CCW Holder Shoots To Scare Armed Robber - BAD TACTICS.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100114/NEWS02/1140482/Guns-fired-during-beauty-shop-robbery

Guns fired during beauty shop robbery

Gunfire erupted during a robbery in a Northwestside beauty shop last night.

SNIP

Shop employee Hendry Rodriguez, 23, Indianapolis, told police that a gunman entered the shop at 7 p.m. and demanded money. Rodriguez gave the man about $30 from his pockets and opened the cash register for him.

SNIP

The robber then told Rodriguez to go into a backroom while he cleaned out the cash drawer.

When Rodriguez reached the rear of the shop he pulled out his own gun, a Glock with a 14 bullets in it, and fired a shot into the ground to scare the robber. The bandit fired one shot at Rodriguez, missing him, and ran out the front door, according to the report.

REST OF ARTICLE AT LINK

That was a stupid, but lucky, use of a self-defense gun. An armed robber telling you to go to a back room is a very dangerous situation. Often it is a prelude to murder.

In a self-defense situation, NEVER fire warning shots - NEVER. The warning shot gives the robber a chance to shoot you, and you often don't know where the bullet from the warning shot is going to end up.

If the situation is worth pulling a gun and shooting a warning shot over, it is bad enough that you need to drop the threat IMMEDIATELY. Fire two rapid shots to the center of mass and a third to the center of the head. With practice at a range you can develop the skill to get all three shots off, accurately, before the goblin can react.

[rd_kent]

1. Glad no one was hurt, but the shop owner needs more training!

"Warning shots" should be removed from our vocabulary.

[Old Codger]

4. You bet

If the bad guy has a gun and you get the chance to shoot make it a double tap.... no requirement at that point to warn the crook. The shop owner needs to take a serious look at his reason for a carry permit and/or get serious and get the training and experience required to be a responsible armed citizen... Fortunately a very large majority of CCW holders are in fact very careful and aware of the responsibility entailed in that right.

[90-percent]

2. Irony

A rare case where a basic sense of human decency and respect for the lives of others can kill you!

-90% Jimmy

[rd_kent]

3. Having no sense of human decency and respect for the lives of others is not rare at all.

Happens all the time, like people talking and texting while driving.

What is rare is when a CCW gun owner does it.

[spin]

6. It's rare for a CCW holder to have human decency and respect ...

for other citizens?

Just how many people do you personally know with concealed carry permits?

[rd_kent]

7. You misread my post. I said its rare when a ccw holder fails to show it.

I guess it wasn't evident in my post.

Maybe I also misread 90% jimmy's post. I thought he was being sarcastic about CCW holders.

[spin]

8. I wasn't quite sure of your meaning. Sorry. (n/t)

[90-percent]

9. my clarification

my thinking was the store clerk could not bring himself to shoot to kill. that is what i would also do if i had no education about how to deal when armed and robbed. I would probably shoot, but not to kill. (My great grandfather in Harvey Ill was a Sheriff who actually did that. Deliberately shot an escaping crook in the leg to capture him, but not kill them. He also saved a guy from being lynched.)

So the guy shoots and almost loses his life when the crook fired but missed. The clerk could easily have been killed by the crook.

IF the clerk had been killed, then he should have been shooting to kill the intruder.

-jim

[jeepnstein]

10. When I was taught to fight with a gun...

the first thing they pounded into my little walnut sized brain was that I am not nor will I ever be a good enough shot to aim to wound. You fire to the center of mass to stop the aggression. If it's bad enough to draw your weapon it's too late to be using "warning shots".

[90-percent]

12. Seems Good

I guess if you carry a gun, you must be prepared to be in a kill or be killed situation where you are 110% sure you don't want to be the dead one and so you maximize the probability that you make the other guy dead first. Anything else and you're gone.

You can't beat scientific principals to come up with the best way to go. I assume this is the widely accepted doctrine within the legal hand gun community?

-jim

[PavePusher]

16. Technically, it's not about making the attacker dead.

It's about causing them to stop their harmful actions. If they live through the process, I'm fine with that. (Unless of course, they go on to commit other crimes, but my precognition sucks.) But I'm merely splitting hairs here.

The problem is that the terminology becomes very important in front of lawyers and juries when trying to convey the proper impression.

"I wanted them to STOP", sounds a lot more reasonable than "I wanted them DEAD", in court.

[spin]

17. A handgun is nowhere as lethal as most people think...

Which is why handguns are considered primarily self defense weapons rather than offensive weapons. (Yes, I'm am aware that most criminals misuse handguns as they are easy to conceal. That fact has little to do with the purposes for which handguns were designed, self defense being only one purpose.)

When compared to rifles and shotguns, handguns are not the most potent form of self protection. In fact, the vast majority of people shot with handguns, in excess of 80 percent, survive. Hence, seek to incapacitate an attacker with a combination of skilled shot placement and proven ammunition.
http://www.internetarmory.com/ammunition.htm

edited because I'm inside the time limit.

[Katya Mullethov]

18. Lets play , name that projo

So you say pistol rounds ain't deadly enough for ya ?

[spin]

19. Pull up a picture of a wound from a 12 guage shotgun ...

using 00 buck for comparison.

I would provide a link, but I'm sure that if you are interested you can easily find one. I see no reason to gross out other posters.

The facts still remain, shotguns and rifles are far more lethal then handguns.

The shotgun is, by far, the deadliest and most formidable, effective firearm ever created for short range personal defense. No other firearm will devastate, disable, or discourage an aggressor as reliably as a shotgun. No other firearm is as likely to hit an assailant as a "scattergun" loaded with buckshot.

***snip***

The 12 gauge shotgun is the most devastating and lethal weapon yet devised for inflicting rack and ruin at close range. A safe bet for ammunition selection is to use the 2-3/4-inch 00 buckshot load. The impact of one of these shot shells is essentially equivalent to getting hit with a nine round burst from a submachine gun.
http://www.internetarmory.com/shotgun_ammo.htm

[Katya Mullethov]

20. You were supposed to guess !

Throw something out there , it's just the internet .

[PavePusher]

21. Size of a quarter?

.308/7.62, possibly a light 7mm load? (Assuming this is the entry wound...)

Oops, we were talking handguns, right. Umm, 9mm, possibly .45 ACP...

[Katya Mullethov]

26. Think " underpowered projectiles"

Like a broadhead .

[PavePusher]

28. O.K., I was wa-a-a-ay off...!

I don't have much experience in that area. Hmmmmm, something else to learn.... (i.e. spend money on...)

[PavePusher]

22. Oh, I know, but the reasoning still applies.

Perhaps even more so, if the attacker lives to make it to court.

[X_Digger]

5. Warning shots - legally questionable

While nobody wants to face the moral and legal consequences of shooting another person, a warning shot is a dangerous thing. If you feel that you are in fear of grievous bodily harm, you have a defense to prosecution for stopping the threat with the use of deadly force. If you don't shoot to stop, that indicates that you really don't feel in danger of grievous bodily harm. It also indicates a potential recklessness in the discharge. Bullets ricochet off hard surfaces.

[Nordmadr]

11. Pretty sure double tap to body and one to the head will

not go well for a civilian person legally.

Shows intent to kill, not to stop.

Deadly force escalation from a military perspective was always drilled into us as the minimum force needed...

Nordmadr

[GreenStormCloud]

14. That is the most sure way to neutralize the threat.

I am under no obligation to risk my life for that of a person attacking me. Minimum force can get you killed. The key to the question is if the threat is still a threat. If he is still on his feet, (Unless he is obviously surrendering.) or still holding a weapon - even if down, I can, and will, legally keep shooting.

You start shooting when he is a clear threat, you stop when he is no longer a threat. You don't fire a shot, pause for peace, get shot yourself - end of story.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. The reason for the third shot to the head:

If two solid hits to the body have not stopped him from being a threat, you may be facing body armor, or very high drug or adrenalin levels. Further hits to the body are unlikely to help you. You have to switch to the head as your primary target.

[bigmonkey]

13. I realize it's just jargon, but it bothers me still.

"double tap" = two gunshots to the trunk of a human being. Why the harmless-sounding jargon? You're describing a likely fatal act.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. Hmmm. OK, I can say, "double shot", no problem. N/T

[Pavulon]

23. controlled pair , double tap, shorter and easier

than saying place two shots center mass on target. If target is still a threat fire for the head.

[bigmonkey]

27. If you want to seem reasonable to anyone but a gun enthusiast ...

then choosing the language you use to describe the likely fatal wounding of human targets might be better based on some element of gravitas instead of breezy ease. Just a suggestion.

[spin]

29. Self defense with a handgun involves stopping the threat ...

unfortunately, you may kill someone in the process.

Before you decide to own a firearm for self defense, the most important question you should ask yourself is, "Can I shoot another individual and possibly kill him if necessary?"

If you can't honestly answer, "yes", owning a firearm for self defense is probably a bad idea.

Often shooters discuss tactics on using a firearm for self defense. The terms and the statements they make are not politically correct and may strike many people as insensitive. It's necessary to remember that many of these shooters are people who WOULD pull the trigger if they had to. They use terms like "double tap" and "head shot" because they are simple and descriptive and accepted in the jargon of those who believe in self defense.

Mozambique Drill was introduced by Jeff Cooper. It is an advanced method of fighting with guns. Jeff came up with this technique after he heard his student's (Mike Rouseau) experience. Jeff Cooper discussed about Mozambique Drill in an article named “Commentaries” Volume1, No.1. Mozambique Drill deals with the insufficiency of guns in checking an opponent. According to the statistics, responses in gun fighting are highly unpredictable. Everyone should be ready for something worst.

In the Mozambique Drill a shooter is instructed to aim a double tap in the middle of mass which must be followed by cautiously targeted head shot. This Mozambique Drill came up in the 90s.The real story behind it is Mike Rousseaou and a terrorist with an AK- 47 rifle in an area close to Laurenco Marquez airport, Mozambique. When the terrorist advanced on Mike, Mike realizing the risk drew in a GP35, that is a Browning Hi – Power 9 mmx19 pistol and then he fired two shots at a stretch from his pistol at the terrorist. But the two shots failed to stop the attacker.

Then Mike took a targeted shot for head. The encounter finally ended by that shot. Mike came through this encounter but he later lost his life during the Rhodesian War. Thus, Mozambique Drill can be referred to as a 'defensive shooting drill'. The Mozambique Drill is designated in order to counter a loss. If an attacker cannot be stopped after having fired two rounds or in case the attacker is in a protective vest. Then the shooter must be very precise with his shots.

Mozambique Drill is a modernized method of fighting with guns.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/mozambique/information/drill.html

I can understand why you might consider such talk about possibly killing an attacker "breezy". In reality, the very last thing most responsible gun owners would ever want to do is to shoot another individual.

If you find the terminology offensive, be fair and realize that the people using it probably are more familiar with the concept of self defense than you. Indeed, they may have an entirely different mindset. In no way does that make them irresponsible or unreasonable.

They are just the people who could honestly reply, "Yes", if asked if they would shoot another person in legitimate self defense even if it resulted in the attackers death.

edited for spelling

[bigmonkey]

31. Hence my original point.

This terminology is designed for inside the club, a club of people who have imagined this scenario to themselves over and over again, and have decided to own guns, thereby taking the responsibility for killing people in self-defense. (Well, also there are likely a small number of the technically gun-obsessed in that club, but let's leave them aside.)

To minimize the emotional force of that decision and facilitate the discussion of the scenario at length, and frequently, this breezy terminology is used. I suppose I can't blame the person who takes that step, yet it does diminish the moral weight of the decision. You and I both agree, I think, that that's the point of the terminology, so that ethical dimensions don't intrude into what is then treated as merely a technical discussion.

My point is that if you want to remain in a position to communicate about the ethics of gun ownership and self-defense with those who have not taken that same decision to own guns, then asserting this terminology as the standard for discussion of these matters functions as contentious at best and arrogant at worst. The person who has taken the decision to not own gun is not necessarily by any means naïve, and may find the flatlining of emotion about these matters somewhere between indifferent to the value of human life and positively dismissive of that value.

[X_Digger]

32. It'd still end up as an acronym...

Seriously.. even if every person involved in any kind of discussion in the matter adopted the terminology of "having considered the legal and moral implications, evaluating threat level, checking for innocent bystanders in the immediate area behind the threat, and weighing the likely outcomes of the actions, place two shots center mass as the most effective means to stop the threat".. that would be acronymed to 'hctlmietlcibiabtwloaptscmmemst' in short order.

I think you're half right.. "To minimize the emotional force of that decision and facilitate the discussion of the scenario at length, and frequently, this breezy terminology is used."

Do you object to facilitating the discussion of these kinds of scenarios at length? This is, after all, the Guns forum, and such is explicitly stated in the first post in the forum up ^ there.

Should one add the same emo-babble to every post about rescue and recovery in Haiti? Are posts that discuss it without a sufficiently demonstrated level of hand-wringing trying to 'minimize the emotional force' of the event?

An alternative that I can see is the addition of a boilerplate disclaimer / footnote.

*Note: The poster has duly considered the terrible legal, moral, and possibly psychological consequences of taking another life via the use of deadly force when confronted by the threat of serious bodily harm to him/herself or others, or to prevent or stop a felony in progress (to include but not limited to arson, kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery.)

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Sounds good. I will start using your footnote for awhile and see what happens.

May I have your permission? (Edited for typo and grammar.)

[X_Digger]

35. Absolutely!

I would add it to my signature, but it'd cause more than one scratched head in the pets forum ;-)

[GreenStormCloud]

33. I understand what you are saying.

We do have an unknown number of lurkers who drop by, and we want to influence them to our side. Some of our language does sound dismissive of human life. I use the term "goblin" to describe violent felons. Part of the reason for that, beside it being the "in" term for them in current self-defense literature, is that it helps to depersonalize them. It is easier, if that horrible time comes, to shoot a "goblin" than it is to kill someone's son. Yet, it is needed to do that so that one will not make a fatal hesitation at the last second. It is easier to shoot "the other".

I hope I am never put to the test - again. I already know what I will do, because I was tested once, a long time ago. Fortunately, I didn't have to kill, and no one was hurt.

[TPaine7]

36. I like your style.

You make an interesting and valid point.

The other side of the coin, however, is that by coming to the gun forum, they have voluntarily stepped into the world of (mostly at least) people who have gone through that mental process and made that decision. Personally, I do not see the term "double tap" as an escape from the moral dimension. The immorality of, for instance, a mother allowing her children to be rendered orphans in order to protect a thug is shocking. Even worse is the morality (or sanity) of a mother I spoke to who said she could not shoot a criminal to protect her child. Of course that's just my perspective. But it could be argued that the real arrogance belongs to those who would step into a gun forum and expect everyone there to adopt terminology acceptable to their worldview.

Nevertheless, I still think you have a point. If our objective is to change minds, whose turf this is is a minor issue.

I enjoyed reading your post.

[spin]

37. The fact is that I am not trying to convince people to run out and buy firearms...

for self defense. (Target shooting and hunting are different disciplines.)

And I am in no way saying that a person who has made a decision not to own a firearm for self defense is in anyway naive.

If my use of terminology and blunt jargon turns a potential gun owner off when they realize that using a firearm for self defense may not be anything like the movies, so be it.

First, it's a great responsibility. You have to make the RIGHT decision if you decide to shoot. You will have possibly less than one second to make this decision, but those who will judge your actions may take weeks.

Second, you are liable for every bullet that exits your firearm. Real life defensive shooting is nothing like target shooting. It often happens at night in a poorly illuminated environment. The target or targets you are engaging are moving, not standing still. They may be shooting at you or attempting to stab or club you. Adrenaline will be rushing through your system causing tunnel vision and the loss of much of the skills you have worked to perfect at the range. The situation will most likely occur at very short distances and while it may end quickly, time will appear to slow down. You can miss and in a crowded environment shoot an innocent bystander.

Third, if you do survive the incident but shoot the attacker, you have the legal and psychological problems that result to deal with. First you have to deal with the injured and possibly dying individual and attempt to provide aid while still being aware that he may well be very dangerous. After the incident, there is a good chance that you will suffer recurring nightmares, weight loss and depression. Your friends will view you in a different light and as often as not will treat you as a killer not a hero.

Of course, the fact that you are armed may be enough to defuse a deadly situation and the attacker may choose to run.

My daughter stopped an intruder who was forcing open the sliding glass door of our home by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. He ran. No shots fired, no one injured.

She did feel the effects of the adrenaline rush. When the police arrived at the front door, she told them, "I have a revolver in my hand and I can't let it go." They told her to point it at the floor with her finger off the trigger and open the door. One officer had to lead her to the couch and sit down with her and gently pry her fingers off the weapon.

Many people through the years have asked me about buying a firearm for self defense. I always take the time to explain the facts and responsibilities involved. I was blunt and factual. Then I would ask them, "Are you absolutely certain that you could pull the trigger and severely injure or kill another individual." Many decided not to buy a firearm. I felt that I had done them a favor by not being politically correct about real life shooting.

I've noticed that those who are pro-gun are often less emotional and more factually and technically oriented than those who oppose firearms. I believe they have an entirely different mindset. Many of the pro-gun people I've known have a military background. Several years in the military is a life changing experience.

But to sum up. I don't advocate everyone run out and buy a firearm for self defense. I don't own stocks in or work for companies that make or sell firearms. In fact, I attempt to discourage most people that ask from owning firearms. Guns are not for everyone. If you have anger management problems, abuse alcohol or certain drugs or you live in a troubled relationship with your significant other, than guns are probably not for you. If you have young children and are unwilling to make the effort to store your weapons securely and to train your children gun safety, avoid owning firearms.

[Witan00]

38. How can you know if you have the resolve

to kill somebody if it was necessary? I would think that you could only know that if you had been in a life-or-death situation before.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. If he manages to convince me that he is about to kill me or my wife...

then the choice will be made. I do know that I would not sit by and let my wife be attacked, or me either for that matter.

[rusty_rebar]

40. I don't think you can.

I was in the army, never had to shoot at anyone. When I came home, I got married, and had some kids. One night a guy started banging on my door at like 3am. Instinctively, I grabbed my gun, loaded it and went to the front of the house, took cover and aimed at the door (my wife was calling the sheriff).

It was at that point that I fully realized that I would have no qualm about putting some rounds into that guy, should he breach the door. There was no question in my mind, that if he would have made it inside, he would have been shot, and probably killed.

Fortunately, telling the dispatcher that we had a gun pointed at him got the sheriff to step up their response, and they arrived before I had to follow through with that course of action. I am glad I did not have to shoot him (turns out he was drunk and at the wrong house, but I had no idea of that at the time). I was also glad that I had the means to protect my family had I needed it.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Other, similar incidences.

In the last few months there have been two other threads in which the defender tried to warn the bad guy.

On was a hold up in a Burger King. A CCW holder told the BG to freeze. Didn't work, BG started shooting, GG got hit, BG killed.

In another thread, the GG was facing home invaders. GG ran to his bedroom, BG with tire iron chased him, GG got gun, told BG to leave. BG hit GG with tire iron, GG shot him. If BG's blow with the tire iron had been a bit better, the BG would have killed the GG.

It is a noble instinct to attempt to save the life of the BG, but the risk is too high.

There was another thread. BG entered store, fired shots into ceiling, began robbery. GG dropped BG with one surprise shot to the head - no warning. Nobody else hurt. Some people here critized the GG for not warning the BG first.

[oneshooter]

30. I will give the attacker as many warning shots

as it takes to STOP him. Then I will reload.

Gun control, never having to say I missed you.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas