# Shoot/no shoot?



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

This is a interesting article and so true! I have written before about the mental preparation needed for a SHTF, particular thinking through (high stress) scenarios and actions in specific WROL situations that today normalcy bias would state are pure black and white.

The Martin and Brown situations demonstrate this point well: our normal gut reaction to the ideal of shooting an unarmed kid is that the shooting would be unjustified, but then (hopefully) reason kicks in an starts evaluating the specifics of the situation and judging it by a more specific (legal or moral) criterion for action.

These situations occured in a (failing) rule of law situation, and to the average person should be pretty clear cut...a "kid" any race, any age, who is six feet +, graples with you on the ground smashing your head against the pavement, or charges you while you are pointing a gun at him is a clear threat to your life.

However in a WROL situation where people are afraid, starving, or dying--all struggling for survival then all bets are off. Women, children, dogs, bacteria, are all potential killers that you need to judge differently when you make a threat assesment or that final shoot/no shoot determination. Of course notionally we understand that offenses like theft also are amplified to potentially threatening your life, but if a thief threaten the life of your family are you willing to deal with them as you would a murder? Even if they are a starving child? Good questions to consider!

http://www.theprepperjournal.com/2014/08/27/do-you-shoot-imaginary-bad-guy-isnt-shows/


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

I mentioned bacteria and when I rereading my post I wanted to be more explicit...in a pandemic even a small child could be a killer if carrying a bacteria or virus...and so we need to at least think about how we might react to a child running toward us or a family member, even unarmed.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2014)

I really don't think I need a gun if that 6 foot + kid at 250 pounds with 4 bullets in him is charging me, even at my age. If that scares an LEO to soil his uniform he shouldn't be wearing it. I'd use my tasser and they do work most of the time. Military engagements with the enemy requires more justification to fire or return fire than that required of police officers! Before a soldier can reasonably believe he's in danger a bullet has to pass by him, for a cop, if the guy looks big and scary and comes toward him he can shoot him. 
You'll see less shootings with federal officers than municipal or county level types, that's due to better training and discipline, too many Barney's out there. I'm not suggesting any LEO puts themselves in real danger, I'm saying they need better training and a different attitude, especially in small towns.


----------



## hellrazor762 (May 20, 2012)

Soldiers require bullets to fly by them before shooting the enemy? 



Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

Placed in a life threatening situation would I shoot to protect myself and family? Women? Yes. Children? Yes. Dogs? I have BBQ sauce in my preps. Bacteria? I need more range time, I'm just not that good of a shot. 

If a woman is breaking into your house more than likely she is with her boyfriend or husband so you are likely looking at at least two criminals in your home. In an incident in Las Vegas last June a couple shot two police officers, retreated into Walmart where a CCW permit holder tried to defend himself and others. The woman pretended to be a shopper, came up behind the man and shot him in the back killing him. Some sources suggest that she might have been the leader in this action. You are not going to be defending yourself from Betty Crocker or June Cleaver.

My wife is retired from juvenile corrections. I asked her what the youngest person that she knew of that had been incarcerated in the State. She and one of her buddies, also retired from juvenile justice, both came up with the age of eleven. Please understand that it is extremely difficult to put a sixteen year old in jail and that the younger they are the more reluctant the State is to incarcerate these young people. To get incarcerated a juvenile has committed a string of crimes and has not responded to lesser punishment or they are involved in a violent crime. For the most part these young people are released when they turn 18 and shortly there after they do something that puts them into the adult correctional system. More than a few of them will do life on the installment plan. 

In many ways the juveniles are more dangerous than the adults. The adults may or may not care about the consequences of their actions but the juveniles have not even considered that there are consequences.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

If I understand the OP, in our curret world if you are involved in a shooting, you are subject to being second guessed after the fact by the legal system, but in WROL, not as llkely. Is the question how does that change your judgement of when to shoot?


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

Padre said:


> I mentioned bacteria and when I rereading my post I wanted to be more explicit...in a pandemic even a small child could be a killer if carrying a bacteria or virus...and so we need to at least think about how we might react to a child running toward us or a family member, even unarmed.


Actually, I really like your post without the clarification. A bacteria packing a 1911, the options are endless. Sorry, too much time on my hands.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Ozarker said:


> I really don't think I need a gun if that 6 foot + kid at 250 pounds with 4 bullets in him is charging me, even at my age. If that scares an LEO to soil his uniform he shouldn't be wearing it


Sounds like that was written by someone who has never actually faced any more danger than having his forum posts criticized. Of course the rest of your post was about as accurate as Hillary's version of what happened at Benghazi.


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

Ozarker said:


> ...If that scares an LEO to soil his uniform he shouldn't be wearing it.


Are you commenting on a subject that you have no experience on?



> I'd use my tasser and they do work most of the time.


A adult half your age and twice your weight is beating your head against the steering wheel and your recommended response is to use a Taser that works "most of the time" ?



> Military engagements with the enemy requires more justification to fire or return fire than that required of police officers! Before a soldier can reasonably believe he's in danger a bullet has to pass by him..


You trying to be funny right? The only requirements a soldier has before firing is:

1. Unknown wearing an enemy uniform, shoot.
2. Unknown giving no or incorrect password given, shoot.
3. When in doubt shoot and let God sort it out.



> ...for a cop, if the guy looks big and scary and comes toward him he can shoot him.


You're trying to be funny again....right?


----------



## squerly (Aug 17, 2012)

Ozarker said:


> I really don't think I need a gun if that 6 foot + kid at 250 pounds with 4 bullets in him is charging me, even at my age.


You must be one big scary fellow...


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2014)

Am I to assume some 18 year old kid, regardless of size, is a trained lethal warrior trained in close combat with a few bullets in him that should be viewed as a real threat? 

Yes, I've had all kinds of experiences, but I was just a company clerk in the Army, only fired my weapon at the range and ate in the mess hall like most of you'all. 

Edited, to make the point. look up Officer Pappert in St. Louis County, that is the trash that needs to be gotten rid of, red neck bad azz, bullies with a badge, those types need a real good azz kicking and then terminate them from their duties, toss them in the soup line. I hate bad cops, more than any criminal, I'd rather see a rapist go than a bad cop, then I'd get the rapist. A bunch of Jack Boots, low life scum of the earth. Traitors of the public confidence and trust. That should be clear enough for you.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Ozarker said:


> Am I to assume some 18 year old kid, regardless of size, is a trained lethal warrior trained in close combat with a few bullets in him that should be viewed as a real threat?
> 
> Yes, I've had all kinds of experiences, but I was just a company clerk in the Army, only fired my weapon at the range and ate in the mess hall like most of you'all.
> 
> Edited, to make the point. look up Officer Pappert in St. Louis County, that is the trash that needs to be gotten rid of, red neck bad azz, bullies with a badge, those types need a real good azz kicking and then terminate them from their duties, toss them in the soup line. I hate bad cops, more than any criminal, I'd rather see a rapist go than a bad cop, then I'd get the rapist. A bunch of Jack Boots, low life scum of the earth. Traitors of the public confidence and trust. That should be clear enough for you.


