Self defense scenarios,Gun holders......

[Morpheus]

Ok 2 scenarios, do you shoot to kill, or shoot to take down untill the authorities arrive

#1, you are home sleeping, someone breaks in to your house. You find yourself cornered, no exits behind you, and the intruder is approaching and has a weapon, knife, bat, gun whatever . You have your gun in hand.

#2, You are out with the wife and kids, its getting dark and you are getting into your car after a movie or something, someone approaches and you realize you are being robbed.he has a weapon. what do you do?

 

[abrooks]

In Va, only the first scenario is justifiable self defense; the second will put you in Federal poundyouinthebutt prison. That is if I remember my CCW class correctly.

 

[spydrjon]

Oh goody, another home defense/ self defense thread. opcorn:


I'll play:
If you kill them, then the only eye witness is YOU!! :shoot:

 

[Morpheus]

I know!!!!...its hard to believe that someone else in the world cares about something else than what you do...dont post if you dont like thread

 

[Chris-St Louis]

1) Shoot him! Done.

2) A few factors here... Can you leave the situation safely? What weapon does he have. Shooting a ememy who is comign at you with a gun is way more justiable then shooting one who has a bat.

Situation 2 requires that there are no reasonable less then lethal options before shooting him.

 

[Leslie]

I wouldn't shoot unless it was to kill. I wouldn't draw unless it was to shoot. Thus, once I started to draw, the decision was already made that someone was going to die. I don't like the idea of brandishing, if the gun is out, there's no wavering. Now, with that said, upon having the weapon drawn on them, if they instantly stop and you can command them into an outstretched prone position, then yes, you can hold them until the police come to document the incident.

In situation one, the person would be dead. In situation two, the person would be dead from attempting a carjacking, unless they hit the ground w/ their weapon pitched aside.

MHO, FWIW...

 

[spydrjon]

**phucough**

 

[Morpheus]

**phucough**

wow thats good....classless,but good

 

[agbuckle98]

Situation 1 will leave the bad guy dead. Situation 2 will most likely result on my 6 d-cell maglite getting a dent from his drawn weapon, then another from his skull. The attacker will not expect an instant reaction from the "victim".

 

[gugubica]

1. Shoot Him, DEAD.

2. Shoot Him, DEAD.

Alway shoot to kill. If he is dead, you will not wind up with some douchebag fabricating some sob story..."I was just minding my own business man, when this asshole shot me..."

YOU BE THE ONE THAT CALLS THE COPS, ALWAYS!

The cops perceive the victom to be the one that calls.

Thankfully Missouri just passed the Castle Doctrine, so in both those situations it is legal to assume the criminal is there to kill you, and you can pop them. In other States, I am sure it's different.

 

[ptschram]

In both cases, shoot to kill.

I strongly suspect both would meet Indiana's definition of threat of "grievous bodily harm".

 

[barefoot]

#1 shoot to kill! if you shoot to injur ....you will probably get sued.

 

[KevinNY]

I love this shoot to kill vs shoot to wound/stop crap.

A) When you pull the trigger you are always shooting to kill in the eyes of the law

B) You will be damn lucky to even hit the bastard at all,but he will most likely turn tail and run.

My dad spent 37 years as a superior officer in NYPD, the stories of how actual gunfights go down is so far removed from what people think you would be amazed.

 

[spydrjon]

dear Morpheus,
Neither posts were meant to offend, only joking around

Next time I will take the blue pill :cheers:

 

[Chris-St Louis]

Thankfully Missouri just passed the Castle Doctrine, so in both those situations it is legal to assume the criminal is there to kill you,

atriot: atriot:

You bet. Also, I have to check but I think that extends to your car too here in Mo.

Our Gov KICKS ASS!!!

Castle Doctrine, CCW AND in store 10 minute in store Background Checks under his watch...

AND! The NRA convension was held here in STL!

 

[LRflip]

1. Kill him
2. Shoot below the waste. That way even if he tries to run he wont get far. Subdue him until authorities come. Look good in front of the wife, setting an example for the kids.

 

[Patrol65]

Nugent stated in one of his interviews he believes only in dead offenders not repeat offenders. when you go to court after its done say " i shot him until the threat was gone" trust me less law suits that way. dont say i shot to kill him.

 

[Jake]

Situation 1: shoot the intruder.

Situation 2: shoot the robber, escpecially since family is with you: it is plausible for you to fear grevious bodily harm and the inablity to ensue that all your family will be able to flee the robber.

If you shoot someone, do so in a manner that eliminates the threat. "Double tap, then observe", if still a viable threat, shoot again. It is best that you do not leave the attacker alive to relate his version of why he was robbing you. Of course, if you don't think that you can shoot to eliminate a threat, don't buy a gun. You just stand the chance of either having it taken from you and used against you or, having inadequately defended yourself by leaving the attacker alive, attempting to defend yourself in court on either criminal or civil cases, or both.

If you talk the talk, then be prepared to walk the walk, or don't play......

 

[az_max]

#1 shoot to kill! if you shoot to injur ....you will probably get sued.

you do *NOT* shoot to kill, or shoot to maim. You shoot to stop the situation. The perp just happens to expire in the process. A jury will hang you on shoot to kill, and the perp's lawyer will clean you out on shoot to maim or injure.

 

[Dan Erickson]

Situation 1: shoot the intruder.

Situation 2: shoot the robber, escpecially since family is with you: it is plausible for you to fear grevious bodily harm and the inablity to ensue that all your family will be able to flee the robber.

If you shoot someone, do so in a manner that eliminates the threat. "Double tap, then observe", if still a viable threat, shoot again. It is best that you do not leave the attacker alive to relate his version of why he was robbing you. Of course, if you don't think that you can shoot to eliminate a threat, don't buy a gun. You just stand the chance of either having it taken from you and used against you or, having inadequately defended yourself by leaving the attacker alive, attempting to defend yourself in court on either criminal or civil cases, or both.

If you talk the talk, then be prepared to walk the walk, or don't play......

you do *NOT* shoot to kill, or shoot to maim. You shoot to stop the situation. The perp just happens to expire in the process. A jury will hang you on shoot to kill, and the perp's lawyer will clean you out on shoot to maim or injure.

You two beat me to it. atriot:

Both great explanations.

Do not shoot to kill. Do not shoot to NOT kill.

Shoot to eliminate the threat.

This is what I was taught in my CCW class and also what is often reiterated on this board that I visit fairly often.

Peace atriot: