Shot Placement vs Effective Threat Stoppage

Here is an alternate term with similar results: "shooting center mass". Center mass is the center of what you can see. If a bad guy is partially covered, you shoot at the center of the part that isn't covered. If he is totally exposed, that happens to be the middle of chest. If he is wearing a vest or on drugs, center mass becomes the center of the pelvic girdle or center of the head (whatever failure drill you chose) after you realize the initial rounds didn't work as intended.

You shoot center mass because that is where you were trained to put your rounds to avoid missing the target AND it is the biggest part of the target.
Think of how that would sound when asked by pros. attorney, cops, media, etc. I pointed my weapon at the suspect, he failed to comply with my instructions/warning, I was scared for my life, etc., I fired (x) rounds at the center of his shirt and he went down.
 
As far as CPR goes, you have no legal obligation to do so, and it could be construed as you trying to tamper with a crime scene. And yes,it'll be considered a crime scene until you are either found guilty, or justified in your shooting. Also in this day and age when life threatening diseases run rampant, you have a right to refuse to render any aid to someone who is bleeding. A person can now be brought up on charges for spitting on another person. Assualt with bodily fluids.


As already posted, shoot to stop the threat, when it no longer exists you must not fire again, or you become the antagonist, and will be charged as such.
 
In the aftermath of a SD shooting it could be advisable to be attempting CPR on the incapacitated BG.

I know there is considerable angst over attempting to save someone who was trying to kill you a few moments before but the law will see it in a decidedly positive light.
Click to expand...

Of course, you run the risk of still being killed by the bad guy by exposing yourself to a biohazard for which you are probably not properly equipped to shield yourself at that moment.

Besides, how do you stay on guard against possible accomplices if you are giving CPR?

As far as CPR goes, you have no legal obligation to do so, and it could be construed as you trying to tamper with a crime scene. And yes,it'll be considered a crime scene until you are either found guilty, or justified in your shooting.
Click to expand...

While you have no obligation to render aid and while it may be a crime scene, can you cite any cases where attempts to render actual aid were construed as tampering with a crime scene? Don't be silly here.
 
peetzakilla
In the aftermath of a SD shooting it could be advisable to be attempting CPR on the incapacitated BG.
Click to expand...

That would be an extremely stupid thing to do.

1) CPR is a waste of time for almost any gunshot wound.

2) You'd be exposing yourself to AIDS and Hepatitis

3) You'd be exposing yourself to any residual threat from the guy you just shot and or his accomplices.

4) You would probably actually make his medical condition worse if you started working on him without knowing what you're doing (which trying to perform CPR would seem to indicate)

5) If, by some chance, you are able to render effective first aid, helping him to survive means that your time and weapon will be tied up for months or a year or more waiting for the case to clear.

6) If he survives you are opening yourself up to allegations of vigilanteeism or himand his family/gang/friends coming after you for revenge.

In my sister's situation, the guy lived and it took a year for him to go to court (there was never any doubt that she was justified in shooting). Her full name and address were given to the carjacker as part of disclosure, and she lived in fear for monthes until she finally moved and changed jobs.

Throughout the trial, his lawyer referred to her as the shooter and him as the victim. The prosecuters were isiots and his lawyer was a very competent anti gun attorny working pro bono. He was acquitted and released and was back in jail a few months later. She never got her pistol back, it was lost/stolen while in the evidence room. The stress from the court appearances and lack of closure was worse than the experience of shooting the carjacker and contributed to her divorce.

All this happenned in New Orleans if that helps explain the extreme results.

If she just would have killed the guy she would have been much better off.
 
Last edited:
If she just would have killed the guy she would have been much better off.
Click to expand...
1. The law doesn't allow citizens to kill other citizens to simplify their lives, only to defend their lives against criminal attack.

2. If it comes out that you killed someone when you didn't have to, or that you killed someone after they posed no threat, it will not simplify your life.
 
If someone has broken into my home and/or tried to kill me, I'm not going to have a great desire to get close to him after shooting. Callous as that may sound there are several reasons for that decision which are included in ISC's list above. The primary reasons are;
  • He may only be temporarily incapacitated. I don't want to be within reach if he "wakes up".
  • Exposure to blood-borne pathogens is never on my list of "things to do today".
  • Depending on circumstances, I may have to watch for an accomplice - approaching or departing.
  • In a public setting I'm going to be concerned with trying to identify witnesses and/or preserve any evidence necessary -- such as the assailants knife/gun.
  • In a public setting, I'm also going to be cautious of approaching police -- I'd prefer they see me waving them down as they arrive, without a gun in my hand.
  • If some good samaritan wants to play doctor, despite cautions, I'll certainly want to make sure he doesn't muck with evidence and he remains until the PD arrives.

On the other hand...
If your assailant is still conscious, holding his wound(s) and complaining about the pain, you certainly want to stay back out of harms way. After checking for additional threats, at best, you can tell him what to do for his own first aid. Often times this will help focus their minds on a task or tasks that will diminish the pain.

Re: CPR and/or first aid.
First, as long as you follow the Red Cross methods and procedures as you were taught and didn't "ad lib" some treatment, you are relatively immune from civil suits.

Second, If you did attempt to stop bleeding and/or administer CPR, I don't know of a D.A. who could get away with trying to charge you with evidence tampering. A good defense attorney would allege saving a life was certainly more important.
 
First of all "You shoot to stop the threat" always always always.

#2 Do not make any official statements until you have your lawyer or a lawyer present.

Even know you are defending yourself and you feel you are justified doesnt mean the court or the local constabulary will as well. There will be an investigation.
 
I saw a documentary on the LA bank robbery shootout yesterday. The last robber killed was shot multiple times and layed on the ground for an hour without treatment. The excuse was that the cops were concerned that there might be an additional shooter out there and the scene hadn't been secured.

By this time there were a dozen of officers in the immediate area and more nearby. They let him bleed out on purpose, and I say good for them.

Every officer that has has to go to court over traffic ticket or testify against someone whose guilt was blaringly obvious knows what a PITA it is. Many departments don't even pay their officers for their time when this happens, although I'm sure that's not the case in LA.

As a civilian we are never paid for our time in court, and and don't recieve department appointed counselors and lawyers.

If you ever have to shoot someone, shoot to kill and pull security for any follow up threat while your assailent bleeds out.

If your assailent is still alive and conscious that means that you need to keep him covered until the cops arrive, which means that they'll roll up on the scene to see you standing there with a handgun drawn at the scene of a shooting. That is a good way to get shot.

It's much safer to you if you are sitting on the curb watching the cooling body of the guy that tried to kill/rob you with your handgun on the ground next to you and for you to slowly rise with your hands clearly visable and empty when cops arrive.
 
The excuse was that the cops were concerned that there might be an additional shooter out there and the scene hadn't been secured.
Click to expand...
Reports at the time indicated that there were more than two shooters. Paramedics will NOT come on the scene of an active shooting until it has been secured.

Once the threat is over, your justification for using lethal force ends. Continuing to use lethal force at that point is illegal, and if you kill an attacker after the threat is over that is murder whether you get caught or not.

Once the threat is over, your responsibility is to summon the authorities. You have just been a witness to a felony and have been involved in a shooting. Failure to inform the authorities with reasonable alacrity will not reflect well on you and could very well result in your going to jail for what would have otherwise been a legal self-defense shooting.
It's much safer to you if you are sitting on the curb watching the cooling body of the guy that tried to kill/rob you with your handgun on the ground next to you and for you to slowly rise with your hands clearly visable and empty when cops arrive.
Click to expand...
So hypothetically speaking, he broke the law and attacked you. Then you broke the law and killed him after there was no threat.

Still hypothetically speaking, what makes you different from him?
 
ummmmmm, maybe the fact that he is not scum out attempting to take by force what others have worked for?
Click to expand...
The law says that if you kill someone after the legal justification ceases to exist that is murder. Murder certainly qualifies as taking something by force.
 
ISC and troy...

Sorry guys. Because you are justified in using lethal force does not mean that force must be lethal.

If I must shoot someone, I'll find some way to notify the police/EMS a.s.a.p. so that there are no questions about me "letting the man die". One can be guilty of homicide through an act of omission (failing to call for help) as well as by an overt act (shooting him in the first place). The shooting could be ruled 100% justified and you could still face 2nd degree homicide or manslaughter charges if you just let him die. And yes, forensics are sufficiently advanced to make such a determination.

By this time there were a dozen of officers in the immediate area and more nearby. They let him bleed out on purpose, and I say good for them.
Click to expand...
Ahhh... no. I don't say "good for them", not even in a primitive, visceral way. That is not what we hire our police to do, nor is it within the bounds of American principles of justice.

Ever hear of unwilling accomplices? Usually it's something like multiple thugs holding a bank manager's family hostage whilst others force him to aid in robbing the bank. I'd hate to be in an officer's shoes if after a gun battle in that situation he let a victim bleed to death out of anger or spite... or simply out of a perverted sense of "justice".
 
Last edited:
Reports at the time indicated that there were more than two shooters. Paramedics will NOT come on the scene of an active shooting until it has been secured.
Click to expand...

Well of course that's what the "reports" would say about the North Hollywood shootout. But they had a pretty good idea that they were really only looking for two gunmen. The alleged third suspect was believed to be perhaps a driver.

But keep in mind that the LAPD had just spent the last hour battling those two lunatics...and that the police who were there securing the scene had just had at least two of their brethren to carted off with severe wounds. They were undoubtedly in no hurry to get medical help to the last gunman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top