Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: What truely should be your primary concern

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    What truely should be your primary concern

    http://straightforwardinacrookedworl...decisions.html


    I came across this quote today.

    "While there is some concern of overpenetration with a handgun cartridge, your primary concern should be that your defensive round of choice will have sufficient penetration to reach vital organs and cause incapacitating blood loss in an attacker."

    On the surface the statement is clearly logical enough, provided we remove one aspect of it.

    "... your primary concern should be ...."

    Lest you ever find yourself in a lethal use of force encounter...or potential lethal use of force encounter, sufficient penetration of your ammo is far from the primary concern.

    Your primary concern is to make sure that what you are seeing is in fact accurate, ala use exemplary judgement.

    And I mean it. THAT is your primary concern.

    "Hold on a minute" you're thinking.

    "If I'm startled from my sleep in the middle of the night to someone breaking into my house I need to win that fight short and quick.".

    Of which I would concur with you. However, you still need to confirm that what you believe to be happening is in fact happening. Don't misinterpret what I am saying, you can in most instances come to the conclussion that you need to apply the lethal use of force very very quickly. In some cases a mere blink of an eye.

    However, time and time again we allow preconceived scenarios other people have laid out for us to become our future predictors. There is a distinct difference between sitting at a red light and seeing pistol pressed against the driver's side window and, sitting in an outdoor cafe somewhere and hearing gun fire, followed by a guy with a handgun running in your direction.

    Gun does not always equal threat.
    Sorry for the white text on black lines text. For some reason I can't get rid of it.

    Recently there has been a small spate of "can I shoot him/her if ..." threads. Those threads generate a lot of back & forth about just how long one has to wait/how much of a beating/cutting/stabbing/being spit on/etc. one has to endure before it becomes "OK" to shoot the person threatening to assault/assaulting you. That discussion emgenders discussion about how close a potential threat needs to get, without actually assaulting you, before you can shoot them.

    As the article says (and goes on to explain) "gun does not always equal threat."

    But how do you go about making the decision correctly that the presence of a gun does not equal a threat?

    You really do not want to read how my thoughts about that are absolutely correct and the rest of your thoughts were pulled from your third point of contact - even though there is no chance I that might be wrong. So I'm opening this up for discussion. What do you look for? What do you consider? And just as importantly, what information do you disregard?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Just to start the ball rolling,

    I would say AOJ--just look for AOJ (Ability, Opportunity, Jeapordy/Intent). A right now unavoidable* threat of grave bodily injury or death to the innocent. And, then work from there according to actual circumstances.

    I'm more concerned with the deceptive bad-guy. For example, the one who approaches with his hand and weapon in his pocket at night in the gas station parking lot or at the gas pump. I guess this one falls under the category of maintaining distance by initiating the encounter while he's still a little ways away, rather than waiting until he's within arms distance. That is to say, I'll challenge a stranger approaching me in those circumstances, especially if he has his attention on me, by forcefully demand he stop, "STOP! What do you want!?!" "NO! Walk away and leave me alone!" That sort of thing.



    *Unavoidable. Not all states require retreat, meaning, not all states require you to do everything safely possible to avoid a lethal force encounter. Consult your state law. This is not to be confused with deliberately going somewhere that you know there is likely to be a lethal force encounter. For example, if your girlfriend's dad says he'll kill you if you come to their house. And, then you go there anyway, and win a lethal force encounter with him.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-02-2013 at 11:24 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Good post and topic. Too much emphasis has been put on "Knife visible = KILL". "Possible Intruder = KILL". I'm not a ninja, no super powers, I don't intend to kill to protect property. For now, I can see two scenarios where I'd shoot to end the threat....

    When I've ran out of other options. I'm down, or backed up as far as I can, or I see that the threat is upon me and it's going to be the aggressor or me.

    The other scenario would be to intervene to save another being attacked. If one lives in a house with family members and there is a home invasion, the game changes. My moral obligation to protect will dictate if this is a no-holds-bared-event, or if the retreat of the aggressor is obvious, and I can restrain my impulses it could be kept to a break in and not a shooting. Home invasion with kids is my worst nightmare. Arf the Wonder Dog goes off if bugs hit the screens hard. If someone tries coming in, I'll be made aware and I'll know where they are.

    I have no interest in hunting someone else down, or killing in retaliation, or to stop someone that has committed a property crime. The sound of breaking door glass and the sound of the door opening at my home should start the clock on weighing options and actions. Waking to someone in my room or in my face might be an indicator I need a better dog and that I'm about to learn the down side of becoming a victim. I think options will have been negated at that point. Somebody passes me on the way out of the 7-11 that just robbed the joint and everyone inside is still standing, I am not ending their life. I will be a good witness. Be my luck I'd miss the BG and hit a mother coming in for cough syrup for a sick kid.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    SNIP But how do you go about making the decision correctly that the presence of a gun does not equal a threat?
    Depends on the situation. When I'm at the shooting range with a couple dozen other shooters, I don't consider that a gun equals a threat.

    If I'm asleep at night and a total stranger is slinking thru my living room and I see a gun silohuetted on the wall by the street light outside, I'm gonna consider it a threat. That isn't to say I'm gonna blaze away.

    In his book In the Gravest Extreme, Mas Ayoob actually recommended shooting the burglar who is armed with a deadly weapon, even if his back is turned. Ayoob's rationale was that the armed burglar has announced, by having a weapon, what he intends to do if he meets a homeowner. Using the upstairs hall as an example, Ayoob pointed out that if you challenge a burglar who has a gun, he can whirl reactively and shoot you before you can respond. Now, that book was written in the mid-to-late 80's, so I don't know if he still recommends that.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-02-2013 at 11:35 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Totality of circumstances. As already well stated, AOJ is a great place to start. Awareness is probably the biggest thing to work on. It doesn't matter what you carry or if you carry or how many you carry, the ability to see or sense the threat is probably the most important. Alot of this comes down to commons sense though.

    Someone mentioned someone banging around your house in the middle of the night. Chances are at 3 am the crash downstairs and movement isn't aliens. It's probably a BG. Now why wold a BG guy be in your house? Sure, he could be there to use your phone because he has a flat. Chances are hes there to steal something and hurt you in the process. Obviously you have to be smart about this. Do you happen to have a teenage boy that lives with you? Well now the odds that it's a BG with a weapon just dramatically shifted. These are things that should be straight forward.

    As already put, if that guy is approaching you with hands in his pocket at the gas station in the middle of the night, kick up your game a bit. If it was as teen aged girl, maybe not so much. I'm not saying for a second that a teenage girl will not stick you, I'm just saying chances are shes not going to or have the ability to.

    I'm a big fan of gut feeling. As humans we've been evolving for thousand of years to avoid and sense bigger stronger things that will kill us. That "gut feeling" you have? Better trust it. Do you have to know exactly what it was that caused the feeling? No. Should you be able to articulate clearly why you dropped someone? Yes. You can go from that gut feeling, to clear facts pretty quickly.

    So basically, it's tough to state exactly what to look for, other then the obvious, but I'd say your gut feeling is the best places to start.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Anyone who has a gun in their hand is a threat.....to someone. The home scenario for me is only a matter of "is it my kid, or not" if not then the BG is a threat and will be neutralized. Out on the street I prefer to run away (Monty Python voice) and live to run away another day. If I can't run away then all bets are off, now my top priority is, did I bring enough ammo.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,194
    To shoot or not to shoot is the action that all people who carry for self defense have to ponder.

    Every situation is going to be different some well be very clear and others well not be.

    The shoot first no matter what crowd is asking for trouble.

    Pre planning, pre thinking and practice well go along ways to solving the problem in the correct manner
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152

    Your primary concern is to make sure that what you are seeing is in fact accurate, ..

    I am re-reading Bayes' Rule by James Stone, getting ready to read on in Jaynes' Probability Theory (2003). Apropos, on Stone's page 26 (it's not a big book), is this quote from E. T. Jaynes, "Seeing is not a direct apprehension of reality, as we often like to pretend. Quite the contrary: seeing is inference from incomplete information.

    Stone's context is that he has just finished examining an optical illusion that presents an image of the Barringer Crater as a 'mound' by changing the perceived light source.

    Jaynes' context is from Chapter 5 Queer uses for probability theory, Section 5.4 Visual perception - evolution into Bayesianity? "[ ... ] The general conclusion from all these experiments is less surprising to our relativist generation than it was to the absolutist generation which made the discoveries. Seeing is not a direct apprehension of reality, as we often like to pretend. Quite the contrary: Seeing is inference from incomplete information[emphasis in the original], no different in nature from the inference that we are studying here." p133
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    This brings up one of my biggest fears in a SD or defense of others situation. If I'm in a public place where a BG needs to be put down or worse multiple BG's and I start throwing lead, who's to say that a cop or another armed LAC won't confuse me as a BG? Or worse yet I'm the guy who thought that person A needs to be put down, when in reality they are a LAC just trying to help or save their own skin and now I'm responsible for the death of an innocent person. Sometimes its not always readily apparent who the good guys and the bad guys are.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Red Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern VA, with too many people
    Posts
    404
    I'd like to say upfront, first. In ALL 50 states the killing of another human being is against the law...SO, my preference is to not have to kill one. Self defense is just a "legal excuse"...Like getting tot he hospital fast for an emergency and caught speeding.. If there is any question of whether you should, or should not, then I'd say do NOT..If things have truly gone that far south, YOU WILL KNOW if you need to pull the trigger. The house game plan is if we can, she gets 911 on the line and I barricade us in a room, with grandkid, or whoever, and make it plain to intruders that we are armed, and the police are on the way. They can have my "stuff", that's why I pay insurance...but also made perfectly celar is do dot open the door to my bedroom....My guns are just another insurance if needed...On the street, There are WAY too many variables, but you have to be ready at all times, and do your best to avoid "that trouble"...A knife for me is not a beat all that requires me to shoot someone. But that's me, YMMV...I hope, and would like to think that a gun pulled on me within arms reach can be taken care of with less than lethal force due to training. Don't know...We'll see...
    The Second Amendment is in place
    in case the politicians ignore the others

    A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I am re-reading Bayes' Rule by James Stone, getting ready to read on in Jaynes' Probability Theory (2003). Apropos, on Stone's page 26 (it's not a big book), is this quote from E. T. Jaynes, "Seeing is not a direct apprehension of reality, as we often like to pretend. Quite the contrary: seeing is inference from incomplete information.

    Stone's context is that he has just finished examining an optical illusion that presents an image of the Barringer Crater as a 'mound' by changing the perceived light source.

    Jaynes' context is from Chapter 5 Queer uses for probability theory, Section 5.4 Visual perception - evolution into Bayesianity? "[ ... ] The general conclusion from all these experiments is less surprising to our relativist generation than it was to the absolutist generation which made the discoveries. Seeing is not a direct apprehension of reality, as we often like to pretend. Quite the contrary: Seeing is inference from incomplete information[emphasis in the original], no different in nature from the inference that we are studying here." p133
    If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dawg View Post
    I'd like to say upfront, first....A knife for me is not a beat all that requires me to shoot someone. But that's me, YMMV...I hope, and would like to think that a gun pulled on me within arms reach can be taken care of with less than lethal force due to training. Don't know...We'll see...
    A few years back I was in a fist fight that turned into his knife vs my gun. As soon as I drew my weapon he rethought his plan and I was able to hold him at the scene till the police arrived. The BG kept taunting me to shoot him and I made it clear that if he so much as took one step towards me or my inlaws who were about 20yds to my right that I would put one in his head and two center mass. He believed me and no further violence was necessary. A couple of the officers who showed up were buddies of mine (wife was a dispatcher at the time) asked me why I didn't shoot him even though I was well within my rights to do. My answer was because I didn't have to. Had he moved from his spot, I would have.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    I'm gonna try to be very brief.

    Primary concern in the gravest extreme, or in a rapidly developing serious situation, or in a puzzling situation that might involve a threat...

    1) Time
    2) Distance

    In the coffee house shooting of 5 LEOs, the two distant LEOs did not run out the back with the Barristas, giving them time and distance. They took the 'bait' of the BG, and came forward, after seeing the three dead LEOs, to try to apprehend and arrest the BG.

    Poor choice, role playing (being a 'cop'), locked into role, fooled by BG his gun was jammed (he had a back up)? Hard to say.

    So, to avoid a highly chaotic situation with one option, find ways to get time (to think and plan and deploy), and distance (to prevent being in the kill zone).

    Failing 1 and 2, cover or concealment. 3 gives you 1, 2 gives you 1, 1 gives you options, time to assess.

    Not the full analysis but one simple platform.
    Last edited by Maverick9; 12-03-2013 at 12:54 PM.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Totality of circumstances. As already well stated, AOJ is a great place to start. Awareness is probably the biggest thing to work on. It doesn't matter what you carry or if you carry or how many you carry, the ability to see or sense the threat is probably the most important. Alot of this comes down to commons sense though.

    Someone mentioned someone banging around your house in the middle of the night. Chances are at 3 am the crash downstairs and movement isn't aliens. It's probably a BG. Now why wold a BG guy be in your house? Sure, he could be there to use your phone because he has a flat. Chances are hes there to steal something and hurt you in the process. Obviously you have to be smart about this. Do you happen to have a teenage boy that lives with you? Well now the odds that it's a BG with a weapon just dramatically shifted. These are things that should be straight forward.
    That's sttrange. Most burglars seem to be more interested in removing property than in messing with Harry Homeowner, and most of the ones that are discovered are more interested in leaving before being apprehended than in shooting it out with you. The exceptions get the news coverage - especially the home invasions.

    As already put, if that guy is approaching you with hands in his pocket at the gas station in the middle of the night, kick up your game a bit. If it was as teen aged girl, maybe not so much. I'm not saying for a second that a teenage girl will not stick you, I'm just saying chances are shes not going to or have the ability to.

    I'm a big fan of gut feeling. As humans we've been evolving for thousand of years to avoid and sense bigger stronger things that will kill us. That "gut feeling" you have? Better trust it. Do you have to know exactly what it was that caused the feeling? No. Should you be able to articulate clearly why you dropped someone? Yes. You can go from that gut feeling, to clear facts pretty quickly.

    So basically, it's tough to state exactly what to look for, other then the obvious, but I'd say your gut feeling is the best places to start.
    Gavin DeBecker http://gavindebecker.com/ agrees with you on that. He's one of my go-to guys for what to look for and what to do if you find what you weree looking for.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    I like Dan's take on this.

    (paraphrased)
    If you have a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent person is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, then you are authorized to use such force as is reasonably necessary, up to and including deadly force, to stop the threat.

    (quote)
    "If a person reasonably believes, based on objective fact, that he or another innocent person, is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, then he may use whatever force he believes is reasonably necessary, up to and including deadly force, to stop that threat."
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152
    Woahoa! Time, distance and shielding sounds very familiar. Even ALARA and mean free-path can be considered. A bullet is just a WIMP from a different source.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If it comes down to it, I ain't gonna be thinking about five legal criteria. If I think that mine are or I am in mortal danger and that shooting is the best option to maximize our chance of survival, I am shooting.

    That's it. I'll leave the legal wrangling for later when everyone has time to think and evaluate at length. I, of course, will be reminding everyone that I did not have their luxury of time and exhorting them to arrive at their conclusion bearing that in mind.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  18. #18
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Woahoa! Time, distance and shielding sounds very familiar. Even ALARA and mean free-path can be considered. A bullet is just a WIMP from a different source.
    Physics Geeks Unite and Form Covalent Bonds.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post

    In the coffee house shooting of 5 LEOs, the two distant LEOs did not run out the back with the Barristas, giving them time and distance. They took the 'bait' of the BG, and came forward, after seeing the three dead LEOs, to try to apprehend and arrest the BG.
    Would you please provide a link to this story I did a search with the above info and could not find one .

    Most Likely I used the wrong info.

    thanks
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  20. #20
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    A bullet is just a WIMP from a different source.
    My bullets are MACHOs, not WIMPs!

    One very important factor in judging whether a perceived situation is what it seems is to see it develop from the beginning. If you come into the middle of something, you could misunderstand.

    That guy holding a gun on a kneeling person? Could be a robbery or could be an undercover LEO making an arrest. That old guy tearing the pants off a screaming, struggling 3-year-old girl in the park? Could be a pervert or could be grandpa trying to get a bunch of red ants off his grandchild.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Tieton, Wa
    Posts
    9
    Not positive but I believe this was the incident in question.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewoo...ficer_shooting

  22. #22
    Regular Member independence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    339
    I think there are many good points in this thread. Especially regarding not assuming that you know what is going on without enough facts. I know one guy in real life who has drawn 3 times in situations where he was playing cop. Each of the stories he told me made him sound really brave, but they could have easily been a misunderstanding on his part. Ironically, they were also situations where it would have likely been enough if he was just OCing instead of drawing to prove a point. Gun toting citizens have different responsibilities than cops. There may be rare cases where it is appropriate to protect a defenseless stranger, but our primary responsibility should be protecting ourselves and those we love and only in situations where we are certain that potential victims are in certain danger of death or serious bodily injury.

    I believe it has a lot to do with attitude. If you are like the guy I mentioned, then your mindset is bravado. If your mindset is good judgement, as mentioned in the OP then you have a decent chance of achieving the real goal: Survival.

    Sent from an app instead of a browser simply because browsers on mobile devices are incapable of basic usability by design so that people can sell apps.
    Open means open...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    A few years back I was in a fist fight that turned into his knife vs my gun. As soon as I drew my weapon he rethought his plan and I was able to hold him at the scene till the police arrived. The BG kept taunting me to shoot him and I made it clear that if he so much as took one step towards me or my inlaws who were about 20yds to my right that I would put one in his head and two center mass. He believed me and no further violence was necessary. A couple of the officers who showed up were buddies of mine (wife was a dispatcher at the time) asked me why I didn't shoot him even though I was well within my rights to do. My answer was because I didn't have to. Had he moved from his spot, I would have.
    But.. But.. The Tueller drill teaches us that anyone within 100 yards who is armed with as much as a pair of nail clippers is a deadly threat that can reach you and kill you before you can fire your weapon even if it is already out and pointed right at them and you are the greatest high-pressure marksman that has ever lived. Not shooting is the most foolish thing you could ever conceivably do!!!!

    ...Or so would say the likely hundreds of police officers who have gotten away with murder with Tueller as their excuse.

    Sorry, but you hit on one of my biggest pet peeves with this story (Not your actions, you nailed it. The officers response to your actions is what gets me!). Ever since a Seattle police officer got away clean after gunning down an old, drunk, native american wood carver that wasn't even close to a threat to him I can't help but disparage that stupid drill every time I come across an excuse to do so.

    When Tueller DOES NOT APPLY:

    1.) Your weapon is drawn.
    2.) The individual is not armed with a deadly weapon (unless they are exceptionally large and strong a/o drugged out of their mind).
    3.) The individual is more than ~25 feet from you.
    4.) The individual is obviously not in good enough health to run nearly as fast as a ~30-year-old man in decent to good shape.

    Implied in the above is also this fact.... The PROPER resolution to a Tueller situation is TO DRAW AND AIM YOUR WEAPON.

    That was the ENTIRE point of Tueller, to teach officers who are faced with a knife/bat/etc wielding individual to draw and point their weapon. Officers used to sometimes be afraid that drawing would "Escalate" the situation, and Tueller was supposed to get them to draw anyway for officer safety. Now though it is used all too frequently as an excuse in the courtroom for having drawn and fired immediately. Tueller is a valuable drill for officer safety reasons, but it is misapplied and abused, and I really kind of wish it had never been invented.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    This brings up one of my biggest fears in a SD or defense of others situation. If I'm in a public place where a BG needs to be put down or worse multiple BG's and I start throwing lead, who's to say that a cop or another armed LAC won't confuse me as a BG? Or worse yet I'm the guy who thought that person A needs to be put down, when in reality they are a LAC just trying to help or save their own skin and now I'm responsible for the death of an innocent person. Sometimes its not always readily apparent who the good guys and the bad guys are.
    What did you think the odds were of someone walking in and saving you if you were unarmed? That's the odds of you or someone else showing up to even have a chance of getting the wrong idea. One way or another, the work of a LAC's gun is over in seconds. By the time the cops show up, yours will either be holstered or lying next to your corpse.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    This brings up one of my biggest fears in a SD or defense of others situation. If I'm in a public place where a BG needs to be put down or worse multiple BG's and I start throwing lead, who's to say that a cop or another armed LAC won't confuse me as a BG? Or worse yet I'm the guy who thought that person A needs to be put down, when in reality they are a LAC just trying to help or save their own skin and now I'm responsible for the death of an innocent person. Sometimes its not always readily apparent who the good guys and the bad guys are.
    I will liken this to a scenario in a convenience store that I've given some thought. The underlying rationale is somewhat similar.

    Lets say I'm at the coffee counter in a convenience store and a gun-robber begins his work at the sales counter. What do I do? Here's my thinking. If I shoot, I may cause the robber to trigger a shot into the clerk. If I call out, I may startle the robber into rash-er action, escalating a robber who wouldn't have fired into shooting. Bottom line: I can't make that decision on the clerk's behalf: is the clerk willing to take the risk of being shot in order to end the robbery and stop the robber from robbing again? I concluded that the most I can do is move to cover, draw and aquire a sight-picture, and be a good witness--noting details of the robber's appearance, clothing, etc. Only if the robber fires a shot at the clerk will I shoot. In conclusion, when I think it through, I really can't protect the clerk from getting shot the first time--its too late. All I can do is try to prevent him from getting shot the second or third time.

    Similar with your situation. You can only do so much. You have to decide what your "triggers" are, and whether you're willing to accidentally shoot an innocent or other defender in order to protect yourself and yours.

    Personally, I think its a little less complicated. If the other guy is pointing his gun at a third person, and I identified that third person as a bad-guy, I'm not going to shoot that "other guy". Unless he points his gun at me. Then it the same drill all over again: move and shoot. All this assumes the area isn't crowded with innocents making a miss life-threatening.

    Sometimes life just hands you a no-win or low-win situation. You have to decide for yourself what you consider the correct course of action. Tough decisions are part of the game. The plus is that you sometimes get to think through about it in advance.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •