A response to a co-worker on defensive shooting

Even if you are sure, and correct, you could still be prosecuted. It is a risk that should be considered. It may be outweighed by necessity (self-preservation or moral), but it is always there.
Click to expand...

Very true, there would be nothing to stop a DA with an anti-gun or other agenda from prosecuting, even if I was 100% legally justified in a shooting.
 
It's all situational. In Aurora the victims were packed in and stampeding for the doors. For the shooter, that's optimum for causing max casualties. I don't see the point in not fighting back if I'm in that situation.

Look up Jeanne Assam.
 
I was talking with one of my co-workers today about handguns, going over various laws and so on.

He's a new shooter, and doesn't know much about guns, let alone concealed carry (Which he is considering). During this discussion he touched on the topic of defensive shooting in the event of something like the theater shooting in Aurora or perhaps even Virginia Tech.

He had asked what I would do in such a situation, would I try to help by neutralizing the threat (provided I was armed at the time, regardless of how unlikely it was considering the laws regarding such zones in the given state)

I replied stating that at risk of sounding calloused or cold, I would not do anything until I had a more clear understand of what is going on. My first and foremost objective is to ensure that me and those who I love/care about get out of the area safely. If the perpatrator is not aiming his gun at me, I will not fire my weapon unless there is a clear threat to me and those I hold dear.

He was a little perplexed by this response, asking why I wouldn't fire if I had the opportunity to prevent others from getting hurt.

My response to this is that hindsight is a luxuary that we have as onlookers/survivors. They should have done this, he/she should have done that, I could have done this etc.

We can look at the situation and make sound logical judgements because we have a more clear understanding of what was taking place at that time.

The problem is, if you try to look at the event objectively, and from the point of view of the victims, the scene would likely be chaotic, confusing with emotions and adrenaline running high.

People likely would be running in every direction, harkening back to our "fight or flight" insticts, natural response would be to flee the threat. Granted lets say I do decide to try and assist in preventing that threat from committing further atrocities, a logical analysis of the situation would likely not be in my favor at that time (which of course is very subjective to the eb and flow of the events taking place at that time and location)

dozens if not hundreds of people fleeing the area, without any sense of coordination, mass panic, and in the case of aurora, a heavily armed and armored individual being the cause.

There are some things to consider in such a situation, all of which may not be easy to process at the time.

First, if I fire, I increase the liklihood of myself getting shot myself, that in itself is something to consider, especially if the hostile individual is not threatening me at that immediate time (As in actively shooting at me in particular), why draw his fire at me, which may work for or against me in a court case (more on that later)

second, I must take into account that if I miss, I have a fairly high probablity of hitting an innocent, wounding or in the worst case scenario, killing them outright, making me guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter and/or possibly other charges.

third, even if I don't miss, there are other innocents around my immediate vicinity, if that first shot is not an incapacitating one (the human body is extremely resilient, especially in such cases and can operate even when mortally wounded. Anything less than a vital shot to the head or perhaps even the heart may not end the threat at that moment) this may endanger those around me as the hostile individual may begin focusing his or her fire on me, and those around me. I am suddenly not only charged with my own safety but of those around me. I can see the court hearing already, stating that if I had not fired, several joes or janes may not have been wounded/killed.

Would I help if the situation and the parameters surrounding that situation were right? Maybe, it really depends. My duty, at least IMO, is to get those that I care about to safety, I am not a vigilante nor am I a sheepdog.

All of this is subjective of course, and to be honest I am not entirely sure what I would do in such a situation (logic would dictate that I would flee with those I love to get them out of harms way).

A clear understanding of both local and federal laws is necessary if you wish to CCW, not to mention what responsabilities that come with it to include the legal implications surrounding such privilages incur if you find yourself in a situation (god forbid) where you must use that weapon.

A little food for thought for the new guy.

I'd appreciate some of your feedback on how I handled this topic, as well as how you interpret it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. Another thing to consider, what if you start shooting back and some other person with a CCW starts shooting at you because he mistook you for the bad guy. Either way, unless you know with absolute certainty you're not endangering yourself or others then it should be handled with extreme caution
 
Hiker1, bear in mind that Jeanne Assam was part of her church security team; that the situation developed in front of her and she knew what was happening; and that there really was no grey area for her.

