your life and are firing at a bad guy, he will in all probablility be able to turn his back on you faster than your brain can send the message to your finger to stop shooting.
Also, I don't believe you have the time during a lethal force situation to analyze all the "rules". The gun stays put unless you cannot avoid death or serious injury without using the gun. Once the decision to use lethal force is made, you must shoot until the threat goes away.
THEN STOP SHOOTING!!!
I don't care if the guy just beat up your wife and raped your dog. When he has ceased to be a threat, you stop shooting. We are law abiding citizens. . . not vigilantes.
Finally, I am reminded of the phrase, "with great power comes great responsibility". When you choose to carry a deadly weapon, be it a gun, knife, or whatever, you have at your disposal, great power and you must accept this greater responsibility. If you can't, you shouldn't carry. . . period.
As for the legal aftermath, you just need to be able to articulate why you had to do what you did. Keep your mouth shut, talk to an attorney and be happy that you are still alive.
At the Glock Summit a couple weekends ago I had the oppurtunity to attend a discussion given by an investigator for the state of Pennsylvania. He had investigated several hundred murder cases and gave a talk entitled "After the Shooting". He told a story of a guy who did everything correctly up until the patrol officers got there. He then immediately told them he wanted to speak with a lawyer, so they moved on to question the others who were present, who just so happened to be the people that were using this guy for a punching bag moments earlier, and there story got put on record, while his did not. The detectives weren't called in and evidence in his favor was lost. So, he says always get on record by saying they/he/she were trying to kill me, and I want to tell you everything that happened . . . pause. . . should I have a lawyer? That brings out the lawyer and the detectives, with you on record and it should avoid ******* off the patrol officers.
He also quoted the late great Col. Cooper when he talked about Problem 1 and Problem 2. Problem 1 being the actual physical confrontation and Problem 2 being the legal one. By carrying a gun we accept the possibility that we might have to use violence to stop ourselves/others from being hurt or killed. We must also realize that in doing so we may be injured. We might be cut or paralyzed or perhaps blinded. We accept this. So, accept that part of the fight is to know what to do afterwards and the possiblity that things might not turn out the way we had hoped for. We could be sentenced to jail for murder or manslaughter or we may not even be charged. We may not be charged but might wind up in jail for a month or so because an anti-gun DA is currently in office and wants to send a message about what will happen if others choose to defend themselves with a gun. He told a story of just such an incidence where a legitimate shoot occured, but the DA ordered him locked up for the investigation that took a month even though all the cops on the scene told him that it was a legitimate shoot.
By accepting problem 2 we need to be able to defend each and every action we took. If you wind up in court and you shot the BG while he was on the ground you had better be able to give a good reason for doing so. If you shoot five times they wil ask you why the fifth when four would have done the job? This is why we train. To avoid the whole situation if possible and if you must use force, than only use enough to stop the threat. Once the threat is stopped it is time to deal with problem two.
I believe the first three rules posted are pure BS. What I do believe is you had better know what the laws are for the state you are carrying in.
Graduate: University of South Vietnam-
School of Jungle Warfare
CURRAHEE My Brothers In Blood