Originally Posted by
super_hunt54
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!
Well, I don't personally know any cop (me especially) that would attempt to wrestle a knife away from a kid or any other suspect. Once they get within 30 feet of you (this is legit training all over the country), they can run up and stab you before you can draw a gun and shoot to stop that threat (probably take more than 1 shot if they're determined in their attack, i.e. some nut job).
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.