Jump to content
Mrs. Peel

Private Security Guard Stops Active Shooter from Entering Nightclub

Recommended Posts

Keep in mind that (last I looked)  90%+ of the people shot in a gunfight survive.  Does that mean failures on anyone's part?

With this in mind remember that if you get shot that doesn't mean you're going to die.  Read my post above where the good guy was shot in the mouth by the bad guy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where @Peter Goldwing is coming from.  

Shooting to stop someone IS aiming not at the arm or leg or stomach.  It's at the part of the body that incapacitates someone:  Head/high chest.  Both areas are deadly.

So, we may be taught to "shoot to stop" but in reality those shots are in possibly fatal locations.

Ya dig???

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

So, we may be taught to "shoot to stop" but in reality those shots are in possibly fatal locations.

Ya dig???

Kinda sounds like word games are being played, when the final outcome can be similar.

I was taught, if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, assume they're going to die, and you'll have to face that consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think it’s wordgames, you aren’t paying attention. It points to directly to intent and most significantly your mindset prior to the act.

These two things are crucial in a trial.

These are two things that can separate a self defense shooting from premeditated malicious intent or reckless action and the difference between stop and kill can make your deadly force response a reasonably necessary act and therefore justifiable.

These are two things that can either mitigate or aggravate the legality of your actions.

This simple but crucial distinction  between a desire to stop the actions of an attacker vs the desire to kill him is what the entire “A good guy with gun is what stops bad guys with guns” movement - something I think every law abiding gun owner agrees with - is predicated on. It is what separates the wolves of this world from the sheepdogs. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray Ray said:

I understand where @Peter Goldwing is coming from.  

Shooting to stop someone IS aiming not at the arm or leg or stomach.  It's at the part of the body that incapacitates someone:  Head/high chest.  Both areas are deadly.

So, we may be taught to "shoot to stop" but in reality those shots are in possibly fatal locations.

Ya dig???

Ray Ray, yes. I dig. 

Deadly Force is defined as “Force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person”. It is understood that the person against whom you are using force may be seriously killed or injured by your actions.

The definition of your lawful actions sounds an awful lot like the unlawful actions of your target of deadly force don’t they? That’s because they are the same thing. 

You can use deadly force lawfully against someone that is using deadly against you or another unlawfully.

So, what makes your application of deadly force legal and his illegal?

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, High Exposure said:

So, what makes your application of deadly force legal and his illegal?

What makes my application legal is that deadly force was thrust upon me unwillingly, unwarranted and without my concent.

What makes his illegal is the fact that he tried to kill me or my family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

What makes my application legal is that deadly force was thrust upon me unwillingly, unwarranted and without my concent.

What makes his illegal is the fact that he tried to kill me or my family.

Correct.

So, if you lived in a free state or were traveling to PA -  when you strapped on your heater before going out was it with the intent/mindset to kill someone, or stop someone from trying to kill you our someone you love?

Or do you just want to carry a gun to kill someone?

Keeping your background in mind Ray, remember that this discussion is about the Constitutional Use of Force and not Rules of Engagement. I’m sure the difference was beaten into you in the CG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, High Exposure said:

Correct.

So, if you lived in a free state or were traveling to PA -  when you strapped on your heater before going out was it with the intent/mindset to kill someone, or stop someone from trying to kill you our someone you love?

Or do you just want to carry a gun to kill someone?

Keeping your background in mind Ray, remember that this discussion is about the Constitutional Use of Force and not Rules of Engagement. I’m sure the difference was beaten into you in the CG.

My CG training was not on rules of engagement but how to keep the ship afloat at any cost.  

If I am carrying a gun, regardless of location since it doesn't matter to me, I will pull the trigger as much as needed.  Whether the perp dies or not is inconsequential because he or she or they made that decision to play with fire.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ray Ray said:

if I am carrying a gun, regardless of location since it doesn't matter to me, I will pull the trigger as much as needed.  Whether the perp dies or not is inconsequential because he or she or they made that decision to play with fire.  

I think the point others are trying to make is that “as needed” is defined as when the threat is stopped. That may or may not be the same as when the threat is killed.  And if the threat is stopped you won’t purposefully keep pulling the trigger to kill

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I think the point others are trying to make is that “as needed” is defined as when the threat is stopped. That may or may not be the same as when the threat is killed.  And if the threat is stopped you won’t purposefully keep pulling the trigger to kill

I get that, but if you do your part in regards to shot placement then the perp isn't going to make it.

I know, 90% of handgun wounds are not fatal and yadda yadda yadda, but let's be serious.   A 124 grain bullet traveling at 1200 feet per second hitting said perp in the head and/or chest is probably gonna give said perp a dirt nap.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

I get that, but if you do your part in regards to shot placement then the perp isn't going to make it.

I know, 90% of handgun wounds are not fatal and yadda yadda yadda, but let's be serious.   A 124 grain bullet traveling at 1200 feet per second hitting said perp in the head and/or chest is probably gonna give said perp a dirt nap.  

That’s called lethal force. It has higher probability of lethality vs less than lethal force. Regardless, this thread has become both enlightening and full retard.

Security guard obviously has some training as she’s prepared to render aid, and renders aid. Her hit was his leg. Training says center mass, but we all mis, or under duress can shank a boolit. 

And she wanted to stop the perp and not kill him. Her words

And she is hot.

Keyboard marksman is an accurate term for what has transpired here. And for those that feel it’s their obligation to kill, you are on a public facing forum, and your gladiator syndrome might actually bite you in the ass someday. God forbid 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess a judge will drop a shooters charge of "attempted murder" of a cop if his lawyer states  that he didn't want to kill the cop, just wanted to prevent the cop from apprehending him.

We didnt  want to kill the Germans, just tried to stop them taking over the world. See the idiocy?

Whats more idiotic about this is the High Exposure will aim at head and chest as I do. But I want to kill while he wants to stop the threat. BS describes it.Same very action different wording. 

 

And if the guy still moves he deems the threat wasn't stopped and puts another bullet in the guys head. Nuff said.

 

  • FacePalm 1
  • Disagree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray Ray said:

I get that, but if you do your part in regards to shot placement then the perp isn't going to make it.

I know, 90% of handgun wounds are not fatal and yadda yadda yadda, but let's be serious.   A 124 grain bullet traveling at 1200 feet per second hitting said perp in the head and/or chest is probably gonna give said perp a dirt nap.  

Ray, you are smarter than that. You know the above is bullshit for a whole bunch of reasons ranging from performance-on-demand issues to fucking bullet voodoo to bad guys that just won’t give up.

Not to mention that handguns are notoriously bad at stopping fights and that most people shot with a handgun bullet die of old age.

Regardless, whether the bad guys dies or lives is inconsequestial to the reason you used deadly force to begin with. That reason doesn’t change no matter the body temp of the bad guy post-engagement. Your intent was to stop. To quote Ivan Drago - “If he dies, he dies”.

20 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

If you are carrying a gun and you think, I will shoot the guy and he will stop, your kidding yourself.  Be prepared to kill someone.  That is it.  

If you are carrying a gun for defensive purposes, be prepared to do what needs doing - anything from harsh language up to shooting him in the face - until the threat is no longer a threat. Then re-evaluate. That is it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sniper said:

Kinda sounds like word games are being played, when the final outcome can be similar.

I was taught, if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, assume they're going to die, and you'll have to face that consequence.

it is word games in a way. and those word games will keep you from spending a long time at the greybar motel if you had to use said force. 

 

 ya digit man?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add a wrinkle. What does center mass mean? I would ABSOLUTELY defer to High Exposure's position on the topic as I am well aware of his background and cadre of trainers he has studied under. But I think a case could absolutely be made for a leg shot in the right circumstances. If the BG needs shooting and the leg is the only available, Im shooting for center mass of the target presented!

As a side note I am convinced that a few of you cant brake set from your suppositions and intake what is being said in plain english.....

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shane45 said:

Let me add a wrinkle. What does center mass mean? I would ABSOLUTELY defer to High Exposure's position on the topic as I am well aware of his background and cadre of trainers he has studied under. But I think a case could absolutely be made for a leg shot in the right circumstances. If the BG needs shooting and the leg is the only available, Im shooting for center mass of the target presented!

As a side note I am convinced that a few of you cant brake set from your suppositions and intake what is being said in plain english.....

Precisely.

I taught shooting for the largest target available.  If the bad guy is behind cover but not using it properly and you have a foot, knee, elbow, or gluetus maximus sticking out, shoot that.  Sure to get their attention.

The article says she shot him in the leg.  It also says she said, "I'm not here to kill anyone".  No where does it say she shot him in the leg because she didn't want to kill him.  Did I miss that?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely Shane.

If you can positively ID it belongs to the bad guy and you can articulate that deadly force is still appropriate - find the biggest piece of meat that you can see, center your sights, and press the trigger. This may not kill your target, but it may stop their violent actions.

At the very least, have demonstrated your willingness to fight back - that alone stops many attackers. And a hit to any part of an attacker's body will certainly not improve his situation.

You could reduce ability and capability by getting a peripheral hit that restricts or at least reduces movement. If the bad guy is stuck in place, you can maneuver to a superior position to finish the fight. If he loses ability because he can only use one arm to shoot, you have an absolute advantage.

Griz,

I couldn’t find that correlation either. Lots of supposition along with some pretty wild and unrealistic expectations of what a bullet can do and what the laws of self defense demands.

This woman did very well. She did and said the right things to prepare herself and to positively influence her position before, during, and after the fight.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shane45 said:

Let me add a wrinkle. What does center mass mean? I would ABSOLUTELY defer to High Exposure's position on the topic as I am well aware of his background and cadre of trainers he has studied under. But I think a case could absolutely be made for a leg shot in the right circumstances. If the BG needs shooting and the leg is the only available, Im shooting for center mass of the target presented!

As a side note I am convinced that a few of you cant brake set from your suppositions and intake what is being said in plain english.....

that is what's always been taught at classes i've taken

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I don't disagree with  HE or Shane or Griz, it's that I am prepared to go the distance.  And I am sure they are and many here are as well.  Not all, but many. 

Thanks for the back and forth, I appreciate the well thought out responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

It's not that I don't disagree with  HE or Shane or Griz, it's that I am prepared to go the distance.  And I am sure they are and many here are as well.  Not all, but many. 

Thanks for the back and forth, I appreciate the well thought out responses.

You’re a lover not a killer 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, High Exposure said:

Not to mention that handguns are notoriously bad at stopping fights and that most people shot with a handgun bullet die of old age.

Yes, that is true.  Which is why we teach center mass and snot box shots.

I am sure many of the above mentioned shooting victims were shot in the butt or arm or any other non life threatening area.  I want to know how many survived snot box and chest holes.   Not many 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...