Why we shoot to stop the threat?

[Tanner]

The way I understand it, brandishing is allowed in some states (I was taught AZ as an example, so if someone can point out a statute saying otherwise then please do). Also, if in the act of pulling and aiming your weapon the BG stops, then as you said, there is no further need to shoot.

This time we should disagree more respectfully mowhawk. I would like to point out something skidmark said. " Thank goodness there is also expert witness testimony that demonstrates why someone might not be able to stop in time."

I agree with you that if the threat stops then no pull or squeez (if you will) of the trigger is needed. However it is no stretch of the imagination that once one has commited to drawing with the intent to stop the threat, the fraction of a second where the BG has stoped said aggressiveness may be insufficent to stop the reaction of draw and shot "with intent to stop"

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[sawah]

Having come to those conclusions is one thing. Having the ability to act in keeping with them remains, at this time, an untested theory.

stay safe.

We're working against several systems designed to prevent using physical means, violence, coercion, harming, etc. another person.

Very few people can react violently in the split second it takes to size up the event - this is 'Immediacy'.
Not many people can react to stop a violent threat in 'cold blood'. Someone might do something quite anti-social right in front of you, and if you're not in hot blood, you can't motivate to react - this is 'Emotive' (edit: or "Emotional Content).

Edit: You also need to feel (sociopaths excluded?) that you have the 'Moral High Ground' or righteousness (right or wrong)

You need means, method, moral high ground, immediacy and emotive motivation, and you will also be going through the OODC loop. We do a lot of thinking, training, simulating, scenario running hoping that we can find the solution to employing the appropriate physical means to do the 'right thing'. Yet to our bodies, which can betray us, it's either fight or flight (or freeze). I think that's why freezing happens so frequently. Like the 'Robby the Robot' in Forbidden Planet, we tend to overheat rather than harm another.

Pushing someone to stop them from striking a loved one also has the immediacy, the reaction, the closeness and the quick temper aspect. But to draw a machine, depress a trigger and employ action at a distance is just too much cognitive processing for many people.

Anyway, a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, don't know if I'm making sense.

 

[Tanner]

Anyway, a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, don't know if I'm making sense.

Im following you and it makes perfect sense.

Also something els I have learned lately is that since our brains work the way they do the process of draw aim squeez can turn into draw squeez aim. This is dangerous for obvious reason.


p.s "squeez" is a funny word when repeated over and over in your head............squeez <---- Im still waiting to grow up.

 

[half_life1052]

Im following you and it makes perfect sense.

Also something els I have learned lately is that since our brains work the way they do the process of draw aim squeez can turn into draw squeez aim. This is dangerous for obvious reason.


p.s "squeez" is a funny word when repeated over and over in your head............squeez <---- Im still waiting to grow up.

At least until you have committed to muscle memory the draw and acquire. You don't practice with a loaded weapon, and you don't do it fast at first. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWoOwbaC5MQ You do it over a period of weeks to months until it is no longer a conscious thing.

 

[sawah]

I'm very slow to anger, so I've had a few situations where someone has aggressed against me and by the time I was upset to the point of wanting to respond the incident was well over.

I know that I can 'switch it on' and change into a different personality because 1) I used to have a temper, but don't anymore; and 2) When I was heavily into martial arts, I was able to fight quite well with, oh, brutality and efficiency. In my older years, I'm more calm, so I'm not sure I can still "bring it", but once or twice a year I can still feel the heat rising, usually for about 10 seconds due to some traffic idiocy, then I defuse it.

So, I know my big problem is not 'good sense', knowing when there's a 'gravest extreme' or having good moral judgement or a calm temperament. It's immediacy. Fortunately, my friend is extremely 'immediate' so they have the 'first shot' role, lol.

I know I'm more likely to shoot in defense of a loved one than in defense of myself. I feel fortunate in that my SA extends to many scenarios that normal people don't, so it's really easy to stay out of trouble (I have a sixth sense for trouble). I firmly believe if you live in a good part of the country you can easily go a couple life-times and never need to encounter true violence if you do it right (following the 3 S rule, and so forth).

What I'm getting to, though is that it becomes very difficult to 'stay in practice', to develop draw&sight&squeeze-muscle-memory if you really feel it will be a skill you never need. You have to figure out ways around that. After the 3-5 year mark of carrying, many people are so accustomed to having a firearm they actually forget they are armed. It's weird.

 

[altajava]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger .
Which do you want more, to immediately stop someone's actions or their eventual death?

Depends on who they are:uhoh:

When did we start talking about dog hunters?

 

[peter nap]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger .
Which do you want more, to immediately stop someone's actions or their eventual death?




When did we start talking about dog hunters?

:lol:

 

[BlueRidgeTrapper]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger .
Which do you want more, to immediately stop someone's actions or their eventual death?




When did we start talking about dog hunters?

I shouldn't find this funny...but I do...

 

[skidmark]

In response to

Having come to those conclusions is one thing. Having the ability to act in keeping with them remains, at this time, an untested theory.
stay safe.

you wrote

We're working against several systems designed to prevent using physical means, violence, coercion, harming, etc. another person.

Very few people can react violently in the split second it takes to size up the event - this is 'Immediacy'.
Not many people can react to stop a violent threat in 'cold blood'. Someone might do something quite anti-social right in front of you, and if you're not in hot blood, you can't motivate to react - this is 'Emotive' (edit: or "Emotional Content).

Edit: You also need to feel (sociopaths excluded?) that you have the 'Moral High Ground' or righteousness (right or wrong)

You need means, method, moral high ground, immediacy and emotive motivation, and you will also be going through the OODC loop. We do a lot of thinking, training, simulating, scenario running hoping that we can find the solution to employing the appropriate physical means to do the 'right thing'. Yet to our bodies, which can betray us, it's either fight or flight (or freeze). I think that's why freezing happens so frequently. Like the 'Robby the Robot' in Forbidden Planet, we tend to overheat rather than harm another.

Pushing someone to stop them from striking a loved one also has the immediacy, the reaction, the closeness and the quick temper aspect. But to draw a machine, depress a trigger and employ action at a distance is just too much cognitive processing for many people.

Anyway, a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, don't know if I'm making sense.

Instead of dealing with all that intellectual baggage, why not just have the internal conversation about if you would or would not shoot someone. Answer that question and the rest should fall into place.

My experience is that a great number of people have never had the conversation with themselves, and even among those that have had the conversation a great number have failed to reach an answer

It's not just about intellectual willingness to use violence against another. It's about the emotional commitment to, without question, reservation or hesitation, use that violence.

And as for

Not many people can react to stop a violent threat in 'cold blood'. Someone might do something quite anti-social right in front of you, and if you're not in hot blood, you can't motivate to react

- I urge you to read the following very carefully and then reconsider if you would be better off responding, as you put it, in cold blood rather than in the heat of passion:

Smith v. Commonwealth, Va. App. (2004 Unpublished)

"Heat of passion negates malice only when some "reasonable provocation" creates a "furor brevis which renders a man deaf to the voice of reason." Rhodes, 41 Va. App. at 200-01, 583 S.E.2d at 775-76 (quoting Caudill v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 81, 85, 497 S.E.2d 513, 514-15 (1998)). The provocation must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. See Stewart v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 222, 240, 427 S.E.2d 394, 406 (1993); Willis v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 224, 231, 556 S.E.2d 60, 64 (2001); Robertson v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 814, 823, 525 S.E.2d 640, 645 (2000) ("In order to determine whether the accused acted in the heat of passion, it is necessary to consider the nature and degree of provocation as well as the manner in which it was resisted." (quoting Miller v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 22, 25, 359 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1987))). The "victim of the crime" must be the provoker, Arnold v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 781, 789, 560 S.E.2d 915, 919 (2002), and there must be a "simultaneous occurrence" of both provocation and passion, Graham v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 662, 671, 525 S.E.2d 567, 571 (2000) (citing Canipe v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 629, 643, 491 S.E.2d 747, 753 (1997)).

In this case, the trial court correctly ruled that the heat-of-passion instruction could not be given even under Smith's version of the facts. No rational factfinder could find that Mosley, a victim of an armed robbery, did anything that objectively speaking could be said to have reasonably provoked Smith to shoot him. At most, the evidence showed only that Mosley attempted to defend himself and refused to turn over his leather jacket to Smith. Cf. Humphrey v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 36, 49, 553 S.E.2d 546, 552 (2001) ("A person who reasonably apprehends [imminent] bodily harm by another is privileged to exercise reasonable force to repel the assault." (quoting Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 417, 421, 382 S.E.2d 24, 25 (1989))); Connell v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 429, 439, 542 S.E.2d 49, 54 (2001) ("One who is assaulted may and usually does defend himself, the ensuing struggle cannot be accurately described as a mutual combat."). As the Virginia Supreme Court has explained, a "man cannot go a-gunning for an adversary and kill him on the first appearance of resistance, and rely upon the necessity of the killing as an excuse therefor." Jordan v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 852, 855-56, 252 S.E.2d 323, 325 (1979) (quoting Sims v. Commonwealth, 134 Va. 736, 760, 115 S.E. 382, 390 (1922)) (internal quotation marks omitted). For similar reasons, an armed robber cannot attack a victim and then claim the victim's resistance reasonably provoked the robber to kill him. As a matter of law, the heat-of-passion doctrine simply does not go that far. Because the trial court did not err in refusing the heat-of-passion instruction proffered by Smith, we affirm his conviction."
​

As User has said so often, as I paraphrase him, you are better off in a self defense situation saying it was your cold-blooded, rational intention to shoot the BG and if the same situation presented itself again you would again in cold-blooded rationality shoot the person again.

Do stuff hot-bloodedly, in the heat of passion, at your peril.

stay safe.
​

 

[davidmcbeth]

I do not agree at all with the shoot to wound idea. First of all, If you are just shooting to wound, it doesn't seem to me that your life is in imminent danger. Secondly, and maybe is the Hunter in me, you should never pull the trigger on something with the sole intention of wounding it. To me that would be unethical and inhumane.

u a fan of the double tap? (have I been watching to many zombie movies lately & is this even possible?)

 

[Greg30-06]

u a fan of the double tap? (have I been watching to many zombie movies lately & is this even possible?)

WTH does that have to do with what I said? All I said is that if you are going to use deadly force, do so with the mindset that you are using " deadly" force. Don't try to use deadly force as less than lethal

 

[Grapeshot]

WTH does that have to do with what I said? All I said is that if you are going to use deadly force, do so with the mindset that you are using " deadly" force. Don't try to use deadly force as less than lethal

For a reason, the current acceptable/recommended term is "less lethal"

Even less lethal can under the right circumstances be very lethal.

 

[love4guns]

Many, many instances of potential violence and mayhem have been stopped (self-defense) by the potential victim having had a firearm. They did not shoot anyone. The way I look at it is that I have a firearm because I do not want to be killed by a violent predator, nor do I want to be unable to protect my loved ones from the same fate. Is actually firing the gun necessary? Many times it does not, but if there was no gun available there could/would have been a victim. I'm willing to stop a threat. I'm less willing, nor am I convinced that there always needs to be someone killed.

The Liberal speaks again.......

 

[peter nap]

The Liberal speaks again.......

I think Sawah would rather turn someone into a useless cripple.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Naw, she just doesn't think you should be able to carry a gun if you don't follow her "experienced" advice.

 

[peter nap]

Naw, she just doesn't think you should be able to carry a gun if you don't follow her "experienced" advice.

Maybe....she does think she knows how to break the back of violent crime. Comes across as an expert on that anyway.:lol:

 

[MSC 45ACP]

And, as J.B.Books, played by John Wayne, said in "The Shootist", "It isn't always being fast, or even accurate that counts; it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing; they blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger...I won't."

My notion is that unless you are willing and have a need to kill, you shouldn't even think about the gun, much less make any reference to it or touch it.

If you have need to kill, then face that fact squarely, and do your best.

If you shoot with a willingness to kill, you will probably be successful in stopping the threat. And if there's no necessity, just calm down and walk away.

As usual, USER has wisdom even beyond his mature years. I can't think of a better way to put it.
"Shooting to Stop" is taught by every LE agency I've ever dealt with.
As a Small Arms Instructor for a federal law enforcement agency for almost 20 years, I was never taught "Shoot to kill" unless it was talking about a wild animal. If you're dealing with humans that are seriously breaking the law (The laundry list includes serious felonies, theft of national secrets that would place the nation in GRAVE danger and theft of nuclear material), Then we were taught to teach
"Shoot Center Mass to stop the individual".
Shooting an armed fleeing felon was legal IF he still posed a substantial risk to others.

In advanced marksmanship courses, you're taught the "Mozambique Drill" mentioned above: 2 rounds, Center Mass, 1 round to the head".
The rationale was that the BG could be wearing body armor. If you train like this, it will become second nature and your marksmanship will also improve.

Just my $.02...

 

[WalkingWolf]

When I was in court/inquest on a on duty shooting I was asked why I shot the man. I answered he had a gun in his hand and he pointed it at me.

Shoot to protect yourself, never fire a warning shot, and only pull your weapon if you intend to use it. Leave the strategy up to your lawyer, just tell the truth as it happened.

 

[sawah]

Naw, she just doesn't think you should be able to carry a gun if you don't follow her "experienced" advice.

Note the key word here, PPM, is 'think' as in "opinion". I try not to just give an opinion, but to try and explain why I think something, and I hope, that I'm willing to change my opinion if better information comes along. But your quoted word of "experienced" is apt, since I've never harmed another, human nor pet, and hope to never have to do so.

However, I don't think I've said anything about 'wounding' or warning shots, or brandishing as part of my philosophy, merely that OTHERS have reported merely having a firearm has been a deterrent for THEM. I don't know the circumstances, but found it interesting. I will stipulate that I will never draw or shoot if there is another option, but in the gravest extreme, I will stop any threat to myself or my loved ones. I know how to fight, and in fact, have written extensively elsewhere about fighting and self-defense.

Perhaps you have some experience in the SD realm that you can share. Mine is only that of thinking about it and reading about it. I've looked through all the relevant books on carrying, such as Dave Grossman and Ayoob, and others. I'm happy to get your input and hope we can disagree amiably.

 

[peter nap]

Tell me sawah...do you ever OC?