Page 38 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2836373839 LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 389

Thread: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

  1. #371
    Can't stop the signal...
    theangryamerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    07-29-13 @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,233

    Re: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post

    Angry, pulling a gun doensn't always mean firing it. If the perp is drawing a gun, yes. If the perp has a gun in hand... well you're already way behind the curve, but if you're going to try to out-Matt-Dillion him, yeah you'd better be shooting as soon as the muzzle is pointed at him. However, there are cases where it isn't always black and white. If you're drawing on a perp who is some distance away with a knife, threatening you and coming in your direction, and he sees the gun and suddenly whirls away to run, shooting him in the back is generally considered excessive. If you pull a gun because a pair of big men are threatening to kick your ass, prudence dictates giving them a chance to back down if they appear to be unarmed. There are times when a gun can be used to make someone back down, yes, though you never draw it unless you're willing to use it... thus, care should be taken about drawing at all.
    I agree and perhaps I overstated in my attempt to make a point. Let me clarify. I would never pull a gun and then take time to assess the situation and determine if I need to fire. If I draw it's because I'm fully intending to pull the trigger, however, you're right, I wouldn't advocate shooting someone in the back as they flee. That would not look good when law enforcement showed up.

    All I can say is that the attacker had better hope they have the lightning reflexes to make it obvious that they have changed their minds in the second before I fire.

    Btw, attacker coming at me with a knife is probably not a weapons drawn situation for me. I've practiced enough disarms to be able to do it in the dark, with my eyes closed. My viewpoint comes from the fact that unholstering is the absolute LAST resort, when I KNOW I'm in trouble.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  2. #372
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

    Quote Originally Posted by theangryamerican View Post
    You didn't have a gun in that situation, did you? If not, you have no way of knowing if they would have disarmed you.
    I know they wouldn't have.

    I'm not sure where you live, but both of those examples would've been against the law, even if you were carrying a permit, in most cities. You wouldn't be able to establish a legitimate need for self defense. In both instances, a call to the police would've accomplished the same thing and not been against the law. From your descriptions, it doesn't sound like use of a deadly weapon would've been merited in those situations.
    Not talking about cities. There's not much with guns that's illegal in West by god Virginia. Even if it is, it's unlikely that the dude trespassing on your property is going to know and/or say jack **** about it. A call to the police would mean the cops showing up in about an hour. Not gonna be much help there.


    Btw, firing a blind shot into the air is one of the most irresponsible things a gun owner can do.
    Yeah, that buckshot might fall back down and tinkle on someone.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    River, warning shots just aren't a good idea, and shooting to wound generally isn't either. Accuracy suffers under stress, and trying to hit an arm or leg is a good way to miss entirely. While I appreciate your desire not to kill anyone, and I share that desire, pulling a gun in a less than life-and-death situation escalates it to a life-and-death situation... and you need to be very cautious about that. I live out in the country too, but it isn't like the old days, when my Dad used to run trespassers off with a warning shot through their beer cooler.
    I'm just sayin'... I've witnessed situations where warning shots were appropriate. But they are specific situations. To say that NO situation exists where it is appropriate would be wrong. As for shooting to wound, I already stated that I would shoot to HIT because my aim isn't going to be good enough to go for "wound" or "kill shot". I'm just going to aim for center mass which is where I'm most likely going to get a hit. If I *could*, and KNEW that I could shoot to wound and not kill, I would do that if the situation allowed and called for it. But I'd have to be pretty goddamn sure of my shot and I can't imagine ever being that sure of my shot.

  3. #373
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,184

    Re: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

    Quote Originally Posted by theangryamerican View Post
    I agree and perhaps I overstated in my attempt to make a point. Let me clarify. I would never pull a gun and then take time to assess the situation and determine if I need to fire. If I draw it's because I'm fully intending to pull the trigger, however, you're right, I wouldn't advocate shooting someone in the back as they flee. That would not look good when law enforcement showed up.

    All I can say is that the attacker had better hope they have the lightning reflexes to make it obvious that they have changed their minds in the second before I fire.

    Concur, thanks.


    Btw, attacker coming at me with a knife is probably not a weapons drawn situation for me. I've practiced enough disarms to be able to do it in the dark, with my eyes closed. My viewpoint comes from the fact that unholstering is the absolute LAST resort, when I KNOW I'm in trouble.
    Your call, but if I can draw a gun against a man with a knife who isn't already in my face, I prefer to have the gun in hand.

    I spent a lot of time learning to take knives and guns away from people empty-handed. Spent a lot of time practicing it. Got very good at it... when I demo disarms people are always impressed with how quickly and easily I can take knives and guns away from folks in practice. In the real world, I consider attempting to disarm an armed attacker to be pretty much a last-resort action. Disarms are not robust techniques... if anything goes wrong, you're screwed. I've faced edged weapons for-real and I vastly prefer to be armed against such a threat.

    In one training class, I had a guy who had trained disarms. I let him do one on me, using a dull practice knife. Then I changed my tactics and came at him using trained knife-fighting techniques, and he was unable to disarm me. I "cut" both his arms, then "Stabbed" him repeatedly... and I don't consider myself an expert with knives, merely "marginally competent."

    So I teach disarms, but mainly as a last-ditch I-screwed-up-and-have-no-other-option-but-to-stand-here-and-die kind of thing.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  4. #374
    Can't stop the signal...
    theangryamerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    07-29-13 @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,233

    Re: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I know they wouldn't have.


    Not talking about cities. There's not much with guns that's illegal in West by god Virginia. Even if it is, it's unlikely that the dude trespassing on your property is going to know and/or say jack **** about it. A call to the police would mean the cops showing up in about an hour. Not gonna be much help there.



    Yeah, that buckshot might fall back down and tinkle on someone.



    I'm just sayin'... I've witnessed situations where warning shots were appropriate. But they are specific situations. To say that NO situation exists where it is appropriate would be wrong. As for shooting to wound, I already stated that I would shoot to HIT because my aim isn't going to be good enough to go for "wound" or "kill shot". I'm just going to aim for center mass which is where I'm most likely going to get a hit. If I *could*, and KNEW that I could shoot to wound and not kill, I would do that if the situation allowed and called for it. But I'd have to be pretty goddamn sure of my shot and I can't imagine ever being that sure of my shot.
    I believe our disconnect comes from the fact that we are talking about two completely different venues here. You're thinking more country/small town, like where I was born in Nebraska, and I'm thinking more big city life, like where I live now. Everyone in the country has a shotgun in their truck. That is far more common than a compact, concealed pistol, which is the usual weapon in these here parts.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  5. #375
    Can't stop the signal...
    theangryamerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    07-29-13 @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,233

    Re: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Concur, thanks.



    *
    Your call, but if I can draw a gun against a man with a knife who isn't already in my face, I prefer to have the gun in hand. *

    I spent a lot of time learning to take knives and guns away from people empty-handed. *Spent a lot of time practicing it. *Got very good at it... when I demo disarms people are always impressed with how quickly and easily I can take knives and guns away from folks in practice. *In the real world, I consider attempting to disarm an armed attacker to be pretty much a last-resort action. *Disarms are not robust techniques... if anything goes wrong, you're screwed. *I've faced edged weapons for-real and I vastly prefer to be armed against such a threat. *

    So I teach disarms, but mainly as a last-ditch I-screwed-up-and-have-no-other-option-but-to-stand-here-and-die kind of thing.
    *
    I concede your point. Upon further consideration, I shall shoot the knife wielder.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  6. #376
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,472

    Re: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Laws vary from state to state, but most go something like this:
    1. You are not allowed to shoot someone to defend property only.
    2. Any time you shoot someone, it is normally considered "lethal force". Even if they don't die, shooting someone is typically considered evidence of intent to kill, even if you claim intent to wound.

    Admitting that you "shot to wound", can be used against you in court. It will be considered evidence that you did not consider the situation serious enough to warrant deadly force, yet as I mentioned, shooting someone AT ALL is usually considered deadly force regardless of your point of aim. In essence you are admitting to using a lethal weapon in a situation that you felt was not worth killing over. I'll grant you that this is a legal construct whose literal application probably goes outside of common sense in some cases, but it is a fact that admitting "I shot to wound" can put you in prison.

    This goes back to "when arrested, say NOTHING except 'I want my lawyer'."
    So let me get this straight, if someone with ill intentions comes on your property and even if they aren't armed, it is better to kill them so as to avoid a legal hassle and possibly prison? Something seems terribly wrong about that but then again, if they live, it's your word against theirs.

    I am a former law enforcement officer. To my knowlege, "shooting to wound" is not a normal part of any PD's curriculum. Even a bullet in the arm can kill, by severing the brachial artery. A bullet in the foot is potentially fatal if infection sets in. In some few VERY RARE scenarios, a SNIPER may shoot to disable, but that is not typical.
    Kewl, I love a man in uniform. I concede you are definitely the expert in this discussion.

    "Warning shots" are also disallowed in most if not all PD's. It was found that warning shots endangered bystanders too much. Tactically a warning shot takes you off target for a moment, and gives the perp a moment of time when he is not covered by your weapon.
    But in the same token, by not giving a warning shot, aren't you endangering the bystanders just as much if they have no warning and and get caught in the crossfire? And as is often the case, public opinion turns against the police when they shoot and kill unarmed civilians, especially when it is witnessed by bystanders that the officers could have just wounded them.

    Now, about this business of "Waving a gun to scare someone off"... yes and no. As an LEO, if I drew a pistol it was with the intention of using it if necessary... but in some cases the person backed down at the last possible instant and saved their life thereby.
    I would think as a "peace" officer you would be obligated to give the person the chance to back down. The public puts their trust in the police to not only protect them, but to not kill them as well. Either way, it's gotta be a tough job to be a policeman.

    Since leaving LE, as a private citizen with a concealed carry permit, I've been in some dangerous situations. Awareness and decision-making skills are critical, as I teach in my self-defense and handgunning classes. I don't want to ever be so far behind the curve that I am drawing against an already-drawn-gun... that's a good way to get killed, unless done from behind cover. For one example, I was once targeted for some kind of street-crime. One perp approached from the front, trying to get my attention. Being trained to watch for this kind of thing, I moved to one side and looked for the partner I assumed he probably had, and saw him coming up behind me. Both exhibited body language consistent with "threat behavior". Finding myself bracketed by two men of apparently criminal intentions, I put my hand on my weapon and prepared to draw. When they saw this, they both veered off in opposite directions and left the area. Had they not done so, I would have completed my draw if they continued to close on me, as 2 on 1 is legally equivalent to deadly force in my state. What would have happened at that point is pure speculation, but if they had immediately ceased their threatening behavior I would not necessarily have fired. Waiting until they had me pinned between them and a gun in my face or knife at my back would have been "less than ideal."
    That sounds just like the movies. Seriously, I'm glad you lived to tell the tale. In Utah, it is legal for anyone to open carry, so who needs a concealed weapon permit? But ironically, it is illegal to carry an open beer. But here again, if it is legal to openly carry a firearm then why is that any different than waving the gun to deter a perp as opposed to actually shooting him?

    On the "square range" you are commonly shooting at ranges of 7-25 yards. In the street, perps often wait until they have you up close, like arm's length or less, before they even let you see the weapon... and at that point you're in serious trouble, especially if he has a partner behind you.
    I agree. But if you know that is a possiblity then why not the pull the gun out sooner to use as a deterent instead of waiting for the perp to show his gun or is at arms length?

    Things are not always black and white in the real world.
    This is so true. And I don't think any "civilian" can honestly say they know how they would react in a hostile situation until it is upon them.

    But I want to reiterate the reason I bought my gun was to protect my property and as far as I know, that right is protected by the constitution. I remember how it was during the LA riots and the police were no where to be found for days. It was a mad house. On the news there were some Korean business owners whose businesses were getting looted and destroyed by their own neighbors. So they went and bought guns, came back and started shooting at the looters. When you see the video below, it's amazing nobody was killed, but it did stop the looting of their businesses and public opinion was on their side. Days later, after the dust settled and things returned to normal, most of the looters returned the goods they stole. I must say, that kind of renewed my faith and hope for humanity somewhat, because if they had been killed they wouldn't have had that chance to redeam themselves. But my point is, if the Korean business owners had guns to use as a deterent from the very start, no one would have tried or have gotten into their businesses to do the damage they did and they probably wouldn't have needed to go on a shooting spree after the fact.

    LA riots Looters and Korean business owners defending their stores | Newsnet 14

  7. #377
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,184

    Re: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    So let me get this straight, if someone with ill intentions comes on your property and even if they aren't armed, it is better to kill them so as to avoid a legal hassle and possibly prison? Something seems terribly wrong about that but then again, if they live, it's your word against theirs.
    A lot of this is going to depend on the details, specifically what your state laws say about how you are legally allowed to handle an intruder. Some state laws are very reasonable; some are ridiculous.
    If you own a gun and intend to use it for defense, you need to know what the law says. It's probably online at your state.gov website.



    But in the same token, by not giving a warning shot, aren't you endangering the bystanders just as much if they have no warning and and get caught in the crossfire? And as is often the case, public opinion turns against the police when they shoot and kill unarmed civilians, especially when it is witnessed by bystanders that the officers could have just wounded them.
    Not really. A warning shot is by definition a shot that is not aimed at someone that needs to be shot. Consequently, its point of impact is more uncertain. If I take my point of aim off the perp, I'm giving him a moment in time to do something that might endanger me, other officers, or bystanders. If I fire a shot that isn't aimed at the perp, bystanders might not be expecting me to fire somewhere other than along that line and one of them might be standing in the way or running into the line of fire. It is considered an avoidable risk.
    Shots actually aimed AT the perp are supposed to HIT the perp. Yeah, I know, they don't always. But at least anybody in his right mind ought to be trying to get out of that line of fire between or behind the perp and the cops.

    I would think as a "peace" officer you would be obligated to give the person the chance to back down. The public puts their trust in the police to not only protect them, but to not kill them as well. Either way, it's gotta be a tough job to be a policeman.
    "Obligated?" No. Not if there is an immenent threat to an innocent person, and that is mostly when we're supposed to shoot. If a perp is pointing a gun at me, or at an innocent person, a warning shot might cause him to shoot. If we're talking about a guy standing twenty yards away with a knife, and not charging anyone just now, then normally yeah he gets a chance to surrender.


    That sounds just like the movies. Seriously, I'm glad you lived to tell the tale. In Utah, it is legal for anyone to open carry, so who needs a concealed weapon permit? But ironically, it is illegal to carry an open beer. But here again, if it is legal to openly carry a firearm then why is that any different than waving the gun to deter a perp as opposed to actually shooting him?
    If you read my other posts, I said that yes, there are certain circumstances when using a gun for a deterrent, without necessarily shooting, is a reasonable action. If the threat is less than imminent, like a man at a distance with a knife.



    I agree. But if you know that is a possiblity then why not the pull the gun out sooner to use as a deterent instead of waiting for the perp to show his gun or is at arms length?
    If you'll re-read my story about what happened to me, you'll notice that is exactly what I was doing, or rather about to do. They saw me grip my weapon, and that alone was enough to cause them to break off.

    This is so true. And I don't think any "civilian" can honestly say they know how they would react in a hostile situation until it is upon them.
    Disagree. Generally you will react according to how you have been trained, how you have practiced, and how you have mentally prepared yourself to handle a given situation.
    I had a shift-mate named I'll call "H". "H" was not exactly John Wayne, but he was a good cop. He found himself in a fight with a perp, who was able to get his weapon out of his holster and attempt to shoot him with it. H remembered his training and used a technique to take the gun away from the perp. He was scared, but he reacted according to his training, practice, and temperament.
    Cops are not supermen. There is nothing cops do that "civilians" can't, with suitable training.



    But I want to reiterate the reason I bought my gun was to protect my property and as far as I know, that right is protected by the constitution. I remember how it was during the LA riots and the police were no where to be found for days. It was a mad house. On the news there were some Korean business owners whose businesses were getting looted and destroyed by their own neighbors. So they went and bought guns, came back and started shooting at the looters. When you see the video below, it's amazing nobody was killed, but it did stop the looting of their businesses and public opinion was on their side. Days later, after the dust settled and things returned to normal, most of the looters returned the goods they stole. I must say, that kind of renewed my faith and hope for humanity somewhat, because if they had been killed they wouldn't have had that chance to redeam themselves. But my point is, if the Korean business owners had guns to use as a deterent from the very start, no one would have tried or have gotten into their businesses to do the damage they did and they probably wouldn't have needed to go on a shooting spree after the fact.
    Again, you need to check your state laws, regardless of what you think the constitution guarantees. In some states defending property is looked on leniently, in others you can easily go to prison in many scenarios. You want to know where you stand with the law if you're going to use deadly force in any capacity. It isn't hard, just look it up and read it.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #378
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    Cops still haven't charged this dangerous criminal...I guess she didn't break the law.
    The fact that this woman hasn't been charged does NOT mean that she chose the best possible method of handling this situation. Sometimes people who have access to a firearm, but are not trained, in a moment of anger/fear, will see that weapon as a means of handling a conflict that would be better settled without the use of weapons.

    It is my personal experience that a gun should be used as a last resort when you are in fear of imminent harm and have no other recourse. That is my personal philosophy about violence. A gun is not a prop that you use to frighten neighborhood kids, it is a tool for killing someone who means you immediate--and serious--harm.

    This woman reacted emotionally, and in my opinion, that was a mistake. Many people escalate when they feel frustrated or angry, without realizing the ramifications of that escalation. I've seen gang members do it a hundred times, and I will never be a fan of vigilanteism (and that's what this was, without question).

    I find it troubling that a gun advocate would EVER take gun use lightly and applaud people who use a firearm without proper preparation and/or thought.

    I never carried a gun when I did intervention with gang members. I've never yet found myself in a situation that I couldn't resolve without the use of a weapon. I strongly suspect that this woman had ongoing problems with these kids because of behaviors that she engaged in personally, beyond the fact that they were little thugs.

    I've known hundreds of little thugs. There is a reason that some people have difficulties with them. There are a lot of older people in some communities who expect to be shown a certain degree of deference by teenagers, without realizing that this generation is different, and that they aren't going to show you respect just for being old. You get what you give. I've seen several senior citizens actually CREATE conflicts in their neighborhoods because of the rude and hostile way that they dealt with the kids. I strongly suspect that this woman played an active role in the ongoing feud.
    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 10-07-10 at 11:49 AM.

  9. #379
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    The fact that this woman hasn't been charged does NOT mean that she chose the best possible method of handling this situation.
    but it does mean that in the eyes of the law, her action was justified.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  10. #380
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

    one of the risks of being an asswipe is getting wasted by someone you screw with

    I am a big advocate of laws that hold that those who engage in felonious attacks on others cannot be heard to complain in either civil or criminal court against their intended victims.

    In other words if you rob, burglarize or attack another person and they blow your nuts off with a 12 bore shotgun you are outta luck

    no if you were not engaged in felonious behavior or behavior that a reasonable person would see as felonious, then you probably shouldn't have your nuts shot off, maybe just a load of rock salt in your ass



Page 38 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2836373839 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •