Do you shoot again after you discombobulate your opponent

One thing is clear from all this. Self defense is not a simple issue. And no one has even mentioned the elephant in the room, race. Anywhere in the U.S., any shooting of a person of one race by a person of another race will be a big story no matter what the circumstances. Add the press antipathy to self defense and anyone claiming self defense may have serious problems in both the real court and the court of public opinion.

IMHO, the best course, if at all possible, is to avoid circumstances where the issue may arise. That does not mean you shouldn't carry a gun where it is legal or that you should not defend yourself and your family if necessary. But the best course is always to avoid trouble.

Jim
 
I would say blinding a full grown human being could even possibly make him more dangerous. Blinding someone doesn't remove them from the fight physically. Perhaps mentally it will from person to person. ie "well crap I cant see anymore best give up...."

But Physically he or she is still fully in control of their body. if hes blinded while running at you odds are he will still reach you. He can still stab shoot or swing. While it will be much harder for them to hurt you its still possible. The fact they cannot see could even increase aggression and desperation as instincts take over.

It would be hard to recommend to anyone that anything less then unmoving on the floor with hands visible (no weapon) would acceptable as compliance when you and your loved ones lives are on the line. This does not require the attacker to be killed but is often a byproduct. I would not recommend approaching them to render aid or check for life signs.

The trouble with this is convincing the court it was necessary which is tricky.
Widowed mom of three blinding a large male attacker...
Middle aged man blinding stupid teenager that broke in...

Which ones gonna make news?

We had a teen couple here attack a senior man with baseball bats. He responded with a firearm, resulting in both their deaths. Outcry was idiotic. Some guy on the news said and I quote "they were only baseball bats... why would you shoot them?" Like hes the villain.

Its all perception after the fact but during I guess I'd just say give it your all because you might not get another shot protecting your family if you give them the slightest edge...
 
JamesK wrote: And no one has even mentioned the elephant in the room, race. Anywhere in the U.S., any shooting of a person of one race by a person of another race will be a big story no matter what the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I strenuously disagree. In Los Angeles County we have Hispanic on Black / Black on Hispanic happen quite often and it NEVER makes the news other than "so and so was shot" in the daily bird cage liners. As long as it isn't White Man shoots "insert race, ethnicity, social orientation here" it is not a story. If White man shoots intruder it still isn't a story. Gang Banger shoots Gang Banger is something like a page G12 blurb. If you want to call me out on this go to LATIMES.com "Local / Crime" section and see the crime stats and stories. They even have a section for the murders this year to date! Currently at 122 as of this post.

I have been through the DA's meat grinder before. I would talk to the points from the perspective of BTDT but I have no desire to bandy words with attorneys that are not criminal defense specialists.
 
The race issue, while germane to how the press treats a story, is something we can do nothing about, and NOT a factor in the topic under discussion.

The only place race has in our current discussion is human vs animal, and its a tiny place, at that.
 
"The bad guy might recover completely. OR he might spend the rest of his days in a wheelchair. Either way, I don't give a rat's posterior how the rest of his life is lived, once he is stopped from hurting me or mine."

What if you made a mistake? Accidental deaths happen all the time. People make mistakes, especially when their adrenaline is surging. Would you still not give a rat's ass?
 
I would think intentionally blinding a burglar with birdshot is going way beyond self-defense. We don't have to maim the bad guys. They suffer the risk of death or serious wounding, even permanent disability like wheelchairs or amputation, but that's the luck of the shot placement, not a deliberate plan.
 
My big concern is that several of the strategies suggested in the initial question are essentially lower levels of force on the force continuum. A firearm is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. If you aren't justified in using deadly force, you shouldn't be using a firearm. If you are legally justified in using deadly force, that is a big clue that it is probably a bad idea to use lower levels of force.

The idea that you can shoot some mischevious urchins stealing your watermelons with rock salt is foggy thinking. You can kill someone like that. In most jurisdictions, that is still lethal force. You are using the wrong tool for the job. The opposite of that is the "I'm going to scare off the intruder making forcible entry into my occupied home" by using a gun but I don't want to do anything that might cause serious harm. That is someone who has the wrong mindset to be using a firearm in self-defense.
 
stayingsafe said:
"The bad guy might recover completely. OR he might spend the rest of his days in a wheelchair. Either way, I don't give a rat's posterior how the rest of his life is lived, once he is stopped from hurting me or mine."

What if you made a mistake? Accidental deaths happen all the time. People make mistakes, especially when their adrenaline is surging. Would you still not give a rat's ass?
Click to expand...

Please do not turn the conversation into something it is not. Comments have a context and it is disingenuous to remove them from it and make negative connotations. 44AMP is clearly speaking of a hypothetical scenario wherein someone who is actively and intentionally endangering his life or the life of some other innocent. The context and meaning of his comment is clear and it has no implication of any accidental shooting of an innocent.
 
Good grief...

If in imminent fear of grievous bodily harm to yourself or others -- and you cannot safely retreat (home excluded):

- Use the weapon most available/likely to immediately stop that threat
- A shotgun* is nice, but unwieldly in tight spaces
- A 22 pistol is not particularly effective in immedately stopping** an imminent threat, but may be all you have.
- Center mass aimpoint into whatever is exposed, repeated until the threat is neutralized***
- Never be so presumptuous as to shoot to wound/maim. If you are in imminent threat of another's use of deadly force, do not fool around****



* 00-Buck to slug preferably. But if a skeet load is all you have, that's all you have.
** Unless a CNS shot
*** Goes down, flees, drops his weapon and does not approach further, "is out of action" etc
**** This includes deliberate/pre-mediated blinding actions -- of whatever type/source/weapon -- unless that is all that is exposed to you
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top