What would get you to shoot?

[WoodyTX]

In another thread, a hypothetical situation was given, and the conversation seemed to evolve into HighRoaders 'filling in the blanks' with data that supported their conclusions.

With that in mind, what would lead you to shoot? This isn't to criticize each others decision matrices, but to show what others would consider worthy of 'crossing the line' into the use of deadly force.

Obviously, very few people will have a problem with the use of deadly force against someone violently breaking into your house, or actively threatening your family. But what else would lead to you shooting? A stranger threatening/assaulting a neighbor? Breaking into a neighbor's house? Your house? Your car? A strange man beating the tar out of a woman? Kids?

Use details. "A guy assaulting a woman" could mean a rape in progress, an aggressive arrest against a resisting perp, or a couple who are really into each other. But "a guy repeatedly punching and kicking a woman, while calling her the vilest names I've never heard" is pretty detailed.

Focus on the 'border cases'. What would be on the border between shooting and not shooting?

I'll start. I live in Texas, so anyone breaking into my house is fair game, although teens, drunks, and druggies may get some warning, depending on their attitude. Same with my car at night (idiosyncrasy of Texas law). I'd shoot to protect my family and myself. I'd shoot to protect a known person, or someone whose life I feel is in danger, such as the victim of an attack with a weapon or a group attack. I might shoot to prevent a robbery, but the odds would probably have to be in my favor. I may or may not shoot a mugger, depending on his own presentation (gun in my face trumps gun in my holster).

I'd probably shoot a 'mass shooting' perpetrator, although I know it may make me a target. But I would regret that I could have saved lives by risking my own, and didn't.

Of course, if ever the time comes, I hope that that I think clearly, consider as many non-lethal options as possible, and shoot straight if it's necessary.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I'd pretty much stay within Texas law concerning the use of deadly force against a person.
Probably I would immediately shoot anyone in an attempt to prevent their imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery aginst me

Assuming that I know the details of the deadly force being used against someone I know or a stranger, I would not stand by and allow someone to be murdered. I would shoot the aggressor to protect a stranger.

As far as using deadly force to protect property?
Basically, I would use deadly force to protect my own property and possibly to protect a friend's/neighbor's property.
But that would definitely depend on the circumstances at the time.
Most likely, if I need to protect my property the Sheriff can take his time getting here because the BG isn't going anywhere.




.

 

[mljdeckard]

You are really asking a lot of questions, not just one.

I don't kill people over 'stuff'. Stuff can be replaced. Texas is the only state that allows deadly force to depend property under VERY narrow circumstances.

I carry to protect me and mine, not you and yours. I will not jump into a situation as an outsider when I don't fully know what is going on and start shooting people. There is a VERY short list of friends and family I would use deadly force to defend. Entirely people I have known my whole life, we have cross-trained with each others' weapons, and I would frankly rather act to defend them and be wrong than lose them. There are members of my own family who are not on this list, because they live their lives in a way which makes it difficult to know if they aren't responsible for the danger at hand.

This is not to say I will stand and do nothing. I will watch, call the police, and stand ready to act, make sure I see as many details as possible to be a good witness. But when you act to defend a third party, you are taking on all of their rights AND their LIABILITIES. It is risky enough to articulate what was going on in YOUR OWN mind when you acted to defend yourself. If you act in defense of someone else, you are saying that you knew what was going on in THEIR mind.

In my state, it isn't as simple as; "He's in my house so he's fair game." They must enter either by violence or by stealth with the intent to commit a felony. And regardless of when you can 'get away with' shooting someone, there is a higher ethic here. The goal is not to get to shoot someone. The goal here is to NOT GET SHOT. I'm not shooting someone in my house or anywhere else just because I think the law has my butt covered in a given situation.

Public robberies? Probably not. There is a growing trend of amateur robberies of desperation to feed drug habits. These rarely become violent. I would need something more than just 'there's a robbery going on' to justify deadly force. I would need to believe that it was escalating quickly. If I was reasonably sure that the BG is just going to take some money and go, and nothing else is going to happen, I will let him go. If I pull on him, I will probably force someone who wasn't violent into becoming violent.

 

[Al Thompson]

Best "one size fits all" statement I've heard was from Tiger McKee's school.

"If I fire this shot, am I going to save a life?" That to me sums it up pretty well.

 

[WoodyTX]

You are really asking a lot of questions, not just one.

I'm asking for details because the pattern here seems to be that someone asks a tactical question, but gets responses based on a broad range of interpretations of the question. "Would you shoot a guy attacking a girl?" "What if it's an undercover cop arresting a resisting hooker?"

I won't base my decision to shoot solely on whether or not the law has my butt covered. I'll shoot to protect life and property; the law is secondary to the protection of life, and can be secondary to the protection of property, depending on the situation. The law is definitely a consideration, but not my first one. Your mileage may vary.

Someone aggressively forcing his way into my house gets shot. Sorry, but there's no time to be reasonably sure that he's desperate for drug money and not something more violent. Someone banging on the door while yelling my neighbor's name and asking to be let in is probably drunk or otherwise in an altered mental status, and may be confronted with a weapon, but won't get shot. At least not immediately. Nowhere in these examples did I mention the law, although my decision matrix may replicate the legal landscape.

I hope that makes the thread clearer...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Al Thompson: Best "one size fits all" statement I've heard was from Tiger McKee's school.

"If I fire this shot, am I going to save a life?" That to me sums it up pretty well.

Yes indeed.

Posted by WoodyTX: Someone aggressively forcing his way into my house gets shot.

I have had one person try to break the door down, one impaired person get in by jimmying the lock, and another violent criminal actor force his way into the house behind someone else and threaten murder.

None of them "got shot". The point of a gun and some industrial strength coaching did the job quite well.

I'll answer the original question, "what would lead you to shoot", with one word: necessity--necessity to protect me or my wife, or perhaps someone else whom I know well. If I do not have to fire, I will not do so.

I like this comment from mljdeckard: "The goal is not to get to shoot someone. The goal here is to NOT GET SHOT".

 

[AZ Lawman]

If I have the luxury of options, I will always opt not to have to shoot someone.

I am not a huge believer in shooting to protect property in most cases. If some jackbag wants my truck...take it. I have gap and replacement insurance, and the color is not my favorite to begin with. You see that as my example.

If however, someone wants to take items critical to the survival of my family, such as food, water, or shelter in a critical situation then shooting to protect those items would be a very viable option.

Violently and tumultuously entering my home...you have just given up ANY expectation that I am going to chat you up and be understanding.

I don't really believe in the whole "sheepdog" mentality as far as most of the posturing about it goes on. I am not against it as a concept, but as an attitude I see where the self-proclaimed sheepdog is almost looking for an opportunity to play the hero. I know I'm probably going to get flamed for that, but I see it in some of the guys who come to my classes...all decked out in their tactical finery and just itchin' to be able to burn some powder on some miscreant.

It's a tough call, and not one answer can blanket it.

Be ready and prepared for the very worst, but hope by God that you never have to.

 

[Sky]

100% a gun is to keep you and family from being hurt. Not to act as some LEO. In the old days men would go to the aid of a damsel in distress or anyone else. We still can but be aware your act of selflessness may end up with you having several months and years of federal and domestic entanglements. There is a difference between your way, their way, and the laws way.

 

[ZeBool]

I would fire on anybody perpetrating potentially deadly physical violence on me, my family, or a close friend. There are far too many potential pitfalls in being a good samaritan. I'm not saying I wouldn't attempt to help a woman who I perceived was being raped, but I would never go in guns blazing. I have given quite a bit of thought about the "woman being raped in the park" (or pretty much any other scenario where I am not directly involved) and have decided that this is what I would do:

Close to within 10 to 15 yards, with my hand on my holstered ccw. Announce my presence. Determine whether a violent crime is actually being committed (based on reaction of perceived perpetrator and/or victim to my presence). If a violent crime is taking place, I will draw, form a sight picture and demand the immediate cessation of hostile behavior towards the victim. If he doesn't comply or if he redirects his hostility towards me, I will open fire.

 

[B yond]

I live in CA, an as such cannot legally use deadly force in defense of property, regardless of my ability or inability to justify such an action to myself.

I'm also a CCW'er, and have therefore given the question at hand a great deal of thought, as it deserves. I've concluded that I would use deadly force in defense of my life or the lives of my family members, probably also in the defense of others whose lives are wrongly endangered, although I'm also fully aware that issuance of a CCW does not a hero make and think it best to leave the policing to the police whenever my conscience would allow me to do so.

 

[JoeSlomo]

No requirement to retreat in Texas.

My ROE consists of 3 factors that must be met in order to justify the use of deadly force.

1. Intent to cause serious bodily harm or death.
- verbal, physical acts

2. Ability to carry out intent.
- size / strength / numbers disparities, weapons / tools that could be used as weapons

3. Immediate need to use deadly force to stop the threat.
- No chance of evading or avoiding the threat due to lack of time / distance.
- No protective barriers to shield me from the threat.

 

[Avid]

"No requirement to retreat in Texas."

I now what to move to Texas! Good post!

 

[WALKERs210]

First and foremost I never want to ever have to level a weapon of any type against another human being. In the last 5yrs I have had to drop safety off my 1911 one time. When I feel that a line has been crossed that I can't talk or evade away from then I will use whatever is necessary to protect both myself and my family. One thing I remember from years ago that bears to be mentioned, Make sure the person that you think is a BG is actually doing something wrong. I was visiting my mother and farther in laws and went to my car. In the parking lot a young woman was screaming and a man was holding her against the car. First reaction was to deal with the man as a viable threat. Smarts kicked in first, I stepped back in and had family call police, then I returned to the parking lot. This time they were hugging and all was lovie dovie. The girls screaming almost cost that young man his life.

 

[Hardware]

I don't kill people over 'stuff'. Stuff can be replaced. Texas is the only state that allows deadly force to depend property under VERY narrow circumstances.

Incorrect. Delaware state law allows the defense of property.
http://legalselfdefense.blogspot.com/2008/08/delaware_27.html

 

[Carbonator]

I was assaulted once with a sucker punch. Months later during the scheduled surgery to fix the damage of said punch, I died on the operating table. It was supposed to be a relatively minor procedure. Emergency Services were called in and they were able to restart my heart etc... Makes one rethink the definition of "deadly threat". The assault happened, by the way, in a "State" which prohibited any firearms whatsoever. I happen to live in Texas now.

Still, it would take a lot for me to shoot someone. If I had to draw, I'd be just as concerned with friendly fire as what the perp was threatening me/others with. We've all had some pretty big misunderstandings in life so it's not just my interpretation of what is going on at the moment of decision to draw/fire, it's what anyone around me - another CCWer or undercover cop or uniformed cop - is interpreting about ME (they see my gun so I must be the shooter?). I also had the pleasure of serving on a Jury for a triple suspect homicide. 6 different people can interpret things 6 different ways. So given the right circumstances, another CCWer or cop could easily mistaken me for the perp(s), and vice versa. This is why I believe in chambered carry, not brandishing, and not using a gun as a method of persuasion.

I loathe the armchair commandos who are just waiting for a chance to fire their gun, be the hero, post results on the internet, etc. That's one guy I am very weary of if I were to respond with my weapon, not just the bad guy.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Hardware: Delaware state law allows the defense of property.

All states provide for the defense of property, but only Texas law allows for the use of deadly force in the defense of tangible, moveable property. Delaware does allow the use of deadly force to prevent one rom being dispossessed of his dwelling, which is essentially the same as the castle doctrine in many other states.

 

[ghostwriter]

WOW, what a variety of answers. With diesel approaching $4.50/gal, and the fact that I just filled up and need my truck to go huntin' in the morning... well... you might get shot on sight trying to jack my truck tonight. If it's a Monday and you try it before I get to work, well.. I might not shoot then... figuring it'd be a good reason for not showing up but the cops would definately get a call for that. Stick a gun in my face, you better drop the hammer because about 2.8 seconds later you'll see a hammer drop from the working end of my barrel. Mini-mart hold up... well... they're insured... hurt someone doing it, you might die from that stunt. See.. it all depends on the situation... and everyone is going to have a front row seat to their own judgment.

 

[elesjuan]

Living in a state that requires retreat to a threat there are very few situations I would even contemplate the pistol in my holster ever seeing the light of day.

That said I pretty much agree with the consensus of this thread. Pull a gun on me and you will be shot. Seriously threaten the life of my SO or close friends and you're on thin ice. Break into my house and you'll get one hell of a scare and very likely be shot at.

