Guns and self defense
07-03-2015, 07:16 AM
#31
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Germany/Calif.
Posts: 2,664
Permanently damaging or even killing someone because you got a little sweaty chasing them, is in my opinion, not smart. You unnecessarily screw with (screw up) enough people and there is bound to be a backlash sooner or later.
I remain convinced that life is life and every life is just as important as any other. Sure Cops feel they should get special dispensation.
That person you unnecessarily screwed up or killed is likely to have relatives and friends you've just turned into enemies. You make enough enemies and the law of averages says you are bound to trigger some nut case sooner or later. I call it growing weeds. The better tactic may be to carefully weed, disturbing the surrounding plants as little as possible. Instead of slash and burn, trying to prove who has the bigger Huevos.
Some people just don't intimate worth a darn. And if they are reasonably proficient with a rifle, can put one in your ear at a hundred yards. The Police may be cultivating the worst sort of weeds and cultivating just what they say they are trying to eliminate (or incarcerate).
Last edited by MudderChuck; 07-03-2015 at 07:19 AM.
07-05-2015, 05:07 PM
#32
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NE Kansas
Posts: 1,101
Jusy my $.02 cents, but Massad Ayoob, if you're familiar with him, suggests a procedure if you're involved in a self-defense shooting. He suggests saying several things when police arrive.
Given the respect a lot of people have for him, and that he is police officer, I think it might be worth a look. His idea is to establish that you were defending yourself against an attack and to point out any evidence--shell casings, witnesses, surveillance cams. Then, you say that you want to speak to a lawyer before you go any further.
Given the respect a lot of people have for him, and that he is police officer, I think it might be worth a look. His idea is to establish that you were defending yourself against an attack and to point out any evidence--shell casings, witnesses, surveillance cams. Then, you say that you want to speak to a lawyer before you go any further.
07-06-2015, 04:55 PM
#34
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NE Kansas
Posts: 1,101
Thanks, Sheridan.
What sticks out for me in that video is seeing it from the policeman's perspective. The cop's going to see the victim of a shooting, and you want them to begin establishing that it was justifiable homicide.
I had not thought of it till I saw this, but saying "That man attacked me, and I defended myself," rather than "I shot him" is already planting the truth of your innocence in their minds.
What sticks out for me in that video is seeing it from the policeman's perspective. The cop's going to see the victim of a shooting, and you want them to begin establishing that it was justifiable homicide.
I had not thought of it till I saw this, but saying "That man attacked me, and I defended myself," rather than "I shot him" is already planting the truth of your innocence in their minds.
07-06-2015, 08:30 PM
#36
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,382
I'm late to this topic but it's an interesting one. There's been some good advice given and some that should be adjusted some. My experience and training has been in CA as a cop for almost 25 years so things may be a little different in your individual states, both in the laws and in how cops are trained. I spent over 16 years in Patrol and 8 years in a DA's Office on the prosecution end of things so have seen quite a bit of how both police and attorneys look at these types of cases.
In general, Oldtimr was right in that you shouldn't shoot in self defense unless you or another person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. His example of a guy with a knife 50 yards away is a good one. Yes, the guy with the knife can obviously be dangerous but he's going to have to run over to you or at least be within reasonable knife throwing range before he's an imminent threat. The imminent threat is basically a scenario or situation in which you have no choice other than shoot or get killed or seriously injured.
Super Hunt has a lot of stuff right like shooting for center mass (biggest part of the body and easiest to hit). When you're in a shooting situation, you are going to be in a fight or flight state of mind or just freeze and shut down. Training at the range helps you prepare for thinking through such a situation. In the fight or flight situations, you have a good chance of having tunnel vision and losing some of your fine motor skills. Training to shoot center of mass helps you to work through both of these possible phenomenons.
I disagree with Super Hunt about stating you were shooting to kill. Police are trained to say they were shooting to stop the threat. You aim at the same place (center mass) and obviously shoot until the threat is stopped (more than one shot might be needed to stop the bad guy) but your goal was to defend yourself and stop the threat to where you're safe from further attack.
If you tell the police that you were shooting to kill, they are obviously going to write that in their report. The DA is going to look at that statement and so is the defense attorney and any civil attorneys if there's a civil suit. Police are trained not to say they were shooting to kill so some attorney doesn't try to ask you silly questions about being a judge and executioner, etc. in front of a jury, criminal or civil. Hey, there's something like 600,000 cops in this country and if they learn to say shoot to stop the threat (instead of shoot to kill), don't you think it might be wise to use their same verbiage which was developed out of police shootings and lawsuits? You're going to shoot at the same aiming point and you're not going to stop until the bad guy stops attacking you BUT you stop shooting once the bad guy isn't attacking you any more because your need for self defense stopped when his attack stopped and you were safe.
I like what Massad Ayoob has to say and agree with just about all of it. I disagree slightly with him as to the first person to call 911 being listed as the victim in a police report. Yes, they will be listed as the Reporting Party in the CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) report but the police officer is going to investigate when he arrives and he/she will determine who to list as victim and as suspect in their report AFTER they have investigated.
You or the suspect may call 911 but it might also be a witness or some bystander who doesn't know anything about what happened or just saw the last 5 seconds of the situation before calling. Regardless of who calls, the police are not going to get all the relevant details over the phone and are going to need more information to figure it out.
Massad makes a good point in holstering your weapon once it's safe and keeping your hands up and away from the weapon (makes the officer's comfort factor go up). He also makes an excellent point in telling the arriving officers who the bad guy is, who shot, etc. He rightly points out that you need to know what evidence there is to collect it. It also helps to know what happened so you can figure out how wide to make the crime scene that you're taping off so evidence isn't destroyed. If the cops know the bad guy fired a gun at you, they're gonna be looking for it and the detectives will want to swab the bad guy's hands for gunshot residue, etc.
There's always a balancing act of how much information to say and what not to say, whether you're a citizen who shot someone or a cop. You do want to get the public safety information out right away, like there's an escaped suspect with a gun, the bad guy threw a gun over by that playground, etc. for obvious reasons. And of course that you were attacked and had to defend yourself from the bad guy.
I can't speak for the cops in each of your states and there's always a few bad apples in any business BUT most cops really do want to catch the bad guy and they really don't want some scumbag criminal make them look stupid or get away with a crime (makes it kind of personal). Even just a minimal statement can point us in the right direction and make sure the scumbag criminal doesn't "point" the investigation in the wrong direction (at you). YMMV in your state of course.
In general, Oldtimr was right in that you shouldn't shoot in self defense unless you or another person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. His example of a guy with a knife 50 yards away is a good one. Yes, the guy with the knife can obviously be dangerous but he's going to have to run over to you or at least be within reasonable knife throwing range before he's an imminent threat. The imminent threat is basically a scenario or situation in which you have no choice other than shoot or get killed or seriously injured.
Super Hunt has a lot of stuff right like shooting for center mass (biggest part of the body and easiest to hit). When you're in a shooting situation, you are going to be in a fight or flight state of mind or just freeze and shut down. Training at the range helps you prepare for thinking through such a situation. In the fight or flight situations, you have a good chance of having tunnel vision and losing some of your fine motor skills. Training to shoot center of mass helps you to work through both of these possible phenomenons.
I disagree with Super Hunt about stating you were shooting to kill. Police are trained to say they were shooting to stop the threat. You aim at the same place (center mass) and obviously shoot until the threat is stopped (more than one shot might be needed to stop the bad guy) but your goal was to defend yourself and stop the threat to where you're safe from further attack.
