Body armor defeating 9mm?

[Jeff White]

#125
2ndunamended
Member


Join Date: November 21, 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 42
Plan2Live- you are on point since the OP scenario was a terrorist attack like the San Bernadino shooting. You're not going to have to defend yourself after such a situation as you would in a "standard" self defense scenario.

That is a pretty risky assumption to make. Even an Infantryman on the battlefield can't execute an enemy soldier who is down.

The law is most likely to look at anyone who intervenes in a terrorist attack exactly the same way as they would in any other self defense situation. You put someone down and then finish him off with a shot to the head when he was no longer a threat and you will probably face the same legal consequences as if you had executed an armed robbery suspect.

I am unaware of any state that has a "terrorism" exemption in its criminal code. If you can show me one I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[2ndunamended]

You put someone down and then finish him off with a shot to the head when he was no longer a threat and you will probably face the same legal consequences as if you had executed an armed robbery suspect.

You are prudent in what you say, but you are playing armchair QB after the fact, assuming someone is no longer a threat. In the case of San Bernadino I can guarantee if someone put down either shooter with a shot to the head, after the devastating carnage they created, that guy or gal is getting a medal, not prosecuted.

 

[Jeff White]

Really!! And you are willing to bet your freedom on that? When you can show me the statute or case law that permits that we will advocate here.

In the meantime it's not a legal action and THR will not advocate it nor accept posts that do.

 

[AK103K]

The law is most likely to look at anyone who intervenes in a terrorist attack exactly the same way as they would in any other self defense situation. You put someone down and then finish him off with a shot to the head when he was no longer a threat and you will probably face the same legal consequences as if you had executed an armed robbery suspect.

Im a little confused here. Are you saying that because he went down, hes no longer a threat? Or are you talking about something else here?

Seems to me, the whole theory here with pelvis shots is, they are more easily made shots, that allow you to put them on the ground so you can anchor them, and then take the head shot.

Just because you take away their mobility, does not take away their capability as a threat. If they are, or appear to still be a threat, they are still fair game, and I seriously doubt they would still be alive at that point anyway, since you were apparently already justified in taking the COM shots, and then the pelvis shot, and would have immediately made the head shot once they were down.

 

[Sam1911]

Im a little confused here. Are you saying that because he went down, hes no longer a threat? Or are you talking about something else here?

No. Not automatically. But if s/he is no longer attacking, then further violence on your part is unlawful. Any concept of "finishing the job" or "taking them out" needs to be completely anathema to the lawful defender. Once a threat is stopped from attacking the defender must de-escalate to a "careful observation" mode, to make sure that the attacker doesn't choose to re-engage, but may not administer any coups-des-graces.

 

[old lady new shooter]

No. Not automatically. But if s/he is no longer attacking, then further violence on your part is unlawful. Any concept of "finishing the job" or "taking them out" needs to be completely anathema to the lawful defender. Once a threat is stopped from attacking the defender must de-escalate to a "careful observation" mode, to make sure that the attacker doesn't choose to re-engage, but may not administer any coups-des-graces.

Based on some of the videos I'm seeing out of Israel you really have to keep watching them after they go down. That one a few weeks ago who first ran his car into his victim and then jumped out and wildly tried to hack him to death, then was shot by a nearby armed civilian, got up after being shot, was shot again, went down again, then GOT UP A SECOND TIME.

 

[Jeff White]

Yes, you have to watch anyone you shoot once he is down incase he is still a threat. And if that person would act in a threatening manner you would be justified in re-engaging.

But you cannot fire an anchoring shot into him if he has ceased the hostile actions.

 

[2ndunamended]

Based on some of the videos I'm seeing out of Israel you really have to keep watching them after they go down. That one a few weeks ago who first ran his car into his victim and then jumped out and wildly tried to hack him to death, then was shot by a nearby armed civilian, got up after being shot, was shot again, went down again, then GOT UP A SECOND TIME.

Now that we're no longer talking about a terrorist scenario as in the OP, you are absolutely correct. One shoots to "stop the threat," not kill, wound, or otherwise incapacitate. If the threat is still moving, it is still a threat. A crackhead or otherwise hopped up terrorist may keep on moving if hit anywhere non-vital, but a headshot through the brain or brain stem will stop them on the spot.

 

[AK103K]

But you cannot fire an anchoring shot into him if he has ceased the hostile actions.

And that "if" a very broad and wide open thing, especially in a matter of tenths of seconds, while its occurring.

