Armed Citizen: Something tells me we're going to see more of this.

1. the [] robber had a bat, what he going to do, shoot me with splinters?
Click to expand...

There are several cases around here of bats being used to kill people. There is no way to tell how this guy would react - he might have decided he had nothing to lose by swinging at the guys head. Then, the shopowner would have had real trouble.

Just because the ending was good, this time, doesn't mean it couldn't have ended a whole lot different if it had been somebody else with that bat in their hand.
 
I am glad everything worked out for him as it did, but I am with agreement with the majority here. Using an unloaded firearm for defense is foolish, and the results could have been a lot less favorable. When it comes right down to it, some guns make decent clubs when they are unloaded. A Hi-Point Carbine is not one of them.

Additionally, I think keeping an unloaded firearm for defense is foolish because it undermines the basic concept. We all accept that weather they are designed for it or not, firearms are capable of inflicting deadly force. If this fact is nearly as sobering for you as it is for me, it accounts for what has been, so far (knock on wood), a completely pleasant and accident free 26-year life heavily infused with guns on a daily basis. This fundamentally accepted fact is the reason why firearms are legally considered lethal force by most states and jurisdictions, regardless of whether they are discharged or even loaded.

So most states will hold brandishing a firearm, even if it is unloaded, as brandishing a lethal weapon, at least by my understanding. Most states will hold you accountable if you shoot to wound an attacker for this same reason. This is because presenting a firearm is legally considered lethal force. If wounding or frightening an attacker is all that is required, many states will hold you legally accountable for escalating the situation with lethal force when it was not necessary. So presenting an unloaded firearm at the very least holds you to all legal risks associated with using a firearm without providing you with the capabilities to defend yourself if the firearm is actually necessary. This guy would have been better off, morally and legally speaking, with a baseball bat. As he was clearly unwilling and unable to use lethal force, he had no business using a firearm for self-defense. Being ready, willing, and able to use lethal force is a responsibility we all accept when we decide to keep firearms for self-defense. Even though most of us acknowledge that this is almost the worst case scenario, we accept the risk and that is what makes us legal, responsible gun owners. Those unwilling to accept these risks are best served pursuing other means to defend themselves.

It sucks that we live in a day and age where our fellow man often proves to be untrustworthy, and where charity and good-will are often taken as signs of weakness. But there is a difference between an act of kindness and an act of foolishness. This was clearly more of the latter.
 
MTMilitiaman said:
So most states will hold brandishing a firearm, even if it is unloaded, as brandishing a lethal weapon, at least by my understanding. Most states will hold you accountable if you shoot to wound an attacker for this same reason. This is because presenting a firearm is legally considered lethal force. If wounding or frightening an attacker is all that is required, many states will hold you legally accountable for escalating the situation with lethal force when it was not necessary. So presenting an unloaded firearm at the very least holds you to all legal risks associated with using a firearm without providing you with the capabilities to defend yourself if the firearm is actually necessary. This guy would have been better off, morally and legally speaking, with a baseball bat. As he was clearly unwilling and unable to use lethal force, he had no business using a firearm for self-defense. Being ready, willing, and able to use lethal force is a responsibility we all accept when we decide to keep firearms for self-defense. Even though most of us acknowledge that this is almost the worst case scenario, we accept the risk and that is what makes us legal, responsible gun owners. Those unwilling to accept these risks are best served pursuing other means to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure that I follow your reasoning here. If you shoot and wound an attacker, how are you liable in anyway? That is called self defense. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a baseball bat is considered a deadly weapon and you are justified to meet deadly force with deadly force.

You have every right to defend yourself while the attacker is still a threat. Now if you shoot the attacker after he a no longer a threat (he surrenders or is no longer physically capable of defending himself), that will most likely be manslaughter on your part. I'm not sure how the pharmacist will fare since he shot the attacker that was unarmed and already down on the ground. If the kid was still in possesion of a weapon and was attempting to use it, it would certainly be a justified shoot. We will have to wait and see.
 
Nice outcome, but personally I think its stupid to point an empty weapon towards a BG in such circumstances. Glad that no one got hurt.
Click to expand...
Nah. It was a Hi-Point carbine, which basically means at worst, it was bat against bat. I'd take those odds.:)
 
Sorry, but I'm not quite sure that I follow your reasoning here. If you shoot and wound an attacker, how are you liable in anyway?
Click to expand...

Not shoot and wound...

Shoot to wound.

If you shoot an attacker and wound him, but he ceases aggressive action towards you, that is fine.

If you shoot to intentionally wound or maim an attacker, then as was explained to me, many if not most states will still allow you to be held accountable legally and in civil court. The reasoning is that if shooting to wound was sufficient to stop aggression, then a firearm was not necessary at all, and therefore your use of a firearm escalated the situation. This as I recall from years ago in a 400-level law and government course I took back in college. I am not sure if I necessarily agree, but as was explained to me, legally if not ethically, you are better off aiming COM. If you only wound the guy because he is tough or you are a crappy shot, so-be-it, as long as you get him to stop aggression towards you. But the use of a firearm at all is considered lethal force. Aiming COM affirms that you reasonably thought you were in danger of grave bodily injury or death, and having no reasonable or applicable less-lethal means to defend yourself, you used lethal force to stop the assailant in the quickest and safest method at your disposal.

Might be a good question for Massad Ayoob, actually.
 