Well, now you've stepped in it.


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

Ozarker said:


> Am I to assume some 18 year old kid, regardless of size, is a trained lethal warrior trained in close combat with a few bullets in him that should be viewed as a real threat?
> 
> Yes, I've had all kinds of experiences, but I was just a company clerk in the Army, only fired my weapon at the range and ate in the mess hall like most of you'all.
> 
> Edited, to make the point. look up Officer Pappert in St. Louis County, that is the trash that needs to be gotten rid of, red neck bad azz, bullies with a badge, those types need a real good azz kicking and then terminate them from their duties, toss them in the soup line. I hate bad cops, more than any criminal, I'd rather see a rapist go than a bad cop, then I'd get the rapist. A bunch of Jack Boots, low life scum of the earth. Traitors of the public confidence and trust. That should be clear enough for you.


No you are not to assume that he was a threat after four rounds. Your are to assume that he was a threat before the first round and that is why it was fired. Furthermore, you might assume that he chose to continue his threatening behavior till after the fifth round hit him but that he discontinued said behavior after being struck by the sixth bullet.

The doctor that conducted the second autopsy said that the 18 year old ADULT looked as if he could have made a lot of money as a lineman on the NFL. This was the doctor hired by the family.

Before you call him a kid remember he is old enough to vote, get married, join the military, enter into a contract. By all measures he is legally and morally an adult.

Oh yea, and by the way, this sweet child had just held up a store and assaulted the clerk. It would appear that he had recently been released from juvenile detention. It is probably safe to assume he was violent on a certain level.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Is this guy being serious? I was going to come up with an educational and witty retort, but after re-reading his posts I have to believe he is either trolling or looking for some kind flame-war. Even basic threat assessment (fight or flight) has roots in common sense and human instinct. Unless one is of course void of both common sense and human instinct. As far as the desire to make this about "bad cops" I would submit that stupid people outnumber bad cops 25,000:1 (or more) in this country. Perhaps you should start a campaign on that front before releasing rapists and getting them with your "tasser". Whatever that is.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

well I bet dishonest politicians out number bad cops by a pretty huge margin, but people seem to accept that.


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

Ozarker said:


> I really don't think I need a gun if that 6 foot + kid at 250 pounds with 4 bullets in him is charging me, even at my age. If that scares an LEO to soil his uniform he shouldn't be wearing it. I'd use my tasser and they do work most of the time. Military engagements with the enemy requires more justification to fire or return fire than that required of police officers! Before a soldier can reasonably believe he's in danger a bullet has to pass by him, for a cop, if the guy looks big and scary and comes toward him he can shoot him.
> You'll see *fewer* shootings with federal officers than municipal or county level types...


Well all that kong foo really paid off huh! You can whip the scheitzens out of a six foot + beefy felon street gang banger who has been busting chops for several years. Get a dose of reality, better yet, go to Ferguson and Mississippi and show us how it's done!!

You'll look silly with that taser up your rectum and your ass kicked.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

I am usually the one giving Turtle and Sentry a hard time but this guy is ridiculous. If ANYONE who could conceivably wrestle your gun away from you moves to charge you most definitely you shoot them, a gun is most effective a weapon when used with some standoff distance, and anyone threateningly invading that standoff distance, especially when confronted with a gun pointed at them should be presumed to have the intent to take that gun from you and perhaps use it on you!


----------



## lazydaisy67 (Nov 24, 2011)

ok, I'm unclear about the Michael Brown thing where he gets his hands on the cop and breaks his eye socket. How did he get that close to be able to grab/touch/slam the cop in the first place? Also another question about that, were the first 4 shots that hit him in the arms to try to stop/slow him or was the cop nervous and aiming badly? 

As far as having to shoot kids, I have seen studies that have shown children regress to a strangely animalistic state when left on their own, much more so than adults. They can be very dangerous, have little to no conscience and will do whatever it takes to survive with no second thoughts whatsoever. So to answer that part of the question, yes, if it was to protect myself or my family I would pull the trigger. I would certainly try not to have to do that because the emotional trauma that you'd have afterwards would be almost debilitating and I'm not sure how or if you can get over that.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Geek999 said:


> If I understand the OP, in our curret world if you are involved in a shooting, you are subject to being second guessed after the fact by the legal system, but in WROL, not as llkely. Is the question how does that change your judgement of when to shoot?


No, that is not the point. Fergeson was just an example of how sometimes we need to check our gut reaction to the IDEA of an unarmed "kid" and consider threats objectively. Just because someone is unarmed or a woman or kid does not mean they are not a threat to your life.

The point of the OP is that we really need to free ourselves of delusions about who the enemy will be and how they might look, delusions at least tangentially we are seeing played upon in Ferguson.


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

Okay, lazydaisy, the facts are not fully disclosed, but in circumspect we have derived this speculation:

The big guy was in the street in the car lanes. The big guy assaulted the cop and attempted to disarm the cop. The cop with a concussion, head trauma and an injured eye fired six rounds into a moving target. 

I would never want to have to do that under any circumstance, but the cop did it.
As a patrolling peace officer, the cop must allow people to be within his proximity in order to conduct his duties. 

Many street thugs assault without provocation or warning, or "telegraphing." Hope this helps.


----------



## lazydaisy67 (Nov 24, 2011)

Well, either way, the cop did what he was trained to do so as far as I'm concerned end of story. Too bad as many high profile people don't show up to the funerals of our service men and women as did this thug.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Padre said:


> No, that is not the point. Fergeson was just an example of how sometimes we need to check our gut reaction to the IDEA of an unarmed "kid" and consider threats objectively. Just because someone is unarmed or a woman or kid does not mean they are not a threat to your life.
> 
> The point of the OP is that we really need to free ourselves of delusions about who the enemy will be and how they might look, delusions at least tangentially we are seeing played upon in Ferguson.


Well, we've already shut down something like 3 threads on Ferguson. If that's what this is, then I say shut this one down too. I'm content to let the courts, etc. do their work.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2014)

I agree with much of what has been said, certainly not all as I don't use personal attacks in forums. No, there was no "flaming" intent.
I didn't call the Ferguson cop a bad cop. I also haven't been glued to the story and wasn't aware of the injury he suffered. The initial information on the 18 year old giant was that he had no record of felonies. Also, I have not heard anything on a toxicology report, the other ADULT KID he was with seemed to have a had a past smoking a bit. That's totally irrelevant. 

My rant really wasn't about Ferguson, it's to the training LEOs receive and the mind set of training. I covered this in another post so I won't repeat it all again. 

As to Ferguson, if the officer was injured that changes everything. My feeling is that a LEO should be able to take a punch and effect an arrest without killing the suspect, especially if the suspect is injured. Yes, I know an injured suspect is more dangerous, doesn't mean they will roundhouse kick your head off. 

Padre, you're right, just because a woman or kid is unarmed doesn't mean they could not be a threat, what is that threat level, realistically? Missouri training is to assume the worst which is not the correct approach initially and in doing so sets the stage for the fearing for the officer's safety. In many cases cops jump to conclusions to justify where they can go, verbal judo applied to escalate the situation to exercise aggression and force which I refer to as acting like a bully with a badge. 

I was talking to an agent here about the psychology of cops and said "if they couldn't have become a LEO they would have ended up as a criminal in a gang" he agreed totally. Some become a PO for the wrong reason, some change after they get in due to bad mentorship. 

And why are they trained to shoot to kill and empty the magazine? Dead suspects don't talk nor can they tell a story nor can the sue for long term disabilities and hit some small municipality up for a few million dollars in claims. It's not about the threat it's about money, and the training reflects that, the threat of financial loss after an incident.

I also agree there are more crooks as politicians than cops. The abuse or misuse of power is something that can easily be done, in some cases it's difficult to walk a thin line with opportunities placed in front of someone, the wrong choice is made too often. 

See there, I didn't have to throw out any personal attacks, toss out any digs or smart azz remarks aimed at anyone in the forum to post my opinions.


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

"Take a punch and effect an arrest" means early retirement or death due to head trauma and concussions. These add up and eventually the patient is immobile (paralyzed) or develop a form of Parkensens (Mohammad Ali). You don't take a punch to the head--ever.

Emptying the magazine is only when the assailant won't stop. They are taught to fire until the threat has stopped--period.

One problem is that juvenile records cannot be brought out in court. Violent juvenile offenders should be disclosed.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Ozarker said:


> Am I to assume some 18 year old kid, regardless of size, is a trained lethal warrior trained in close combat with a few bullets in him that should be viewed as a real threat?
> 
> Yes, I've had all kinds of experiences, but I was just a company clerk in the Army, only fired my weapon at the range and ate in the mess hall like most of you'all.
> 
> Edited, to make the point. look up Officer Pappert in St. Louis County, that is the trash that needs to be gotten rid of, red neck bad azz, bullies with a badge, those types need a real good azz kicking and then terminate them from their duties, toss them in the soup line. I hate bad cops, more than any criminal, I'd rather see a rapist go than a bad cop, then I'd get the rapist. A bunch of Jack Boots, low life scum of the earth. Traitors of the public confidence and trust. That should be clear enough for you.


You know what Ozarker, I'm pretty tolerant of ignorance, that can be fixed. In this case however, your comments are not only ignorant, but show a lack of knowledge, and comprehension beyond belief. You need to go back to your desk and sign your ID-10-T form.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Caribou said:


> No you are not to assume that he was a threat after four rounds. Your are to assume that he was a threat before the first round and that is why it was fired. Furthermore, you might assume that he chose to continue his threatening behavior till after the fifth round hit him but that he discontinued said behavior after being struck by the sixth bullet.
> 
> The doctor that conducted the second autopsy said that the 18 year old ADULT looked as if he could have made a lot of money as a lineman on the NFL. This was the doctor hired by the family.
> 
> ...


I also heard that the "kid" in question, and his side kick were under investigation for beating a man to death with a hammer. This was not released due to an on going investigation, and can not be verified, however my source is reliable.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

camo2460 said:


> You know what Ozarker, I'm pretty tolerant of ignorance, that can be fixed. In this case however, your comments are not only ignorant, but show a lack of knowledge, and comprehension beyond belief. You need to go back to your desk and sign your ID-10-T form.


His comments reveal his basic preconception that police are in the business of using fists to stop thugs, and he considers the police to be one step short of being a thug themselves.

While he would never consider his posts to be flames and trolling, those he insults surely would be justified in doing so.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

In a post collapse world I would shoot anyone trying to break into my house. Hopefully I'd have time to warn them first.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

BillS said:


> In a post collapse world I would shoot anyone trying to break into my house. Hopefully I'd have time to warn them first.


I don't think that is the topic. I asked and it was dragged back to Ferguson.


----------



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

*We were on our own.*

During the last major hurricane here in Miami, Fl in 92 we had riots and looting, National Guard was called in, local police resources were send to the affected areas, my neighborhood was clear of law enforcement and we were told that we were on our own, in the more affected areas neighbors blockaded their streets and put up signs," looters will be shot", police/guards just drove by dropping off water, ice, mre`s and just smile and gave the ok sign.So depending on the situation you have the moral obligation to protect yourself and close ones from danger.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

readytogo said:


> During the last major hurricane here in Miami, Fl in 92 we had riots and looting, National Guard was called in, local police resources were send to the affected areas, my neighborhood was clear of law enforcement and we were told that we were on our own, in the more affected areas neighbors blockaded their streets and put up signs," looters will be shot", police/guards just drove by dropping off water, ice, mre`s and just smile and gave the ok sign.So depending on the situation you have the moral obligation to protect yourself and close ones from danger.


I'd agree EXCEPT for "depending on the situation".

You *ALWAYS* have the *MORAL OBLIGATION* to protect yourself and close ones from danger.

It's not even in my lexicon or thought process to surrender that.


----------



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

*A good example of shoot not shoot situation*

Woman Uses Her Gun To Ward Off Abduction.
http://news.yahoo.com/woman-uses-her-gun-ward-off-abduction-190207403.html

A very wise lady in my book.


----------



## Mase92 (Feb 4, 2013)

Well, here we go. I got half way thru this thread that had a pretty good start with some solid points to ponder in a WWYD type scenario. Thanks for the attempt. 

Low and behold it turns into a cop vs cop basher seasoned with badd assery, troll comments, not to mention we had a Benghazi reference and a bit of newguyitis who hasn't earned his way around here enough to have a counter comment to the talking heads that usually rule the roost. 

It gets old.

But Padre, nice attempt. I think it boils down to extra vigilant situational awareness and I think getting yourself out of a situation like this before it happens will go a long way to keeping you alive. In a WROL situation, it's every man for himself until prove otherwise.


----------



## nightwing (Jul 26, 2014)

MY mother, " god rest her" said if you don't have anything nice to say, keep it to yourself. :dunno:


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Training*



Ozarker said:


> I really don't think I need a gun if that 6 foot + kid at 250 pounds with 4 bullets in him is charging me, even at my age. If that scares an LEO to soil his uniform he shouldn't be wearing it. I'd use my tasser and they do work most of the time. Military engagements with the enemy requires more justification to fire or return fire than that required of police officers! Before a soldier can reasonably believe he's in danger a bullet has to pass by him, for a cop, if the guy looks big and scary and comes toward him he can shoot him.
> You'll see less shootings with federal officers than municipal or county level types, that's due to better training and discipline, too many Barney's out there. I'm not suggesting any LEO puts themselves in real danger, I'm saying they need better training and a different attitude, especially in small towns.


In my poor training as a Deputy Sheriff, I was surprised to learn that a LEO is more likely to be shot dead by a male between the ages of 14 to23 than any other age group.

That being said, I found through experience that if I was confronted by someone who had a weapon, they were likely to be in close proximity to me , in which case, I did not want my weapon, I wanted theirs. Since we did not have Tazers back in my day, we just had to disarm our attacker manually. No one wins a point blank shootout.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*It would not*



Geek999 said:


> If I understand the OP, in our curret world if you are involved in a shooting, you are subject to being second guessed after the fact by the legal system, but in WROL, not as llkely. Is the question how does that change your judgement of when to shoot?


It would not change my judgment of when to shoot. If that ever happens to you, you will never stop second guessing yourself, even if no one else ever knows about it.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

BillM said:


> It would not change my judgment of when to shoot. If that ever happens to you, you will never stop second guessing yourself, even if no one else ever knows about it.


Double post. Sorry.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

BillM said:


> It would not change my judgment of when to shoot. If that ever happens to you, you will never stop second guessing yourself, even if no one else ever knows about it.


I'm just trying to understand what the question is. Is the discussion about shooting decisions is WROL? Is the discussion about some other question?

I guess in my case I can say I don't need to worry about it now because no one can carry in this area except LEOs. In a WROL I would be carrying. In between my primary concern would be when the LEOs try to seize everyone's guns.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Ferguson*

Cops are not paid to lose or fight fair.

We never shoot to wound or to kill but only to stop a lethal threat.

Regardless of whether your attacker is armed or not, you are and the public, your department and your wife expects you to retain that deadly weapon in your custody at all costs. If you have to use it to retain it then you had better shoot until the threat stops.

The public believes that if someone is shot that they become instantly incapacitated. Most of the time they are not and the person shooting may believe they are missing because they do not fall like in the movies.

We had a Bank Mgr. in Clarkson , Ky shoot a bank robber who was carrying a rifle, through the heart with a 45 cal. ACP. The robber dropped his weapon , turned around and walked out of the bank only to fall dead outside in the bushes. If he had been intent on using the rifle, he had time to unload it before he left.

As for being a poor shot, you will only preform at half the skill level you display at the shooting range when it comes time to shoot a threat !


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*When all bets are off*



Geek999 said:


> I'm just trying to understand what the question is. Is the discussion about shooting decisions is WROL? Is the discussion about some other question?
> 
> I guess in my case I can say I don't need to worry about it now because no one can carry in this area except LEOs. In a WROL I would be carrying. In between my primary concern would be when the LEOs try to seize everyone's guns.


If there is wide spread looting and rioting and TSHTF, I doubt LE is going to be concerned about your being armed as long as you are not doing the raping and pillaging.

Move to KY and you won't have those concerns. It is against KY law to disarm citizens here, explicitly during an emergency.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

In a post collapse world I would shoot if someone was threatening me or if they wouldn't stop approaching me or if they wouldn't stop trying to break into my house.

I think after the collapse there will be a lot of innocent people dying because they hesitated to use lethal force when it was necessary for survival.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

BillM said:


> If there is wide spread looting and rioting and TSHTF, I doubt LE is going to be concerned about your being armed as long as you are not doing the raping and pillaging.
> 
> Move to KY and you won't have those concerns. It is against KY law to disarm citizens here, explicitly during an emergency.


Here in NJ I do have those concerns. I would expect a Katrina style seizure here at the drop of a hat. As for the rest of the country, if you can point out a place that does not use SWAT tactics to serve routine search warrants, then that is a place that still respects the 4th amendment. If they do use SWAT tactics for serving search warrants, they already violate the 4th amendment, so I would not trust them to respect the 2nd amendment during an emergency, as they have already demonstrated a disregard for Constitutional rights. So does Kentucky allow the use of SWAT to serve a routine search warrant?

I fully intend to move someplace else in the next few years. KY is still on the map as a possibility, but about half of the US has already been eliminated for either taxation or gun law reasons.

Several other countries outside the US are also definite possibilities. While few places are as open as say, KY, on gun laws, many are an improvement over NJ, while also providing lower taxes, better press freedom, and rate better on other measures of freedom or safety than the US.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Ky*



Geek999 said:


> Here in NJ I do have those concerns. I would expect a Katrina style seizure here at the drop of a hat. As for the rest of the country, if you can point out a place that does not use SWAT tactics to serve routine search warrants, then that is a place that still respects the 4th amendment. If they do use SWAT tactics for serving search warrants, they already violate the 4th amendment, so I would not trust them to respect the 2nd amendment during an emergency, as they have already demonstrated a disregard for Constitutional rights. So does Kentucky allow the use of SWAT to serve a routine search warrant?
> 
> I fully intend to move someplace else in the next few years. KY is still on the map as a possibility, but about half of the US has already been eliminated for either taxation or gun law reasons.
> 
> Several other countries outside the US are also definite possibilities. While few places are as open as say, KY, on gun laws, many are an improvement over NJ, while also providing lower taxes, better press freedom, and rate better on other measures of freedom or safety than the US.


No we don't use SWAT to serve routine search warrants. You really have to earn it for us to use SWAT


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

BillM said:


> No we don't use SWAT to serve routine search warrants. You really have to earn it for us to use SWAT


Good. My current understanding is there are 60,000 SWAT raids per year in the US. 70% of those are for routine search warrants. Over 90% are for situations less dangerous than for what SWAT was originally intended. If there are places in the US that still respect the Bill of Rights I would like to be able to identify them.

Do you have a source I can check out? I'd like to check a few other states as well. State by state variations matter.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2014)

Well, Bill M, you're an LEO! The others are either green or aren't. I agree with you.

As to the troll and other personal comments, obviously there really is a lack of intelligence to discuss an issue without getting personal, ignorance at it's best in any forum. 

To the comments of the kid having a criminal background, pure bunk and he was not wanted at all at the time of the shooting, he had committed non-serious offenses which was widely reported and made available to those who would listen, that leaves several in this forum 
out who already paint the kid as enemy number one. 

Just how many posts does someone need on this forum to post an opinion? If there is some click of old members, click on, so far, not many here have impressed me and I could care less. 

Now that all that is over, most didn't read what I said carefully and you did a lot of assuming. I never said anything passing judgment on the officer and I also mentioned his injury (which initially was unknown) that justified his actions. I can see the case going either way and probably slanted to the officer. Bill M was absolutely correct. 

Shooting center mass empty the mag, that's what is taught, I also mentioned why, municipalities don't want to get sued for shooting some guy in the knee or putting them in a wheel chair, dead men can't talk either, it's not about stopping someone it's about MONEY! So, you're taught with a good dose of brain washing, if you can't take a punch out on the street you don't belong on the street IMO. Kids, youngsters barely old enough to order a beer get badges, they lack judgment and maturity and that makes some of them dangerous with their macho total control attitudes under the color of law. 

Since the 90's public trust has fallen in MO as well as other states, that was also on the news but I've seen it first hand as well, about the time military equipment began going to any police department, that's giving candy to a kid. Justify the need for the new toys, use them, employ them and you might get more toys to play with. Too militarized, we don't need a police line pointing weapons at any protestor on any matter. What happened to the old rule, never point your weapon at someone unless you're going to shoot? Most aren't old enough here to remember Kent State, all due to some nuts behind the bolts of weapons. 

If you don't get my point, that's fine, never said there weren't good guys wearing a uniform, there are. Point was, not all are good and not all departments are good, we have some really bad ones in MO. Pretty sure I'm done on this thread.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

Geek999 said:


> I'm just trying to understand what the question is. Is the discussion about shooting decisions is WROL? Is the discussion about some other question?
> 
> I guess in my case I can say I don't need to worry about it now because no one can carry in this area except LEOs. In a WROL I would be carrying. In between my primary concern would be when the LEOs try to seize everyone's guns.


I'm sure the local thugs are aware of the carry laws and dutifully obeying them! :rofl:

what if said thug doesn't have a gun, he has a knife? oops, now maybe its legal for him to have that? but you're still just as dead. right?


----------



## PurpleHeartJarhead (Mar 23, 2014)

hellrazor762 said:


> Soldiers require bullets to fly by them before shooting the enemy?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


Extremely situational and mission dependent, pure and simple.

Generally speaking, during an occupation or security and stabilization operations (SASO) yes, but that is because you are not in an active, offensive combat role, as defined by the DoD at a minimum and Congress at maximum.

Conversely, during offensive combat operations (kinetic) no such justification is required, provided the published rules of engagement (RoE) have defined what constitutes combat operations and the enemy. In cases where there is ambiguity, you get people charged with killing "innocents" incorrectly.


----------



## PurpleHeartJarhead (Mar 23, 2014)

Padre said:


> _* a gun is most effective a weapon when used with some standoff distance*_


Yessir!! That is why professionals know, understand and train for engagements that would fall inside the "21 foot" threshold.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Ozarker said:


> Just how many posts does someone need on this forum to post an opinion? If there is some click of old members, click on, so far, not many here have impressed me and I could care less.


No particular limit as long as you don't challenge the authority of cops. If you do then you'll get a bunch of abuse no matter how long you've been here.

We have never established a "free speech zone".


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Ozarker said:


> Just how many posts does someone need on this forum to post an opinion? If there is some click of old members, click on, so far, not many here have impressed me and I could care less.


The number does not count it's the content. If you post blather and nonsense, make ludicrous claims about toughness and belittle others, then pretend like you were the victim of people being personal; you will probably catch a lot of flack. The same things happens when people go all chicken-little about law enforcement and regurgitate the same complaint over and over on every thread. There had been many constructive discussions about law enforcement until "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!" started.


----------



## Joey1964 (Feb 18, 2012)

"I was talking to an agent here about the psychology of cops and said "if they couldn't have become a LEO they would have ended up as a criminal in a gang" he agreed totally. Some become a PO for the wrong reason, some change after they get in due to bad mentorship." 
Ozarker, This is incorrect for 99% of LEO. I have 30 years in Law Enforcement, Military Police, a local town police dept, and state police. I have known a couple guys over the years that may have joined a gang, but they ended their career when their deeds were discovered. Yes there are bad cops, but my experience has been that they get the boot when they are caught. 
I feel from your posts that you have a personal axe to grind with LEO's; maybe because of a personal encounter. I will tell you this: one of our biggest problems is that we have to recruit from the human race...Cheers and keep on prepping!


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Joey1964 said:


> "I was talking to an agent here about the psychology of cops and said "if they couldn't have become a LEO they would have ended up as a criminal in a gang" he agreed totally. Some become a PO for the wrong reason, some change after they get in due to bad mentorship."
> Ozarker, This is incorrect for 99% of LEO. I have 30 years in Law Enforcement, Military Police, a local town police dept, and state police. I have known a couple guys over the years that may have joined a gang, but they ended their career when their deeds were discovered. Yes there are bad cops, but my experience has been that they get the boot when they are caught.
> I feel from your posts that you have a personal axe to grind with LEO's; maybe because of a personal encounter. I will tell you this: one of our biggest problems is that we have to recruit from the human race...Cheers and keep on prepping!


You may wish to read up a bit on the forum before you dive in to this stuff.

An introductory post is also considered basic forum protocol.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 29, 2014)

Obviously my comments were not read carefully enough or I didn't make myself clear, Joey, I agree as I said not all, not even most but some. I worked with military police and CID, my uncle was a detective, 2 life long friends are city, another is a federal agent. 

Moving along, comments were more to the training and the expectations officers are under and the avoidance of liability by municipalities...etc.

Bless you all and stay safe!


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Geek999 said:


> I don't think that is the topic. I asked and it was dragged back to Ferguson.


No...AGAIN, if you would read the OP you would realize it has nothing to do with Ferguson!

Its about threats that our emotions might not want to think about as threats!



Geek999 said:


> I guess in my case I can say I don't need to worry about it now because no one can carry in this area except LEOs. In a WROL I would be carrying. In between my primary concern would be when the LEOs try to seize everyone's guns.


Other than the fact that this is a moronic statement, since the MOST dangerous threats don't care if there is a stupid unconstitutional law about only LEOs carrying, it demonstrates how important the OP is. Just because you have a gun doesn't make you safe, you need to know how, and when to use it.

The shoot no shoot question in a WROL needs to take into account that desperate people are dangerous and so while a mutant biker zombie might be and obvious threat a little kid with no weapons running toward your family might be as well.

That is if he has EBOLA.


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Padre - Nice try for an excellent topic to discuss.. In real world today or in a SHTF situation, I don't think my point of view would change regardless of the situation or person. I am licensed to carry conceal and I live in a stand your ground state. If for any reason, I feel threatened, you bet I would pull and shoot. 

Let me give you an example. 
A few weeks ago, my wife, daughter, and I went to an event that was in downtown Atlanta and ended after 11 P.M. We had to park around a half mile to mile away from the venue. On our way back, my wife and daughter were 5-10 steps ahead of me - simply because of the sidewalk traffic. A male homeless person flying high started oo'ing and ah'ing both my daughter and wife while walking towards them and as he passed them started to turn around, whistling and saying shit about my 15 year old daughter's rear. I immediately spoke up, saying dude, you better keep walking and shut your mouth. I said this with my hand on the butt of my gun... He looked at me with a snear, and then realized the way I hand my right hand, and started going "woo big guy, no harm, no foul, I will just keep walking". My wife hand her hand in her puse, but I couldn't see... Both of our hands were wrapped around a Ruger lc9 - one for her, one for me.

If he would have made any move towards me or my family, regardless of age, race, etc... I would have defended them and myself with deadly force. 


This space for rent.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Padre said:


> No...AGAIN, if you would read the OP you would realize it has nothing to do with Ferguson!
> 
> Its about threats that our emotions might not want to think about as threats!
> 
> ...


So it is moronic to obey current law, or to say I obey current law?


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Geek999 said:


> I guess in my case I can say I don't need to worry about it now because no one can carry in this area except LEOs. In a WROL I would be carrying.


No, moronic to think you don't have to worry about it. We think about things not because it is an issue now but because when it is we won't have time to think about it.

I.e. the point of the thread...threats that may not seem like threats if you suffer from normalacy bias....


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Padre said:


> No, moronic to think you don't have to worry about it. We think about things not because it is an issue now but because when it is we won't have time to think about it.
> 
> I.e. the point of the thread...threats that may not seem like threats if you suffer from normalacy bias....


If the world has just gone from current law to WROL, I've got the time between that event and a specific threat appearing to think about it. First I have to thnk about it to transition from being unarmed to being armed. Thinking about it can then occur in the context of the actual disaster that has led to WROL. My decisions may be different between a Pandemic vs. Economic collapse.

Until that event occurs, actions are governed by current law.

There is no way I can go from current state, I.e. Unarmed to having to make a snap decision of whether to shoot because I must make an intervening decision to be armed.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Geek999 said:


> I've got the time between that event and a specific threat appearing to think about it. First I have to thnk about it to transition from being unarmed to being armed.


Unless you don't!

Brother I have lived in places where you can't lawfully carry (or own) a gun, I understand the plight, but aside from thinking about where to get a gun, and when its time to break the law by doing so, there is no more important question than the shoot no shoot question.

If you pull that gun and have trouble following through with its use that gun is going to end up getting used on you.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Padre said:


> Unless you don't!
> 
> Brother I have lived in places where you can't lawfully carry (or own) a gun, I understand the plight, but aside from thinking about where to get a gun, and when its time to break the law by doing so, there is no more important question than the shoot no shoot question.
> 
> If you pull that gun and have trouble following through with its use that gun is going to end up getting used on you.


Nope. There is no way for that transition to occur because I am unarmed. Even if I am confronted with an armed assailant, I have to make a decision to go for his gun in order to obtain a weapon. At my age I am not likely to succeed. I do own guns but unless I am faced with a home invasion this question doesn't apply and my one and only experience with a home invasion was a uniformed cop. As mad as I was about the situation it did not occur to me that shooting him might have been the solution. 

BTW: Since we don't have Castle doctrine, shooting a home invader is likely to cause you a lot of grief, so it is best avoided.

Sorry, but I just don't see how I can get into a position where I have a shoot/no shoot choice unless there is a change in either the law, or the environment in which I live, albeit I am planning to move.

Now if the question is what happens in a WROL world, my decision process would be a) recognize that it is a WROL world, b) start to be routinely armed, and c) if I felt I was at risk of being killed or great bodily harm, or someone close to me was at the same risk, yes I would shoot.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Geek999 said:


> Nope. There is no way for that transition to occur because I am unarmed. Even if I am confronted with an armed assailant, I have to make a decision to go for his gun in order to obtain a weapon. At my age I am not likely to succeed. I do own guns but unless I am faced with a home invasion this question doesn't apply and my one and only experience with a home invasion was a uniformed cop. As mad as I was about the situation it did not occur to me that shooting him might have been the solution.
> 
> BTW: Since we don't have Castle doctrine, shooting a home invader is likely to cause you a lot of grief, so it is best avoided.


You are missing the point, the question is not about guns, although it is framed in that context since most of use have them. The question is about violence, and the willingness to use it against non-stereotypical threats (mutant zombee bikers).

The fact that you are old, doesn't matter, the question is do you have the will to survive, and are you going to go for survival? Remember age and deceit will triumph every time against youth and inexperience.

Also the question is not about getting someone's gun at the onset of a SHTF but acting once a SHTF occurs against non-conventional threats, and thinking about what those threats might be.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Padre said:


> You are missing the point, the question is not about guns, although it is framed in that context since most of use have them. The question is about violence, and the willingness to use it against non-stereotypical threats (mutant zombee bikers).
> 
> The fact that you are old, doesn't matter, the question is do you have the will to survive, and are you going to go for survival? Remember age and deceit will triumph every time against youth and inexperience.
> 
> Also the question is not about getting someone's gun at the onset of a SHTF but acting once a SHTF occurs against non-conventional threats, and thinking about what those threats might be.


Am I willing to use violence? I have no moral problem with self defense, only legal restrictions. Eliminate the legal restrictions and I suspect my views would be much like those of others here.

However, in a SHTF situation it may take a bit of time to figure out that the legal restrictions no longer apply. I also expect that the first clue that we are in a WROL world will be Katrina style gun confiscations by our NJ police.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*I hate to say this*



Geek999 said:


> Am I willing to use violence? I have no moral problem with self defense, only legal restrictions. Eliminate the legal restrictions and I suspect my views would be much like those of others here.
> 
> However, in a SHTF situation it may take a bit of time to figure out that the legal restrictions no longer apply. I also expect that the first clue that we are in a WROL world will be Katrina style gun confiscations by our NJ police.


Geek, I hate to say this but, if you are faced with a life threatening situation, you will likely be killed while you are deciding the legal ramifications of using deadly force, possibly by the police but more likely by a criminal aggressor .

The ability to make an instant decision and act is critical to survival.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

BillM said:


> Geek, I hate to say this but, if you are faced with a life threatening situation, you will likely be killed while you are deciding the legal ramifications of using deadly force, possibly by the police but more likely by a criminal aggressor .
> 
> The ability to make an instant decision and act is critical to survival.


I agree completely, except for the "more likely by a criminal aggressor", which is an aspect of why I consider NJ's laws, and the police that enforce them, to be so stupid.

Let's say an EMP hits and we are one day in. No criminal activity has occurred. Locals cops show up at the door in force seizing all guns similar to Katrina. What's the plan? I don't have a good one and I am not thrilled with the idea of suicide by cop.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*The body*



Geek999 said:


> I agree completely, except for the "more likely by a criminal aggressor", which is an aspect of why I consider NJ's laws, and the police that enforce them, to be so stupid.
> 
> Let's say an EMP hits and we are one day in. No criminal activity has occurred. Locals cops show up at the door in force seizing all guns similar to Katrina. What's the plan? I don't have a good one and I am not thrilled with the idea of suicide by cop.


The body can't do what the mind has not imagined and visualized.

In that kind of case, even a bad plan is better than no plan.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

BillM said:


> The body can't do what the mind has not imagined and visualized.
> 
> In that kind of case, even a bad plan is better than no plan.


Care to suggest a bad plan?


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*A bad plan*



Geek999 said:


> Care to suggest a bad plan?


A bad plan would be to stand aside and allow confiscation of all your weapons.

Another bad plan would be to shoot it out with the police, you will lose.

A good plan would be to turn over a single firearm and keep another hidden !

Allowing a criminal to kill you because you are afraid the police will arrest you for defending your self is a bad plan.

Continuing to live in a state or city that doesn't allow the use or means of deadly force for self defense is a bad plan.

Why don't you move to a friendlier place before TSHTF?


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

I used to live in Socialist Democracy of New Jersey. I was down on my luck, very young and looked half my age and was really cute. Bad disposition in the post Viet Nam war era.

I found out fast that the State, the government and the PEOPLE do NOT believe in "self defense" or self protection. They abhor it and call it "counter-assault." Even rape was not a violent crime until a concerted national effort changed the courts and legislature of SDNJ. 

I would have left sooner that I had if I had had an exit visa. I escaped by an ingenious plan of capitalism and steely nerves. I will never go back there except to shoot everyone on the streets, so I have NO plans to re-visit. 

Just pick up and go, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, etc. Live in a motor home while searching for your new domicile and commute. Leave the current house vacant or let a property management company handle it. 

Move or die.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

BillM said:


> Continuing to live in a state or city that doesn't allow the use or means of deadly force for self defense is a bad plan.
> 
> Why don't you move to a friendlier place before TSHTF?


That has been my plan for some time. The problem is just if TSHTF before I can get it done.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

VoorTrekker said:


> I used to live in Socialist Democracy of New Jersey. I was down on my luck, very young and looked half my age and was really cute. Bad disposition in the post Viet Nam war era.
> 
> I found out fast that the State, the government and the PEOPLE do NOT believe in "self defense" or self protection. They abhor it and call it "counter-assault." Even rape was not a violent crime until a concerted national effort changed the courts and legislature of SDNJ.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that post. My ignore list is full of LEOs who refuse to believe my posts about the local JBTs. It's nice to get some occasional confirmation that someone understands the problem.

PA and NH I think will turn blue as more folks move in from NY or MA respectively, so I'll probably go further.

However, I have to ask, why are you in CA? Isn't that just NJ with better weather?


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

When I moved to Cali. it had lax gun control laws and jobs that paid better than the Federal $3.35 per hour. Things didn't change until 1989-1993 with the Roos-Roberti Act and the influx of N*t*v* N*w Y*rk*rs, Jersey-yikes and Taxamachoosits liberals. 

There seemed to be a problem of election fraud and disregard for the Constitution after the Serial Rapist was elected. Many moved to Colorado 1990, some to Oregon and some to Nevada. 

Things continued to deteriorate and now the Hank Reardons have left or are leaving with the Dagnies seriously planning to exit stage NOT LEFT! 

I thought Red states were the commie libs and Blue states were the free states. Red Star USSR, Red China, Red Cuba, Red North Korea, etc.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

VoorTrekker said:


> When I moved to Cali. it had lax gun control laws and jobs that paid better than the Federal $3.35 per hour. Things didn't change until 1989-1993 with the Roos-Roberti Act and the influx of N*t*v* N*w Y*rk*rs, Jersey-yikes and Taxamachoosits liberals.
> 
> There seemed to be a problem of election fraud and disregard for the Constitution after the Serial Rapist was elected. Many moved to Colorado 1990, some to Oregon and some to Nevada.
> 
> ...


In Russian the word for red is the same as the word for beautiful. Hence the meaning in the communist world. In the US the red vs. Blue comes from the maps used on TV on election night. Early on they synced up with Republicans as red and Democrats as blue.


----------



## VoorTrekker (Oct 7, 2012)

Who did that? Karl Rove? Until 2008 Red States were the commie libs and Blue states were the constitutional conservative states. Changed overnight. How gullible!


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

VoorTrekker said:


> Who did that? Karl Rove? Until 2008 Red States were the commie libs and Blue states were the constitutional conservative states. Changed overnight. How gullible!


The networks did it. I think they use Red and Blue to give it a patriotic US kind of look overall but stick the Republicans with Red because in many contexts Red is negative, e.g. imagine they had used Red and Green. Very subliminal.

Karl Rove hasn't gotten to the level of using multiple colors on his little white board.


----------



## Wikkador (Oct 22, 2014)

I am willing to use deadly force in situations where my failure to use deadly force would likely place me in great peril. I consider "great peril" to be any circumstance where I am likely to suffer life threatening injury and where no reasonable escape is available.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Wikkador said:


> I am willing to use deadly force in situations where my failure to use deadly force would likely place me in great peril. I consider "great peril" to be any circumstance where I am likely to suffer life threatening injury and where no reasonable escape is available.


I agree with you 100% Wikkador, except the part about "where no reasonable escape is available". IMO if one wastes time looking for a way out, even briefly, that means more time for the bad guy to hurt you.


----------



## fteter (May 23, 2014)

In my mind, I can't wrap my brain around the idea of an objective standard for shoot or no shoot...there is no bright-line rule. It's a subjective standard. What was the situation? What was going on in the mind of the shooter? What was the intent of the person or people shot?

Fortunately for all of us, both LEO and military personnel go through a heavy dose of situational training just so they can work through the subjective factors...quickly...under stress.

