Excessive Defense

webhead:

FyredUp, guess you don't watch South Park. It's just wrong to shoot someone in the groin. ;-)

And for shooting to kill versus shooting to stop a threat..... sounds like a PC statement that they teach. Also sounds better in court. But be real. How do you know the threat has been stopped? When it stops moving. A euphemism is the correct term but guess that's not PC either so now it's.... well....PC.
Click to expand...

Avid South Park fan. Butters and Kartman holding back the Chinese hourds. Butters manages to shoot everyone he shoots at in the nuts.

I guess I thought that getting shot in the groin would stop the average guy because he would worry that he was missing some parts from his fun factory.

Moreover, what I am getting from most posters here is double or triple tap to the chest. If it kills them the threat is stopped, if they go down, re-evaluate and if necessary shoot them some more. Seems logical to me. I am prepared to do what is necessary to protect myself and my loved ones. I would much prefer not to ever be put in that situation, but, if I am going to have the gun in my hand the decision to use it if necessary has already been made.
 
David: Excellent point. I think what juries may be considering is "defensive" as opposed to "offensive". Whaddya think?
Click to expand...
It's quite possible, but we should also remember that juries are not all the same. What impacts one jury as a big deal may not concern another, and how the DA presents the case will have some influence, and so on. But yes, I would think that something "offensive" in nature as opposed to "defensive" could certainly be problematic, and that goes beyond just the weapon.

May I respectfully suggest that people who are concerned about the legal issues concerning armed self-defense check out the following link, and read some of the back issues of our E-Journal.
Click to expand...
Another big plug for Marty and his group. I've got my network, attorney, support system, and so on well-developed over the years, but anyone who does not, or anyone who is not clear on legal issues, should take a long hard look at the Armed Citizens Network program. Seems like a very good and wise investment.
 
mskdgunman said:
Thats why cops (in our area at least) can't do the infamous "Warning shot" because any discharge of a weapon is considered deadly force whether or not you actually intended to kill the guy.
Click to expand...
Also, cops don't want to do the paperwork that would come with an action like a warning shot, whether they actually can or not. According to LEOs that I've talked to, they are accountable for every shot, and have to fill out paperwork for every shot they fire.
 
to clarify my instance the guy dropped after being shot twice, gun out of his hand now and well out of reach, so there was no threat. if he would have dropped and still had gun in his hand it would be different. but it explains the shoot till the threat is gone not shoot to kill. in my instance one gets you 3 days off with pay the other sends you to prison. pretty cut and dry
 
I'd like to know why 2 shots? Why not 1 or 3? And why did you shoot him mid chest? Isn't that the most lethal type of shot short of a head shot?

So you employed lethal force to stop the imminent threat. How? By shooting, in this case, 2 times to the chest. If he survived, I call that lucky. Sounds like the way to stop a lethal threat is to try to stop it from moving, heart included. Euphemism.

BTW, I'm glad you and your partner are fine.
 
Just depends where you live. In some states using anything other than the telephone to call the police is excessive and in others there is no such thing as excessive.
 
Double Tap

The term and practice of "double tap" came about due to the persistant issue of violent offenders not stopping with just one hit. Common physics dictates that in order for a projectile to hit with enough force to knock down an opponent it must leave the source with the same force (hence, knocking over the shooter). So to effect the same result without that issue at double tap is used: one to better the odds of a "stop" and two to better the odds of disabling said offender. Well, that is my two cents anyway. Oh, I am a former LEO.
 
To the OP's question, I will point out that a shotgun is normally a hunting weapon. I hunt deer occasionally with a rifle sighted shotgun, using buck shot. That gun is my first choice for self defense in my home. I know it functions, it is loaded with good ammo for the purpose, and it is not some tricked out tacticool gun for a DA or jury to get sidetracked over. Most likely any jury member who shoots will have a similar gun at home. It removes one of the emotional issues , and if the underlying shooting was justified, it makes a criminal trial unlikely. Here in Texas, that means a civil case is probably not going to fly either, under our version of castle doctrine.
 
webhead the two shot is just a coincidence, the bad guy went down immediatly (i guys a .40 slug against the spine does that sometimes). and your right the force you use does have a good chance of killing someone. i guess the best way for me to describe the difference is:

shoot to stop the threat=shoot knowing that your actions might very well kill the intended target but once he is unable to harm you and the threat is over your stop shooting, alive or dead.

shoot to kill=you shoot and keep shooting, if the threat remains or not, until you believe that the target is dead.

my opinion anyways. and thanks for the nod for the win.
 
But be real. How do you know the threat has been stopped? When it stops moving. A euphemism is the correct term but guess that's not PC either so now it's.... well....PC.
Click to expand...

There are actually laws, as Quinn points out, that govern the use of deadly force. I don't think shooting your assailant until he stops moving is part of that definition in any state I'm aware of. Once your attacker is no longer a threat to harm you ( even if he's still moving), further action on your part becomes a criminal act. And then there's those civil issues as well.

I think we need to look at things the way men and women on the jury will be instructed to look at things, rather than how we and our friends in Abe's Bar after work tend to see the issue.

Put another way, it's the way the law works, not our personal feelings.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
 
jt,

Take a look at http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm . Focus on Problem One first (living through the gunfight). THEN worry about Problem Two (any follow-on legal problems).

As far as hardware is concerned, if your local DA is the kind of creature that you have to worry about such esoterica, try to use the same things for self defense (within reason, of course) that your local LEOs do. Local cops carry Glock .40s loaded with hollowpoints? Remington 870 riot guns loaded with 00 buckshot? It will be harder for the DA to give you grief over using the same stuff "his guys" on the street are carrying.

JMHO, YMMV,

lpl
 
Good link and info Lee. The way I read it, it sounds like 15 shots with a .22 is more excessive than 1 with a 12ga. Which makes sense because I hope it wouldn't take 15 shots to reduce the level of an attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top