Veteran Shoots Would-Be Attacker

[RustyShackelford]

Prosecutors & civil attys.....

I agree with a concern over aiming for the lower torso/groin re; prosecutors-civil attys.
To fire a handgun at someone & deliberately not use lethal force would be a dicey subject in court.
A prosecutor or DA could make the bogus claim that you fired a "wounding" shot to inflict pain or "torment" the victim.
The article stated how the veteran/gun owner is a firearms instructor too.
This could be used too by some lawyers/prosecutors to claim(unfairly) that the veteran shot the subject to be cruel or to torture them.

Massad Ayoob, who's written blogs & gun press articles about his legal testimony in defending armed citizens & cops has addressed the topic of how many rounds a gun owner had or if they had spare magazines.
The premise being if you have 30-45 rounds you are out, looking for a fight.
This bogus claim can be defended but it's important to be aware of it before you carry a gun.

 

[JRH6856]

If someone is approaching you with a knife in hand, do you really think you will always have the opportunity retreat in complete safety?

I have done so in two separate situations.
And, yes, I was armed at the time.
Had the guys continued to come at me I would have done something else
Regardless of the law, shooing to wound is not a good idea--and admitting doing so is really not a smart move.
Not is standing your ground when a retreat could at least be attempted.
In this situation perhaps if the good guy attempted to retreat while voicing his commands a shot would not have been necessary??

I agree that shooting to wound is not the best idea, but neither is shooting to kill. Shooting to stop the threat is all that should be admitted to, and perhaps that is all that was admitted to. The news report lacks sufficient clarity to really know what actually happened and what the reporter infers, so I am not confident that what was actually said is reported accurately, either. In that vein, the story does say "After reviewing the surveillance video, law enforcement officials said Lawler tried to avoid a confrontation before he made the decision to shoot DeCosta." So he may have been retreating and the reported neglected to mention it. Or maybe not. Either way, the police didn't seem to think it was an issue.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mathtew Temkin: Shooting to wound implies that you do not as of yet feel threatened enough to warrant the use of deadly force.

Shooting to stop is the proper thing to do. I see no indication that the defender shot to wound.

Also--rather than just giving orders to drop the knife, would it not have been wiser to attempt a retreat?

At a distance of 5 or 6 feet? NO!

See this.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Shooting to stop....

The phrase; shoot to stop is more apt than the ominous sounding; shoot to kill but both imply using deadly or lethal force.
The point is to use the firearm to protect yourself or others from harm.

Lethal force does not mean you stand over a wounded thug shooting until you go to slide lock or shooting the felon then when they surrender or are not a serious threat walk up & shoot them in the head.
Carrying a loaded firearm in public means you accept the burden & responsibility of following the law & acting in prudent, mature way.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"At least a half-dozen times, I ordered him to stop. The last time, I said, 'I don't want to shoot you, but I will,' " Lawler said yesterday, recounting the bizarre run-in outside the supermarket, on Frankford Avenue near Megargee Street in Holmesburg. "Then, after I shot him, he fell to his knees and tried to throw the knife at me."

This is a real problem. He shot once and the man remained a threat and still tried to do them harm. Such hesitance to act can be quite detrimental. It turned out well this time, but a salient point here is that a single shot, even to the groin, did not produce the stop he intended.

 

[JohnKSa]

If you are in a situation where you are getting ready to shoot someone and you have the luxury of thinking about where you should shoot him, whether you should shoot to wound, if you can just wing him and be done with it, etc. then you don't need to be shooting. Deadly force should be a last resort and it shouldn't EVER be considered as a convenient way to disable someone who isn't an immediate and deadly threat.

You should NEVER make any statements after a shooting that could be interpreted/spun/inferred to mean that you didn't really believe that deadly force was justified when you pulled the trigger. Your reasonable belief that the ONLY reasonable way to end the threat was via the use of deadly force is part of the legal justification for using deadly force. If you, through your actions or statements make it sound like you had other options, or that the situation wasn't critical enough that you really felt it was a life or death situation then you are essentially nullifying your ability to claim that your use of deadly force was legally justified.

 

[X-Rap]

He shot to stop and probably hit where he was aiming. He probably didn't have sights on the target if he was covering the attacker and maneuvering to shield the GF. From low ready shooting under stress I'd expect a fairly large number of shooters to hit a little below perfect COM. The Zipper method or whatever one may call it is quite natural and my guess is if the attack would have continued the shooter would have worked his way up through recoil and sight acquisition to the point that he would have either been cut, hit the attacker in the throat or head, or run the gun dry.
As far as follow up shots, I guess a guy would almost need to be there and assess the threat.
If the guy dropped from the shot I guess I'd have to see how capable I felt the threat was at throwing the knife before I fired.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JohnKSa: If you are in a situation where you are getting ready to shoot someone and you have the luxury of thinking about where you should shoot him, whether you should shoot to wound, if you can just wing him and be done with it, etc. then you don't need to be shooting. Deadly force should be a last resort and it shouldn't EVER be considered as a convenient way to disable someone who isn't an immediate and deadly threat.

True. The only exception that occurs to me is a hostage rescue situation.

Your reasonable belief that the ONLY reasonable way to end the threat was via the use of deadly force is part of the legal justification for using deadly force. If you, through your actions or statements make it sound like you had other options, or that the situation wasn't critical enough that you really felt it was a life or death situation then you are essentially nullifying your ability to claim that your use of deadly force was legally justified.

Well put.

Also, any comments or actions that would indicate that your purpose had been to kill him would be ill advised.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Media; zipper methods....

I agree that not going to the media or making press statements is a smart idea. I see local news stories of armed citizen/use of force incidents all the time. Some "witnesses" or bystanders say things that make no sense or contradict the events/evidence later collected.
I'm not saying I wouldn't speak to or use the media in a critical incident either. But I would release a statement or do a interview on my terms after I know the legal or civil actions are adjudicated.
The late author Tom Clancy once wrote; smart people know how to use the media to their advantage.
Don't be buffaloed by news crews or video cameras either.
Doing security work in metro areas I've seen what are called in the US media industry; "Stringers" or freelance camera operators hear police scanners or get tips from TV station news desks then rush to crime scenes.
Some are legit but many are unethical, two-faced & untrustworthy.
If you have a experienced lawyer or a law firm, contact them first before saying anything to the media.

As for the "zipper" method, I read & saw a few things online about that technique too. I would not advise it in a CQB or use of force event for several reasons. One of the big ones is the risk to by-standers or innocent parties who may be near.

A police officer in my metro area is now under investigation by 2 LE agencies for shooting a co-worker(a police LT) & killing a 22 year old woman who was near the armed subject.
The cop fired his PD issue P226 9mm nine times at the subject(who had a unloaded Ruger P series semi auto pistol). One Ranger T/T Series 127gr +P+ bullet struck the LT in the lower leg, another 9mm bullet hit & killed the by-stander. The officer who fired is now back on regular patrol duty but he may still face criminal or disciplinary actions for the use for force event.