Why and when would you pull the trigger?

[David Armstrong]

If you want to go through life letting people get away with violent crime, that is your perogative.

Actually I spent a significant part of my life catching folks who commit violent crime. I've also had the opportunity to see what happens to those who fight back, which gives me some realistic perspective on the issue rather than just a lot of wild guesses.

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.

One is certainly entitlted to their own opinion. However I would suggest that "letting them get away with it" is quite different from "not making things any worse for you and your family."

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.

You mean sort of like the odds of someone changing from muggings and robberies to becoming a murderer???

But your conclusion is flawed.

What conclusion?

Yes...yes it is worth it. I will not allow my freedoms to be stomped on without a fight.

I'm not aware of any freedoms that are stomped on when you respond to a crime with good sense instead of emotion. But if it is worth $20,000 to you to avoid losing $10 and some easily replaced cards, I'd suggest it is going to be difficult for us to have any sort of rational conversation.

And, as many have said here in other threads...judgement by 12 is better than being carried by 6.

True, but not being carried or judged at all is even better.

 

[Justme]

The rather ironic twist on the whole judged by 12 comments is that the people who make it are fairly certain what that judgement would be. However, the further from mainstream thinking you go the less likely the judgement is going to be to your liking.

 

[David Armstrong]

By not taking action you are leaving yourself at the mercy of the criminal's whim.

Not really. You can always escalate your response if needed. Going along because that is best at Point A in the encounter does not mean you have to go along with everything at all points. Deciding not to take action at one point doesn't mean you never can take action in the future.

Also, many states shield you from civil action if your shooting is justified.

Yes, some do. But a lot more don't. And of course you do have to show it 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.

That is a very questionable statement. There have been a whole lot of trials where the shooting was clearly justified; and you also don't have to have a trial to run up lots of expenses.

Having a gun or knife pointed at you is hardly fantasy and fiction.

True, and nobody suggested otherwise AFAIK. But that has nothing to do with the statement that was made either.

If you feel you are in danger of serious injury or death, you should shoot.

And figuring out if you are in danger and how severe that danger is should be based on accurate information and facts and as full an understanding of the reality of the event as is possible, not on wild fantasies and fictions.

 

[David Armstrong]

First, I said I would not shoot to kill.

Once you shoot, whether or not someone is killed or not is pretty much out of your hands. If you shoot you better plan on somebody dying.

Being wounded or killed is the fault of the assailant.

Sorry, but there is so much legal precedent against that thought it is amazing. Assailants generally cannot claim self-defense, but that is far different than being held at fault for any injuries they might receive.

I have spent hours and days reading through the laws and contemplating my response.

Maybe instead of reading and contemplating you should take a few courses taught by folks who are familiar with this field. It might be an eye-opener.

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.

I don't know Colorado law, but that is incorrect in several other states. So, you are saying that if I twist your ear with my hand and cause you physical harm (an ear bo-bo) you can shoot me???

 

[Redneckrepairs]

Just as in Real life , When and Where I would use lethal force is too complex an issue for an internet thread . I would if both justified by law and my own code . I would not if i felt i should not or it was illegal . I cannot give anyone a more honest answer than that .

 

[CrazyIvan007]

You mean sort of like the odds of someone changing from muggings and robberies to becoming a murderer???

What????

The greater majority of violent crime offenders hold a history of crime, whether it be other violent crimes or simpler crimes.

I haven't seen any ground-breaking doctors or scientists who have "Armed Robbery" on their record.

"Wild Fantasies and Fictions"

???

They are neither fantasy or fictions.

Being robbed at gunpoint or by physical assault is a violent act. That is the REALITY!!!! I will respond to it logically, tactically and appropriately. If I am not in a position to defend myself, I will not. I am not going to go for my gun or lunge myself at an offender who is 10 feet away asking me to throw him my wallet.

I'm not aware of any freedoms that are stomped on when you respond to a crime with good sense instead of emotion.

emotion? EMOTION? Good Sense tells me that my wallet is MY WALLET. I don't care how much money I have in it. You are not entitled to take it forcefully. How is that "emotion" ??

I am not a fancy pants "Oh poor offender got himself a person who fights back" kinda guy. I am a "Hell yea! Maybe that will make the next guy think before they try to harm a law-abiding citizen."

Perhaps you were a cop, perhaps you were a lawyer. I don't know, you are very discreet with your past here in this thread. But, to me, you certainly seem like the kind of guy who wants victims to bend & do the will of the offender. Maybe we should allow illegal aliens to have their way and hand over all of our identities and our financial support without fighting back? Perhaps we should free all the criminals who reside in the prisons of this great country because we don't want to fight back and they should be allowed to act any way they would like without recourse.

The stark reality is that police, government and emergency crews can not be there to help you 100% of the time. If you are not willing to or prepared to act to defend yourself or others who can not defend themselves, then you have a bad problem. Should a disaster happen in your area, you will be one sitting on your roof with a big "HELP ME" sign. Me, personally...I will do what is necessary to survive and help others survive.

I am not trying to attack you. I would bet you are a good citizen and responsible gun owner. I just disagree with your opinion and methods. I do know, however, that we both would act within the law, which is mutual.

 

[gvf]

If I was robbed with no weapon shown or evidence of one, I'm not sure what I'd do. A student of mine was stopped on the street and quickly crowded in by someone who said: "give me your wallet', my student said "no" and before a second was out he had a broken jaw, now wired shut for the 5th week. Unfortunately he is a singer, is studying that at University, and this has really put him back. Plus he owes $2000 which insurance leaves him as his co-pay. He already has a disability to begin with, and it is too bad this happened to him. He works very hard.

If I was armed and this had happened to me, not sure the speed and surprise may not have landed me in the same predicament. What I hope I would have done is back off a couple of steps and when he demanded, either trot or show the gun with my hand on it. A move towards me: ? Again I don't know. BG was stupid as a cop was 10 feet away so he was immediately arrested. No weapon. So, I don't know what the repercussion of shooting would have been. I'm 60 though, not 21, I've had medical issues that might make a blow in the wrong place cause for a critical medical emergency. Out of fear of that and a strong blow from a big guy 40 years my junior, I may have become afraid and shot.

 

[CrazyIvan007]

gvf, you have brought up a good point.

Of course a person has to guage the situation and take the best course of action. I am a somewhat muscular beefy guy, 6'1, 275. So if someone tries to take something of mine without trying to take it at gunpoint, they are fixin for a hurtin.

Now, should I be surrounded by 6 guys around my size, I would react differently.

Adapt & overcome I suppose.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ever see the little guy with a knife vs. Mr. Muscle demos. No offense but one of the steps to lose credibility on a list like this is to proclaim one's physical attributes such that no one will mess with you.

Also, proclaiming how you will shoot someone so easily as you did for spurious reasons and not understand the use of lethal force is another way.

 

[CrazyIvan007]

Ever see the little guy with a knife vs. Mr. Muscle demos. No offense but one of the steps to lose credibility on a list like this is to proclaim one's physical attributes such that no one will mess with you.

I never said my size would divert anyone from doing something to me. I said if they did do something to me, they are fixin for a hurtin.

Also, proclaiming how you will shoot someone so easily as you did for spurious reasons and not understand the use of lethal force is another way.

Hmm...I said after gauging the situation quickly, and if I were to engage the offender(s), I would respond with an appropriate amount of force if I were to fall victim to or witness a violent crime. First, I never said I would shoot first. Second, I never said I would shoot for no reason at all. So, I hardly see how that is wrong...

Ya'll who believe this stuff is wrong or not determined to be the right thing to do...well you need to read the laws. Law allows a person to react with an appropriate amount of force to any violent act, no matter what the level. And, I believe that is right. You need to not carry a gun with you if you are not willing to use it. You need to continue to pretend nothing bad happens and if it does, you will bend & do the will of the offender. Congrats. I'd rather be dead than surrender my liberty and idea of justice if even for a temporary amount of time.

To sum it up from my position... If someone does something I believe is harmful to others or myself, if a violent act ensues...I will react accordingly. Should that be using force, then fine. From tackling the person to using lethal force....I will try to make the best decision. But, I am not going to sit & worry about the aftermath. I am going to react to the situation properly and within the law. Offenders of peace should be dealt with accordingly. Beit being sued in civil court for spray painting a building or biting a bullet for attacking an elderly woman...I believe Justice will survive. Justice will not always be properly served, but it certainly should...and I will do my part to be sure it does happen if even just a little bit more.

Listen to Garth Brooks' song "The Change" ...It's all me baby!

I've explained myself enough here, and I am done with this thread. Continue to flame on.

 

[Lurper]

Not really. You can always escalate your response if needed. Going along because that is best at Point A in the encounter does not mean you have to go along with everything at all points. Deciding not to take action at one point doesn't mean you never can take action in the future.

Gee, sounds like what I have been saying.

Quote:
Also, many states shield you from civil action if your shooting is justified.

Yes, some do. But a lot more don't. And of course you do have to show it is justified.

Quote:
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.

That is a very questionable statement. There have been a whole lot of trials where the shooting was clearly justified; and you also don't have to have a trial to run up lots of expenses.

Depends on the state. In AZ, the state has to prove the shooting was not justified, not vice versa. While in some cases that may mean there is a trial, in clear cut cases there will not. Which is why I always advocate:
Know your state's laws!

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ivan - you continually miss the point. Having the legal right to use force doesn't mean that it is the best option in a situation. Nor does not using it in a situation if you think that not using (even if it is legal) is a better outcome for your physical safety and that of those around you. Nor does making the decision not to use lethal force imply some philosophical or moral weakness. You might think so but that view is a less sophisticated level of analysis. Not starting the gun fight, even if legally justified, is a major decision point taught in the more advanced civilian FOF classes and to the LEO also.

Being the proactive shooter of potential criminals is not really part of current thought on the issue. It says more to the person wanting to be an avenger or get praise as being a hero.

As far as your physical prowess, as I said before, if you think that your size guarantees that you can put a hurtin' on someone, you need to take a knife class sometimes. It is an indication of naiveity on the issue. I once heard a policeman say that the scarest thing he ever saw was an 8 year old girl charging at him whirling a butcher knife like a tornado. She was a disturbed kid. Could he have beat her in a wrestling match - sure? Was she going to chop his arms to crap - oh yeah.

 

[CrazyIvan007]

What part of "Gauge a situation and Act accordingly" does not fit your outline of best judgement?

 

[DougO83]

Well...

Honestly, I did not want to read through 170 posts, so I apologize if what I say has already been stated.

First, I cannot gauge the intent of someone assaulting me, I am no mind reader. I do not know if they intend to kill me when they are done stealing my things or not. My best guess is that if they are brazen enough to assault a guy my size in the first place (I am not bragging, I'm a big guy), they are nuts enough to try to kill me. I will act accordingly. It is not a matter of my cash, credit cards, jewelry, peace of mind, sanity, or identity being stolen. It is a matter that should be regarded, IMHO, as life and death. Yes, all of the material items can be replaced, but is that the only intent of the thief? There is no way to tell. If the thief presents a weapon, I will risk my chance in court and/or jail.

Second, I will not shoot to kill. I work as an armed security officer currently. The correct, legal response when asked about a shooting is nothing like we 'firearms enthusiasts' are taught. We do not 'shoot to kill', 'only muzzle what we intend to destroy', or whatever else you wish to say. These terms, will most likely leave you legally screwed. Your best response is "I was in fear of my life and utilized my weapon to neutralize the imminent threat to my safety and well-being."

I honestly hope that simply stating "Leave me alone, I am armed!" would be enough to persuade the average schmuck to leave me be. If not, I hope the presentation of my firearm does the trick. I do not wish to take another's life, I have seen the hardship it can cause evryone involved, but I will not stand idly by and be taken advantage of. I will warn first, then do what is necessary (interpret this statement at will.)

Sorry for any ambiguity in the post, this is a public forum and I do not wish for my post to be used against me if I ever have to use deadly force.

 

[David Armstrong]

The greater majority of violent crime offenders hold a history of crime, whether it be other violent crimes or simpler crimes.

And most violent criminals drank milk when they were kids, so obviously drinking milk means you will grow up to be a violent criminal, right? Virtually everybody engages in misdemeanor/petty crime growing up. Many criminals become non-violent and stay that way. Most robbers don't become murderers.

They are neither fantasy or fictions.

If you aren't basing your decisions on reality, you are basing them on fiction. Those happen to be your only choices.

Being robbed at gunpoint or by physical assault is a violent act. That is the REALITY

Nobody has said otherwise, so what is your point?

I will respond to it logically, tactically and appropriately.

And how do you determine what is logical and appropriate without considering all the facts?

Good Sense tells me that my wallet is MY WALLET. I don't care how much money I have in it. You are not entitled to take it forcefully. How is that "emotion" ??

I think you just proved my point. Sorry, but if you want to make a situation worse just to defend your sense of machismo, that is emotion.

But, to me, you certainly seem like the kind of guy who wants victims to bend & do the will of the offender.

Further evidence that you tend to be responding with emotions rather than facts and logic. I want the victim to suffer the least amount of damage and loss of resources.

Maybe we should allow illegal aliens to have their way and hand over all of our identities and our financial support without fighting back? Perhaps we should free all the criminals who reside in the prisons of this great country because we don't want to fight back and they should be allowed to act any way they would like without recourse.

Maybe we should discuss what has actually been said instead of going off on emotional tirades?

Ya'll who believe this stuff is wrong or not determined to be the right thing to do...well you need to read the laws.

As mentioned elsewhere, maybe you need to quit reading the law and (A) go talk to a lawyer who is familiar with how this stuff works, bot criminally and civilly; and (B) get some realistic training.

 

[David Armstrong]

Gee, sounds like what I have been saying.

Sorry. I got thrown off with the "By not taking action you are leaving yourself at the mercy of the criminal's whim" comment. Postponing action or reserving the option for action does not leave one at the mercy of the criminal.

Depends on the state.
----
Which is why I always advocate:
Know your state's laws!

A very big +1.

 

[CrazyIvan007]

Here's a response DA,

Do your thing and I'll do mine. I'll be within the law. Where will you be? All the while you sit & contemplate the reality, the consequences, the event, the situation...the badguy could be making the last move that will put you in the ground.

One-on-one in the heat of it is a lot different than police situations where they can surround a suspect and make a best-guess judgement on how to proceed. When you are alone in a fight, being attacked...every moment counts and every moment neglected to reflect on the situation could be your last.

I'm not going to do anything stupid. I know the appropriate amount of force required for a given situation. If you can't accept that, well what can I say? Oh well...I will act within the law and within my own defense. Defending my rights is not acting on emotion. It is acting on my rights and in defense of the law.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but a person can not put every single thought down here, without writing an autobiography about it. So I apologize if I can not be as eloquent or mindful with my written words. But, other things I solidly disagree with. If I am being attacked, you can damn sure bet that I am going to react with force.

So, do what you would do and I'll do what I would do.

 

[David Armstrong]

Do your thing and I'll do mine.

I never contemplated otherwise.

All the while you sit & contemplate the reality, the consequences, the event, the situation...the badguy could be making the last move that will put you in the ground.

Many have tried, none have succeeded yet.

One-on-one in the heat of it is a lot different than police situations where they can surround a suspect and make a best-guess judgement on how to proceed.

Got some real bad news for you. One-on-one you are still making a best-guess judgement on how to proceed. You can try to improve the odds of that guess helping by basing it on reality instead of what happened on the last Rambo movie you watched or whatever other source you use.

I'm not going to do anything stupid.

I can only comment on what you say in your posts. What you actually do is beyond the scope of the discussion here.

I know the appropriate amount of force required for a given situation.

ANd that is certainly part of the issue. What you seem to keep missing is that it is ony part, not the whole thing.

Defending my rights is not acting on emotion.

No, of course not. How you defend and why are apparenlty an emotional issue for you.

If I am being attacked, you can damn sure bet that I am going to react with force.

There is the difference. If I'm attacked I am going to react in a manner that best enhances my ability to survive with the least danger to me, my family, and my personal resources. If that means force, I'll use force. If that means giving him my wallet, I'll give him my wallet. If it means running in circles like a chicken while crying like a little girl, I'll do that too. But whatever I choose it will be the best choice I can make at the time, not some ill-concieved notion based on emotions or pre-conceived responses.

 

[threegun]

If that means force, I'll use force. If that means giving him my wallet, I'll give him my wallet.

And here in lies the disagreement. You can't tell until its too late. You don't know until its too late.

 

[gvf]

Here's what I believe: what will likely happen in such a moment won't be a belief: it will be sheer, raw instinct, and it seems one of 3 instincts would likely take over: (1) the worst: absolute shock, stand there and stare; (2) an instinctive fear of impending death: you shoot; (3) a sense of "room", you flee, punch, kick, etc. I don't think an instinctive fear of the law will take over - it's abstract at that point.

And how will it all come out? As fate will have it, no doubt. And we hope our instincts meet reality as well as the law - and do our best to train to influence that. But ccw is no guarantee, it's a chance among others and one that otherwise would not exist. I think its best to know that. It may help keep us from being cowards or fools.