Why and when would you pull the trigger?

And how will it all come out? As fate will have it, no doubt.
Click to expand...
No doubt. But one can influence the fates odds a bit by understanding the realities and thinking about them in advance. It's not over until it is over, and one can always move up on the force scale if lower options fail. I would hazard a guess that most of the folks here that advocate all this shooting right away stuff have never been in a real gunfight, or probably not even done much FoF for that matter.
But ccw is no guarantee, it's a chance among others and one that otherwise would not exist.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Giving up the wallet does not mean you can't still shoot if needed. You start with the BG has the drop on you and you are at a position of disadvantage. Nothing changes except the BG has your wallet and now anticipates compliance.
 
A left liberal should not only give up his wallet but ask the bad guy if he could write him a check and take him for a Mocha Latte. :D

Now seriously (if one can), the idea that you are frozen in terror is out there. However, for plain old FOG civilians, that's why FOF training is quite essential to give you a feel for the contingencies and some innoculation against the freeze. Of course, it is a touch expensive but well worth it. If one shoots a lot or competes a lot - you probably can save up the $400 for a local weekend to get a taste of the experience.

Again, I would note, that most of the FOF classes I've had are very deep into the contingencies of shoot/no shoot. Matches are always shoot'em ups.
 
I wake up in the middle of the night, see a guy in my driveway rooting around in my car, should I confront him? In theory, no. But if I did, and somehow in the course of it all, I felt threatened (like say he made some sudden movement toward the waistband area) then I could shoot him.

Now what if I wake up in the middle of the night and there is a guy just standing at the foot of my bed. Just standing there, not threatening me, and not trying to take my TV, etc. Just looking at me. I can and would still shoot to kill. You know why? Because I feel threatened. I still win the case. The guy is in my house, dead. As far as the police are concerned, he could have been doing any number of things that made me fear for my life.

I dont care about researching other laws for other states, only Texas. If you are in my house or on my property doing ANYTHING you shouldnt be doing, then you are in a bad pickle because I can say anything I choose to reinforce the fact that my life was in danger, and there isnt a thing you can do to argue that. After all, you would be dead.

If you have some moral issue with that then I invite you to come stay here in Waco with me for a while. I'll give it two weeks before your car is burglarized or you are "fake robbed" by a gang of wannabe thugs. You can criticize my thought process all day long, and that wont change a thing. There are so many people out there who dont deserve to breathe, but I dont get to make that choice. Only when you choose to try and step on my rights to safety and security does it become my choice.
 
Well, since I like playing the game of what ifs:

If you find a guy in your house in TX, standing over your bed, you have a reasonable case to shoot him. However, let's think about what you said.

Just looking at me. I can and would still shoot to kill.

After all, you would be dead

So you see the guy, you retrieve your gun and you shoot him. How do you predict he will be dead? Most people live through handgun shootings? No guarantee that you will hit COM or the brain stem or even a COM shot will be fatal. If the dude falls to the floor and you finish him off, forsenics will figure that out and you might charged.

Let's be clear - one needs to understand that a shooting outcome isn't necessarily a kill. So you need to think about that.

Take the shot to 'stop' the person and think about what to do if he or she is still alive. Don't ya think?

I've been thinking about the cliches of posting.

One that a good guy will always win the gun battle and kills the opponent with one or two shots.

The other is that one is a mighty physical specimen and no one will mess with and you will win any fight.
 
It's very high. I heard a presentation by a doc at the NTI about it and with modern trauma care and fast response it's in the 90%. If it isn't an instant kill, you have quite a chance for making it.

Thus, in a dynamic situation, you quite likely might not make the money shot. Especially under stress.

It's different from our matches where you shoot at static targets and get 0s. Even those might be surivable.

I'm no great shot. I'm sure folks will claim that they don't miss. However, at the NTI, I've done some quite good shots but also, I made some fairly crappy ones. On a moving guy, I shot him in the lower back and arm. I've been shot and head grazed and shoulder it. I've also been shot to pieces by four guys.

My point is that you need not to assume you carry the day in the gun fight.

See you at a match, Greg!!
 
I guess I have one automatic "take action" mode. I feel that if any one is in my house uninvited, that the only reason they are there is to harm me or my wife. If any one is in my home and fails to obey my voice commands to stop (if I have the ability to confront them from a distance) I will fire. I've played this over in my mind training myself if need be for this action and I believe in this strongly.

Outside of my home is a different story. While I certainly won't allow any one to harm my wife or myself, I don't know what the situation would be to cause me to pull my CCW. Too many scenarios to explain my response in each.
 
It's very high. I heard a presentation by a doc at the NTI about it and with modern trauma care and fast response it's in the 90%. If it isn't an instant kill, you have quite a chance for making it.
Click to expand...
Acording to an MD at one of Farnam's courses (MD is well published, IWBA member, etc) if one discards suicides the survival rate for handgun shootings is right at 95%.
 
Responding to "You cant finish the bad guy off when hes down" statement - Keep in mind that most shootouts/defenses happen in VERY fast order. In other words, the guy with the gun shoots until the other guy falls or he expends his munitions.

Hell, Ive even seen videos (security footage etc.) of gangbangers (and even wiseguys) shooting each other, and most always its just Aim, Shoot, Shoot, Shoot.

Who is really to say that the evidence pointing to me walking over to the perp, stopping at around <x> feet, and putting one round through the nose isnt the exact same as shooting until down, and the last round just happened to hit him where it counted?

Believe me - in a case someone entering my apartment with anything I remotely see as hostile intent, its these simple motions.

Get Mossberg. Aim Mossberg (I keep it chambered and beside my bed). Fire Mossberg at COM.

WHILE the bad guy is going down, these simple steps.

Pump Mossberg. Aim Mossberg at a slightly lower position, still at the BG.

...Then we have two versions. The versions the cops will hear, and the version that I will see.

#1 - Fire Mossberg at BG, without any hesitation. He just so happened to be on the ground, but I didnt think about that - I just wanted the threat to stop. After the second shot (this one), the BG wasnt moving.

#2 - Fire Mossberg at BG's neck/face area once, pumping another shell into the chamber in case of an attack. If the BG isnt moving (which he shouldnt be), call 911 and try to get over it.

So in short - The police will want to hear that you NEVER stopped firing until a reasonable moment passed, and NEVER specifically aimed to kill the BG. You will want to ensure that they know it was a frantic fluid event, and nothing more. Tragic.

What you will want to do is ensure that...
1 - The threat is eliminated (That means Dead.)
2 - You stick to your story no matter what, because your lawyer will tell you if you are fubar, and you can change details accordingly.
3 - Nothing civil or criminal will come of you defending yourself/family.

All this talk about forensics is warrented, but not if you consider the situations. If during an actual frantic gunfight a person can get hit (more than once!!!) while prone, due to rapid succession firing while training aim to pattern with the target's bodily movement (even if that means falling movement), then you could damn sure CLAIM that and get off one in the eye from a pistol.

We arent talking Goodfellas here - nothing point blank, but ill be damned if you couldnt get away with a 10-15 foot well aimed cheekbone hit.

Like I've posted before - many headshots occur during struggles for a firearm. Lesson learned? Either shoot to kill at 10-15 feet, where ballistics would show a consistant pattern with the "dropping" shots, and no suspicion would be roused, or (:barf:) give them the barrel-aside-the-cheek-pointing-upward-he-grabbed-my-gun shot, which I dont advise. Either way, dead perp who violated your freedom, home, and security.
 
Gee, I wonder why the professional police and forensic literature spends so much time on figuring out exactly what happened in a shooting when it is so easy to fake it to your advantage. :barf:
 
A stranger breaks into a home, with no connection whatsoever to the victim, and gets shot by the victim in what seems to be a self-defense case. The victim of the burglary is devestated by the events thus far, and has spoken through his lawyer to ensure that he doesnt say anything which can be used against him.

...Im sure the police are going to use every resource at their disposal to see what exactly happened, particularly if they have other cases. Lets be realistic here - I'm not saying Barrel Against The Head - BLAM!, but forensics isnt magic, either.

A pattern of fire in which the shooter continues to aim his pistol to follow the attacker's descent isnt excessive force, nor is it intentional mayhem, or anything else. It occurs naturally within the boundaries of a firefight. Keeping that in mind, if one DIDNT move towards the fallen attacker, but carefully aimed and fired one last shot, it -should- fit that pattern.

And being even more realistic - how many times has the "poor old man" who was attacked put an extra round or two in the "bad guy"? Consider it.
 
Setting aside the whole legal issue, do you guys have any ethical or moral lines over which you will not cross?
Click to expand...

The intruder pushed that line and made a decision for me when he broke into my house. I won't be held responsible for the lack of judgement on the part of a criminal.

Shooting someone is not a happy thing, but sometimes necessary. Laws governing the use of defense are, in my opinion, very morally and common sense based. "If you feel threatened, or are attacked, feel free to defend yourself."

That is the basic concept of self defense. It is legally and morally right, in my opinion.

Age, race, disposition, mental state, etc...have no bearing on threat level, as they can all pose equal amount of threat, and reasonable force should be used to cease that threat.
 
Lets be realistic here - I'm not saying Barrel Against The Head - BLAM!, but forensics isnt magic, either.
Click to expand...
Yes, let's be realistic here. Forensics is not magic, and it doesn't need to be magic. The prisons have a whole lot of folks in them who thought much like you seem to think. It's not magic. Don't any of you folks who post stuff like this do any research or reading on the subject before tossing out some of this stuff?

The intruder pushed that line and made a decision for me when he broke into my house.
Click to expand...
So apparently you are saying that you will allow a criminal who does not have your best interests in mind to make a decision for you that can significantly mess up the rest of your life. Doesn't sound real smart to me.
 
So apparently you are saying that you will allow a criminal who does not have your best interests in mind to make a decision for you that can significantly mess up the rest of your life. Doesn't sound real smart to me.
Click to expand...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

If they choose to break the law, they are choosing to face the consequences...beit getting away with it, going to jail or peeing in a bag for the rest of their life or dying by getting shot.

Doesn't matter if I am the one they attack or if it is you. They dictate the level of force needed to stop them. Perhaps we each may react differently to a situation, but ultimately, they may make the choice that you will react to their attack by shooting.
 
Shooting someone has a very good chance of messing up your life for years to come, for a whole host of reasons of which getting caught up in the legal system is just one. You may well end up being held responsible for a decision that a criminal made.

Self defense laws are much more complicated than "if you feel threatened feel free to defend yourself". Do yourself a favor and read up on actual case law. The reason I say case law is that non lawyers often read the actual laws and think they know what the words mean when in fact that is not how the courts have decided to interpret the law. Remember, it's not your opinion of a law that matters it's the court's opinion defined by accumulated case law on the matter. Sometimes customs that have been in place for hundreds or even thousands of years impact what certain phrases mean in application.
 
but ultimately, they may make the choice that you will react to their attack by shooting.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I make that choice to shoot or not, and I make it based on what I feel is best. I don't make it based on what I think someone else is forcing me to do.

Nothing personal, as I feel you are really trying here, but I strongly suggest you get both some good legal advice and some good training, and see if that doesn't change things for you a bit.
 
DA,

Please outline for us what would push you over the edge to take the shot. I would bet it closely matches mine.

To give a few examples:

Grabbing me in a violent manner with obvious intent to do me harm and knocking them a few does not make them back down.

Charging at me with a knife.

Drawing a gun on me (obviously if I have the opportunity only).

Shooting at me.

If I come up on a rapist, kidnapper or assaulter in the act and they do not heed my request for them to stop or they ensue on any of the above.


...Just a few.
 
CrazyIvan, DA would first have to access his vast statistical arsenal before deciding to shoot or not. The rest of us would react with the necessary level of force needed to end the threat. I agree that the threat and situation dictates what I do.
 
Please outline for us what would push you over the edge to take the shot.
Click to expand...
I don't get pushed over the edge to take shots. I take shots when it is in my best interest to do so. I don't shoot out of emotion, I shoot because I believe that is the best solution available to me to solve the problem at that time. Shooting is a last resort, not a first resort, and something I do on my cue, not on someone else's. MAybe that is the difference between those with experience and those without?? I find very few actual gunfighters who don't want to avoid gunfights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top