Home invasion situation…where to aim?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Once again, thanks for the direct. Some very interesting reading indeed. It is intriguing to see multiple trauma surgeons who have witnessed first hand what they speak of. While DocGKR does make some valid observations, I can't help but notice that DrJSW does have some interesting first hand experience of his own that may or may not bear out DGKR's assertions.

It seems to me that if two surgeons - one a facial reconstruction surgeon (DocGKR), the other an Emergency Room Trauma Physcian (DrJSW) - both of whom see a considerable number of these injuries - and are much closer to the orthopedic surgeons who have to deal directly with these types injuries hold such differing views, I am out of my element in arguing them myself, and so will, as gracefully as possible, withdraw myself from them.

I really do appreciate the references though, and found them to be extremely interesting.

Thanks

No problem. I don't know if it is in his bio over there but DocGKR is also a prominent member of IWBA, a medical officer with a SWAT team and the U.S. Navy, and has given presentations on wound ballistics to the USMC and USSOCOM.

 

[Preacherman]

One thing that has perhaps not been sufficiently emphasized in this thread - if you have to shoot somebody, shoot them with a round that is capable of producing the desired result as quickly as possible!!!

I've had extensive gunfight experience in South Africa over almost two decades, and as a law enforcement type in the USA in recent years, have had the opportunity to look at documentation of many thousands of LE gunfights. A number of lessons always come through, and are repeated time and time again.

1. If you use a minor caliber (e.g. 9mm. or .38 Special, or below), even if good COM hits are scored and the ammo expands as advertised, incapacitation may not follow immediately. Multiple accurate hits will likely be required, and even these may not do the job.

2. Major-caliber rounds (e.g. .357 Magnum and above in revolvers, .40 S&W and above in autopistols) are much more likely to produce the desired result in a short space of time. .357 Magnum and .45 ACP remain the "King of the Hill" in this respect.

3. Trusting to "magic ammo" is not a good idea. The best hollowpoints and/or frangible bullets in the world can fail to function sometimes, through being "plugged" by clothing or other material, or a too-low velocity. You still have to hit a major organ or bone group to inflict serious damage. COM shots may not do it for you in terms of a rapid shut-down of an assailant: you may have to go to CNS shots to achieve this, particularly if the assailant is hopped-up on drugs.

Basic rules haven't changed...

 

[1911Tuner]

Where?

At the ceiling. Don't wanna bother the dogs while they eat.

Sorry Peter...It was irresistable impulse. I...I'll be okay tomorrow.

 

[rustymaggot]

Read of an incidence in a Memphis TN pawn shop, IIRC. Guy walks in, asks to see a .38, is handed the weapon, and proceeds to load it. Guy behind the counter finally realizes what it happening, pulls his own handgun and they proceed to go at it from the distance of 30" (or whatever the counter width was). Total: 12 shots fired. Number of hits? 0. Dunna think anyone is gonna be able to prove to the point of conviction that I meant to hit anyone in any given area, since the only information I intend to volunteer is "I thought I was going to die. I thought I was going to die. I thought I was going to die." I am certainly NOT going to be discussing my tactical reasoning behind my actions with people who might be using anything I say against me in a court of law. Mean? Screw that. Mean is breaking into a man's home while it's occupied. And since I think I mentioned following up with a second tap (or more) to COM, "shooting to wound" is not valid. Shooting to stop is what it's called.

what you say here in this forum could show intent at a later court preceding. and shooting someone in the "junk" is definately purposeful disfigurement. its not a stopping shot, its a crippling shot. 'MAYHEM-The offense of willfully maiming or crippling a person'. if you intend the suspect to live, then shooting him in the junk is plain mean and the courts will punish you for it. better to aim center of mass and get a better stop.

 

[Meplat]

what you say here in this forum could show intent at a later court preceding. and shooting someone in the "junk" is definately purposeful disfigurement. its not a stopping shot, its a crippling shot. 'MAYHEM-The offense of willfully maiming or crippling a person'. if you intend the suspect to live, then shooting him in the junk is plain mean and the courts will punish you for it. better to aim center of mass and get a better stop.

'Preciate the legal advice. Have your lawyer bill mine. Maybe they can do lunch. Then your lawyer can pay my lawyer for the CORRECT legal precedent and rulings.

