Why and when would you pull the trigger?

[Boris Bush]

I didn't read all of the posts, too long. Anyway, why would you NOT shoot? Material things today WILL evolve into much larger crimes. If they know they (the criminals) can get away with it they will push it to the limit and who knows where that will go? Killing them may just save someones life, you may not realize it or know it, but that is the way you should look at it...........

 

[Justme]

Material things today WILL evolve into much larger crimes.

One of the sillier things I've read in my life. Reminds me of those reefer madness movies that tried to convince everyone that one joint was going to turn everyone into a psychotic heroin addict.

Violence, the reason to shoot someone, and theft are fundamentally different behaviors. Plenty of thieves aren't violent and plenty of violent people aren't thieves.

 

[Boris Bush]

Justme

I just re-read the original post and wiped my brow..... An ARMED robber wanting only physical belongings on you should die. I don't know where you live, but where I grewup I had a friend killed because what little he had on him angered the robber so much they just shot him (robbers own words).

I hope you wear an expensive watch, drive a nice car, and carry alot of money. Most of time the most expensive thing I got on me is my SIG and I am more than glad to give it to anyone that wants it, but they gotta take the bullets first..........

 

[David Armstrong]

Anyway, why would you NOT shoot?

Maybe because you don't want to turn a robbery into a gunfight?

Killing them may just save someones life, you may not realize it or know it, but that is the way you should look at it...........

That is about as valid as "not killing them may cause them to turn their life around and they will invent a cure for cancer....." Too many folks seem to want to deal with crime according to what they see on TV instead of taking a little time to learn the facts.

 

[Boris Bush]

That is about as valid as "not killing them may cause them to turn their life around and they will invent a cure for cancer....." Too many folks seem to want to deal with crime according to what they see on TV instead of taking a little time to learn the facts.

I rarely watch tv and I do believe that where you live has a large impact on your view. I have three times used a pistol to stop crimes that were going to happen against me. Never fired a single round. Two of the times the bad guys (all three times there was more than one) started a retreat as soon as my hand found the pistol over my kidney, they didn't wait to see what I was packin'. The third wasn't convinced until I showed it to them. At home a blinding beam from a maglite made would be burglars change their mind on my neighbors house, and a 12 gauge racking another time did the job.

For my real job I get shot at all the time, and my carry weapon (not a pistol) is very accurate and violence of action has saved my life from contact range to 90 meters. If need be I do not think I would hesitate to defend myself, family or otrhers from a bad guy intent on doing bad, especialy if they knowingly continue with a legaly armed person on scene.

 

[David Armstrong]

If need be I do not think I would hesitate to defend myself, family or otrhers from a bad guy intent on doing bad, ....

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. The question is if one should make that decision based on accurate information and facts and as full an understanding of the reality of the event as is possible or if one should base that decision on wild fantasies and fictions.

 

[threegun]

Wild fantasies and fiction have nothing to do with assuming that the bad guy threatening my life, might carry out the threat. Odds or percentages won't bring me back if I choose wrong based on them therefore I will assume that I might die and use any opportunity presented to eliminate the threat.

To say that folks who disagree with giving serious weight to odds and percentages in an armed confrontation are uninformed or living in a fantasy world is ridiculous and designed to antagonize.

One thing is clear though, waiting for escalation reduces your chances of survival if escalation happens.

 

[Lurper]

Here are the figures, decide for yourself:

The likelihood of an injury was the
same for victims facing armed and
unarmed offenders (26%); serious
injury was more likely from armed
offenders (7% versus 2%).

Offender use of firearms
Of incidents involving offenders
with firearms, victims —
! were shot (3%)
! were shot at but not hit (8%)
! were struck with a firearm (4%)
! were threatened with a firearm (72%)
! did not describe offender’s use of
firearms (13%).

Robbery and injuries
About half of victims of robbery by
offenders armed with blunt objects/
other weapons sustained an injury
during the crime.
About a third of victims of robbery by
unarmed offenders (36%) and offenders
armed with knives or sharp objects
(31%) sustained injury during the
victimization.
Offenders armed with any weapon
other than a firearm inflicted a serious
injury during about 1 in 7 robberies that
they committed.
Victims of robbery by offenders armed
with blunt objects/other weapons were
more likely than victims of robbery by
offenders armed with a firearm to be
attacked without a prior threat.

It should also be noted that in the majority of the cases where the victim was injured, the assailant injured them without warning (before, during or after complying). A victim was just as likely to be injured by an unarmed assailant as an armed one.

 

[pax]

Lurper ~

Source link?

pax

 

[Lurper]

National Crime Victimization Survey 1993-2001 and 2005, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Don't have the link handy - on my way out the door.

 

[CrazyIvan007]

a cell phone and some credit cards are not worth ending someone’s life over. You don’t shoot someone to punish them for their bad deeds, you shoot them because if you don’t you will likely die. I think it is a great mistake to kill someone over material items.

This argument is flawed. During the muggging, you have no idea if they are going to kill you when they are done. During the mugging, you are in fear for your life.

And to think beyond the mugging itself and put a bit of a philosophical comment to this: Having your ID stolen can lead to identity theft. Identity theft can ruin your way of life. For many people, they have so many problems, they might as well have been physically harmed or killed. It can cause stress which can later lead to health problems and can, in some cases, cause terminal health problems, like heart failure, etc...

So, if you are being mugged, I have no problem shooting someone. During most muggings, they assualt you physically, even if a little bit. They cause harm to you physically; they must strong arm you to get you to do what they want. Under state law here in Colorado, you can use lethal force in a case where you are about to be or are being assaulted physically. Short of that, they may hold you up at gunpoint, which definitely causes "fear of imminent bodily injury" which also allows you to use lethal force.

 

[pax]

Thanks, Lurper, found it.

pax

 

[David Armstrong]

you can use lethal force in a case where you are about to be or are being assaulted physically.

Quite a bit of difference between when you can shoot and when you should shoot, and that is the crux of the problem, IMO. You think there is a problem dealing with ID theft? Try dealing with the aftermath of a shooting!

 

[CrazyIvan007]

If someone is trying to steal from me by a confrontation or assault me or attack me physically, whether it be armed or not armed...they deserve to get shot. No crux in my mind. It is allowed by law, and I am glad. I don't care if it is for my wallet, or just to attack me. I will not stand for it. It is black & white. Live & let live. If they don't let me go on with my peacefull self, then they don't deserve to go on with their evil self either.

Besides, many times...small things such as theft by assault can lead to many other things like rape and murder. You never know who you may be saving along the trail in the future of the assailant.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with the post trauma of shooting someone than allowing them to go through with it without a fight and perhaps raping someone, killing someone or beating up someone's grandma for her social security check later. If you let a dog eat off the table, sooner than later he will be sitting on the chair next to you eating off of your plate.

I wouldn't shoot to kill, but if I didn't do something to cause the person to think twice before attacking someone else, then I would feel partially at fault for anyone they may hurt in the future. Would you not?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When you say you wouldn't shoot to kill - what do you mean? Do you mean to specifically wound? That seems the implication as compared to the commonly used 'shooting to stop' which implies the use of lethal force.

Clarify your position a touch, if you would? Note this is a trap question as it may indict your level of knowledge and training in using lethal force.

BTW, dealing with the PTSD consequences of shooting someone is not trivial as the police know.

So, I get the feel that some folks would shoot a fleeing 5 year old hightailing out of the candy store with an Almond Joy to protect society from future crime. Is that what you mean?

 

[CrazyIvan007]

I wouldn't shoot to kill.

I wouldn't shoot to wound.

If the level of force required to dissolve the situation was to shoot and was within the law, then that is what I would do. Neither to wound or be fatal would be my goal. Being wounded or killed is the fault of the assailant. My only fault and my only goal would be first to protect myself, my property, those I care about or someone who cannot defend themselves. Secondly, excercising my rights, and thankfully that is not illegal, would be the only other thing I would be doing.

Shooting someone, of course, is not a walk in the park and must be taken seriously. I have spent hours and days reading through the laws and contemplating my response. Preparedness never can always 100% dictate your reaction when what you have prepared for comes to pass, and you hope it never does come to pass, but it definitely gives you a bit more ability to handle the situation if it does happen.

Shooting a child running out of a store carrying candy is outside of the law. The child poses no threat to anyone. You are not legally able to shoot a person in such a situation. You can not shoot a shoplifter, no matter what age. Shoplifting is a non-violent act. Now, shoplifting while pointing a gun at you or brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner is armed robbery, and IS a violent act. Or, if they broke in after hours to steal something and you happened to be there, you are within the law if you choose to use a level of force up to lethal force to protect yourself and your company's property. Law surrounding the use of lethal force outlines your ability to defend yourself, your property or someone else who is in danger. Lethal force is available if you are being physically harmed or hold a reasonable belief that you will be physically harmed. There is no outline telling you at what level of physical harm you are allowed to shoot someone, because there is no such thing. Physical harm or reasonable belief that you will be subject to physical harm at any level is a level which legally allows you to use appropriate force, up to and including lethal force, to dissolve the situation.

Pretty much, falling victim to a violent act, beit armed robbery, assault, rape, mugging, breaking and entering, etc...grants you the right to defend yourself with "the appropriate amount of force up to and including lethal force" to stop the assailant from proceeding to cause anymore harm to you, your property, your family or a someone else, their property or their family.

