Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
They believe in removing ones hand for stealing over there so that would have been fitting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
The people who claim you should shoot bad guys in the leg have no understanding of self defense, firearms, or the human body.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Is this really a good argument for not shooting in the leg? The usual argument is to shoot to kill
or stop the threat. Well it may not be what he intended but the cop accomplished both.

I fully expected to watch this video and see the suspect end up killing the cop w his knife since the cop "didn't shoot to stop the threat"


"I miss America"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
Is this really a good argument for not shooting in the leg? The usual argument is to shoot to kill
or stop the threat. Well it may not be what he intended but the cop accomplished both.

I fully expected to watch this video and see the suspect end up killing the cop w his knife since the cop "didn't shoot to stop the threat"


"I miss America"
I cant site any sort of precedent for this, so this is nothing more than my opinion. You own every bullet that goes out of the barrel of your gun. If you draw your gun, and shoot the bad guy, and you put 5 rounds into his chest, you should have no problem saying that you shot him center mass as many times as you needed to until he was no longer a threat. Whether the guy lives or dies is not really your problem. On the other hand, if you shoot someone in the leg, with the intention of injuring them, thinking they will now have a hurt leg and stop attacking you, you could possibly run into some issues when you accidently kill someone. When I fire a gun, I dont want there to ever be any sort of "well I didnt intend for that to happen" moments. Again, just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
Maybe this is a case of suicide by police officer. Maybe he would rather die from a bullet than from having a hand cut off. I don't see where this video proves a lot about anything. Do you think that it is more humane to shoot somebody in the chest? The bullet can hit an artery anywhere in the body causing a death like this. You don't see crowds like that hanging around here when somebody is waving a knife around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
Maybe this is a case of suicide by police officer. Maybe he would rather die from a bullet than from having a hand cut off. I don't see where this video proves a lot about anything. Do you think that it is more humane to shoot somebody in the chest? The bullet can hit an artery anywhere in the body causing a death like this. You don't see crowds like that hanging around here when somebody is waving a knife around.
You dont see what it proves, because you understand it. The people who need to see this are people like I mentioned above, who know nothing about self defense, firearms, or the human body, who dont realize that someone could die less than a minute after being shot in the leg. The people who need to see this, are not likely members of this forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,380 Posts
I cant site any sort of precedent for this, so this is nothing more than my opinion. You own every bullet that goes out of the barrel of your gun. If you draw your gun, and shoot the bad guy, and you put 5 rounds into his chest, you should have no problem saying that you shot him center mass as many times as you needed to until he was no longer a threat. Whether the guy lives or dies is not really your problem. On the other hand, if you shoot someone in the leg, with the intention of injuring them, thinking they will now have a hurt leg and stop attacking you, you could possibly run into some issues when you accidently kill someone. When I fire a gun, I dont want there to ever be any sort of "well I didnt intend for that to happen" moments. Again, just my opinion.
Yes, you are right about this. Shooting an assailant in the leg, or arm, tells a prosecutor that you didn't fully believe that you were in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or worse. This could get you in some serious trouble. If that gun comes out and you are in a really serious situation, you shoot to end the threat. Legs are much harder to hit than someone's chest. And they move more quickly. End the threat and live to enjoy more days here on earth.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,182 Posts
Well, just tell them it's illegal and spray them with some pepper spray to teach them a lesson. LOL
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,620 Posts
The people who claim you should shoot bad guys in the leg have no understanding of self defense, firearms, or the human body.
They don't want to know. Gun goes bang, gun bad. Keep in mind these people vote. There is no IQ requirement to cast one's vote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
Yes, you are right about this. Shooting an assailant in the leg, or arm, tells a prosecutor that you didn't fully believe that you were in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or worse. This could get you in some serious trouble. If that gun comes out and you are in a really serious situation, you shoot to end the threat. Legs are much harder to hit than someone's chest. And they move more quickly. End the threat and live to enjoy more days here on earth.
where do yall come up this nonsense...??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,380 Posts
where do yall come up this nonsense...??
If you're referring to a leg shot opening the door to potential legal problems, I learned this through several sources, the primary one being four classes on the laws in my state regarding the use of deadly force. Three were conducted by an attorney who is intimate with defending people in this area of the law and carries a sidearm himself.

Trying for a "wounding" shot tells a prosecutor that you didn't firmly believe that you were in enough danger to warrant shooting someone. It's much like being in "bare fear", which is also not sufficient reason for a deadly force response. If there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm, and this threat is real or perceived to be real and you are not part of the problem, you are justified to use deadly force in your defense.

Remember... the state in which you live is paramount in the laws that will affect you should you have to use your firerarm. It is wise to know them as well as you can for your own protection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
I think this line of comment by SouthernBoy (in the post above) is reasonable. Seems like a typical kind of argument that is likely to be made in court, if circumstances allow.

I would probably add the "reasonableness" factor to the statement of legal principles ... (i.e., "... this threat is real or reasonably perceived to be real...") ...

... but (with reference to Czombie's comment) I don't understand calling it "nonsense". Did I miss something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,380 Posts
I think this line of comment by SouthernBoy (in the post above) is reasonable. Seems like a typical kind of argument that is likely to be made in court, if circumstances allow.

I would probably add the "reasonableness" factor to the statement of legal principles ... (i.e., "... this threat is real or reasonably perceived to be real...") ...

... but (with reference to Czombie's comment) I don't understand calling it "nonsense". Did I miss something?
I suspect that what was missed is what Czombie missed and that would be the seriousness and severity of pulling a gun on someone and actually shooting them. My state's laws regarding the use of deadly force are among the best in the nation. But even with that, using a deadly weapon in one's defense is still a very grave decision and if taken, shoot the perp to bring hostilities to a quick and definitive end.

We enjoy an affirmative defense here and that is a very good thing. We also don't have a Castle Doctrine law because that is somewhat confining... our laws regarding self defense are actually better. If you deliberately shoot someone in the leg, or arm or some other non-lethal part of the body, that is not going to work in your favor. To think it is would be courting disaster in a court of law under an affirmative defense. But then, I don't live in Oklahoma so I am not at all familiar with their laws and how a "wounding shot" would play out in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sister and dugo

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
I wouldn't pull my firearm to wound a BG. That's like pulling it in hopes, if he sees it, he will stop. A shot to the leg or arm might be fatal but adrenalin can keep someone going long after the mortal wound has been inflicted. Add to that drugs that might be present and it could take even longer. The purpose of shooting is to stop the threat IMMEDIATELY. That means making their ability to continue stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
where do yall come up this nonsense...??
From many years of seeing what and how Prosecutors in most states will take things out of context to run on for election time. Unless the assailant is DEAD, you don't have anything except "He Said, He Said" in court regarding the incident. And in some states, If you injure the individual "Beyond his ability to pursue his occupation" you have committed Malicious Wounding. Separate charge in a Civil Court. You can beat the Murder rap and still get sued for lots of money. Ask OJ Simpson on that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
Yes, SouthernBuy, agree that Va's laws are pretty good. And I understand that Virginia's common law covering the principles of the Castle Doctrine was actually better than the statutory versions that were proposed, with all good intentions, a little while back; and, the common law principle has been around for quite a while in Va...(hundred years or more?) ... Too bad more states have not done as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,380 Posts
Yes, SouthernBuy, agree that Va's laws are pretty good. And I understand that Virginia's common law covering the principles of the Castle Doctrine was actually better than the statutory versions that were proposed, with all good intentions, a little while back -- and that common law principle has been around for quite a while in Va...(hundred years or more?)
It dates back to 1607.

A Castle Doctrine bill was proposed but we (VCDL) lobbied against it. Like so many others, it addressed incidences in one's home and curtilage. What we have has no bounds as long as you have a legal right to be where you are and you are not part of the problem (as in initiation, escalation, etc.). There are other benefits which are afforded our citizens who are within their right to use deadly force.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,380 Posts
From many years of seeing what and how Prosecutors in most states will take things out of context to run on for election time. Unless the assailant is DEAD, you don't have anything except "He Said, He Said" in court regarding the incident. And in some states, If you injure the individual "Beyond his ability to pursue his occupation" you have committed Malicious Wounding. Separate charge in a Civil Court. You can beat the Murder rap and still get sued for lots of money. Ask OJ Simpson on that.
If one has gotten to the point where they believe that pulling their sidearm is necessary to end an extreme encounter, then the justification of shooting someone in parts of their body where such can have fatal results has already been met.

If you have a reasonably held good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent person is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, then you are authorized to use such force as is reasonably necessary, up to and including deadly force, to stop the threat.

This is the standard for which you may use deadly force in my state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjmcd and jumperj
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top