Much as I'd like to think someday a random strangers life could be saved at the muzzle of my gun there are only two situations which would apply. Threaten the life of myself or someone I love would be one, and a mass shooter would be the second. My philosophy is that Playing the good Samaritan will only land you in jail or a casket. Way too many unknown variables can and will come into play in situations full of unknown people and its really not worth the risk. I apply that theory to everything, not just violence and firearms.


The only situation I would really hate myself in either way is an obvious robbery/homicide at some place like a quikstop. Having just witnessed a perp murder the compliant store clerk then turn around to leave without a second thought of you, what do you do? Sadly that's a scene that runs over in my head from time to time and Im never satisfied with the resolution.

 

[sniper5]

Just a word of caution: Be VERY careful about injecting yourself into a domestic violence situation, regardless of how bad it seems from the outside. The use of force of any level against the perp will almost always result in the "victim" turning on you in words and often in deeds as well, both at the scene, to the police later, and in court. On TV the battered wife will thank you for saving her life, but TV isn't reality. Ask any cop or any other public service worker.

 

[xXxplosive]

Been involved twice where my S&W Model 36 saved my arse.....no shots fired.....but, a hare's breath away....it was their choice and lucky for all they made the right one.

The best advice I can give is....Be prepaired, there's no warning given.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I was reminded last night of the possibility of using deadly force to protect property.

The motion detector near my shop went off late last night. I have several out buildings, barn and a couple small buildings up to 35 yards from the house.
It turned out to just be a cat.

The possibility of my using deadly force to stop a criminal breaking into or leaving one of those buildings is very real. I don't have a shoot on sight mind set but the person/persons will be within a short trigger pull of being shot when I see them. (my HD pistols, AR and shotgun are all equipped with Streamlight TLR-2 laser/lights, making it easy to identify and hit in low light)

Such things as, multiple persons, a displayed weapon, not freezing when told to do so will most likely get the criminal shot.

Yes, I have no mental reservations with shooting a criminal over property.
I am a generous person but if someone brings their criminal ways to my doorstep, within the law, I will shoot them.

 

[Sam1911]

not freezing when told to do so will most likely get the criminal shot

We aught to have a special color (maybe "Danger Orange") for posts that come from TX as the defense of property allowance is so different than any other location -- and so incredibly dangerous if adopted by anyone outside of that state. ... In fact, fraught with risk for those IN TX who think they know how it will be applied.

Even in TX, I can't see how "not freezing when I told him to" could possibly be an affirmative defense for homicide.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by M2 Carbine: The possibility of my using deadly force to stop a criminal breaking into or leaving one of those buildings is very real. Such things as, multiple persons, a displayed weapon, not freezing when told to do so will most likely get the criminal shot.

You might want to very seriously and carefully rethink your decision tree before you get into a whole lot of trouble.

The presence of weapons might give you a self defense justification, and the use of deadly force to prevent burglary is justifiable in Texas, but you may not use deadly force to enforce an order to freeze; you may not shoot to prevent someone from leaving one of your buildings unless you happen to have to do so to prevent the taking of property taken in a burglary, or by theft at night; and no matter how many people are on your property, you may not shoot them except as specified in code sections 9.32 and 9.42. Simply being on your property unlawfully constitutes trespassing; don't pull your gun on someone for that reason.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Yes, "freeze" does not really convey my meaning.
Let's say, not following my direction to stop what they are doing, such as advancing on me, will likely get them shot.

The law is very clear concerning when it's legal to shoot and when it is not. I said I will follow the law.

The example I gave is, someone breaking into or coming out of one of my buildings. Coming out of my building, in the night time, is where the "freeze" part comes in.



No, shooting someone for just standing on my property is not reasonable, but the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime is likely to get them (legally) shot.


Only a damned fool or someone with a death wish would go on someone's place around here (in the country) at night unannounced.

 

[Sam1911]

...or coming out of one of my buildings. Coming out of my building, in the night time, is where the "freeze" part comes in.

I must say I'm still unconvinced that someone leaving your premises and/or building can be lawfully shot for not remaining on your property against their will.

Once more, mljdeckard speaks wisdom:

The goal is not to get to shoot someone. The goal here is to NOT GET SHOT. I'm not shooting someone in my house or anywhere else just because I think the law has my butt covered in a given situation.