Jump to content
Mrs. Peel

Private Security Guard Stops Active Shooter from Entering Nightclub

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

You and another poster are assuming that. It's not clear from the article. Her comment about "I didn't want to kill him" could have just as easily been referring to the fact that she rendered aid while he was bleeding out. There is NO clear statement that she purposefully shot him in his thigh. Her shot may have simply landed low. We just don't know.

Her exact statement, "I'm not here to kill anyone" sounds like she's referencing the actual shooting, not rendering first aid. She also said " I was behind a vehicle… basically just maneuvered around the vehicle as he maneuvered around the other side of it to make sure I was properly concealed and covered,” she added.

That sounds like she had some time to plan her shot. Was she aiming low, we'd have to ask her? Her comment makes me think so.

If her statement, "I'm not here to kill anyone",  was referencing after the fact, I think she would have said something like "then I tried to save him". There's two different issues at play here.

1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

think of how fast that situation likely unfolded... bullets are flying, adrenaline is pumping, she's taking cover, she gets off a couple of shots that put the guy down... we're really going to critique this to death?

Are we not allowed to have our own opinions, after reading an article? You know, that whole 1st Amendment thing?

1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Can't we just celebrate the fact that an armed citizen stopped a potential mass shooter?

I'd doubt there is anyone in this thread that doesn't celebrate that. We just have different opinions on mindset if you pull a weapon for a defensive reason.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Peter Goldwing said:

I tend to believe you dont understand  the  immediate need or urgency of using a gun. Not that Im an expert either.

You shoot the gun out as the last resort. If your life  or someone's else life is TRURLY in danger and there is no option but shooting to kill. This lady was lucky but things could have turned ugly and she easily could have been killed herself.

 What happens if you try to just stop somebody by injuring  and accidentally you kill him ?

" I just tried to stop him" doesn't work well in court.

I admit at times just producing the weapon might stop someone in his track but shooting to hurt  is no way to go for me.

JMOHO

I am an expert and I do understand the quickness with which violence occurs and the urgency of deploying a firearm in a DPF confrontation.

I carry a gun every day and teach others to do the same . A large part of what I teach my people are the the intricacies of the proper use of force and the mindset to apply it correctly to whatever scenario you find yourself in. Additionally - here is the important part - I teach them how to continually evaluate the effectiveness of the force you used to make sure it stays reasonable and appropriate to the task at hand.

Read what I said. I never said you should shoot to hurt. Read what I said - “Shoot to stop”.

“I attempted to stop him” is exactly what works in court. This is what defenders do.

“I attempted to kill him” also works in court, if you want to be found guilty. This is what murderers do.

Our goal is never to kill anyone. It is to stop the immediate or imminent violent actions of a perpetrator. Full stop. Period. The end.

Death may be the only way to stop them. Death may follow a short time after you stop them. But, death is not the intended end state. It is merely a byproduct of your options.

The direct actions of another that have risen to the level where they may kill or seriously injure me, or someone in my care in the immediate future is what permits me to use deadly force in defense of myself or others. 

Keep in mind, there is more than one kind of stop - primarily we talk about two:

• Psychological stops

• Physiological stops. 

Physiological stops are further broken down into:

• Timers - you injured them but they are still alive. They may die in 30 seconds or they may live another 20 years

• Switches - this is a CNS got where they literally turn off. Some nerve and tendon hits that instantly remove the ability to move a body part can also be switches.

Scenario - I observe someone committing an act that legally, morally, and ethically permits me to use deadly force to stop them. I draw my pistol and fire one shot.

Outcome 1: I miss, but it’s enough to make the perp stop what they are doing and follow my commands to the point I can control them until police/backup arrive. The perp is no longer putting anyone in immediate or imminent danger. Can I continue to shoot them until they are dead?

