To Kill or Not to Kill

[7starmantis]

I was thinking the other day about a situation I was in a few years back. I had been jumped by two guys who jumped into my car and tried to I guess beat me up and take the car. Anyways, they beat on me for a good 5 or 6 min until they got tired then I got a chance and kicked one of the out of the car and got out myself, at which point they took off.
Talking to the officers later that day, I spoke to one about the concealed handgun laws in my state. I had just finished the handgun course but was not carrying at the moment. I asked if that would have qualified as a situation to use the gun and he said decisivly yes.
Upon further thought however, I don't think I would have wanted to kill either of those guys. The situation ended peacfully enough and no one got hurt too bad (I got a black eye or two). Would I have really wanted to take one of their lives for that? So I began thinking, I don't think there are many situations where I would kill a person. Of course there are those extreme cases where I would have to kill, but this lead me to ask a question.
Who here would actually take a life in a hand to hand fighting situation? Couldn't you disarm them, or control them and end it without death? I'm not talking about someone holding a gun on you from 15 feet away, I'm talki about you getting jumped and fighting hand to hand or stick or whatever.
Any thoughts?

7sm

[theletch1]

Is the question one of legality or one of morality? My response to this question is a different one depending on your answer to my question. The morality of the situation is that I definetly attempt to do only as much damage to my assailant as is neccesary to get myself home to my family. The legality of the situation is that we are in a lawsuit happy environment and you are probably just as well off killing an assailant as waiting around for some thug to sue you for breaking his knee or shattering his elbow while he was trying to stick a knife between your ribs and take your wallet. I don't relish the idea of taking the life of another human being but I don't know that I would lose too much sleep over putting some low life in the ground after HE PUT HIMSELF in a position to force me to do so.

[Ender]

The simple answer is if they pull out a weapon, you can kill them....but in reality, there are so many variables to look at. could you escape? are you killing them to punish them? was your life in danger....all these questions will come up if you do...you just have to evaluate "hurt, maim or kill"

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Did anyone ever think how easy it is to kill someone? There is little "skill" in it.

Some of us train for years so WE WONT HAVE TO in even a life-or-death situation. The real skill is not to have to hurt someone, even if they're asking for it, and to control the situation.

[Kirk]

If your family were in the car with you, would that change your
mind?

[Kingston]

Originally posted by Kirk
If your family were in the car with you, would that change your
mind?

.....im not sure what your getting at. If his family was there it would be a different scenario requireing different actions, with most likely a different result...in the situation starmantis mentioned i dont think lethal force was required.

I think lethal force should be used only when neccesary......if someone attacks your family....you have the right to defend them....but, if his family was in the car...should his first reaction be to go for the kill? I would say no..UNLESS there was a weapon which would AGAIN make it a completely different scenario.....

Lets not get into the "what if?" game.

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by theletch1
The legality of the situation is that we are in a lawsuit happy environment and you are probably just as well off killing an assailant as waiting around for some thug to sue you for breaking his knee or shattering his elbow while he was trying to stick a knife between your ribs and take your wallet.

I'm sorry, I can't be polite in this situation. The above statement has to be among the most god damn stupid things I have heard.

Ever hear about what really happens when you use deadly force? First of all, they run an investigation into whether or not you really were justified to use it or not. And in 99 percent of the situations, they do not release you but keep you in jail until the situation is 100 percent clear. You are looking at weeks, if not months, of time off from work, away from family and in the showers of prison.

In the movies, they immediatly give a medal to anyone who shoots a bad guy. In the movies, triple spinning back kicks are the preferred method of ending a street fight. :rolleyes:

And I have news for you, there is no statue of limitations on murder. If you kill someone and do not go in front of a court then for the rest of your life you have to live with the fact that some DA might come after you. If you piss off an ex- girlfriend, there is always the possiblilty that she can tell the DA that you admitted something to her that will make him re-open a case. And they can hold you for a few days while the determine whether to charge you or not. This can happen to you several times during your lifetime.

And if you are worried about someone suing you, how about the relatives of the guy you killed? Remember what happened to OJ Simpson?

How about asking people who have killed what advice they have for people still living in some sort of bull#%*& macho fantasy?

And as for the idea that some people train to not have to kill someone, with all due respect- unless you have been in that situation don't pretend to speak with any amount of experience.

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by Shadow Hunter
... How about asking people who have killed what advice they have for people still living in some sort of bull#%*& macho fantasy?

And as for the idea that some people train to not have to kill someone, with all due respect- unless you have been in that situation don't pretend to speak with any amount of experience.

If it isn't too personal, were YOU in this situation before.

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
If it isn't too personal, were YOU in this situation before.

Don't ask for details. But I know what I am talking about here.

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by Shadow Hunter
Don't ask for details. But I know what I am talking about here.

That's good enough for me. :asian:


Just please understand that many police advocate killing an intruder for the above reasons. Some of us never heard the other side of the story.

[progressivetactics]

Ever hear about what really happens when you use deadly force? First of all, they run an investigation into whether or not you really were justified to use it or not. And in 99 percent of the situations, they do not release you but keep you in jail until the situation is 100 percent clear. You are looking at weeks, if not months, of time off from work, away from family and in the showers of prison.
Not exactly true. Maybe in your state, they hold everyone for a length of time, but more times then not...if you have a clean record, and no probably motive, you are released until needed for investigation purposes. Look at Robert Blake. He, most likely, was involved in his wife's death, and he was not HELD for almost 2 weeks after it happened. As it looked more and more probable he had a part in it, that is when they picked him up and took him in. William Shatner has probably been involved in his 2 previous wives deaths and hasn't had to spend any time in Jail (going from memory.....I believe his first wife died mysteriously).

With great power comes great responsibilty. To have the ability to take a life, and not use it is a remarkable trait. Many people couldnt take a life because of fear, or what ever reason. Dispite training.

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by progressivetactics
... Many people couldnt take a life because of fear, or what ever reason. Dispite training.

I may be one of those people, unless it involved someone else in a life-threatening situation.

I'm a pacifist. Once I was confronted by a guy who had been drinking and didn't want it to escalate. I don't know why, maybe because I knew he was hesitant to really fight, but I let him hit me twice in the face, and I didn't even flinch. I remained calm and even as a pond on a windless day. I just looked at him, polite tone in my voice. He freaked out, and pretty much ran away.

I had the police handle it, and they warned him. The funny thing is the people in the neighborhood explained to him that I wouldn't hurt a fly -- that's just the way I was -- but he was lucky anyway because if I wanted to he would have been the fly and me the swatter. Later, he sincerely apologized, no hard feelings, and we went on about our lives.

Wierd reaction on my part, but I'm glad I handled it that way.

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by progressivetactics
Look at Robert Blake. He, most likely, was involved in his wife's death, and he was not HELD for almost 2 weeks after it happened. As it looked more and more probable he had a part in it, that is when they picked him up and took him in. William Shatner has probably been involved in his 2 previous wives deaths and hasn't had to spend any time in Jail (going from memory.....I believe his first wife died mysteriously).

Neither one of these guys were found over their wives bodies claiming they had to shoot them in self defense. If they knew that someone kills, they will lock them up until they determine that the homicide is justifiable. If they do not know for certain that the suspect killed a person (as in the cases above) they will wait until there is enough evidence to charge them. But if they do find some evidence that Robert Blake or William Shatner killed their wives, then they have thrown any chance of having it declared self defense thrown out the window. They will be facing the death penalty for cold blooded murder.

If you are have to kill a person, your best bet is to come up front and admit it. Call the police immediatly. The key word is, "I was in fear for my life." Some idiots say you should just leave the scene and never contact the police. But if they find DNA or other evidence, even if you are not on file now, you may be 20 year from now. Then they will nail you to the wall. You need to call 911 and ask for police to come out. If the attacker is still breathing, you need to call for medical help too. If he dies on the way to the hospital you are still screwed up. But it is damn near impossible to prove that you were trying to kill the guy, only stop his attacks.

But they will treat it as a murder until they have all the facts in from the coroner and investigations into your past. This can take a minimum of about two months. You will sit in jail during that time unless there are special circumstances- like 300 people saw the event and all back up your story. You will need to get a lawyer on retainer and that will cost you about half a year's salary. I fit goes to trial you can expect to pay a minimum of a quarter of a million dollars. Don't take my word for it- talk to a criminal defense attorny and they will tell you how much prior clients had to pay.

Besides which, how do you make sure you kill someone rather than stop them? I am not talking about something silly like trying to wound someone with a firearm. Hitting a target shooting back at you is hard enough. You hit anything you can get. But the human body is pretty damn tough. If you immediatly call the medics after someone gets shot, the chances are pretty good they will survive. If you walk up to the wounded adversary and put a bullet in his head, or wait until he bleeds to death, then the police will be able to tell that from the coroner report and you are looking at a very expensive trial.

[MJS]

There are many things that you have to take into consideration. First, what is the situation? Is it 2pm with lots of people around to witness what is happening, or 2am and the streets are empty? Second, how much force are they using against you? If there are no weapons, and they just grab you, a simple lock might be all you need. Or are they showing a knife or signs that they will not be giving up all that easy?

We do live in a VERY sue happy world. Its amazing as to how a criminal can sue you for defended yourself, even though it was HIM that was trying to rob you, rape your wife, steak your car, etc. And the courts always seem to favor the bad guy.

This is definately a very sticky situation and you have to be very sure that you have all of your facts in order, otherwise, you might be the one sitting in jail, not the bad guy.

If you use the necessary amount of force and can give a good detailed account of what happened, yoiu might stand a chance of convincing the jury that you are the victim not the criminal.

In my opinion, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

Mike

[John Bishop]

Originally posted by Shadow Hunter

But they will treat it as a murder until they have all the facts in from the coroner and investigations into your past. This can take a minimum of about two months. You will sit in jail during that time unless there are special circumstances- like 300 people saw the event and all back up your story. You will need to get a lawyer on retainer and that will cost you about half a year's salary. I fit goes to trial you can expect to pay a minimum of a quarter of a million dollars. Don't take my word for it- talk to a criminal defense attorny and they will tell you how much prior clients had to pay.


I don't know where you got the above information. But having spent 9 years as a city police officer, and the last 22 years as a District Attorneys Investigator, I can say that it is incorrect anywhere in the United States.
The U.S. Constitution provides that you can not be held in custody for a unreasonable amount of time without being charged (arraigned in court). The courts have ruled that this reasonable time is 3 court days.
If you are charged, then you have the right to a speedy trial. This has been defined to be 10 days.
Also, no D.A. is going to charge a person with murder or manslaughter unless he has all the facts and feels that he can secure a conviction. So nobody is going to sit in jail for 2 months while the coroner and D.A. sort things out.

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by John Bishop
The U.S. Constitution provides that you can not be held in custody for a unreasonable amount of time without being charged (arraigned in court). The courts have ruled that this reasonable time is 3 court days.

Yes, and if you are charged with murder you will be in jail without any bail until the case goes before a jury. The courts are most likely to charge you and then drop the charges as the facts of it being self defense come to light rather than let you loose. They can do this. If they know you killed someone, it is almost certain that they will have to do so.


Originally posted by John Bishop
If you are charged, then you have the right to a speedy trial. This has been defined to be 10 days.

Just how long was it before OJ was put on trail? Care to take a look at various cases and see just how many people go to trial months after they were arrested?


Originally posted by John Bishop
Also, no D.A. is going to charge a person with murder or manslaughter unless he has all the facts and feels that he can secure a conviction. So nobody is going to sit in jail for 2 months while the coroner and D.A. sort things out.

Can and do. They may not take a case to trail, but they are most likely to charge someone with murder and then drop them before trial than let a potential murder suspect flee the country.

If you shoot someone coming at you with a knife in front of 300 witnessess, then you may be released that same day. If the police respond to a 911 call of a burglery in progress and find you with a gun in your hand over a corpse, what are they supposed to think? It looks like a clear cut case of self defense, but what if they later find out that the guy on the ground was your ex-girlfriends current boyfriend? If they release you in that case, what is to prevent you from not being around when they come around to pick you up again? It is much simpler to charge you and keep you for 72 hours while the initial investigation goes on. If there is any questions, they will state that since it is an accepted fact that a homicide happened that they have reason to charge and hold you for trial.

That is just the reality in most cases I have seen.

[John Bishop]

Again, I ask where you are getting this information? Please name your sources or experience in the criminal justice system.
Like I stated, I have been working for a District Attorney's Office for the last 22 years. We are one of the largest prosecutors offices in the United States, serving a population of 3 million people.

Like I stated, the individual has a right to a speedy trial. It is up to him/her to waive their right in court to a speedy trial. If they don't waive their right, then the trial starts in 10 court days, or the case is dismissed. O.J. and any other defendant who "waited months" for a trial waived their right to a speedy trial so thier lawyers could collect defense evidence and prepare their defense. This is very common.

As to filing a case to hold somebody that you think will flee the jurisdiction. Very unlikely. The prosecution still has to present enough evidence in a prelimanary hearing or before a grand jury to bind a person over for trial. This has got to be done within the 10 day period.

[clapping_tiger]

In regards to the situation that happend to mantis, In my opinion he would have been justified to use deadly force in that situation. Deadly force by definition does not mean to kill someone. It simply means that the force used has a high probability to cause serious injury or death. IF you are attacked by 2 people, I would not try to ride it out and see what happens. And if the attack lasted that long, in my opinion these people were there to cause you serious harm. I think that you got lucky, that these guys didn't kill or seriously injure you. In this case I think hind sight is 20/20 like they say and because Manits escaped unharmed after the attack, that does not mean at the time that he should not have taken extreme measures to protect himself.

If you want to learn more about the psychological effects of using deadly force, you should read "On Killing". It talks about how most of the population, including soldiers just cannot kill, even if their life is in danger. It compaires people talking about Killing someone is self defense as the same thing as a bunch of virgins talking about what sex is like. It is easy for us to be macho and say I would have no problem killing someone if they pulled a knife on me. But you really don't know until it happens.

[rmcrobertson]

First off, the post that started this thread made no mention of the writer's having been threated with a weapon, or feeling that they were in immanent danger of serious injury or death. If that's the case, there was neither a legal nor a moral justification for, "the use of deadly force."

Second off, you're stuck in a car with two guys who are whomping on you. A gun is going to help you how, exactly? Assuming you can get the damn thing out--doubtful--there's a pretty good chance you're going to get shot, not them. How is this smart self-defense?

Third off, some of the posters seem to suggest that deadly force is justifiable in protecting property--not legally true, not morally true, unless you argue that in a capitalist society, your money is in fact the same thing as your life.

Fourth, I note again that violence is being justified on the grounds of society's being filled with mortal threats--threats from criminals, threats from the criminal justice system. Sorry, simply not true. (And before anybody starts up--guys, among other things, I taught at Compton College--yes, that Compton--for ten years. I had real problems twice; I never had to hurt, or even hit, anybody, so spare me.) The professionals on this thread seem right: barring really, really, really bad luck, you're pretty safe from being killed by a stranger, and you're virtually immune from being wrongly imprisoned for injuring/killing someone in a case of genuine self-defense.

Just incidentally, it's my understanding that cops who have to kill somebody often have bad dreams. As for the rest of us--you're in infinitely more danger driving. Our eating habits put most of us at more risk....so...

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by John Bishop
Like I stated, the individual has a right to a speedy trial. It is up to him/her to waive their right in court to a speedy trial. If they don't waive their right, then the trial starts in 10 court days, or the case is dismissed. O.J. and any other defendant who "waited months" for a trial waived their right to a speedy trial so thier lawyers could collect defense evidence and prepare their defense. This is very common.

Ah ha!!! So many people either waive their right to a speedy trial or go into it under- prepared!!! Sounds like most people will be sitting in a jail cell for a few months.

The burden of proof for a conviction is on the prosectuters, but in a case of a claimed self defense killing they already know that a homicide has been committed. This is probable cause in most areas I know of to hold a person for trail.


Originally posted by John Bishop
As to filing a case to hold somebody that you think will flee the jurisdiction. Very unlikely. The prosecution still has to present enough evidence in a prelimanary hearing or before a grand jury to bind a person over for trial. This has got to be done within the 10 day period.

And if it is an established fact that the person being held has killed someone, how hard is it to convince a grand jury that a homicide has been committed? If you are talking about an 80 year old woman who is deacon of her church and confined to a wheel chair holding a gun over the corpse of a serial rapist in her home, you have a case where they will probably not be charged or booked into jail. But if both participents dated the same woman after another- how complete are you going to be before determining that the guy left standing was not either a psyco ex- boyfriend or a current boyfriend whacking his possible competition?

But let us go back to the original thing that set me off. Basically it was a case of if you had a choice of killing or not killing that you should kill the guy in order to avoid a possible lawsuit in the future. Do you care to defend that position? I think it is morally bankrupt, and the chances of it being pulled off without spending months in jail very slim. If you have to shoot, shoot as center target as you can. But if they guy drops and is lying on the floor, can you make a choice to kill the guy in cold blood and resonably expect that there will not be enough evidence to make the DA say, "wait a minute?"

If you have to kill, then you have to do what you need to survive. You will need a lawyer at that point and even if it does not go to trial that will set you back about half a years wages. (Mr Bishop- do you concur that the best thing someone who has had to kill do is get a lawyer and that just putting one on retainer will be several thousad dollars?) If there is any reason at all for the DA to press charges because you chose to kill the guy, you are looking at about a quarter of a million dollars in legal costs. And if you chose to kill someone, I can pretty much bet that an amatuer will leave behind enough evidence to cause suspicion.

Kill if you have to. But don't kill if you can avoid it. I would rather loose all my physical possesions than take the chance of facing a murder charge.

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Third off, some of the posters seem to suggest that deadly force is justifiable in protecting property--not legally true, not morally true, unless you argue that in a capitalist society, your money is in fact the same thing as your life.

You may notice that I am definatly not on the side of the "kill them all and let God sort them out" crowd. But in the case of someone breaking into your home, it seems only reasonable to treat it as potential threat on your life unless you are 100 percent certain otherwise.

If you are talking about taking shots as some guy drives off with your car, then I agree with you. But anyone caught robbing my house while I am in it will be treated as a threat unless he is prancing through the living room nude and clearly not holding a weapon. That is not a case of protecting property with deadly force, that is a case of treating someone as a potential threat to your family's life.

[Cryozombie]

If I had my gun, I would have killed them. But thats just me.

[TKDman]

Just the fact that you had a gun would probabily scare them away or make them not want to bother you.

A gun is probabily the best crime prevention devise ever devised by man to date. I like those Brinks security commericials where a man breaks into the house and the wife/kids run into a room. The security system alerts the police which arrive there 10-30 mins later.

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, fiddlesticks. First of all, let me just mention something that everybody knows--if you're thinking of defending yourself with a handgun, forget it. You won't have it available, you won't get it out in time--and you will most probably miss. Did I actually read a poster who recommended shooting at some guy driving away in your car? Cops aren't even allowed to do this--something about missing and killing a neighbor.

The recommendation I always heard is, if you must have a gun for home defense, get a shotgun, load it with birdshot. It's efficient, scary, and won't blow through your wall and kill the next door neighbor.

Even better, if you really want to defend yourself/your family, in the extremely-unlikely event that some goofball comes crashing through your door--work out a plan, practice it with your family, get out the back door---AKA, "fire drill." I mean, is the point to protect yourself and your family, or is the point to shoot the guy?

Again--everybody knows, or should, that your and your loved ones are statistically speaking in far more danger from family and acquaintances than strangers. You're in more danger of slipping in the tub, of being struck by lightning, than of getting killed in a home invasion, as far as I know. Cripes, checking the tires and brakes on your car, re-evaluating your driving habits, would be a far more-important safety measure...but I guess that's just not sexy enough.

I'm with the posters who were horrified, even revolted, at the notion of simply shooting another human being. And I'm with the posters who argued that yhou're pretty much safe from the criminal justice system, in the event you do shoot somebody in a real act of self-defense.

[KanoLives]

If it comes down to me or him, it's gonna be him everytime. And if it means that I'm locked up for defending myself that's fine too. I am rightfully judged by one being and that is the Lord above. Now I'm not into killing people I mean s**t who is? But I will do anything to protect my health, well being, family, and friends. And if it means taking another's life who did not respect life in the first place, well I have already made that decision.

Now as far as the topic that started this thread I would have went down swingin'. They came into your personal space, and then started to go to town on ya. I definitely would have started swingin and wouldn't have got out of my car. And it's not even the fact of protecting my property, it's the fact that these scumbags have the balls to jump in my car and expect me not to do anything except get out and run. What's to say they wouldn't or haven't done it again and again. I'd rather go down swingin then just go down because if you just go down you're already dead.

:asian:

[MJS]

Originally posted by TKDman
Just the fact that you had a gun would probabily scare them away or make them not want to bother you.

A gun is probabily the best crime prevention devise ever devised by man to date. I like those Brinks security commericials where a man breaks into the house and the wife/kids run into a room. The security system alerts the police which arrive there 10-30 mins later.

A gun does not scare some people as easy as you might think it does. How many times do you see a cop draw down on a guy who has a weapon, and he still keeps coming at them. Granted, there are people out there that want to commit suicide by cop, but lets for a min. put the shoe on the other foot. If a criminal has a gun and he is mugging someone, are there no people out there that make an attempt at a disarm? People can say, "Well, if I just give them my wallet and car, at least I'll be alive. Those things can be replaced." True, they can be replaced, but whats to say that after you give up your items, that he doesnt shoot you anyway? If you pull a gun on a guy mugging you, whats to say that he isnt going to call your bluff, and still make a move towards you.

I think people that own guns tend to get over confident with them. How many of the people that own guns, actually practice under stressfull conditions? Not many, if any at all. How many shoot at night? I'm not talking about military or LEO, I'm talking about the average person that has a gun. Its one thing to shoot at something that isnt moving, but its totally different to shoot something that is moving and is trying to hurt you.

Mike

[MJS]

Originally posted by ChineseKempoAL
If it comes down to me or him, it's gonna be him everytime. And if it means that I'm locked up for defending myself that's fine too. I am rightfully judged by one being and that is the Lord above. Now I'm not into killing people I mean s**t who is? But I will do anything to protect my health, well being, family, and friends. And if it means taking another's life who did not respect life in the first place, well I have already made that decision.

Now as far as the topic that started this thread I would have went down swingin'. They came into your personal space, and then started to go to town on ya. I definitely would have started swingin and wouldn't have got out of my car. And it's not even the fact of protecting my property, it's the fact that these scumbags have the balls to jump in my car and expect me not to do anything except get out and run. What's to say they wouldn't or haven't done it again and again. I'd rather go down swingin then just go down because if you just go down you're already dead.

:asian:

Great post!!!!!:D :D

The criminal is making the first move here. They have already provoked the situation by breaking into the house or mugging you or whatever. Being empty handed is one thing, then yes, if the guy has no weapon, you using a gun IMO is not proper. But if this guy breaks into my house at 2am and I'm fearing for my life, my wife, and my kids, then hell yeah, all bets are off! I didn't hang a sign on my door telling this a**hole to break in at 2am--he did it on his own. Maybe he'll kick the s**t out of me, but I'm not going down without a fight. If I scratch his face, take an eye, or knock out a tooth, then maybe when the bag of s**t looks in the mirror the next day, that will serve as a little reminder to him.

