The assailant was carring a tazer.. then was shot dead

The assailant was carring a tazer.. then was shot dead

This is a discussion on The assailant was carring a tazer.. then was shot dead within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; https://journalstar.com/news/local/c...=home-trending Imagining if no cop had been there, and only me, carrying, and in the same path as the (railroad) cop was as to the ...

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 92
Like Tree245Likes

Thread: The assailant was carring a tazer.. then was shot dead

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Array kuux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Fly-over state
    Posts
    577

    The assailant was carring a tazer.. then was shot dead

    https://journalstar.com/news/local/c...=home-trending

    Imagining if no cop had been there, and only me, carrying, and in the same path as the (railroad) cop was as to the assailant. Would you draw and shoot to kill?
    sqlb3rn and Risasi like this.
    U.S. Marine Corps 1964 - 1968

    U.S. Army 1969 - 1973

    USCCA

  2. #2
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,379
    You never shoot to kill....you shoot to stop the threat!

    And the answer is...It depends.
    ETXhiker, DZUS, airslot and 3 others like this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Array kuux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Fly-over state
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    You never shoot to kill....you shoot to stop the threat!

    And the answer is...It depends.
    Yes, I understand the kill/stop-the-threat difference and could have worded my question that way. And of course I know it depends. I'm asking some here to read the article, note the situation as it arose, and then lend some thoughts as to their response as responsible CC advocates.

    I was talking with my wife about this and she was of the mind that he could have been shot in the leg at that range in that situation and that would have stopped the threat. I feel similar, but of course in those heated scenarios we may not think of such things and just draw and fire.
    U.S. Marine Corps 1964 - 1968

    U.S. Army 1969 - 1973

    USCCA

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,594
    Quote Originally Posted by kuux View Post
    Yes, I understand the kill/stop-the-threat difference and could have worded my question that way. And of course I know it depends. I'm asking some here to read the article, note the situation as it arose, and then lend some thoughts as to their response as responsible CC advocates.

    I was talking with my wife about this and she was of the mind that he could have been shot in the leg at that range in that situation and that would have stopped the threat. I feel similar, but of course in those heated scenarios we may not think of such things and just draw and fire.
    Shooting someone in the leg or deliberately trying to wound them is never a good idea when the time comes to pull your sidearm and use it. This sort of thing could get you in some serious hot water with the law. Any prosecutor worth his salt is going to go after this as proof that you really didn't believe yourself to be in imminent danger of serious bodily harm, or worse.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    America First!

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,379
    I'm sorry but shooting people in the leg is bad for a number of valid reasons:

    1) It is the stuff of Hollywood, not real life. Hollywood = a lot of little kids who've never grown up playing make believe games in the backyard based on something they have less knowledge about than the back side of the moon.

    2) It takes a much more skilled shot. Very few people have the skill required to make such a shot under pressure.

    3) Shooting someone in the leg in no way guarantees they won't die. Lookup femoral artery.

    4) It doesn't stop the threat very often. Lots of people have been killed by actors wounded in the leg.

    5) Shooting someone is attempted aggravated homicide. If you're going to face a criminal investigation, better to be able to say you used the gun to stop a lethal threat, rather than say you used a gun to shoot someone in the leg because you believed it was somehow "less lethal" or "not so dangerous" which I promise the prosecutor will turn to his advantage against you.

    6) Writing on the internet about shooting to kill someone is really, really bad...first because it never goes away, and second because it can be used against you in court - even 25 years later. Better to always say "stop the threat." (You can still edit your original post BTW)

    In no way picking on you. Just friendly thoughts for your consideration.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

  7. #6
    Member Array giz5792's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Virginia,MN
    Posts
    241
    I was trained to shoot at the largest part of the body, the torso. Went adrenaline kicks in, trying to focus on a smaller moving target is not advisable.

    Minnesota is a flee first state, unless there is the potential for great bodily harm to those that can't escape or you're unable to leave safely. When I'm out with my wife, due to her mobility issues, she's my main priority to keep safe and I will do what is necessary to do that. That being said, by him driving through the building shows his intent to cause great bodily harm and then by getting out of the truck and going after people with a stun gun only validates this. I would have drawn and fired center mass in this situation.

    Good job by the officer stopping the threat and protecting those that were there.
    OldChap, sqlb3rn, airslot and 1 others like this.

  8. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    50,305
    What you say is of the utmost importance, the only reason to fire your weapon is for the sole purpose of stopping a threat, and I'm in the 'it depends crowd.'
    OldChap, msgt/ret, OD* and 3 others like this.
    Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Array kuux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Fly-over state
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    I'm sorry but shooting people in the leg is bad for a number of valid reasons:

    6) Writing on the internet about shooting to kill someone is really, really bad...first because it never goes away, and second because it can be used against you in court. Better to always say "stop the threat." (You can still edit your original post BTW)

    In no way picking on you. Just friendly thoughts for your consideration.
    Good gosh friends I'm just trying to get opinions on that article and the action taken by that LEO. I'm schooled in what to "write on the internet" and also on what leg-shots can implicate (I was lending my wife's opinion as a way to try to start a conversation about alternative viewpoints, she does not carry).

    So far nobody as addressed the article I linked. But it's early.

    - The guy was behaving erratically and violently prior to running at the LEO.

    - He had rammed his pickup truck into the eatery and caused people to scatter and a lot of damage in there.

    - He showed no gun, only the tazer.

    - The (railroad) LEO tried to verbally calm him, but he did not stop advancing on the LEO.

    Would you have drawn and fired?
    sqlb3rn likes this.
    U.S. Marine Corps 1964 - 1968

    U.S. Army 1969 - 1973

    USCCA

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,044
    I have to agree with @OldChap here and I am not sure, @kuux , that you do understand. In addition to not shooting to kill, also you do not shoot to wound. I think the idea of shooting someone in the leg or the arm comes from watching too much action fiction on the silver screen. It is a very common misconception. Read about Sgt. Tim Gramins of the Skokie PD. He put 14 rounds of .45 in a perpetrator, six in areas that should have stopped him cold, and the guy didn't go down until Gramins got a head shot. If you are really in danger, you don't mess around.

    The thought process has to go like this:
    1. You encounter an imminent threat of grave bodily harm from criminal action. Being attacked with a stun gun qualifies, because it has the capacity to incapacitate you, leaving you vulnerable to grave bodily harm.
    2. You shoot to stop that threat. That means shooting at target areas that are known to stop. At least Center of Mass. Better, a CNS hit to the Center of Head or Center Upper Thoracic area. Under pressure you will be lucky to get one of those. You keep firing until the threat stops.

    Otherwise, you may later face the question of: "If you were in imminent threat of grave bodily harm, why did you intentionally wound him? If you didn't go for an effective target area, I guess it was not that much of threat, right? And if you didn't feel he wasn't that much of a threat, you really weren't justified in shooting at all."

    Justification to shoot is pretty binary. If you are justified, you shoot to stop. If you are not, you don't shoot. The other wrinkle is that moving legs are not that easy to hit under pressure. You miss and there will be a ricochet going who knows where, that you are responsible for.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Array kuux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Fly-over state
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    And the answer is...It depends.
    And the things it depends on are in written extensively in that linked article. In that situation, would you have drawn and fired your gun?
    U.S. Marine Corps 1964 - 1968

    U.S. Army 1969 - 1973

    USCCA

  12. #11
    Senior Member
    Array kuux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Fly-over state
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    I have to agree with @OldChap here and I am not sure, @kuux , that you do understand. In addition to not shooting to kill, also you do not shoot to wound. I think the idea of shooting someone in the leg or the arm comes from watching too much action fiction on the silver screen. It is a very common misconception. Read about Sgt. Tim Gramins of the Skokie PD. He put 14 rounds of .45 in a perpetrator, six in areas that should have stopped him cold, and the guy didn't go down until Gramins got a head shot. If you are really in danger, you don't mess around.

    The thought process has to go like this:
    You encounter an imminent threat of grave bodily harm from criminal action. Being attacked with a stun
    1. gun qualifies.
    2. You shoot to stop that threat. That means shooting at target areas that are known to stop. At least Center of Mass. Better, a CNS hit to the Center of Head or Center Upper Thoracic area. Under pressure you will be lucky to get one of those. You keep firing until the threat stops.

    Otherwise, you may later face the question of: "If you were in imminent threat of grave bodily harm, why did you intentionally wound him? If you didn't go for an effective target area, I guess it was not that much of threat, right? And if you didn't feel he wasn't that much of a threat, you really weren't justified in shooting at all."

    Justification to shoot is pretty binary. If you are justified, you shoot to stop. If you are not, you don't shoot. The other wrinkle is that moving legs are not that easy to hit under pressure. You miss and there will be a ricochet going who knows where, that you are responsible for.
    Gee wizz peeps. Please read the article. Then please post your opinion as to the LEO's response. That's all I'm curious about. I disagree with his response. I would not have drawn and fired. I would not have even drawn. I would have punched the crap out of him. Or some such. It was a tazer. If I got tazed I got tazed. He otherwise harmed nobody. Now.. that's why I posted this query; to see other opinions. Maby mine is not correct to other people. Forget me mentioning the leg bit.. that was just an aside and a wah to try to get the "other opinions" going.
    U.S. Marine Corps 1964 - 1968

    U.S. Army 1969 - 1973

    USCCA

  13. #12
    Moderator
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    14,971
    Not knowing the effects on a defibrillator if someone comes at me with a Tazer or similar device I will stop them before they get close enough to deploy it.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
    A 9MM MAY expand to .45 but a 45ACP will never shrink to 9MM.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,044
    Quote Originally Posted by kuux View Post
    And the things it depends on are in written extensively in that linked article. In that situation, would you have drawn and fired your gun?
    I did read the article. If I could not evade the guy, which would be my first choice, I definitely would have drawn and fired, at least COM, CNS if I could get it. Shooting a leg would be out of the question. I am not going to let someone coming at me with a stun gun advance, no way. It's called "disparity of force." It applies to someone with a club or even someone who is way bigger than you, or even someone who is in a blind rage.

    You seen to be asking for answers, but only want answers that agree with you.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Rockymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Idaho!
    Posts
    2,005
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    I did read the article. If I could not evade the guy, which would be my first choice, I definitely would have drawn and fired, at least COM, CNS if I could get it. Shooting a leg would be out of the question. I am not going to let someone coming at me with a stun gun advance, no way. It's called "disparity of force." It applies to someone with a club or even someone who is way bigger than you, or even someone who is in a blind rage.

    You seen to be asking for answers, but only want answers that agree with you.
    My answer would likely be the same as jmf......
    OldChap and CavemanBob like this.
    "Once that bell rings, you're on your own. It's just you and the other guy.” - Joe Lewis

    “I’m not obsessive about cleaning my guns. I like them like my martinis and my women....a ‘little’ dirty.....”

    Member: GOA, SAF






  16. #15
    Member Array sqlb3rn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    277
    I would likely use whatever force necessary to defend myself. I carry O/C spray, using that might be my first attempt at self defense before he got close enough to taze me... but maybe not, I would have to be in the situation and then give you the answer afterwards. If that didn't work, I would likely escalate to something more effective like a firearm. I would consider an enraged lunatic smashing a vehicle through a store trying to kill folks and chasing them with a weapon as a deadly threat.

    By the same token if I were on a jury for this case, I wouldn't convict the guy.

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •