Concealed Carry: Prime Examples where CCW Shooting is Justified

[TomkinsSP]

I would never question the word of a Combat Veteran, but the probability that a LAC sees a Police type firefight let alone a combat type firefight is astronomically small. I don't see how statistics from the battlefield can be applied in civvie SD situations.

That's just my opinion, maybe criminals where you live engage you at a distance, utilize mines and indirect fire, adhere to Hauge and Geneva, and subscribe to VonClauswitz.

As a civilian hopefully the scum accosting you has a switchblade and not a stolen G27. Remembering your CCW training you pull your M640 and yell "I have a GUN go AWAY". Scum runs, changes his underwear, congratulations.... Maybe you fumble pulling that Bersa Thunder out and put a round into the ground six feet in front of you, again scum runs off, better lucky than good, right... Maybe you aim at his sternum with your G42 but hit his humerus, he doesn't enjoy the sensation, he leaves the scene. Any shooting you walk away from is a good one.

But that isn't what I am talking about. INVOLUNTARY stops, what is the best way to make an INVOLUNTARY stop? Brain? CNS? Heart? very high probability of death.

I hope no LAC goes looking for a fight. You win every fight you don't engage in. But when every other option is exhausted and you are focused 110% on your front sight as you smoothly pull the trigger. That sight should be on a spot that, should the bullet hit right there, more likely than not the target dies. (After that first shot, you should be reacquiring the sight picture and sending a second downrange, again likely to cause a death.)

Its a fine line (and I feel a bit of a smart donkey for saying). Don't shoot to kill, shoot to incapacitate. (By hitting a spot that will likely kill.) It isn't something everyone feels morally justified in doing, and there is no shame in that, but it shouldn't be hidden behind euphemism.

George S Patton is reputed to have said that no war is won dying for ones country, it is won making the other poor ******* die for his.

 

[richardw]

I would never question the word of a Combat Veteran, but the probability that a LAC sees a Police type firefight let alone a combat type firefight is astronomically small. I don't see how statistics from the battlefield can be applied in civvie SD situations.

That's just my opinion, maybe criminals where you live engage you at a distance, utilize mines and indirect fire, adhere to Hauge and Geneva, and subscribe to VonClauswitz.

As a civilian hopefully the scum accosting you has a switchblade and not a stolen G27. Remembering your CCW training you pull your M640 and yell "I have a GUN go AWAY". Scum runs, changes his underwear, congratulations.... Maybe you fumble pulling that Bersa Thunder out and put a round into the ground six feet in front of you, again scum runs off, better lucky than good, right... Maybe you aim at his sternum with your G42 but hit his humerus, he doesn't enjoy the sensation, he leaves the scene. Any shooting you walk away from is a good one.

But that isn't what I am talking about. INVOLUNTARY stops, what is the best way to make an INVOLUNTARY stop? Brain? CNS? Heart? very high probability of death.

I hope no LAC goes looking for a fight. You win every fight you don't engage in. But when every other option is exhausted and you are focused 110% on your front sight as you smoothly pull the trigger. That sight should be on a spot that, should the bullet hit right there, more likely than not the target dies. (After that first shot, you should be reacquiring the sight picture and sending a second downrange, again likely to cause a death.)

Its a fine line (and I feel a bit of a smart donkey for saying). Don't shoot to kill, shoot to incapacitate. (By hitting a spot that will likely kill.) It isn't something everyone feels morally justified in doing, and there is no shame in that, but it shouldn't be hidden behind euphemism.

George S Patton is reputed to have said that no war is won dying for ones country, it is won making the other poor ******* die for his.

First and formost, thank you for your respect. I truly appreciate it.

While my previous post used a military example to support my opinion I have a civilian study to support it. The link at the end of this post will take you an authoritative article about stopping power. Regardless of the caliber statistics you will find that the % of lethal hits is far exceeded by the % of incapacitating non lethal stops. The article is at:
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

 

[Smoke]

Nonsense. Quality 'advice' on this issue exists.

Yup, and you have to pay a lawyer to get it

 

[Walkingwolf]

I keep coming back to the M. Brown case in these type discussions. Most gunshots in shootouts are woefully inaccurate. DW shot 11 times, only 6 hit, only two stopped the threat. Those two shots were fatal.

Lung shots, not likely to stop, or be fatal. Sometimes gut shots are fatal if the infection cannot be stopped. Shots to a major artery, or the heart is destroyed is likely to be fatal, as well as cranial shots. A shot to the brain stem will most likely put the lights out. We call it pithing when putting down an animal, though usually done with a knife.

Many wounds can be fatal, even a blown off pinkie, even pepper spray can be fatal. An attacker can still kill, and be dead(no beating heart). The attacker has several seconds before incapacitated, and that is a longggggg time.

As stated, the best self defense is situational awareness, and common sense. Every gunfight that never happens is a success story.

 

[johnny_yuma]

I keep coming back to the M. Brown case in these type discussions. Most gunshots in shootouts are woefully inaccurate. DW shot 11 times, only 6 hit, only two stopped the threat. Those two shots were fatal.

Lung shots, not likely to stop, or be fatal. Sometimes gut shots are fatal if the infection cannot be stopped. Shots to a major artery, or the heart is destroyed is likely to be fatal, as well as cranial shots. A shot to the brain stem will most likely put the lights out. We call it pithing when putting down an animal, though usually done with a knife.

Many wounds can be fatal, even a blown off pinkie, even pepper spray can be fatal. An attacker can still kill, and be dead(no beating heart). The attacker has several seconds before incapacitated, and that is a longggggg time.

As stated, the best self defense is situational awareness, and common sense. Every gunfight that never happens is a success story.

Well said. And, yes -when carrying in public places I observe every person and look for unusual behavior. I carry a different weapon for different situations. Locally, at "trusted" places I carry a very light, compact 9mm. On family outings where I can wind up anywhere unexpectedly I will usually carry a larger capacity .40sw

In restaurants I'll sit on the outside position of the table, between the pubic and my family. Often I look for seating near an exit. I avoid troublesome places like Walmart...etc..

I am very aware that alertness and observation are the best way to ensure you are prepared for an encounter should one occur, and the best way to avoid one altogether -preferably.

 

[johnny_yuma]

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

This is great stuff, thanks for posting!

 

[Wise_A]

Honestly, Im just looking for what situations to be aware of, as a concealed carry person where use of deadly force is a real option. To my common sense it is where my life or the lives of my loved ones are in imminent jeopardy. -Im looking for examples of "what to expect" as likely events that meet that criteria. Thanks.

Get readin'. There are a wide variety of accredited authors with many good books. Ayoob, Farnham, Cunningham, and others.

The one thing that they will tell you is that there is no such thing as a typical deadly force encounter.

Commonly, you will not see it coming, because if you could see a dangerous situation developing, you would get the hell out of there.

To answer your question more directly--when use of force is the only option.

Yup, and you have to pay a lawyer to get it

This is accurate advice. If you want to know what the particular "climate" for deadly force is like in your area, you have to find somebody with a thermometer in your neighborhood. That means either a qualified CCW instructor--and frankly, finding a good one is hit or omigod-how-does-this-person-not-drown-in-their-Cheerios miss. So find a good criminal defense attorney and ask him.

But what it generally boils down to is not "Under what circumstances am I justified in using deadly force?"--but rather, "Do I have to shoot?". Some locales give you a little more protection, but that's the universal minimum standard.

No matter what pulling the trigger changes two lives. Maybe that means losing your freedom. Maybe it's a costly legal battle and the loss of your money, house, and possessions. Maybe, as many survivors report, it leads to depression and alienation of family and friends (Mark of Cain Syndrome is real). No matter what your buddies may act like now, it's not all slaps on the back and free beers later.

Sure hope I am entirely wrong, but the OP's verbiage suggests a questionable mindset given he asks when it's legally permissible 'to kill another human being.'

That was my initial reaction. I wrote a post yesterday that would have been first, but decided to let the thread play out instead. But more or less, it was "Threads like this are a bad idea, read a book, talk to a criminal attorney."

Or he's just reacting to that half-witted plea on Bearing Arms--normally a not-terrible site, but "Talk to your idiot friends about when it's okay to shoot" was pretty pants-on-head dumb.

If you have to think IF deadly force is allowed, then maybe you should not use it. People have rarely been charged, or convicted of crime where they had absolutely no choice. Even the subway vigilante in NYC they could not get a conviction. They had to settle for gun possession charge.

Two bits.

But Numero Uno is that just as many folks have been hauled out and tried when every scrap of evidence corroborated their claim of justifiable homicide.

Bit Numero Dos is that at the time of the Bernie Getz shooting (1984), New York City was neck-deep in a violent crime wave the likes of which would make 2017 Chicago look like Disneyland. And the demographics were different. No, I'm not talking about color, I'm talking about people's level of engagement with the system, with the idea of law and order, and so on.

The simple fact of the matter is that people--all people--expected different things from the system than they do today. No matter where you lived in the city, and what color your skin was, if you were a law-abiding citizen you expected the city government and the police to keep crime to a minimum. There was a bigger middle-class in the city, and there were a lot of hardworking folks in each of the metropolis' ethnic enclaves that were just sick to death of a tiny minority of criminals making life hell for everyone else.

That's why Bernie Goetz didn't get pilloried. Everybody was just sick of it.

 

[GenetheMarine]

Protecting & Defending

When the danger is about to take place and your life is in danger...then you have that right to defend yourself. Distance from the attacker and yourself is also key.
Gene
Police/FF
Lt. Ret.
IROCC

 

[Arik]

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

This is great stuff, thanks for posting!

That study is also somewhat flawed. It doesn't take into consideration the type of ammo, and I realize it's not something easily done. It doesn't mention if fatal means dead on the spot or dead in the hospital. Thats a big difference. Dead in the hospital may mean you're laying next to him! You could use the one shot stop data but that doesn't say if the guy got hit in the elbow and said ok thats enough for me, or he died right there. Although in this case it probably wouldn't matter since you're shooting to stop a threat. Number of rounds fired until incapacitation also doesn't mean it took the person X amount of hits to get to stop. It could mean that the shooter just kept firing. If the shooter went BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG in a second that could mean 5 shots or 1 shot that actually stopped. Some people will empty their magazine in a second.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[steelslaver]

Here is how cloudy something simple can be in the criminal law.

2 people end up doing almost exactly the same thing in the same state.

Variables that have nothing to do with the actual act or legal wording of the law.

Prosecutor. Mind set of the local head prosecutor. How does he interpret the wording. Pro or anti gun. Yes, personal beliefs enter into this. Plus, his mind set may well have been a factor in his election by the local populous. Just in pro gun, stand your ground, castle doctrine Montana you has Missoula county (the Berkley of Montana) with the University and law school and then less than 100 miles away Lincoln where it is still a bit of the wild west or farther east in some of thee small population counties where it is still the wild west. Huge differences in what would shake out. New York state is the same way to a degree. New York city vs some of the rural areas.

That districts judge. What some judges will "buy" as an argument is different than others and the prosecutor has a pretty good idea how the decisions will be made. So, does any good defense attorney.

Then there is recent history. Feelings of populous and prosecutor can be swayed by recent events. If the citizens are up in arms over similar events this can very well effect the decision to prosecute. Been a bunch of home invasions and people are upset because of it,, and event occurred during such an act, he may well drop it. If on the other hand there have been some defense shootings and people felt the shooter got away with something he may well be more apt to file charges.

Then of course there is the people involved. Both the shooter and the person shot and their record and standing in the community.
Same actions butt, shooter is a local businessman and decon in the church, person he shot has been a pain in societies side for years. OR. The owner of the strip club shoots little Johnny who was a choirboy in the church. A woman shooting a man may well have different results than a man shooting a woman. A 250# man vs a 135# man differs if the big guy was shooter or the little guy was. Even the time of day could be a factor.

Witnesses and victims statements. Plus, what they "think" they saw.

Whole lot more than just the say 5 minutes during which the "attack" and the "defensive shooting" occurred.

and now days who has postdated what on face book of forums.

 

[TomkinsSP]

Yup, and you have to pay a lawyer to get it

The way our society works. The best mechanic in town charges the most and has a six day backlog. Your neighbors fourteen year old son will work on your truck for free.

 

[TomkinsSP]

I keep coming back to the M. Brown case in these type discussions. Most gunshots in shootouts are woefully inaccurate. DW shot 11 times, only 6 hit, only two stopped the threat. Those two shots were fatal.

Lung shots, not likely to stop, or be fatal. Sometimes gut shots are fatal if the infection cannot be stopped. Shots to a major artery, or the heart is destroyed is likely to be fatal, as well as cranial shots. A shot to the brain stem will most likely put the lights out. We call it pithing when putting down an animal, though usually done with a knife.

Many wounds can be fatal, even a blown off pinkie, even pepper spray can be fatal. An attacker can still kill, and be dead(no beating heart). The attacker has several seconds before incapacitated, and that is a longggggg time.

As stated, the best self defense is situational awareness, and common sense. Every gunfight that never happens is a success story.

My understanding of the case as a retired cop reading the news...
Brown commited a strong arm robbery. He had not been identified as the perpetrator of that robbery, but he did not know that.

Officer Wilson worked for a department that wrote ticky-tacky tickets as a source of income. Wilson stopped Brown for jaywalking (ticky-tacky), but Brown didn't know why he was being stopped, he had just committed a felony robbery and assault. Brown tried to get Wilson's sidearm. Brown punched Wilson. Wilson secured his sidearm, firing one round inside of the squadcar in the process. Brown ran, Wilson fired at him, mostly missing (10/17) but striking him 5 times in the left arm/shoulder. Wilson was dazed, having been punched multiple times by someone he planed on writing a $35.00 municipal summons to. Wilson pursued Brown (were I an official and Wilson said he was pursuing a dangerous suspect who had just inexplicably assaulted a police officer, I would have agreed with his actions, but instead he said he was scared, thought Brown had superhuman strength and was going to kill him, thats ok for a civvie BUT IMHO DARREN WILSON SHOULD NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCMSTANCES WORK AS A POLICE OFFICER).

Completly consistant with my earlier statement the two rounds that stopped Brown were mortal. Two head shots, the fact that they were shots #16 and #17 are both typical, and problematic.

Grumpy old man opinion.... Standards have taken a trip to Hades since the adoption of the 9/40. When I was turned out to walk Flatbush Avenue I had 23 rounds and qualified at 25 yards. Not to rag on Officer Wilson (he was whatever else you think, the victim of a felony assault) but what he did mostly was miss his target and put rounds out there that could have hit innocents.

Some here say, most people are lousy shots, ok, I will accept that at face value. (The guys I came up with were NOT, not one individual who sought to escape lawful arrest by firing on me survived that really poor choice.)

But what I said was a shot, aimed at a part of the anatomy that is capable of making the perpetrator of a criminal act INVOLUNTARILY stop, is likely to be fatal. If the situation you are in has deteriorated to the point that you are firing, you should have that front sight over some part of the perpetrator he cannot live without. And if your aim is true your bullet will terminate his life.

