A What if?--Tyler, TX

[Boats]

What if, in response to say the N. Hollywood shootout, the dearly departed Mr. Wilson has just drawn a bead on Arroyo's head and fired an intended coup d' grace?

It was reported that from the cover he had, Wilson wasn't noticed by the shooter until he had struck him with his .45 using a "standard," and in the end, ineffective, string of fire consisting of two COM shots and some sort of assessment.

Do you think had he just shot at his head trying to attain a hit in case the shooter was wearing body armor, that:

He could have been successful in eight or nine shots on a moving target?
Assuming success, he would have gotten in legal trouble for the tactic?

I only ask the second question because of the Problem 2 it presents. Without shooting a perp, or being in some sort of contact fight first, you cannot know if he is employing body armor.

If you presume in light of current events, that until proven otherwise your perp is wearing body armor, it could be said that instead of "shooting to stop," you have crossed the threshold into "shooting to kill."

Semantics? Maybe, but what if you make the presumption of body armor and shoot a guy who just turned out to be depressed and waving an Airsoft before you put three into his skull?

 

[NavajoNPaleFace]

I have no idea what this one is about.

 

[GEM]

Texas law is in terms of when to use lethal force. Shooting to stop is not an issue. He was clearly in the right to use lethal force.

The initial premise is a misunderstanding of gun world jargon. When you shoot, you are using lethal force as it is authorized. Shooting to stop indicates that you don't necessarily desire to kill the BG. However, you have used a method that can be lethal if appropriate under the law.

 

[Moondoggie]

If Mark Wilson would have hit the BG in the head, I doubt that he would have had any legal difficulties as a result. I sure wish this would have turned out for the better. I applaud his willingness to put himself in danger to protect others.

I think that this should give anybody who CCW's pause for thought regarding preparedness.

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

I've always heard that the "excessive force" complaints stem from the use of a Mozambique on an unarmored target without "pausing to assess", the argument being "You already shot him twice in the chest, why'd you have to shoot again?". BTW, I don't think that this line has ever actually successfully been used in an otherwise legitimate shoot.

As a first shot in an engagement, I don't think the law draws any distinction (now what some publicity-hungry prosecutor will say may be another story).

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Boats, you have made some overly simple assumptions. In both cases of North Hollywood and Tyler, it was obvious the shooters were wearing body armor, multiples of layers. Arroyo was wearing a frag vest over the body armor. Wilson, a Nam vet should have recognized this we might think. The guys in North Hollywood were dressed head to toe in Michellen Man bulk of armor, or at least one also had it on his legs. Hell, the guys had limited mobility they had so much on. It was warm weather in North Hollywood that day and those guys weren't wearing 6 sweatshirts each.

Contrary to political correctness, especially in Texas, shooting to stop is shooting to kill in that it is lethal force either way. There is no threshold to cross over. Don't kid yourself. It matters not whether you are shooting the leg, arm, gun, or head. It is lethal force. You incur no additional liability by shooting the head in regard to criminal law. Personally, I don't understand the stupid notion that you can be shooting somebody and not intending to kill them. It is LETHAL FORCE you are using!!!

Could Wilson have hit the head in 8 or 9 shots? Maybe. People have crappy track records on this matter. LAPD had trouble doing it in the first 700 or so rounds they fired at bad guys. Heck, you would have thought that given the situation that random chance might have caught one of the bad guys in the head a little sooner, but it didn't happen.

The problem with head shots is that people often miss and unlike the bad guys, we care where our rounds go and if they may harm somebody down range.

If you have some problem with shooting to kill, maybe you don't need a gun for defense. If it is becasue of the laws where you live, maybe you don't need to live there. Come to Texas. Hell, we can still shoot chicken thieves at night and do so quite legally!

 

[sturmruger]

This is why I am planning on purchasing a car gun. It is going to be a Kel-Tec SU-16 and I am planning on mounting some sort of Red Dot on it. Then if the SHTF I will be sufficiently prepared.

 

[Ryder]

I don't think anyone would assume a head shot was intentional unless you told them it was. Just look at the posts here. Even shooters don't think head shots can be done on demand. You're more likely to shoot your own eye out than hit somebody else in the head with a bullet.

If I could be prosecuted for that then just let me say I've never hit anythng I aimed at. I only depend on luck. I shoot with my eyes closed and have no abilities. That shooting coins thing at 50 yards... That was somebody else.

Heads bob and weave? IF you miss the first shot odds are you aren't going to be hitting anything in the near future but it's a whole different story before something knows it is a target.

 

[JohnKSa]

Had he done that and connected there would have been zero negative repercussions.

As it was, they are now saying he hit Arroyo once in the groin area below the body armor protected area. That's likely why Arroyo decided to leave the area after shooting Wilson.

I have seen LOTS of speculation that Wilson fired twice and then paused to asses. I have seen ZERO evidence of this in any of the articles. What I've seen was eyewitnesses reported as saying things like: "They (Wilson and Arroyo) were firing at each other and missing" and "Wilson hit him a couple of times good and spun him around but he didn't go down."

I repeat, so far we have ZERO credible evidence that Wilson fired twice and then stopped to assess. This was posted early on and taken as gospel rather than the speculation it really is.

 

[Bear Gulch]

A little hint, I'd NEVER say that I shot to kill. I would say I shot to insure the safety of myself and the public.

A tactic to consider is to shoot for the pelvis. Body armor stops short of that in most cases. It would be easier to hit than a bobbing head. If you fracture the pelvis our BG is now immobile.

It is sad that so much effort will be spent on Monday moning quartebacking a man who saw it as his duty to protect others. His duty, not his job. We all like to think that we know how we'd react, and to this end, we drill. Sometimes even with the best of gear and tactics, your luck runs out. I salute this man for putting aside his own safety to defend others. That is, after all, what makes America great.

 

[GEM]

BoyScout - do you have a reference to such a case where this was brought up?

Police (as in Diallo) have been charged with excessive force based on the number of shots looking bad.

I still say Wilson would have NO problem as he was engaging someone committing murder. The TX law is very clear on this.

 

[lwsimon]

I WOULD say I shot to kill. If I ever need to use lethal force in a confrontation, I'm not going to say I "shot to stop" - I'm going to say that I was aware of the laws, trained hard to both maximize effectiveness and minimise risk to bystanders, and put that training to use. If you want to go all legalese on me, how's this - if you shot to "stop", and not kill, then you are suggesting that lethal force may not have been required....

 

[Double Naught Spy]

There is no reason to say that you "shot to stop" or to say that you "shot to kill." Smart people who are in self defense shootings and survive will consult an attorney and allow the attorney to speak for them so that they don't say something stupid that will somehow manage to get them arrested because their words were misinterpreted or twisted around out of context.

Simply shoot how you need to shoot to be successful in the situation and leave the wordplay up to the folks who are trained and paid to handle such matters.

 

[GEM]

You shouldn't say anything about your motivations or tactics until you have a lawyer and planned out what to say IN COURT.

To the law, you say - I was in fear of my life and that of others (if appropriate) and I will be glad to talk to you again after I speak to my attorney. Then go get a lawyer.

Don't explain anything to anyone without some legal counsel.

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

BoyScout - do you have a reference to such a case where this was brought up?

A thread reposted either here or on TFL from glocktalk...

A ccw'er triple tapped two very bad men (as in wanted for multiple kidnap/rape/murders), and the DA tried to prosecute him because the headshots (2 com, 1 head each guy) were excessive... I'll see if I can search up a link.

ETA: Here it is... you need to register though...http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread...25&pagenumber=1

You could try a search here or at TFL for "roadrep" (original poster in that thread)

 

[dolanp]

And what about those 8 or 9 headshots that you miss? Where did the bullets go? Did you just kill an innocent bystander?

Shoot to hit the target. I suspect Mr. Wilson was not aware of the body armor or he would have come out with a rifle instead.

 

[TamThompson]

I was taught "shoot to stop the attack"--whether that's a double tap or a Mozambique or shootin' 'em all the way to the ground.

Just came back from the range, where I practiced about 150 rounds of HEAD SHOTS, and dedicated my last 3 shots (a Mozambique) to Mr. Wilson, with respect.

 

[Lonestar.45]

I'd like to think I could make a headshot with at least one of the 8rds in my gun. But, in all honesty I know that won't happen in a real gunfight. I pray that I am never in that situation.

 

[Sistema1927]

If you are allowed to use deadly force, then.....











......you are allowed to use deadly force.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

what if you make the presumption of body armor and shoot a guy who just turned out to be depressed and waving an Airsoft before you put three into his skull?

Ideally, it would be a contact shot to the back of the head. Without warning.

Then I'd go home and sleep like a baby.

 

[GEM]

Thanks, BoyScout - I'll read the threads when I get a chance.