A serious question

[stash247]

To the legal part, here, in Texas, our Penal Code is written in a fashion that, "if a reasonable man would fear for his life or physical well being", the use of 'deadly force' is justified. Further, it specifies the responsibility of a citizen to stop the commission of a crime(felony; i.e. rape, among others; 'burglary of a habitation' is also a felony) by whatever means necessary.
Having been where you are going, I will offer some small advice.
You need to decide, right now, if you are capable, and willing, to take the life of another human being. Having done that determines whether or not you will be armed, should the stuff ever hit the fan. If not 100% certain of your ability and willingness, unarmed is far better, as you will not be looking the wrong way, at your own weapon.
If you decide that you are willing, and capable, you will likely need lots of 'umbrella' liability insurance, against the chance you kill somebody who really needs killing.
I say these things to avoid, for others, some of the traps I have fallen into, or seen others fall into.
From a practical standpoint, 'two to the boiler room, one to the bridge', just plain works, IF one is already decided.
My personal philosophy is that I will "talk, walk, or run" from a confrontation, if the situation allows, excepting only crimes against others, in my presence.
I am peaceful by nature, as are most of us, but, many years ago, 'drew the line', on what I could tolerate.
Should one ever see my weapon, in anger, presented, it will likely be the last image recorded.
just my .02. Terry

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by stash247

From a practical standpoint, 'two to the boiler room, one to the bridge', just plain works, IF one is already decided.
My personal philosophy is that I will "talk, walk, or run" from a confrontation, if the situation allows, excepting only crimes against others, in my presence.
I am peaceful by nature, as are most of us, but, many years ago, 'drew the line', on what I could tolerate.
Should one ever see my weapon, in anger, presented, it will likely be the last image recorded.
just my .02. Terry

No argument from me on any of that, Terry. I heartily agree. Along that same line of reasoning is yet another point as well. I believe--have always believed--that to draw a weapon as merely a means of intimidation is not only foolish (and illegal in most jurisdictions), but also a sign that the person doing so has a rather large inferiority complex. I've met a few (not many) CCW holders who seem to think otherwise. They should not be permitted a license, in my opinion. They are dangerous not only to themselves, but to others around them. If there is reason to draw, there should also be an imminent liklihood that it will be used.

[clmanges]

Originally Posted by stash247

My personal philosophy is that I will "talk, walk, or run" from a confrontation, if the situation allows, excepting only crimes against others, in my presence.
I am peaceful by nature, as are most of us, but, many years ago, 'drew the line', on what I could tolerate.
Should one ever see my weapon, in anger, presented, it will likely be the last image recorded.
just my .02. Terry

Same here. If reasoning fails and you can't run away, then the rule for fighting is: "Never give warnings, never threaten, and never hit a man with your fist if something harder is available." Bullets are hard.

As to drawing in anger, we've all heard: "Never draw your weapon in anger," but that is utter nonsense. Anger is a motivator of action; that's its purpose!

Now, a lot of you have mentioned that you would shoot a rapist, but I do have a problem with that, namely, that you have too great a chance of hitting the woman in the process. Let circumstances dictate the response!

[rosierita]

Originally Posted by clmanges

Same here. If reasoning fails and you can't run away, then the rule for fighting is: "Never give warnings, never threaten, and never hit a man with your fist if something harder is available." Bullets are hard.

As to drawing in anger, we've all heard: "Never draw your weapon in anger," but that is utter nonsense. Anger is a motivator of action; that's its purpose!

Now, a lot of you have mentioned that you would shoot a rapist, but I do have a problem with that, namely, that you have too great a chance of hitting the woman in the process. Let circumstances dictate the response!

well, since i am a woman, i'd hope that someone would step up on my behalf (if i wasnt able to defend myself) but my stating i'd shoot a rapist was coming from the perspective of being attacked....

regardless, if there is a CCW holder nearby, i'd gladly take my chances w/ him/her over a rapist any day!

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by clmanges

Now, a lot of you have mentioned that you would shoot a rapist, but I do have a problem with that, namely, that you have too great a chance of hitting the woman in the process. Let circumstances dictate the response!

I think that pretty obviously depends on the precise circumstances of the attack, cl, and how the rescuer attempts to prevent it. I don't think anyone is suggesting shooting the attacker in the very midst of flagrante delicto, but rather using a weapon to prevent, or to intervene in, the assault.

[Jay]

I will use deadly force to stop a threat to life

Beyond that, Indiana law provides :

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]:
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the
force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

I will utilize situational awareness to to do my best to avoid needlessly putting myself in any of the above situations. If that fails..... well, I'll do what I feel I have to do at that time. Very few folks (including me) are knowledgeable enough to predict what they would do in a hypothetical situation.

[stash247]

As to drawing in anger, we've all heard: "Never draw your weapon in anger," but that is utter nonsense. Anger is a motivator of action; that's its purpose!

Now, a lot of you have mentioned that you would shoot a rapist, but I do have a problem with that, namely, that you have too great a chance of hitting the woman in the process. Let circumstances dictate the response![/QUOTE]

Now we're getting somewhere! "Let the circumstances dictate the response" makes all the sense in the world, as long as it's not YOU that is angry, as then you can reason!
I'm 5'10"/ 155#, and never been any other size, since 14. I have to keep my head in a confrontation, to keep the other end attatched
Sure, big guy, I'll talk trash about your tiny, dysfunctional genitilia, yout mama, yous sister... whatever it takes to make you angry!
At which point, you have lost most of your judgement, peripheral vision, fine motor co-ordination, to name just a few. Your pulse and blood pressure rise, respiration becomes more rapid, and muscular tremors may develop.
Not the place where one does his best work, to be sure.
And, once he is raging and raving, even a 300 pounder is working uphill against an adversary half his size znd weight; take out one knee (They only bend one way- kick it in another! and you have a 300 pound flounder. on the floor.
If it comes to a knife or a gun, shoot deliberately, in the calm within you, while he trying to line up, or reload, until the trreat goes away!
This is not stuff I ever want to have to do, again, but desire is different than ability.
Ever remember to be 'pro-active', to be the 'actor', not the re-actor' in such work; even for the best, to percieve, evaluate, plan a course of action, and begin to execute it puts one 3 seconds behind.
Just my .02. Terry

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by stash247

Now we're getting somewhere! "Let the circumstances dictate the response" makes all the sense in the world, as long as it's not YOU that is angry, as then you can reason!

OK, Terry, in theory at least, I'll buy a large measure what you are selling here. The price is right and the merchandise is first rate. Yet I think you are also being unrealistically optimistic. Very few ordinary people--we're obviously not talking about Recon Marines or Delta troopers with specialized training--are going to avoid feeling anger and fear in the kind of situation we're discussing. Thus I don't think those factors can be simply ignored. The ol' adrenal gland is gonna be a pumpin' no matter what any ordinary Joe Schmuck might wish for. The only possible solution, I think, is to have very carefully thought through, in one's own mind, and in advance, what degree of force, you are willing to apply in that kind of situation. That is certainly no guarantee, but it will greatly diminish the dithering most anyone would experience over whether to apply deadly force or not if the circumstances warrent deadly force. Next, as both you and clmanges mentioned, the precise situation must dictate the appropriate response. It is, by its very nature, not something that can be known in advance. For example, is the hypothetical rapist armed? If so, with what? If he had a gun, and I had a clear, safe shot, I honestly believe I would nail his scumbag a$$ and let him make his case in Satan's court. Just my $.02 worth.

[delta13soultaker]

First...if your life is in danger...if you are having that unreal displaced feeling like you're watching a 2 second film about you about to finally die...and feel the shock of reality hit you like a cold wave................do everything in your means now to stay alive. Same goes for protecting whoever you claim on your taxes.

Second....all that other stuff........

Take a hard look at the US legal system AND your local laws.

"My side will be the only side" Yeah right. In this country's court rooms, even the dead get to tell their side, they just don't get to pick who speaks for them. It's called DUE PROCESS. If a prosecuter decides to take you on charges...he will tell a side different than yours to meet his burden of proving you were in the wrong. Due Process ensures all the facts will go to the jury. A dead body will not be enough to let you twist facts.

NOTHING in our legal system in absolute. Just because John Doe last year didn't get charged for shooting a burglar does NOT mean you will be so lucky in a similar situation. You could spend 2 years and 3 hung juries getting cleared.

If you kill someone and are free of criminal charges...there is still civil law. There have been justified shootings of crack-head felons with long rap sheets who attacked an armed law abiding citizen...and a civil jury was convinced to make the shooter pay the poor convicts family for the death! The shooter made one or to tiny seamingly unrelated mistakes before, during, or after they pulled the trigger.

If you spent $$$ on a weapon, ammo, education, practice/training to protect your life....spend a bit more to get advice from a reputable defense lawyer in your area. Ask for 30 minutes to discuss what you can do to protect your freedom before/during/after you use deadly force. You WILL learn something.

[Nighthawk]

just read in todays paper about castle doctrine they're are trying to pass in TX. some DAs wanting to stop it. say no need for it. courts can figure it out.
afraid it might stop their time in paper and court. like delta said lawyers take a lot of money
to defend ones self. we need some protection from overzealous DAs who are using courtroom as political stepping stone. even if self defense some DAs make you prove your innocence in court. I think it makes them look good the more cases they try and to heck with justice.

[stash247]

just read in todays paper about castle doctrine they're are trying to pass in TX. some DAs wanting to stop it. say no need for it. courts can figure it out.
we need some protection from overzealous DAs who are using courtroom as political stepping stone.
delta13soultaker First...if your life is in danger...if you are having that unreal displaced feeling like you're watching a 2 second film about you about to finally die...and feel the shock of reality hit you like a cold wave................do everything in your means now to stay alive. Same goes for protecting whoever you claim on your taxes.



Take a hard look at the US legal system AND your local laws.

"
NOTHING in our legal system in absolute. Just because John Doe last year didn't get charged for shooting a burglar does NOT mean you will be so lucky in a similar situation. You could spend 2 years and 3 hung juries getting cleared.

If you kill someone and are free of criminal charges...there is still civil law. There have been justified shootings of crack-head felons with long rap and a civil jury was convinced to make the shooter pay the poor convicts family for the death! .spend a bit more to get advice from a reputable defense lawyer in your area. Ask for 30 minutes to discuss what you can do to protect your freedom before/during/after you use deadly force. You WILL learn something.
Pistol, you ad I are of one mind, on the subject, pretty much.
While I edted, for brevity, the remarks of Delta, and Nighthawk, there is nothing they said that I can find fault with.
A really smart guy I knew, once, before he was killed, told me "The problems start when the shooting stops", which is almost correct, but needs "if you are the last man standing' to be complete.
Jeff Cooper used to talk of a 'survivor mentality', wherein one did mental 'what if?' rehearsals, constantly, against the chance something really DID happen; at least you are somewhat prepared to act.
He preached it at Gunsite, as he did several years before, in the dry end of Big Bear Lake, when I first met and shot with him, every other Sunday.
These are 'mental calesthenics', to keep your mind flexible, and strong!
In spite of the first bit of advice, which ultimately killed the giver, Jeff's words are fact; without the "Survivor mentality", we are bait, victims!
As to a good defense attorney, be damned sure he is well versed in "Deadly force", and "wrongful death" litigation, with a proven track record!
And pistol, all the 'question you most dread' from the thread starter, should have been the first one asked, but, by you!
"Before we start, ley me ask you: Have you any religious, moral or other reasons not to pick up a firearm, and coolly end the life of another, should his behavior justify this action, in law, or(not 'and', OR) in fact?"
If the answer is any but "NO", walk away; you are creating a problem, not coaching an answer!
My .02, again

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by stash247

"Before we start, ley me ask you: Have you any religious, moral or other reasons not to pick up a firearm, and coolly end the life of another, should his behavior justify this action, in law, or(not 'and', OR) in fact?"
If the answer is any but "NO", walk away; you are creating a problem, not coaching an answer!
My .02, again

Actually, Stash, the question you present is one I always do ask, up front, of anyone I teach to shoot and who has the iintention of using the weapon for self-defense. What I was referring to in the thread starter was the question that usually comes up a bit later in the training, that is, under what specific circumstances or conditions is one justified in using deadly force? Both questions are, quite obviously, closely related, but not truly the same. I will not teach anyone who cannot, or will not, answer "no" to the question you posed and truly mean it. A question like that usually shocks a new shooter and makes him or her THINK about the issue, often for the first time. Self-defense is neither a joke nor a game, and it must be crystal clear to anyone who chooses to carry a firearm for that purpose that it may very well mean taking the life of another human being. Anyone who does not understand that is better off taking up darts.

[stash247]

, Self-defense is neither a joke nor a game, and it must be crystal clear to anyone who chooses to carry a firearm for that purpose that it may very well mean taking the life of another human being. Anyone who does not understand that is better off taking up darts. [/QUOTE]

Let your conscience be your guide, as your a** will surely follow!
I drew my 'line in the sand', many years ago, as to what I would or would not tolerate; You can flip me off, cut me off in traffic, call me names, and I'll still have a good dinner, with no heartburn.
Present a threat to me, or mine, with the apparent intent, and/or ability to carry it out, and we are in a whole diffwerent world;this I cannot, and will not, tolerate.
I'm not much, and never was, but even at my level, there are values. For a person to threaten my family, my country, or my God, His god better be a whole lot bigger, or he's gonna see his, first!
These rules are not subject to compromise, IMHO, but they are mine.
I'll tell youthat legal consequences are minascule, compared to the consequences,in your life, if the legal ones come first, in such a situation.
I'll not bury a child, to save my legal A**, by not acting as I know is appropriate, to a threat.
My grandpa used to tell me, "Boy, you know right from wrong; always do the right thing, and God will sort it out; do the 'legal' thing, and the lawyers will eat you for lunch"

[gunlearner]

greeting from ecuador:
living in a country where the crime rate i getting higher i must say that the desition was taken at the time i bought my pistol. it is them or me.
i must say that am a person that i don't like violence and i avoid it at all costs. and if it came to the point of my car getting robbed, well that is why insurance is for to cover for those losses. however i wish it was that simple. here most of the robberies start with psycological abuse and then physical and will probably murder.
last year kidnapping express was very popular, and one day some one made a threat to my inlaw telling hhim that if he did not coopearte some thing bad could happen to his grandkids (meaning my daughter and my little boy), right then was when i decided that i can take the live of another human being if they try to touch my wife, of my kids.
so pray to god not to let this happened but i assure you that if it comes to that i won't have any problem
take care