After the shooting is over?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shooting to stop v kill

If you are being attacked, your defensive actions are for the purpose of stopping the attack, and ending the threat of harm to yourself.

For the purposes of the following, we're going to run with the assumption that you are in full view of 10 witnesses and on a camera (just to avoid any hedges with articulation):

If you draw your gun and the BG stops and surrenders, do you go ahead and shoot him? No. So, you're not trying to kill him, just stop him.

If you draw your gun and shoot and miss, and the BG surrenders, do you go ahead and shoot him? No. So, you're not trying to kill him, just stop him.

If you shoot him in the leg and he stops and surrenders, do you shoot him again, hoping to hit center mass? No. So, you're not trying to kill him, just stop him.

If you shoot him in the chest and he stops and drops, do you shoot him again? No. So, you're not trying to kill him, just stop him.

If you shoot him in the chest and he stops, drops and dies...well...you weren't trying to kill him, but he died anyway. Oh well.

It is possible to stop someone and not kill them.

It is possible to kill someone and not stop them.

The goal is to protect yourself from attack...the goal is to STOP them from attacking you.

Where the confusion lies is that the most effective STOP is a center-mass or CNS shot...and this also happens to be the most effective way to kill someone. Naturally, this isn't coincidence, but rather pure physiology. But legally and ethically it is a pure coincidence. They attacked you. You tried to stop them. You used lethal force. They stopped attacking you, and you stopped defending yourself. They also died...oh well. Sucks to be them.

Mike
 
We don't carry firearms to enact a finish to anyone, if that happens in the course of your self defense, then that is the outcome of both parties actions in that circumstance...

...Warriors feel no need to languish in the "that will teach em" mindset...

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say anything like that.

As I said on my post, I was assuming that the shooting would have taken place in my own home. As such, there is no reason for anyone to be in my house unless they are intent upon hurting me. If they are looking for fancy electronics or money, they sure as hell won't find them here.

On top of that, I don't carry. So my only reasonable answer to the hypothetical situation asked would be assuming that someone was in my house, meaning harm. And if that is the case, yes I will stop them. But it seems quite counterintuitive to practice putting your slugs into the X ring, and then expect the intruder to not die.

Can we be honest? If someone is intent on harming me, and I have to defend myself, I would rather have them die than run off and do the same thing to some other unsuspecting residence.

I don't want to sound like I'm being Mr. Macho, so if that is what you got from my last post, forgive me.

Wes
 
Boy, you guys really don't read very well. I never said if I shot someone I would dance around his body, singing "ding dong the witch is dead", nor would I be stupid enough to start bragging "I meant to double tap him between the eyes, but just decided to empty my glock in this body instead" I said if I shot some one it is with the intention to kill not wound. Don't believe drawing a gun and firing at someone unless you mean to stop him immediately with deadly force.

And no way would I get near his body to render first aid. I'll call 911 or find someone to call 911, but I would not put myself in harms way again trying to save his butt. I have no medical experience and I can just see an attorney saying "so how is it that you see that you are fit to render medical help....are you a doctor???....do you have medical training???....why didn't you just wait for the ambulance or a trained professional???.....do you know you were negligent and probably caused more harm that help???...."

My examples show that in this sue happy country, relying on Good Samaritian Laws, or common sense really isn't going to protect you. Your going to get sued for money or by some DA looking to make his name.

Brownie, your right I don't have any criminal justice experience, I forte is in Civil Litigation and Corporate Law.

I cited the example of Goretz "the subway vigilante". He was attacked by 4 young black boys, and shot one, got sued up the ying yang and spent time in jail for defending himself. How is that example not relevant to this scenario first described????
 
I cited the example of Goretz "the subway vigilante". He was attacked by 4 young black boys, and shot one, got sued up the ying yang and spent time in jail for defending himself. How is that example not relevant to this scenario first described????

Relevant or not, the scenario described above happened in New York city, where the unarmed are king,and the armed are vilified.
 
My reccollection of the Goetz case is that he walked up on one of em who had already been shot and was down, and said something to the effect of "Here, have another" and shot him again. That may have worked against him.
 
Irregardless of what you do, the only sentence to come out of your mouth if you are ever involved in a shooting is:

"I was in fear for my life, I want to speak to my attorney."
 
The lawsuits against him were made valid as he used an illegal firearm and was in fact a criminal himself at the time of the incient on the train [ at least more valid than had he been licensed and legit with the weapon ].

Courts frown on one who breaks the law by carrying an illegal weapon, let alone one who breaks the law and then hurts or kills another with that illegal weapon.

I personally thought Geotz got off pretty easy in NY when it ran realtime.
I think public sentiment and the media played a big part in his not doing more time, thats just an opinion from recollection though.

As to Geotz being villified, he should have been, he was criminally in possession of an unregistered gun. No more or less so than the gang bangers on the streets. I can't condone carrying illegally for him anymore than I can for the bangers doing the same thing.

For what it is worth, I think the 4 of them got a taste of their own medicine, that's not the same as saying they got what they deserved however.

Brownie
 
I said if I shot some one it is with the intention to kill not wound. Don't believe drawing a gun and firing at someone unless you mean to stop him immediately with deadly force.


That statement of intent to kill is all it will take to change a clear case of self defense to a manslaugher or murder conviction.




But it seems quite counterintuitive to practice putting your slugs into the X ring, and then expect the intruder to not die.

It's not about EXPECTING him not to die - it's about not INTENDING for him to die. You may think that's a lawyer's difference, but D.A.s and judges are lawyers. And THEY decide who gets to be tried for murder.

Hmmm. That kinda makes me want to pay attention to what they think! :what:
 
Despite of what we think we would do in this case, real life has a way of bitch slapping you across the face and destroying all of your carefully laid out plans.

But CWL hit the nail on the head.

"Irregardless of what you do, the only sentence to come out of your mouth if you are ever involved in a shooting is:

"I was in fear for my life, I want to speak to my attorney."


I'm not going to continue with this thread but lets just all say we all agree to disagree. Ain't America grand.

Regards everyone

:D :D :D
 
Jeesh

I started this thread out of shear curiousity, and look where it's gone. I find it a testament to this board that even tho' there are obvious differences of opinion, no one has called anyone elses parentage into question.

Honestly, I think if it's a good shooting, you probably don't have much to fear from the courts as far as losing a case, but nothing can protect you from being sued. And even if you win the case, a lawsuit is a pain in the keister. Still not sure if I would render aid or not, my personal belief is that all life is sacred, but some more than others. But it's that whole karma thing, so what can I do.

Great points being brought up on all sides, even by those that I hardly ever agree with, guess I'm learning all the time.
 
I have no medical experience and I can just see an attorney saying "so how is it that you see that you are fit to render medical help....are you a doctor???....do you have medical training???....why didn't you just wait for the ambulance or a trained professional???.....do you know you were negligent and probably caused more harm that help???...."
I just got out of the first aid course at work today. And as I said before, the treatment for a open bleeding wound is direct pressure. I asked, "When wouldn't you apply direct pressure to a wound?" The answer was when someone has a skull fracture, as you might push the skull into the brain. So again, it is very simple, if someone is shot, apply direct pressure. You are not going to agrevate the wound. When something is bleeding profusely, you try to stop it by putting a bandage and direct pressure over it. It isn't brain surgery. A lawyer might just ask those questions above, which you lawyer will already have coached you to respond, "I applied direct pressure to the wound in order to stop the bleeding." If the person dies because you couldn't stop the bleeding, you are still fine, as they would have died had you done nothing. End of that argument. You don't have to have training, you don't have to be a Dr., it is simply common sense. And the good samaritan laws do protect you. If you don't have faith in them, don't help anyone then. If someone is dying or in trouble, don't draw your gun, don't offer help, don't do anything. You might have enough risk tolerance to dial 911 and I guess that might be a step in the right direction.

I guess I just get frustrated when everyone throws common sense out the window and just lives in fear and paranoia. I see it all the time at work. People are unwilling to stand up and do what is right or to ask for what they deserve because they are afraid of lawyers or bosses and what they can do to them. When you make the right decisions and you do the right thing, good people should not have anything to fear. Yes the world sucks, yes people get raw deals, but I am not going to live in fear or avoid doing the right thing because corrupt people will make it hard on me if I do. If that is the way things happen, oh well. I can still be confident that I didn't shirk my duty or responsiblity and that I did the best I could. Might that be naive, might that be putting me at risk to get sued? Sure. Might I save a life, might I stop criminals and bad people from taking advantage of good people? Yes. I chose not to live my life in fear. If the lawyers want to take me down, lets fight it out in the courts. If my boss wants to go after me because they were wrong and I spoke up, lets go. If I lose because the system is flawed, so be it. Someone has to take some stands and do what is right in this world. When good people say nothing, the lawyers and greedy don't hesitate to take advantage. I don't intend on making it easy for them.

So if I determine the scene is safe and I apply direct pressure on a bleeding subject that shot at me, I accept the risk. If I decide the scene isn't safe and I don't help out the subject, I accept the risk. Whatever I decide, I know that it will be withing my legal abilities and if some lawyer wants to make an issue of it, lets do it. Why I am at it, I might as well counter sue the criminal for punitive and emotional damages. Why be the prey in court when I can be the predator. There is a thought. Instead of worrying about getting sued for acting within the law, why not start suing those that don't act within the law. When are we going to take back our power and authority and stop giving it to criminals and lawyers?
 
Wow El Rojo, Well said. I agree with every single thing you said. You put it into a very good perspective.:cool:

Better to try & fail than to never have tried at all.

Defendant hell, Plaintiff. I like that.
 
the_redstar_swl

Where you are 13 years old, I'll ask that you read this carefully.

AP ammo is illegal to use on the streets in the US

You haven't lived long enough to be able to make statements about cops planting evidence. Or do you have some practical experience in that area already?

A 13 yr old with a bad attitude toward LE's already?

Edited to add: Don't take my reply here as amonishment, take it as a heads up that you may want to reconsider your signature line, it might be a little overboard [ but hey, I get overboard here as well often enough so the age has nothing to do with it ].


Brownie
 
Last edited:
the_redstar_swl, two things:

  1. You're welcome here.

  2. You have a lot to learn about life.[/list=1]


    You can learn a lot here. If you listen.
 
i think id be more worried about my families well being and the potential for more aggressors. that an trying to get ahold of LEOs to let them know who i am so im not the next gunshot victim.

my compassion for the BG went as far as the .357 to stop him
 
Well, bein' a normal 'merican, I know one thing...

If you go over to the fellow in the hockey mask after you shoot him, and turn him over, he reaches up, grabs you someplace painful, and tries to chew your face off.

I ain't fallin' for it.
 
Oh, bogie, you'd take all the fun out of horror movies!


"I think he'd dead."

"Think nuthin!" CLACK! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

(pieces of skull fly in several directions)

"THERE. NOW he's dead."


:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top