Mike

[Cryozombie]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Oh, fiddlesticks. First of all, let me just mention something that everybody knows--if you're thinking of defending yourself with a handgun, forget it.

Everybody know this? I don't know this. The people that teach self defense shooting probably dont know it either. I would bet most LE Officers don't know that either or they wouldnt carry a handgun.

"Everybody" was a pretty general statement.

[MJS]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rmcrobertson
[B]Oh, fiddlesticks. First of all, let me just mention something that everybody knows--if you're thinking of defending yourself with a handgun, forget it. You won't have it available, you won't get it out in time--and you will most probably miss.

I agree with this only regarding a civilian. HOw many people that own guns actually, A- carry them with them all the time? And B, if they do carry them, they must be conceled. Now, lets think about this for a min. If its winter, you are wearing a heavy jacket, and someone approaches you, are you really going to have the time to get that gun out?? Odds are probably not that good.

Now, a LEO always carries the gun on duty, and has it easily accessible. Now, do they in every situation have it drawn? No, but if they feel that they might need it, they start to prepare for it.

Mike

[rmcrobertson]

Please read the post, some of you folks.

First off, I didn't write that it was never acceptable to have a gun in the house. I wrote that it was silly to depend on a handgun--partly for reasons already mentioned, and partly because even trained police officers only hit their human target a little over 20% of the time.

I wrote, get a shotgun, as any serious professional would tell you--or so I've read. Certainly it's what the SWAT sniper I used to train with recommended--but, alas, to some idiot who was wedded to the idea of buying a Glock.

By the way, if ya really gots to stop somebody, go with the shotgun loaded with birdshot.

But much more importantly, if the point is to protect your family and yourself, there are a LOT of things that come before getting a gun.

I think I'll shut up now, before I go off on the interesting connection between invoking Christ and carrying guns.

Oh yeah, forgot..I mostly agree with Mike on this one.

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
[
Oh yeah, forgot..I mostly agree with Mike on this one. [/B]

Well thank you Rob. I know that we have had our differences in the past, but I do hope that we can put that aside and have a friendly, constructive discussion!

Mike

[jukado1]

In any situation my first goal is for my familey and myself to survive, and to do so as humanly as possable, but if the attack is visches enough, then my next thought is for the next person who gets carjacked. what if it were my wife or kids, could they defend them selves, i dont think so. if i have the oppertuinty to stop someone from doing another crime and i dont, what happens to the next person is on my head, AND a innecent persons life means more to me than a crimanal anaimel.

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by MJS
... if the guy has no weapon, you using a gun IMO is not proper. But if this guy breaks into my house at 2am and I'm fearing for my life, my wife, and my kids, then hell yeah, all bets are off!

Does this mean you don't get your gun until you know for sure they're unarmed?

"Sir, are you unarmed? No? Oh, please excuse me while I get my gun."

And if you have a gun and they attack you WITHOUT deadly force, they can take your gun FROM YOU.

God forbid I'd have to pull a trigger, but someone in the dark uninvited is HUGE question mark. Assuming the worst is an ethical choice.

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by MJS
...
I think people that own guns tend to get over confident with them. How many of the people that own guns, actually practice under stressfull conditions? Not many, if any at all. How many shoot at night? I'm not talking about military or LEO, I'm talking about the average person that has a gun. Its one thing to shoot at something that isnt moving, but its totally different to shoot something that is moving and is trying to hurt you.

When some jack*ss in class days "I'll just shoot them" I ask if they even carry a gun regularly. You can guess the answer.

And the few that have one, I would be scared to believe use it with the same mentality as mace ... a crutch that without deisplay isn't even a deterrent, and is no substitute for self-defense training (with and without weapons).

Guns don't save people. PEOPLE save people.

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson


... By the way, if ya really gots to stop somebody, go with the shotgun loaded with birdshot....

Finally, a sane alternative. (Another reason I find it hard to beleive non-lethal disablers like stun guns are illegal in my state.)

When I finally do my rightful duty as an American and learn how to use a gun, that's exactly waht I'm going to do.

Will it cause minimal damage / maximum shock?

[DAC..florida]

The use of deadly force in my opinion is a huge responceability and should be treated as such, just because you have the means and ability to take anothers life doesnt mean that is always the right answer. There are many people who feel that if they were violently attacked and allowed the criminal to get away when they had the means and were justified to use deadly force that anyone else that person attacked would be on them!
I sympathise with you here but who made you the judge and jury, what if this person was some high shcool kid on a bet.
We must all remember that everyone is someones kid, father, mother , brother or loved one and once you pull that trigger you cant take it back.

True story about someone I know! This man heard a noise in the middle of the night comming from his living room, he grabbed his gun and went to see what was going on. Upon entering the room he saw a figure coming through his window, once this figure got into the house the man opened fire and killed his 17 year old son who had snuck out to be with his friends.

Dont get me wrong if my life or the life of anyone else was about to be taken from them and thier was no other choice, then I would use deadly force to stop the threat.

Perfect scituation in my mind is to use the amount of force necessary to control the scituation and allow the criminal justice system do its job!
:asian:

[MJS]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
Does this mean you don't get your gun until you know for sure they're unarmed?

"Sir, are you unarmed? No? Oh, please excuse me while I get my gun."

And if you have a gun and they attack you WITHOUT deadly force, they can take your gun FROM YOU.

God forbid I'd have to pull a trigger, but someone in the dark uninvited is HUGE question mark. Assuming the worst is an ethical choice.

I was referring to actually using the gun. Sorry I didn't make that as clear. If the person is unarmed, dont you think that the judge and jury are not going to question you as to why you shot an unarmed person? I know that if I was on a jury, that would be one of the first questions that came to my mind. Look at what happens when a cop shoots an unarmed suspect.

Mike

[KanoLives]

Originally posted by MJS
Look at what happens when a cop shoots an unarmed suspect.

Mike


Not to get off topic or anything and I know you're from CT, MJS and I'm sure you have heard of the East Haven incident. But personally I'm tired of hearing about cops using deadly force and then they are being put on trial and loosing their jobs and pretty much life, all because some idiot didn't listen to what the cops were telling them to do. It's just this simple, DO WHAT THE F***K THE COPS TELL YOU TO DO, and you won't get shot. That simple right? Sorry but I'm tired of hearing that it was racial profiling, and blah blah blah, the cops trigger happy blah blah blah. Granted this isn't the case for every situation but if this idiots would just do what they're told to do the cops have no reason to shoot them. And I give much respect to those guys who put their lives on the line to make this world a little safer. I mean they never know. I was watching Real TV I think, and this cop made a routine traffic stop for something stupid like not signaling a turn, as the cop walked over to the car and said hello the driver fired two shots into the cops chest. Luckily he had his armor on and was alright. It just goes to show what cops have to deal with, and I'm tired of them gettin a bad rap.

Sorry, I'm done now.

End :soapbox:

[MJS]

Originally posted by ChineseKempoAL
Not to get off topic or anything and I know you're from CT, MJS and I'm sure you have heard of the East Haven incident. But personally I'm tired of hearing about cops using deadly force and then they are being put on trial and loosing their jobs and pretty much life, all because some idiot didn't listen to what the cops were telling them to do. It's just this simple, DO WHAT THE F***K THE COPS TELL YOU TO DO, and you won't get shot. That simple right? Sorry but I'm tired of hearing that it was racial profiling, and blah blah blah, the cops trigger happy blah blah blah. Granted this isn't the case for every situation but if this idiots would just do what they're told to do the cops have no reason to shoot them. And I give much respect to those guys who put their lives on the line to make this world a little safer. I mean they never know. I was watching Real TV I think, and this cop made a routine traffic stop for something stupid like not signaling a turn, as the cop walked over to the car and said hello the driver fired two shots into the cops chest. Luckily he had his armor on and was alright. It just goes to show what cops have to deal with, and I'm tired of them gettin a bad rap.

Sorry, I'm done now.

End :soapbox:

I hear ya and I agree with you 100% I was stating that it will be no different when a cop shoots someone or if a civilian shoots someone. They are both going to have to answer questions as to why they shot! It is sad, especially today, that the cops always seem to be under the spotlight. Regarding the East Haven shooting, well I wasnt there, I don't know all the circumstances, so I can't really be a good judge of that. I will say though, that if its true what the cop said, that he really felt his life was in danger due to the car rolling back towards him, then I dont blame him for shooting at all. Of course, some people will say, why didn't he shoot the tires rather than the kid driving. Well when a cop has to draw his gun and he is faced with shooting someone, he's trained to shoot center mass, not at the legs, arms or anything else. You hear that all the time from people.."Why didn't he shoot him in the leg, rather than the chest, maybe he'd still be alive today!" Well, I'd like to see these "expert" marksmen that do all the complaining, try to shoot something that is moving. And, maybe if they were aware of where there 15 yo son was at 2AM, maybe he'd be alive today. Do you remember the shooting in Hartford? Same thing. A 12 yo kid, out at that hour of the night. Where are the parents??? Wait, I know where they are. They are probably at home to high on drugs or too drunk to realize that their kid even left the house.

Mike

[OULobo]

Originally posted by ChineseKempoAL
Not to get off topic or anything and I know you're from CT, MJS and . . .. It's just this simple, DO WHAT THE F***K THE COPS TELL YOU TO DO, and you won't get shot. That simple right? Sorry but I'm tired of hearing that it was racial profiling, and blah blah blah, the cops trigger happy blah blah blah. . . .I'm tired of them gettin a bad rap.

Sorry, I'm done now.

End :soapbox:

Here we go. Sorry for the length and just to let everyone know this isn't an attack just a debate.

I would generally agree with you, but you have to remember that there are rules that the police must abide by, and in some situations decide not to. I don't think that you should "do whatever the cops say". That is a one way ticket to a police state. Keeping this in mind, we must use common sense and not do anything that is physically threatening or poses a risk to ourselves or others, but there are many example of police officers abusing their power over the common civilian. We have had a local case here about a cop that acted like he was going to arrest a woman and instead raped her. If you want a grand scale of power abuse, just take a look at the Patriot Act. Good ol' Ashcroft is already abusing this one. He has directly defied a federal court order to release people from encarceration. I hate to come off like a paranoid, but freedom requires vigilance, not compliance. " “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

In terms of the original topic here, I think I wouldn't have killed if given the choice, but would have no compunctions if the perp dies. The truth is that I feared for my life and used all methods at my diposal to defend the one thing I can't get back after it is lost, that same life.

How many people have heard of the case in Britain where the farmer shot two burglers with his hunting shotgun and killed one of them? The burglers had repeatedly burgled this same house (six times) and finally got caught. The farmer is currently in prison and the surviving burgler is trying to sue for his injuries, including lost wages. He was listed as unemployed. How could he lose wages when you get unemployment eitherway. Is he speaking of all the houses he could have robbed since the injury. The worst park is that the farmer's wife who had little to do with the situation may be liable, because the farmer is in prison and broke. THIS MAKES ME SICK. Getting caught and the possiblilty of getting shot is an accepted employment risk if you commit a crime where someone is in danger or thinks they may be.

One last note is that, just like showing a gun, posturing and intimdation can be effective. Primates, which we are, rarely kill during disputes in the wild. Most of the confrontations resulting a lot of huffing and puffing. Once, when I was on my way to pick up my girlfriend and I had an altercation (rude gestures) with some high school kids in a car. The kids tailed me all the way to a parking lot near her work. I knew they were there and didn't want to let them know where I was going, so I pulled over and got out of the car. They pulled up gunned the engine and started to get out of the car. I pulled the little league bat I had in the car out. I screamed and pounded the bat on the ground with both hands as hard as I could while I jumped up and down and acted generally insane (or stupid). Either way it worked the kids quickly hopped back in the car and took off. I know this wouldn't help in the original situation of this thread, but its another example of a way to deal with a confrontation.

P.S. to the "held before trial" debate. I don't belive that they put you in prison while being held, only the local holding cells or jail. There is quite a differance there. While I'm not an officer and have no LEO experience, I can't imagine they would put a suspect in "Gladiator School" before he is found guilty. If for no other reason than the possiblity of a law suit if anything happens in holding. there is a local case here where exactly that happened. A man in holding cell was raped and the officers knew it was happening and didn't attempt to stop it. This man won his case.

Okay, I'm out of gas to vent.

[OULobo]

Originally posted by MJS
I hear ya and I agree with you 100% I was stating . . . .I will say though, that if its true what the cop said, that he really felt his life was in danger due to the car rolling back towards him, then I dont blame him for shooting at all. Of course, some people will say, why didn't he shoot the tires rather than the kid driving. Well when a cop has to draw his gun and he is faced with shooting someone, he's trained to shoot center mass, not at the legs, arms or anything else. You hear that all the time from people.."Why didn't he shoot him in the leg, rather than the chest, maybe he'd still be alive today!" . .. . They are probably at home to high on drugs or too drunk to realize that their kid even left the house.

Mike

There is no centermass on a car driver, but I think that fear of having car run you over is enough reason to shoot anywhere.

[KanoLives]

Originally posted by OULobo
Here we go. Sorry for the length and just to let everyone know this isn't an attack just a debate.

I would generally agree with you, but you have to remember that there are rules that the police must abide by, and in some situations decide not to. I don't think that you should "do whatever the cops say". That is a one way ticket to a police state. Keeping this in mind, we must use common sense and not do anything that is physically threatening or poses a risk to ourselves or others, but there are many example of police officers abusing their power over the common civilian. We have had a local case here about a cop that acted like he was going to arrest a woman and instead raped her. If you want a grand scale of power abuse, just take a look at the Patriot Act. Good ol' Ashcroft is already abusing this one. He has directly defied a federal court order to release people from encarceration. I hate to come off like a paranoid, but freedom requires vigilance, not compliance. " “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

What I meant by "Do what the cops say" was if a cop tells you to get out of the car with hands up, wouldn't you do it? Or would you not listen. And if you didn't listen, well I'm just puzzled by why you wouldn't. Actually I'm puzzled why you wouldn't do what a cop says? Like you said using common sense. If you look at most cases, the people that get shot by cops (not all but most) usually have done something wrong or have something to hide or whatever. It comes down to the guy not doing what he was told and making movements that could be taken as hostile. Why not just listen and then sort things out once everything is under control. As far as the cop raping the woman, well that's just horrible, but you can't let one bad apple ruin the bunch. My point is that most cases where an officer used deadly force, is justifiable. And I don't think it's right that they have to go through what they do just for protecting us. From my experience and things I've seen, why try to fight the cops or run from them. You never win.

[OULobo]

Originally posted by ChineseKempoAL
What I meant by "Do what the cops say" was if a cop tells you to get out of the car with hands up, wouldn't you do it? Or would you not listen. And if you didn't listen, well I'm just puzzled by why you wouldn't. Actually I'm puzzled why you wouldn't do what a cop says? Like you said using common sense. If you look at most cases, the people that get shot by cops (not all but most) usually have done something wrong or have something to hide or whatever. It comes down to the guy not doing what he was told and making movements that could be taken as hostile. Why not just listen and then sort things out once everything is under control. As far as the cop raping the woman, well that's just horrible, but you can't let one bad apple ruin the bunch. My point is that most cases where an officer used deadly force, is justifiable. And I don't think it's right that they have to go through what they do just for protecting us. From my experience and things I've seen, why try to fight the cops or run from them. You never win.

I agree, I had a coworker who used to say "Don't poke the bear." What he meant was if you come across a bear in the woods don't walk up and kick it in the shins. Just like don't try to cut off a semi if you are on a motorcycle or don't flick off a guy with a gun (or don't pull a knife on the little old filipino guy :p ) . If you do, expect what kind of action they take. So in that sense I totally agree. I just can't advocate blindly obeying whatever a cop says. Just like I don't listen to "masters" who say "Sign this, but don't bother reading it."

[KanoLives]

Originally posted by OULobo
I agree, I had a coworker who used to say "Don't poke the bear." What he meant was if you come across a bear in the woods don't walk up and kick it in the shins. Just like don't try to cut off a semi if you are on a motorcycle or don't flick off a guy with a gun (or don't pull a knife on the little old filipino guy :p ) . If you do, expect what kind of action they take. So in that sense I totally agree. I just can't advocate blindly obeying whatever a cop says. Just like I don't listen to "masters" who say "Sign this, but don't bother reading it."

I thought we were both saying the same thing. :) I like that "Don't poke the bear". :rofl: I definitely agree that blindly obeying is not a good idea either cuz as stated there are bad seeds in the crowd. And from a very very young age my father taught me to never sign anything that I didn't understand or not know what I was signing. Some good advice. :)

[DAC..florida]

I work in law enfocement and agree that sometimes you will get a LEO that abuses thier power or loses it! Just like anyone else a LEO is a person and has stress. A police officer never knows what type of scituation they may walk up on or who thier dealing with, sometimes the public thinks thier rude or over abusive. These orders are given for the protection of the officer, the people involved and the general public. Sometimes a cop can lose it and slip to the criminal walk of life or maybe someone is hired into a law enforcement position that shouldnt, no-one is perfect and people do make mistakes. If a law enfocement officer asks you to do something that you feel is not right, ask them why? ask them to talk to thier supervisor, ask for another unit to be present but by all means do it with respect and be polite and in no way make that officer think that your a threat to his life or the life of anyone else. 99.9% of the time thier is a good reason for the officers demands and very rarely do you see the abuse, think about it how many traffic stops or other complaints calls ect. do the police in this country respond to everyday? Do you ever hear about the posative side? NO! the general public only hears about the mistakes.
:asian:

[MJS]

Originally posted by OULobo
There is no centermass on a car driver, but I think that fear of having car run you over is enough reason to shoot anywhere.

I realize this. In the case we are referring to, the cop, I believe was not in the direct line of the car, he was on the side of it, broke the window with the gun and fired shots into the car, killing the driver. I think the jury looked at it and said, "Well, if you were out of line of getting hit by the car, why did you shoot?" Like I said, I was not there, and am only going on what I read in the paper and hear on the NEWS. IMO, the fact of the matter is, is that the cop was fearing for his life and did what he was trained to do. I think it is more of a racial issue than anything else.

Mike

[MJS]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
Do you ever hear about the posative side? NO! the general public only hears about the mistakes.
:asian:

No, you dont hear anything positive. And its really too bad too. There are way too many people out there that have no idea as to what a cop goes through in the run of a day. I say to public who has no idea--You should not judge someone until you have walked in their shoes. Maybe if they went on a ride along with a cop for 8hrs and saw all the BS that they put up with, maybe then they would understand what its like.

Mike

[OULobo]

Without being inflametory it is important to remember that we do hear quite a bit of positive things about the police, like the heroics of 9/11 and the countless times they have come to aid of people. The papers are saturated with the good deeds of our protectors in blue, but the reason that there may be a little less acknowledgment for the positive things is because postitive things are what is expected of them in their jobs. They SHOULD be polite and helpful all of the time, not just on good days. They are meant to protect and serve. I wouldn't praise an employee for not stealing merchandise, but I would definitly notice and take action if they did. I would also expect any emplyee to respect the customer. I know the situation is very different, but the taxpayer is still the customer.

Someone, I think on this forum, said that nowhere in a police officer's job description does it say that they are required to help a citizen in need, only to protect the safety of public land and property. This shocked and disgusted me. I don't know if it is true, but if it is, I feel less likely to pass any levy here to give more money to police. All jobs have pluses and minuses; danger and, saddly, low pay are negatives to being a LEO, but how many other jobs allow you to carry the weapons and train the tactics that an officer carries and trains, and not be a soldier (although in these times I might call a cop a soldier). That's not to mention the job satisfaction of being a protector of the innocent and lawfull of this society.

[ETorbin]

I am surprised at the total ignorance concerning the use of lethal force. Lethal force is justified whenever a "reasonable person" would feel that their life was in jeopardy and there is no other option to remove that jeopardy. A cleaver acronym to remember is AOI which stands for Ability, Opportunity, and Intent. These are the three things an attacker must have in order for lethal force to be justified.

Ability
Do they have the ability to harm me? In the case presented, there were two attackers with only one person defending. This is called a disparity of force. It is considered the same as a 250 pound man attacking a 95 pound woman or anyone attacking someone with a weapon.

Opportunity
Can they harm me right now? In the case presented, the fight was on, they clearly had the opportunity to cause damage right now.

Intent
Judging by the injuries received by the person that was attacked (black eyes), he was receiving attacks to the head. Attacks to the head can cause pain, unconsciousness, brain damage, or death. Even in the case of unconsciousness, you now are at the mercy of those that attacked you. In this case there was certainly intent to cause grave bodily harm or death.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that lethal force was justified (with either a handgun, knife, or bare hands) in this case (as it was described). If anyone is unsure of this, please do some research on the laws on your own. Good sources of information would be a basic handgun course, a lawyer, or books. Massad Ayoob is considered to be one of the leading authorities in the country in the use of deadly force. He offers non-shooting classes around the country. Also his book "In the Gravest Extreme" would be a good place to start. He covers not only criminal cases, but civil as well. Consider this, to worry about a civil case (ie. the person suing you) you must first survive the criminal case. To worry about the criminal case, you must survive the incident. The best defense for this is to learn the laws beforehand. Don't assume anecdotal evidence is correct, learn the laws.

ETorbin

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by ETorbin
... A cleaver acronym to remember is AOI which stands for Ability, Opportunity, and Intent. These are the three things an attacker must have in order for lethal force to be justified. ...

The real problem, whcih you brought out a little, is that a reasonable person cannot acertain these factors in many situations.

Someone in a dark alley approaches you, and refuses to let you leave. If they MIGHT have the ability, MIGHT have a weapon, and MIGHT intend on killing you, how can you prove to yourself otherwise?

I'm not saying just shoot them. I'm saying that if they do not heed warnings that you are armed and prepared, and still do not let you leave, you cannot just wait there until they find the right time to take your ability to defend yourself away so they can do what they will. This is, of course, assuming you cannot otherwise defend yourself under the circumstances (i.e. not trained, too dark to see all but movement and shapes, whatever).

Even then, shooting low would be disabling, but less likely to kill.

Unfortuneatly, cops often "have to" carry around an extra unregistered gun to plant on someone they shoot by accident, such as a kid brandishing something reflective in a dark corner somewhere and not hailing police demands to drop whatever it was.

Every situation is different, but the main pioint is avoiding being in such a circumstance, and if you have to (ie. law enforcement) there are protocols to limit such a possibility of last-resort, at-that-split-second shooting to avoid potential harm.

We only pray that if the protocols are followed, the jury will uphold the law, which is not necessarily inclined to do so in all cases.

[Turner]

Unfortuneatly, cops often "have to" carry around an extra unregistered gun to plant on someone they shoot by accident, such as a kid brandishing something reflective in a dark corner somewhere and not hailing police demands to drop whatever it was.

I hope this is not the case. I know that a cop's job can often be very difficult and there are times that a kid brandishing something reflective in a dark corner and not listening to the cop's instruction and give the cop every right (in my opinion) to shoot, but I don't believe that there is anything morally or ethically right in planting evidence. A person must take responsibility for his/her own actions. I don't believe that there is ever a time that a person should act in a less than honorable manner. It takes courage to act with honor and integrity especially when it means that you may lose your job or even go to jail... but I would rather endure the punishment knowing in my heart that I was right rather than living my entire life knowing that I acted without honor.

