Another excessive use of force

Almost agree.

After the initial attack,the stick attacker did manage to strike [ and break ] the windshield.

I am not about to second guess the shooter,as I WAS NOT BEING ATTACKED = and I might be in a more comfortable zone with an attack than he.

AND ,they had history which just "MIGHT" have had to do with the attacker being the one with the upper hand in the past.

SO = is it just conceavable that the shooter was injured or hospitalized in the past [ unkowns are not to be judged by me ].

The shooter might also have continued to shoot from TOTAL FEAR, not reasonable to us.

BUT to him it might have to do with the past ----- again.

I am not judging him wrong,but if it were me,I am sure I could have done something else.

BUT --------- it was not me,or you !!.

 

Being able to get Moosad Ayoob on your defense team would be VERY helpful here.

If you have read his stuff,and the stuff from the institute of force,you would see a different point of view.

And they do work ALL over the world ,in trials.

 

First shot appeared justifiable. Second shot less so. As soon as third parties showed up (potential collateral damage) shooting should stop.

That third and last shot appears to be deliberate and unnecessary execution. That raises questions about the past history between the two. Which goes beyond what's in the video and raises suspicions. For all I know, the shooter may have provoked and lured the clubber into a killing field for the purpose of execution. The last shot raises questions

Almost a side point: It was not just a stick: it was an iron bar. More dangerous than just a stick, which would have raised the fear and anger of the man initially attacked. We are expecting the man to engage in calm reflection in the face of an upraised and swung iron bar.

 

Perfect example of MMQB.

 

Somebody recently told me that in Israel you are supposed to aim for the legs. Being that the speaker displayed lack of knowledge (or more precisely, "knowledge" of non-facts) during the conversation, I don't put much stock in his statement. But I don't know the actual rules there.

 

While that may be true, it means nothing to the ones there when it happens.

They have split seconds to make life or death decisions, and no amount of internet second guessing can help with that.

It's an entertaining way to pass the time, but it's foolish to think it really accomplishes much.

If you don't do #1, nothing that follows will matter.
You can't be preoccupied with those other things when it's time to act.

You just have to know the laws as well as you can and hope for the best if you feel the need to use any sort of force.

 

I come from a world that conducts After Action Reviews on every operation as well as studies of battles to include "Field Rides" touring battlefields to learn as much as possible about the good elements of our performance and how to sustain that, as well as what to improve, this includes learning from others. It takes too long (and we may not live through it) if we only learn from our experience, never learning lessons from others.

I honed in on the biggest improvement I saw (that he absolutely could have done) shut and lock the door! This would have given him a lot more time and options...you can call that MMQB if you wish, I'll keep learning and improving the way I know how.

BTW, did you hop on youtube and post the same comment on ASP's site? Isn't MMQB what those videos are all about?

 

"Internet second-guessing" can't help them, but it can certainly help you if it informs your thoughts, actions and TRAINING, revolving around use of force situations. Unless you think you have no control over with will happen in those few seconds. If that is the case, what separates the best military and LE operators from the typical CCW holder when it comes to combat performance? Are survival and staying out of jail mutually exclusive? Or, is one (staying out of jail) out of your control in those few seconds? Or, are there operational methods that can be learned and trained (and continually improved) to vastly improve one's odds of staying out of jail? Are you saying if this shooter had had gobs of "shoot-no shoot" and reactive target (stop shooting when they fall) training along with legal training from the likes of Ayoob he'd be in this predicament anyway? (He would if he wanted to murder the guy, no training trumps will)

Lastly, if the week prior to this event, the shooter was on this forum and saw a thread on a video almost exactly like this and he read and participated in it, might it have influenced his thoughts on justifiable use of force, couldn't it have had an impact? Otherwise, why is anyone watching and commenting on this stuff, sick entertainment? That's not why I'm here...

 

So many people miss this point. Arguments can be made back and worth about the necessity and situation for the first few shots and if they were justified, if other options were a better tactical choice or if the sky was blue that morning. What can't be argued, and what sent this man to jail and would send anyone to jail in every country I know, was the execution shot. The right to use lethal force in self defense absolutely ends when the threat ends. By continuing to use lethal force after a bystander has interposed themselves and created a barrier to the conflict, the shooter switches from legal self defense to murder.

 

I consider when people say they should have 'aimed for the legs' or 'shoot the gun out of their hand' or 'fire a warning shot' they do not have a clue to what can happen. Bullet might sever the femoral artery in the leg, or miss and hit someone else (as happened to a cop recently when he shot a dog and the bullet ricocheted and killed a young man), or the bullet pass on through and still hit someone.

As Tuco would say..."When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." But in this case... if you have to shoot, shoot to stop them in their tracks.

Deaf

 

I have worked with straight leg IDF units as well as did a cross training exercise with the Mossad, they don't train to shoot for the legs unless there is a specific rule of engagement (hostage situation, HVT capture etc) just like we do. In a country that requires a couple years of military service, I do not expect the populace to have the same attitude to training.

 

That may be your "subject", but it wasn't mine.

The "MMQB" doesn't matter to the person at the time the incident is occurring.
All they have to go on is their own perceptions from their own point of view,
Nothing that takes place afterwards will change any thing,

 

The context of my comment was avoiding jail and lawsuits, which was part of the post I quoted.

I seldom write essays that include every possibility.
People quickly lose interest with long winded posts.

 

I suspect it would have had no effect at all since he still only had split seconds to react to a violent attack.

There are differing opinions here as to what he should have done, so there's no reason to think the outcome would be that much different.

I've read some posts here stating that people "panic" under stress and aren't capable of thinking or even interpreting what they see going on around them.

Look for the thread about an incident on a subway car.

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

You're entitled to your opinions on that as well.
Not everyone agrees.