Success and Failure in Self Defense--Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kleanbore

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
17,313
Edited

More and more people are acquiring firearms for self defense these days. The first thing they should do, as soon as they can, is to avail themselves of some qualified instruction.

Let's first focus on the reason for having a gun in the first place the gun: it is to protect ourselves--not to shoot anyone, if we can avoid it.

The vast majority if us will never have to use a firearm in the gravest extreme, to borrow the title of one of Massad Ayoob's books. But should the need arise, it will be essential to have it with us at the time, to be able to access it, and to use it successfully.

"Using it successfully" means preventing serious harm to ourselves and our loved ones. That's all it means.

Let's try to put the subject of self defense in an overall perspective. Here are a few ideas to reflect upon.
  • Keeping a gun for defense is a very serious matter indeed.
  • Shooting another person, even when there is no reasonable alternative, is a terrible thing to do. Even in the best of circumstances, a person will live with the memory forever.
  • When the need to bring out the weapon arises, the defender's objective is not to kill anyone. It is to stop the attack and prevent the defender from being seriously harmed. That may require shooting an attacker several times before it is too late. But it may not.
In one of his videos, and in one of his classes if I recall correctly, defensive shooting instructor Rob Pincus discusses what constitutes success in a self defense shooting.

He offers the example of a defender drawing, firing, and missing, putting a bullet into the ground--speaking, of course, of a miss, and not a "warning shot".

The shot causes the attacker to rethink his plans, and he turns and runs.

Rob characterizes that as a successful defensive shot: the defender was unharmed.

That reminds us that we won't necessarily have to shoot an attacker in the upper chest to come home alive.

Claude Werner, "The Tactical Professor", recently wrote of negative outcomes with a firearm. He mentioned such things as shooting an innocent, being shot by a first responder, shooting oneself, and so on.

We thought it might be worthwhile to try to combine those thought processes.

Here's a try at ranking some possible SD event outcomes from best to worst--1 being best:
  1. A potential attacker who has been targeting you reconsiders and moves on, perhaps because of your demeanor, or perhaps simply because he realizes that you have noticed him; or, you "fail the interview"; or someone who has been suspiciously approaching you abandons the hunt after a challenge or other response from you.
  2. The person forces you to threaten deadly force, and he chooses to retreat.
  3. You shoot in lawful self defense, and no one is injured.
  4. Same as 2, but the incident results in an unfavorable legal aftermath
  5. Same as 3, but the attacker is injured and survives.
  6. Same as 3, but the attacker expires.
  7. Same as 3, 5, or 6 , and the legal aftermath is unfavorable.
  8. Your bullets strike an innocent person.
  9. You or your spouse are injured.
  10. You or your spouse are killed.
Those last two could come about for any of several reasons:
  • You do not detect the threat timely and react--an ambush.
  • You do not draw and shoot quickly enough.
  • Your shooting is ineffective.
  • You do not notice the attacker's accomplice.
  • You are shot by a first responder.
There's one other possibility: the defender becomes a victim because he is attacked while he is not armed. That is usually avoidable.

One other thing: if there is anywhere where you would not choose to go without a gun, you really shouldn't go there at all, unless it is really necessary. That is an advantage that sworn officers do not have.

In a similar vein, if there is some place in which you might feel that a larger, higher capacity firearm might be necessary, you should probably not go there, and you should reflect on why you do not usually carry such a firearm anyway.

On that point, there is a reasonable compromise. Realistically speaking, the civilian defender has no practical need to hang la number of large-capacity magazines on his belt. Unlike the sworn officer, he is not duty-bound to bring felons to justice.

His duty is the survival of himself and his loved ones.
 
Last edited:
Nothing ever seems to go the same as it did in training is one. When we all get re certified we often chuckle at the training since nothing ever seems to work like it did at training.
As for the fact you have a gun and it ends things this has happened to me. I have LONG suspected it happens FAR, FAR, more than we ever hear about. Now of course the one downside here is if someone is going to carry a gun, they do need to possibly be willing to use it. Sadly many are not. Many carry thinking a gun is magic and if they pull it and will not use it? It sometimes goes badly for them.
As for things not going well after a weapon is brought to the fight, whether it's used or not, almost always the persons mouth is their worst enemy.
An amazing number of people just can not shut up and wait for the lawyer to talk for them. Have to pull a gun? Whether you use it or not the best thing you can do next is not talk without a lawyer. No matter how "good" or "bad" the situation looks you can never make it better by talking before the lawyer.
 
A thought--it occurs to me that any homicide, defensive or not, will be investigated. Some rewording is necessary.
 
I think your list is generally pretty good.

In law enforcement, the first 3 are fairly common; bad people often stop what they are doing merely based on the presence of authority. Somewhat harder to convey out of uniform, but those are ideal scenarios.

From personal experience, shooting someone and stopping the threat, but not killing them, and then dealing with the litigation is, in my opinion, easier on the mind than stopping the threat and taking a life.
 
The thing that that stuck to me was the order of 4 and 5.

Is 5 a better outcome than 4?
Considering that threatening force would possibly be less scrutinized than using force, I would think so.
Assuming that in #5, successful defense of yourself doesn't have to mean actually hitting the assailant? A clean miss (not a warning shot) that ends the attack with no loss of life, injury, or property damage wouldn't be ideal but wouldn't be the worst outcome either.
 
I’ll take 5-7
The prosecutor brings charges against you that consumes your entire life savings to defend against while the creeps baby momma is screaming BLM
 
From personal experience, shooting someone and stopping the threat, but not killing them, and then dealing with the litigation is, in my opinion, easier on the mind than stopping the threat and taking a life.
Options 5-7 don't actually identify whether the assailant assumed room temperature or not - just that the defense was successful. Is a refinement suggested / in order?
 
Possibly goes under #8; mistaking and shooting a threat that was not really a threat. A citizen defending themselves or loved ones. (not being the mass shooter you thought they were)
 
I've taken a stab at editing the OP. No pride of authorship.

Have at it.
 
Possibly goes under #8; mistaking and shooting a threat that was not really a threat. A citizen defending themselves or loved ones. (not being the mass shooter you thought they were)

I don't think that would be quite the same. #8 should be split into two: accidentally hitting an innocent person (while aiming at an actual attacker) vs. hitting an innocent person you were aiming at while mistakenly thinking they were an attacker.
 
In far too many places, that could be construed as an "ND", not just at the state level but possibly at the local level of bureaucracy as well
It could be so argued, but Rob was discussing a plain miss. He was discussing shooting, and not tactics.

Thanks for the input.
 
I've made a few more edits to flesh the OP out a bit and to reflect Hangingrock's and JTHunter's comments.

Still a work in progress.
 
I've done a little more work in the introduction to the OP, in order to give the discussion some framework.

Comments?
 
I'm curious as to whether there's anything between successful defense and successful defense with unfavorable outcome in the above examples.

For instance, meeting the threat with a threat of force (perhaps drawing a weapon/brandishing)
Confrontation is over, but aftermath could have multiple endings.

No charges=justified

Charges filed=dismissed/not guilty but there's a financial and emotional toll.

Charges filed=found guilty or plea agreement, financial and emotional toll, potential loss of rights/freedom.

Or if the various scenarios are designated "lawful" as in example 3, then we could assume a favorable outcome from a legal standpoint, but not necessarily in a civil proceeding.
 
Get Carry Insurance. Avoid as much danger as possible, stay alert. Stay home after dark, and train often with the gun you do carry. And do NOT go to a "Peaceful Protest".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top