Shoot Until the Threat is no longer a Threat - Page 7
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, 08:13 PM   #61
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 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.
Now you're talking. Keep it up and one day you'll be a cynical old fart just like me. <grin>


Quote:
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?
I seriously doubt you will ever see a LEO use a beanbag in a life or death situation. Beanbags, tear gas, and water cannons are reserved for situations where you really want to shoot something, but you can't quite justify deadly force. You know, the old angry advancing mob thing. I do sort of wish they would give the Taser a second look. I'm not convinced it is a less than lethal weapon. I know in my case it would be instantly fatal.
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 08:21 PM   #62
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,624
Liked 2220 Times on 1525 Posts
Likes Given: 820

Default

I can't see the point of less than lethal loads. I am not trying to break up a riot. I am trying to defend myself and/or my loved ones. I am trying to stop a life threatening act. I am in fear of losing my life. Even if I get a hang em high grand jury, they will not have reason to recommend a trial.

Last edited by John_Deer; 10-13-2013 at 08:30 PM.
John_Deer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 08:27 PM   #63
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 3,206
Liked 2451 Times on 1342 Posts
Likes Given: 336

Default

The less than lethal rounds are used to apprehend a subject and/or gain control of them. Members of the public have no duty to control criminals. Defending yourself is one thing. Depriving someone else of their freedom through a violent act is another. And much much harder to justify.
__________________
"...it is ...ALIVE!!!"
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 08:39 PM   #64
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kitsap County, Washington State
Posts: 577
Liked 195 Times on 122 Posts
Likes Given: 35

Default

I understand that someone breaking into your home or confronting you with what you perceive as deadly should and can be met with equally deadly force, I'm just looking at the other side of it and what you should legally be able to use as an alternative.

And why shouldn't a citizen have the right to apprehend a criminal? I know it's not their "job" and they shouldn't be out patrolling the streets looking to get into some sh!t. Not every circumstance would warrant deadly force, but that doesn't mean you should let them just get away does it? What about the next person down the road they decide to mess with?
sbeezy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 08:43 PM   #65
I don't come with an "edit" option....
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,842
Liked 919 Times on 579 Posts
Likes Given: 4839

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaF View Post

Haha. Yeah I think you're right. Sorry, kinda comes with the territory I guess.
I was being a bit crabby. Been at work for 20 hours at that point, and not enough coffee.

I know you guys are looking out for my wellbeing (as well as that of other members here), but quite honestly, if I have to defend my life with deadly force, I'm pretty much screwed anyway.

We do have a Castle Doctrine, with no duty to retreat. But the state is uber-liberal and will probably treat me (or another MA resident) worse than Zim.

My shotgun actually is loaded with PDX1 Defenders. I'd most likely use my Glock 20, as I'm much more comfortable with it.
__________________
Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere
Mason609 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 09:08 PM   #66
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,062
Liked 266 Times on 190 Posts
Likes Given: 30

Default

I've never been afflicted with qualms about haviing to " take a life " . The way I've always viewed it is that the criminal chose to take the risk of committing the crime and deserves whatever he gets, that whether his life is more valuable than my property is a decision he makes, that there is deterrant value in dead criminals , that he probably places little value on my life and that if the criminal is an imminent threat to others it is a no-brainer morally . One guy told me that dead men don't sue and I have no reason to doubt him .
I doubt that I would hesitate at a crucial moment . That said, I don't know what kind of emotional and legal troubles I might suffer afterwards .
From what I've read, when you are taking fire from an enemy bent on killing you and your family, you will want a 12 guage shotgun loaded with the most lethal, effective shells on the market, in fact you might want a 10 guage .
Rentacop is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 10:58 PM   #67
I don't come with an "edit" option....
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,842
Liked 919 Times on 579 Posts
Likes Given: 4839

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rentacop View Post
I've never been afflicted with qualms about haviing to " take a life " . The way I've always viewed it is that the criminal chose to take the risk of committing the crime and deserves whatever he gets, that whether his life is more valuable than my property is a decision he makes, that there is deterrant value in dead criminals , that he probably places little value on my life and that if the criminal is an imminent threat to others it is a no-brainer morally . One guy told me that dead men don't sue and I have no reason to doubt him .
I doubt that I would hesitate at a crucial moment . That said, I don't know what kind of emotional and legal troubles I might suffer afterwards .
From what I've read, when you are taking fire from an enemy bent on killing you and your family, you will want a 12 guage shotgun loaded with the most lethal, effective shells on the market, in fact you might want a 10 guage .
Don't get me wrong, making sure there is 1 less goblin in the world is something I can do. Please don't ask how I know.

If firepower is important to you, I suggest either a Ma Deuce or an elephant gun. I'm ok with my 10mm.
__________________
Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere
Mason609 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 01:13 AM   #68
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 3,206
Liked 2451 Times on 1342 Posts
Likes Given: 336

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbeezy
I understand that someone breaking into your home or confronting you with what you perceive as deadly should and can be met with equally deadly force, I'm just looking at the other side of it and what you should legally be able to use as an alternative. And why shouldn't a citizen have the right to apprehend a criminal? I know it's not their "job" and they shouldn't be out patrolling the streets looking to get into some sh!t. Not every circumstance would warrant deadly force, but that doesn't mean you should let them just get away does it? What about the next person down the road they decide to mess with?
I'm not saying what you SHOULD be able to do or what you SHOULD have the right to do. There's a lot of things I think that everyone SHOULD be able to do.


I'm passing on what attorneys have informed us is the way the courts are currently ruling.
__________________
"...it is ...ALIVE!!!"
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 01:33 AM   #69
McCool@email.com
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 10,228
Liked 9180 Times on 4962 Posts
Likes Given: 19351

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaF

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.
That's what you meant.
I have to stop judging so quickly.
__________________
No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄
MisterMcCool is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2013, 03:00 AM   #70
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,062
Liked 266 Times on 190 Posts
Likes Given: 30

Default

Okay, here's a better plan : Mossberg 590 U.S. Army Model loaded with the following shells in order :
*( 1 ) Tracer to scare the intruder and show you where the shot is going .
*( 1 ) Bean Bag load to apply non-lethal stopping power .
*( 1 ) Blank shell to scare him off if he needs more motivation .
*( 1 ) Rock salt load for kids stealing watermelons etc.
*( 1 ) Slug in case a deer busts into the house through your picture window
*( 1 ) 7 1/2 Bird Shot load for low penetration through walls as well as to sting neigborhood kids stealing apples out of trees far enough away that the shot won't penetrate skin .
Simply rack the action until you shuck down to the load you want . Unfortunately, by the time you've done that, the terrifying sound of a pump gun being racked will have scared away the intruder and you'll never find out if this ingenious system really works .
Rentacop 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