And I will tell you again. If someone commits a violent act either against me or in my presence, as of right now, I have no problem using force, up to and including lethal force, to stop them. I feel obligated to do so. I suppose I will have to deal with the post trauma. But, to me...I would rather suffer through that than put someone else in danger by doing nothing.

 

[David Armstrong]

If someone is trying to steal from me by a confrontation or assault me or attack me physically, whether it be armed or not armed...they deserve to get shot.

Irrelevant. What one deserves and what is a good choice are not one and the same.

You never know who you may be saving along the trail in the future of the assailant.

Yes, you never know. The person you shoot and kill might have gone on to discover a cure for cancer too. So "what if" is fairly silly to play.

If they don't let me go on with my peacefull self, then they don't deserve to go on with their evil self either.

But by taking action you might be creating more problems for yourself and your family. Is it really worth $20,000 in legal fees, or your family losing their home, or other assorted indignities just to keep what is in you wallet?

If you let a dog eat off the table, sooner than later he will be sitting on the chair next to you eating off of your plate.

Having done just that for 40+ years, I have yet to find a dog sitting next to me in the cahir eating off my plate. You seem full of interesting platitudes but little real substance.

Would you not?

No, of course not. Why should I? I didn't run over a sudent who was jaywalking today. Should I feel bad if later on he does something bad?

 

[CrazyIvan007]

DA,

If you want to go through life letting people get away with violent crime, that is your perogative. For myself, I believe that stance is wrong. In my opinion, those who allow people to get away with such crimes aren't much better than the offenders themselves. The odds of someone who holds up a liquor store one day going on to figure out a cure for aids or something is highly unlikely. If you can provide any information or stories where a violent criminal has gone on to make some groundbreaking discovery, then let's talk about that. But your conclusion is flawed.

I would only use force were it a violent crime and as outlined by law.

Perhaps my philosophy and metaphors were a bit short of proving a point 100%, but I know you aren't stupid and you know what I was saying.

But by taking action you might be creating more problems for yourself and your family. Is it really worth $20,000 in legal fees, or your family losing their home, or other assorted indignities just to keep what is in you wallet?

Yes...yes it is worth it. I will not allow my freedoms to be stomped on without a fight. My wallet is mine, not theirs. They have no right to it, whatsoever. I don't care if I have 1 dollar or 10,000. They have no right to violently strip me of my posessions illegally. I do, however, have a legal right to defend those posessions and myself with force against it being taken violently. And, I will act on that right. I will not be a silent victim. Go ahead and do whatever it is you would do. I don't care how you would handle yourself. I would hope you would defend others who can not defend themselves with a certain amount of force if needed to protect them. But, I could care less what you do to protect yourself. That is your choice.

As far as legal fees arising from defending against someone, I pay the NRA for defense council insurance. The costs may surpass their coverage, but it is certainly a help. And, as many have said here in other threads...judgement by 12 is better than being carried by 6.

 

[Lurper]

If you want to go through life letting people get away with violent crime, that is your perogative. For myself, I believe that stance is wrong. In my opinion, those who allow people to get away with such crimes aren't much better than the offenders themselves.

This is a real dangerous philosophy. It is not up to you to decide who should live or die. Nor is it up to you to decide who gets away with what. The only thing that is up to you is when you feel you are in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Then you are justified in using lethal force. To make this philosphy part of your personal doctrine is asking for trouble.

But by taking action you might be creating more problems for yourself and your family. Is it really worth $20,000 in legal fees, or your family losing their home, or other assorted indignities just to keep what is in you wallet?

By not taking action you are leaving yourself at the mercy of the criminal's whim. Also, many states shield you from civil action if your shooting is justified. If it is clearly justified, there won't even be a trial so the implication that if you shoot someone you will incur huge legal expenses isn't accurate.

The question is if one should make that decision based on accurate information and facts and as full an understanding of the reality of the event as is possible or if one should base that decision on wild fantasies and fictions.

Having a gun or knife pointed at you is hardly fantasy and fiction. If you feel you are in danger of serious injury or death, you should shoot.

 

[CrazyIvan007]

This is a real dangerous philosophy. It is not up to you to decide who should live or die. Nor is it up to you to decide who gets away with what. The only thing that is up to you is when you feel you are in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Then you are justified in using lethal force. To make this philosphy part of your personal doctrine is asking for trouble.

First, I said I would not shoot to kill. So there goes your idea that I am making a judgement on who lives or dies. I would use force to defend and to dissolve the harmful situation. It is the violent offender who takes the honor of deciding who lives or dies.

Second, by law, I am granted the ability to take action against an ensuing violent crime, so it is up to me whether I allow a person to get away with it or not by engaging myself against them.

Third, I agree that if I feel myself or someone else is in danger, I am justified legally and morally to use a certain level of force, and that only reinforces my statements above. Doesn't mean I will always choose to engage, but I do have the justification were I to choose to do so.