• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ok, what's WRONG with this story?

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

Robbers, victem exchange gunfire outside apartments

First, I'm glad the police said the victim will not face charges for firing his weapon. He was, after all, a victim of armed robbery.

Here's what's wrong:

1. The reporter left out several key details which are readily available on the March 26, 2010, 12:55 AM police blotter.

1a. One key detail was that the victem was approached from behind. If the victim was armed, and approached from the front, he may have been able to draw and fire before being robbed.

1b. "The victem was able to arm himself with a gun." From where? His waistband? His holster? His car? His apartment?

1c. The police blotter simply said "shots were exchanged." It says nothing about who fired first shot.

2. The reporter said the victem returned fire as the suspects were fleeing. Personally, if someone's fleeing, I'll simply duck behind a car, as the last thing I want is an embroiled civil suit if I'd managed to kill, or worse, permanently injure them.

3. The victim missed! If you're going to carry a firearm, learn how to hit your target, even under severe duress! I'll never "shoot to kill," as that's yet another invitation to a civil lawsuit, if not a criminal one, as that indicates intent. If the use of deadly force is authorize, however, "shooting to hit" is perfectly acceptable. "My intent was to stop the illegal and deadly onslaught" is perfectly acceptable.

4. The victim let the suspects get the drop on him. Not a lot we can do about this, as cities aren't bone quiet. Pay attention. Know who and what is around you. Key your eyes on the shadows.

Just some pet peeves, here.

It's strengthened my resolve to open carry, though, for several reasons:

1. It's a deterrant.

2. I can respond at least a second faster - possibly up to five if my jacket zipper sticks.

It's also strengthened my resolve to make dang sure if I'm ever acosted/assaulted while walking around at night, I will NOT hesitate to use deadly force to defend myself, and I will NOT miss my target!
 

mrsemman

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
34
Location
West Brookfield, Massachusetts, USA
imported post

since9,

Reports like this rarely can get the facts straight. Regardless of who shot first, the fact is that an armed robber accosted a victim. A "person" put in fear of their life can defend themselves.

Most gunfights occur within ten feet of each other, last only a few secondsand usually about twenty rounds are fired. The stress of shooting at a moving target that is shooting back at you is enormous.

There are no hard and fast rules for those who have never experienced that kind of danger, except to be as much aware of your surroundings as you can. Open or concealed carry won't mean much if the bad guy approaches from the rear or out of your sight, or when you are distracted elsewhere. The sooner you can detect a potential threat, the better.

Rmember, nobody can predict what they would do in these situations. However, the more you practice, the better your chances.
 

marrero jeff

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
222
Location
marrero, Louisiana, USA
imported post

You shouldnt make ridiculous comments like "i will NOT miss my target". Are you ex-spec-ops? SWAT? these men are highly trained professionals, unless you have the same level of training as they do, i suspect you'll miss alot under severe stress.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

marrero jeff wrote:
You shouldnt make ridiculous comments like "i will NOT miss my target". Are you ex-spec-ops? SWAT? these men are highly trained professionals, unless you have the same level of training as they do, i suspect you'll miss alot under severe stress.
It's also strengthened my resolve to make dang sure if I'm ever acosted/assaulted while walking around at night, I will NOT hesitate to use deadly force to defend myself, and I will NOT miss my target!
Emphasis mine. He did not say that he wouldn't. It is the goal he says he will take action to achieve.
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

since9 wrote:
Personally, if someone's fleeing, I'll simply duck behind a car, ...
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/thebuickotruth.htm

Read that, take into consideration the fact that this is an old Buick, and not some more modern aluminum + fiber glass car, and then tell me if you still think a car can be considered cover and not concealment.

So what is the difference between cover and concealment? Simply stated--cover will stop bullets, whereas concealment will not.
 
Top