Venture Surplus ad

Phucked around and found out thread. Stories of dirtbags doing dirtbag things and taking dirtnaps or finding out the reward isnt as they thought.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • popsgarland

    MEMBER
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 24, 2011
    24,413
    96
    DFW area
    There's a lot going on during a shooting. Hitting a moving target that small at that distance while under stress and a serious time crunch is far easier said than done. I'll echo General Zod's sentiments. If you have the luxury to shoot them in the leg, then your life probably wasn't in immediate danger. It would be hard to justify that shoot. Shoot them center of mass, or don't shoot them. That'll hopefully keep you out of prison.

    As far as the shooting in the leg thing, I wouldn't recommend it. There's a good chance they'll bleed out long before the ambulance even gets there.

    arteries-and-veins-of-the-leg.jpg

    Everyone has their own opinion of what they would have done in this situation. But since none of knows if the perp had turned around with a gun in hand or not, which I will go out on a limb and say he didn't, but we don't know for sure. I believe the shooter didn't think about anything but stopping the perp. I also think that, from the angle of the gun, he was shooting at center mass. I also believe that the shooters life wasn't threatened and he should not have fired at the perp.
    'You have shown the lower torso but not the upper torso. If you had, you would see the heart, lungs, kidneys, stomach, aorta and other organs that would kill and/or bleed out before he could arrive.
    I'm not trying to argue about what should or shouldn't have been done. My statements are mine and only mine.
    Military Camp
     

    General Zod

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 29, 2012
    26,748
    96
    Kaufman County
    Everyone has their own opinion of what they would have done in this situation. But since none of knows if the perp had turned around with a gun in hand or not, which I will go out on a limb and say he didn't, but we don't know for sure. I believe the shooter didn't think about anything but stopping the perp. I also think that, from the angle of the gun, he was shooting at center mass. I also believe that the shooters life wasn't threatened and he should not have fired at the perp.
    'You have shown the lower torso but not the upper torso. If you had, you would see the heart, lungs, kidneys, stomach, aorta and other organs that would kill and/or bleed out before he could arrive.
    I'm not trying to argue about what should or shouldn't have been done. My statements are mine and only mine.

    The point he and I are trying to make, though, is that voicing the concepts of "shoot to kill" and "shoot to wound" to the police after a defensive shooting is putting your neck in a noose. Especially if you're in a city with a liberal DA who will want to pursue charges against an icky gun owner no matter the situation. Like Mav said, if you have the luxury of deciding to "shoot to wound", then you'll be in serious legal jeopardy.

    Neither of those concepts (shoot to kill/shoot to wound) should come into your thought process. Shoot/no shoot is a matter of "stop the threat/there is no threat". Stopping the threat is shooting center mass until the criminal stops presenting a threat, whether by stumbling away, being too injured to continue, or dying. Killing should not be the goal, wounding should not be the goal, stopping the threat should be.
     

    popsgarland

    MEMBER
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 24, 2011
    24,413
    96
    DFW area
    The point he and I are trying to make, though, is that voicing the concepts of "shoot to kill" and "shoot to wound" to the police after a defensive shooting is putting your neck in a noose. Especially if you're in a city with a liberal DA who will want to pursue charges against an icky gun owner no matter the situation. Like Mav said, if you have the luxury of deciding to "shoot to wound", then you'll be in serious legal jeopardy.

    Neither of those concepts (shoot to kill/shoot to wound) should come into your thought process. Shoot/no shoot is a matter of "stop the threat/there is no threat". Stopping the threat is shooting center mass until the criminal stops presenting a threat, whether by stumbling away, being too injured to continue, or dying. Killing should not be the goal, wounding should not be the goal, stopping the threat should be.

    I agree with both of you. Shoot until there is no threat. I guess my problem is that, from what we could see in the video, there was no threat, and if that was the case, then no shots should have been fired.
     

    General Zod

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 29, 2012
    26,748
    96
    Kaufman County
    I agree with both of you. Shoot until there is no threat. I guess my problem is that, from what we could see in the video, there was no threat, and if that was the case, then no shots should have been fired.

    I haven't rewatched the video recently, but I don't recall it being clear whether the robber was or wasn't turning to point a weapon. I dunno. I'd need more info than we're likely to receive.
     

    ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,739
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    I haven't rewatched the video recently, but I don't recall it being clear whether the robber was or wasn't turning to point a weapon. I dunno. I'd need more info than we're likely to receive.
    If he hadn't been followed out of the store, I doubt he would have turned around.
     

    General Zod

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 29, 2012
    26,748
    96
    Kaufman County
    If he hadn't been followed out of the store, I doubt he would have turned around.

    If he hadn't robbed the store, then he wouldn't have had to worry. Sorry for the smartass reply, but the criminal lost his right to self-defense when he stepped into that store with the intent to commit a crime. Him turning to point a weapon can only be a justification for use of deadly force against him, not a self-defense argument against the armed "victim" that perforated him.
     

    ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,739
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    If he hadn't robbed the store, then he wouldn't have had to worry. Sorry for the smartass reply, but the criminal lost his right to self-defense when he stepped into that store with the intent to commit a crime. Him turning to point a weapon can only be a justification for use of deadly force against him, not a self-defense argument against the armed "victim" that perforated him.
    What was the justification for following him out and shooting him?
    Yes, I doubt the money would have been recovered if he wasn't shot.
     

    General Zod

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 29, 2012
    26,748
    96
    Kaufman County
    What was the justification for following him out and shooting him?

    Well, since I wasn't there, I dont know. But saying "If he hadn't been followed out of the store, I doubt he would have turned around" is only one step this side of "well if he hadn't resisted being robbed, he wouldn't have needed to be shot". "Don't want to be shot at in a robbery? Don't provoke the robber - he's just trying to take your stuff!" That's the kind of shit the criminal's aunt who's been raising him since his mother OD'd and his father ran off would say to a news reporter. "He didn't need to be shot! He was jus' robbin' dem folks!"

    Was the shooter justified or not? I don't know. Why follow the robber outside? Maybe to make sure he didn't have more friends to come back inside with? Maybe to try to make sure he's really gone? Maybe to call him a fucking prick for robbing the place? Beats me. But the robber was not justified in anything he did, whether he felt threatened or not. The only question is - did the robber point a weapon or otherwise present a threat when he was shot? The video is inconclusive.
     

    Bozz10mm

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 5, 2013
    9,616
    96
    Georgetown
    IMO.. I would say..murder. You don't shoot someone in the back while running away from you.

    Some would say that if the perp is running and all you have is his back, then shoot him in the leg. From the angle of the gun, he wasn't shooting low, for the legs to stop the perp, not shooting to kill.
    Well, that explains why Colon Noir didn't show the video.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    Stopping the threat is shooting center mass until the criminal stops presenting a threat, ...
    There are exceptions to every rule. Obviously, we should always be sure of the target which includes anything between me and the target as well as beyond the bad guy.

    With that in mind, I think everyone has been forced over the last ~3 years to consider riot scenarios where there are many potential hostile folks in a small area.

    In that case, center mass may not be smart. Killing the guy standing behind the bad guy is best avoided but it's way too possible if you're shooting any load that penetrates enough to be considered a valid self-defense round.

    I've done some practice for such scenarios where I try to hold my pistol high, (optionally) close the distance to the attacker, and shoot downward as much as possible. Using a bullet to break a pelvis is a pretty decent way to make the other guy stop doing whatever he was doing to create a threat. The failure of a shot to stop the bad guy or even an instant stop where full penetration still occurs, though, is less likely to injure potential innocents because the bullet is headed for the ground immediately behind the bad guy. The small amount of time I've spent practicing for those scenarios has only served to make me far more dedicated to steering clear of large groups when they go wilding. Unfortunately, that type of shot is reasonably possible and effective for someone with my limited skillset only at "bad breath" range; I never want to be that close.

    I've been in a riot. I've spent (perhaps far too much) time pondering how best to respond when attacked by a group. There are no good responses. For dealing with riots, the same strategy that's ideal for all gunfights still applies: Be Elsewhere!

    But if I can't employ that strategy then, one way or another and to some greater or lesser degree, on that day I will definitely eat a shit sandwich. I just hope it's a small one.

    As an aside -

    In an ideal world, being attacked by a crowd should mean that the entire crowd is equally culpable and the entire crowd is a legally valid target. But afaik that's not legal reality and I doubt it will ever be so again, at least in my lifetime. As far as I've been able to establish my personal rules of engagement, the only time I would employ a "Shoot 'em all. Let God sort 'em out." strategy is if the rioters (or home invaders, or looters, or whatever) are actually inside my home. In that case, I will do my best to shoot all of them who fail to instantly surrender or run away.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Seeing as how the thief ran out of the business, do you think that he was a threat to anyone inside?

    What does being a threat have have to do with TPC 9.42? (2) (B) thru (3)(B) are real pertinent to your question.

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

    General Zod

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 29, 2012
    26,748
    96
    Kaufman County
    Top Bottom