If you shoot to intentionally wound or maim an attacker, then as was explained to me, many if not most states will still allow you to be held accountable legally and in civil court. The reasoning is that if shooting to wound was sufficient to stop aggression, then a firearm was not necessary at all, and therefore your use of a firearm escalated the situation. This as I recall from years ago in a 400-level law and government course I took back in college.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it but a justified shoot is a justified shoot. If the attacker posed a real threat that would result in your death or serious injury, then you are justified to shoot (in the state of Florida). If you shoot the attacker and hit him in the leg, causing the attack to stop, that does not make it a "bad" shoot. If the attack stops and the attacker no longer poses a threat, then you are not justified to continue shooting. I guess that is why you always tell the officer that you were in fear for your life and that you shot to stop the attacker.

One other thing to think about is shooting "off center" to prevent taking a life does not seem like a chargable offense to me. Like I said, if the it was a justified shoot and the attack stopped, then it should be a good shoot.
 
Shoot to wound.
Click to expand...

Most law, in a self defense situation is quite clear, you as a reasonable person, on seeing a threat that would cause you death, or grievous injury, can use as much force as reasonably necessary, and again "up to, and including causing death" to stop that threat.

A bad end to shooting to wound comes from Israel, a young Army Officer, on leave, is awakened by neighbor, "there is a man, crazed, stabbing people in the market" he goes outside with his pistol (a BHP) the young soldier calls on the man, to drop the knife, he does not, and is shot in the leg, then the other leg (thigh? hard ball 9mm) by this time the distance is a mere 3 feet, and the soldier is stabbed to death.

Shooting to stop a threat, one you, the armed for self defense person sees as real! Shots to center of mass, repeated till the threat is no longer there, that is a valid, and legal response.

And let us face it, why would you shoot someone if your life was not in danger? or the life of some one under your care and protection.
 
Brit, nice story. Have a source? The only reason I ask is because it has all the earmarks of an internet myth. These earmarks include being a lesson learned tragic hero story with too much detail about the event without necessary detail to be able to actually research or identify it. In other words, we know the main actor was an army officer on leave and was asleep when awakened by his neighbor. We know he has a BHP and is shooting 9mm ball. We know the opposition is in the market stabbing people with a knife and ends up shot in each leg, the last time from a very specific distance away from the hero.

What we don't know is when this happened, where it happened, or the names of any of the participants.

The story may be true. I don't know. How it is presented, however, is in the form typical of internet myths.
 
Hi Double naught,

Sorry I can not be more specific, this was told to me by one of Station Chiefs of the Israeli Consulate in Toronto, not an Embassy, that was (and still is) in Ottawa.

I leased a Range for my classes, and in turn sub let to the El Al and Consular armed staff. The last time I was involved was 2003, otherwise I would not be mentioning this on a site such as this. No detail of their training was to be discussed, and no one, other than them, and I, knew the days they were down the range.

There must be more detail, but not known, or remembered by yours truly.

Is this a true event? I believe so, but have no facts to add.
 
Blindmandsbluff, while I don't agree with your language, I do agree with your point. I actually said something along those lines recently in the L&CR forums under the Assault Weapons Ban discussion.

Most of the people on this forum have never shot anyone or come close to having to shoot someone. Statistically, only a very small percentage of Americans ever had. So it stands to reason that an internet forum should follow suit as representative sample.

I agree that, often times, the pro-gun crowd is its own worst enemy. People being so preoccupied with the notion of killing someone gives all a bad name. Many of them have a point in that you must be prepared to use your gun if necessary. That is true. But, their delivery and choice of words often makes it sound like they are just looking for a reason to shoot someone, a task most people aren't psychologically prepared to handle as well as they might think.

Just so you feel better, I posed a question about obviously, mentally impaired people who have a history trying to harm themselves. The idea was that someone with a history of violence, toward one's self or others, and who is under the influence of a mind altering drug should have not have access to firearms. Most posters have been very insightful as to how we, as a nation, could or could not handle that in a Constitutionally sound way, but some people just screamed, basically, let the crazy folks have all the guns they want until they shoot someone. I'm just thinking, "Way to give the anti-gun folks some easy ammo, guys. Way to go."

In this case, of course its a great thing that the outcome is what it is!!! But, BMB, you're going to have to accept that not everyone is as reasonable and appreciate of human life as you or I or most of the people on this forum are. Most of us carry guns to protect that which hold so dear, life. Some want guns because they just want some excuse to go Jack Bauer on something.
 
robbery

robber come in store,clerk gives him the money he has her lay down in back room shoots her in back of head.manning sc may 2009.
two men enter house want money get money walk out one turns around an shoots home owner in face kills him sumpter sc june 2009.
in depresion men went all over country looking for work crime low.2009 crackheads go around robbing and killing.
good luck to you do gooders.:rolleyes:
 
Mind set vs Instinct

The mind set of shoot them all, and let God sort them out, is not that prevalent on the Firing Line.

Maybe a few, individuals who joined two months ago!

Mind set is a learned response, so to speak, instinct? well that is body operating on an instant open circuit, not a switch, but rather pressure behind a gate that causes the gate to open, but just as a pressure gate, more of a toggle than bolt pulling, a device that swivels, instant application of power.
 
They called it a shotgun??? Stupid reporters. That is a hipoint carbine, looks like a 9mm...

That is the same idiocy that makes everyone think that every AK47 style rifle is an "assault rifle". And helps nurture fear in the minds of the ignorant.

:barf:
 
A gun is, at its core, a tool for causing injury and death to whatever is on its recieving end. If you dont have ammo, your tool doesnt work, and theres no point using it
Click to expand...

Didn't work? Come on Zack. The empty shotgun induced a guy to surrender, become a begger, and convert to Islam. All that before leaving with enough money to buy a case of beer and go see Johnny Depps' new Dillinger movie complete with coke and popcorn, and have money left over.

And let's not forget the warm feeling left with the store owner, PLUS the promise never to rob anybody again.:D:cool:

Jeez, all that accomplished with an unloaded shotgun.:D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top