straightshooter9
Member
I never said that I would tell the POLICE any of that!
Are you stupid (your word, not mine) enough to think that I would ever have a conversation like that with anybody after an incident ?!?
Last edited:
On Fighting Shotguns....
- Thread starter Dave McCracken
- Start date
- Status
Are you stupid (your word, not mine) enough to think that I would ever have a conversation like that with anybody after an incident ?!?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
You've said it here. Any statements you make, including on a public forum, may be admitted as evidence to establish your state of mind.
andrewstorm
member
model 520 stevens trench
just the sound of a pump gun deters criminals,announce your intention to meet force with force,if possible.
just the sound of a pump gun deters criminals,announce your intention to meet force with force,if possible.
Last edited:
docnyt
Member
I wonder if this myth has had any anecdotal evidence to support it?
Sam1911,
I think you are splitting hairs about the difference from "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop" trying to make a point over a technical term. Let me ask you a question. Would you use different ammo for a home defense/offense shotgun if you were trying to kill the person rather than stop them? If not, then the only part of your correction that matters is if you would use this ammo once a threat had stopped. Otherwise, it's all the same and just a difference in the terms you use.
Last I saw, most people who picked defensive ammo to stop threats looked at penetration, shot size/count, and recoil to make their choice. When you look for ammo to stop someone as quick as possible it seems most people look for ammo that will reach vitals/cns, has as much chance to do so (pellet size and count) and has as quick follow up shot time as possible. Ammo used to kill would also look to reach vitals/cns, have as much chance to do so (size and count) and have quick follow up shots. There isn't a separation in ammo meant to kill and ammo meant to stop a threat because both look at the desired results the same. It's not like he said he wanted to shoot #9 bird shot soaked in AIDS to cause a long and suffering death. I think the point you are making is one only for the lawyers and has nothing to do with real life when a threat is in your home and you decide to pull the trigger.
You pick a round to quickly incapacitate someone. Typically this means shut down the CNS. Shutting down the CNS, without immediate medical care and often with immediate medical care, is fatal. You pick a round that you know to be deadly. When everything goes right with a fired shot, the end result is typically death. You accept that and use that as your ammo. You call it picking what "stops the threat" but you do so fully knowing that what stops the threat is also highly likely to kill. When you pull the trigger, aiming to stop the threat as quick as possible, you do so knowing that it is highly likely to kill the target. How is that different than aiming to kill? It's called lethal force. It's not called "stopping force". The difference is so we can feel better about ourselves at night and so the lawyers have something to argue about. When the trigger gets pulled in the time of a threat, there is no difference as both assume and accept that the round fired is going to end the life of the person on the other end.
I think you are splitting hairs about the difference from "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop" trying to make a point over a technical term. Let me ask you a question. Would you use different ammo for a home defense/offense shotgun if you were trying to kill the person rather than stop them? If not, then the only part of your correction that matters is if you would use this ammo once a threat had stopped. Otherwise, it's all the same and just a difference in the terms you use.
Last I saw, most people who picked defensive ammo to stop threats looked at penetration, shot size/count, and recoil to make their choice. When you look for ammo to stop someone as quick as possible it seems most people look for ammo that will reach vitals/cns, has as much chance to do so (pellet size and count) and has as quick follow up shot time as possible. Ammo used to kill would also look to reach vitals/cns, have as much chance to do so (size and count) and have quick follow up shots. There isn't a separation in ammo meant to kill and ammo meant to stop a threat because both look at the desired results the same. It's not like he said he wanted to shoot #9 bird shot soaked in AIDS to cause a long and suffering death. I think the point you are making is one only for the lawyers and has nothing to do with real life when a threat is in your home and you decide to pull the trigger.