We shoot to stop the threat, true. But if we hit our targets the target dies, to say we don't shoot to kill is to engage in self-deception

The act of killing a human being, even one who has committed the most heinois fellonies is not a thing you ever forget.

 

[johnny_yuma]

Sure hope I am entirely wrong, but the OP's verbiage suggests a questionable mindset given he asks when it's legally permissible 'to kill another human being.'

I daresay those words could come back to haunt him if he does indeed find himself in a 'shoot' situation. Note I did not say 'kill' situation.

Be safe.

PS: Kiwi cop and cgt4570 are spot on in their comments.

The Big D:

In hindsight, perhaps poorly chosen words, yet they still convey the underlying truth about the likely end result when one discharges a firearm in a self defense encounter. While I can see your reaction to my verbage, it is direct and to the point.

 

[BAM-BAM]

The Big D:

In hindsight, perhaps poorly chosen words, yet they still convey the underlying truth about the likely end result when one discharges a firearm in a self defense encounter. While I can see your reaction to my verbage, it is direct and to the point.

But still; as you stated,...... "poorly chosen".

You will always carry an internet ghost....... that you ask when it is "OK to KILL "..... if you ever are forced as a last resort to use deadly force..... the question will be asked ......."he sought out and memorized an excuse....... to live out his fantasy"

As my wife tells our boys as they head out the door......"Make good choices!"

 

[TomkinsSP]

Here is how cloudy something simple can be in the criminal law.

2 people end up doing almost exactly the same thing in the same state.

Variables that have nothing to do with the actual act or legal wording of the law.

Prosecutor. Mind set of the local head prosecutor. How does he interpret the wording. Pro or anti gun. Yes, personal beliefs enter into this. Plus, his mind set may well have been a factor in his election by the local populous. Just in pro gun, stand your ground, castle doctrine Montana you has Missoula county (the Berkley of Montana) with the University and law school and then less than 100 miles away Lincoln where it is still a bit of the wild west or farther east in some of thee small population counties where it is still the wild west. Huge differences in what would shake out. New York state is the same way to a degree. New York city vs some of the rural areas.

That districts judge. What some judges will "buy" as an argument is different than others and the prosecutor has a pretty good idea how the decisions will be made. So, does any good defense attorney.

Then there is recent history. Feelings of populous and prosecutor can be swayed by recent events. If the citizens are up in arms over similar events this can very well effect the decision to prosecute. Been a bunch of home invasions and people are upset because of it,, and event occurred during such an act, he may well drop it. If on the other hand there have been some defense shootings and people felt the shooter got away with something he may well be more apt to file charges.

Then of course there is the people involved. Both the shooter and the person shot and their record and standing in the community.
Same actions butt, shooter is a local businessman and decon in the church, person he shot has been a pain in societies side for years. OR. The owner of the strip club shoots little Johnny who was a choirboy in the church. A woman shooting a man may well have different results than a man shooting a woman. A 250# man vs a 135# man differs if the big guy was shooter or the little guy was. Even the time of day could be a factor.

Witnesses and victims statements. Plus, what they "think" they saw.

Whole lot more than just the say 5 minutes during which the "attack" and the "defensive shooting" occurred.

and now days who has postdated what on face book of forums.

Petrofsky isn't Detroit. Cairo isn't Chicago. Stevens Point isn't Milwaukee. Saint Cloud isn't Saint Paul.

 

[Walkingwolf]

BUT IMHO DARREN WILSON SHOULD NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCMSTANCES WORK AS A POLICE OFFICER).

Ohh I agree, he could have got himself killed, and responding officers. One only has to look at his grand jury testimony to see how incompetent he was.

Let me do a short synopsis of it. He sees two subjects walking in the streets. He tells them to get out of the street, and they become verbally abusive using profanity. One of the two was very, very, very large. At about the same time a radio report of a armed robbery with a subject matching the large persons description. This is not the stupid part, just lead up.

So this officer decides instead of waiting a minute, or two for backup to drive his vehicle next to the large one, and roll down his window. There must have been a neon sign above DW's head saying hit me, I am stupid.

It is lucky that MB did not get DW's gun, then DW would have been probably dead, and the responding officers would have been involved in a gunfight.

I would imagine this factored in to the city asking him to resign.

 

[TomkinsSP]

But still; as you stated,...... "poorly chosen".

You will always carry an internet ghost....... that you ask when it is "OK to KILL "..... if you ever are forced as a last resort to use deadly force..... the question will be asked ......."he sought out and memorized an excuse....... to live out his fantasy"

As my wife tells our boys as they head out the door......"Make good choices!"

Depends, if Dahir Adan is lying dead at your feet and the paramedics are tending to his victims, just guessing nobody is going to go looking through your browser's history, but I could be wrong.

And of course its always wise to "Make good choices"

 

[TomkinsSP]

Ohh I agree, he could have got himself killed, and responding officers. One only has to look at his grand jury testimony to see how incompetent he was.

Let me do a short synopsis of it. He sees two subjects walking in the streets. He tells them to get out of the street, and they become verbally abusive using profanity. One of the two was very, very, very large. At about the same time a radio report of a armed robbery with a subject matching the large persons description. This is not the stupid part, just lead up.

So this officer decides instead of waiting a minute, or two for backup to drive his vehicle next to the large one, and roll down his window. There must have been a neon sign above DW's head saying hit me, I am stupid.

It is lucky that MB did not get DW's gun, then DW would have been probably dead, and the responding officers would have been involved in a gunfight.

I would imagine this factored in to the city asking him to resign.

Yes, as a fellow human being I am glad DW is alive. I see easily how that day might have been a tragedy for his family. I wish him well in a different endeavor. But as a guy who spent 23 years on the job. Maybe its just me, but I think he needs a different profession. We need people on the job who make good decisions in truly life threatening situations.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Nonsense. Quality 'advice' on this issue exists.

Yup, and you have to pay a lawyer to get it

I understand that you may have to pay a lawyer to get his advice, but what makes you think that the advice is of any useful quality?

Lawyers have many different areas of experience, and even those who specialize in the area of your interest differ in their competence.

Whose ***is is on the chopping block?

 

[richardw]

That study is also somewhat flawed. It doesn't take into consideration the type of ammo, and I realize it's not something easily done. It doesn't mention if fatal means dead on the spot or dead in the hospital. Thats a big difference. Dead in the hospital may mean you're laying next to him! You could use the one shot stop data but that doesn't say if the guy got hit in the elbow and said ok thats enough for me, or he died right there. Although in this case it probably wouldn't matter since you're shooting to stop a threat. Number of rounds fired until incapacitation also doesn't mean it took the person X amount of hits to get to stop. It could mean that the shooter just kept firing. If the shooter went BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG in a second that could mean 5 shots or 1 shot that actually stopped. Some people will empty their magazine in a second.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Like Studies it is flawed, but it is what we have to consider. As for the type of ammo used I think we a canmake reasonable assumptions. The thinking over the time that suvey covered was when SD calibers starting with a 4 or a magnum were generally HP. For 380 and lower it was generally FMJ.

As for when death occured it is almost irrelevant. The more important statistic how many shots to reach incapacitation. incapacitation.

I guarantee you from personal experience, it is more important to incapacitate your opponent than to kill him. My objective in posting the study was to answer the claim that most incapacitation are lethal. The study shows that to not be the case.

I carry a 380 pistol loaded with Tuger ARX rounds that solves the problem of non expansion from a short barrel 380. I have absolute confidence that at up to 30 feet I can incapacitate a a bad guy wit two shots from my Remington 380. Beyond 30 feet I do not worry because unless the perp is really skilled regardless of caliber he is unlikely to hit me, especially when he gets sprayed with numerous cover fire.

Gunfighting is a science and an art.