If you tell the police that you were shooting to kill, they are obviously going to write that in their report. The DA is going to look at that statement and so is the defense attorney and any civil attorneys if there's a civil suit. Police are trained not to say they were shooting to kill so some attorney doesn't try to ask you silly questions about being a judge and executioner, etc. in front of a jury, criminal or civil. Hey, there's something like 600,000 cops in this country and if they learn to say shoot to stop the threat (instead of shoot to kill), don't you think it might be wise to use their same verbiage which was developed out of police shootings and lawsuits? You're going to shoot at the same aiming point and you're not going to stop until the bad guy stops attacking you BUT you stop shooting once the bad guy isn't attacking you any more because your need for self defense stopped when his attack stopped and you were safe.
I like what Massad Ayoob has to say and agree with just about all of it. I disagree slightly with him as to the first person to call 911 being listed as the victim in a police report. Yes, they will be listed as the Reporting Party in the CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) report but the police officer is going to investigate when he arrives and he/she will determine who to list as victim and as suspect in their report AFTER they have investigated.
You or the suspect may call 911 but it might also be a witness or some bystander who doesn't know anything about what happened or just saw the last 5 seconds of the situation before calling. Regardless of who calls, the police are not going to get all the relevant details over the phone and are going to need more information to figure it out.
Massad makes a good point in holstering your weapon once it's safe and keeping your hands up and away from the weapon (makes the officer's comfort factor go up). He also makes an excellent point in telling the arriving officers who the bad guy is, who shot, etc. He rightly points out that you need to know what evidence there is to collect it. It also helps to know what happened so you can figure out how wide to make the crime scene that you're taping off so evidence isn't destroyed. If the cops know the bad guy fired a gun at you, they're gonna be looking for it and the detectives will want to swab the bad guy's hands for gunshot residue, etc.
There's always a balancing act of how much information to say and what not to say, whether you're a citizen who shot someone or a cop. You do want to get the public safety information out right away, like there's an escaped suspect with a gun, the bad guy threw a gun over by that playground, etc. for obvious reasons. And of course that you were attacked and had to defend yourself from the bad guy.
I can't speak for the cops in each of your states and there's always a few bad apples in any business BUT most cops really do want to catch the bad guy and they really don't want some scumbag criminal make them look stupid or get away with a crime (makes it kind of personal). Even just a minimal statement can point us in the right direction and make sure the scumbag criminal doesn't "point" the investigation in the wrong direction (at you). YMMV in your state of course.
07-06-2015, 09:38 PM
#37
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,695
LOL HOWDY Cal, long time no see! I didn't say that "I shot to kill" would be what I would say to the police. Hell I say little to nothing before an attorney is present and accounted for. I was saying that anyone that says you shoot to wound not to kill is a damn fool. Police HAVE to cover their asses because there are just too many factors already against them in the first place. A civilian defending themselves are already starting on a better playing field than an officer. With all the supposed training an officer has received in firearms they are looked upon as "experts" by John Q. Public who thinks movie shootouts are real and the cop should have been able to shoot the gun out of the perps hand or some other such nonsense. When in reality, the MANY police officers I have worked with couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the INSIDE before I worked on them. The problem in Chicago is the fact that the police are pulling and firing weapons that should NEVER have been pulled in many situations.
I know how LA police operate somewhat and there are many of them that should be receiving combat pay! But you hear of very few incidents involving police officers there where they are shooting kids with knives 30 feet away or unarmed people or 96 year old men that are confused and scared with a Tazer when you have 4 strapping young police officers there to take the little knife away. So you take a little cut to the hand taking it away from the poor old codger. Big frigging deal. I do believe disarming perps in hand to hand is still taught in academy? It's just ridiculous the things done by Chicago PO's and they get away with it scott free!
I know how LA police operate somewhat and there are many of them that should be receiving combat pay! But you hear of very few incidents involving police officers there where they are shooting kids with knives 30 feet away or unarmed people or 96 year old men that are confused and scared with a Tazer when you have 4 strapping young police officers there to take the little knife away. So you take a little cut to the hand taking it away from the poor old codger. Big frigging deal. I do believe disarming perps in hand to hand is still taught in academy? It's just ridiculous the things done by Chicago PO's and they get away with it scott free!
07-07-2015, 08:26 AM
#38
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,382
LOL HOWDY Cal, long time no see! I didn't say that "I shot to kill" would be what I would say to the police. Hell I say little to nothing before an attorney is present and accounted for. I was saying that anyone that says you shoot to wound not to kill is a damn fool. Police HAVE to cover their asses because there are just too many factors already against them in the first place. A civilian defending themselves are already starting on a better playing field than an officer. With all the supposed training an officer has received in firearms they are looked upon as "experts" by John Q. Public who thinks movie shootouts are real and the cop should have been able to shoot the gun out of the perps hand or some other such nonsense. When in reality, the MANY police officers I have worked with couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the INSIDE before I worked on them. The problem in Chicago is the fact that the police are pulling and firing weapons that should NEVER have been pulled in many situations.
Howdy back at ya. It has been a while. I hope your book publishing went well.
I think we're talking about the same thing although using slightly different wording. For people reading this and wondering what's the difference, it's simple. When you "shoot to stop the threat," that means you shoot the bad guy (probably will need more than 1 shot if using a pistol) until the bad guy is no longer a threat to you. That could be the bad guy drops the gun or knife, stops charging at you, runs away or just collapses and/or maybe goes unconscious.
You're not shooting to wound, shoot a gun or knife out of the bad guy's hand, wing him in the leg or arm or any other stupid stuff like they do in the movies and TV. You shoot center mass until the bad guy stops attacking or immediately threatening you.
Once the bad guy stops being a threat, YOU stop shooting. This is the tricky part. If you shoot to defend yourself from an attack, you're defending yourself (or somebody else). If you continue to shoot AFTER that threat has stopped, you now become the aggressor and, believe it or not, the bad guy. Doesn't mean the other guy wasn't a bad guy and won't have criminal charges. But, it does mean you've put yourself at risk for possibly some criminal charges yourself. It's a fine line but it's one that you will be judged by.
Some possible scenarios to illustrate this are:
1. Bad guy drops his weapon (gun or knife, etc.) and drops to the ground. He's no longer attacking you or even much of a threat because you put 1 or more rounds center mass. Now if you fire a few more rounds at him, who is being the aggressor? You. Who is firing a gun at another person and is no longer doing so doing so in self defense? You.
2. You shoot the bad guy and he runs away. He's no longer attacking you and is no longer a threat. Yes, I know the bad guy knows where you live (if the shooting was at your house) but the legal issue is for an immediate threat, not some bad guy coming back to your house later. You are no longer in immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured. You shoot the bad guy as he's running away because you don't want him alive to know where you live (like the media won't publish it anyway). That wasn't self defense and would now be viewed as manslaughter (you obviously didn't plan this in advance for murder unless you post stuff on internet blogs saying this is your plan).
I know how LA police operate somewhat and there are many of them that should be receiving combat pay! But you hear of very few incidents involving police officers there where they are shooting kids with knives 30 feet away or unarmed people or 96 year old men that are confused and scared with a Tazer when you have 4 strapping young police officers there to take the little knife away. So you take a little cut to the hand taking it away from the poor old codger. Big frigging deal. I do believe disarming perps in hand to hand is still taught in academy? It's just ridiculous the things done by Chicago PO's and they get away with it scott free!
Howdy back at ya. It has been a while. I hope your book publishing went well.
I think we're talking about the same thing although using slightly different wording. For people reading this and wondering what's the difference, it's simple. When you "shoot to stop the threat," that means you shoot the bad guy (probably will need more than 1 shot if using a pistol) until the bad guy is no longer a threat to you. That could be the bad guy drops the gun or knife, stops charging at you, runs away or just collapses and/or maybe goes unconscious.
You're not shooting to wound, shoot a gun or knife out of the bad guy's hand, wing him in the leg or arm or any other stupid stuff like they do in the movies and TV. You shoot center mass until the bad guy stops attacking or immediately threatening you.
Once the bad guy stops being a threat, YOU stop shooting. This is the tricky part. If you shoot to defend yourself from an attack, you're defending yourself (or somebody else). If you continue to shoot AFTER that threat has stopped, you now become the aggressor and, believe it or not, the bad guy. Doesn't mean the other guy wasn't a bad guy and won't have criminal charges. But, it does mean you've put yourself at risk for possibly some criminal charges yourself. It's a fine line but it's one that you will be judged by.
Some possible scenarios to illustrate this are:
1. Bad guy drops his weapon (gun or knife, etc.) and drops to the ground. He's no longer attacking you or even much of a threat because you put 1 or more rounds center mass. Now if you fire a few more rounds at him, who is being the aggressor? You. Who is firing a gun at another person and is no longer doing so doing so in self defense? You.
2. You shoot the bad guy and he runs away. He's no longer attacking you and is no longer a threat. Yes, I know the bad guy knows where you live (if the shooting was at your house) but the legal issue is for an immediate threat, not some bad guy coming back to your house later. You are no longer in immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured. You shoot the bad guy as he's running away because you don't want him alive to know where you live (like the media won't publish it anyway). That wasn't self defense and would now be viewed as manslaughter (you obviously didn't plan this in advance for murder unless you post stuff on internet blogs saying this is your plan).
I know how LA police operate somewhat and there are many of them that should be receiving combat pay! But you hear of very few incidents involving police officers there where they are shooting kids with knives 30 feet away or unarmed people or 96 year old men that are confused and scared with a Tazer when you have 4 strapping young police officers there to take the little knife away. So you take a little cut to the hand taking it away from the poor old codger. Big frigging deal. I do believe disarming perps in hand to hand is still taught in academy? It's just ridiculous the things done by Chicago PO's and they get away with it scott free!
Ideally, you put something large between you and that kid or bad guy with a knife, like a car or other large object to make it harder for them to get to you. That is the perfect time to have your gun trained on them and send in the police dog (that's the dog's job). There's just something about a dog running to attack a person that scares the you know what out of bad guys.
I agree that you don't hear of too many incidents where LA cops just shoot somebody down when there were other alternatives. It's pretty much like that throughout CA. That's due to a LOT of ongoing standardized training, more lawyers per capita and police departments aggressively weeding out bad apples before they get off probation.
In the academy, they teach you to use restraint tactics for controlling a person and handcuffing them. They don't teach you disarming methods for disarming criminals of weapons, be it a knife, club or gun. If the bad guy is armed, you are taught to escalate the force level up to a superior level of force to overcome the bad guys force (i.e. you put a bad guy with a knife at gun point and use a police dog if the bad guy doesn't cooperate).
I haven't mentioned pepper spray or tasers in this situation of a bad guy with a knife because both are limited to around 20 feet or so (within that 30 feet protective bubble you want with a knife suspect). There are also bean bag or rubber ball rounds from a less-lethal shotgun which could be used on a suspect with a knife although those are usually locked in a police car trunk and might not be out of the trunk in time. All of the methods in this paragraph are considered "less lethal" in that they are designed to stop a suspect without killing them. They are no longer called "non-lethal" because sometimes they do kill a suspect although not intentionally.
I've put out a lot of information for anybody carrying CCW to consider. This is generalized information based on my experience as a cop and DA Investigator in my state--California.
Again, YMMV in your own state due to different state laws, different DA's Offices and even different police training. If you know a local cop and/or District Attorney, it would be a wise idea to talk to them directly and get this kind of information from the same people who will be reviewing any shooting you likely get into. It also wouldn't hurt to talk with a local defense attorney that you respect and trust (some are good and some are more on the shyster end of things). I hope nobody ever has to shoot a bad guy to defend themselves but in case you might ever have to, please do some research in YOUR state and make sure you have solid information and not just what some guys at the range "think" or some CCW Instructor teaches (some are very knowledgeable and some are not). It's your life you're betting in both the shooting and the legal aftermath. You will want to make sure you're as prepared as you can be and have the right information. Stay safe everybody.
Last edited by CalHunter; 07-07-2015 at 08:30 AM.
