Crowded areas

[briandg]

I'd love to hear the definition of "the rest of us".

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Facts, As "I" Know them.
1. man is berating 2 girls
2. 3 men speak up for the girls (what was said exactly I don't know)
3. Irate man turns attention to 3 men, stabs all 3, 2 die.
4. man is confronted by police with knife in hand, at some point he gives up and is arrested...

Those are the facts as you know them now, in hindsight. The question is what did the observer present during the incident understand about what was happening. They are not the same thing.

There are many studies of the effects of stress on perception, understanding, and decision making, including:

• "Judgment and Decision Making Under Stress";
  
  
• "Stress and Cognition";
  
  
• "The Distortion of Perceptual Space-Time Under Stress";
  
  
• "Perceptual and Memory Distortion During Officer-Involved Shootings";
  
  
• "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony."

So someone involved in a high stress incident might not at the time fully and accurately understand what is happening. Stress distorts perception and affects decision making.

...People are quite capable of understanding what they see and hear....

No, as discussed in the studies linked to above that is not necessarily.

...Actually in my state I can intervene when ever I want.. it's called defense of other.. as long as the person im defending would have been lawful to use deadly force I can do so in their place....

But do you know, as the critical incident is unfolding that the person to whose defense you come could have used lethal force in his own defense. For example, if he was the original aggressor he generally could not lawfully defend himself using lethal force.

These sorts of mistakes do happen. For example:

• an undercover police officer holding at gunpoint a criminal he had just apprehended was mistaken shot and killed by responding officers;
  
  
• an undercover police officer was mistakenly shot by his boss during an operation;
  
  
• an armed citizen attempting to stop a carjacking shot and killed the victim instead of the bad guy.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Those are the facts as you know them now, in hindsight.

Well If I was one of the 3 men Killed Im fairly certain I'd already have knowledge of these facts.. it's not hindsight.

Unlike many stories the media reports this one solidified fairly quickly and has not changed far as I can tell.

Look.. this thread was started with this incident in mind.
If you're gonna pull the "well you wasn't there" card then there is really no point since I doubt anyone on this board was in that train car.

All we can do is either kill the thread or talk about it based on commonly agreed "facts".

What other use would you purpose for this thread?

But do you know, as the critical incident is unfolding that the person to whose defense you come could have used lethal force in his own defense. For example, if he was the original aggressor he generally could not lawfully defend himself using lethal force.

I already covered this.

...Actually in my state I can intervene when ever I want.. it's called defense of other.. as long as the person im defending would have been lawful to use deadly force I can do so in their place....

Im not suggesting people go patrol to make arrests.. and Im not suggesting you get involve in situations you don't know the circumstances of.

Although I would add that in some cases you need not know the full circumstances.. EX: 2 men fist fighting.. guy A is defending him self from guy B, guy A knocks B to the ground.. but does not stop, instead guy A continues to punch and kick guy B.. Guy B started the fight but now Guy A is in the wrong.. self defense ended once Guy B hit the ground and Guy A's continued attack has now turned into Guy A assaulting Guy B.
(NO IM NOT SUGGESTING IN THIS SITUATION YOU PULL OUT YOUR GUN AND SHOOT THE MAN IM JUST USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE)


I would not be to worried about being shot on sight.. they arrested this guy ON THE STREET after supposedly killing 2 and wounding another.
not to mention he had a knife in his hand when they caught up with him.

But more then that it's obvious there was no police presence there in the car or it would not have ended the way it did.

I think it's reasonable to assume at least those within the vicinity of the man in the train car with the knife knew what was going on.. I don't think he was whispering and im almost positive the 3 men stabbed knew what was going on.. but maybe not.. perhaps they where all deaf, blind, or had mental deficiencies that did not allow them to process what was happening even as the man stabbed them to death with the knife.

But mostly I think it's peoples blanket excuse to do nothing and rationalize their choices.

Anyway im never gonna convince you, Thats fine.
I think If I threw you in a speeding metal box with a guy stabbing people I think you would quickly change your mind.. especially once you're next on the list.
But I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Stay safe.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Look.. this thread was started with this incident in mind.
If you're gonna pull the "well you wasn't there" card then there is really no point since I doubt anyone on this board was in that train car.

All we can do is either kill the thread or talk about it based on commonly agreed "facts".....

You really don't get it, but I'm not surprised.

Look at the OP again:

...I'm trying to imagine being in a crowded, sardine can-like environment where nobody is sure what's happening, people are screaming, someone is bleeding, nobody's sure what's happening next--and then someone pulls out their CCW....

This issue is responding to a chaotic situation. Deciding after the fact, when the details of the incident are known what could have been done is easy. What is tough is dealing with chaos while in its midst. And that is always the real consideration.

That's why we do force-on-force and simulator training and things like IDPA or USPSA competition -- to practice dealing with rapidly unfolding, dynamic situations under stress.

But do you know, as the critical incident is unfolding that the person to whose defense you come could have used lethal force in his own defense. For example, if he was the original aggressor he generally could not lawfully defend himself using lethal force.

I already covered this.

...Actually in my state I can intervene when ever I want.. it's called defense of other.. as long as the person im defending would have been lawful to use deadly force I can do so in their place....

And again you completely miss the point. The law in every State allows intervention with lethal force in defense of another if that person could have used lethal force to defend himself. There's nothing complicated or obscure about the rule. It's simple and straightforward.

The issue is how can you be certain that the person to whose aid you come would be justified in using lethal force to defend himself. Knowing that is the tricky part. If you're mistaken you might well be going to jail for a long time. You will also have come to the aid of a criminal and have shot an innocent person. No one is going to be giving you the key to the city for doing that.

...I think it's reasonable to assume at least those within the vicinity of the man in the train car with the knife knew what was going on....

Of course you think that. But apparently you really don't understand much about how stress can affect perception and understanding. It's entirely possible that folks near the action would not know what was going on. And mistakes assessing chaotic, stressful situations do happen.

 

[Lohman446]

The issue here is we are not discussing putting shots on paper at a range. I think the "ease" with which the shot can be made alone is being overstated. We are talking a shot on a moving and less then stable platform against a moving target with moving interference around the target and a likelihood of the shooter being jostled by retreating interference. That alone is a difficult shot.

Further we are talking the ability to discern the victim from the attacker. We are not even, after the fact with cool heads, 100% certain that the victims in this case did not initiate contact though the argument is said initiation was justifiable.

Add to it that even if one is able to discern these things and make the shot without collateral damage he or she then has to be able to not escalate the panic in the situation after making the shot in a crowded tin can. I am certain that shot is going to be loud.

Further one has to be able to make the shot, avoid collateral damage, discern the correct target, and avoid being targeted by other individuals responding who are likely to see the shooter and three injured individuals on the ground.

My answer to that is: Nope. Not gonna do it if other options are present. I have already made the decision that there are too many things that can go wrong in the scenario and given the option of safe retreat or sheltering in my place for myself and my family we are taking one of those options. Should I or one of my family members be targeted in a way that safe retreat or shelter is not possible the list of concerns above goes out the window. Having made the decision MAY be crucial in surviving the situation as it prevents me from having to make the decision under stress.

 

[briandg]

Frank, what you are saying about perception, especially perception under stress touches on one of the most important issues in criminal justice, imo. Mistaken perception. It runs all the way to the bottom, all the way to final vote.

A totally bogus scenario..

guy at mall says something offensive about the local lacrosse team, other guy punches him in front of ten eyewitnesses.

Man who used offensive words gets upper hand, has his attacker in joint lock, attacker has a a high bac, and he is screaming like a little girl with a snake in her hair.

Enter Joe average. He sees a chrome plated mini baton in hands of one guy, other is on the ground babbling "DONT KILL ME!" Joe average is carrying a "big bang model 52 in 88 magnum with four inch ported barrel, fifteen count double stack magazine in a grab-it-good nylon holster with four back up clips".

Joe average yells DROP THE KNIFE,YOU LOUSY PIECE OF RAT EXCREMENT!" Nobody has a clue. Guy with baton ignores him, and when guy raises his hand with baton (so he can release his attacker, Joe average dumps an e entire magazine into him because he failed to comply and was about to murder the guy on the ground.

You got a dead guy who can't tell his story because he's deadc. You got another who has a .16 bac, who can't remember, so he just makes something up and blames the dead guy. Out of The ten witnesses who heard the attacker screaming unintelligible, saw from ten different angles, and only one was standing next to his friend, the lacrosse fan, and he lies too.

The case is dependent on two liars, several traumatized witnesses who saw nothing useful, and Joe average walks after an incredibly stupid shooting.

Eyewitnesses have been found to be literally useless in many, maybe most criminal cases. .stress tunnels their mind into small details. Joe average sees only part of it, and will always know and act on part of reality.

The time is coming when lots of eyewitness testimony isn't even going to make it into court, because juries will stop believing it.

And as you say, at every step, every second, stress causes both the man with the gun and the witnesses to lose sight of important parts of the narrative. But the arrogance and unfounded self confidence that people have will push them into doing and saying stupid things.

This event may even end in riots that injure hundreds and cause millions of dollars in damages, all because Joe average mistook a chrome drop for a great big knife. I don't really trust anyone anymore.

 

[Lohman446]

...I think it's reasonable to assume at least those within the vicinity of the man in the train car with the knife knew what was going on....

While I understand there are some issues that indicate the victims in the train stabbing were acting in good faith to attempt to calm down a situation I have read at least one account indicating that one of the victims may have initiated physical contact.

 

[JoeSixpack]

You really don't get it, but I'm not surprised.

Look at the OP again:

​

This issue is responding to a chaotic situation. Deciding after the fact, when the details of the incident are known what could have been done is easy. What is tough is dealing with chaos while in its midst. And that is always the real consideration.

Ok well I'll give you that either I did not read the op and jumped in or I made it my own.
Obviously the thread was started with the Oregon incident in mind.. but if I take the scenario strictly as the op put forward then it's pretty simple.

Nothing.. you do nothing except deal with any threats directed at you.

If it's chaotic then you can not get a clear shot.. and I doubt even a clear view of the person with the gun.. unless you're standing very close in which case you probably already know they did not cause the blood.
Someone is bleeding, are they on the ground? sitting down? standing? cant they talk?

I didn't hear a shot so what ever caused it probably was not a gun anyway.
I can see bloody victim and potential gunmen but this place is "sardine can-like environment" crowded?
I don't know about you but I've been in crowds before and after you get about 3 deep it becomes almost impossible to see whats going on up ahead unless you're tall enough to see over the people in front of you.

The only thing you could do at that point is deal with threats in your vicinity.
You can't have a chaotic crowded space and still be able to see everything the op wants you to see to make a decision on how to act.

In situations like that your threat zone has to shrink to something manageable.
But lets say for the sake of argument I can clearly observe this CCW'er.. Like I said.. I heard no shot.. and where ever this blood is or came from happen before he drew his gun.. so I'd watch his body language. But I don't think he'd be my primary concern.

Tell you a mental exercise I sometimes do is a gunmen in walmart.
In Ohio (and this stat is probably out of date) last I read I think we have nearly 600k CHL holders here, adult population ratio breaks down to like 1:20
So that means there is a VERY good chance that im not the only one carrying in a large store like walmart at any given time.

A man comes in and starts shooting at random people, I ASSUME another GG w/ Gun is going to show up so I can't just go into "kill anything with a gun" mode.

I have to anticipate recognizing and maybe even working with strangers.
Are they taking cover behind displays? rifle or handgun?
What's their body language are they at a low ready? are they aiming it at people at random? Which direction are they facing?

The gun men is likely not taking cover, probably has a long gun, and most likely walking thru the place like they own it because they expect minimal resistance, it's a shooting gallery for them.

Good Guys are pretty much never going to have a longun, CHL's only cover handguns in this state and I have NEVER seen someone OC'ing a rifle outside of rallies.

The gunmen is likely moving from one end to the other clearing the store, or perhaps pacing the exits, innocent people, CHL holders included are probably facing the direction of the gunfire as they take cover, If they have not already found an exit.

At this point you're probably wondering walmart has to do with the OP, and it's simple, you need to recognize a threat.. just having a gun does not = bad guy.

Anti-Gunners use that sort of logic to try and combat CC laws saying one person will pull out a gun and then everyone else will and the place will turn into a blood bath.. I can't say that has never happen but I've never heard of it happening if it did.
So even the untrained masses seem to be able to control them selves enough to avoid this situation.. or maybe we just don't have enough carriers yet to fully test.
.. Then again Florida has well over a million I think so It seems like something should have popped up by now.

Anyway back to OP.

I can't shot thru this crowd of bodies.. and I would not even draw my gun until I had a clear shot, Pulling out a gun in a elbow to elbow chaotic crowd, good chance im gonna be subdued by 1 or 2 people (similar to the Gabrielle Gifford shooting) and the crowd is probably gonna win any physical struggle.

