I've been fortunate in retirement but my daily orbits are tame. During my 30 year LEO career I had the misfortune to be involved in three duty related shootings and that was bad enough, but at least the agency had my back. As an ordinary citizen you're going to be on your own so act w/all due dillegence.
Concealed Carry: Prime Examples where CCW Shooting is Justified
- Thread starter johnny_yuma
- Start date
If you claim that the deceased would have killed you if you hadn't killed him, that's a theory. If you don't kill him and he does kill you, that's a fact.
If you want to be safe from the law, stick to the facts.
If you want to be safe from the law, stick to the facts.
nachogrande
Member
"PERSONS WITH EXPERT KNOWLEDGE",
So, everyone on the interweb.
Don't over think it IMO. Yes, know your laws, but don't go looking for a reason to shoot someone. If it's shoot or die time you will likely know it. Thinking about what MAY HAPPEN afterwards, before shooting could be a very costly mistake. Deal with the fallout later if still alive.
So, everyone on the interweb.
Don't over think it IMO. Yes, know your laws, but don't go looking for a reason to shoot someone. If it's shoot or die time you will likely know it. Thinking about what MAY HAPPEN afterwards, before shooting could be a very costly mistake. Deal with the fallout later if still alive.
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
Even talking about it on the internet can come back to haunt you(general). After a fatal shooting not only will police dig into your background expect the media to also.
I have never had to shoot someone, but I have made numerous arrests at gunpoint and have many times decided that if a suspect/offender carried out a certain action I would shoot. Here in NZ we never as cops will shoot to kill.
We only shoot to stop an offender inflicting death or serious bodily harm to ourselves or another, or to effect an arrest/prevent an escape from custody where the offender poses a real and serious risk of death or serious bodily harm to ourselves or another and where the use of lesser force is insufficient.
I have no knowledge of US laws but in my view if following a self defence shooting anyone says "I shot to kill him in self defence" there may very well be repercussions. A statement that "I shot to stop him from ......." is possibly a better option.
Anytime you shoot intending to kill is trouble.
As for absolutes, there is usually both an objective and subjective test to self defence shootings. What you believe at the time and what other people believe is reasonable under the circumstances (investigators, prosecutors, jury) so absolutes are practically impossible to give.
As Walkingwolf indicates above, the fact that you raised this question on this forum will be established if you are ever involved in a self defence shooting, and subjectively it will be held against you.
We only shoot to stop an offender inflicting death or serious bodily harm to ourselves or another, or to effect an arrest/prevent an escape from custody where the offender poses a real and serious risk of death or serious bodily harm to ourselves or another and where the use of lesser force is insufficient.
I have no knowledge of US laws but in my view if following a self defence shooting anyone says "I shot to kill him in self defence" there may very well be repercussions. A statement that "I shot to stop him from ......." is possibly a better option.
Anytime you shoot intending to kill is trouble.
As for absolutes, there is usually both an objective and subjective test to self defence shootings. What you believe at the time and what other people believe is reasonable under the circumstances (investigators, prosecutors, jury) so absolutes are practically impossible to give.
As Walkingwolf indicates above, the fact that you raised this question on this forum will be established if you are ever involved in a self defence shooting, and subjectively it will be held against you.
Last edited:
TomkinsSP
Member
While asking your personal lawyer is 1,000,000,000,000,000 times better than consulting any forum (sorry guys), not every lawyer is equally versed in every facet of law. Your lawyer may be an expert on taxes, business, family or estate law, but may not be the best place to get this information.
I would take a CCW class in my local jurisdiction, this information is covered by NON-LAWYERS. I would not rely upon this information to be scripture, but use it more as a guideline to how Police and Prosecutors will likely react, and to formulate questions and organize my thoughts. Then see whom the organization who is sponsoring the class uses as an attorney. This attorney should be well versed in local (not just CA vs NE, but even Petrofsky v. Detroit, or Cairo v Chicago) legal issues related to CCW and SD.
Nobody wants to have to take a human life, but having to deal with foreseeable issues after the fact, just piles misery on misery.
I would take a CCW class in my local jurisdiction, this information is covered by NON-LAWYERS. I would not rely upon this information to be scripture, but use it more as a guideline to how Police and Prosecutors will likely react, and to formulate questions and organize my thoughts. Then see whom the organization who is sponsoring the class uses as an attorney. This attorney should be well versed in local (not just CA vs NE, but even Petrofsky v. Detroit, or Cairo v Chicago) legal issues related to CCW and SD.
Nobody wants to have to take a human life, but having to deal with foreseeable issues after the fact, just piles misery on misery.
OP
johnny_yuma
Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2017
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 18
Thank you! That is a great read on the subject. I realize in hindsight how difficult it is to answer the question I posed, but the information in your link is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks again.
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
Let's all keep in mind how extremely low being a victim of a violent crime is. So unless a person is looking for trouble, or just is downright unlucky a firearm is just like a fire extinguisher. While smoking is against the law, ya sure would not want to spray someone with one.
Police, and civilian shootings are very different. There is no qualified immunity for civilians, or civilian union. So the best advice is how to not get in front of a fan at a manure factory.
Most of us do not want to shoot anybody, most of us will do everything possible to not get into that situation. So if you find yourself in that situation you better be damn sure you had no other option. Even if the law supports stand your ground there is no shame in running, or backing down from an argument.
Police, and civilian shootings are very different. There is no qualified immunity for civilians, or civilian union. So the best advice is how to not get in front of a fan at a manure factory.
Most of us do not want to shoot anybody, most of us will do everything possible to not get into that situation. So if you find yourself in that situation you better be damn sure you had no other option. Even if the law supports stand your ground there is no shame in running, or backing down from an argument.
cgt4570
Member
Very well stated. I was taught, and I teach in my concealed carry classes that you only shoot to stop and neutralize a threat (of death or serious bodily harm) and only when no other option exists. If you draw your firearm, be willing to use it. BUT: If simply drawing it is enough to stop the threat (makes the bad guy change his mind), that is the best outcome. If you have no choice but to shoot, you shoot until the bad guy changes his mind. It might be a shot that turns out to be non-fatal. It might put the bad guy 6 feet under. It could even be a first shot that misses. It's his choice at that point. He (or she) has forced your hand.
There are many similar cases in which various jurisdictions or juries arrived at very different findings, from total exoneration to a murder conviction. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.
Likewise, this thread makes an assumption that the American judicial system functions on fact and logic. Nothing could be further from the truth. It helps explain why rape victims sometimes feel they were raped a second time on the witness stand.
Likewise, this thread makes an assumption that the American judicial system functions on fact and logic. Nothing could be further from the truth. It helps explain why rape victims sometimes feel they were raped a second time on the witness stand.
Wondering.
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.
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.
Last edited:
TomkinsSP
Member
Of the five UNITED states (only 10% mind you) I have personal knowledge of CCW and SD laws in (My HS English teacher would hate this sentence), ALL hold that if you point a gun at a human being you are ALREADY using DEADLY FORCE.
As Police Officers we had non lethal weapons at our disposal. We were taught to use the lowest level of force REQUIRED to carry out our duties. When the revolver came out of the holster, we were trained to hold center-mass. If any firearm was used, the instruction we had previously received was clear. Fire center-mass, continue firing until the threat subsides. This was not taught in a manner any rational human being could see as ambiguous. Death is a probable result.
As an armed civilian you MAY have an option the PO does not have, to retreat, even run away. This is situationally dependent. Sometimes criminals FORCE you to act by taking away alternatives. One thing you probably don't have as a LAC is a less than lethal force option.
Just my opinion here: STATING your intent was to kill, is not wise. I HOPE this is merely a poor choice of words. (This is a really, really bad time to be incoherent or misunderstood, so I would advise anyone to take as much time as required to compose themselves before saying anything. I mean AS MUCH TIME as necessary.) If Charles Manson broke out of prison yesterday and broke into your house today, what you are doing is protecting yourself and your family. If you are accosted in a parking lot by a knife wielding thug, you are protecting yourself and your family. YOU SHOULD NOT DRAW (or use) A WEAPON UNLESS YOU FEEL THAT YOU (or an INNOCENT other was in MORTAL DANGER, and if that is what happened that is how it should be communicated.
That said in the jurisdictions I have first hand knowledge of, you should double tap center mass, mozambique or just go left eye right. You aren't the Lone Ranger trying to shoot the bloody butcher's knife out of Squeeky's paw.
I can say with absolute certainty that the absolute empirical standard is what a reasonable and rational person would have done in your situation. I can also say with absolute empirical certainty that we cannot KNOW what any Police Officer, Prosecutor, Judge or Juror will believe to be reasonable. We can only make a reasonable guess.
What will and won't be scrutinized is so situationally dependent. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is lying dead in your living room before news of his escape made the nightly news, you are going to be celebrated not scrutinized. If you are a wealthy business owner standing over a dead teenaged would-be mugger holding a airsoft gun he painted to look real, well, lots, lots, lots of scrutiny.
Last edited:
TomkinsSP
Member
Having worked in a city with like 3 million residents born somewhere else, most of them speaking a different language like Swahili, Spanish, Russian or British;-), I am taking it as imprecise language. But it is something for the OP to consider, others may see intent where none is meant.
TomkinsSP
Member
IMHO it is MORE important what the Police and Prosecutor think about the LACs actions than the letter of the law. It is my experience that if the Police don't hold you, you are unlikely to be charged, If the Prosecutor does not see fit to charge, end of story. A good lawyer can portray the reluctance of Police to detain or the State to charge as being fact based. Charges that come later based on public outcry are seen as political.
I am not saying that the letter of the law is not important, it can be, but if you aren't charged, because your actions were seen as reasonable to the PO and DA, the letter of the law is irrelevant to a great extent, leaving even the sharks little to bite.
As an example, richardw linked a brief on PA law. In the brief it said that PA law doesn't recognize the obvious fact that a 300 pound body builder could be a lethal weapon by himself. If a legally armed 90 pound 4'7" woman shot said 300 pound body builder to prevent his commission of a forceable rape. Technically has she committed a crime? Would a reasonable PO or DA stand on the letter of the law or their sense of justice and desire not to be understandably pilloried by the media, public?
Last edited:
Arik
Member
It's the same in the US. Shoot to stop, NOT to kill.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
There is no clear cut answers to the question. If you are a person of good morals and understand the fact that you will do the right thing when and if that times comes I wouldn't worry about what laws apply you will know you did the right thing. You may be looked down on by the law or your friends but if you save your life, the live of a child or the lives of others who are they to look down on you!
TomkinsSP
Member
Good Idea, since California is biggest, the other 49 PR and DC should just adopt their statutes
.
TomkinsSP
Member
While I agree that you shoot to stop, and sometimes the sight of a weapon is enough, good hits that make involuntary stops are likely going to be lethal. If you are not making shots that stand the highest percentage of incapacitating the threat you are likely to get killed yourself. Saying you don't shoot to kill is not exactly....
I do not mean to be a spoiler but there is no meaningful evidence that a hit that leads to incpacition or another type of stop is likely to be lethal. The lethal stops are mostly going to be those that cause a person to bleed out quickly before aid can be applied or a devestating central neevous system hit like the brain or the brain stem.
If you were correct the number of KIAs in war would exceed the number of WIAs. But the fact is that WIAs are usually five times the number of KIAs.
A hit that incpacitates is one that stops the aggressor from continuing the fight. During my four tours in Nam I was shot twice. The first time my skull was grazed. It knocked me out but 15 minutes later I was back in the fight. The second time my left lung was deflated and I was out of action for a year. Both hits stopped me. Obviously, neither killed me. Keep that KIA to WIA percantage in mind and you will recognize that most stops are not lethal.
Huh!
I will take the 'under' on that clearly erroneous statement. (Specifically referencing that stop shots are likely lethal. They are not.)
Be safe.
I will take the 'under' on that clearly erroneous statement. (Specifically referencing that stop shots are likely lethal. They are not.)
Be safe.
Last edited:
Similar threads
