Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

Congratulations Sherlock.
Indictment: "a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#United_States

In many, but not all, United States jurisdictions that use grand juries, prosecutors often have a choice between seeking an indictment from a grand jury and filing a charging document directly with the court. Such a document is usually called an information, accusation, or complaint, to distinguish it from a grand-jury indictment.

Looks like there is more to it than your definition...

[GWCarver]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#United_States

In many, but not all, United States jurisdictions that use grand juries, prosecutors often have a choice between seeking an indictment from a grand jury and filing a charging document directly with the court. Such a document is usually called an information, accusation, or complaint, to distinguish it from a grand-jury indictment.

Looks like there is more to it than your definition...

The next sentence:

"To protect the suspect's due-process rights in felony cases (where the suspect's interest in liberty is at stake), there is usually a preliminary hearing, at which a judge determines whether there was probable cause to arrest the suspect who is in custody. If the judge finds such probable cause, he or she binds, or holds over, the suspect for trial."

That would suggest that taking an alternate path from a GJ doesn't constitute an indictment, but leads to a preliminary hearing - usually.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Florida 776.012 "imminent use of unlawful force"

Kentucky 503.080 "immediately neccessary"

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Do you notice a difference between those words?

Blind sniping aside, that question does raise a good point.

When my gun club conducts self-defense refresher training (I am not a licensed CCW instructor, BTW), we do not teach the doctrine of imminence outside the code review, even though the doctrine is contained in the Arkansas Code. Title 5 describes the use of justified deadly force generally as:

Quote:

5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:

(1) (A) By retreating.

----(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:

--------(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or

--------(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or

(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.

In my opinion, imminence issues, such as "about to use" in the example above are highly subjective in nature, too prone to misidentification, carry too much legal and moral risk and therefore are beyond the scope of trainning for the average novice firearm user and detract heavily from the ethical and tactical goals we have established as a club. Mere suspicion does not justify deadly force. Tactically speaking, during the suspicion phase of the encounter, a gun owner should be wholly focused on the quick assessment - subject, surruondings and escape.

For a victim with clean hands, the use of force will be ultimately judged by proportionality and neccessity - the key component of neccessity being immediacy. The decision tree (I was told not to use the term kill chain around civilians ) would be:

Suspicion -> Assessment
Question the use of force -> Enact assessment plan
Immediate threat -> Employ force

Firing a warning shot falls under "question the use of force" portion of that decision tree. In that sitution, you should have continued the threat assessment, effected your tactical advantage and evaluated your escape plan.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Firing a warning shot falls under "question the use of force" portion of that decision tree. In that sitution, you should have continued the threat assessment, effected your tactical advantage and evaluated your escape plan.

Let's put you on the receiving end of the warning shot and see how you react. You are in a standoff with some punk in a small isolated cottage. You don't know where he is but think you are in a safe location. You know that if you try to run he could easily shoot you in the back because there is no cover outside the cottage. Then you see the muzzle flash and a wall splinters nearby. The perp then tells you to run because he won't give you another warning.

Do you turn your back and run or stay and fight? Was the warning shot relavent in that decission?

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Let's put you on the receiving end of the warning shot and see how you react. You are in a standoff with some punk in a small isolated cottage. You don't know where he is but think you are in a safe location. You know that if you try to run he could easily shoot you in the back because there is no cover outside the cottage. Then you see the muzzle flash and a wall splinters nearby. The perp then tells you to run because he won't give you another warning.

Do you turn your back and run or stay and fight? Was the warning shot relavent in that decission?

That's a question of tactics. The guy already committed an violent felony by firing the warning shot, so there's no real question concerning the use of force.

The rule for tactics is to never leave cover you trust. If you lose confidence in your cover, you don't move without another specific cover location in mind. If you loose confidence in your cover and are under fire, then you're probably want to do a move and shoot - or pucker, move and shoot. That is one of the weakest tactical situations you can imagine. You're relying solely on the shooter's lack of marksmanship, aversion to exposed fire and a big ole' chuck of luck. Move and shoot relies on your ability to pick a spot and move to it without losing your sight picture. The whole time you're exposed, you are lined up and firing. Hope you brought that spare mag, BTW.

Gunfight self-defense scenarios are relatively rare, BTW. Those are usually very close range in a commercial burglary. Your primary focus would at all times be find cover and eliminate the threat. Shoot and move is generally taught as a method to find cover, not to move from one.

Also, I am not a licensed CCW instructor.

ETA: I probably should have said that gunfight scenarios are relatively rare for private civilians not engaged in illegal activity. I'm not really talking about drive-by or drug territory confrontations (which do affect law-abiding civilians but generally have a seperate crime element involved.)

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

That's a question of tactics. The guy already committed an violent felony by firing the warning shot, so there's no real question concerning the use of force.

You saw the muzzle flash so you know there was no obstacle between your head and the punk's gun. Instead of realizing that he was giving you a chance to retreat by demonstrating his intention not to kill, you are sticking to your absolutist principle, "never give up, never surrender".


ETA: since he had clearly announced his intention to allow the fight to end peacefully, if you take any aggressive action while displaying deadly force, he will be legally entitled to kill you under florida's law.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

You saw the muzzle flash so you know there was no obstacle between your head and the punk's gun. Instead of realizing that he was giving you a chance to retreat by demonstrating his intention not to kill, you are sticking to your absolutist principle, "never give up, never surrender".

Generally no - I'm not going to rely on tender mercies. It's not a function of bravado. I just wouldn't trust my life to the shooter in that situation. Firing a warning shot would be considered by me as an escalation, not an attempt to de-escalate.

Originally Posted by Dan O.

ETA: since he had clearly announced his intention to allow the fight to end peacefully, if you take any aggressive action while displaying deadly force, he will be legally entitled to kill you under florida's law.

Err....no. That would be a novel defense, though.

Members of the jury, he had to know that I wanted peace, I fired at him.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Err....no. That would be a novel defense, though.

Members of the jury, he had to know that I wanted peace, I fired at him.

Generally, the looser in a fatal gun fight doesn't get to dictate what the jury is told. But where are your grounds to object to the self defense claim.

Here is that relavent section of the Florida statute again:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

The punk may have initially provoked the use of force but as under 2(b), the punk is no longer in physical contact and has indicated clearly that he desires to terminate the use of force. It is you who is now the assailant that continues the use of force. This gives the punk the right to claim self defense when he puts the next bullet into your noggon.

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Generally, the looser in a fatal gun fight doesn't get to dictate what the jury is told. But where are your grounds to object to the self defense claim.

Here is that relavent section of the Florida statute again:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

The punk may have initially provoked the use of force but as under 2(b), the punk is no longer in physical contact and has indicated clearly that he desires to terminate the use of force. It is you who is now the assailant that continues the use of force. This gives the punk the right to claim self defense when he puts the next bullet into your noggon.

The punk has not "indicated clearly that he desires to terminate the use of force". What he has said is indistinguishable from an attempt to entice me to leave cover and so give him a better target and I am under no obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt. A clear indication that he desires to terminate the use of force would for example be for him to leave cover and disarm.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

So if I have a guy covered in blood with machete in one hand and a human head in the other hand, and he's about 20' from me and says "your next", and I fire a warning shot, that's proof there was no immediate threat of harm? OK, got it.

Are you guys just stating the law here? Or are you seriously suggesting there are no situations in which a person firing a warning shot could ever be under a threat of immediate harm???

It seems to me what they are saying is that the prosecutor can muddy the waters a lot when any given deadly force action is called a warning shot.

Stories are what people want, and a warning shot is a much less clear story about the imminent nature of the threat.

[marplots]

Warning shot = kill shot that missed

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Metullus

The punk has not "indicated clearly that he desires to terminate the use of force". What he has said is indistinguishable from an attempt to entice me to leave cover and so give him a better target and I am under no obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt. A clear indication that he desires to terminate the use of force would for example be for him to leave cover and disarm.

This is fascinating. Can it be assumed that all vocal CCW advocates will similarly choose to continue the fight and expect the other guy to unilaterally disarm if the aggression is to end without a fatality?

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

This is fascinating. Can it be assumed that all vocal CCW advocates will similarly choose to continue the fight and expect the other guy to unilaterally disarm if the aggression is to end without a fatality?

Am I a "vocal CCW advocate"?

If the other guy is the aggressor, which I understand to be the case in your proposed scenerio, I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to take the position that it is incumbent upon him to convince the victim of his aggression that his intent is now peaceful. To suggest that I am somehow obligated to rely on the aggressor's good will for my safety after he has already made manifest his willingness to use violence against me to achieve his goals is, IMO, absurd. I do not and cannot know his intent; I can judge only his actions and his capabilities. And as long as he has his weapon and has not withdrawn he is capable of injuring me and thus is a threat to me.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

This is fascinating. Can it be assumed that all vocal CCW advocates will similarly choose to continue the fight and expect the other guy to unilaterally disarm if the aggression is to end without a fatality?

Not really. Actually not very fascinating at all. Unless its likely to actually happen. Most encounters that escalate to a deadly threat are over long before any kind of back and forth dialog ensues about who is going to walk away, either becuase the aggressor has high tailed it, or the situation is over becuase someone is dead. It seems to me an example of an exception of an exception. Any real life examples? Or is this fascinating hypothetical not realistic and should not be seen as telling one way or the other about either CCW advocates or aggressors?

What is more fascinating to me is how one constructs a scenario with few details, no clear motivations illustrated by the active agents being depicted, and then draws sweeping conclusions from the hypothetical.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Metullus

Am I a "vocal CCW advocate"?

If the other guy is the aggressor, which I understand to be the case in your proposed scenerio, I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to take the position that it is incumbent upon him to convince the victim of his aggression that his intent is now peaceful. To suggest that I am somehow obligated to rely on the aggressor's good will for my safety after he has already made manifest his willingness to use violence against me to achieve his goals is, IMO, absurd. I do not and cannot know his intent; I can judge only his actions and his capabilities. And as long as he has his weapon and has not withdrawn he is capable of injuring me and thus is a threat to me.

As I said, fascinating.

When encountering a mirror of yourself, neither of you will disarm to end the conflict. All I've heard are strategies for making the kill. No one wants to deescalate even tough the punk initiated the dialog to do just that.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

As I said, fascinating.

When encountering a mirror of yourself, neither of you will disarm to end the conflict. All I've heard are strategies for making the kill. No one wants to deescalate even tough the punk initiated the dialog to do just that.

If I encounter a mirror of myself a deadly situation would never occur.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

As I said, fascinating.

When encountering a mirror of yourself, neither of you will disarm to end the conflict. All I've heard are strategies for making the kill. No one wants to deescalate even tough the punk initiated the dialog to do just that.

I'm with you. Maybe it's just me, but as a non gun-owner, as I read several of these arguments, it's almost as if there's an extremely deeply embedded intellectual dishonesty, probably embedded during gun training, that prevents some from admitting to any situation in which a warning shot is feasible. I'm fine with arguing that one should always seek to avoid warning shots at all costs, or perhaps even that they should never be used, but to refuse to acknowledge ANY scenario in which one could have value seems extreme to me.

I think I can understand why this teaching exists though. If people, or police, felt free to issue a warning shot when ever they felt in danger that could be a disaster in the making. Hence the "party line".

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

As I said, fascinating.

When encountering a mirror of yourself, neither of you will disarm to end the conflict. All I've heard are strategies for making the kill. No one wants to deescalate even tough the punk initiated the dialog to do just that.

Why should I entrust my life to the aggressor? You have heard nothing from me about strategies for "making the kill". My goal would be to exit the situation alive and in one piece. Taking at face value the word of someone who has opened fire on me does not strike me as an effective route towards that goal. Now, if the punk wants to deescalate and wants to earn my goodwill, he can withdraw and/or disarm, either of which will render him no longer a threat to me. This seems reasonable given that while I have no reason to trust him (given his actions towards me) he has far fewer reasons to distrust me.

When encountering a "mirror" of myself, no gun would be drawn as no one would be the aggressor.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Metullus

Taking at face value the word of someone who has opened fire on me does not strike me as an effective route towards that goal. Now, if the punk wants to deescalate and wants to earn my goodwill...

Gimme a break . If you aren't armed and a punk is standing there and shoots a warning shot above your head and tells you to get the hell out, you are damn well going to take his word at face value and whether he "earns your goodwill" is going to be of no relevance. You're going to turn your ass around and book out of there as fast as possible. Unless you have some bizarre death wish.

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Gimme a break . If you aren't armed and a punk is standing there and shoots a warning shot above your head and tells you to get the hell out, you are damn well going to take his word at face value and whether he "earns your goodwill" is going to be of no relevance. You're going to turn your ass around and book out of there as fast as possible. Unless you have some bizarre death wish.

Give me a break. I understood the situation to be one in which I was armed as well.

If I am not armed then there would be nothing to prevent the punk from walking away, would there? Deescalating unilaterally, you know? No need, in other words, to fire a warning shot since I am merely cowering in fear, right? In short, there would be nothing for me to do to deescalate the situation, right?

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I'm with you. Maybe it's just me, but as a non gun-owner, as I read several of these arguments, it's almost as if there's an extremely deeply embedded intellectual dishonesty, probably embedded during gun training, that prevents some from admitting to any situation in which a warning shot is feasible. I'm fine with arguing that one should always seek to avoid warning shots at all costs, or perhaps even that they should never be used, but to refuse to acknowledge ANY scenario in which one could have value seems extreme to me.

I think I can understand why this teaching exists though. If people, or police, felt free to issue a warning shot when ever they felt in danger that could be a disaster in the making. Hence the "party line".

I do not think any kind of intellectual dishonesty is needed to understand how as a society we are very skeptical of people firing off weapons and claiming self defense, or I was just trying to scare him, or whatever the rational behind a warning shot might be. It is not that no rationale can be had to make sense of a warning shot, it is that as a society we hold such with extreme skepticism. If your life is really in danger, would you honestly have a chance to fire a warning shot, and then allow a certain duration to pass to see if it had the desirable effect?

I think on its head the idea of a warning shot creates added skepticism, and it is this skepticism which makes a self defense claim less tenable. I see the advice of, "do not pull your gun until your ready to shoot", as more of legal advice than self defense advice.

Many behaviors when viewed from a "legal advice" perspective might be very different if it where for the construct that is the legal system, and human behavior when it comes to claims of necessity.

[GWCarver]

The arraignment is tomorrow at 13:30. Zimmerman, O'Mara, and Corey won't be there.

The source is cf13news.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Xulld

I do not think any kind of intellectual dishonesty is needed to understand how as a society we are very skeptical of people firing off weapons and claiming self defense, or I was just trying to scare him...

Skeptical is fine. Arguing that there is no scenario where it ever makes sense or ever can be justified is what I find unusual. The battered wife is I think, a pretty decent example I think. A drunken idiot who thinks "you won't ever do it" and continues to head towards her as she has a gun might think twice if she fires a warning shot. Again, that's NOT to say it's wise. That warning shot could kill someone else. But I can imagine a scenario where it could be justified and not a bad decision (no one else in the home, fires warning shot upwards where the chance of injury to someone else is infinitesimally small).

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Metullus

Give me a break. I understood the situation to be one in which I was armed as well.

My apologies if i misread it.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Skeptical is fine. Arguing that there is no scenario where it ever makes sense or ever can be justified is what I find unusual. The battered wife is I think, a pretty decent example I think. I drunken idiot who thinks "you won't ever do it" and continues to head towards her as she has a gun might think twice if she fires a warning shot. Again, that's NOT to say it's wise. That warning shot could kill someone else. But I can imagine a scenario where it could be justified and not a bad decision (no one else in the home, fires warning shot upwards where the chance of injury to someone else is infinitesimally small).

Too many unintended consequences.

I share your distaste for absolutes like 'never', but this reeks of counting on a magic 'bad guy vanisher'... be it waving a knife, stick, or a gun around, I don't like it.

Attacker becomes enraged instead of frightened, attacker's friends circle behind you while you are focused on seeing if the attacker was suitably 'warned' off, armed passerby shoots you while you are 'scaring' the attacker...

And the previously mentioned legal shell game possibilities where the attacker claims to be an innocent victim of your wild gun slinging.

I'd prefer to expend a lot more effort on not getting into a shooting situation, and 'never' pull a trigger unless you have crossed the threshold where saving your life outweighs putting a hole in the threat... not in the air.

YMMV

[Natural Born Skeptic]

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic, and is related to giving a warning shot in a sideways sort of way. Why don't any gun owners (that I've ever heard of) use rubber bullets when they carry? I'm talking about doing it as a choice, not a legal requirement. If people are really just interested in being able to extract themselves from a dangerous situation, wouldn't that do the trick 99% of the time, while allowing them not to have to use deadly force?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic, and is related to giving a warning shot in a sideways sort of way. Why don't any gun owners (that I've ever heard of) use rubber bullets when they carry? I'm talking about doing it as a choice, not a legal requirement. If people are really just interested in being able to extract themselves from a dangerous situation, wouldn't that do the trick 99% of the time, while allowing them not to have to use deadly force?

The amount of force required to stop a grown person intent on harm, is going to overlap with lethal force, any way you apply it.
People have been maimed and killed by 'rubber' bullets, and there are other people out there who wouldn't even slow down for them.

What does any of this have to do with GZ and TM?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic, and is related to giving a warning shot in a sideways sort of way. Why don't any gun owners (that I've ever heard of) use rubber bullets when they carry? I'm talking about doing it as a choice, not a legal requirement. If people are really just interested in being able to extract themselves from a dangerous situation, wouldn't that do the trick 99% of the time, while allowing them not to have to use deadly force?

That seems to be about the same as carrying a good pepper spray, which many people do.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

What does any of this have to do with GZ and TM?

Did you miss this part :P?

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic..

Seems like the entire warning shot thing doesn't have much to do with it, so I figured it wouldn't do any harm to pose another question about it. But if you must know, I was thinking that if GZ shot TM with a rubber bullet, he'd have been able to extract himself from the situation, and TM would likely still he alive. But as OTT (sort of) points out, pepper spray would likely have done the job too. Either way, it's all pretty much off topic.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

That seems to be about the same as carrying a good pepper spray, which many people do.

Except that bullets rarely blow back into your own face in a stiff wind, or bounce off the attacker with little or no effect.

The choice of what to carry (including nothing) is up to the individual. The choice to allow or deny people the right to defend their own lives with the highest level of force is up to the society.

As I said, instead of substituting rubber bullets, or pepper spray, or love beads for real bullets... I prefer to visualize not getting into such situations.

[Drs_Res]

Sometimes even a bullet or two won't stop someone.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic, and is related to giving a warning shot in a sideways sort of way. Why don't any gun owners (that I've ever heard of) use rubber bullets when they carry? I'm talking about doing it as a choice, not a legal requirement. If people are really just interested in being able to extract themselves from a dangerous situation, wouldn't that do the trick 99% of the time, while allowing them not to have to use deadly force?

If you point a real gun at me (with rubber bullets in it), I am going to shoot you with 2 real bullets. I am not going to wait and see.

That's basically why you don't carry a fake gun, or a real gun that's empty, or a real gun loaded with less than lethal ammo.

If you want to go with a less than lethal approach, you should go with something else entirely, like mace/pepper spray/stun gun.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic, and is related to giving a warning shot in a sideways sort of way. Why don't any gun owners (that I've ever heard of) use rubber bullets when they carry? I'm talking about doing it as a choice, not a legal requirement. If people are really just interested in being able to extract themselves from a dangerous situation, wouldn't that do the trick 99% of the time, while allowing them not to have to use deadly force?

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest here. I think you have added real value to this conversation. That being said...

The main consideration, I think, is that LTL rounds have a signifigant mortality rate at self-defense ranges. Using FBI stats for LEOs killed by firearms (which is really the best stat we have) around half are killed 0-5 feet, around 70% 0-10' and somthing like 85% 0-20'. This tends to match ancedotal studies done within the industry for self-defense shootings though I agree that the universal use of body armor probably skew the stat to the lower ranges. Certainly at near-contact ranges like in the present case, LTLs would have no real difference in mortality than conventional loads.

I'm not a certified instructor, but in my personal experience the single overriding theme of self-defense training should be that of assessment. IMO, anything that detracts from assessment like employing LTLs or warning shots would tend to give the shooter a reason to skip this step. There's just no way around the great legal and moral risk that is taken when one decides to employ lethal force. Make no mistake, civilian use of LTL rounds will be cast as lethal force by law enforcement and (IMO) should probably be viewed that way under the light of personal morality.

That being said, I think bean bag rounds would be an interesting alternative for some specific instances like an unknown person breaking in to your house (a scenario that I was involved personally.) While not perfect, those are designed to spread out, lose momentum through air resistance and deliver a spread out blow to shock and disorient a perceived agrressor - but again you have to question your use of potentially lethal force in a situation where you have (by your choice of armament) have presumably shown that, in your mind, was not perceived as absolute neccessity. At least under the current law, that would tend to be unworkable from a standpoint of legal liability.

[kedo1981]

This is why I’m dead set against Conceal and Carry.
If I’m in a place where I am in danger I want to BEAR MY ARMS, as in let the bad guys know I got um and have the training to use them, and I only get them if I have training.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest here. I think you have added real value to this conversation. That being said.......

Thanks for the thorough answer.

[Xulld]

Quote:

If you want to go with a less than lethal approach, you should go with something else entirely, like mace/pepper spray/stun gun.

Yep! KISS principle.

Originally Posted by Drs_Res

Sometimes even a bullet or two won't stop someone.

Yep, often bullets are "less than lethal", dont get me wrong I think the stats are something like 80% of poeple shot in the chest who dont get immediate medical attention die, but that leaves a lot who dont.

In almost any situation where someone could bring lethal force against you within seconds, you would be a fool to pull punches.

If you really do not think the situation is such that the person can bring lethal force against you within seconds, then you should use a much less than lethal option, like pepper spray, or a tazer, if you do not have them, then try to gain as much distance as possible while remaining at the ready to draw your defensive firearm.

From my own training: most of the emphasis is on deescalation, gaining distance, and either avoiding or removing myself from the situation WITHOUT the need to draw.

However once you have assessed that lethal force is seconds or less away from being met out against you, you must stop the attacker with maximum force as quickly as possible.

I think rubber bullets are a terrible idea for self defense for a couple of reasons. One is this idea that all options have been exhausted before lethal force is employed, and as was said earlier rubber bullets are going to be seen as lethal force regardless of your intentions. So legally this grants you no advantage.

If you determine that lethal force is needed, he reaches for a gun, he draws a knife and starts moving toward you after making threats, ect ect, if you fail to drop him with the rubber bullets, all you have done is escalate the situation. Also, being shot with a rubber bullet hurts like hell, but just like being shot with a real bullet often the person will know they have been hit, but it does not stop them, or via adrenaline they dont feel most of the pain right away, if you shoot me with a rubber bullet chances are I am going to think I have been shot with a real bullet, and if desperate enough may just do something even more crazy. This means that both legally, and practically rubber bullets are a bad idea.

Now if you are a squad of police officers, its a different story. You have backup, you have a team, you are not a single person in a dangerous situation, you have backup and more options. Rubber bullets are really only viable in a small subset of situations, and limiting yourself in that way is not a smart choice.

Originally Posted by kedo1981

This is why I’m dead set against Conceal and Carry.
If I’m in a place where I am in danger I want to BEAR MY ARMS, as in let the bad guys know I got um and have the training to use them, and I only get them if I have training.

When I lived in North Carolina I carried openly every day for almost 2 years. I really wish every state had the same basic arrangement. I think if GZ would have been OC'ing his firearm the altercation would have never occurred, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Skeptical is fine. Arguing that there is no scenario where it ever makes sense or ever can be justified is what I find unusual. The battered wife is I think, a pretty decent example I think. A drunken idiot who thinks "you won't ever do it" and continues to head towards her as she has a gun might think twice if she fires a warning shot. Again, that's NOT to say it's wise. That warning shot could kill someone else. But I can imagine a scenario where it could be justified and not a bad decision (no one else in the home, fires warning shot upwards where the chance of injury to someone else is infinitesimally small).

I dont know is really my only answer. I am feeling this one out.

I would like to think I am a reasonable person, if someone pointed a gun at me, I would immediately want to find cover or get out of the line of sight of the gun, especially if I am not armed with a gun. So putting myself in the place of the drunk guy who is aggressively walking toward a frightened person of less stature (ie a women in your description). If she drew and pointed the gun with a command to stop that would be enough for me. I think firing a warning shot is a reasonable person hoping the attacker is also reasonable, and I think its a deadly assumption. Just my .02

I think if there is some kind of mistake in intention when a person such as your hypothetical situation find themselves in such a situation, giving vocal commands and trying to find a way out would be enough. The drunk guy would probably realize he is freaking this person the F out, and stop . . . unless his intentions are really malicious.

Ive actually been in such a situation and was able to deescalate by making my unease known to the drunk dude, and explaining in a commanding tone to DO NOT GET ANY CLOSER. It was a stressful situation, I do not think I moved my hand to my weapon, but I def backed up squared to target and started looking at his hands while issuing my commands and basically letting it be known he was freaking me out. Upon reflection I think he was pretty harmless, but I did not stick around to find out.

[LTC8K6]

The problem with LTL in the real world is that it can get you killed.

A lot of people think they should load LTL as the first round. They shouldn't.

An attacker can get to you surprisingly quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The problem with LTL in the real world is that it can get you killed.

A lot of people think they should load LTL as the first round. They shouldn't.

An attacker can get to you surprisingly quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

EXACTLY. 1.5 seconds. My current average draw time to first accurate shot (from concealment) is about 1.8 -2 seconds, and I train fairly regularly. There is just no way to be sure. You need every advantage you can get when someone really wants to harm you.

Basically you just dont need a gun up and until the point something like this happens, but once it does you need a lot more than a pistol, your lucky if you have even that in today's anti gun age.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

The main consideration, I think, is that LTL rounds have a signifigant mortality rate at self-defense ranges. Using FBI stats for LEOs killed by firearms (which is really the best stat we have) around half are killed 0-5 feet, around 70% 0-10' and somthing like 85% 0-20'. This tends to match ancedotal studies done within the industry for self-defense shootings though I agree that the universal use of body armor probably skew the stat to the lower ranges. Certainly at near-contact ranges like in the present case, LTLs would have no real difference in mortality than conventional loads.

Perhaps I'm missing something but isn't 15% statistically significant? I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise.

Quote:

I'm not a certified instructor, but in my personal experience the single overriding theme of self-defense training should be that of assessment. IMO, anything that detracts from assessment like employing LTLs or warning shots would tend to give the shooter a reason to skip this step. There's just no way around the great legal and moral risk that is taken when one decides to employ lethal force. Make no mistake, civilian use of LTL rounds will be cast as lethal force by law enforcement and (IMO) should probably be viewed that way under the light of personal morality.

Please don't take the following as impertinent. It's not my intention to simply be provocative. First off, I think it prudent for anyone who carries a gun to take safety courses. That said, isn't concern for safety a bit overblown when it comes to carrying a gun? What I mean is this, given crime stats, does cost benefit analysis justify carrying a weapon like a gun? If the avoidance of taking a life is important then are there not better strategies and/or better technologies? What is the relative risk of dying for lack of a hand gun? According to the FBI, in 2010 there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms. For comparison, in 2010 there were 32,000 auto fatalities. Are the risks of having a gun greater than the risks of not having one? To be honest I can't say categorically either way. I don't fear riding a car and I don't fear being shot by someone. There seems to be a logical consistency in that. And yes, I get putting on one's seat belt, obeying the laws and defensive driving. But at the end of the day, no matter what you do, when you get into a car you are taking a risk. So, while I don't think people without the ability to carry a gun would live in fear, I think the concern a bit overblown.

If it is not clear then my point is this, anyone who has serious concerns about the possibility of taking the life of another person ought not carry a gun.

[Xulld]

Quote:

If it is not clear then my point is this, anyone who has serious concerns about the possibility of taking the life of another person ought not carry a gun.

. . anyone who has serious concerns about being in a fatal auto accident ought not drive in a vehicle.

Your argument.

The conclusion is untenable however, serious concerns or not basic standards of living require us to drive, and to interact in society where violent people may attack us.

Being prepared is different than disengaging. The real counter argument is that being prepared harms no one. Defensive driving harms no one, carrying a gun and following self defense protocols hurts no one. When a deadly situation occurs you can make the best of it, but I am going to be prepared.

Quote:

According to the FBI, in 2010 there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms.

Which ignores how many were prevented due to having a firearm. Its pretty hard to capture a statistic for an event that is prevented.

I find it interesting this argument from statistics. It seems the argument is that no one should carry a gun becuase of the statistical probability of needing one. Is this not the case?