Shoot/kill would-be robber, get life sentence.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

"You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is EXACTLY right. You don't 'shoot to kill', you don't 'shoot to disarm' - you shoot until the person STOPS attacking you and then YOU STOP SHOOTING.

Try telling that to the cops. I can hear them laughing from here.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

>What makes you think he was not reaching for a hidden gun?

The "unconscious" part. Unconscious people usually don't reach for hidden guns, and are traditionally lousy shots anyway.

Hey! Buddy! Are you awake? Are you conscious?
Let me know if you can hear me!
.
.
.
Oh, excuse me...I can tell that you are conscious by seeing that gun you're now pointing at me. I can tell by those new holes in my chest that suddenly appeared out of nowhere. My mistake.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is EXACTLY right. You don't 'shoot to kill', you don't 'shoot to disarm' - you shoot until the person STOPS attacking you and then YOU STOP SHOOTING.

Try telling that to the cops. I can hear them laughing from here.

As you well know, the police are not held to the same standards as CHL holders...unfortunately, in my opinion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,396]

>Hey! Buddy! Are you awake? Are you conscious?

I bet even the most intentionally obtuse SC poster could tell an unconscious gunshot victim from a threatening one.

[pyrotech 0]

One less burglar off the streets, and one less murderer working in a pharmacy. Seems fair to me. Just too bad someone had to die.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is EXACTLY right. You don't 'shoot to kill', you don't 'shoot to disarm' - you shoot until the person STOPS attacking you and then YOU STOP SHOOTING.

I should've worded my previous post better. Thanks for adding on. Mike is right, "You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is correct; however, you still shoot to kill, just don't think you should shoot until they're dead, if that makes sense.

No. You shoot to STOP the aggressive act. *IF* the attacker dies, that's regrettable but is NOT the reason for shooting.

Quote

There's a reason why you're taught to aim centermass and maybe the head, that for all intents and purposes is intended to kill the bad guy.

Again, no - you shoot at the center of mass because it is the largest and most stable target (torso moves less than arms/legs).

Quote

If they happen to live and survive your gun shots that are intended to kill them, then good for them, assuming they're no longer a threat, if they're still a threat, fire more kill shots.

Again, no - you don't fire with the intent to kill them but to get them to stop attacking you.

Quote

There's a reason why it's called the "kill zone" and "kill shots". The person is intended to die after being shot there.

The Range Rambos can call it whatever they want - that doesn't mean that it is what is taught in CHL courses (hint - it's not).

We were taught in the CHL classes I attended, to aim for the body. That is the 'bigger' target. We are not taught to try to 'wound' yet we are not taught to try to 'kill'. 'Winging' an assailant will more than likely just piss 'em off.''


Chuck

[PiLFy 0]

Not that I like to argue, as many here in SC clearly do... BUT, the unconscious POS was still a threat. I'm mentioning this point because I haven't seen it here, yet. Plenty of people have survived GSWs to the head. Let's say that POS survived, & recovered sufficiently to go back to his productive-for-society ways? Now, it's a year later. The innocent pharmacist is working his shop as usual. The POS is looking for some payback. I guarantee he'll come through that door w/more than a pop gun & no clue the second time. The pharmacist was the innocent victim. Is it fair for him to leave himself open to attack from the POS teen who already had chosen to major in recidivism? I'll bet any amount of money that that's what was going through his mind as he checked him.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

"You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is EXACTLY right. You don't 'shoot to kill', you don't 'shoot to disarm' - you shoot until the person STOPS attacking you and then YOU STOP SHOOTING.

Try telling that to the cops. I can hear them laughing from here.

Not really. Mike was spot on. That's the same thing law enforcement is taught and held to.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,396]

>I'll bet any amount of money that that's what was going through his mind as he
>checked him.

It probably was. Unfortunately for him, that's also the definition of first degree murder (i.e. specific intent to kill, premeditation and deliberation.)

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is EXACTLY right. You don't 'shoot to kill', you don't 'shoot to disarm' - you shoot until the person STOPS attacking you and then YOU STOP SHOOTING.

Try telling that to the cops. I can hear them laughing from here.

Not really. Mike was spot on. That's the same thing law enforcement is taught and held to.

Yeah, but sometimes even the cops can't be sure if a guy is still conscious or not.

"I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," (the Sheriff) said. "We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back."

[PiLFy 0]

I wonder of you'll feel the same if YOU ever find yourself in that position?

[billvon 2,396]

>I wonder of you'll feel the same if YOU ever find yourself in that position?

I would want to kill him, because I'd be feeling a lot of rage towards someone who threatened to kill _me_. I would also do my best to not do that, since that is murder, and that goes against my moral code.

[PiLFy 0]

We have different moral codes of conduct, my friend. For the record, I wouldn't try to kill the worm either, per say. As others here have already said. We're taught to fire @center mass as that's the most effective way to ensure hits, stop the threat, & slow the bullet. Police are taught to continue firing until the weapon is dropped. It's a good rule to follow. It's amazing (& unfortunate) to me that this guy forgot about the security cams in his own store. It's also amazing to me that this thread has gone on & on & on for so long. I know what I think I would have done in that situation. I'm also fairly confident a number of posters here wouldn't do as they say. Things are different when rounds start flying.

I didn't post here to change any minds. I only wanted to throw in a couple of points I didn't see mentioned yet. I leave it to the SC regulars to continue the endless arguing. My steak is ready.

**SC disclaimer: My dinner wasn't killed in an act of self defense .

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

... I know what I think I would have done in that situation. I'm also fairly confident a number of posters here wouldn't do as they say. Things are different when rounds start flying...

I can't honestly say what I would do in that situation, because I haven't been in that situation.

But I hope I would do the right, legal thing.

The right thing being to not shoot a defenseless person, no matter what they had done a minute ago, no matter what they may or may not do in the future.

Because it stops being self-defense when the immediate threat is stopped.

And I would guess that most people in defensive shootings have done so. Because if they hadn't, then this wouldn't be as big of news as it is. And if there were a huge number of these types of situations, the anti-gunners would be all over it.
It's what they claim will happen if civilans have guns. But they have yet to be able to back up any of the "Blood in the streets, Back to the Wild West, shooting each other over traffic accidents" hysteria they promote.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[PiLFy 0]

Joe,
Exactly which part of [I]"I didn't post here to change any minds. I only wanted to throw in a couple of points I didn't see mentioned yet. I leave it to the SC regulars to continue the endless arguing. My steak is ready.

**SC disclaimer: My dinner wasn't killed in an act of self defense."[/I] didn't you get? I didn't come here to join the never ending arguing. I have my views & like them. You're welcome to yours so long as they don't infringe on my rights. You have a good night.

[Kennedy 0]

Irrelevant and not material to supporting an allegation of different standards. The officers were as justified there as the pharmacist was when he first shot the robbery suspect/homicide victim. The dead guy in the woods had killed an officer and K9 and shot another officer. When he raised a gun they lit him up. If you think any of them paused to reload or shot him after he was injured to execute him, then say so. They'd be as wrong as the pharmacist when he shot the robbery suspect/homicide victim with the second gun.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,396]

>We have different moral codes of conduct, my friend.

OK.

>For the record, I wouldn't try to kill the worm either, per say.

Hmm. Sounds like we actually agree, then.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Irrelevant and not material to supporting an allegation of different standards. The officers were as justified there as the pharmacist was when he first shot the robbery suspect/homicide victim. The dead guy in the woods had killed an officer and K9 and shot another officer. When he raised a gun they lit him up. If you think any of them paused to reload or shot him after he was injured to execute him, then say so. They'd be as wrong as the pharmacist when he shot the robbery suspect/homicide victim with the second gun.

I don't intend to make a comment or opinion about whether law enforcement is or is not held to different standards. ...only commenting on the fact that during this type of dangerous, high-stress situation even the police can be perceived to "over-react" by people who were not there. For all I know the 68 bullets that hit this guy were fired by 68 different cops at the same time. There certainly were more than enough cops in the woods at that time. (I wasn't even commenting about the answer the Sheriff gave to the reporter to explain why he was hit 68 times ...basically that it was because they ran out of bullets.)

But you, yourself, agreed that "'You can only shoot till they pose no threat' is EXACTLY right." and that "That's the same thing law enforcement is taught and held to." That is what I was responding to. I think that the guy in the woods posed no threat well before the 68th bullet struck him.

BTW - This was a local incident and some of the folks directly involved are/were known to me or members of my family.