That's why we do force-on-force and simulator training and things like IDPA or USPSA competition -- to practice dealing with rapidly unfolding, dynamic situations under stress.

Forgive me for my ignorance, I don't shoot comp., But all the videos I've seen of people shooting things like IDPA it's either all targets, or perhaps hostage.. or targets clearly marked friendly.. But usually just all targets & cover.

How does that help you identify a friendly chl, off duty, or plain clothes cop?
Im not accusing, Im genuinely curious.

And again you completely miss the point. The law in every State allows intervention with lethal force in defense of another if that person could have used lethal force to defend himself. There's nothing complicated or obscure about the rule. It's simple and straightforward.

I thought so too, I guess we agree on something so why do you keep going back to that well when I already stated it?

The issue is how can you be certain that the person to whose aid you come would be justified in using lethal force to defend himself. Knowing that is the tricky part. If you're mistaken you might well be going to jail for a long time. You will also have come to the aid of a criminal and have shot an innocent person. No one is going to be giving you the key to the city for doing that.

Already acknowledged this as well.. are you my echo?

Of course you think that. But apparently you really don't understand much about how stress can affect perception and understanding. It's entirely possible that folks near the action would not know what was going on. And mistakes assessing chaotic, stressful situations do happen.

LOL Ok, I've seen enough street fights and other nasty things to know whats happening if I was near enough to actually see it unfold.
There is nothing wrong with my perception "stress" or not.
And it's been my experience that others have no problem with it either, Assuming they was close enough to have actually seen the situation unfold.

In Oregon the guy was loud and ranting.. I think he would have had most peoples attention already.. But I know I know we're not really talking about Oregon we're talking about the OP's scenario.

I will give it to you, in the op's scenario a person is just suddenly bleeding with no explicable reason.. but apparently im just close enough in this "sardine can-like environment" to see what's going on clearly but not actually close enough to do anything or even understand what Im seeing.

The far more likely scenario in a "sardine can-like environment" is I neither see the bloody person or the guy with the gun in which case I deal with threats in my vicinity and not half a car over from me which I can't get to, see, or deal with even if I wanted to.

Reminds me of a situation at red-white-boom here in Ohio couple years ago I was down at the bridge where they let the fireworks off (downtown Columbus)

I was near a vendor, suddenly the crowd started running like an impromptu 30 meter dash or something.

This was not a sardine can-like environment for me, It WAS down in the crowd but I had options.
Honestly I was thinking either gunmen or bomb.. or zombies the way the crowd was running.

I just hung back and prepared to take cover behind the snack shack if needed.

Turns out it was just 2 guys fist fighting, Point is I was too far away to know what was going on and until the crowd parted I couldn't see a damn thing.
But they sure knew what was going on down there cause the crowd moved like a herd of buffalo, we're talking probably 50-60 people deep and about 4-5 lanes of road wide.

 

[Ton]

Adrenaline will reduce your fine motor skills, But it does not reduce you to the level of a falling down sloppy drunk like some seem to imply.

It's not going to take your normally tight groups on paper and opening them up by a few feet.

There's a big difference between a "normal" adrenaline rush and an acute stress response. And the latter very well may do those things in addition to fogging your memory, reducing your vision and your hearing, and causing you to urinate on yourself, among other things.

Here's an excellent example https://www.policeone.com/police-pr...cers-cleared-in-shooting-case-video-released/.

0:01 - 0:34 is probably a typical adrenaline rush. 0:35 - 2:00 is definitely an acute stress response, or a "fight or flight" reaction. Say what you want about the Officer here, he dumped an entire AR mag in a residential neighborhood and apparently didn't disable the gunman, but unless you've been there, you just haven't been there. There is no amount or type of training that is going to be able to realistically replicate that type of stress.

That being said, if you really wanted to recreate this scenario with the most realistic stress that can be had in training, I'd recommend the following: Find a way to get your hands on a shock knife and a sim gun. Get a few people together. Your aggressor gets to wear the maximum amount of protective clothing (helmet, mask, padding, vests, gloves), your CCW carrier and your victims get minimal protective clothing (safety glasses or just a mask). Your CCW holder gets absolutely no heads up on what is going to happen, just that he/she is in a force on force scenario. Have them enter the room and go live. Brief argument followed by fighting and slicing. If your CCW holder reacts perfectly, there will be a minimum amount of pain experienced by your victims. If he finds in difficult to make a decision or make accurate shots with the movement, your victims are probably going to end up with some nasty bleeding welts, some burn makes from the shock knife, and a poor yelp review of their hero.

 

[JoeSixpack]

There's a big difference between a "normal" adrenaline rush and an acute stress response. And the latter very well may do those things in addition to fogging your memory, reducing your vision and your hearing, and causing you to urinate on yourself, among other things.

Im not gonna say some people dont simply crumble.. most won't if it was the majority we would not have such high success rates of SD with guns by ordinary mortals... and I will reiterate that stress and adrenaline is often overstated in these discussions.
I kinda already touched on hearing loss & vision changes.

you just haven't been there.

have you? and if you have should we take it as anything other then anecdotal since perhaps you didn't piss your self?

There is no amount or type of training that is going to be able to realistically replicate that type of stress.

Agreed

That being said, if you really wanted to recreate this scenario with the most realistic stress that can be had in training, I'd recommend the following: Find a way to get your hands on a shock knife and a sim gun. Get a few people together. Your aggressor gets to wear the maximum amount of protective clothing (helmet, mask, padding, vests, gloves), your CCW carrier and your victims get minimal protective clothing (safety glasses or just a mask). Your CCW holder gets absolutely no heads up on what is going to happen, just that he/she is in a force on force scenario. Have them enter the room and go live. Brief argument followed by fighting and slicing. If your CCW holder reacts perfectly, there will be a minimum amount of pain experienced by your victims. If he finds in difficult to make a decision or make accurate shots with the movement, your victims are probably going to end up with some nasty bleeding welts, some burn makes from the shock knife, and a poor yelp review of their hero.

Won't work, didn't you just say no training will simulate? I agreed with that.
You know you're walking into this situation.. it's much different when it spontaneously happens.

 

[Ton]

have you? and if you have should we take it as anything other then anecdotal since perhaps you didn't piss your self?

Have I had a string of rifle rounds blow up the taillight of a Tahoe I was trying to take cover behind? Nope. Have I pissed myself a little bit in a critical stress incident, performed below what I would have expected of myself, and rewatched my body camera video over and over again trying to bridge gaps in my memory and figure out how things went so sideways and why I did what I did? Yeah, I have. Do I care to share the specifics of these experiences? Nope, I enjoy my career, my finances, and my freedom.

And as far as the training goes, no, I clearly stated nothing can realistically replicate a deadly force scenario. It is much different when it happens spontaneously, people perform worse. But it's as close as you could ever get, and if you put your money where your mouth is, put it together, and tried it, you'd learn some things about yourself that no amount of bickering on the internet can teach you. Of course, it's easier to dismiss that it "won't work".

If you do it, post a video. We'd love to see it.

 

[Don Fischer]

I've never been in LE but I know what I'd like to think I'd do. Leave the concealed weapon where it is until you have a clear shot! You pull it out and can't use it you are only showing the bad guy's where the guns are. You might be surprised at how much even a worse position the bad guy might take. Now, one thing that might make me hesitate if I am not threatened. I've read to much about how the guy with the CCW take's some bad guy out and save's live's only to lose everything he has when the bad guy's family sue's him. Win or lose, it'll cost a fortune.

 

[briandg]

That's why I divorced my wife and transferred all of my assets to her when I started packing Li'l Abner everywhere I went. I still may lose everything if I make her mad enough, but hopefully I won't lose it to a bad guy's family.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Have I had a string of rifle rounds blow up the taillight of a Tahoe I was trying to take cover behind? Nope.

Just in case that ever does happen to you, Should really take cover behind the engine block, nothing else in a production vehicle will protect you, even a lowly 9mm will go thru both doors.. anything other than the engine block is just concealment.

Have I pissed myself a little bit in a critical stress incident,

I respect your honesty.

performed below what I would have expected of myself, and rewatched my body camera video over and over again trying to bridge gaps in my memory and figure out how things went so sideways and why I did what I did? Yeah, I have.

Very understandable, Things happen fast there's always plenty of time afterwards to beat your self up & 2nd guess.

Do I care to share the specifics of these experiences? Nope, I enjoy my career, my finances, and my freedom.

Not even sure how to take that.. But I think I know what you mean, ok moving on.

And as far as the training goes, no, I clearly stated nothing can realistically replicate a deadly force scenario. It is much different when it happens spontaneously, people perform worse. But it's as close as you could ever get, and if you put your money where your mouth is, put it together, and tried it, you'd learn some things about yourself that no amount of bickering on the internet can teach you. Of course, it's easier to dismiss that it "won't work".

I simply meant it will never work to simulate the real thing.. we both agreed so not sure what the problem is here, shooting paper at the range is nothing like shooting at a human moving target either but we recognize it as better than nothing.

The effects of stress is not really what I debate, I already listed some of the effects, many I have felt personally.
My previous points was most people are not going to crumble to the point where they can't move, can't act, can't comprehend what they are seeing (even if they don't know how to deal with it)

The effects are often so overstated in these discussions as to turn perfectly sober people into 2am drunks.

That's what I take with issue.

We're constantly hearing about people who have zero experience with guns defending them selves, Im reminded of one incident I hear about a year back (i think) of a housewife who used a 38 revolver (not sure if it was 5 or 6 shot) on a burglar..

100% hit rate, granted we're talking she was probably 5-6 feet away but most shootings are close range anyway..

If the effects of stress and adrenaline was really so pronounce as some make it out to be we would not hear of so many success stores by ordinary people.

So I hope you can understand my point on this.

If you do it, post a video. We'd love to see it.

Ya I'll get right on it

 

[Lohman446]

If the effects of stress and adrenaline was really so pronounce as some make it out to be we would not hear of so many success stores by ordinary people.

If we are remembering the same incident (as reported in the media) the housewife retreated, I believe with a child, into either the attic or closet. Faced with a burglar who continued she fired 5 or 6 shots into the advancing threat who retreated and then attempted to drive himself to the hospital.

Be that as it may we are not discussing the defender who has no reasonable option of retreat left. For me this discussion centers around the premeditated decision to advance against a threat versus a perceived safe retreat. Some CCW holders believe that they should "run in when everyone else is running out" to borrow a phrase from first responders. I am not of that persuasion and would argue in the case being discussed that it is unlikely for a CCW holder to actually make the situation better and there is plenty of opportunity to make it worse and / or present said CCW to further dangers (a police response, a response of another CCW holder, criminal or civil liability).

Personally I believe these decisions are best made in advance. The armed citizen who defends him or herself when given no option is not necessarily relevant to the discussion in regards to that decision and serves only as an aside that not "all hope is lost". Those of us who carry guns, even if we do not advocate aggressive action in the situation being discussed, carry them because "we would rather have them and not need them then not have them and need them." Many if not most of those citizen defending themselves situations come into the no other option category

 

[OldMarksman]

We're constantly hearing about people who have zero experience with guns defending them selves, ...

Constantly? No.

...Im reminded of one incident I hear about a year back (i think) of a housewife who used a 38 revolver (not sure if it was 5 or 6 shot) on a burglar..

100% hit rate, granted we're talking she was probably 5-6 feet away but most shootings are close range anyway..

One incident.

If the effects of stress and adrenaline was really so pronounce as some make it out to be we would not hear of so many success stores by ordinary people.

How many incidents do not turn out well?

 

[Lohman446]

We're constantly hearing about people who have zero experience with guns defending them selves

OldMarksman did question this first so I won't take credit but he has a point. People with zero experience with guns don't often have a loaded firearm laying around ready to go when they need it.

 

[JoeSixpack]

If we are remembering the same incident (as reported in the media) the housewife retreated, I believe with a child, into either the attic or closet. Faced with a burglar who continued she fired 5 or 6 shots into the advancing threat who retreated and then attempted to drive himself to the hospital.

Sounds like we're remembering the same story.
After she emptied the gun he told her "please stop"
He then left and got in his truck which was found wrecked off the road a few blocks away with him inside, I don't recall if he lived or died.

Be that as it may we are not discussing the defender who has no reasonable option of retreat left. For me this discussion centers around the premeditated decision to advance against a threat versus a perceived safe retreat.

That's fine the story was just to point out people with no or limited exp successfully defend them selves without crumbling into a ball, firing 3 feet wide groups at close range, etc etc.. Im sure the women was scared and yes it was close range but so are most SD shootings, she landed 100% not sure if that was 5 or 6 but I do remember she landed all of them on him... where exactly I don't know but still.

Some CCW holders believe that they should "run in when everyone else is running out" to borrow a phrase from first responders. I am not of that persuasion and would argue in the case being discussed that it is unlikely for a CCW holder to actually make the situation better and there is plenty of opportunity to make it worse and / or present said CCW to further dangers (a police response, a response of another CCW holder, criminal or civil liability).

I would not necessarily advocate running "IN" to a situation you have no idea what's going on.
But If I clearly could see what was going on then I would not turn a blind eye if I could help.

The counter argument to that is that you can somehow be both paying attention and be in close proximity to an incident and simply not be able to comprehend what you're seeing because of "stress" I reject that assortment in all but the most extreme cases and of a minority of individuals.

I don't really know what make of the op's scenario since it sounds like it's too crowded to actually see anything (sardine can environment) contrary though we're suppose to see a potential gunmen and a bloody victim.. which seems to me to send mixed messages on the level of occupancy.

Personally I believe these decisions are best made in advance.

I agree whole heatedly on this.
IMO successfully defending your self is going to be about 90% mental and 10% skill.. yes long and/or precise shots require a certain level of skill.
Most SD situations are not long or precise.

It's impossible to pre-decide for every scenario.. or hell maybe for ANY scenario.
I think mental what-if exercises help.
But fundamentally it boils down to a single question.. could you shoot and potentially kill another human being?

I think this question needs to be asked and with self reflection honestly answered before ever carrying a gun.

The WILL to use the gun is the majority of the equation.

The armed citizen who defends him or herself when given no option is not necessarily relevant to the discussion in regards to that decision and serves only as an aside that not "all hope is lost". Those of us who carry guns, even if we do not advocate aggressive action in the situation being discussed, carry them because "we would rather have them and not need them then not have them and need them." Many if not most of those citizen defending themselves situations come into the no other option category

That's fine, That old saying, vote your conscious.. well to twist it a bit I'd say do what your conscious allows.

Armed or not I would help when ever I can that does not mean certain death for my self.
I try to do good deeds when I can, Because I treat people the way I would hope to be treated.
If I was in trouble I would hope someone would help me.

OldMarksman did question this first so I won't take credit but he has a point. People with zero experience with guns don't often have a loaded firearm laying around ready to go when they need it.

Well if we're both remembering the same story, and I am remembering it correctly the revolver was left for the wife by the husband.
Im sure there are many households with loaded guns where the person who ends up using it is not the one who loaded it.

How many times has a man pushed a gun onto a woman because they think it will keep them safe even though they have no interest in guns?

Constantly? No.
One incident.
How many incidents do not turn out well?

I would submit that many carriers aren't even gun people and have limited exp.
How many out there do not even carry regularly let alone practice?

It's once incident I listed, did you wan the world's historical record of self defense shootings?
I do think there are a few sites that track such shootings.. or at least ones that make the news.
I am not gonna bust my hump looking for them but I will take a gander later and see if I can hunt a few down for you.

I do not know how many do not turn out well.. I call tell you it's fewer then the ones that do.. but hard numbers? records? sorry I don't have those figures.. maybe you can find them and share cause it would be interesting to know the hard numbers.

 

[Lohman446]

I would submit that many carriers aren't even gun people and have limited exp

This is probably true depending on how one defines experience and "gun people". It may even apply to armed police officers. Many officers have the bare minimum in regards to training required by law and qualify, at best, on a yearly basis. Certainly many users on this forum are more qualified then the average officer.

I agree it is impossible to predetermine your exact actions but it is possible to prioritize. For instance I prioritize retreat assuming that the perception of that retreat is not an increase in danger and violence only as an absolute last resort. My delay to violence may actually be to the point of being a tactical fault but I have made peace with that. I have also made peace with my conscious and the concept of allowing "innocent and helpless" to fend for themselves though I do make the exception in my mind for children

 

[ShootistPRS]

Working through different scenarios in your mind, like active day dreaming can go a long way to influence your learned behavior. Being able to see the threat, before it is deadly and knowing how to avoid what might be coming next or what you will do if things go south and you need to act to save your life can help diminish the adrenalin rush and acting is always better than reacting.
Your mind is a great tool when combined with physical work towards the same goal. The ones who don't believe it will happen to them are the ones that will be in defensive reaction mode. Those are the people who don't perform well.If instead of saying, "it will never happen to me" you ponder on it to see what your options would be. Live through it a few times in your mind trying different things until you are confident that if, when, it does happen it won't be a complete surprise.