Handgun tactics. Why I am intentionally passive in classes.

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

The reason is that if I become active, and do what I'd actually do in a real life scenario, it might make some instructors become pale.

If an action of a "distraught 13-year old girl" actually is hindering my defense and putting me in serious danger, that "distraught 13-year old girl" gets blown away.

Gangsta charges toward me with a machette, and I aim my gun at the gangsta. Gangsta mama clings to my arm, saying "Don't shoot my baby!" If it is the only way to stop the machette totting gangsta, gangsta mama gets blasted off from me.

High-speed, chest-thumping badasses like TestPilot are ready to "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" are one of the reasons I find it so hard to associate socially with many gun people.

It's hard to imagine engaging in any kind of meaningful discussion with someone so enamored with absolutes and the knowledge of knowing exactly how they would react in any given situation. I suppose there must be comfort in that level of certainty.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by TestPilot:

If you say "I will use deadly force against a person theatening me with death or serious injury," does that mean you will always use deadly force when the threat can be effectively stopped with less lethal means?

If you have said that you will use deadly force, that statement could be used with devastating effect against you in a trial, civil or criminal, if you were unable to produce sufficient evidence showing that you had had a basis for a reasonable belief that the threat could not have been effectively stopped with less than lethal means.

 

[xXxplosive]

Yup.......IMO, that vid. was extremely dangerous at best and absolutely crazy beyond that.
The blue safe gun was not even used during the filming.....

 

[Frank Ettin]

But you never distinguished the third party from the accomplice nor describe how you would tell which was which.

True, but neither is it fair to assume that I was referring to an innocent 3rd party.

Actually, you did effectively say you wouldn't consider an alternative. You wrote, in post 22:

That's quite an unfair stretch...

We can only go by the words you write. Your words and my words are here for all to see.

I really would not like to have posts of that nature introduced as evidence against me by a prosecutor, or by a civil plaintiff, or both.

Now is not a bad time to remind everyone that this is (or should be) a real concern.

Plaintiff lawyers, law enforcement and prosecutors know all about social media and have been learning to use it effectively in civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions.

See this article headlined "Bay Area prosecutors increasingly using social media posts in criminal cases" from the 16 August 2013 edition of the Contra Costa Times:

PLEASANTON -- A teenage driver originally accused of vehicular manslaughter now faces a murder charge in the death of a bicyclist, partly because prosecutors say he bragged on Twitter about driving dangerously.

His case is part of a growing trend of social media posts being used as evidence against suspects, authorities said Friday.

....

As suspects feel compelled to post their misdeeds online for audiences to see, investigators have taken advantage, using the online quasi-confessions to bolster their cases, Bay Area prosecutors said.

In San Francisco, a cyclist in March fatally struck a 71-year-old pedestrian in a crosswalk after speeding through three red lights in the Castro District. Chris Bucchere, who eventually pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter, received a stiffer charge after he posted his explanation of the crash on a cycling group's website....

 

[Old Dog]

Yes, and if prosecutors use social media history against law enforcement (witness the Boston PD officer who cost his city millions by posting on Facebook [or some such] that'd he'd learned everything he knew about use of force by watching the movie Training Day -- imagine the field day one would have against a private citizen in court ...

Frankly, I'm still appalled at the OP's continued attempts to defend his position. And of course, as a law enforcement use of deadly force instructor, I was also somewhat dismayed by his lack of understanding when it comes to case law.

Perhaps, in the interest of protecting the forum, the whole thread need be deleted? Although the thread does display numerous attempts by reasonable folk to dissuade the OP from his line of thinking ...

 

[TestPilot]

Frankly, I'm still appalled at the OP's continued attempts to defend his position. And of course, as a law enforcement use of deadly force instructor,

Then why don't YOU explain what to do when an unarmed opponent is stopping you from shooting another guy trying to kill you, and non-leathal means did not work, Mr. Use of Force instructor?

Besides, I am only mentioning this because you are flinging credentials around, you were that "Use of Force instructor" who were being dismissive towards me when I expressed a concern that shooting justified and not justified situation can be flip flopped quickly while a defender is presenting the gun from draw.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Then why don't YOU explain what to do when an unarmed opponent is stopping you from shooting another guy trying to kill you, and non-leathal means did not work, Mr. Use of Force instructor?

Again, you are, as we say in court, assuming facts not in evidence.

In none of your hypotheticals have you described the circumstances in sufficient detail and specificity to establish the third party you're proposing to shoot as an opponent. The unarmed accomplice of the armed assailant is one thing. The distraught thirteen year old girl is another thing entirely.

 

[PistolPete45]

Punching a guy with the muzzle of a gun .. interesting ideia but not on my list of things to do while being attacked. I do believe I need to take a longer look at combat scenarios If I was not going to shoot the attacker why would I have my gun out . if I did have my gun out and had to use it like a weapon it would have been more like a club then a knife ,, pistol whipped him , not poked him..

 

[TestPilot]

The unarmed accomplice of the armed assailant is one thing. The distraught thirteen year old girl is another thing entirely.

I have explained at least twice already, that an innocent 3rd party is not what I am talking about.

The first comment about the "distraught thirteen year old girl" was made under the context, which is my fault for not specifying, that "distraught thirteen year old girl" and "unarmed accomplice of the armed assailant" are not mutually exclusive.

I also could not picture why an innocent 3rd party distraught girl would come cling to a stranger shooting guns at people.

I assmued that context was seen because the assailant in the video training scenario, even making a clear attempt to reach the shooter's gun, presented in OP was clearly not some girl clinging for help.

In none of your hypotheticals have you described the circumstances in sufficient detail and specificity to establish the third party you're proposing to shoot as an opponent.

Now that I have described it, I'd like to hear and answer from Old Dog who posted after my explanation.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Then why don't YOU explain what to do when an unarmed opponent is stopping you from shooting another guy trying to kill you, and non-leathal means did not work, Mr. Use of Force instructor?

As I noted in an earlier response, you have a number of options:

1. Knock the person down or trip him/her.
   
2. Use that person as a shield. (Probably only good briefly as a step that lets you prepare for something else.)
   
3. Break away but keep that person between you and your antagonist until you know where you're going.
   
4. Run away. Moving laterally so that the other person doesn't have a straight shot that just gets smaller
   
5. Move to cover and re-engage. (If you're not trying to protect a companion, that may be the best option....)

I suspect there are many other options, too. Those were just off the top of my head as I keyed in a response earlier, and I expanded on them just a little..

In a recent discussion on this board. I said something without thinking it through: as soon as I realized it -- about two responses later -- I said I was chastened and stood corrected ... that I hadn't thought it through as far as I should have. Nobody laughed, giggled or made fun of my error or my admission of it. The other guys here have all been there.

Just acknowledge that maybe you need to rethink what you've said. And truly rethink it -- you can do that privately and we don't have to hear about it. You don't have to admit error but you can gracefully end your part in the discussion. If you do that, try to look at these different issues again and try to take some of the other viewpoints into more serious consideration. That's enough.

We're discussing a very complicated topic with all sorts of ramifications, and it's not as simple as MANY believe.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Wow! For the sake of some people in this discussion I hope they are never involved in a self-defense shooting. If they ever are they will greatly regret what they have posted here if the DA or Civil Suit attorney is competent. If they are lucky they will have only increased the anxiety and monetary loss and not suffer conviction and incarceration because their comments here were the deciding unfavorable factor in a marginally defensible shooting.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The first comment about the "distraught thirteen year old girl" was made under the context, which is my fault for not specifying, that "distraught thirteen year old girl" and "unarmed accomplice of the armed assailant" are not mutually exclusive....

No, they're not mutually exclusive. But how do you tell? What are the signs? Exactly what do you see that clues you one way or the other?

...I also could not picture why an innocent 3rd party distraught girl would come cling to a stranger shooting guns at people...

Then you should have made an issue of that at the time.

...I assmued....

People assume a lot of things -- mostly wrong. Assumptions are not a good foundation for a discussion of a serious subject with significant legal implications.

In none of your hypotheticals have you described the circumstances in sufficient detail and specificity to establish the third party you're proposing to shoot as an opponent.

Now that I have described it, ...

You really haven't described it. You've just pointed to a snippet of something -- but we can't be sure exactly what.

Part of the problem is that apparently you don't understand or appreciate how an incident will be investigated after the fact and the excruciating level of detail with which the incident would be examined.

You will be questioned about what you saw and thought from before the shooting to well after. Any physical evidence will be examined. Witnesses will be questioned. And an attempt will be made to reconstruct the situation from well before the shooting to well after. And each datum will be looked at from the perspective of whether it supports a reasonable person concluding that lethal force was justified or that lethal force was not.

The video just shows going through drills to learn techniques. The real issue is ultimately to learn to assess situations in an instant and make the appropriate, and legally defensible choice. Training for that is best done in simulator and force-on-force exercises. When doing such exercises one plays out an entire scenario.

 

[TestPilot]

As I noted in an earlier response, you have a number of options:
Knock the person down or trip him/her.
Use that person as a shield. (Probably only good briefly as a step that lets you prepare for something else.)
Break away but keep that person between you and your antagonist until you know where you're going.
Run away. Moving laterally so that the other person doesn't have a straight shot that just gets smaller
Move to cover and re-engage. (If you're not trying to protect a companion, that may be the best option....)
I suspect there are many other options, too. Those were just off the top of my head as I keyed in a response earlier, and I expanded on them just a little..

I stated quite clearly that non-lethal force did not work.

If retreating was an option we would not be discussing this scenario with or without an additional unarmed opponent would we?

 

[Art Eatman]

Poor phrasing of some poorly-thought-out ideas has led to circular backing-and-forthing.

Looks like there is a need for a bunch of think-time.

Enuf.

 

[Old Dog]

I stated quite clearly that non-lethal force did not work.

Clearly? Uh, no, sorry, you did not state that.

Now that I have described it, I'd like to hear and answer from Old Dog who posted after my explanation.

Do I really need to go there? Both Frank Ettin and Walt Sherrill have attempted to clear things up for you. As I am tasked with explaining to folks who are going to wear badges, they'd best be able to articulate that they used deadly force because they had no other alternatives available. Since you apparently cannot understand that "blasting through" someone who happens to be present during your lethal threat encounter might not be your best option ... I give up.

If retreating was an option we would not be discussing this scenario with or without an additional unarmed opponent would we?

Actually, retreating is always an option. It might not be your only option or your best option, but ...

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I stated quite clearly that non-lethal force did not work.

I must have missed that! If so, my apologies. Which message # was that? (There's a little number at the top right corner of each response.)

You've not stated many things "quite clearly." It has generally taken you four or five tries to restate the points that have led you into some dark corners, and in doing so you have frequently denied making prior statements (often displayed by others as evidence) and you have also made claims about what the law said (California Code) that was wrong, and imputed to others things they didn't write. You may be sincere in all of this, but something about your presentation seems to be getting in your way.

A key an relevant question remains unanswered: do you have a concealed carry license? I do.

Whey don't we all just hang it up and call it a bad effort. That's what it seems like, to me.

 

[Kleanbore]

This one has run its course.

In the future, we should all do a few things:

• Avoid saying what we would do in hypothetical circumatances
• Make only stetments that are clear that do not rquire later clarification
• Realize that everyhting we post has the very real potential to live forever and come back to us