If one shot is justified, are more....

[Tangle]

Honestly, this is a spin off Chris's thread about "Draw=Commit".

I didn't want to risk a thread hi jack so I started a new thread.

Basically, if you are justified to fire, are multiple shots justified? I.e. double taps? Failure drill? Triple taps? Shoot 'til they go down? How about a rapid fire burst of 4 - 6 shots AFAYCGHOTT? (I made that up - As Fast As You Can Get Hits On The Threat).

Maybe a bit of clarafication on the AFAYCGHOTT, let's say that means shots with about 0.3 sec (or better) splits, which means 6 shots could take 1.5 secs. The point here is a lot in very little time.

Your thoughts?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SSKC]

Basically, if you are justified to fire, are multiple shots justified??

Depends. You are justified in shooting until the attack stops. So...if you present your weapon and the bad guy says "Oh sh**!!" and beats feet, you are justified in firing zero shots. (This fits my ideal definition of defensive use of a weapon.) If, on the other hand, the attack does not cease, you can keep shooting until it does - one, three, seventeen, whatever it takes. But, you MUST CEASE FIRE as soon as you perceive that there is no longer a threat.

Usual disclaimers for the above: I'm not a lawyer, etc., etc.

SSKC

[artz]

I would think so. If I'm using my .380, .38, or .22 mag ? Two outta three times will be a triple tap. It all is gonna depend on my aim and recovery time in those micro-seconds...

[Tubby45]

Shoot until the threat stops. Period. You can't plan for the exact number or method. Cross train. If I shoot, I plan on shooting more than once and I am prepared to do so.

[Spectre]

My CCW instructor advised us that you shoot until the threat is neutralized or your gun is empty, whichever comes first. This means that if you shoot a BG, and he goes down, you can't walk over and put a couple in his head to "be sure".

The recent incident where the BG was on top of the cop and had already taken 5 to the torso without giving up, tells me that my instructor's advice was sound.

[OD*]

I agree with SSKC.

[Scott]

Shoot until there is no longer a threat. Some people shoot until slide lock. Some don't. Each situation is a bit different. I'm shooting until the threat is gone or the gun doesn't go bang, whichever comes first.

-Scott-

[P95Carry]

It is all about threat control and negation - and this probably means multiple shots by default.

We know only too well how ineffectual just one shot can be - and for sure, if armed BG is advancing or we are receiving incoming as we seek cover - there is little option. Very hard to visualize a situation where we go ''bang'' - assess - ''bang'' - assess .............. time is not usually on our side and response to hits can be very slow or delayed, short of finding the off switch.

Add to that the probability that if this is a justifiable shoot then the BG chose the course of events and not us - therefore he WILL be stopped and that will in majority of cases IMO mean many shots and/or an empty gun at the end of things.

[fed_wif_a_sig]

The shoot to stop comment has been stated very clearly. It reminds me of a officer I know on a stop that went through two 8 round mags of 45 cal into a very large and irate perp with a kinfe. When asked by the IA folks why he fired so many rounds, he simply stated, "I fired every time he moved towards me and until he stopped moving towards me" Nuff said. Oh that also points out another thing...even the wonderful 45cal might not drop them instantly, after a total of 13 hits center mass, the perp (no drugs other than alcohol in his system) finally went down. Just think, some folks dont carry extra ammo either. Ever heard the "if I cant do it in how ever many I have in the weapon than I dont need to be carrying a weapon" comment?

[tryzub]

Shoot until there is no longer a threat. Some people shoot until slide lock. Some don't. Each situation is a bit different. I'm shooting until the threat is gone or the gun doesn't go bang, whichever comes first.

-Scott-

I have to agree here, this resurrects the entire argument of defensive ammunition (hollow points, ex panders etc..), you don't stop firing until the threat is over. The entire argument of night sights (since most ambushes/robberies happen at night) is to be able to have proper follow up shots. The end of threat argument explains the ability of the individual to carry extra magazines. The Brady bunch could well decide that extra mags are an unnecessary evil, that you only need the mag in the pistol and nothing more.

The end of threat argument is one that LEO will buy after the scene, how you felt and did you really need to shoot 10 times (you probably won't even remember) is something opposing counsel or an ADA in California would ask.

[rstickle]

We had this thread before, but with a different name. And, of nothing else, we are consistent. We decided then, keep firing till YOU are safe.

[Roadrunner]

Shoot 'til the threat is no longer a threat. 1, 2, 10, 20 rounds... doesn't matter. Once the threat is on the ground and immobile, the shooting stops. Not before.

[ka0azs]

Another vote for Shoot until the threat stops, however many it takes, from 0- whatever.

You only shoot when your are justified ("fear for your life...." etc.), and continue shooting until the justification disappears.

[Tangle]

I think this is the troubling caveat about shooting til he's down, not a threat, etc. Simply with that mindset, we are in a sense pre-condiitioning ourselves to fire more than once.

My concern is, in the stress of a gunfight, with us firing rounds at the BG, and we shoot him until he drops, etc. Did we notice that he raised his hands? Did we notice that he dropped his weapon? Did we notice he stopped his advance? Did we continue to shoot through some of that?

I guess the issue is, if we have a mindset to shoot til he's down, etc. and we're in the stress of a gunfight, and that will be a desperate struggle to survive, will we really be able to recognize that the threat ended without our criteria being met?

Because the witnesses just might see that he raised his hand and we shot him again or he dropped his weapon and we shot him again, maybe several times, because he didn't go down?

Your thoughts?

[P95Carry]

Ron - I am with your thought line here but - I still think that if we have justifiably had to open fire, it will be (must be) because we have perceived a threat of such intensity that stopping it has become the urgent and only route we can take.

If that then is the case, we too are able I'd think to plead extreme stress and fear, which itself affects our urgency to produce a stop. Ergo we shoot many rounds until that threat is seen to cease - as we see it at the time - in our BG induced, ''adrenalinized'' state.

So - what I am promulgating is - the situation where we have no choices left but to shoot - and that fact we would state in a court of law - hopefully with some witness back-up. Guess too I am stating the ''all or nothing'' rule - if we have to shoot, all bets are off - assuming we have made a correct (we most sincerely hope) judgement.