That is my opinion. I will do everything that I can not to harm someone or ultimately take someone's life, but if I am forced to defend myself or my family I am very willing to take responsibility for my actions and be punished if the law deems it necessary.

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by Turner
I hope this is not the case. I know that a cop's job can often be very difficult and there are times that a kid brandishing something reflective in a dark corner and not listening to the cop's instruction and give the cop every right (in my opinion) to shoot, but I don't believe that there is anything morally or ethically right in planting evidence. A person must take responsibility for his/her own actions. ...

That's why I said "have to" in quotes. I'm not saying it's right -- I'm just saying it is a practice common in some departments (as is keeping confiscated drugs or doing anything else not in the manual).

Having an out like that, IMO, would make it easier for a cop to be sloppy and then gust plant the gun he grabbed off some kid the day before. However, some officers feel they need that recourse to avoid getting in deep doodo when they do the right thing and jurors don't see it that way.

Personally, if I felt such a need was necessary, I'd do my darndest to find another job, or beat, or whatever.

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by theletch1
Is the question one of legality or one of morality?
I'm talking about the morality of the situation. The legality of it is clear, leathal force was justified. But I like to believe that I live in a way that is more than just, "Is it legal", but rather can I live with myself afterwards. Why should I let some attacker ruin my dreams and give me nightmares for the rest of my life?
Someone said that the situation was not one condusive to getting a gun, well said, if I had been carrying I wouldn't have let them know, because in that situation it could have been taken from me and used against me.
However what complicated the situation was that my then girlfriend(now wife) had been following me home, saw the situation and for whatever stupid reason came running up and kicked one of the attackes in the kidney. Perfect flying sidekick though (she learned from a good teacher :D ). This is what gave me the oportunity to kick them out of the car and get out. This is also where the situation hit the perverbial fan. My wife is 5'2" 95lbs and I wasn't about to let either one of them get a chance at grabing her. The situation hadn't really hit an extreme emergency level with me until this point. Yes they were trying to seriously hurt me, but I've had bigger guys than them try and fail so I wan't extremely worried. When she entered the equation however, I saw where it could end up. A full throttle punch from a 200 lb guy could ring my bell, but could kill her. As I got out of the car, the guy closest to me got my hardest right hook to the side of the head and a good push into the other guy so they both went down away from where she was standing. They then got up and jumped into the truck and took off. We only caught them because she followed them in her car and got the licsence plate number. Again a pretty stupid decision, but it all worked out in the end.

At the point where I exited the car and hit the closest guy, I didn't care if the punch broke his neck, my intent was to imobilize both of them with that one guy. If that ment he died, then he died. So I guess I did use lethal force in that situation. The fact that he didn't get seriously injured means nothing, I still used that level of force. But being in that mind set is what scared me. I thought afterwards about what would have happened if when I attacked him I had seriously hurt of killed him. what if that hook had conected with his neck? This is what got me thinking.

7sm

[Turner]

I agree, that was on my mind as well. If they feel justified in planting the gun they just may get sloppy and be willing to pop off a shot at the slightest hint of danger. However, being responsible for your actions and wanting to make absolutely sure that you are doing the right thing may be negative as well. As you depate pulling the trigger or striking out at your assailant you might pause for that brief second and wind up getting killed.

I have nothing against guns, I love to shoot; but I don't think that I'd choose a firearm as a self defense tool simply because I know that I'd wind up pausing at the wrong moment. Give me a taser or a pepperball gun and I'll fire away in a second. I think that it would be the best idea for LEOs to be armed (and have readily available while on patrol) with both Lethal and Less-lethal weapons so that when they see someone lurking in a corner with something the looks like a gun but can't be sure, they can respond with enough force to incapacitate but not kill. That seems smart to me, but I am not an LEO so what do I know?

[OULobo]

Originally posted by Turner
I agree, that was on my mind as well. If they feel justified in planting the gun they just may get sloppy and be willing to pop off a shot at the slightest hint of danger. However, being responsible for your actions and wanting to make absolutely sure that you are doing the right thing may be negative as well. As you depate pulling the trigger or striking out at your assailant you might pause for that brief second and wind up getting killed.


I think a gun would be the best choice. I do agree with the idea of nonlethals, but I think a gun can be both, especially with good training and a level head; plus you can't beat the range and relative accuracy.

I once heard a statistic, that I can't confirm, that the percentage of people who die after being wounded by a knife, is higher than the percentage of death from a gunwound. A Dr. friend said that knives do mare ripping and tearing when they get inside and that many people get shot in places where it is common to survive.

With that in mind I don't think I would pause very long.

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by OULobo
I think a gun would be the best choice. I do agree with the idea of nonlethals, but I think a gun can be both, especially with good training and a level head; plus you can't beat the range and relative accuracy.

I once heard a statistic, that I can't confirm, that the percentage of people who die after being wounded by a knife, is higher than the percentage of death from a gunwound. A Dr. friend said that knives do mare ripping and tearing when they get inside and that many people get shot in places where it is common to survive.

With that in mind I don't think I would pause very long.

But as a civilian you have to remember that shooting someone to wound them is illegal. You may only withdraw your weapon if the case calls for you to kill someone, in which case you must then follow with a shot, that must be beyond resonable doubt ment to kill, or else the gun was not needed in the first place and you go to jail. Thats why you can only get a CONCEALED handgun liscence. If you draw your weapon and the situation did not call for lethal(deadly) force, you are acting illegaly.

It has to do with the same reason you can't run down the street shooting at the guy driving off in your car.

7sm

[KanoLives]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
But being in that mind set is what scared me. I thought afterwards about what would have happened if when I attacked him I had seriously hurt of killed him. what if that hook had conected with his neck? This is what got me thinking.

7sm

I think it's normal for people to think like that. However, like I said before, those guys didn't respect life or fellow man in the first place. So if you did seriously hurt him..... to me oh well. What goes around comes around all in time. You were commited to doing what you needed to do to try and get out of the situation. I think that's another important part of this situation. And BRAVO to your wife for lettin' that side kick fly. Not to many woman I know would do anything but freak out and freeze. :asian:

[ETorbin]

"Even then, shooting low would be disabling, but less likely to kill."

Never, never, never, never shoot to wound. Shooting someone is considered lethal force regardless if you shoot them in the toe or between the eyes. How would you explain to the police or DA that you only wanted to injure them so you shot them in the leg, inadvertently hitting the second largest artery in the body and killing them.

When you shoot, you shoot to stop, but must be justified to kill. That mean shooting at the center of the largest target available and stop shooting once their aggression has stopped. If they die as a result of the shooting, it is unfortunate (morally), but it was necessary to save your own life.

OULobo
A gun is never considered non-lethal. Even police shotguns loaded with bean bag rounds are considered "less than lethal", meaning that it is less likely to cause death, but still possible.

ETorbin

[OULobo]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
But as a civilian you have to remember that shooting someone to wound them is illegal. You may only withdraw your weapon if the case calls for you to kill someone, in which case you must then follow with a shot, that must be beyond resonable doubt ment to kill, or else the gun was not needed in the first place and you go to jail. Thats why you can only get a CONCEALED handgun liscence. If you draw your weapon and the situation did not call for lethal(deadly) force, you are acting illegaly.

It has to do with the same reason you can't run down the street shooting at the guy driving off in your car.

7sm

Are you sure about this. I think you are allowed to wound if you feel your life is in danger. If a guy 20ft. away has a machete, and sees I have a gun, but still starts to dash towards me, could I not shoot him in the leg and keep him there until the police arrive. Lets say I have a bad knee and can't run away. I just can't belive the law would be designed form me to kill instead of wound if given the option. I know that is a ton of what ifs, but that's kind of what laws are designed to deal with; theoretical situations.

[OULobo]

Originally posted by ETorbin


OULobo
A gun is never considered non-lethal. Even police shotguns loaded with bean bag rounds are considered "less than lethal", meaning that it is less likely to cause death, but still possible.

ETorbin

I stand corrected. I should have remembered that the term is "less than lethal" for anything that can, but doesn't always kill or wasn't designed to kill, like pencils, screwdrivers and wrenches. :D

[MJS]

True, 9/11 did make alot of people in the world sit back and realize what the police, emts, firefighters, etc. go through on a day to day basis. I was watching the NEWS today. This took place in NY I believe. It showed several police officers hitting and kneeing a guy they were trying to get into the crusier. This was all being videotaped by a friend of the guy being arrested. Upon first look it seems like they are pounding the crap out of him, but the cops in turn say that he was fighting with them, resisting, and refusing to get into the car. Its funny when people tape things, because when they are shown on TV, it seems like they only show the part with the cops kicking the s**t out of the guy, NOT what the guy did prior to all this.

Now, I'm NOT saying that anyone deserves to get a beating, but when you are resisting arrest, refusing to let them cuff you, get on the ground, put your hands up, etc. then I feel that the cops have every right to do what is necessary to make you comply. If they tell you to get on the ground and you don't, then I see nothing wrong with them slamming you down on the ground. Why should the cop take a beating, because this dirt bag doesnt want to go to jail??

Mike

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by OULobo
Are you sure about this. I think you are allowed to wound if you feel your life is in danger. If a guy 20ft. away has a machete, and sees I have a gun, but still starts to dash towards me, could I not shoot him in the leg and keep him there until the police arrive. Lets say I have a bad knee and can't run away. I just can't belive the law would be designed form me to kill instead of wound if given the option. I know that is a ton of what ifs, but that's kind of what laws are designed to deal with; theoretical situations.

Yes, I am completely sure. We went over this quite a bit in my handgun course and my recent training partner trains the SWAT team in my city and we talked about it.

Like ETorbin said, a handgun is considered lethal force. When you produce your weapon you have put everyone around you in danger of it misfireing and killing one of them. This is why its illegal to draw without the need. When you fire the gun you put everyone around you at risk of being hit my a ricochet (sp?) or a missed shot. Hince again, you being in the wrong. If the Machette guy closes the 20ft distance and you have warned him, then he is intending to kill you.

The law isn't designed to make you kill rather than injur, but to protect everyone in every situation and shooting at someones leg or arm could result in a inosent getting hit.

7sm

[MJS]

Shooting someone in the leg??? Come on people, lets wake up here! Please! Like I said in an earlier post, how many of us, with the excpetion of LEO and military actually train under stressful conditions, low light, moving targets? Why shoot someone in a small target when you might miss, and this guy with the big knife, closes on you and kills you? Are you going to waste time shooting the leg or the center mass? Of course, the center. Its a big difference whne your life depends on that shot and when you are relaxed and just practicing. Would you really want to take that chance that the shot is going to miss the leg? You might not have time for a 2nd one, and that may very well be the end of your life. If someone was running at me with a knife, and after I tell him repeatedly to drop it and he does not and keeps advancing, I'm shooting to kill! If its my life or his, and I'm the one making that choice, 100% of the time its gonna be him.

Mike

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...to state what should be obvious, you don't shoot at, "center mass," if you absolutely must shoot, for legal/moral reasons. You shoot at the fattest part of the body, because otherwise--even at very close range--you will miss, since a) you are a bit excited and nervous; b) it's a lot easier to move limbs than the center of the body.

I might add that unless you're a professional, nearly all of these situations are in fact avoidable with advance planning and simple precautions...

Oh well. Incidentally, to clear up a misunderstanding...a shotgun with birdshot at close range, if you hit the guy, apparently has roughly the same effect on a body as a deer slug because the shot-pattern hasn't spread out yet. You do not want to get hit with a deer slug...

Guns. Ick.

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Uh...to state what should be obvious, you don't shoot at, "center mass," if you absolutely must shoot, for legal/moral reasons. You shoot at the fattest part of the body, because otherwise--even at very close range--you will miss, since a) you are a bit excited and nervous; b) it's a lot easier to move limbs than the center of the body.

I think we are talking about the same thing though. "center mass" is basically the biggest part of the body, and it also induces the "stop shot". Shooting someone in the stomach will not produce the quick stop that a shot to the chest will.

7sm

[MJS]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rmcrobertson
[B]Uh...to state what should be obvious, you don't shoot at, "center mass," if you absolutely must shoot, for legal/moral reasons. You shoot at the fattest part of the body, because otherwise--even at very close range--you will miss, since a) you are a bit excited and nervous; b) it's a lot easier to move limbs than the center of the body.

Isnt the center going to be the biggest part anyway? I would imagine thats why cops wear a vest, due to the fact that if they get shot, wouldnt you think that the bad guy is going to shoot for the chest? Granted there are those times, when they might get hit in the head, or leg, but they wear the vest to protect the vital organs that will be getting shot at.

My def. of center mass: The entire upper torso--chest, midsection, stomach.

Mike

[sercuerdasfigther]

if someone comes looking to do me severe or deadly harm i kill them or die trying. its not being tough or macho its survival. i believe in live and let live , but if you start i will finish.

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by ChineseKempoAL
And BRAVO to your wife for lettin' that side kick fly. Not to many woman I know would do anything but freak out and freeze. :asian:

A little stupid as well though. I try adn tell her that was a stupid move for her, one of them could have gotten a hold of her while I was still in the car. But, I am a little proud of her for it! :D


7sm

[ETorbin]

My definition of center mass is the largest target available to me. For example, if my attacker is behind cover with only his head showing, the center of his head is his center of mass as far as I am concerned.

At 20 feet someone armed with a machete is threat to your life if you believe that he has the intent to harm you. The Tueler drill demonstrated that a man can close 21 feet in approximately the same amount of time that it takes for someone to draw and fire a weapon.

ETorbin

[MJS]

I saw a vidoe once comparing the gun to the knife. It showed how much faster the guy with the knife can close on the guy with the gun. He barely had enough time to draw the gun and aim, before the knife got close enough to cut. Its amazing how fast someone who knows how to use a knife can inflict great damage.

Mike

[clapping_tiger]

The funny thing about the law is that it was written to interpretation. That is why we can debate for days on this and still not come to any real middle ground. Here is some of the Wisconsin state statues.

939.48 "Self Defense and the Defense of Other"

A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or termination what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to him or herself.

So it open to interpretation. A 230 pound male is not in the same imminent danger as a 120 pound female if confronted with a 200 pound assailant. same holds true for the use of deadly force. You know when you are in great danger and you know when you are in danger. Something not reasonable is something like, I kicked his @ss because he called me a punk. Remember, to justify using deadly force. You need to make the assumption that this person is out to kill OR cause you permanent bodily harm. Just remember that if you do decide to defend yourself. You do not hold back you blows. You alter the targets. It looks a lot worse to bystanders (if there are any) if you have to hit the guy 15 times, than if you hit him once. This statement may cause some more debate, but think about it. If you get into a situation where you need to attack, don't take a chance. Get it over with and call the cops. When they come tell them what happened, how you felt in danger, what clues you read that you were in danger. It is my opinion that everyone in any type of self defense class needs to take adrenalin stress training. That way if you do get into a bad situation, you can keep your head and make fairly rational decisions.

As far as doing what the cops say. I say absolutely. You may not have to sign anything or say anything. But if they tell you go stand over there, you do it. Get down. You do it. This is not up for debate in my opinion. These guys and gals are out there dealing with threats everyday that most of us don't even want to deal with. And you may be the nicest guy in the world, but they have no way of knowing that. So make their job easier and safer, and physically do what they say.

This may be beating a dead horse, but I just wanted to post my view.

[clapping_tiger]

Oh, and as far as what I would do. I don't think I could shoot anyone, or kill someone. But I guess you never know unless you get put into that situation. And thankfully I never have and I hope I never need to see if I do have it in me.

One of the things one of my friends told me (and he is a police officer). Is you never pull a gun, or any weapon, unless you intend to kill what you are aiming at. There is no aiming for the leg, or the arm. If you need to pull the trigger, it is always to kill.

[DAC..florida]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski


Unfortuneatly, cops often "have to" carry around an extra unregistered gun to plant on someone they shoot by accident, such as a kid brandishing something reflective in a dark corner somewhere and not hailing police demands to drop whatever it was.




Wow, I have no idea what kind of cops you know (sounds like too much T.V.) but cops do not carry around a dirty gun to plant on people.
:confused:

[DAC..florida]

If you are in a scituation that warrants the use of deadly force and you chose to use a firearm you should always aim at the center mass( the part of the body excluding the head, arms and legs.) this will give you a better chance of hitting your target, if you fell as though shooting in the leg is better than obviously you have made a choice not to kill so why even use a gun?
If you draw your gun and fire it, it doesnt matter if you miss hit a non lethal part of the body or kill the bad guy if you were not justified to use deadly force you will either be charged with murder or attempted murder. I'll say this again if you draw your weapon and feel you are justified to use it then always aim for center mass.

In my opinion (because all laws are interpeted differently and case law can sometimes differ from state statues) if you feel that your life or the life of anyone around you is about to be taken and there is no other means than you are justified to use deadly force.

(I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six)
Twelve jururs in murder trial / six carrying your coffen
:asian:

[DAC..florida]

Originally posted by clapping_tiger
One of the things one of my friends told me (and he is a police officer). Is you never pull a gun, or any weapon, unless you intend to kill what you are aiming at. There is no aiming for the leg, or the arm. If you need to pull the trigger, it is always to kill.


Your friend is right, Dont pull it unless your intending on using it, I'm not saying that if you pull a weapon you have to use it. once you pull your weapon the scituation could change but dont pull it if have no intention of using it!

One thing I forgot to mention, most LEO and Military personel are taught to shoot to stop the threat, in my opinion that means dont stop shooting until you feel that the bad guy is unable to continue thier attack wether it is one shot or twenty doesnt matter if you are justified to use deadly force, one shot can kill just as good as twenty.
:asian:

[D.Cobb]

Originally posted by OULobo
Are you sure about this. I think you are allowed to wound if you feel your life is in danger. If a guy 20ft. away has a machete, and sees I have a gun, but still starts to dash towards me, could I not shoot him in the leg and keep him there until the police arrive. Lets say I have a bad knee and can't run away. I just can't belive the law would be designed form me to kill instead of wound if given the option. I know that is a ton of what ifs, but that's kind of what laws are designed to deal with; theoretical situations.

I was a security guard for a number of years and refused to get my gun permit. I felt that carrying a gun, in our comparitively gun free community, would make me a target. But one of the rules that got me most, was the fact that I would not be allowed to draw my weapon, until the bad guy was firing at me. In fact the rule was something to the effect that I would not be allowed to undo the press stud at the top of the holster until I was being fired upon. Unfortunately, I believe that this is why so many of our security guards get shot without returning fire.

THE LAW IS AN ASS!!

--Dave

[DAC..florida]

Originally posted by D.Cobb
I was a security guard for a number of years and refused to get my gun permit. I felt that carrying a gun, in our comparitively gun free community, would make me a target. But one of the rules that got me most, was the fact that I would not be allowed to draw my weapon, until the bad guy was firing at me. In fact the rule was something to the effect that I would not be allowed to undo the press stud at the top of the holster until I was being fired upon. Unfortunately, I believe that this is why so many of our security guards get shot without returning fire.

THE LAW IS AN ASS!!

--Dave

In florida the law is a little differant but if what you say is true about the law where your from then I must agree with you and pray that the Bad guys that are shooting at you have bad aim!
:asian:

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by D.Cobb
... Unfortunately, I believe that this is why so many of our security guards get shot without returning fire.

THE LAW IS AN ASS!!



Truer words were never spoken. Defy the law. It may cost a fortune in lawyers, but you'll not only be alive, but know it was the ethical choice.

Don't get me wrong. Even though laws were created for a**holes who couldn't respect other people or figure out common sense for themselves, we shouldn't think we're above them. Then we're no better than those the law was made for.

But law is constantly in (re)creation by human beings, many of them in the class we're talking about who NEED them. I wont just defy any law, but will choose my battles worth fighting. And if it's over my life, or that of protecting someone else (at the moment or later), it's worth fighting.

[D.Cobb]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
Truer words were never spoken. Defy the law. It may cost a fortune in lawyers, but you'll not only be alive, but know it was the ethical choice.

Don't get me wrong. Even though laws were created for a**holes who couldn't respect other people or figure out common sense for themselves, we shouldn't think we're above them. Then we're no better than those the law was made for.

But law is constantly in (re)creation by human beings, many of them in the class we're talking about who NEED them. I wont just defy any law, but will choose my battles worth fighting. And if it's over my life, or that of protecting someone else (at the moment or later), it's worth fighting.

I'm not sure who said it, but they said it best when they said,
I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by 6 , and I personally reckon it's better to be in a witness box than a pine box.

--Dave:asian:

[Disco]

My wife is 5'2" 95lbs and I wasn't about to let either one of them get a chance at grabing her. The situation hadn't really hit an extreme emergency level with me until this point. Yes they were trying to seriously hurt me, but I've had bigger guys than them try and fail so I wan't extremely worried. When she entered the equation however, I saw where it could end up. A full throttle punch from a 200 lb guy could ring my bell, but could kill her.

What you experienced is the normal reaction of a person when there is a possitive life threatening situation to a loved one. You don't have time to think, you just react. In your case, because your trained, you reacted with your hands. If you had a weapon at your disposal, I would venture to say that you more than likely would have used it, due to the your mental state at the time.
A police officer has 1.5 seconds, upon pulling the weapon, to make a life or death decision (Justice Dept Stats).

The point being is that anyone on this board, who has trained to defend themselves, will revert under pressure to that training. There will be no formal discussion of morals or ethics. It will be a reaction. Same as for police or military people. That's one of the reasons why we train and it will take over in a threatening situation. Unless, yes there is an unless. Unless the person in question is a coward. Everything that we discuss and debate and pontificate about here is just academics. I hope that nobody else here will be exposed to what you were exposed to. But if they should find themselves in a like situation, I remember what a WWII vet once said, "Self preservation has no morals"..........
:asian:

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

one day at the county fair when we were watching a bunch of people cooped up in a little car for a contest -- someone made a comment that was taken as a racial slur, the man got out of the car with a p*ssed look on his face, and then things calmed down again.

What I didn't know was that I had grabbed my wife's wrist and somehow immobilized her behind me in some subconcoius act of defending her from harm's way. It didn't hurt her at all, but she said somehow I had one hand on her and she couldn't move at all.

Am I the only one who scares themselves when they slip into "combat mode"?

[MJS]

Originally posted by D.Cobb
I'm not sure who said it, but they said it best when they said,
I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by 6 , and I personally reckon it's better to be in a witness box than a pine box.

--Dave:asian:

I said it, and I agree with you! At least in the witness box, I still have a chance!

Mike

[MJS]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Disco
You don't have time to think, you just react.
The point being is that anyone on this board, who has trained to defend themselves, will revert under pressure to that training. There will be no formal discussion of morals or ethics. It will be a reaction.

Another good point!:D That old saying, "You will fight like you train" is very true! You can think that you might be able to defend yourself, but if you dont put yourself into a "real" setting, all the training in the world is not going to save you. I've seen too many times, students doing SD. The attacker stops his punch 3in away from the face or their hands are on the other persons shoulders during a choke defense. Come on---these people must be fooling themselves and the Inst that they have must be a joke also to let them get away with that. Put on a glove and throw that damn punch at the person. If it hits them, then they will learn to block it better next time. At least it was a realistic punch that was thrown.

The difference between a cop and a civi. is that the cop has access to senario training, whereas the civi. does not. The cop can be conditioned to respond to different situations under different levels of stress to see how they will react. Granted it is a training session, and a mistake made there will not cost someone their life, but at least they will have that "feeling" of it being real.

Mike

[theletch1]

Am I the only one who scares themselves when they slip into "combat mode

It doesn't really scare me when I do this but it scares the hell out of my wife. I just see it as a reassurance that my training is working even on a subconcious level. The only time it scares me is when I wake up and find out that I've gone into combat mode due to a recurring dream that I've had for the past 10 years. Used to happen often but only happens now during times of extremely high stress in my life.

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by D.Cobb
I'm not sure who said it, but they said it best when they said,
I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by 6 , and I personally reckon it's better to be in a witness box than a pine box.

Strangely enough, I can not find a single solitary person who has ever had to face a jury trial that has said that. The only ones who have are typically tough guys trying to sound macho to anyone who will listen.

How about, "it is better to get gang raped in the prison showers over a period of years, loose everything dear to you and have your life destroyed forever than certain death" instead?:mad:

[OULobo]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
o

Am I the only one who scares themselves when they slip into "combat mode"?

My best friend's wife has been almost choked out in bed when he gets a rear naked choke on her in his slumber. Strangly enough, if she taps out he releases. Now that is scary.

[Shinzu]

my answer is this. do whatever it takes to survive and worry about the legal issues later. there won't be a lawyer judging the fight right?

[MJS]

Originally posted by Shinzu
my answer is this. do whatever it takes to survive and worry about the legal issues later. there won't be a lawyer judging the fight right?

I agree! Do what you have to in order to survive. But, make sure that you are prepared to defend your actions. Considering that this is a sue happy world, you want to make sure that you dont use any more force than necessary to defuse the situation.

Mike

[Shinzu]

Originally posted by MJS
I agree! Do what you have to in order to survive. But, make sure that you are prepared to defend your actions. Considering that this is a sue happy world, you want to make sure that you dont use any more force than necessary to defuse the situation.

Mike

agreed mike. if i had the upper hand i wouldn't pummle him, i would defend, defeat, and then walk away. if the senerio was a bit different, i wouldn't haggle between my life and the courts.... if i don't do what it takes i wouldn't be making it to court anyway. this is a double edged sword. you do what you feel is right to protect yourself and your loved ones. the rest if hog wash... even if it is the law.

[MJS]

Originally posted by Shinzu
agreed mike. if i had the upper hand i wouldn't pummle him, i would defend, defeat, and then walk away. if the senerio was a bit different, i wouldn't haggle between my life and the courts.... if i don't do what it takes i wouldn't be making it to court anyway. this is a double edged sword. you do what you feel is right to protect yourself and your loved ones. the rest if hog wash... even if it is the law.

Very True:D

Mike

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by MJS
I agree! Do what you have to in order to survive. But, make sure that you are prepared to defend your actions.

Pretty good comment. All too often, you run across some guy trying to compensate for a small penis size by carrying something that the law says he cannot, or acting in a stupid way in terms of legal self defense. These guys, who have never seen action much less a legal case afterwards, always use that comment about being judged by 12 to justify their ego trip.

[Shinzu]

sure you wanna think about what you are doing before you do it... but dont take too much time or you will be thinking from a croutched position from the ground...LOL

[MJS]

I dont thing it has anything to do with ego. I feel that if you are morally and legally justified in defending yourself, then you should have no problems if it goes to trial. By sitting back and being a victim--well, that will do nothing for you except get you killed.

Mike

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by Shadow Hunter
... These guys, who have never seen action much less a legal case afterwards, always use that comment about being judged by 12 to justify their ego trip.

It isn't about ego tripping. I think the quote is apt and concise whether you agree with it or not. I don't think it's meant how you took it at all. I understoof it, and it's a common sense axiom, albeit easily mistook as too simplistic.

Why are you reading insult into it?

[rmcrobertson]

I think the reaction probably comes because, all too often, these homilies look like swaggering.

And I also think that some of these posts look a lot like an ego trip. Maybe it's just me, but I never seem to see posts in which folks brag about AVOIDING hurting anybody, much less shooting them--and maybe it's just my dream, but I'd thought that that was where real accomplishment lies, in everything that martial arts are supposed to be about.

Then too, there're practical issues--oddly enough, the professionals I've met never seem to talk this way.

But again, maybe it's just the way I react.

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I think the reaction probably comes because, all too often, these homilies look like swaggering.

And I also think that some of these posts look a lot like an ego trip. Maybe it's just me, but I never seem to see posts in which folks brag about AVOIDING hurting anybody, much less shooting them--and maybe it's just my dream, but I'd thought that that was where real accomplishment lies, in everything that martial arts are supposed to be about.
...

Personally, I'm proud of all the fights I've won by not having them at all.

[Cryozombie]

I would also like to interject...

Its very easy for people (and please, I am not speaking about anyone on this board specificaly, I'm thinking about a real life situation in my area) who live in NICE, UPPERCLASS, WELL PATROLLED, RELETIVLY CRIME FREE neighborhoods to scream "FOUL" at those of us who DONT live in that type of area because we cannot AFFORD the exorbant taxes let alone the cost of the houses, who might be carrying a weapon. It doesnt automatically make those who do THUGS, BRAGGARTS or Small PENISED. To want to have an advantage in an area where crime is NOT virtually unknown, and the kids getting off the school buses throw gang signs back at the bus, Street gangs hang out on the corner and the convienice store is robbed fairly regularly shouldnt be viewed as THUGGISH. Of course the solution by those people in the "well off" neighborhood is "MOVE" but thats only easy to say if you have the money and income to live someplace else.

PERSONALLY, *when* I am armed, I dont "Expose" it, Brag about it, or even "Swagger" because i am an armed tough guy. You would probably never know, unless you saw it. Most of the time I HOPE to hell I NEVER have to use a weapon, or even have to fight... But I'll be damned if I wont use it if the situation CALLS for it. And call it stupid if you will, I would rather take my chances with a Judge and Jury of my peers, than unarmed againts 4 or 5 "gangbangers" with bats, blades, and possibly firearms.

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I think the reaction probably comes because, all too often, these homilies look like swaggering.

And I also think that some of these posts look a lot like an ego trip. Maybe it's just me, but I never seem to see posts in which folks brag about AVOIDING hurting anybody, much less shooting them--and maybe it's just my dream, but I'd thought that that was where real accomplishment lies, in everything that martial arts are supposed to be about.

Then too, there're practical issues--oddly enough, the professionals I've met never seem to talk this way.

But again, maybe it's just the way I react.

Very true Rob! Avoiding a fight is a huge part of the arts. Unfortunately, that is something that can't always be avoided. Sometimes, no matter how much you try to avoid, the trouble seems to just keep coming and you have 2 choices:

1- get your a** kicked

2- defend yourself

i dont know about anyone else here, but I'm gonna pick 2. If i've exhausted every other possible option, then yes, defending yourself is the only choice left!

Mike

[MJS]

Originally posted by Technopunk
I would also like to interject...

Its very easy for people (and please, I am not speaking about anyone on this board specificaly, I'm thinking about a real life situation in my area) who live in NICE, UPPERCLASS, WELL PATROLLED, RELETIVLY CRIME FREE neighborhoods to scream "FOUL" at those of us who DONT live in that type of area because we cannot AFFORD the exorbant taxes let alone the cost of the houses, who might be carrying a weapon. It doesnt automatically make those who do THUGS, BRAGGARTS or Small PENISED. To want to have an advantage in an area where crime is NOT virtually unknown, and the kids getting off the school buses throw gang signs back at the bus, Street gangs hang out on the corner and the convienice store is robbed fairly regularly shouldnt be viewed as THUGGISH. Of course the solution by those people in the "well off" neighborhood is "MOVE" but thats only easy to say if you have the money and income to live someplace else.

PERSONALLY, *when* I am armed, I dont "Expose" it, Brag about it, or even "Swagger" because i am an armed tough guy. You would probably never know, unless you saw it. Most of the time I HOPE to hell I NEVER have to use a weapon, or even have to fight... But I'll be damned if I wont use it if the situation CALLS for it. And call it stupid if you will, I would rather take my chances with a Judge and Jury of my peers, than unarmed againts 4 or 5 "gangbangers" with bats, blades, and possibly firearms.

Good points! As for carrying a weapon. As long as you are trained as to how to use it and you have obtained it legally, then why not carry one. But, those very people that you talk about, the ones that are not on the "Upper class"--well, if they carry a weapon illegally just for protection cuz they live in a bad neighborhood, well, that is wrong!

Keep in mind, that just cuz you carry a gun, and I dont mean just you, I'm referring to everybody as a whole, that does not mean that you can just whip it out any time you feel threatened. The same applies for a civilian as a LEO. They dont pull out their gun if the guy is unarmed. If someone approaches you and asks for $10, and you feel threatened and pull out the gun, well, IMO, you are just looking for trouble. Now, if this guy has a weapon, that is different. Exhausting every option prior to taking out the gun is the key here!

Mike

[OULobo]

It seems to me that we live in an era of anger and intolerance. Everyday I see examples of road rage, air age, even grocery store rage. At the same time we have the political envionment turning towards making it easier to get and carry weapons. I personally support CCW laws, but realistically it allows people in a fairly angry society a very easy way to turn a simple argument deadly. Who knows, maybe people will become more civil when they realize that their life could always be on the line.

[rmcrobertson]

Not that this'll help, "techno," but I have worked, and lived, and taught in neighborhoods as bad as anything you've ever seen in this country. And it's odd, but I've never even seriously considered getting a gun I can carry around with me. If I honestly thought I needed one, I would move--on the grounds that if things really are that bad, a gun won't be enough.

I guess reading Robert Heinlein's "Tunnel in the Sky," early on shaped my ideas about guns.

Liked the point about the protection that the middle class gets, though.

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by Technopunk
I would also like to interject...

Its very easy for people (and please, I am not speaking about anyone on this board specificaly, I'm thinking about a real life situation in my area) who live in NICE, UPPERCLASS, WELL PATROLLED, RELETIVLY CRIME FREE neighborhoods to scream "FOUL" at those of us who DONT live in that type of area because we cannot AFFORD the exorbant taxes let alone the cost of the houses, who might be carrying a weapon. It doesnt automatically make those who do THUGS, BRAGGARTS or Small PENISED. To want to have an advantage in an area where crime is NOT virtually unknown, and the kids getting off the school buses throw gang signs back at the bus, Street gangs hang out on the corner and the convienice store is robbed fairly regularly shouldnt be viewed as THUGGISH. Of course the solution by those people in the "well off" neighborhood is "MOVE" but thats only easy to say if you have the money and income to live someplace else.

PERSONALLY, *when* I am armed, I dont "Expose" it, Brag about it, or even "Swagger" because i am an armed tough guy. You would probably never know, unless you saw it. Most of the time I HOPE to hell I NEVER have to use a weapon, or even have to fight... But I'll be damned if I wont use it if the situation CALLS for it. And call it stupid if you will, I would rather take my chances with a Judge and Jury of my peers, than unarmed againts 4 or 5 "gangbangers" with bats, blades, and possibly firearms.

Ever face any of the nightmare scenarios you listed above? How about carrying something like pepper spray instead of something macho and sexy like a pistol? If you get pulled over by the police you will have a lot less trouble than a pistol, and the typical range a pistol fight goes at is the same for oc gas.

Of course, you can try to justify what you do all you want. I am sure you talk about saving friends and family from certain death to justify carrying a pistol illeagally. Am I right? Well, do you have an advanced first aid certificate? The chances of you getting into a fight with 4 or 5 gangbangers (assuming you are not being an idiot) is much less than you girlfriend getting some medical problme an advanced first aid course will take care of. But of course, you can't secretly swagger around realizing what kind of power you have over others with a first aid coure.

Yeah, I know you will argue with me about this. I don't expect someone who really feels the way I suspect you do to admit it. But if you really did care about saving yourself and your loved ones you will stop going to martial arts class for a while until you get CPR and other simple medical training. :rolleyes:

[rmcrobertson]

Sheesh, a sensible post with which I...I...agree.

I have nothing to say.

[7starmantis]

I agree as well....wow

I have to say that in reality, the odds of one of us actually getting in a situation where we need to kill someone is pretty much nil. All the talk of, "I would kill them and ask questions later" is moronic to me. As a former paramedic who spent years working in Houston, I have seen death many, many times and I have never once been impressed, turned on, or otherwise excited by it. MAny of the people who talk like they would kill everyone if needed, I propose have not witnessed death yet. Its not pretty, and I defy the day that I will ever have to inflict it on anyone, criminal or not.

I pay my taxes so that the police officers have to worry about this issue, not me. My conscience will not hold me taking someones life I don't believe.

7sm

[Seig]

I, like several other professionals on this board, carry a firearm as a part of my occupation. Unfortunately, between that and the area I live in, carrying one personally also is necessary. I hope to never need it, but if I do, I have the tools. I pray that I never need them.

[D.Cobb]

Originally posted by Shadow Hunter
Pretty good comment. All too often, you run across some guy trying to compensate for a small penis size by carrying something that the law says he cannot, or acting in a stupid way in terms of legal self defense. These guys, who have never seen action much less a legal case afterwards, always use that comment about being judged by 12 to justify their ego trip.

Um, have seen, action.
Have seen legal case after,
Never carried weapons, even when I was a security officer, two reasons;
1 I have never trained with weapons for SD, have trained against them though.
2 I firmly believe that with the level of training we get here as Security officers, you can get too cocksure of yourself and end up confusing your abilities with your ambitions.

As for ego, no sorry not me. Ego gives you the need to judge others, and that is something I try not to do. I don't know you or your circumstances and therefore I have no idea where you come from or what you live with. Funny that, it goes both ways....

--Dave
I was actually reminded of this by someone else on this board, but so far not on this thread.

[arnisador]

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

[DeLamar.J]

I feel that if someone attacks me that it is a without a doubt a threat on my life. I dont know if they have a knife in thier pocket, or a gun. What if you floor them and they pull out a gun while your walking away and shoot you in the back.

[OULobo]

Originally posted by DeLamar.J
I feel that if someone attacks me that it is a without a doubt a threat on my life. I dont know if they have a knife in thier pocket, or a gun. What if you floor them and they pull out a gun while your walking away and shoot you in the back.

Unfortunately, juries tend to disagree. There has to be a clear and present danger, otherwise a person can be in a coma on the ground and you could beat him to death, then claim you were scared he had a gun under his jacket and was faking unconsciousness to get a clear shot. Generally, it has to do with realistic present danger and degree of applied force.

[7starmantis]

Still, I don't know how well I would sleep at night after having taken a human life. I guess I'm just a pansy, but I would not want ot be in that situation. Not saying I wouldn't do it if I had to, but not something I would wish on anyone.

7sm

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
Still, I don't know how well I would sleep at night after having taken a human life. I guess I'm just a pansy, but I would not want ot be in that situation. Not saying I wouldn't do it if I had to, but not something I would wish on anyone.

7sm


The first time, I thought I had actually killed someone, I thought I was going to puke. I straightened their head trying to clear air for breathing. I removed a pen from my pocket and opened his mouth and moved his tongue so he could breath.

After, it was all over and the adrenaline was gone, I did puke from the thought of it. Yet, while it was going on, the only thought going through my mind was I needed to hurt this SOB now, before he hurt me bad. It was instinct and reaction, nothing more nothing less.

Now to say, I am going to take out Person XYZ, then I thnk I could see myself not following through.

:asian:

[Martial Tucker]

IMHO, it depends totally on the situation and the actions of the attacker. There is clearly a difference between a drunk in a bar who doesn't like the way you looked at his girlfriend, and someone who invades your home and/or displays a lethal weapon when attacking you. As far as I'm concerned, if I am attacked by an unarmed person, my rights and duty as a martial artist is to use sufficient force to escape without injury. The actions/persistence of my attacker will dictate the level of harm I must inflict. However, if at any point my attacker displays a weapon of lethal potential, in my mind he has crossed a line in terms of indicating an intention to kill me, and my intent immediately shifts to "kill or be killed". If I can find a way to escape, I certainly will choose that route, because survival is my ultimate goal. But if escape is not possible, then I am totally focused on killing my attacker. If I happen to incapacitate him first, then I will certainly back off. In no way could I kill a defenseless person, regardless of what they have done. But, I will say that my actions between the point of the attacker displaying the weapon, and him being incapacitated will be of total intent of killing the attacker. The fact that the conflict became a battle to the death was not my choice. But if my attacker displays lethal weapon/intent, I owe it to myself and my family to treat the situation as if my attacker is completely serious about killing me and is not just trying to scare/bluff me. In these situations, you will not know if your attacker is serious or not until you are possibly mortally wounded. In the case of home or vehicle invasion, I consider either of these situations to be potentially lethal enough to treat them as "death warrants" for the intruders.
I will say this though: I own no firearms in my house. I live in a 3 story house. My family all sleeps on the 3rd floor. Most of our valuables are downstairs. As an avid camper in bear country, I own cans of "bear spray". I also keep a can of "bear spray" in my nightstand drawer. This is basically "pepper spray from hell". It will stop a charging grizzly, and sprays a 5 foot diameter pattern at a range of about 20 feet. If our alarm indicates an intruder downstairs in our home at night, I will basically cede any valuables downstairs to the intruders. That is why I have insurance. HOWEVER...if they decide to visit the 3rd floor, they are in for a nasty surprise. I will be waiting for them on the 3rd floor landing, packing "heat" they've never dreamed of. If it's all a mistake and it's my son coming home from college unexpectedly, then it's a bad night, but no real harm done. In summary, I don't want to hurt anyone any more than is necessary, but if I feel my life is legitimately threatened, then I will err on the side of aggressiveness, because in those cases, if you're wrong YOU are dead. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[muaythaifreak]

"In no way could I kill a defenseless person, regardless of what they have done."

This is an honorable thing to say, however, I can think of a couple good reasons to kill a defenseless person based upon what they had done to bring me to the point of contemplating their death to begin with. Certain acts of aggression, violence, or abuse to members of my family or to myself could I think drive me to kill someone. Just being honest!

[Adept]

Having completed several psych evaluations, both military and civilian, I've been told I exhibit several sociopathic tendencies. I often run myself through mental simulations, and without actual experience in the matter I feel confident in saying I would have no trouble killing someone if I felt it was required.

[DeLamar.J]

If someone attacks me on the street, I feel it is a threat on my life. I think that you should have the right to kill that person while defending yourself. But, being the country I live in, I cant do that ounless I want to spend the rest of my life behind bars, so unfortunatly muggers get to live to do it another day to another innocent person. If the law would permit me, I would have no problem checking someone out early for trying to jump me, or hurt one of my loved ones. But it does, and I am not above the law.

[TonyM.]

Unless you are a sociopath, if you kill someone for any reason you will think about it every day of your life.

[OUMoose]

Unless you are a sociopath, if you kill someone for any reason you will think about it every day of your life.
That's questionable. Circumstance would dictate my dwelling on the problem. If I killed someone in a car crash, probably. If there was no other way to escape the situation safely, I would expire someone without hesitation. Would I feel bad about it? No. They did not leave me an option. Granted, as others have said, if in the process, the person was incapacitated, or otherwise unable to continue (arm torn off, massive bleeding causing a blackout), I would wait for the police to arrive and that would be that.

[Adept]

That's questionable. Circumstance would dictate my dwelling on the problem. If I killed someone in a car crash, probably. If there was no other way to escape the situation safely, I would expire someone without hesitation. Would I feel bad about it? No. They did not leave me an option.
To be so young and naive...

Even if you feel fully justified, only the mentally imbalanced can kill without dwelling on it for the rest of their lives. Those with the right mental mindset can live with it, some can do it without remorse. But those people are very few and far between, and most of them are in the military or the police.

Beware, dojo darlings and the keyboard warriors.

[OUMoose]

To be so young and naive...

Even if you feel fully justified, only the mentally imbalanced can kill without dwelling on it for the rest of their lives. Those with the right mental mindset can live with it, some can do it without remorse. But those people are very few and far between, and most of them are in the military or the police.

Beware, dojo darlings and the keyboard warriors.
Could you please quote the psychology studies that brought you to this assumption?

[INDYFIGHTER]

Ok, I've been following this thread and I think I'm ready to put in my two cents. I have a permit to carry a gun and I do. When I turned eighteen I could have ran out and got my permit and started carrying a few weeks later, I already had a gun to carry. By choice I didn't get my permit until I was 24 years old. By that time I'd been bar hopping for a few years and was getting tired of it. I had friends living in bad parts of town. I also hadn't been in a street fight for about three years and I had talked my way out of many situations in that time. I realized I had reached a point where I was mature enough to carry the weapon. I don't look for trouble like I once did, I walk away from it.

So now that I'm a responsible gun toteing citizen, I ask myself, when would I pull my gun? If a guy on the street brandishes a knife, do I drop him? Hell no, I try to walk away, keeping my eyes on him and creating more distance so I can have a chance if he advances. Guy pulls a gun on me, do I draw? Not a chance! If I'm close enough to disarm that would be my first option. If not total cooperation would be my next. Now, here's the one I see the most likely. Mutilple attackers. I don't know the stats but I know this is one of the most common attacks. No weapons, just three or more guys trying to get me cornered. I hate to say it but this is the only situation I can imagine I would pull my weapon without being completely intent on killing someone. I would try like hell to use it to get my ass outta there.

My father traveled the World in his youth in the Navy and he told me when I was a boy that if someone really wants to kill you with a knife or a gun, you'll never get a chance to see the weapon. If someone is waving a gun or knife in your face it probably means they don't really want to use it.

I can't say I wouldn't feel any remorse for killing someone in self-defense. However if he was intent on ending my life and I was forced to end his and now I'm still living... I can't imagine I'd lose too much sleep over it. Of coarse it just all depends on the situation and every situation is different.

To reply about the situation stated in the first post. With to guys in my car without weapons I'm going to fight to the end. My gun stays in my center console while I drive so I wouldn't have probably gone for it if I had thought I might lose it. It's tough to say how that went down but I can see me flooring the accelerator with a couple of jack ***** hanging out of my car.

[Adept]

Could you please quote the psychology studies that brought you to this assumption?
It's from many years spent with veterans of different wars, veteran police officers, and working in the healthcare system. I've talked to people who have made the decision to take lives. I've seen what it does to them. Only the naive feel they can do that without it affecting their life.

[Zujitsuka]

I'd gather that your measurement of time is a little off due to the adrenaline dump / battle-stress because 5-6 minutes of fighting in a streetfight/attack is a heck of a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggg time.

Anyway, we should not try to justify a reason to kill, because a judge and jury may feel otherwise. We just have to prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Laws vary from state to state, but in NYC, you have a duty to escape. If your state of mind is to kill, you may be subject to a murder charge rather than a manslaughter charge (justified by self-defense).