(btw...interesting phrasing. You say "junk", I say "jewels"...guess one man's trash is another's treasure...)

1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

Since, rightly or wrongly, (insofar as actual shortened incapacitation times is concerned) some military and police training has included this for instructional purposes during combat situations, I hardly think that my posts here are going to greatly exacerbate an already bad situation should deadly force ever be my last resort.

If it comes down to a man entering my home, and intending me or my family bodily harm, I will be as mean as I can possibly be. There are some on here who have made me rethink my stances, and I am in the process of reconsidering, but it isn't on "humanitarian" grounds. The whole purpose of that hold, if you recall, was first and foremost as a phsycological deterent. So that shots might not HAVE to be fired at all. I have no desire to EVER shoot any human being...for any reason. That being said, I would also have no hesitation in doing so in the most expedient manner possible should it come down to it. If having the barrel of a .357 staring at little willie gives someone the willies, (and your horror at the idea only reinforces that belief) so much the better. He can turn his ass around and head out the other way, and hope the law doesn't catch up to him later. I'll gladly let him go. Should he press things, however, I intend to do WHATEVER "mayhem" is required in order to stop that attack. As the law states that I may.

Would my posts here be used against me? Most likely. Tim McVeigh's shirt, bearing a direct quote from Thomas Jefferson was used as evidence against him at his trial, as was David Koresh's subscription to Shotgun News used against him in the search warrant that started THAT little ball of wax rolling, and the reason Randy Weaver ever came under government scrutiny was because he had attended a non-state approved church.

Sooooo, if it comes down to YOU having to shoot anyone ANYWHERE, do you think they aren't going to use the fact that you have posted to a "gun nut" forum against you? Or that even if you are cleared in a criminal proceeding, that his or his survivors' lawyer is not going to demonize your "evil" hollowpoint bullets "designed to maim and destroy as much tissue as possible" in a civil action? Any action you have ever taken or any word you have ever said in public, INCLUDING "shoot him in the COM" is going to be used against you. Get real.

I will say this once, and once more only. I've been given some good food for thought on the whole pelvic area shot placement thing as a means of stopping an intruder from harming me or mine the fastest way possible. I do intend to study that information. It isn't some knee jerk atavistic reaction to something someone considers "repulsive" or "mean". It isn't law as someone doesn't know the law spews it. It is solid, supported study, and as such, deserves attention. Frothing "that's illegal" stuff from someone who plays a lawyer on some forum isn't. As to my hold, I still think it is a viable way to diffuse a situation I don't want to be lethal for ANYONE. If intimidation will accomplish that, fine. As for mean, you have NO IDEA how mean I can get when it comes to my family's welfare. Not even a hint. I'll use WHATEVER means is the best, surest way of keeping them from harm's way. Period.

 

[rustymaggot]

'Preciate the legal advice. Have your lawyer bill mine. Maybe they can do lunch. Then your lawyer can pay my lawyer for the CORRECT legal precedent and rulings.

(btw...interesting phrasing. You say "junk", I say "jewels"...guess one man's trash is another's treasure...)



http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

Since, rightly or wrongly, (insofar as actual shortened incapacitation times is concerned) some military and police training has included this for instructional purposes during combat situations, I hardly think that my posts here are going to greatly exacerbate an already bad situation should deadly force ever be my last resort.

If it comes down to a man entering my home, and intending me or my family bodily harm, I will be as mean as I can possibly be. There are some on here who have made me rethink my stances, and I am in the process of reconsidering, but it isn't on "humanitarian" grounds. The whole purpose of that hold, if you recall, was first and foremost as a phsycological deterent. So that shots might not HAVE to be fired at all. I have no desire to EVER shoot any human being...for any reason. That being said, I would also have no hesitation in doing so in the most expedient manner possible should it come down to it. If having the barrel of a .357 staring at little willie gives someone the willies, (and your horror at the idea only reinforces that belief) so much the better. He can turn his ass around and head out the other way, and hope the law doesn't catch up to him later. I'll gladly let him go. Should he press things, however, I intend to do WHATEVER "mayhem" is required in order to stop that attack. As the law states that I may.

Would my posts here be used against me? Most likely. Tim McVeigh's shirt, bearing a direct quote from Thomas Jefferson was used as evidence against him at his trial, as was David Koresh's subscription to Shotgun News used against him in the search warrant that started THAT little ball of wax rolling, and the reason Randy Weaver ever came under government scrutiny was because he had attended a non-state approved church.

Sooooo, if it comes down to YOU having to shoot anyone ANYWHERE, do you think they aren't going to use the fact that you have posted to a "gun nut" forum against you? Or that even if you are cleared in a criminal proceeding, that his or his survivors' lawyer is not going to demonize your "evil" hollowpoint bullets "designed to maim and destroy as much tissue as possible" in a civil action? Any action you have ever taken or any word you have ever said in public, INCLUDING "shoot him in the COM" is going to be used against you. Get real.

I will say this once, and once more only. I've been given some good food for thought on the whole pelvic area shot placement thing as a means of stopping an intruder from harming me or mine the fastest way possible. I do intend to study that information. It isn't some knee jerk atavistic reaction to something someone considers "repulsive" or "mean". It isn't law as someone doesn't know the law spews it. It is solid, supported study, and as such, deserves attention. Frothing "that's illegal" stuff from someone who plays a lawyer on some forum isn't. As to my hold, I still think it is a viable way to diffuse a situation I don't want to be lethal for ANYONE. If intimidation will accomplish that, fine. As for mean, you have NO IDEA how mean I can get when it comes to my family's welfare. Not even a hint. I'll use WHATEVER means is the best, surest way of keeping them from harm's way. Period.

just trying to help you see a different view. no need to be rude if you disagree.

 

[roo_ster]

Mozambique (2 COM, 1 cranium), repeat until threat is gone & then stop.

I didn't realize a 12 ga. pump had slide lock. If you're HD weapon is not a 12 ga. pump loaded with buckshot, then you need to get one.

At that point, rack and fire until threat is neutralized.

I like 12 ga shotguns, but they are not practical in all situations. In my case, I have yet to devise a way to satisfy all three requirements:
1. Keep the shotgun at the ready (loaded, maybe with one in the chamber)
2. Keep the shotgun quickly available
3. Keep my 16 month old boy from getting his hands on it

My boy's inquiring mind & hands pretty much leave me depending on JMB's 1911 in a quick-access safe. For the love of Pete, he devised a way to go from the floor, on to the ottoman, then to the chair seat, up on the end table, then back to the top/back of the chair to use it as a seat with his feet resting on the window sill while sitting in the window and looking at the dogs playing in the back yard. It was like watching a grwon man go through an obstacle course. I had visions of my own time with the Darby Queen floating in front of my eyes.

I have no delusions about "hiding" a shotgun from this whirling dervish of curiosity and determination. Luckily, the dogs are on my side, play with him, and can tire him out.

 

[Meplat]

just trying to help you see a different view. no need to be rude if you disagree.

No sir. You were trying to label me as "mean" and cruel for wanting to use the most effective manner available to me to protect myself and family, and to paint me as some sort of villian for even expressing such horrid thoughts.

I have some surprising news for you. Self defense of any type in many "civilized" countries in the world right now is considered to be "mean". It's people who buy into the whole "you have to be civilized when someone wants to rape your wife and daughter and rob and kill all of you" mentality who got them where they are at now.

I was merely pointing out that a.) you were incorrect in your legal assertations; and b.) that while at any other time during my life I am the nicest guy in the world, if someone threatens my family, I'll chew his throat out with my teeth if I am forced to in order to keep him from harming them.

If you feel that pointing out to you the fact that I am full well willing to forego "civil nicety" in order to protect me and mine is rude, then that is your perspective, and you're welcome to it. Just spare me bad legal advice and your "meanie" label, or be prepared to hear what I have to say in return.

 

[rustymaggot]

No sir. You were trying to label me as "mean" and cruel for wanting to use the most effective manner available to me to protect myself and family, and to paint me as some sort of villian for even expressing such horrid thoughts.

I have some surprising news for you. Self defense of any type in many "civilized" countries in the world right now is considered to be "mean". It's people who buy into the whole "you have to be civilized when someone wants to rape your wife and daughter and rob and kill all of you" mentality who got them where they are at now.

I was merely pointing out that a.) you were incorrect in your legal assertations; and b.) that while at any other time during my life I am the nicest guy in the world, if someone threatens my family, I'll chew his throat out with my teeth if I am forced to in order to keep him from harming them.

If you feel that pointing out to you the fact that I am full well willing to forego "civil nicety" in order to protect me and mine is rude, then that is your perspective, and you're welcome to it. Just spare me bad legal advice and your "meanie" label, or be prepared to hear what I have to say in return.

you really think the most effective manner available to you is to shoot them in the crotch?

you think my saying not to torture suspects is bad legal advice?

you think that being rude in a forum is protecting you and yours?


those are rhetorical questions.

 

[Manedwolf]

Aim center of mass, make sure no one else is in the house, call 911 and ****. If necessary, provide proper first aid.

First aid? Hell no. By law, you're required to immediately call 911 and request medical assistance, not let them die. You are NOT required to try to provide it yourself.

Besides another additional possible lawsuit from giving improper care (yes, I would bet it could happen!), a crackhead could have HIV or such...you really want to get blood all over you?

I don't!

Most I'd do is keep the weapon on them after they were down till the police arrived, and if they had a gun, kick it well clear of their ability to grab it while down. That's it. The paramedics can take care of the medical attention. Not my problem, not my risk.

 

[Meplat]

you really think the most effective manner available to you is to shoot them in the crotch?

Jury's still out on that one. Most probably not, from what I've read thus far. Not on humanitarian basis, though. But since it IS (or HAS been) taught in some military and police classes as a possibly viable means of rapid incapacitation, it is a perfectly acceptable theory to consider. In the case of not HAVING to fire a shot due to the intimidation factor, I'd say that anything that kept me from having to do that would be a good idea.

you think my saying not to torture suspects is bad legal advice?

Well, now that your "mahem" argument has been debunked, you're going to twist my words into "torture"? I certainly never said that once the aggression had ended that anyone should in any way "torture" anyone. Don't put words into my posts that aren't there, please. Especially since I have made it abundantly clear that I wish for nothing more than the perp to flee the scene unharmed if at all possible. There is no way to "torture" anyone not under your control. If someone is under your control, the aggression has ended. Show me do where I have stated otherwise.

Okay. Where did you see me advocating rubbing salt in the wound? Where did you see me advocating doing ANYTHING other than avoiding a shooting if at all possible, or seeing it as decisively ended as possible should it be forced?

See, using words like "torture" when torture has NOT been advocated are not only rude, but outright lying by proxy. My only concern is how to 1.) PREVENT a shooting if at all possible. 2.) To incapacitate as quickly and decisively as possible if option 1.) is not allowed as a viable alternative to me.

you think that being rude in a forum is protecting you and yours?

I think your statements about being "mean" and "cruel" when they are uncalled for is rude. I think that your ignorance of when "mahem" is legally justified has been noted. What was YOUR purpose in that, and then in falling back to words like "torture" when your original legal spewings (not advice - words like "mean" and "cruel" belie that)? Do you feel like it might protect some low-life from injury? I can see no other reason than that for your posts that attempt to paint me as some sort of bloodthirtsy villian intent on being "mean" because I will go to any and all lengths to protect my family. Else, you would not have steadfastly ignored the fact that in every post from the first foreward, my first emphasis on this hold has been the intimidation factor...and the ONLY reason I'd want intimidation on my side is in order to avoid ANY shooting of ANY kind, in ANY place.

those are rhetorical questions.

Whattaya know? Seems even some rhetorical questions have answers.

 

[JShirley]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I did want to mention that a 12 GA pump shotgun loaded with buckshot, while generally better for several reasons than a sidearm, is still not the "best" home defense weapon by a long shot.

That honor would most likely go to a semiautomatic carbine in an intermediate caliber, loaded with lightweight expanding bullets, probably followed in sequential order by:

semiautomatic rifle or carbine in an battle caliber, loaded with lightweight expanding or fragmenting bullets;

semiautomatic carbine in an intermediate caliber, loaded with non-expanding bullets;

Semiautomatic or slide-action shotgun loaded with reduced-recoil slugs;

I would probably even place a repeating pistol-caliber carbine in .40 S&W, .357 Mag, or .45 ACP (or more powerful round), loaded with expanding bullets, as better for several reasons than a 12 GA pump with buck.

Yes, a 12 with buck is way better than a dirty look, or even a 9x19mm pistol. It's just pretty far down the list of "best" home protection tools, and more in evidence because it looks and sounds intimidating ( ) and its ubiquitous nature.

John

 

[Jeff White]

That's enough......