Defensive shooting

[longbough]

Whenever there's a discussion about defensive handgunning the public seems to be awash in more mythology than fact. This seems to be true for many gun owners as well as non-gun owners. So here're some basic facts I thought everyone ought to know.

With the exception of a good, penetrating head-shot most handgun caliber bullets are rarely capable of killing someone on the spot.
But the sole objective of using a gun in defense is not to "kill" but to “stop” a target that presents an imminent threat.

Two shots from a .45 to the chest has a high probability of stoppng a target only because of the neurological shock from acute traumatic injury to vital organs such as the heart and lungs. While such injuries may eventually result in death the intent is to incapacitate target so that it is no longer a threat.

The myths:

#1. “The cops didn’t have to shoot the subject 41 times.” Yes and no. If the body doesn't produce a reflexive neurocirculatory collapse after two rounds to the chest then the subject will still be standing. How can this happen? Under great stress extreme levels of epinephrine in an individual might be enough to “protect” them from shock. In a sense it acts to "override" the reflexive response. Often the subject is oblivious to the fact that they've been shot. The simple rule is that, if those first two rounds don’t do the trick, then the next one will have to be to the head.

Then why don't cops go for the "head shot" after a "failure to stop"? Police officers are trained to shoot center of mass. I suspect it’s because it would be “politically incorrect” for the public to know that each cop is trained to deliver head-shots. The public wouldn’t stand for it. While COM shots can be 96% effective there’s still 4% left standing.

#2. “Psychopaths and psychotic-druggies are supermen.” It should be no surprise that COM shots are less likely to stop a raging nut because their nervous response is likely blunted from all that epinephrine. But, in a defensive situation against a psycho, you should at least try to hit the chest first. It's still effective in most cases.

#3 “Why not shoot them (people) in the leg?” I hear this question all the time. Shooting the leg is a lousy idea. Let’s start with the basics:
a. A leg shot does not have a high probability of stopping someone. It is less likely to induce neurologic shock than a chest shot (see above) and, contrary to popular belief, does not render the leg muscles useless in most cases.
b. A leg is a harder shot under stress.
c. Should the bullet hit the big femoral artery near the groin the person may bleed a great deall. While the bleeding itself may cause morbidity it will happen over a longer period of time. In the meanwhile they’re still a threat to you until the blood-loss catches up to them.

People appalled by this rationale see it as a justification for killing. Not true. Here’s the part that people (gun-owners and non-gun-owners) should understand:

Only in a situation that requires you stop an imminent threat by violent means should you even present (draw) your firearm. This means that a gun should not be brandished “as a threat” or used in an encounter where such a threat is non-existant. If you are armed and you see someone stealing your car - just let it go. By any responsible standard only a complete moron would draw their weapon. Leave it to your insurance.

However, if someone is charging at you with the intent of strangling you then, as long as you feel your life is threatened you would be justified in using your weapon to defend yourself in the fashion consistent with your training. It doesn’t matter if the other person has a weapon. This doesn’t mean you HAVE TO draw your weapon, either. The choice is yours But if you draw it - USE IT!

Let's recap:

1. Don't even present a gun unless you're going to use it.
2. Only use it in the case of imminent mortal danger to you or a loved one.
3. To use it properly put two quick shots (4-5inches apart is optimal) to the thoracic region (chest).
4. If the subject is still a threat then place the next round right between the eyes (Do not shoot the forhead - the frontal portion of the skull is very hard - penetration will likely be suboptimal and a glancing shot can easily ricochet off the skull).

[daswig]

OK, there are some problems here:

Originally Posted by longbough

The myths:

#1. “The cops didn’t have to shoot the subject 41 times.” Yes and no. If the body doesn't produce a reflexive neurocirculatory collapse after two rounds to the chest then the subject will still be standing.

The problem with this isn't with your science, it's with the situation you're alluding to. The cops in question just dumped their magazines into the guy, and he was hit repeatedly once he was on the ground, incapacitated. It was a gross overreaction by the police. The reason cops shoot for center mass isn't because they're trying to be PC, it's because, as a rule, they're shitty marksmen, so they're taught to shoot for the big bits in the hope that they might actually hit the person. This isn't the fault of the officers, it's the fault of the departments for failure to continue to train their officers due to budget restraints.

#3 “Why not shoot them (people) in the leg?” I hear this question all the time. Shooting the leg is a lousy idea.

Actually, it's at least partially based upon liability issues. Shooting somebody is the use of lethal force, regardless of where you aim. If you can shoot them in the leg, you have time, et cetera, to use non-lethal lesser force, so you shouldn't be shooting them in the first place. And the sad truth of the matter is that if an officer shoots and kills somebody, the officer's employer will face far less monetary damages generally than if they maim the person, so that the person needs huge amounts of very expensive rehabilitation.


You said a bunch of otehr things that I don't agree with, but I'm going to make a snack.

[longbough]

Originally Posted by daswig

The problem with this isn't with your science, it's with the situation you're alluding to.

Perhaps. In retrospect I might have chosen a different example.
But I was talking about myths. The general public is inclined to think that one round is sufficient to kill someone on the spot - and more than a handfull of rounds = "excessive force" regardless of the scenario in question.
I credit the reader for having enough common sense to understand that the "science" is what's being addressed here.

Originally Posted by daswig

Actually, it's at least partially based upon liability issues. Shooting somebody is the use of lethal force, regardless of where you aim. If you can shoot them in the leg, you have time, et cetera, to use non-lethal lesser force, so you shouldn't be shooting them in the first place.

You're only restating a point that I make later in my post.
The fact is that COM shots are easier to make under stress, period. - I added the point about the PC-ness as an afterthought, I could have made that point more obvious but it's still splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by daswig

And the sad truth of the matter is that if an officer shoots and kills somebody, the officer's employer will face far less monetary damages generally than if they maim the person, so that the person needs huge amounts of very expensive rehabilitation.

I hope you're not implying that LEOs are trained to "shoot to kill." That assertion clearly shows a lack of understanding.

[longbough]

Originally Posted by daswig

You said a bunch of otehr things that I don't agree with, but I'm going to make a snack.

When you're done eating you might let me know with which one of these points you disagree:

Originally Posted by longbough

1. Don't even present a gun unless you're going to use it.
2. Only use it in the case of imminent mortal danger to you or a loved one.
3. To use it properly put two quick shots (4-5inches apart is optimal) to the thoracic region (chest).
4. If the subject is still a threat then place the next round right between the eyes (Do not shoot the forhead - the frontal portion of the skull is very hard - penetration will likely be suboptimal and a glancing shot can easily ricochet off the skull).

[desal75]

I think the bottom line is that the general public has seen too many movies and not safely handled enough firearms. In many ways you are both right.

[izin]

Only in a situation that requires you stop an imminent threat by violent means should you even present (draw) your firearm. This means that a gun should not be brandished “as a threat” or used in an encounter where such a threat is non-existant. If you are armed and you see someone stealing your car - just let it go. By any responsible standard only a complete moron would draw their weapon. Leave it to your insurance.

I disagree. Your choice on how to handle that hypothetical situation is just that, your choice, not a fact. The law in some areas most certainly allows you to protect your belongings with deadly force. Also, the mere presence of a firearm has prevented a crime in plenty of situations. The exact number that the NRA uses in its statistics escapes me atm.

I agree you shouldn't bring a firearm into play if you aren't prepared to use it should the confrontation escalate to that point though.

[MooseMan3000]

Originally Posted by izin

The law in some areas most certainly allows you to protect your belongings with deadly force.

Find me one place in the United States where you won't get jail time for shooting some guy who stole your wallet. (I'm talking legally. Not backhand mafia and/or racist shit that happens regularly) Seriously, I dare you. If you find it, I promise, I will never argue about guns again for the rest of my life. And then I'll promise never to live in the US again, because that will be the absolute stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

The "law in some areas" allows you to defend yourself and other people. Not your car.


And the thread is discussing what happens when you're attacked. Why does this even matter?

[izin]

The specific hypothetical situation i was referring to was the one used in the post concerning the theft of one's property,in this particular case it's an automobile and not a wallet. Do your own research. Start with Texas.