You pick a round to quickly incapacitate someone. Typically this means shut down the CNS. Shutting down the CNS, without immediate medical care and often with immediate medical care, is fatal. You pick a round that you know to be deadly. When everything goes right with a fired shot, the end result is typically death. You accept that and use that as your ammo. You call it picking what "stops the threat" but you do so fully knowing that what stops the threat is also highly likely to kill. When you pull the trigger, aiming to stop the threat as quick as possible, you do so knowing that it is highly likely to kill the target. How is that different than aiming to kill? It's called lethal force. It's not called "stopping force". The difference is so we can feel better about ourselves at night and so the lawyers have something to argue about. When the trigger gets pulled in the time of a threat, there is no difference as both assume and accept that the round fired is going to end the life of the person on the other end.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
No, I'm not, actually, but you present a good opportunity to clarify.
What I said before was this:
Shooting someone is assault with a deadly weapon, or homicide. Those are crimes. In court, you will get the opportunity to plead your necessity of committing those crimes in order to save your life. The only legitimate reason you can give in order to explain why you broke society's laws against harming someone else is that you HAD to STOP them from doing what they were doing in order to save your own life, or the life of another, or to stop one of a very short list of other forcible felonies.
You did NOT have to kill them. They may die, and that is acceptable, but killing them is not your goal. If killing them IS your goal, then that is murder. Even if they have done or are doing something incredibly awful to you and yours, you may not attack them out of a desire to end their life. If their life needs to be ended in recompense for what they've done, that is for society to decide after a jury trial. ALL you may do is shoot until they stop their current, immediate, harmful actions.
Of course not. I think you're getting mixed up in the difference between mechanics and intent. The most effective ammo to STOP someone generally is also that most likely to do the most damage to their body and therefore the most likely to kill them. However, killing them is not your intent. Stopping them is your intent.
The difference is most often, and disastrously clearly, shown in cases where defenders move distinctly from shooting to stop to shooting with intent to kill -- as in the Jerome Ersland case. A man attacked in his own business who ends up with a life sentence because he took his counter attack beyond a reasonable intent to stop an assault and into the realm of executing those who had attempted to harm him.
Yes, of course, and again you are stuck in the mechanics of lethal force and not thinking about intent and how intent can drive your actions.
Here we understand that "tools" are the least important part of the lethal force equation, below "skills" and definitely below "mindset." We're working on a mindset issue here and it is important that as armed citizens we understand exactly what our mindset should be. Killing someone is irrelevant. STOPPING their violent act is the critical -- in fact the ONLY -- reason why we may draw a weapon and/or pull a trigger.
It certainly is a distinction "for the lawyers." And what the lawyers and judges and jurors will say about your intents and actions will affect the rest of your life (ask Jerome Ersland). You have to know and understand WHAT you may do and WHY, or you are likely to lose the life of freedom that you're planning so diligently to be prepared to save.
Are we clearer on this now? Shooting with the intent to kill is unlawful murder. Depending on how things play out, an intent to kill someone may drive you to make decisions and actions that are utterly beyond legal justification. Shooting with the intent to stop is (well, it MAY be) lawfully justified use of force, and keeping that goal -- STOPPING THE THREAT -- firmly in your mind is the key to using lethal force in a lawfully justifiable way.
We want to win the gunfight. We also want our actions to be lawful and proper. Which guiding principle your mindset is keyed to is critical to making that be the case.
Last edited:
bassdogs
Member
Think I get your point about "stop" vs "kill. With that said, isn't the term "lethal force" imply a force or action that could in fact kill? No I don't think your splitting hairs, but maybe are parsing words that the courts may in fact use against you. I live in Ky and I am in my rights to use lethal force to defend myself if I believe that I am facing a immediate threat to my life or the probabiity of serious bodily harm. The key word in the Ky self defense law is "believe". In the aftermath of a shooting, as long as I reasonably believed a threat to be present I am protected even if there was in fact no real threat [ie the gun was actually a cell phone]. In the end, lethal force is deadly force.
No I didn't pull the trigger to kill the bad guy but as the instructor in my CCW class said, "shoot until your are out of ammo, only in the movies do they shoot a couple of rounds and stop to see if the bad guy is down or ready to surrender".
