Fire Twice -vs- Empty the Magazine?

S

Stellar05

Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
20
Likes
1
Location
Massachusetts
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Ok folks, a friend of mine and I are having a debate about which is a better scenario when faced with a self defense shooting situation...

The Question: From a LEGAL standpoint, are you better off firing just a few rounds? or emptying the magazine?

Friends Answer : From a legal standpoint he seems to feel that in a self defense situation it is far better to empty your magazine so there is no question as to if you were in a "fear for life" situation, and only stopping when the subject is clearly no longer a threat.

My Answer: I would assume that the use of excessive force would come into play and a trained marksman would only fire as many shots as necessary?

Anyone have thoughts or Legal Experience surrounding this?
 
Two to the center mass and one to the head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill. I think a good defense attorney can 'educate' jury that this is an established training method and you were acting on your training. If the shot placements were good, follow-up shots are unlikely needed.

If the assailant is not stopped, empty the magazine.

From a legal point, the difference is slight: you can take back one bullet, just as you can't do ten, and it's all deadly force. But for an average-Joe (not a gun owner) on the jury, the perception is different.
 
About 10 years ago in the town I live in a man came up to a guys home with a butter knife...I dont know all the details..but the guy with the knife had priors ect ect..well the guy who owned the house shot his entire magazine is self defense hitting the guy multiple times and killing him.

Took a couple years for the verdict and it was ruled self defense.

Ill see if I can locate the full info.
 
A single shot fired when he is no longer a threat could turn a defensive shooting into a murder charge. I suggest that you continue shooting until the threat has stopped.
 
+1 on "stop when there ceases to be a threat."

Wasn't there a situation where a cop constantly drilled mozambiques and reholstered? IIRC, he fired 2 chest, 1 head, but didn't drop the suspect, and by the time he realized this when he noticed that he had reholstered, just like he did every time he was on the range.
 
Coastie2010 said:
+1 on "stop when there ceases to be a threat."

Wasn't there a situation where a cop constantly drilled mozambiques and reholstered? IIRC, he fired 2 chest, 1 head, but didn't drop the suspect, and by the time he realized this when he noticed that he had reholstered, just like he did every time he was on the range.
Click to expand...

I think the cop got it wrong when he reholstered. He should have the gun trained on the assailant till support arrived and fired again if necessary (I wouldn't even trust a downed assailant as being dead).
 
I'd rather be alive and in potential legal trouble than dead having used the "appropriate amount of force" to try to stop a threat.

i.e. empty the mag if necessary.
 
Stellar05 said:
Ok folks, a friend of mine and I are having a debate about which is a better scenario when faced with a self defense shooting situation...

The Question: From a LEGAL standpoint, are you better off firing just a few rounds? or emptying the magazine?

Friends Answer : From a legal standpoint he seems to feel that in a self defense situation it is far better to empty your magazine so there is no question as to if you were in a "fear for life" situation, and only stopping when the subject is clearly no longer a threat.

My Answer: I would assume that the use of excessive force would come into play and a trained marksman would only fire as many shots as necessary?

Anyone have thoughts or Legal Experience surrounding this?
Click to expand...

When the threat is clearly eliminated, there is no longer a need to fire another shot. Grin, "clearly" involves as many shots as necessary.
 
Another thing to bear in mind is that if you empty the magazine, you're vulnerable if you didn't notice that second guy. Shoot til he's down, which should be only 2-3 well placed shots at the most, then stay alert.
 
For the best legal advice, listen to the people who say to stop shooting when the attacker is no longer a threat. But in a real life situation if you have just encountered someone who tried to take your life as you were just going about your merry business, I don't think it is anyones business to say just when it was that you stopped percieving the attacker as a threat. My morals tell me that anyone who just tried to take the life of an innocent man does not deserve the mercy of the innocent man stopping short of killing him to ensure that even though he is lying on the floor seemingly done attacking, he is not going to pull out a pistol from a pocket when you turn your back.

I could never blame anyone who was awoken in a dark house and terrified because an attacker with a deadly weapon tried to kill him or his family, and the victim decided to ensure that there is no way that the attacker will recover in time to cause them harm. To me that's as simple as two plus two. But not to some criminal loving panty-waste scumbag judge or juror that you might happen to come up against. For me it is okay that the victim turn into the attacker, but not necessarily for the law or for anyone else, really. I wouldn't shoot anymore than I absolutely have to in a state that doesn't have the death penalty(your far less likely in my opinion to have a general population that accepts killing in self-defense here), and therefore you must ensure that you watch every single move that the attacker makes while you have a gun on him, while you are calling the cops which you do immediately after the confrentation has ended, or at the absolute first chance that you can.

For instance, if you hear someone in your house and you know it is someone who has broken in, call the cops right away. Theres no sense in waiting, it's their job to catch criminals, it's your job to protect your family. Also beware that in states such as MA you can only use deadly force if you fear that you or your family are going to suffer great bodily harm or death if you don't. If there is evidence that you popped the neighbor and you knew all he was doing was stealing your beers at 2 a.m. and not trying to hurt anyone, your gonna be doing time.
 
Keep in mind, you are legally responsible for every shot you fire.

I recommend shooting until you have stopped the lethal threat, and no more shooting after that, unless the lethal threat reoccurs.

When the cops come, make sure you drop your gun. Don't want to look like a threat to them.
 
Last edited:
Cross-X said:
Keep in mind, you are legally responsible for every shot you fire.

I recommend shooting until you have stopped the lethal threat, and no more shooting after that, unless the lethal threat reoccurs.
Click to expand...

Grin, keyword is "stopped". What constitutes that is totally open to interpretation...empty mag/cylinder or not. Suppose the homeowner only had a .22 available to him/her, and it was loaded with 6 rounds. It took all 6rounds to "eliminate the threat".

Is that person "suspect" because they emptied the gun?[wink]
 
I am thinking Bernie Goetz on this one. He shot all five rounds....one survived sued and got $43million I believe...empty it

as I rethink....shoot until there is no longer a threat..hope you dont get sued
 
Last edited:
DontForgetJune4th said:
Two to the center mass and one to the head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill. I think a good defense attorney can 'educate' jury that this is an established training method and you were acting on your training. If the shot placements were good, follow-up shots are unlikely needed.

If the assailant is not stopped, empty the magazine.

From a legal point, the difference is slight: you can take back one bullet, just as you can't do ten, and it's all deadly force. But for an average-Joe (not a gun owner) on the jury, the perception is different.
Click to expand...

If that's your plan going into it, I hope you get a nice bunk mate at MCI. All the prosecutor has to do is enter the training syllabus from any well-known school showing that that's not the way they train. It's always fire to stop the attack. If you've had to fire a second shot to the center of mass, and that still hasn't managed to stop the attack, then shift aim to the head. An automatic 2+1 is almost per se excessive force. Just as you own each shot fired, you have to assess whether additional rounds are needed before every shot, not after every group or 2 or 3 or after each magazine.

Ken
 
Cross-X said:
Keep in mind, you are legally responsible for every shot you fire.

I recommend shooting until you have stopped the lethal threat, and no more shooting after that, unless the lethal threat reoccurs.

When the cops come, make sure you drop your gun. Don't want to look like a threat to them.
Click to expand...
You can't get any better advice than that.
 
theGringo said:
But save one round. If you've emptied your magazine and the BG isn't down, use the last round on yourself.

(This was the advice given by the instructor for the Worcester PD when I took the required class to get an LTC ... 20 years ago? He was a funny guy.)
Click to expand...

I guess I missed the funny.

Lethal force is a bit different when you carry a badge and are in uniform.
 
Cross-X said:
I guess I missed the funny.

Lethal force is a bit different when you carry a badge and are in uniform.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it wasn't the "training" I expected. He also questioned the wisdom of having semi-auto rifles in civilian hands, citing as an example a guy who (allegedly) told him he wanted a semi-auto so he could see how long he could keep a squirrel up in the air. He really stated that.

Someone asked the guy if he signed off on that student's training certificate. I forget what the answer was.

This was the guy who did firearms training for the WPD.
 
Dead men tell no tales.

Warning: The following is not to be taken as what you should do if you find yourself in a situation where you need to use a gun to protect yourself. Doing the following will result in loss of gun license, loss of freedom, and you becoming Bubba's 'girlfriend' causing a loss of bowel control.
If you shoot and the BG gets back outside, shoot him again and then drag the BG back in. When the cops ask how the blood got outside just say that he must have been bleeding before he broke in. Your word against his...

As far as if I feel like my wife and child are in mortal danger... Heck yeah! If someone busts my door down at 2 in the morning they sure as hell aren't coming in for a spot of tea! I live in a condo. There is only one way in and out of my unit. My bedrrom is at the 'furthest corner', so I'm coming out with my S&W barking and then I'll ask questions. JMOFUO
 
Last edited:
Cross-X said:
Keep in mind, you are legally responsible for every shot you fire.

I recommend shooting until you have stopped the lethal threat, and no more shooting after that, unless the lethal threat reoccurs.

When the cops come, make sure you drop your gun. Don't want to look like a threat to them.
Click to expand...

As JonJ stated...no need to read any further than this.
 
Sleepytime said:
Dead men tell no tales.

If you shoot and the BG gets back outside, shoot him again and then drag the BG back in. When the cops ask how the blood got outside just say that he must have been bleeding before he broke in. Your word against his...
Click to expand...

Humorous, but also a perfect example of what not to do.
 
Sleepytime said:
Dead men tell no tales.
Click to expand...
But the forensics sure do. And the witness that you didn't see. And the audio tape that was made while you were calling 911.

If you shoot and the BG gets back outside, shoot him again and then drag the BG back in. When the cops ask how the blood got outside just say that he must have been bleeding before he broke in. Your word against his...
Click to expand...
Your words against the forensics team who will notice the drag marks in the blood. And since you just committed a felony -- tampering with evidence -- they won't believe another word you say. After all, you were trying to cover up something by moving the body, so you clearly believed that you did something wrong.

And when the forensics team uses blood spatter, bullet trajectory, and gunshot residue analyses to determines that you shot the perp one more time after he was already down, they will charge you with murder one. Hope you like Walpole, because murder one in MA has a mandatory sentence of life without parole.

Your advice is illegal, immoral, and just plain stupid. I strongly suggest that you take LFI-1.
 
Last edited:
Bobkatt and M1911,
The first part of my post was only ment for the humor.

The second part, I would probably change by saying I would announce to would-be tea drinker that I have a weapon. If he then takes one more step I will take that as a threat and react accordingly.
 
BOBKATT said:
Humorous, but also a perfect example of what not to do.
Click to expand...

I get that your were making a joke, Sleepy.

But I agree with Bobkatt that it's bad advice. I think that you need to be able to justify to a jury of reasonable people why you did what you did. That's what I've always thought about, rather than crowding my head with tactics and scenarios (double-tap or empty the mag) because if I ever find myself needing to use lethal force it's not likely to end up anything like I imagined it to be.

Imagine yourself judging your own actions that leave a BG dead on the ground.

Here's a different kind of situation, but it's something I keep in mind when I think about these things. I know a guy who was a convenience store manager. Some guy started wigging out and knocking stuff all over the counter. The manager reached over the counter, grabbed the kid by the collar and pounded him hard in the chest, several times. The kid staggered a bit, apologized, and fell dead to the floor.

If you're going to take an action that may leave someone dead, you just better be sure that it's not only legally defensible, and defensible from a commonsense point of view, but that you're ready to live with the consequences of what you did.

Shooting a guy outside and dragging him back inside would leave me in a moral quandry. But any use of deadly force which, in retrospect could have been handled differently, is likely to leave one with some baggage to carry, even if you're never charged.
 
M1911,
I'll be sure to be more careful next time I post something like that. I forgot to take into consideration that some people may not take it as a joke and think it is perfectly fine to do something like that. Next time I'll add "Kids, do not try this at home", or "Warning: The views expressed by the author of this post are in no means applicable to actual real life situations!"... something like that. (and just so you know, I am in no way trying to be a smartass in this reply)
 

Similar threads

Study Confirms 10+ Firearm Magazine Capacity Is 'Standard'
Replies
8
Views
447
tuna
tuna
Californians Arming Up for Self-Defense as Illegals Flood into Cities
Replies
23
Views
461
mothybee
mothybee
Washington state high-capacity magazine ban remains on books for now
Replies
1
Views
120
pastera
pastera
New Orleans Police Chief Pushes More Gun-Free Zones — Where Tourists Can’t Be Armed for Self-Defense
Replies
21
Views
337
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Arlington, MA school locked down - empty cartridges found
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Back
Top Bottom