Shoot and Run, or Shoot Repeatedly?

G

gvf

Moderator
Read a suggestion I found interesting, both for legal and "distance-advantage" in self-defense incident requiring you to shoot: shoot once- any indication of pause/shock in perps activity - run like hell. I would add: shoot, run - turn after 3 or 4 sec., gun up, ready to go: if no pursuit or felon is down, keep running and repeat process while calling 911 until a good distance away (informing 911 where you are of course).

This seems to have distinct advantage over firing repeatedly: it's easy for a DA or other legal antagonist to paint your repeated shots as violating the basic purpose of legal, lethal self-D: only to stop and attack, not to kill. And a obvious question would be, "why didn't you stop shooting after the first shot to see if the attack had stopped, instead of hitting him three more times and killing him?" Running really paints the picture of a non-aggressive victim, just trying to survive - which is what we are in such an incident.

The other advantage would be immediate distance if there was a continuation, time to aim, to take evasive action, whatever, where 6' away leaves no time for such preparation.

This obviously would not be the way to go if perp's weapon was a gun. Too dicey and wounded people can still shoot, but any attack with any weapon in which perp needed to be phyiscally close to the victim to use it, seems like "shoot and run" might be a good move.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Avoid.....

Shoot to stop.....

Get to safety......

Call 911...........

To officer...." I was afraid for my life and I just tried to make him stop".

Shut up.

Call Lawyer.

That is all.
 
This is one of the situaton where there is not clear cut answer. You have to deal with each situation on it's own merits.

In some cases, people that have shot the attacker and then ran have come under fire for the fact that if running was an option why did they fire in the first place. In some instances it is better to not give the impression that flight was an option. Many prosecutors will use the fact that you fled after a first shot as a reason to say you should have fled first before firing if you were capable of fleeing on foot. They will argue that if running was an option, and you had chosen that option, the attacker may not have followed you.
 
Yes, I think you're right. On second thought, if we stick to the basic principles of self-defense so well put in this thread already, then we've done what we are legally and ethically supposed to do, and we can't monitor ourselves around what lawyers or DAs might or might not say about us. Hopefully if this awful event should occur, the truth will be there and will be accepted by authorities.
 
GVF I really did not mean to short shift your hypotheticals with such a short answer. This is what I have committed to memory which I hope I never need, but when all H___ breaks loose and I survive what the mind has conceived, practiced and committed might just save my tail.

I've just found on the forums lately an emphases on situations which are more of a reaction to an action that will never be exactly duplicated in real life. I realize there are others that love to [sincerely] play these games and I probably should just stick to my short list and not offer my opinion.

Please proceed with your thread.

Good shooting
 
No, not at all. Your post gave the basic principles to guide our actions, simple and understandable; and I think is a much better answer than multiple arguments about multiple hypothetical situations. In a crisis of any kind, we need simplicity.
 
I'm lucky in a way - I'm old and probably couldn't outrun a 3-legged turtle. Therefore I would have to shoot without pause until the threat was absolutely, positively, 100% for sure neutralized.
 
Shoot until the threat is over.

Just because you put a bullet into the bad guy and he drops doesn't mean he can't or won't get off a shot at your back.
 
SD situations are dynamic. Mowing the lawn is the same thing every time. Trees don't move and the grass doesn't duck. If SD were that easy, there'd be no training necessary.
 
Okay, let's analyze this a little bit.

There are two types of "retreat", if you will, in gun fight. The first type is to seek tactical advantage -- i.e. cover, concealment or simply distance to avoid being shot. The second type is a "tactical withdrawl" from the kill zone.

Let's suppose the who situation devolves from first contact. The aggressor points a firearm at you and states his intent to do something unlawful. Your reaction takes him off guard and you've fired one or two rounds.

I see four possible options here.
1. Remain standing and if your opponent continues to be a threat, you continue to shoot until he isn't a threat. You call 911 when the threat stops.

2. You move off your initial engagement point, laterally to your opponent and (ideally) at an angle away from him, firing until the threat is neutralized. You call 911 when the threat stops.

3. Your movement is to the nearest cover or concealment so you can more safely observe your opponent's reaction to your shots, defend yourself and call 911.

4. The "wings-on-my-feet" withdrawl from the scene, running around the nearest corner, down the block into a store, or across a parking lot to hide behind a building or substantial cover (from where you call 911).

The presumption here is that you fired before moving.

Options 3 & 4 may bring some grief from a prosecutor asking why you didn't retreat first or why you left the proximity to let your victim die or writhe in pain.

Accordingly, your answer should be something along the line of there didn't appear to be any time for me to run without getting a bullet in the back. I defended myself and immediately withdrew from the danger zone to seek protection from my assailant and to gain time to notify the authorities.

In options 1 & 2, the same prosecutor might ask why your assilant had five holes in him and you fired six times. The smart-alec answer is "I flinched" but the real reason is that the first shots didn't appear to stop the aggression and you ceased fire as soon as it appeared to you that his no longer posed a threat.
 
xrocket wrote;
Avoid.....

Shoot to stop.....

Get to safety......

Call 911...........

To officer...." I was afraid for my life and I just tried to make him stop".

Shut up.

Call Lawyer.

That is all.
Click to expand...

I agree and that's pretty much how I see it. The "avoid" thing to me means to stay out of sleazy places and areas where trouble is more likely to come. And to aviod confrontaions that can be avoided.
Here in Florida we are no longer required by law to retreat from a threat which is helpful but I wouldn't push my luck too far with it.
Also don't look like "food" to them. Appear alert and potentially tough.
 
Avoid.....

Shoot to stop.....

Get to safety......

Call 911...........

To officer...." I was afraid for my life and I just tried to make him stop".

Shut up.

Call Lawyer.

That is all.
Click to expand...

I think you listed Shut up a little late. I bet if you check with your lawyer, s/he will suggest not saying a word and request that you let s/he speak on your behalf.
 
... really.

How can you call 911 and not say anything at all?

Well, I suppose if you are a mute that might work.:) The point is two fold:

First call sets the stage for a defense as a victim not an aggressor and as you know the 911 recording will be reviewed and entered as evidence.

So what I said in as few words as possible is ....say as little as possible and call an attorney asap. Just makes sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top