PA LTCF holder kills man in defense of self and others

[TaePo]

Just for the newbies:

Shoot to stop. A leg shot is more difficult AND is not a less lethal means.

Shoot center of mass. Arms and legs tend to flail about and c.o.m. tends to be more stable even when moving. It also allows for being a little high or low or left or right etc. (chances are you're not going to be stable either when adrenaline starts flowing!)

A chest shot, if not lethal, may have stopped him by knocking him out of breath, collapsing a lung, hitting or bruising the spine etc.

Just my 2 pennies worth or .000000001 gallons of gas.

[Dredly]

I gotta admit... its nice to read a pro-cc story where noone is second guessing his actions, no crying mother is screaming about how great of a person he was and demanding justice...

As for the road rage... not anymore, to much is riding on me being home and safe. I even drive the speed limit (or close to it).

[HiredGoon]

Very good outcome overall for the LTCF holder. But a few things in the story concern me.

He says... "I drew my weapon and chambered a round and ordered Mr. Need to get away from me".

1. He doesn't carry one in the pipe.

2. He fired a warning shot.

3. He shot him in the leg, apparently trying to wound him.

All 3 of these things seem to go against what most folks on this forum seem to agree on.

Not faulting the guy for it, since it all worked out in the end. Just something to think about though.

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by Asmodeus6

Does he get to keep his gun and LTCF? I always wondered that. If you were involved in a situation that was deemed a clean shoot.

For sure he does, he was not charged with anything. He acted according to the law and was well with in his rights. The DA and the police made a good call. Finally a +1 for the LEO's!!!

[crakkajakka15]

Originally Posted by HiredGoon

3. He shot him in the leg, apparently trying to wound him.
.

He did say in the article that he wasnt looking to kill anyone. I dont think anyone on here wants to do that either. He wanted to deescalate the situation without taking a life. He tried but ultimately had to kill. His way of trying was a .45 slug to the thigh. You can also see he even gave the guy a chance to stop, i mean he let him get close enough to rip his clothing, before he fired again.

Also the Perp. didnt have a weapon according to the article, he was just waving his arms and trying to instigate something further. Maybe the LTCF holder didnt see justification in in directly killing a man without a weapon....just a thought

I dont know what i would of done in a situation like that, as much as i would say id put 2 in the chest, taking a life is a situation that you have to be prepared to deal with after the fact. If anyone was in a situation knowing that they could stop the threat without killing them, wouldnt you take that route first, before resulting to killing?

[Siobhra]

I have a 15 round mag in my XD-9 so I might chamber a round as a warning if there is time. (or afterward to tell the police I did it first as a warning)

Under normal conditions I don't carry with one in the pipe. I can draw and chamber rather quickly.

I would shoot at the chest and claim I aimed at at the hand to disarm the attacker or that I had tried to fire a warning shot.

I served in Vietnam and will not need a shrink if I shoot someone but I will see one for show.

So I wonder if he.......
Shot to wound?
Was carrying in the pipe?

[PapaJazz26]

Originally Posted by HiredGoon

Very good outcome overall for the LTCF holder. But a few things in the story concern me.

He says... "I drew my weapon and chambered a round and ordered Mr. Need to get away from me".

1. He doesn't carry one in the pipe.

2. He fired a warning shot.

3. He shot him in the leg, apparently trying to wound him.

All 3 of these things seem to go against what most folks on this forum seem to agree on.

Not faulting the guy for it, since it all worked out in the end. Just something to think about though.

I like to thin, that if the situation arose (god forbid) that I could without thought or hesitation go straight for a kill shot...however not ever being in the situation I guess I can't really know what I would do. Taking a life is a serious thing I'm not sure how easily it would come to me...

[paul]

A man who charges after you've fired a warning shot should be ruled a suicide.

Also, if you really really feel the need to shoot to disable(something I'm sure everyone here knows is a very risky proposal) you may want to aim for the hip. If you shoot them in the leg they are most likely going to keep moving unless you impact bone, which is not a very pretty thing to witness and just as potentially fatal as a center of mass hit, they are about as likely to die, they just won't die right now. The few times I've had to shoot to disable (you can't interrogate a corpse) I'd shoot for the outside of the pelvis, right above the leg joint. Yes, the chances of hitting major vessel still exists if you aim for the pelvis, but the advantages are that are the pelvis isn't an extremity, so it's a lot easier to hit and it's a large weight bearing bone that is less likely to shatter than the humerus . Theres a lot of muscles working in concert in the hips, and everyone I've ever seen hit in the pelvis bone drops pretty quickly regardless of caliber. Also, if at all possible try to have something between you and a hostile if you think they are going to charge. Ten feet can be closed in a second, but a car in between you buys you some reaction time.

Anyway, in the final analysis it's very hard to justify shooting anywhere but center of mass, and warning shots are not advisable unless you are clear headed enough to fire into an appropriate backstop, most people who have to fire on a person aren't functioning on that high of a level which is why many units in Iraq have removed the "warning shot" from the force escalation training. If you want a nonlethal option you should carry a non lethal weapon, not take the chances that come with using a deadly weapon to try to merely wing a guy, be the consequences physical or legal.

So it comes back to the 4 rules, never point the gun at something you aren't willing to destroy or kill.

And also, good on the guy for intervening, I friggin hate the bystander mentality, even if intervention usually only buys you grief.

[Mr_Tom]

Originally Posted by HiredGoon

2. He fired a warning shot.

3. He shot him in the leg, apparently trying to wound him.

All 3 of these things seem to go against what most folks on this forum seem to agree on.

#4. he admitted to discharging the firearm when no immediate danger - the warning shot.

#5. He admitted to using deadly force when he only wanted to 'wound' the alleged agressior, so no immediate danger again.

#4 + #5 = #6 He spoke to the police.



Hey we all can play monday morning quarterback here, but it isn't about him right now, it's about us. What are we going to do when we are faced with this situation? I know what I will do without a firearm when faced with danger, so I'm predicting two things. 1. Completely empty magazine. and 2. Me telling the police I can't answer specific questions since I am deaf from the gun reports, and need a lawyer.

tom

[Skullz]

Originally Posted by Siobhra

I can draw and chamber rather quickly.

No, you can't. Well, maybe you can - but rather quickly isn't an option in most civilian encounters. I just returned from a CQB class as Sig Sauer - in every situation they put us in, almost no one would have the skill to draw and chamber around and get a shot off - especially in true CQB where the enemy is literally a foot or less away from you and your non-dominant hand is striking the attacker and defending your head.

Everyone has an opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but if one is carrying a semi-auto firearm in anything other than condition 1, one should re-think carrying a firearm at all.

Originally Posted by Siobhra

I would shoot at the chest and claim I aimed at at the hand to disarm the attacker or that I had tried to fire a warning shot.

C.O.M., C.O.M, Failure Drill - you shoot to stop the threat period.

Next, you do everything within your power to NOT talk to the police for 48 - 72hrs. Lawyer up.