Read the whole post again and you may understand why I posted what I did.

[whocarz]

Originally Posted by longbough

1. Don't even present a gun unless you're going to use it.

I agree with most of your points, but I take issue with this one. If I had done this, then I would have killed a man roughly a month and a half ago, as he was snooping around my house at 2 in the morning. I simply drew his attention to the fact that I knew he was there and I was armed with a rifle. He promptly left, never to return. In that instance, using my weapon would have been unneeded. I was, however, ready to use it. Perhaps ammend this point to read: Don't even present a gun unless you are willing to use it.

[longbough]

I stand corrected.
I meant the presentation of a concealed handgun.

[Suave]

First of all, if you're under possibly fatal threat, you may as well just unload into the person. I don't see much point in limiting yourself in that regard.

As to the whole issue of "stopping" someone, I've seen mention from "experts" that stopping power is essentially a myth. I personally haven't done that much research into it however. I can say that firearms are meant to kill though, and I realise that while shooting someone centre mass is not likely to kill them instantly, it will probably kill them pretty quickly.

[daswig]

"1. Don't even present a gun unless you're going to use it. "

I disagree with this. You should draw the weapon when the threat is imminent. But just because you draw the weapon, you don't HAVE to fire it if the situation changes. It's better to draw the weapon when you believe the use of deadly force will be necessary very shortly, so that you have time to acquire the sight picture before the person can kill you. The most common circumstance with a DGU is that the person feels that they are in danger, they draw their weapon and aim it, and the danger ceases. It's one thing to approach a little old lady to intimidate her purse from her. It's quite another to approach a little old lady to intimidate her into giving up her purse when she's pointing a gun at you. And the time to point the gun is NOT once they've got "hands" on you, it's beforehand, once you know there's a threat, where it's coming from, but before they can implement the actual damage to you.

[Fire]

I should point out that in missouri lethal force can be used in defense of personal property when in your home- here, if someone breaks in, shoot them- its legal, and has happened in this area as of about two years ago- here you are specificly not required to retreat from force in your home- now on the street, if someone steals your wallet and does not threaten you, then shooting them = jail time- if they threaten you during a robbery/mugging- waste em....

[2sheds]

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

Find me one place in the United States where you won't get jail time for shooting some guy who stole your wallet. (I'm talking legally. Not backhand mafia and/or racist shit that happens regularly) Seriously, I dare you. If you find it, I promise, I will never argue about guns again for the rest of my life. And then I'll promise never to live in the US again, because that will be the absolute stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

The "law in some areas" allows you to defend yourself and other people. Not your car.


And the thread is discussing what happens when you're attacked. Why does this even matter?

from the texas penal code:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
~ ~ (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
~ ~ ~ (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
~ ~ (3) he reasonably believes that:
~ ~ ~ (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
~ ~ ~ (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

see it here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc.html

so i guess we won't be seeing many more posts from you in twisted weaponry?

There's a problem with this law...
If the guy steals your wallet and hangs around, you can't shoot him, because according to points 2a, and 2b;
The guy has already committed the crime, (i.e. he's not imminently going to) and
The guy is not fleeing after having commited the crime.
In fact, the guy could hang around and call you a bitch, leaf through your wallet, make remarks about the picture of your mama, and you wouldn't be able to do a thing. Isn't the law a bitch?

[2sheds]

Originally Posted by zen_tom

There's a problem with this law...
If the guy steals your wallet and hangs around, you can't shoot him, because according to points 2a, and 2b;
The guy has already committed the crime, (i.e. he's not imminently going to) and
The guy is not fleeing after having commited the crime.
In fact, the guy could hang around and call you a bitch, leaf through your wallet, make remarks about the picture of your mama, and you wouldn't be able to do a thing. Isn't the law a bitch?

uh... if he doesn't leave, you can call the police to come pick him up.

[DelayedReaction]

Originally Posted by longbough

I hope you're not implying that LEOs are trained to "shoot to kill." That assertion clearly shows a lack of understanding.

Perhaps you can elaborate on this a bit more, because I apparently demonstrate a lack of understanding. According to your own rules, you never draw your weapon unless you intend to kill with it. Are the cops trained differently?

[Blistex]

Regarding Police using deadly force.

I'm pretty sure that policy (at least here in Canada) is that once a police officer has to discharge his weapon he has to continue doing so until the target begins to fall. So as to not fire twice, and have the guy return fire while the officer decides if he should resume or not. You'd be surprised how capable determined people are even with 9mm or 40 cal slugs in their vital organs. Back in the 60's and 70's it think they changed it due to a few incidents where drugged people managed to kill the officer when he stopped at two or three shots.

Also the firing at the chest is a basic rule for everyone from the old lady with a snub .38 to the navy seal with the 9mm HK.

[Jerron36]

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

Find me one place in the United States where you won't get jail time for shooting some guy who stole your wallet. (I'm talking legally. Not backhand mafia and/or racist shit that happens regularly) Seriously, I dare you. If you find it, I promise, I will never argue about guns again for the rest of my life. And then I'll promise never to live in the US again, because that will be the absolute stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

(Indiana) Well, if you change your problem to stealing your wallet:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against
another person to protect the person or a third person from what the
person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the
person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent
serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be
placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the
person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including
deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes
that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's
unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a
person is justified in using reasonable force against another person
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or
criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's
possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's
immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the
person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in
using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).

[Suave]

Originally Posted by Blistex

Regarding Police using deadly force.

I'm pretty sure that policy (at least here in Canada) is that once a police officer has to discharge his weapon he has to continue doing so until the target begins to fall. So as to not fire twice, and have the guy return fire while the officer decides if he should resume or not. You'd be surprised how capable determined people are even with 9mm or 40 cal slugs in their vital organs. Back in the 60's and 70's it think they changed it due to a few incidents where drugged people managed to kill the officer when he stopped at two or three shots.

Also the firing at the chest is a basic rule for everyone from the old lady with a snub .38 to the navy seal with the 9mm HK.

I don't know if this is just myth, but I've heard of at least Delta Force (and possibly others) using double taps to the head rather than centre-of-mass shots.

[tropple]

But you know what? If you put the remains in a lime pit under the house you don't need to deal with that legal stuff.

Two in the chest one in the head. Words to live by. Everyone hears the stories about forehead shots, but listen, no one shot in the chest has much air left to shout much even with armor. It's like being slammed with a bowling ball.

[Blistex]

Originally Posted by Suave

I don't know if this is just myth, but I've heard of at least Delta Force (and possibly others) using double taps to the head rather than centre-of-mass shots.

I still think that they use the two bursts to the chest and one to the head. ( 9 bullets in total per person given the 3 burst settings on the preferred weapons).

[longbough]

Originally Posted by DelayedReaction

Perhaps you can elaborate on this a bit more, because I apparently demonstrate a lack of understanding. According to your own rules, you never draw your weapon unless you intend to kill with it. Are the cops trained differently?

Please refer to the first part of my initial post where I state: "the sole objective of using a gun in defense is not to "kill" but to “stop” a target that presents an imminent threat. "

The difference betweeen "stop" and "kill" is made in all modern defensive handgun training institutions from LFI, Gunsite, Front Sight, Thunder Ranch and others.

For example: A single arterial wound (e.g. aorta, iliac artery, femoral artery, brachial artery etc.) usually won't stop a knife-wielding subject from stabbing you ten times before he is disabled by massive hemorraging - even though he may die minutes/hours later. The result is a "kill" but hadn't been "stopped."
On the other hand a thoracic wound that impacts major viscera will frequently trigger an autonomic neurovascular collapse causing the person to involuntarily drop, pass-out, vomit etc. This is a "stopped" subject which didn't result in a "kill."

[tropple]

Want to bet that you won't drain out to uselessness in about 5 seconds from a cut to the femoral artery?

That distinction is too close to saying shoot to disable. IMHO, KILL == STOP. If you need to shoot, you had better be shooting to kill. Bullets are cheap, use plenty.

[longbough]

My point is that you should shoot to drop the target.
If the subject collapses and is no longer a threat, his long term morbidity and mortality is a secondary concern.

Personally, if I have my target "down" I'd rather not empty the rest of my magazine into him just as his buddy emerges from around the corner.

[tropple]

Originally Posted by longbough

My point is that you should shoot to drop the target.
If the subject collapses and is no longer a threat, his long term morbidity and mortality is a secondary concern.

Personally, if I have my target "down" I'd rather not empty the rest of my magazine into him just as his buddy emerges from around the corner.

Good point ;-)

[MSD]

Originally Posted by longbough

I stand corrected.
I meant the presentation of a concealed handgun.

I believe that the NRA number is that in 92% of cases in which a weapon is shown and an attacker is told to stop, the attacker decides that stopping is a better idea than dying.

[DelayedReaction]

Originally Posted by longbough

For example: A single arterial wound (e.g. aorta, iliac artery, femoral artery, brachial artery etc.) usually won't stop a knife-wielding subject from stabbing you ten times before he is disabled by massive hemorraging - even though he may die minutes/hours later. The result is a "kill" but hadn't been "stopped."
On the other hand a thoracic wound that impacts major viscera will frequently trigger an autonomic neurovascular collapse causing the person to involuntarily drop, pass-out, vomit etc. This is a "stopped" subject which didn't result in a "kill."

Okay, I think we're on the same page. I was under the impression that you were implying cops should attempt precision fire to disable instead of kill the target. You seem to be suggesting that once the target is down, you stop firing. That makes sense, especially since shooting targets that are already on the ground is typically frowned upon.

[Big Cholla]

LEOs are not taught to shoot to kill. That would be a big no-no for surviving the shooting board hearing and then the Grand Jury investigation/Coroner's Jury. LEOs are taught to "shoot to stop" a felonious action in progress. ...... LEOs draw and present their weapons all the time when arresting subjects after following their agency's "Force Continuum".

Civilians have a long history of presenting their weapon and telling the BG to "STOP, LEAVE, GET AWAY FROM ME, DON'T DO THAT", etc. and being successful at being obeyed without having to shoot anyone. The law applied to any defensive shooting is always open for interpertation by the Prosecutor and his/her bosses. Both civilian and LEO are far better off to not have to shoot, but if it comes to that make sure that an "Affirmative Defense" is available. i.e, "I was in fear for my life", "I was in fear for his/her life." There are locals where shooting in defense of property is in fact legal. Believe me when I say that no property is worth it. That is what insurance is for.

Some practical advice: If you have to present your CCW weapon and are successful at backing down the BG without shooting, be the first to make the police report. You very well could be accused of "Brandishing" a weapon or worse by the potential BG who is now the GG because he reported first. For some reason, the police tend to believe most the person reporting that comes forth first.

No trained shooter will take a deliberate head shot except snipers who are in a rock solid position; and even they miss at times. It is a desperation shot at the hardest part of the human body to hit correctly. In the case of an assailant with body armor and/or is chemically fueled, a hip shot is sometime justified to break a hip and make it physically impossible for them to advance and continue the felonious action. Of course, an assailant with a broken hip and with a gun still in hand is still a potential threat.

One last thing; civilians are usually given the most latitude in the aftermath of a shooting in justification of the "shoot, don't shoot" decision vis-a-vis LEOs. Civilians are given the least latitude in the legalities that occur post-shooting. LEOs are exactly the opposite in the "shoot, don't shoot" and the aftermath legalities, but all shooting situations are stand-alones as far as the thing plays out as a whole.

My philosophy is to carry, but to make extreme effort to not have to shoot.

[dksuddeth]

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
~ ~ (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
~ ~ ~ (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
~ ~ (3) he reasonably believes that:
~ ~ ~ (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
~ ~ ~ (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Originally Posted by zen_tom

There's a problem with this law...
If the guy steals your wallet and hangs around, you can't shoot him, because according to points 2a, and 2b;
The guy has already committed the crime, (i.e. he's not imminently going to) and
The guy is not fleeing after having commited the crime.
In fact, the guy could hang around and call you a bitch, leaf through your wallet, make remarks about the picture of your mama, and you wouldn't be able to do a thing. Isn't the law a bitch?

according to section 3A and 3B, unless he hands over the wallet upon your verbal demand, he becomes a target.