I'm not LEO nor do I have military training, so I've tried to get some training available to private citizens...without going over the edge and becoming a mall Ninja  In a WROL setting, I'll certainly carry. And I'll certainly abide with an important rule: "after SHTF, assume all people suck until they prove otherwise". While I won't shoot on sight, I think I'll be much more likely to think "shoot" at the first sign of things going south.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

fteter said:


> In my mind, I can't wrap my brain around the idea of an objective standard for shoot or no shoot...there is no bright-line rule. It's a subjective standard. What was the situation? What was going on in the mind of the shooter? What was the intent of the person or people shot?
> 
> Fortunately for all of us, both LEO and military personnel go through a heavy dose of situational training just so they can work through the subjective factors...quickly...under stress.
> 
> I'm not LEO nor do I have military training, so I've tried to get some training available to private citizens...without going over the edge and becoming a mall Ninja  In a WROL setting, I'll certainly carry. And I'll certainly abide with an important rule: "after SHTF, assume all people suck until they prove otherwise". While I won't shoot on sight, I think I'll be much more likely to think "shoot" at the first sign of things going south.


Like I mentioned above, If you try to ascertain the intent of an aggressor, you're going to die. Situations where a person is an attacker with a deadly or dangerous weapon or an intruder at 3am is pretty clear cut in my mind, I will react with deadly force. One way to develop situational awareness and to work out what you will do in a given circumstance is to play the "what if game" in your head, this will help you to respond properly, what ever you perceive that response to be.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Reasonable Person*



fteter said:


> In my mind, I can't wrap my brain around the idea of an objective standard for shoot or no shoot...there is no bright-line rule. It's a subjective standard. What was the situation? What was going on in the mind of the shooter? What was the intent of the person or people shot?
> 
> Fortunately for all of us, both LEO and military personnel go through a heavy dose of situational training just so they can work through the subjective factors...quickly...under stress.
> 
> I'm not LEO nor do I have military training, so I've tried to get some training available to private citizens...without going over the edge and becoming a mall Ninja  In a WROL setting, I'll certainly carry. And I'll certainly abide with an important rule: "after SHTF, assume all people suck until they prove otherwise". While I won't shoot on sight, I think I'll be much more likely to think "shoot" at the first sign of things going south.


The legal determination as to whether you were justified in the use of deadly force is a "reasonable person " test.

In most states, a reasonable person is a grand juror.

They will be allowed to know only what you heard, saw, knew, and feared at the moment you used deadly force to defend yourself or a third party.

They will then be required to find a "true" or "no true" decision as to whether you will be charged in the wounding of manslaughter of an other person.

They will not be allowed to consider any other fact not known to you at the time you used deadly force.

In short they must put themselves in your shoes at the moment of the deadly force incident.


----------



## TheLazyL (Jun 5, 2012)

fteter said:


> In my mind, I can't wrap my brain around the idea of an objective standard for shoot or no shoot...there is no bright-line rule. It's a subjective standard. What was the situation? What was going on in the mind of the shooter? What was the intent of the person or people shot?...


I'm driving up to an intersection and have the right-of-way. Cross traffic has a stop sign.

A Driver fails to stop and if I don't do something quickly I'll T-bone them and possibly someone(s) could die.

I don't wonder what is going on in the mind of the other Driver. I don't try to guess the intention of the other Driver. I PUSH MY VEHICLE'S BRAKE PEDAL THRU THE FLOOR AS QUICKLY AS I CAN!

Now if the other Driver blows the stop sign while I'm still a 1/4 mile away, then there is no need for me to take any defensive action.

Same principle applies with a defensive shooting.

Following is a cut and paste from Al Bore's Internet:

*Ability*- Can the attacker physically do enough damage to rise to the level of serious injury or death? An unarmed 4-year old would not likely have the ability to kill you, therefore it would be unreasonable to shoot the little kid in self defense. Often the term "ability" in the context of a self defense situation means "Is the attacker armed with a deadly weapon" or "Is the attacker capable of seriously injuring me with just his hands or feet?" If the answer to those questions is no, then it is unreasonable to shoot. If the answer is yes, you move on to the next criterion.

*Opportunity*- Does the attacker have the opportunity to seriously injure or kill me? This is often focused on proximity. If a person is threatening you with a knife from 50 feet away, he has the ability to kill you; but not the opportunity. He's out of range. Obviously, opportunity depends on the weapon being used against you and your immediate environment. If the attacker has the ability (is armed) and the opportunity (is within range to use the weapon effectively) to kill you, then we move on to the next prong of the decision tree.

*Jeopardy*- Just because a person is armed and has an opportunity to kill you doesn't mean that you are in any true danger. Take the example of a uniformed police officer walking past you on a sidewalk. The officer has the ability (a gun) and opportunity (is within range) to kill you, but unless you present a threat to the officer, you are in no jeopardy. He isn't going to shoot you even though he is capable of doing so.

Another way to look at jeopardy is by defining it as "intent". Does the attacker intend to seriously hurt or kill you? If not, it isn't reasonable to shoot. All three criteria must be met in order to legally establish that it was "objectively reasonable" to use deadly force.


----------



## Wikkador (Oct 22, 2014)

camo2460 said:


> I agree with you 100% Wikkador, except the part about "where no reasonable escape is available". IMO if one wastes time looking for a way out, even briefly, that means more time for the bad guy to hurt you.


What I am saying is that [if] I can simply walk away, drive off or back up/retreat to avoid having to deal deadly force, I will opt to do that. There are some who proclaim to always "stand their ground".. I am saying that if given a reasonable avenue of escape, I would take it. I am not suggesting that someone take 15 minutes to figure that out or that a person should turn their back on an attacker in close proximity.. sometimes, there is no reasonable option to escape and each person must make that decision fight v flight- in the moment.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

I think there are few if any who desire a fight, if only because a fight always means the possibility of defeat, injury, or death, whereas there is nothing to be lost by strategic avoidance of a fight especially if you take up an easily defensible position: in case you are force into a fight.

That being said...even if avoidance is you plan, what happens if someone finds you, particularly the non-stereotypical agressor. 

In the film American blackout, the pepper character bugs out. He is well supplied but has not thought about how he will defend those supplies. Thus when an unarmed hungry neighbor turn up at his fence line he has no plan for dealing with him. This weakness and a big mouth unvetted team member results in an eventual raid with numbers and weapons. So the point is there are numerous shoot no shoot scenarios, that are outside the stereotypical norms yet add hold be considered ahead of time.


----------



## DCcam87 (Mar 4, 2013)

TheLazyL said:


> 1. Unknown wearing an enemy uniform, shoot.
> 2. Unknown giving no or incorrect password given, shoot.
> 3. When in doubt shoot and let God sort it out.
> 
> You are here bashing other people and criticizing them about what they said with your "knowledge" on this subject. What's your experience that makes you so knowledgable on this?


----------

