So far, there has been much talk here about how "I would have no reservations about shooting someone who was endangering me or mine". This is probably true; it certainly would be in my case. What hasn't been discussed is the actual physical and mental state of a person involved in a social shooting. Nor, has there been much mention of the likely aftermath.

When an untrained person is in an extreme "fight-or-flight" situation there are predictable mental and physical changes that occur as a consequence of adrenaline released into the bloodstream. The same changes occur with trained people but they know how to work around them. One change is "tunnel vision"; you only look at the threat. The bad guy could have an accomplice standing next to you with a raised machete and you won't see them. Another is that your hearing disappears; another is that your motor skills drop to near zero and your IQ drops about 50 points. And, you shake like a dog sh!tting a peach seed. In a situation like this, the only thing that will save you is thorough, repetitious, almost Pavlovian training. Your reactions can't involve conscious thought; they need to be instinctive. That is why most progressive law enforcement agencies and special operations organizations spend so much money and effort training their people on target identification, determining what is behind the target, shooting under stress and all of the other elements important in use of deadly force. Even then, trained officers make mistakes. And, if I recall, nationwide, in officer involved shootings, about eight shots are fired on average for each hit. The average untrained individual is much less competent in such circumstances. Range shooting does not even come close to preparing one for use of deadly force.

Assuming you are the victor in a shooting, your ordeal has most likely just begun. First, the police will treat you as a criminal. To them, until investigation shows otherwise, you are just someone who has shot someone else; you won't get any "attaboys" for blowing away the person who was threating your life. You will most likely be interrogated at length regarding your knowledge of the person you shot, the circumstances of the shooting and anything else that they are curious about. You will likely be suspected of being involved in drugs or drug trafficking. If all elements of the investigation point to a justifiable shooting, then they will probably not charge you with any of the possible degrees of homicide. But, if the evidence is inconclusive, you may be charged with homicide.

However, if you are not charged as a criminal, you are still open to civil action for "wrongful death" or similar charges. Here, the criteria for guilt or innocence is "the preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt". For civil action, you are not entitled to the help of a public defender, you have to hire your own attorney. There may be private investigators you need to hire as well as expert witnesses. It gets expensive in a hurry.

As an example, my son lives in Tucson and has an acquaintance who was involved in a home-invasion shooting. He is a computer jock of some sort and not a particularly intimidating guy. He was at home one evening; his wife and kids were, fortunately, visiting relatives in Prescott. About 9:00 pm three males arrived at his front door initially pounding on the door and finally starting to kick the door in. The guy grabbed his 12-gage autoloader when the ruction started and stuffed three quail loads into it finishing just about the time the door flew open and the three guys came after him with pistols in their hands. He emptied the shotgun into the three, killing two and ending the sex life of the third. He then called 911, went out on the front porch and waited for the police to arrive.

When the police arrived, the situation I described above could have been used as a script. He was "on-the-ground, hands-out-in-front"ed, handcuffed and placed in a squad car while the police searched his house. They found a small amount of weed in the dresser but nothing more. He was taken to jail, interrogated for hours, accused of being involved in drug and illegal immigrant trafficking and probably mopery and dopery as well. He spent three days in custody before he was released and was on tenterhooks until the shooting was ruled justifiable a month later. About two months after that, he was sued in civil court for wrongful death by the survivors of those he had shot and injured. The case was eventually dismissed but not until he had spent about $50,000 in legal fees.

He is still traumatized by the experience. He is a gentle person and the knowledge he has killed people really troubles him; enough that he is in counseling. Also, his experiences with the legal system have made him into a truly negative person; his wife has left him taking the kids and he agrees with her decision. He is not fit to be around.

All of this because three lowlife punks got the wrong address.

Note in your scenario that the fellow is still alive. I'm guessing he feels that counts for something. Yes, life and death struggles are tough things to have to live through. Better than the alternative, though.

This came out today......it was discussed on another thread.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/17/pilot.gun/index.html

Moral to the story........

"Keep yer booger hook off the bang button!!"

I started to insert a laughing imoticon. But this is NOT funny!

Hector
Actually brandishing a weapon, especially a shiny stainless steel one so people can see it - IS A POPULAR CONCEPT - but as said - someone who actually is a bad guy might see you playing with your gun and shoot you. My guns are all black. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> When I do carry camping in lion country I carry a large frame .44 in an exposed shoulder holster. Its a Dirty Harry long barrel. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> It has quite an effect on passing hikers... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> but its legal and trust me, no one is ever rude to me on the trail... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I feel that a gun like this carried exposed is simply a hunting weapon. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> I make no attempt to hide it or to act funny when I see people. I simply ignore the guns presence. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I find it interesting that people want to conceal their guns in the backcountry. This makes little sense to me. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> Of course I live in Central Orygun where everybody has 3 guns 2 dogs and peecup. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Just cause somebody is carrying a gun don't mean nothing unless they look like a street person. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Pika,

The use of deadly force is never my first choice. But Jim's question was actually the protocol prior to the use of deadly force.

I learned as a youngster that everyone gets hurt in a fight, but it is better to be the winner than the loser. I do not claim a PTSD immunity.

In the situation you describe it was a mistake to talk to the police. You talk to the police when there is a purpose. The one armed man would not have escaped because the guy did not talk to them. There was a benefit to the guy to force the police to do a thorough investigation before he talked to them.

It is difficult to proceed with a civil lawsuit until after the criminal case has been resolved.

Lori
quote
Sorry, but any 250 man trying to rape me is in for a surprise. I have no doubts that I could and would poke his eye out, break his fingers, or do some serious damage to something he values. I don't need your firearms, thanks. He'd probably get it from me, and THEN I'd be in trouble, because I'd be facing a large ARMED man. Guns make me nervous and you need to not be, to use one effectively. Better the unarmed man who I can throw over my shoulder and knock his gonads into his chest cavity."
_____________________________________

Thank you Lori. I too do not require a gun to feel safe from any threat I run into. I have chased off Javelina and mtn lions and bears. I don't need no stinking gun to do that. I am simply not a victim and I don't have to make a decision about wheter I want to either carry a gun or be murdered. I do not live in fear. A gun does not help me when I am afraid unless I am staring down a long barrel at a large animal whispering "please don't make me pull the trigger".

Too many people assume that if you don't have a gun you will become a victim. Consider that most ghetto deaths are ghetto people gunning each other down when the other guy is armed. Being unarmed can make you a live victim vs a dead one. OR being armed can make you dead victim as well. I don't think I need to know hand to hand combat, I simply need to have a relaxed profile that says "I know something you don't and you should be worried about that". I have actually had someone about to punch my lights out [bar fight]that I simply stared calmly in the eye while I am thinking "I am James Bond and if you nterfere with my mission I shall have to sanction you", this guy backs off holding his hands protectively before him saying "sorry mister". Being a victim is a lot more than not having a gun. Half of the gunfighters in the old west lost... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> as do half of the people who victimise others who carry.
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

First, there is a movement in various states to prohibit wrongfull death suits for a justifiable shoot.

Second, for every dope-smoking person overwhelmingly traumatized, there are many more who aren't. Believe it or not, surviving the fight deserves a little end-zone dance.

Third, the criminal justice system favors the good guys over the bad guys. The problem is that the civil law system doesn't make the loser pay. This is one area where the British got it right.

Lastly, I would rather be saddled with $50K of legal fee debt than depart this world without a fight. I'm worth it.

Nearly 1 in 5 troops has mental problems after war service

Must all be smoking dope...

Bill

> Actually brandishing a weapon, especially a shiny stainless steel one so people can see
> it - IS A POPULAR CONCEPT - but as said - someone who actually is a bad guy might
> see you playing with your gun and shoot you.

I guess I somehow wasn't clear; I'll try again. You do not pull your weapon unless you intend to shoot. However, if you pull your weapon and the other party turns and runs you don't go ahead and plug them in the back. You are not obligated by having drawn your weapon to carry through if the threat evaporates with a scream, the smell of filling pants and a beating of frightened feet.

In fact, that is usually what happens when someone draws a gun in self-defense with the intention to fire -- the other party is immediately convinced that vacating the area at the highest possible speed is the smartest action and takes off as fast as they can go.

Now, to your other points. I've had exactly one person behave rudely on a trail, and that was a mountain biker on a trail that didn't permit mountain bikes. He seemed to think I should relinquish the right-of-way, which I somehow failed to do, being a rather tired and slow old fart at the end of a long day. He said his little piece and sped away. I plodded on.

I do not normally carry when hiking, but don't mind if others do. Of course, if they carry concealed it doesn't matter what concerns others. Not my place to make their choice in that regard for them, so I don't worry about it.

I don't care whether they like blued guns or parkerized guns or nickeled guns or stainless guns. I don't care if they're carrying to protect themselves against wildlife or people or both. I only care about their actions and attitudes, and if they know how far it is to the next water, and how's that piece of gear there workin' out for ya? I've made some friends out walking in the woods. Some of them were carrying, some weren't. Didn't matter to me as long as they were good people.

And to get back to your original post, saying "you have little chance in a bad situation even if you have a gun" is not impressive to me, since you have virtually no chance without one in that bad situation. If you want to train and carry responsibly, glad to have you around. After all, it's good guys with guns who stop the bad guys with guns; the more of 'em the better.

food, I thank you for the added context. There is no way on earth I (or another person) could have understood your remarks in that light, without your placing them into that framework.

It would seem that the actual "code of the west" you recommend we live by could be phrased as:

- try nonviolence (hazing) and if that doesn't work,
- try persuasion (talking to neighbors) and if that doesn't work,
- try contacting the authorities (animal control) and if that doesn't work,
- shoot, but only if it's an animal, or if it is a human, only if it's matter of self-defense from imminent harm.
- shovel, but only if it's an animal, because if it's a human, you'd better notify the police,
- and shut up.

Not as catchy, but a whole lot more reasonable and less likely to be misunderstood. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Size matters in wrestling. It's much less a factor when your fighting hand to hand for your life. Speed and accuracy, knowing how to dodge and duck, knowing how to injure someone, ripping, biting and slashing when grabbed, these make a difference then. There are lots hurt and dead big guys that have learned that too late.

A hard kick to the knee will slow down most big guys instantly. Take your choice, they're usually both bad. A thumb poked deep in the eye socket is pretty debilitating too. After that you can pretty much have your way with them, I don't care how big they are.

I'm a small guy, 145 lbs, big guys don't scare me, I've always been small. You learn to compensate. I've known some pretty tough women, and I've known some pretty mean women too, I know they never gave a thought to how big a guy was when they started whupping up on them, especially when is was for self defense.

Bill

I honestly don't see that he had a choice. He had two dead guys laying in the middle of his living room floor and another (presumably) rolling around whining about his missing male member. What else could he do? The neighbors were probably wondering what was going on; perhaps someone had already called the police. I suspect that he did the only thing he could do.

Besides being irrelevant, I don't think you have any factual basis for your assertion. There is an old saying that you should never judge someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes. Have you?

I guess I choose to disagree with you on this but then I haven't the experience in surviving gunfights that you seem to be claiming.

This reply is to clarify what you posted. First of all I think you are saying that it is unwise to brandish a firearm to scare someone. I totally agree with you on that point. However, I disagree with your statement and the idea "if you are going to draw it use it." I think a better way to look at it is... If you are going to draw it, be prepared and intend to use it if you need to."

Most lethal threat encounters are quick and violent, but there is always the moment between clearing the holster, putting the sights on target (if you are trained to do so, hopefully you are) and pressing the trigger. So a person can conceivably draw a weapon, and the situation change. Such as the person turns and runs, or the "gun" he was pointing at you is really a cell phone. All this is predicated on the context of the situation and events leading up to the decision to unholster.

So, no, I don't think there is a mandate to use the weapon if it is drawn. There is danger in this thinking. It is not the case that "If the blade is drawn it must taste blood."

This is not to advocate brandishing a firearm. That would be tactically unsound practice and demonstrate poor judgement, however, I don't think that it is wise to make an ultimatum that "if you are going to draw it use it." To reduce this to the absurd, every time I unholster my pistol I have to crank off a round before I re-holster? I am guessing this is not what you intend to say.

There are many accounts of the decision being made to shoot and as the slack on the trigger is being taken up the situation changes and the trigger stroke is not completed.

I'm one of those guys who survived being shot at Bill. I don't smoke dope. And I'm very glad to be alive, enough that I did my own version of an end-zone dance every time I got back from an imminent-danger area.

Personally, I find the term "mental problems" for understandable anxiety a gross exaggeration BTW.

At first I was thinking you were talking about that really bad sitcom on CBS, and then maybe something more to do with that set of rules surrounding the whole proposal thing, with the ring and all, and the laws & attorneys that are involved when you break up and try to get it back or not give it back.

But then I realized that this was really just another gun thread, and reading the responses, I get the feeling that even when you're on that side of the packing issue, there's still lots of room for disagreement, to the point where this is starting to look like High Noon, and I was about to go duck behind a barrel or a horse trough while everyone shot it out.

The style and philosphy of the martial art wing chun is most appropriate to mention at this point. Legend of its history is that is was developed by a woman of small stature for the sole purpose of defeating a larger man. What I find most fascinating is the "ready position" or "fighting stance" is not typical. It is relaxed and calm and seems to draw ones opponent into a false sense of security. This is of course part of the effectiveness. The initial "moves" in the martial art are as were mentioned in an earlier post... attacks to the eyes, throat and genitals... the center line if you will.

Dryer, that is a good point.
I've heard a LEO urge his audience to 'be the victim' if there is an incident, you call first and be the victim. It helps in the paperwork.

I've also heard LEO urge, even though displaying a weapon can stop some situations from escalating, it is a very dangerous thing to do. Really, if you don't have enough justification to draw and shoot, don't draw, don't display. Don't threaten to draw or shoot either.
If the time comes, just draw to shoot.
If you end up on the stand explaining that you meant to draw and scare the guy, but accidently shot him (which can happen in a tense situation), it won't go well for you.

Take Tuco's advice in "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly",


Let me also observe that most people that aren't comfortable carrying are probably some of the safest people to have carrying because they're careful.

As an aside, I once had a coworker show me his piece that he carried to work. Even though it was illegal, even though it violated corp. policy, I was quite comfortable with the notion that he had more in his soft sided briefcase than notes and manuals. I thought if someone did go postal at work I had a better chance of surviving with an armed coworker around, although I never carried to work myself.

Here's an example of a hiking trail shooting gone bad:



newspaper article from nearby town

It's great that you've learned some street fighting and probably some preemptive strikes, but I don't think you've really been taken down and on your back with a big guy pounding you or you'd know just how difficult that situation is. A big guy (I don't mean heavy, fat & weak. I mean big, conditioned & muscled) is very much a danger. Muscle mass does matter. Strength and weight does matter in a 'ground & pound' situation.

OK, this might be a stupid statement, but perhaps they should develop better non-lethal self-defence weapons and allow people to carry them, if only to allow more people to testify. Surely if we can put a man on the moon there has to a way to develop something better than a lethal weapon for purely self-defence.

It's kinda like the Federal wheelchair access laws.
Just think how many billions have been spent refurbishing older buildings with ramps & wider doors etc.. Instead of spending a score million developing a better wheelchair that can do stairs.

Check out all articles associate with trailside shooter and handguns...the search turns up more articles than necessary, but some good stuff is there.

http://www2.payson.com/search/?q=harold+fish

That's unfortunate. I'd like to have been a 'fly on the wall' during the inital questioning. Two dogs? "...charged at him, yelling death threats"? "charged him down a steep trail?" " several violent incidents in Kuenzli's past"?

What aren't they reporting that got the shooter charged with murder? According to this story:
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/localnews/story/23902
The jury said the shooter "over-reacted and had other options." What might those other options have been?

Ok, so what's it take? Two attack dogs and one freaked out owner. Three against one.

I think there was doubt about whether the deceased was cursing & running in protest over his loose dogs being shot at and to protect them, or that the dogs were attacking and the owner was joining in the attack.

I think this is all sad. I suspect the dogs were just running around & ran upon the hiking teacher who got scared. I think leashes on the dogs would have prevented this.

The trailhead is not remote. It is in the rural, small community of Pine, or at least right adjacent to it's boundaries and just off the highway.