Fire Twice -vs- Empty the Magazine?

[theGringo]

I disagree. What if the criminal is only after your TV and VCR?

In that circumstance, your use of deadly force would not be justified.

How about if you just wing the ba$tard?

 

[Ray-500]

Make sure you have my cell phone number in your wallet!

If you are an attorney, and given our environment, you probably make a lot of sense. Regardless, my thoughts, feelings and opinions still stand. No one is going to break into my home, while I am present, and have me go through a litany of "what ifs". If I, or any member of my family is threatened in that type of situtation, I will do whatever necessary to protect them or myself. Are you saying you would do otherwise?

 

[Jose]

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

Shoot, evaluate, shoot is a fantasy that will get you killed.

Review 15 videos of cops in shootouts and tell me how many do that.

 

[Kaos116]

I disagree. What if the criminal is only after your TV and VCR?

In that circumstance, your use of deadly force would not be justified.

That exact scenario was given at my pistol safety course many years ago. The BGs can knock on your door and say 'We are not going to hurt you. We are going to come in and take your TV and VCR.' And you can't shoot them.

They had this acronym 'JAM'. To justify a shooting you had to satisfy your life was in 'J'eopardy. The BG had the 'A'bility and 'M'eans to do you great harm. It was also taught that you should run away if you could. If you shot someone in the house and you were standing next to the back door and didn't turn and run, that was bad for you.

 

[Ray-500]

I disagree. What if the criminal is only after your TV and VCR?

In that circumstance, your use of deadly force would not be justified.

This is part of the problem....viewpoint. What if....what if? Maybe he didn't even want the TV or VDCR. Maybe he wanted the gold coin in my pocket, or the gold tooth in my head. Maybe he heard that I had firearms and wanted one. Maybe he heard that I'm an easy-going guy and would be a pushover for whatever. Maybe he just felt that he could do whatever he wants because of laws and rulings that give more weight to the criminal rather than the victim.

No matter. If my home is invaded, it will not be without consequence. That is my feeling, my "ruling", and I will live with it.

 

[Jose]

No matter. If my home is invaded, it will not be without consequence. That is my feeling, my "ruling", and I will live with it.

+1

And in three weeks real castle doctrine, which raises the de facto presumption of intent to cause death or severe injury by the invader, goes into effect in Ohio.

Makes my problem easier and the criminal's and the prosecutor's more difficult. And that's how it should be.

 

[Ray-500]

That exact senario was given at my pistol safety course many years ago. The BGs can knock on your door and say 'We are not going to hurt you. We are going to come in and take your TV and VCR.' And you can't shoot them.

They had this acronym 'JAM'. To justify a shooting you had to satisfy your life was in 'J'eopardy. The BG had the 'A'bility and 'M'eans to do you great harm. It was also taught that you should run away if you could. If you shot someone in the house and you were standing next to the back door and didn't turn and run, that was bad for you.

No offense to you....but bullshit. Run away in your own home? What? run and cower in the bathroom? Are you serious?

Are we becoming such a nation of sheep that this is even considered?

 

[law dawg]

Shoot, evaluate, shoot is a fantasy that will get you killed.

Review 15 videos of cops in shootouts and tell me how many do that.

I did it in both of my shootings.

 

[Ray-500]

+1

And in three weeks real castle doctrine, which raises the de facto presumption of intent to cause death or severe injury by the invader, goes into effect in Ohio.

Makes my problem easier and the criminal's and the prosecutor's more difficult. And that's how it should be.

Good for Ohio. Someone, at least, has some common sense and rationality.

 

[Jose]

I did it in both of my shootings.

Um, a sample of one. Yep, I'll base my decisions on that much data.

 

[Kaos116]

No offense to you....but bullshit. Run away in your own home? What? run and cower in the bathroom? Are you serious?

Are we becoming such a nation of sheep that this is even considered?

That's is how we all felt in that class.

I never said I agreed with it, which I don't. It sucks that we as victims (in these scenarios)have to be so worried about being seen as the bad guys while reacting to a situation we are not asking for.

 

[jar]

Shoot, evaluate, shoot is a fantasy that will get you killed.

Review 15 videos of cops in shootouts and tell me how many do that.

Gunsite teaches (at least in a video I've seen, I haven't been there) two to the body then transition to the head. If the head is still there, shoot it. This makes a lot of sense to me. I don't see how you could possibly have time to assess.

 

[Jose]

Gunsite teaches (at least in a video I've seen, I haven't been there) two to the body then transition to the head. If the head is still there, shoot it. This makes a lot of sense to me. I don't see how you could possibly have time to assess.

Gunsite's dogma is long past its "consume by" date.

 

[Ray-500]

That's is how we all felt in that class.

I never said I agreed with it, which I don't. It sucks that we as victims (in these scenarios)have to be so worried about being seen as the bad guys while reacting to a situation we are not asking for.

Grin, that's why I said, "No offense to you." I will stand by my prior comments.

 

[jar]

Gunsite's dogma is long past its "consume by" date.

I agree on a lot of things, but this one seems reasonable on its face. The bigger issue with them and other schools of their ilk is the 'stand and deliver' attitude, rather than getting off the X.

 

[Ray-500]

1) 80% of people shot with a handgun survive.
2) Most shots fired don't actually hit the intended target.
3) Forensic evidence can determine where you were with respect to the perp when the shooting occurred. It can also determine the relative position of the perp's body when he was shot.
4) There was a witness to the incident that you did not see.

Every single shot you fire must be justified. If at any time during the encounter the perp no longer poses an immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury, then you must stop shooting.

I agree with your 4 points but have to disagree with your final paragraph. Not with you, but with the society we live in that coddles the criminals and villifies the victim.

Grin, I guess I would be safe in firing no more than two shots from my Grizzly 45 Win Mag. The perp (if I aimed relatively properly) would no longer pose an immediate danger, should no longer be able to harm me or my family, and I will therefore stop shooting.

 

[Jaxon]

We're gonna do what we have to do and then count the cost. Everything else is just wishful thinking....

 

[Ray-500]

We're gonna do what we have to do and then count the cost. Everything else is just wishful thinking....

Very well put.

 

[law dawg]

Um, a sample of one. Yep, I'll base my decisions on that much data.

Not claiming you should, just saying what I did.