Unless of course, youre intentionally conditioning yourself to hesitate between shots.

 

[2ndunamended]

Yes, you have to watch anyone you shoot once he is down incase he is still a threat. And if that person would act in a threatening manner you would be justified in re-engaging.

But you cannot fire an anchoring shot into him if he has ceased the hostile actions.

I'll do my best to remember all this while multiple rounds of 7.62 from multiple shooters are flying over my head.

 

[Jeff White]

Yes it's broad and wide open and if you want to avoid legal entanglements you had better be able to articulate "what hostile act the person did" and it better be enough of a reason that someone sitting in a jury box is going to accept as within the law.

 

[2ndunamended]

Yes it's broad and wide open and if you want to avoid legal entanglements you had better be able to articulate "what hostile act the person did" and it better be enough of a reason that someone sitting in a jury box is going to accept as within the law.

Holy cow.

I love theoretical discussions.

 

[Jeff White]

So you think that getting charged with a crime for taking the actions you "thought" were a legal use of deadly force is theoretical?

Let me tell you something; people are charged, convicted and sent to prison all time for things they did that they "thought were right" in a defensive use of force. Some of them did the right thing but were unable to articulate it to the judge or the jury.

It's not theoretical, it's very real.

 

[2ndunamended]

So you think that getting charged with a crime for taking the actions you "thought" were a legal use of deadly force is theoretical?

I did, before I was set straight in this thread. No I must really think first about the consequences when reacting in the moment to a terrorist attack. I'm going to keep a checklist handy at all times, and will refer to it diligently while my colleagues and I are being shot at by terrorists.

 

[AK103K]

Im looking at it this way, the conditions were that I was justified when I started shooting, and the COM rounds had no immediate result, I was still justified when I went to the pelvis (something I would have likely not done anyway, as Im sure you already know, which eliminates this whole line of arguing too), and I would still be justified at shooting them on the way down, as in reality, it was all part of the first initial act.

I dont practice the shoot one and assess, shoot one and assess, etc,. I from the shoot until the threat is stopped school of thinking.

I think some take the legal worrying to the point of likely being a deadly "loop" in live fire. Yes, I understand that you need to know and understand the law, and Im not disputing that, but I think you need to be a realist as well, and once things start, and you feel you are justified, then at that point, you forget about everything but solving the problem. Everything else becomes secondary. You can worry about that other stuff later, if you survive.

 

[Jeff White]

If you haven't thought about these things BEFORE you decided to carry a gun for self defense then I suggest you stop carrying before you cause a tragic incident and/or end up in prison.

If you have not trained and have the kind of attitude you are displaying in this thread then maybe you should revisit your personal self defense plans because they appear to be deeply flawed.

 

[2ndunamended]

If you haven't thought about these things BEFORE you decided to carry a gun for self defense then I suggest you stop carrying before you cause a tragic incident and/or end up in prison.

If you have not trained and have the kind of attitude you are displaying in this thread then maybe you should revisit your personal self defense plans because they appear to be deeply flawed.

Check. Your advice is especially valuable to me, considering how much you know about me and my experiences.

I hope your command of your own self defense plan is as airtight as your reading comprehension, understanding of hypothetical situations, and semantics. I trust that your vast experience in a shootout will continue to serve you well, as well as provide tremendous value to THR readers.

 

[JohnKSa]

And that "if" a very broad and wide open thing, especially in a matter of tenths of seconds, while its occurring.

Unless of course, youre intentionally conditioning yourself to hesitate between shots.

I know that you don't intend for it to sound this way, but what you're saying could very easily be interpreted to mean you intend to keep shooting and end the engagement with a headshot regardless of the circumstances and then use the defense that it all happened so fast that you just couldn't stop shooting.

Something like that would be very damaging for one to post on the internet if there were even the remotest probability that one might ever be involved in a self-defense shooting.

Your advice is especially valuable to me, considering how much you know about me and my experiences.

How much does a person have to know about someone else and their experiences to point out that a particular course of action is illegal?

If the threat is still moving, it is still a threat.

This is absolutely not true. Moving does not constitute a deadly threat in and of itself.

I can guarantee if someone put down either shooter with a shot to the head, after the devastating carnage they created, that guy or gal is getting a medal, not prosecuted.

It is common for people to believe that they will be seen as heroic for shooting a "bad guy". Sometimes it works out that way, but it's not a given and isn't something that should be counted on.

Shooting someone in the head after they have gone down and no longer legally pose a deadly threat and justifying it by saying that they were still moving is murder. People do get away with murder sometimes, but it's not something that should be counted on.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I did, before I was set straight in this thread. No I must really think first about the consequences when reacting in the moment to a terrorist attack. I'm going to keep a checklist handy at all times, and will refer to it diligently while my colleagues and I are being shot at by terrorists.

WHILE they're shooting at you you can keep shooting back. Jeff is talking about if one of them goes down and is no longer moving, can you shoot him again, the answer appears to be no.

I wonder if there have been any terrorist events where a good-guy civilian did shoot a terrorist who was already down and was then prosecuted, what was the outcome.

 

[JohnKSa]

...if one of them goes down and is no longer moving...

Even if they are moving, that doesn't automatically make them a deadly threat. "Moving" is not a criteria for determining that a person constitutes a deadly threat.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Even if they are moving, that doesn't automatically make them a deadly threat. "Moving" is not a criteria for determining that a person constitutes a deadly threat.

Thank you for the correction. I didn't actually mean ANY kind of moving, some types of movement such as twitching or coughing would not be threatening.

Would you consider it threatening if the shot person starts getting up off the ground though?

 

[AK103K]

I know that you don't intend for it to sound this way, but what you're saying could very easily be interpreted to mean you intend to keep shooting and end the engagement with a headshot regardless of the circumstances and then use the defense that it all happened so fast that you just couldn't stop shooting.

Something like that would be very damaging for one to post on the internet if there were even the remotest probability that one might ever be involved in a self-defense shooting.

I suppose its all Catch 22 then, isnt it? There really is no safe answer to anything, short of doing nothing, and even then, youre likely going to be held accountable, because you didnt act.

All I can suggest, is get some training, and make the decision if you want to live or die, practice hard and often (if you want to live), and go from there. If you die trying, then its all moot. Nothing left to worry about. If you die doing nothing, then you get what you deserve.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Yes, you have to watch anyone you shoot once he is down incase he is still a threat. And if that person would act in a threatening manner you would be justified in re-engaging.

But you cannot fire an anchoring shot into him if he has ceased the hostile actions.

It's important to understand the difference.

Jerome Ersland didn't. He successfully used lethal force to defend against an armed robbery. He stopped the threat and then went too far. The jury didn't buy that he was still at risk. He is now serving a life sentence in an Oklahoma prison for first degree murder.

 

[Jeff White]

Would you consider it threatening if the shot person starts getting up off the ground though?

Maybe....it's all going to depend on what's happening at the time. We could fill another 6 pages of discussion on if this, that or the other thing the person you shot did constituted a threat or not. There can be no definitive list. Every event is going to be different.

The thing we need to remember when making the decision to shoot or not is the "reasonable man" rule. If someone, given only the information available to you at the time would make the same decision.

AK103K is right in that there is no safe decision. You are going to have to make a decision in fractions of a second based on the best information you have and that information is liable to be very incomplete.

The best you can do is study and train enough so that the decision you make is the right one at the time.

If you are firing a failure drill or a nonstandard response it's highly likely that you might shoot your attacker while he is down or even in the back as he is turning to engage another target or escape. It has been demonstrated by expert witnesses in court how that happens in the fractions of a second these engagements last.

If you have ceased your engagement, moved on to another threat or otherwise paused in the action and you go back and shoot again to make sure he stays down you are liable to be in legal trouble unless you can articulate the deadly threat he posed at the time you shot him again.

 

[MachIVshooter]

If you are firing a failure drill or a nonstandard response it's highly likely that you might shoot your attacker while he is down or even in the back as he is turning to engage another target or escape. It has been demonstrated by expert witnesses in court how that happens in the fractions of a second these engagements last.

If you have ceased your engagement, moved on to another threat or otherwise paused in the action and you go back and shoot again to make sure he stays down you are liable to be in legal trouble unless you can articulate the deadly threat he posed at the time you shot him again.

This needs to be the takeaway, guys.

A lot of holes in the attacker doesn't mean much other than you fired many rounds and were pretty accurate. But if evidence, especially witness or video, shows that you had a reasonable opportunity to evaluate and then chose to deliver a coup de gras to a person who was no longer a threat, it becomes murder.

Read the case that Frank linked. It's a very good example of a justifiable use of deadly force turning into murder, and not because of the death itself. The perpetrator may well have died from the initial wound, and it still would have been a good shoot. It was Ersland's decision to make certain the wounded and unconscious robber was dead that mattered.