Your are accurate I think to say "stopping" vs "killing" was your intent when interviewed by the police, but unless you went up to the quivering body and fired a couple of kill shots; I do not believe the police or the court is going to parse the language in deciding to prosecute or to convict.
No I didn't pull the trigger to kill the bad guy but as the instructor in my CCW class said, "shoot until your are out of ammo, only in the movies do they shoot a couple of rounds and stop to see if the bad guy is down or ready to surrender".
Your are accurate I think to say "stopping" vs "killing" was your intent when interviewed by the police, but unless you went up to the quivering body and fired a couple of kill shots; I do not believe the police or the court is going to parse the language in deciding to prosecute or to convict.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
COULD kill. And that is, as I already said, one possible result of the shooting that would be acceptable in a justified shooting. But 85% of gunshot victims survive. So shooting to KILL, in more than 8 out of 10 lethal encounters, would necessarily involve quite a bit more than exercise of force than is reasonably necessary to stop the threat. That is force that would be unlawful and would probably result in the rest of your life spent in prison for murder, or manslaughter at least.
Actually, I'm trying hard to help us move beyond using phrases and mindsets that the court absolutely WILL consider in a negative light. I'm trying to clarify how it is that someone MAY lawfully use lethal force, and the fine lines of distinction regarding when/why they may not.
Well, sort of. Another fine-line distinction: Your defense of "self-defense" won't be judged on what you believed. The jury cannot know what was actually in your head at the time. You will be judged on the "reasonable man" standard. In other words, given the information you had at the time you drew and shot, does the jury believe that you had a reasonable fear for your life, compelling enough to necessitate the violent response you made?
Lethal force carries the possibility of resultant death. Death is not the goal, nor even the most common result. Pursuing DEATH will lead you into severe trouble.
Err...kind of. In many cases, a defender will indeed pull the trigger as fast and as many times as he/she can until the gun goes "click." But, that is NOT a conscious effort you should be gearing up to employ. Again, if your actions pass clearly beyond what was needed to end the threat, you (almost certainly) WILL be prosecuted and probably convicted of a crime. Jerome Ersland is a terribly good example of this.
Testifying (or having others testify for/against you) in court that, "The guy fell down, but I had a few bullets left, and my CCW instructor said to shoot until the gun was empty, so I put six more in him..." is going to end your life as you know it.
Unfortunately, CCW instructors, gun shop guys, internet denizens, and even cops often give very bad advice when trying to explain self-defense issues. It's a very good idea to continue your education far beyond those sort of "lowest-common-denominator" resources. That is a real, serious, part of why we're sometimes so strict here on THR at keeping our discussions relevant, realistic, and strictly lawful. So much misinformation and bad advice out there -- and the suffering experienced by folks who swallow too much from the wrong source is very real.
It depends on so very many things. What did you really do in the moment? What evidence can you bring to support your self-defense claim? And, very unfortunately for some folks, what can the prosecution discover from your acquaintances, and your published words (hint: on-line forums!) that speak to your mindset.
(After all, it ISN'T black-and-white. The prosecution has to sway a jury that your self-defense claim isn't supported by the evidense. If they can instill in the jury's minds that you were looking to punish, to kill, to destroy -- not simply to stop an attack -- you may be in for a very rough ride.)
Plan correctly -- get your head straight about what you are REALLY doing when you reach for your gun -- and you may avoid some horrific consequences.
straightshooter9
Member
Current September issue of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN in "the armed citizen" article shows 6 different scenarios of homeowners shooting and killing SIX "unarmed" burglars with no legal issue. One homeowner shot a burglar in the head after breaking a window while the burglar was still OUTSIDE the house.
In another instance, the homeowner "QUOTE" ....confronted two prowlers lurking inside his detached garage, drew his handgun, told them not to move, but suddenly the desperate men charged. The homeowner made quick work of the criminals, opening fire and connecting each shot. One suspect fell dead. The other lay wounded.... "UNQUOTE".