She had to have the fortitude to act, but she was in a scenario for which she had already accepted responsibility by joining the security team.
 
^ She was definitely expecting trouble as the shooter had committed a murder at a missionary in Arvada the night before.

I don't see where this mentality of it'll be too confusing-loud-scary-chaotic to-do-anything comes from. What do we think a defensive shooting is going to be like? A day at the range?
 
I don't see where this mentality of it'll be too confusing-loud-scary-chaotic to-do-anything comes from. What do we think a defensive shooting is going to be like? A day at the range?
Click to expand...
In a typical defensive shooting, the defender is the one under attack and therefore has a very clear picture of who is doing the attacking.

They typically do not occur in crowded surroundings where there are uninvolved bystanders milling about which means that there's not usually a signficant problem finding a clear line of fire.

Here's a good analogy. I have two fire extinguishers in my house and I know how to use them. I might be able to put out a small fire in my house with one of them if I'm there when it first starts. If my neighbor's house catches fire, by the time I find out about it, my dinky fire extinguisher isn't going to do any good and I don't have the training, support or protective gear that a firefighter has. I might be able to help out, but the odds are by the time I arrive on the scene the fire is already well underway. That means I'm overmatched and it's likely all I'll be able to do is get myself killed or hurt without really helping out in the process. I'm willing to help out, and I might even be able to help out, but it's going to depend heavily on the situation. My fire extinguisher doesn't make me an effective fire-fighter except in very limited circumstances.

In the same way, being attacked is one thing, intervening in an attack not specifically directed at you is another. In the case of the attack on you, you get to see the fire start. You know exactly what happened--who the bad guy is, who the good guy is. In the other case, you see things happening but you may not know exactly how things started which means you may not know who the bad guy is.

Remember the Giffords shooting? Let's say you were a permit holder near the scene and you ran towards the shots immediately upon hearing them. You arrive on the scene and see a man holding a gun and hitting another person. Do you shoot him? Hope not--he and another man had tackled the shooter and the man holding the gun had disarmed the shooter and was holding his gun.

The basic principle of medicine applies here. "First of all, do no harm." Unless you are sure that what you do won't make things worse then doing nothing is the best course of action. Doctors don't just start administering medication before they know what's wrong. In the same manner, if you aren't sure that you have an accurate picture of the situation, you shouldn't start trying to fix it.

Even a fairly simple self-defense shooting is a far cry from a day at the range, but that doesn't mean that it's as confusing or offers as much potential for negative outcomes and misunderstanding as a mass shooting in a crowded public place by a determined killer who has planned carefully.
 
IF:

*I have an immediate and clear understanding of the situation (man walks in with an assault rifle and opens fire)
*I have a clear line of fire
*I can do so without putting loved ones in immediate danger
*I have balanced my risk for harm vs. the levity of the crime and deem it low risk -- dying a hero's death does nothing for the loved ones I leave behind
*I am confident in my ability to take the shot and make a difference
*I do not have to run towards gunfire or lose my only chance at retreat

I would like to say I would stop a crime committed towards an innocent. But, who knows what will happen when the time comes knocking and you have to decide?
 
In this context I often think of the mass killing that took place in a library at Cal State Fullerton many years ago. The gunman went through at least two floors systematically killing people, mostly women IIRC. Some brave fellow got into a wrestling match with the killer but sadly came out the loser and was executed. In such a situation, if I were armed, I would take on some personal risk to put him away to prevent further deaths. Not to do so would be to have some responsibility for any additional killings IMO. Let the lawyers argue about it afterwards, and let the jury listen to what I have to say about what happened and why.

No, I would not carry a gun only to protect myself or my loved ones. But I have cited an extreme case, in which it was clear who was the perp and who the potential victims. Often this is not the case and you had better have excellent situational awareness before acting.

Later: I just looked it up and most of the victims were in fact men (this happened in 1976, memories fade). I recall that a couple of female librarians witnessed the struggle but did nothing to help - not surprising perhaps. But who knows, one of them might have interceded had she been armed and proficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_University,_Fullerton_library_massacre
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top