Shoot Until the Threat is no longer a Threat - Page 6
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Training & Safety >

Shoot Until the Threat is no longer a Threat


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-13-2013, 06:40 PM   #51
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JW357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,716
Liked 3733 Times on 2287 Posts
Likes Given: 1224

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbeezy
Call me naive, but why can't he just say that he feared for his life, but he didn't want to take another's? Wouldn't a jury sympathize with that? Why can't you stop a threat without ending their life, if at all possible?
The problem with that argument is that big ole slug up front in his load out.
__________________
Always have clean socks.
JW357 is offline  
Doc3402 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 06:50 PM   #52
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbeezy View Post
Call me naive, but why can't he just say that he feared for his life, but he didn't want to take another's? Wouldn't a jury sympathize with that? Why can't you stop a threat without ending their life, if at all possible?
That qualifies as a good question. The answer lies in the fact that his load of dove shot follows a slug. If he doesn't want to take a life, why does he have a slug first up in the gun?

Look, I don't fault the idea of not taking a life. In fact, I strongly agree with it... if you can get away with it and still adequately defend yourself. Mason's problem lies in the mix of rounds. He has a lethal load first up, and then it looks like he's trying to play with them. That is not a good combination, especially in a civil suit.
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 06:58 PM   #53
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kitsap County, Washington State
Posts: 577
Liked 196 Times on 122 Posts
Likes Given: 35

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402

That qualifies as a good question. The answer lies in the fact that his load of dove shot follows a slug. If he doesn't want to take a life, why does he have a slug first up in the gun?

Look, I don't fault the idea of not taking a life. In fact, I strongly agree with it... if you can get away with it and still adequately defend yourself. Mason's problem lies in the mix of rounds. He has a lethal load first up, and then it looks like he's trying to play with them. That is not a good combination, especially in a civil suit.
Yeah I realized that right after I posted. But I've read a lot of times on here people who say not to use less than lethal rounds because it won't look good. If I were on a jury I sure as hell wouldn't want to convict someone of anything just because they didn't shoot to kill. Context is everything, obviously, but I'm talking in a true life or death situation.

I think Mason would be better off to swap those rounds around though. If the bird shot doesn't work then follow it up with the slug.

As far as shooting them in the face with birdshot, I wouldn't have any sympathy for the criminal, but I know a lot of people would and that could be bad in court. If they're dumb enough to mess with a guy with a shotgun then they should shut up and deal with the consequences, if they're lucky enough to live.
sbeezy is offline  
MisterMcCool Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 07:30 PM   #54
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbeezy View Post
Yeah I realized that right after I posted. But I've read a lot of times on here people who say not to use less than lethal rounds because it won't look good. If I were on a jury I sure as hell wouldn't want to convict someone of anything just because they didn't shoot to kill. Context is everything, obviously, but I'm talking in a true life or death situation.

I think Mason would be better off to swap those rounds around though. If the bird shot doesn't work then follow it up with the slug.

As far as shooting them in the face with birdshot, I wouldn't have any sympathy for the criminal, but I know a lot of people would and that could be bad in court. If they're dumb enough to mess with a guy with a shotgun then they should shut up and deal with the consequences, if they're lucky enough to live.
Don't forget the two different types of trials a defender could be facing. In the criminal trial the burden of proof is much higher than it is in a civil trial. It is also a different question. In the criminal trial there is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or not guilty.

In a civil suit the question is different. In fact, there are multiple questions. Did an injury occur? Is the defendant the proximate cause of this injury? Was the defendant negligent in causing this injury? Did the defendant act as a reasonably prudent person would act under the same set of circumstances? You also don't have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement that you do in a criminal trial. He can be acquitted in criminal court and still lose his azz in civil court.

If I was a lawyer I would be all over the lethal load to center mass followed by the less than lethal loads to the legs and face. I would be screaming that the defendant's sole purpose was to cripple and maim. You know what? I would probably win.

I agree, they should shut up and accept the consequences, but they won't. It's never their fault. All they wanted was food for the baby. They couldn't find a job because the economy sucks, and the baby was hungry. He could have spared some milk. That's all I wanted. Now what am I going to do? My poor baby is going to starve because I can't go back to work. And on, and on, and on. It's all Dubya's fault.
Doc3402 is offline  
rjleal Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 07:32 PM   #55
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 3,206
Liked 2452 Times on 1342 Posts
Likes Given: 336

Default

Unless you are law enforcement using less lethal ammo that actually causes Injuries is BEGGING for lawsuits. And you do not have a department sized budget to absorb the cost and pay the defense attorneys.
__________________
"...it is ...ALIVE!!!"
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 07:34 PM   #56
McCool@email.com
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 10,494
Liked 9449 Times on 5108 Posts
Likes Given: 19638

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaF
Unless you are law enforcement using less lethal ammo that actually causes Injuries is BEGGING for lawsuits. And you do not have a department sized budget to absorb the cost and pay the defense attorneys.
Cops are above the law?
__________________
No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄
MisterMcCool is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 07:52 PM   #57
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 3,206
Liked 2452 Times on 1342 Posts
Likes Given: 336

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMcCool
Cops are above the law?
No. The point is when we use less lethal ammo we usually get sued. As long as we follow our policy (which is based on the law, and if anything it's stricter not more lenient) we don't pay for the attorneys and if we lose in court we don't pay out on the law suit.

If we violate policy then we pay for everything. An individual does not have that legal covering.
__________________
"...it is ...ALIVE!!!"

Last edited by DeltaF; 10-13-2013 at 07:57 PM.
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 08:00 PM   #58
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kitsap County, Washington State
Posts: 577
Liked 196 Times on 122 Posts
Likes Given: 35

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc3402

Don't forget the two different types of trials a defender could be facing. In the criminal trial the burden of proof is much higher than it is in a civil trial. It is also a different question. In the criminal trial there is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or not guilty.

In a civil suit the question is different. In fact, there are multiple questions. Did an injury occur? Is the defendant the proximate cause of this injury? Was the defendant negligent in causing this injury? Did the defendant act as a reasonably prudent person would act under the same set of circumstances? You also don't have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement that you do in a criminal trial. He can be acquitted in criminal court and still lose his azz in civil court.

If I was a lawyer I would be all over the lethal load to center mass followed by the less than lethal loads to the legs and face. I would be screaming that the defendant's sole purpose was to cripple and maim. You know what? I would probably win.

I agree, they should shut up and accept the consequences, but they won't. It's never their fault. All they wanted was food for the baby. They couldn't find a job because the economy sucks, and the baby was hungry. He could have spared some milk. That's all I wanted. Now what am I going to do? My poor baby is going to starve because I can't go back to work. And on, and on, and on. It's all Dubya's fault.
Yeah it's a messed up world with a deficit of common sense. It's such a joke when a criminal sues a LAC because he got a freakin booboo (while committing a crime) and then after he fails to get what he wants illegally, he turns around and tries to steal the shirt off their back in court. Besides the obvious fact of not WANTING to take someone life, I hope I never have to because of the chance that they'll put you through the wringer for it.


I think the double standard for police is kind of ridiculous. Why can't I shoot an idiot with a bean bag if he comes in my house acting like an idiot? I think we should have the option to preserve a moron's life before we go all the way and end them. I get the lawsuit side of it, but could I be arrested for using a less lethal round?
sbeezy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 08:09 PM   #59
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
7point62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Decisive Terrain
Posts: 2,151
Liked 1519 Times on 764 Posts
Likes Given: 1163

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
there is always that possibility. but, IMO, (this strictly my opinion and impressions) that for myself, i would err on the side of caution and would much rather have to defend my actions in a court of law, judged by twelve, rather than be carried by six.

another thing, any BG that would perpetrate violence upon others, is more than likely not a stranger to the justice system. and your attorney had better be bringing this subject up. IMO, the juries tend to side with a LAC who used deadly force over criminals that have been in and out of trouble.

No argument here. I always recommend an insurance shot to make sure the bastard never gets up...but I felt it my duty to at least bring up the legal ramifications. If it were up to me, I'd say empty the mag.
__________________
Hijo de mala leche
7point62 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 08:13 PM   #60
disappointed & disgusted, But DETERMINED...
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrFootball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northern Arizona(Fmr. NYC & L.I.)
Posts: 8,039
Liked 3387 Times on 2291 Posts
Likes Given: 710

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbeezy
Call me naive, but why can't he just say that he feared for his life, but he didn't want to take another's? Wouldn't a jury sympathize with that? Why can't you stop a threat without ending their life, if at all possible?
Because as has been said, You don't shoot to "wound" you shoot to stop the threat infront of you....As much as you want to be a "human" about it and be compassionate toward your fellow man, if your fellow man is trying to do you harm you can react in no other way.
__________________
askdrfootball@gmail.com

"The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather in a lack of will." Vince Lombardi

"No One, and I MEAN NO ONE Craps on me and Gets away with it!!! Those days are gone...
DrFootball is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Low threat threshold txpossum The Club House 5 04-18-2013 03:06 AM
Threat to Humans - Democide Daoust_Nat Legal and Activism 6 04-01-2013 01:49 PM
Another school threat Zombiegirl The Club House 33 12-17-2012 11:47 PM
Threat averted michigan0626 Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 7 08-11-2012 01:19 AM
Shoot until the threat changes shape or catches fire. fireguy Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 2 02-13-2012 02:42 AM



Newest Threads