So in this instance, who are the police going to believe that the burglars "charged"??? The unarmed burglars OR the homeowner???? Looks like the police believed the homeowner.
I'm fortunate to live in one of the most "friendly" NRA states with a "Castle" Doctrine.
I really would not want to kill someone, but again, (having served in the ARMY) I wouldn't hesitate to aim "00" at their chest to stop them..........I have that "right" in Florida to protect my life and property.
And bassdogs is correct about the word "believe"........FLORIDA is the same. There was an incident in South Florida of "road rage" when a driver approached another driver sitting in his car
who reached "under" his seat, the first driver thought he was reaching for a gun, he pulled his own weapon and shot the driver in the head. It DID go to trial, he was found NOT GUILTY
because he "believed" his life was in danger, even though NO gun was found on the victim.
In another instance, the homeowner "QUOTE" ....confronted two prowlers lurking inside his detached garage, drew his handgun, told them not to move, but suddenly the desperate men charged. The homeowner made quick work of the criminals, opening fire and connecting each shot. One suspect fell dead. The other lay wounded.... "UNQUOTE".
So in this instance, who are the police going to believe that the burglars "charged"??? The unarmed burglars OR the homeowner???? Looks like the police believed the homeowner.
I'm fortunate to live in one of the most "friendly" NRA states with a "Castle" Doctrine.
I really would not want to kill someone, but again, (having served in the ARMY) I wouldn't hesitate to aim "00" at their chest to stop them..........I have that "right" in Florida to protect my life and property.
And bassdogs is correct about the word "believe"........FLORIDA is the same. There was an incident in South Florida of "road rage" when a driver approached another driver sitting in his car
who reached "under" his seat, the first driver thought he was reaching for a gun, he pulled his own weapon and shot the driver in the head. It DID go to trial, he was found NOT GUILTY
because he "believed" his life was in danger, even though NO gun was found on the victim.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Yup, and that's a very good outcome. But the police didn't ONLY believe the homeowner. The evidence at the scene (and there is ALWAYS evidence) backed up his story.
Again, a subtle distinction: What he really believed wasn't the deciding factor. His defense counsel submitted to the jury the collection of information he had access to at the time and asked them to decide that such a belief and response was reasonable in that circumstance. Very fortunately, they did agree that whatever knowledge or information he had at that moment would lead a reasonable person to believe their life was in danger.
You may believe with all your heart that someone is about to kill you with some weapon. If the jury does not buy that your belief was reasonable, your self-defense justification will be rejected.
As we say a lot here, what YOU think about the shooting really won't make much difference. Pull a gun, and pull a trigger, and your future WILL be decided by others. Maybe in agreement with your beliefs. Maybe not.
bassdogs
Member
You see to be on a mission with this thread. If you lived in Ky, Ga, and apparently Fl, there apparently is a seriously different SD law than in your home state. There are obvious cases like saying you believed a 95 year old lady in a wheelchair, asleep in the park as you approached posed a life threatening danger to you so you shot her 12 times having to reload your revolver to finish the defense, THAT YOU WOULD MOST CERTAINLY BE PROSECUTED. However the word "believe" is in fact written into the Ky law. In addition under the castle rule, any person entering your home uninvited is by statute assumed to be a threat and you do not need to warn or otherwise confront the intruder before opening fire. Now before you launch another point by point response, go on line and read the Ky self defense law. The Ga law is even more friendly to someone defending them self.
I think we all get your point that if you go around threatening to "kill" any one who remotely gets in your face with a scowl on their face;will certainly get you a life behind bars if you are involved in a questionable shooting. I must respectively disagree that shooting until you are out of bullets is some how an aggressive act. Many LE training procedures teach exactly that and many actual police shootings involve what the public may see as excessive force. The number of bullets fired is not the issue, but rather [at least where some of us live] it is the sequence of events that might render an incident a prosecutable. Again the obvious walking up seconds after the initial shooting and administering a point blank kill shot would be a crime no matter where you live. The purpose of using lethal force is [as you correctly state] is to stop the threat. It is not to disable or wound the BG in a manner that would render him no longer a threat. Multiple shots to center mass from a proper self defense weapon, will most likely end in the death of the BG. The incidents that you quote must involve all kinds of shootings and involve a high percentage of untrained individuals.
If you believe stopping vs killing is an important distinction, then since this is America, you are entitled to your opinion. Some will disagree, and we are entitled to our opinion.
I think we all get your point that if you go around threatening to "kill" any one who remotely gets in your face with a scowl on their face;will certainly get you a life behind bars if you are involved in a questionable shooting. I must respectively disagree that shooting until you are out of bullets is some how an aggressive act. Many LE training procedures teach exactly that and many actual police shootings involve what the public may see as excessive force. The number of bullets fired is not the issue, but rather [at least where some of us live] it is the sequence of events that might render an incident a prosecutable. Again the obvious walking up seconds after the initial shooting and administering a point blank kill shot would be a crime no matter where you live. The purpose of using lethal force is [as you correctly state] is to stop the threat. It is not to disable or wound the BG in a manner that would render him no longer a threat. Multiple shots to center mass from a proper self defense weapon, will most likely end in the death of the BG. The incidents that you quote must involve all kinds of shootings and involve a high percentage of untrained individuals.
If you believe stopping vs killing is an important distinction, then since this is America, you are entitled to your opinion. Some will disagree, and we are entitled to our opinion.
To add to that, some people are only concerned with legal vs illegal, and others are only concerned with right vs wrong. With the sad state of the justice system in our country, with the revolving doors of justice, and repeat offenders being out just months later, doing what they do all over again, a reasonable thought would be to make sure the offender never has the chance to do it again.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
I live in a state with a very strong castle doctrine. If I shoot an intruder in my home, not only will there be no charges filed against me but the intruder or his survivors are prohibited by law from filing suit against me in civil court. There is also no “duty to retreat” meaning that if I am any place that I have a legal right to be, I can stand my ground and use deadly force rather than retreat if threatened with bodily harm. My vehicle is also considered an extension of my home and anything that is legal in my home, knife, club, pistol, shotgun or loaded AR is legal in my vehicle.
bassdogs
Member
OS - Not aware of what state you live in, but Ky has pretty much the exact same language in their SD law. Key is "reasonably believe" that a threat existed will protect you from prosecution. The law even states that LE may follow ordinary procedures to investigate the shooting, but you are presumed to be exempt under the law unless evidence contradicts your explanation. And like you say, Ky law has an immunity clause protecting you from prosecution or liability in a civil case if the shooting is justified. It even contains language granting recovery of legal costs, lost wages, and other damages if a civil case is brought in the case of a justified shooting.There is no argument that over the top behavior will most certainly attract prosecution, the presumption of innocence is provided to a shooter unless there is evidence at the scene to contradict your story.
Sam I said I get your point, and I do. But you are lecturing on the finer distinctions of terminology and laws do differ from state to state. Your reference about getting our information from "lower common denominator" sources [or something to that effect] is an insult to CC instructors, LE officers, and gun dealers and furthermore placing yourself as the "higher"
authority is at best overly self indulgent. I'm sure you are speaking from an educated point of view and I'm not questioning that. Just thinking that your status as moderator does not elevate you to the level of "I'm right and you're wrong".
Sam I said I get your point, and I do. But you are lecturing on the finer distinctions of terminology and laws do differ from state to state. Your reference about getting our information from "lower common denominator" sources [or something to that effect] is an insult to CC instructors, LE officers, and gun dealers and furthermore placing yourself as the "higher"
authority is at best overly self indulgent. I'm sure you are speaking from an educated point of view and I'm not questioning that. Just thinking that your status as moderator does not elevate you to the level of "I'm right and you're wrong".
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Lets say that some of us here are on a mission with this FORUM.
To provide a more complete understanding of how the laws pertaining to self-defense work.
Much of this is nearly universal, state-to-state. The methods by which evidence is submitted and legal arguments are made, and juries are informed, etc, work more or less similarly. The text of each law is important, but so is case law precedent, and understanding how "self-defense" pleas really work.
Of course! I'm not arguing that it isn't. I'm explaining that what you did or didn't believe isn't the final arbiter of guilt or innocence. You'll get the chance to tell the jury what you believed, certainly. But the judge doesn't say, "Well folks, that's what he believed, CASE CLOSED! Let's go for tacos!"
No, the jury is going to consider all the evidence and decide if they believe your account and if they believe that what you say you saw and heard would have lead a reasonable person (each of the jurors, really) to make the same reaction. Maybe it is a fine point, but folks do sometimes like to stand on the assurance that, because the law says "believed," that the case really does hinge on their own beliefs and testimony. In actuality, once you pull the trigger (or even pull the gun), the decisions about your future lie entirely with what others believe about what happened.
Ok! Here it is:
There's that word "believe." Good!
Let me back up and review a point. You may not go to trial. There is always the possibility that the police and D/A look at the evidence that is plainly obvious and decide that there is no reason to argue that you did not meet the standards for self-defense justification -- and those standards include the "Castle Doctrine" law.
IF the case gets to trial, though, something has gone wrong. Something about what you believe or claim does not add up in the investigators' eyes. At that point, how reasonable your beliefs were and your response was hang entirely in the judgment of 12 fair and impartial folks sitting on your jury.
You say all you have to do is believe that these things were the case. I'm pointing out that that is not true. IF it gets to a trial, the reasonableness of your beliefs is already under question and you will have to defend them and convince those who hold your fate.
Well, I don't remember where I said that, but all debates must have some groundlines of agreement from which to work -- so I completely concur.
I did not say that. I actually said that many folks in real-life situations DO just that. But I said that advising someone that they should PLAN on that, and actively follow up on it if they have a conscious choice is really bad practice on the part of an instructor. Someone who does NOT shoot the gun dry for whatever reason should never be encouraged to go ahead and empty it for "safety's sake" or whatever. That is very often how self-defense turns into manslaughter -- when someone actively pursues an attacker beyond a reasonable breaking off of hostilities. We hear this kind of stuff frequently: "Make sure he's down!" "Make sure he's dead!" "Don't want any witnesses!" "Don't leave a hostile witness for your trial." Etc.
You may not be intending such absurd (and illegal!) overstatements, but it is a close step away from, "shoot until your gun is empty," to "make sure he goes down and STAYS down!" and so forth.
Now it's my turn to respectfully disagree. Which police trainers teach shoot the gun dry? Tactically it is a horrible idea unless you must. What about multiple attackers?
I think we're in agreement here. I'll restate: Shoot to stop the attack. The death or wounding of an attacker is really irrelevant (neither good nor bad) so long as the attack is stopped. If the attacker dies, falls incapacitated, surrenders, flees, or disappears in a puff of magic smoke, really doesn't matter. The attack has stopped. The justifiable violent response has to stop as well.
Again, "most likely" is not the case. MOST -- an overwhelming majority plus a bunch -- of gun shot victims survive. Obviously, death is not the goal, nor the most common outcome. Pursuing death -- having the death of an attacker as your plan, goal, desire -- is not a wise or productive path.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Those "only" concerned with what their own limited understanding and judgment tell them are "right" and "wrong" are likely to end up at the mercy of what the rest of society believes is legal and illegal.
Those who take capital judgment of another into their own hands deserve the fate the "sad" justice system will deliver on them. Justice and punishment are meted out by society -- never by the individual. That's been part of our rule of laws for millennia.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
You may believe this, and the text of the law may lead you to think that. But even a "strong castle doctrine" does not eliminate the requirement that the investigating officers must establish that you did meet the standards for justifiable self-defense as informed by the C.D. law, among others. You may understand this already and maybe i'm belaboring the point, but you absolutely can be prosecuted for shooting "an intruder" in your home. We all breathe a sigh of relief when a state passes a "castle doctrine" law -- but it is no carte blanche to open fire on anyone who appears in your home unexpectedly. And when someone says, "there WILL BE NO charges filed" -- that's not a good thing.
Insult? Well, I don't mean to insult, but the point is absolutely true. Law enforcement officers are universally horrible sources of self-defense understanding. They don't generally know the laws beyond the few that they deal with daily and have a very different set of rules and conditions for how they deal with violence than a non-officer does. We have read many MANY accounts of law enforcement officers giving out completely contrary and illegal advice. It happens -- often.
Gun dealers are legendary for giving out some of the most laughable advice (on any subject, but especially self-defense). That really seems to go without saying.
CCW instructors are a hugely mixed lot. You've got some guys like Mas Ayoob, Marty Hayes, Tom Givens, and their type who are REALLY awesome at teaching things folks absolutely should know. Then there are a large number of instructors who teach the various courses required by the individual states which must cover the laws, and they can be good or questionable, depending on how well they stick to the "script" and what exactly the "script" covers. And then there are the rest -- mostly well-meaning folks who teach the firearms qualification type courses for the states, or hang out their shingle on their own and teach pretty much whatever the think they know. We hear reports all the time of instructors (like yours) who throw in little bon mots of "wisdom" like "shoot until your gun's empty" or actually do suggest that executing a bad guy is just fine, or encourage any number of other really cringe-worthy errors. You've really got to know who's doing the teaching, what their understanding is, and then evaluate everything you hear against the best legal understanding you have access to.
All I know, I've learned from others. Some of those "others" are here in this forum. I'm always learning new things. I certainly have no authority beyond these (virtual) walls, so I present my arguments to stand on their own virtues, as do you.
Mike1234567
member
I could never be a Moderator because so much arguing with no basis in reality would drive me completely insane. I don't know how some of you Mods keep a cool head and just keep posting the same things over and over again to try and educate others and (hopefully) keep them out of trouble. My hat's off to you all.
My fighting (self-defense) shotgun is a Saiga .410 because, in the short distance I might need to use it, I think a .410 with an extra mag (20 rounds total) is all I'll ever need. I also have a .45 ACP pistol and a carbine to keep any persistent threats at bay.
My fighting (self-defense) shotgun is a Saiga .410 because, in the short distance I might need to use it, I think a .410 with an extra mag (20 rounds total) is all I'll ever need. I also have a .45 ACP pistol and a carbine to keep any persistent threats at bay.
Sam, with as much respect as I can muster, justice has been meted out by the individual for millenia, the justice by organized society is the new thing, not the other way around.
The right thing to do when someone invades your home is to kill him. It is the moral thing to do, as it benefits society to keep multiple law abiding, good people alive, and criminals dead. I can debate philosophy rather well, if you care to partake.
The legal thing to do in the above situation is to stop him. Fortunately, people realize that the best way to do that is with firearms, and there is a good chance stopping might result in the criminal's death.
However, it is only prudent to wish that, of the three sides to the story, your side, his side, and the truth, only two are heard. Obviously, if you can avoid shooting someone, DO SO. It is never a good idea to shoot when there is another option. However, shooting to wound, because you are afraid of the legal ramifications of killing someone, is a very bad thing. It's dangerous for you, and ALL shots with a weapon COULD be lethal, like a deliberate leg shot could hit the femoral artery, and that's lethal.
If one must shoot, one must shoot to end the threat, and that is to shoot the best way modern doctrine teaches it, which is center mass. No one will blame you for being scared and making sure the threat is stopped, but everyone will blame you for further shots after the threat has ended. I believe the general metric is shoot until threatening behavior is stopped by the criminal. That could be he dies, he runs away with one GSW, or he falls down, is still alive, and gives up then.