Outcome 2: This time my shot hits them the the heart and severs the spine. The perp is instantly killed and slumps to the ground. This is a physiological stop with a switch. I just turned the guy off. While it is a known possible and acceptable outcome of my intervention, it is not the goal of my use of force.

Outcome 3: This time my shot hits him in the belly and the victim is able to scramble away. The perp doesn’t die immediately -This is a physiological stop of the timer variety. Again, my intervention was enough to make him stop his violent actions to where the target of his attack is now safe. Can I keep shooting simply because the perp is still alive? Of course not - that would be murder. Now, if he stops obeying my commands and his actions return to the the level of permitting deadly force, then yes, I am permitted to intervene again.

Yes, there are times where you are technically shooting to kill. For example a hostage situation where you are going for the headshot. The mindset however is not to take a kill shot. It is a calculated physiological stop (switch) designed to reduce the risk to another. Not a conscious decision to just kill someone out of hand.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BobA said:

Maybe she is just into legs. Some women are like that, you know. 

Many self defense shooting are in the legs and ground at the feet of a target. 

There are two factors at play here.

One is that the person shooting in defense is shooting early on the drawstroke before the weapon is fully presented. The muzzle is pointed low on the body of their target as they attempt to bring the gun to face level and assurance what they think is a proper shooting stance. The immediacy of the event causes them to, understandably, start pressing the trigger early - while the muzzle is still sweeping up from the draw.

Second is that the person shooting in self defense is typically shooting over the sights in an attempt to see their entire threat. This causes shots to go lower than intended.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

I am an expert 

 

Cops are shooting to stop the treat  not by aiming at their legs.

Your theory only applies when you confront someone that has some weapon other  than a firearm AND is at some distance.

While we celebrate that pretty lady, either she missed her intended target or made a judgement mistake. Or she might be Clint Eastwood in disguise.

In real emergency  the sights on your gun are useless and one that says he tries to stop the threat by hurting  rather than killing someone is full of BS

Shooting to stop encompasses all sort of  shooting .

Maybe you are an expert but I doubt it

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fishnut said:

@Peter Goldwing

So what's your plan if you get shot???? 

It's a simple question. 

Lay down and die? I just cannot see myself carry all that stuff around. Its like wearing a helmet in your car or having a fire extinguisher strapped to your back at all times.

But whatever makes you feel more comfortable.

  • Disagree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Peter Goldwing said:

Lay down and die? I just cannot see myself carry all that stuff around. Its like wearing a helmet in your car or having a fire extinguisher strapped to your back at all times.

But whatever makes you feel more comfortable.

All that stuff? 2 items that weigh less that my cell phone is not allot of stuff. Lmao. Well I hope you never learn the lesson about being prepared the hard way. 

FWIW I do have a fire extinguisher in every vehicle I own along with a a get home bag. 

Proper planning prevents piss poor performance 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Her exact statement, "I'm not here to kill anyone" sounds like she's referencing the actual shooting, not rendering first aid. She also said " I was behind a vehicle… basically just maneuvered around the vehicle as he maneuvered around the other side of it to make sure I was properly concealed and covered,” she added.

That sounds like she had some time to plan her shot. Was she aiming low, we'd have to ask her? Her comment makes me think so.

If her statement, "I'm not here to kill anyone",  was referencing after the fact, I think she would have said something like "then I tried to save him". There's two different issues at play here.

Are we not allowed to have our own opinions, after reading an article? You know, that whole 1st Amendment thing?

What you said above is completely fair... it may seem like a fine point, but in your statements above you're at least admitting that it's your opinion and your interpretation of the article... whereas the post I objected to sounded like more of a declarative statement: that it was a certainty that she purposefully "winged" him.

My point remains that none of us were there, none of us were in her head, and to boot, "journalists" often use editing to construct a sometimes sloppy or even slanted rendition of what happened. Had you said, ""I believe she tried to shoot him in the leg..." or "It sounds like she tried to wing him, which is too risky..." I would never have commented in the first place! 

Anyway, you seemed to have taken offense where none was meant... so hopefully I've added some clarity. Now, unruffle your feathers... and have a nice hot cup of tea! It's the weekend, don't be a grumble-bunny. ;) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter Goldwing said:

Lay down and die? I just cannot see myself carry all that stuff around. Its like wearing a helmet in your car or having a fire extinguisher strapped to your back at all times.

But whatever makes you feel more comfortable.

I can see how slipping these three items in a pocket can seem so onerous:

2wXsMvJ.jpg

We are not talking an aid bag or even an IFAK. You can do a lot with just these three things and a little bit of knowledge. If you add a mini compression bandage, you are even more capable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Peter Goldwing said:

Cops are shooting to stop the treat  not by aiming at their legs.

Your theory only applies when you confront someone that has some weapon other  than a firearm AND is at some distance.

While we celebrate that pretty lady, either she missed her intended target or made a judgement mistake. Or she might be Clint Eastwood in disguise.

In real emergency  the sights on your gun are useless and one that says he tries to stop the threat by hurting  rather than killing someone is full of BS

Shooting to stop encompasses all sort of  shooting .

Maybe you are an expert but I doubt it

You are not comprehending what I am saying. That’s probably my fault.

Again, we as the Good Guys - whether it be cops or armed citizen - we all shoot to stop. 

The proven, and therefore preferred, method to stop a violent attacker intent on killing or seriously injuring you or someone in your care is to put rounds in the high chest until the you observe a change in behavior from your target and the violent actions of the perp cease.  

YES, hits to this area of the body will likely result in death. But the human body is an amazing and resilient bit of flesh and Doctors today can perform miracles treating this kind of trauma. 

Because hits to the chest are so effective at quickly stopping violent actions, anyone trained to carry a gun for defensive purposes trains to hit the “A” zone, upper thoracic, the “pump”, etc... This is accepted and is what we all practice on the square range.

In the real world, sometimes our rounds don’t go where we want. We may be intending to hit high chest but instead our rounds hit ankle, leg, pelvis, stomach, shoulder, arm, hand, etc...

These “misses” (I contend that any shot this doesn’t go where we want is a miss even if it still strikes the intended target) are a byproduct of dealing with a real world deadly force situation while having only square range training to prepare your actions.

That being said, they may be misses, however, they may still work. If this peripheral shot to an unintended part of the body still stops the actions of the bad guy, then this is where the fight stops and your individual trained post engagement sequence begins.

We don’t continue to shoot because “we shoot to kill” and he’s still alive. That’s murder and it’s what we are striving to prevent. Once the violent actions cease, your legal, moral, and ethical authority to use deadly force against this perp ceases.

So, as I said above your intended and trained point of aim should be high chest area.  But life sucks and Lady Luck is a harsh mistress. Sometimes that part of the body is not available due to the presence of cover or concealment, maybe the perp is wearing armor, or there may be innocents in the line of sight between you and your target.

 When this happens your point of aim must shift to the center of mass of the largest portion of the body that is visible. In other words, if all you have to shoot at is a foot, by all means shoot that foot. I may not kill the guy, but it won’t increase his morale any, and it will definitely affect his mobility making it easier to fix his position so you can finish the fight. 

Just keep in mind that if the foot shot, or any peripheral hit, stops the fight, you can not subsequently put two in the chest and one in the head simply because your mindset is “When I draw my pistol, it’s to kill someone.”

No, you draw your pistol to stop a deadly force encounter. To change the behavior of a violent person intent on doing you or yours harm.

You may succeed in stopping it without ever firing a shot.

Or you may need to put one in the bad guys computer and shit him off.

Or you may need to put several spread all around the body until he leaks enough hydraulic fluid that his blood pressure drops rendering him unconscious.

Ultimately, the bad guy decides when the fight is over. Not you.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Informative 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll simplify what @High Exposure said.

You shoot to stop not to kill. That's what self defense is.  Shooting to kill is murder.

Deadly force is justified when someone is doing something so bad they have to be stopped right now.  What they are doing is so bad it doesn't matter whether they live or die.

Many times when the good guy draws and the bad guy sees his gun he stops.  That is a win.

There are times where the good guy draws, fires, and misses.  The bad guy stops.  That is a win.

If it's a one on one confrontation you shoot until the bad guy stops.  1 shot, 3 shots, or 10 shots.  Whatever it takes to stop him.  If the bad guy gets hit and goes down but still has his gun with the ability to shoot you keep shooting until they stop.  Just because the bad guy goes down doesn't mean you're not getting shot.

I have personal knowledge of an incident where a LEO shot a bad guy 6 times with a revolver.  All were good hits.  When asked why he shot the bad guy 6 times the LEO's response was, "that's all the bullets I had in my gun".

My agency used to teach a technique for close range that works.  You start shooting as soon as the muzzle is pointed at the bad guy.  Now you may hit the bad guy in the foot or leg with your first shot but that will get his attention.  You continue to shoot as the recoil brings your gun higher.

Does this work?  Someone from the agency I worked for was shot in the mouth by a bad guy with a 380 at a range of about 10 feet.  That was the only shot the bad guy got off.  He knew he was hit but give him a lot of credit for staying in the fight.  The good guy drew and started firing when his gun was pointed at the the bad guy.  He hit the bad guy in the thigh, the hip, and in his liver and the BG was down and out of the fight.  He quickly bled out from the shot to the liver. The good guy recovered fully and went back to work.

Point shooting is both an art and a science few people learn.

USPSA, IDPA, or any type of shooting is good practice but it is not gunfighting.  The shooting skill is only about 5% of gunfighting.  95% is between your ears.  Many of the people I know that prevailed in a gunfight were only mediocre shooters on the range.

This woman did a good job IMO.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

My point remains that none of us were there, none of us were in her head, and to boot, "journalists" often use editing to construct a sometimes sloppy or even slanted rendition of what happened.

I agree... Many times we have to read between the lines, and make determinations, to get to the real story.

37 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Anyway, you seemed to have taken offense where none was meant... so hopefully I've added some clarity. Now, unruffle your feathers... and have a nice hot cup of tea! It's the weekend, don't be a grumble-bunny. ;) 

No offense was ever taken, I'm a big boy and have thick skin, and appreciate opposing view points. I also don't subscribe to the "hive" and "pack" mentality, as some others in this thread do. Unfortunately, some here (not you specifically) can't handle a different point of view on a topic that differs from their own. Sometimes I wonder if they're actually closet Liberals...

My feathers have always been tucked in.... You don't want to see when I have to untuck them, it's not a pretty sight, and that's reserved for special occasions. :yahoo:

Oh, and it's coffee, not tea.... CAFFEINE RULES!!!!!!!! :good:

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 1:34 PM, High Exposure said:

Strong work by this security guard. This is an outstanding example of good people with guns standing up to bad people with guns and being a protector.

***Important point of order***

We shoot to stop. 

We don’t shoot to kill.

That very important distinction is what makes us the Good Guys.

Anyone who says otherwise either doesn’t understand the laws pertaining to the proper application of deadly force, is attempting to perfect the art of machismo and braggadocio, or just trying to be funny.

Yes, our application of deadly force may cause our target to die. Yes, the application of deadly force that will stop a threat fastest and be most appropriate may be to use a weapon or TTP that will cause instant death - but the actual killing of another human being is never the goal. 

As for first aid supplies, I keep a TQ, gloves, compression bandage, and Quick Clot on me when I carry a gun.

Its primary use is for me and mine.

Its secondary use is for other innocent victims in the area.

Its final use is to treat my target. That is if they survive long enough for me to complete my post engagement sequence and are validated to no longer be a threat.

I also carry some kind of restraint for the event I get a psychological stop of the targets actions vs a physiological or traumatic stop.

sorry, never in my life or former profession have I ever heard of any training that tells you to draw your weapon and not shoot to stop/incapacitate the threat.  In fact, training is explicit in that you don't 'aim for the leg, the arm or to wound' so where the fk are you getting your training?  Is this some new liberal approach to LE?  Pending on role and training, you aim for head or center mass and shoot till the threat has stopped. 

Please don't say I don't understand the laws pertaining to proper application of force, don't try that here as you don't know the full background on many guys here.

 

I'm almost laughing here at the suggestion that anyone is trained not to shoot to kill/incapacitate.  Now we can debate incapacitate and taking a life is a heavy burden but there is no debate here.  You draw your weapon, the law assumes a credible threat to body and person.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, myhatinthering said:

sorry, never in my life or former profession have I ever heard of any training that tells you to draw your weapon and not shoot to stop/incapacitate the threat.  In fact, training is explicit in that you don't 'aim for the leg, the arm or to wound' so where the fk are you getting your training?  Is this some new liberal approach to LE?  Pending on role and training, you aim for head or center mass and shoot till the threat has stopped. 

This ^^

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

sorry, never in my life or former profession have I ever heard of any training that tells you to draw your weapon and not shoot to stop/incapacitate the threat.  In fact, training is explicit in that you don't 'aim for the leg, the arm or to wound' so where the fk are you getting your training?  Is this some new liberal approach to LE?  Pending on role and training, you aim for head or center mass and shoot till the threat has stopped. 

 Please don't say I don't understand the laws pertaining to proper application of force, don't try that here as you don't know the full background on many guys here.

 

I'm almost laughing here at the suggestion that anyone is trained not to shoot to kill/incapacitate.  Now we can debate incapacitate and taking a life is a heavy burden but there is no debate here.  You draw your weapon, the law assumes a credible threat to body and person.

Unless I am missing something, that is exactly what HE said.

I quote:

"***Important point of order***
We shoot to stop. 
We don’t shoot to kill. "

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, BobA said:

I don’t often agree with @Mrs. Peel‘s choices of censorship but this REALLY should be another thread. 

Goodness.. who did I "censor"? That seems a thoroughly unfair charge. I often weigh in on threads - as a regular ol' poster - where I might differ with someone else's opinion. But I have exercised (I think!!) a very light touch in the "moderator" role... as a general rule, I don't delete opinions I disagree with, except for spam...or in the rare circumstance that someone is clearly breaking forum rules, but even then, I prefer the route of pointing that out on the thread so that posters can edit it themselves. In addition, we have multiple people on here with administrative privileges - don't assume changes you didn't like were made by ME just because I commented on a thread.. If you have a specific issue, please PM me. I'm always happy to discuss!  I just don't like getting tagged with what I feel is an unfair charge. Color me sensitive!  :blush:

PS - feel free to open another thread on this topic, though I think some people are just being thick-headed about what @High Exposure posted... and will continue to be. NOWHERE did he say "aim for the leg". I challenge anyone to find that in his posts... it's simply not there.. :facepalm:

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, myhatinthering said:

sorry, never in my life or former profession have I ever heard of any training that tells you to draw your weapon and not shoot to stop/incapacitate the threat.  In fact, training is explicit in that you don't 'aim for the leg, the arm or to wound' so where the fk are you getting your training?  Is this some new liberal approach to LE?  Pending on role and training, you aim for head or center mass and shoot till the threat has stopped. 

Please don't say I don't understand the laws pertaining to proper application of force, don't try that here as you don't know the full background on many guys here.

 

I'm almost laughing here at the suggestion that anyone is trained not to shoot to kill/incapacitate.  Now we can debate incapacitate and taking a life is a heavy burden but there is no debate here.  You draw your weapon, the law assumes a credible threat to body and person.

No where does anyone say "shoot them in the leg".  A few have said shoot to stop.

Gunfighting is not shooting at a stationary silhouette on a range.  Both you and your target are often moving. What you aim for isn't necessarily what you hit due to this.  At 2 mph an object moves about 3' per second in .25 second that's 9".  That's a big difference when you're trying to hit something moving.

Any hit on the bad guy that makes him stop is a win.  Yes, he may be hit in the leg, arm, hand or wherever but decides he doesn't relish the possibility of being shot again and gives up.

Someone mentioned she had time to plan her shot.  I don't think so. That rarely happens. Gunfighting is not hunting from a blind or walking the USPSA course of fire dry to figure how you'll engage the targets.  Gunfighting is right here, right now, react.  One needs to plan well before you're in a fight. When that fight comes instead of saying, "OMG!!! What am I going to do!!!", you say, "I knew this would happen some day and I know what to do".

This woman managed to stop this bad guy with one shot.  She did a good job.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Pete, dont let your ego keep you from backing away from a bad position. Seriously.

Some of you are just not tracking the language that is being presented to you. It has been put forth clearly and thoughtfully.  Your not intaking it correctly.

It is political now. Dont use the word "kill "but "stop"instead and you'll be fine. Ill be happy to admit to my being wrong if I was, but as you could see by other  posters Im not. Cops dont aim for legs unless that all thats visible. 

Its fine with me :be the "good guy with a gun" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

4 hours ago, myhatinthering said:

sorry, never in my life or former profession have I ever heard of any training that tells you to draw your weapon and not shoot to stop/incapacitate the threat.  In fact, training is explicit in that you don't 'aim for the leg, the arm or to wound' so where the fk are you getting your training?  Is this some new liberal approach to LE?  Pending on role and training, you aim for head or center mass and shoot till the threat has stopped. 

Please don't say I don't understand the laws pertaining to proper application of force, don't try that here as you don't know the full background on many guys here.

 

I'm almost laughing here at the suggestion that anyone is trained not to shoot to kill/incapacitate.  Now we can debate incapacitate and taking a life is a heavy burden but there is no debate here.  You draw your weapon, the law assumes a credible threat to body and person.

Are you guys fucking with me? Seriously? Am I being Punk'd?

Did you guys forget to put on your thinking caps today? Did reading comprehension fly out the window? Did we decide to think like liberals today and no one sent me the memo?

Show me where I ever said to purposefully shoot to wound. Read through what I posted.  Read all of it. I'll wait....

One more time for the cheap seats:

As good guys -

WE DO NOT SHOOT TO KILL. WE SHOOT TO STOP.

Period. The end. Full stop. This has been what is taught since before I went to the Academy. It is what I was taught to teach others. It is what I teach all of my cops and all of my SWAT guys. It is the accepted reason, supported by case law as a seizure under the 4th amendment, to use deadly force.

I said we shoot to stop, not to kill in direct response to your post where you said this:

On 1/11/2019 at 10:54 AM, myhatinthering said:

shoot to kill, never to wound

If you would have said "shoot to incapacitate, never to wound", or "shoot to stop, never to wound" or even "you to draw your weapon and not shoot to stop/incapacitate the threat" like you did in your latest post, I never would have opened my mouth.

We train to hit high center mass of our human adversary, not because that is more likely to kill them, but because it is the largest piece of meat to target and it contains the most critical areas on the body. Areas that have proven to be the most effective at rapidly incapacitating/stopping a threat. When the threat is stopped/incapacitated we have then removed the threats ability to continue whatever act they were committing that authorized the use of force in the first place.

This knowledge is gained from studying years of use of force applications and their effectiveness.

A side effect is that shots to his area of our body also have a higher likelihood of causing death - but death is not our goal.

What I did actually say was that:

A) Sometimes people miss completely or they hit something other than what they are aiming at.

B) Sometimes we don't have a high upper chest area to shoot at and choose to shoot at the center of another body part that is available.

Finally, here is the important part: If any force used by you in defense of yourself or another successfully stops the threat from continuing actions that were likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, your legal permission to use deadly force ceases. The force used that stops the threat's actions does not matter. The force could be your mere presence as an armed good guy. It could be giving verbal commands or brandishing a firearm. It may even rise to the level of actually firing a shot. That shot may miss or hits an area of the body that is non-critical. It doesn't matter. If your interventions makes the bad guys stop then you must stop any application of deadly as well. (Note, pointing a gun at someone/covering their position is NOT deadly force and can be used to secure a bad guy as you wait for assistance)

The trick here is we do not get to choose what causes the bad guy to stop. That is up to the bad guy. For some, it is the presence of armed resistance. For others, it can be merely being shot at and missed. And for others, they will fight to the death. The secret is that we need to constantly evaluate the effectiveness of our intervention, and react accordingly.

The above is all speaking in general terms that everyone that carries a firearm in self defense should understand.

As to this specific incident, all I know is that her intervention worked and she evaluated it correctly.

I don't know why the bad guy took a round to the leg. Wasn't my gun fight.

Having experience reviewing use of force incidents I can think of a few reasons why he bad guy took a round in the leg, but they are educated assumptions at best.

Is that all she had to shoot it? If so, good for her - that is a good mindset. Hit his leg, decrease his morale and mobility. This allows you to fix his position so you can move to a position of advantage and finish the fight.

Did she purposefully aim for the leg in an attempt to wound - I would not advocate this, but as I stated earlier, it was not my gunfight. She did what she thought she had to do.

Or, did she aim high chest and just hit him in the leg? As I stated in an earlier post it happens. Starting from behind the power curve she may have wanted to get on the trigger faster, she may have lost some of the finer aspects of trigger control under stress, and she may have likely been shooting over her sights so she can see her whole threat, again causing shots to go low. All three of these things are common in a defensive gunfight.

This is all nice to hot-wash with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and none of it matters.

What does matter is that her shot, regardless of where she hit or her intentions, stopped the bad guy without anyone else being injured.

What is important to note is that this armed defender recognized that her shot ceased the assailants actions, and she no longer had the right to continue to shoot him. She appropriately stopped shooting, and began her rehearsed post engagement sequence.

She is a rock star in my book.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before,  just word play. Putting an animal "to sleep" or "euthanizing" it is just another word for killing it. But it sounds nicer.

Stoping the threat is nicer but you aim to kill. Maybe after the guy being shot in the leg or arm decides to put his hands up and  THEN  you stop shooting. But things happen very fast in close shooting quarters and you dont have the luxury to analyze the situation during the incident. Yep we shoot to stop the threat by aiming at chest, head and put sufficient lead out till the guy drops. Happy now? And that was my last comment on the subject. It getting boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, as a former NJ LEO and federal LEO (and still an adjunct instructor at Bergen County Police Academy), having served as a firearms and use of force instructor, and having completed more advanced training in these subjects than I can keep track of with the state, feds, IALEFI, Gunsite, Lethal Force Institute, et al, I can state as an ABSOLUTE fact that law enforcement (as well as advanced level non-LEO shooters, via Gunsite and LFI) are taught Shoot to Stop. We are taught that in court we are to specify that we shot to stop, not to kill. The only justification to use deadly force is to stop an imminent lethal threat. Our goal is stop someone from doing something terminally bad, right here, right now. The fact that a shot likely to stop may be likely to kill, also, is completely incidental. (In reality, most gunshot wounds are not lethal anyway). LEOs are also required to render first aid after the threat has been neutralized and the scene is safe (non-LEOs are not required to do this). The only person who can legally take action with the "intent" to kill is the judge that imposes a death sentence and the corrections dept executioner who carries out the sentence.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
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.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



×

Important Information