If somebody is getting beat or hurt and your armed what would you do? - Page 14
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Training & Safety > If somebody is getting beat or hurt and your armed what would you do?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-31-2013, 04:15 AM   #131
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 21984 Times on 12396 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRau View Post
Correct you are. I think the highest ratio we had during my many years in LE was 1.2 per 1000, the lowest was .9 per 1000! I don't recall the exact number of people it takes to keep ONE person on the job 24/7/365, but I think it is about 7. So divide those numbers by 7 and you can see the true ratio on any given day of actual coverage. This was in a city, Colorado Springs, CO, which was 300,000+ when I retired. We kept 'trying' to be proactive, but the reality is this is totally unrealistic and impossible to accomplish!!! Good police work, as far as intervening on an 'in progress' crime, is just a matter of being in the right place at the right time (luck) for the most part.
Jim, i live in a county that is about 27,000 in population with the largest city having about 18,000 in population. the county sheriffs office has about 20 officers, we have about 8 state troopers that work the county, the large city has about 40 officers an then we have about 5 constables. plus a few reserve officers. so lets say an even 80 total officers divided by 27,000 people, equals 337.5 per officer! 337.5 to 1 ratio! that's if all were working 24/7 which is totally impossible. by the numbers, LEO's are just way outnumbered. then, the sheer size of our county and that i live in avery rural part of the county, response time to my location could be 20 minutes or more.

this is exactly why the citizens in any given city or town need to be proactive in setting up community watches and reporting criminal behaviour as much as possible. simple fact is that LE can't be everywhere, because it's just not possible. we as citizens can be their other sets of eyes and ears and helping them do their jobs.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 04:35 AM   #132
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Shootnscoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Washington...the state, not the District of Columbia
Posts: 73
Liked 26 Times on 18 Posts
Likes Given: 49

Default

Personally, I'd call the cops first.(regardless of who is being assaulted, in order to optimize response time, I'd tell the police that it's a white girl being beaten.) Then issue a clear verbal warning which informs the parties involved that police are en route. I would then try to physically try to intervene by blunt force. ie bat, hockey stick, whatever is available. Only as a last resort would I draw steel, holding him at gunpoint until authorities arrive. If the target of assault changes to me, I would fire a shot to disable rather than kill.

__________________
Shootnscoot is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 04:42 AM   #133
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 21984 Times on 12396 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shootnscoot View Post
Personally, I'd call the cops first.(regardless of who is being assaulted, in order to optimize response time, I'd tell the police that it's a white girl being beaten.) Then issue a clear verbal warning which informs the parties involved that police are en route. I would then try to physically try to intervene by blunt force. ie bat, hockey stick, whatever is available. Only as a last resort would I draw steel, holding him at gunpoint until authorities arrive. If the target of assault changes to me, I would fire a shot to disable rather than kill.
and now you have just made a false police report! after the fact, you could be charged for doing so.

and have you not read the threads about warning shots and only shooting to wound? not a good idea on many levels.

you might really give some thought into whether you are really ready to be carrying a firearm for SD.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 05:39 AM   #134
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Shootnscoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Washington...the state, not the District of Columbia
Posts: 73
Liked 26 Times on 18 Posts
Likes Given: 49

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
and now you have just made a false police report! after the fact, you could be charged for doing so.

and have you not read the threads about warning shots and only shooting to wound? not a good idea on many levels.

you might really give some thought into whether you are really ready to be carrying a firearm for SD.
No, I have not read the threads regarding warning shots or shooting to wound.
I have never intended to carry a firearm for self defense. I was simply giving a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

In that situation, why is it better to shoot to kill rather than disable?
__________________
Shootnscoot is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 05:57 AM   #135
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ClemsonSCJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 137
Liked 64 Times on 40 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shootnscoot
No, I have not read the threads regarding warning shots or shooting to wound.
I have never intended to carry a firearm for self defense. I was simply giving a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

In that situation, why is it better to shoot to kill rather than disable?
Because you don't shoot to kill or shoot to disable...you shoot to stop the threat. It is only legal to use deadly force if a reasonable person would believe that the "attacker" could cause great bodily harm or death at that moment. If you shoot to wound, that is clearly saying that you were not truly in fear for your life.

Lets take the Zimmerman case for example. I have managed to convince several people at work that, no matter what they believe about what happened, that based on the trial itself there was no way to convict him of murder. Their reply is always this: "well if he felt like he had to shoot him, he could have hit him in the shoulder or the leg, or anywhere that wouldn't have been fatal." Again, lets set all our biases aside for a moment and just assume that what GZ said happened is in fact what happened. If you're on your back with someone on top of you beat your face and head in, are you going to meticulously take the time to find a non-fatal place to aim for? No, you're going to put the gun at center of mass and shoot. If he had've taken the time to aim for a leg or arm, what would that have said about him truly believing his life was in danger. You act out of instinct and muscle memory when under intense stress and adrenaline.
__________________
ClemsonSCJ is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 05:58 AM   #136
Devil's Advocate and Provocateur
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TekGreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati,OH
Posts: 1,870
Liked 1335 Times on 699 Posts
Likes Given: 612

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shootnscoot
No, I have not read the threads regarding warning shots or shooting to wound.
I have never intended to carry a firearm for self defense. I was simply giving a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

In that situation, why is it better to shoot to kill rather than disable?
Shoot, it has been determined in many court cases that a firearm is a deadly weapon and using it as a less-than-lethal weapon is irresponsible. Based on this, many states and municipalities have passed laws reflecting this. Therefore, a gun, being a deadly weapon, is only to be used when lethal force is justified, and then only to apply lethal force. If the target does not die, there is no problem legally as long as lethal force was justified. Warning shots obviously fall under the same guidelines, as a loose round not aimed at a person to whom you were allowed to inflict lethal force is legally a negligent discharge and endangers innocent bystanders.

I hope that clarifies the situation! :-) warning shots and shooting-to-wound are fictitious Hollywood devices that should never have been perpetrated on an uneducated public. They are both irresponsible acts and shooting to wound is a near impossibility in a high-stress, fast-moving situation.
__________________

.
.
“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." (I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.). Thomas Jefferson

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

-Edmund Burke, Loosely translated from Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents. (1770)

TekGreg is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 06:01 AM   #137
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,393
Liked 8670 Times on 5012 Posts
Likes Given: 11255

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shootnscoot View Post
No, I have not read the threads regarding warning shots or shooting to wound.
I have never intended to carry a firearm for self defense. I was simply giving a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

In that situation, why is it better to shoot to kill rather than disable?
If you shoot to wound you are much more likely to miss for one and if you shoot to wound then you obviously (as the court is likely to see it) were not in mortal danger so the shooting would not be justified.

Shoot center of mass to kill, and probably double-tap. That way there is only one side of the story for the cops to hear. That's how it worked out for Zimmerman- even before he was charged and went through a jury trial.
__________________

Shoot me an email at vikingdad995@gmail.com

Quote:
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
Vikingdad is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 06:06 AM   #138
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Shootnscoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Washington...the state, not the District of Columbia
Posts: 73
Liked 26 Times on 18 Posts
Likes Given: 49

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekGreg View Post
Shoot, it has been determined in many court cases that a firearm is a deadly weapon and using it as a less-than-lethal weapon is irresponsible. Based on this, many states and municipalities have passed laws reflecting this. Therefore, a gun, being a deadly weapon, is only to be used when lethal force is justified, and then only to apply lethal force. If the target does not die, there is no problem legally as long as lethal force was justified. Warning shots obviously fall under the same guidelines, as a loose round not aimed at a person to whom you were allowed to inflict lethal force is legally a negligent discharge and endangers innocent bystanders.
That really clears things up. Thanks.
If this is the case, lets go back to the original question. If someone else is getting beaten or hurt, then it would never be justified for a bystander to open fire. Correct?
__________________
Shootnscoot is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 06:06 AM   #139
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 21984 Times on 12396 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shootnscoot View Post
No, I have not read the threads regarding warning shots or shooting to wound.
I have never intended to carry a firearm for self defense. I was simply giving a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

In that situation, why is it better to shoot to kill rather than disable?
pretty good example by both of the last two posters on why it's a bad idea.

IOW's, if you fire a pistol in SD at another person, you had better be fully aware everything you did will be scrutinized by many people that weren't even there. from a simple patrol officer all the way up to the district attorney.

in any SD/HD situation, you never shoot to kill or to wound, simply to stop a threat. now if they are wounded, so be it. if they are killed, again so be it. but you are simply trying to stop the threat from doing damage or to stop them from doing further damage. nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
Shootnscoot Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 06:10 AM   #140
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 21984 Times on 12396 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shootnscoot View Post
That really clears things up. Thanks.
If this is the case, lets go back to the original question. If someone else is getting beaten or hurt, then it would never be justified for a bystander to open fire. Correct?
that is pretty much dependent upon which state a person lives in and the laws in that state. read some of my past posts in this thread. these are simply how i feel and would respond and not advice or even a suggestion for others to follow. i have my own conscience and ethics to abide by and what i feel i should do. more to the point what i can do legally in the state of Texas. i can use deadly force in the defence of even a complete stranger if their life is in mortal danger. not every state allows that.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
How do you beat the heat? MisterMcCool The Club House 31 07-04-2013 06:59 PM
Armed 11 year old Girl Defends Home from 3 armed Burglars: Armed Citizen mesinge2 Legal and Activism 16 01-14-2011 09:20 PM
Beat me. Go Ahead. Benning Boy General Handgun Discussion 8 11-16-2009 10:22 PM