The prudent thing to do would be for you to call 911, then your lawyer, and cover the bad guy until the law arrives.
The right thing to do when someone invades your home is to kill him. It is the moral thing to do, as it benefits society to keep multiple law abiding, good people alive, and criminals dead. I can debate philosophy rather well, if you care to partake.
The legal thing to do in the above situation is to stop him. Fortunately, people realize that the best way to do that is with firearms, and there is a good chance stopping might result in the criminal's death.
However, it is only prudent to wish that, of the three sides to the story, your side, his side, and the truth, only two are heard. Obviously, if you can avoid shooting someone, DO SO. It is never a good idea to shoot when there is another option. However, shooting to wound, because you are afraid of the legal ramifications of killing someone, is a very bad thing. It's dangerous for you, and ALL shots with a weapon COULD be lethal, like a deliberate leg shot could hit the femoral artery, and that's lethal.
If one must shoot, one must shoot to end the threat, and that is to shoot the best way modern doctrine teaches it, which is center mass. No one will blame you for being scared and making sure the threat is stopped, but everyone will blame you for further shots after the threat has ended. I believe the general metric is shoot until threatening behavior is stopped by the criminal. That could be he dies, he runs away with one GSW, or he falls down, is still alive, and gives up then.
The prudent thing to do would be for you to call 911, then your lawyer, and cover the bad guy until the law arrives.
Mike1234567
member
Sam didn't say "shoot to wound" and he never has that I'm aware of. He said shoot to "stop the threat" and once the threat is stopped then "cease deadly force". He also said it's criminal to "intentionally kill someone". With all due respect, what is so difficult to understand? Just accept his friendly "legal advice" for what it is. If you must kill an attacker then you'll know WHAT NOT TO SAY.
Last edited:
bassdogs
Member
One last comment. First its good to see that you did google up the ky law abeit only a part of it. On several occasions, you mention what a jury will evaluate or what the jury will believe. The case will never get to a jury if after LE completes the review of the facts, the evidence finds nothing to shed doubt on your claim of "reasonable believe". You might have read [but left out of your summary of ky law] that you can not be arrested, retained against your will, or prosecuted unless evidence found during an investigation raises doubt about your claim. The police chief [my CCW instructor] and my county Sheriff have explained the nuiances of the law to me personally and these are the individuals who would be responsible for any investigation. I don't doubt that the choice of words that you want us to use are the right way to go. I do however think that both sides of this argument have gotten totally off topic which I think is about fighting shotguns.
With that I will move on to other discussions.
With that I will move on to other discussions.
straightshooter9
Member
Relating to "fighting Shotguns"..............
Locally last week, not far from where I live, a homeowner shot two unarmed BG's as one entered a window and the other was outside behind the first.
One is critical, the other wounded, both arrested, homeowner was not charged. Police stated the homeowner was "protecting life & property",
no charges against him, wasn't even taken downtown for questioning.
The homeowners "choice of weapon"?
12ga PUMP.........another win for the "good" guys!
I don't ever remember anyone charged for shooting a BG in this town.
Locally last week, not far from where I live, a homeowner shot two unarmed BG's as one entered a window and the other was outside behind the first.
One is critical, the other wounded, both arrested, homeowner was not charged. Police stated the homeowner was "protecting life & property",
no charges against him, wasn't even taken downtown for questioning.
The homeowners "choice of weapon"?
12ga PUMP.........another win for the "good" guys!
I don't ever remember anyone charged for shooting a BG in this town.
ElectrikKoolAid
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 53
How did a (sticky) thread "on fighting shotguns" get so deep into Castle Doctrine issues?
Mike1234567
member
It's just the nature of discussion.
two gun charlie
Member
Dave I was wondering what shotgun the U.S military prefers ?
- Status
