Where would you shoot a bad guy in self defense?

[Glock21]

I stand by every word... it's SELF defense. If you don't get, I pity you should the day come that you need it. I'll finalize my posting on this thread with the words of another American patriot speaking to the same subject.

"By all intellectually honest considerations, my gift of life qualifies as supreme, and not only worthy of defending, but clearly demanding to be defended by all moral beings.

And speaking of losers, sadly and frighteningly, some weasels made their way onto the Supreme Court who apparently do not agree with me. Fortunately, I am a self-made man, have a firm grasp of logic, self-evident truth and its history, and I wait for no one to authorize my pure instinct to defend myself and loved ones. When in doubt, I whip it out." - Ted Nugent

Ok...

I'm not sure what this has to do with the thread, or the question originally asked.

But, I'll bite. What I gather here is you're suggesting that if anyone considers the legal ramifications of their actions in regard to defensive tactics, they're losers. (granted, that's what Ted is suggesting, but you're quoting him in agreement.)

Or, perhaps it's more along the line of: if anyone doesn't see your way as the true shining light of absolute truth, they are to be pitied.



Look, I don't disagree with you even a little bit that my and my families lives are my #1 priority, and that the right to self defense is self evident. I just don't understand what good you hope to achieve with the caustic approach.

Believe it or not, there is some empty space in your argument - just because you are under threat of attack, dosen't mean you won't go to jail for life if you put four rifle rounds through a badguy and kill four innocent people next door. And just because defense of your family is you first priority, it doesn't mean you can mine your front yard and not tell the postman. There are, at this time, legalities in regard to self defense, and that is a fact of life. One can ignore them, and I might even argue that some laws actually need to be ignored under certain circumstances. But when talking about inflicting lethal force on other human beings, I think we all need to be as fully informed as possible. It is, in my opinion, the worst time for bravado, and should instead be treated with the severity it deserves.

And even if you don't, is it too much to ask that folks have a serious conversation without resorting to belittling and name calling?

 

[Fenway]

In his toodles....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GswLa1Y3RYw]YouTube - I'M Gonna shoot him in the toodles!!!!!!!!!!!![/ame]

 

[ihateiraq]

could have sworn there was some insanity in this thread a little bit earlier. maybe im going crazy.

 

[VUPDblue]

could have sworn there was some insanity in this thread a little bit earlier. maybe im going crazy.

You're not crazy

 

[SSGSAD]

I agree with many of these posts... two comments:
1) for myself, it is center of mass, or whatever is exposed and available, until there is no longer a threat. That's what I keep telling myself, anyway.

2) for my wife, she gets overwhelmed with all of the possibilities, and is terribly afraid of confrontation. So we simplified it for her. First, verify the threat (ie: don't shoot at shadows). Second, aim right in the middle and start pulling the trigger. Third, reload, and if there is still a threat, repeat. As she becomes more confident, I'm sure the rules will change. As it stands, she and I are both afraid she'll over-think it. So, verify, shoot, reload, verify.....

^^^^^ THIS makes more sense, than anything else I've read so far on this subject !!!!!

 

[jeremy]

could have sworn there was some insanity in this thread a little bit earlier. maybe im going crazy.

My bad sorry about that....

 

[pillsbury1983]

So I'm curious. You're in a situation where you have to defend yourself. Either in your home, on the street, wherever. You pull out your gun, and you shoot the bad guy. Where do you aim for? Do you aim for the head, and take him down with one shot? Or would you aim for the chest, knowing that if you aim high or low, you still get him? You aim for the head, theres a good chance you'll miss, by aiming too low, high, left, right...
Just curious on other people's thoughts.

Me, I'd aim for the chest. Bigger target. Or I may decide to get a little fancy and aim for his Eggroll. Making him sing falsetto for a very long time

I'm aiming center mass and firing until the threat is stopped. Luckily my wife has had some training with firearms as well and she follows my mindset. Of course I would love to have a SAW or 240B if I had to get into a shooting situation. Happiness is a belt fed weapon!

 

[ultraspec]

I recently was a witness after the fact to a local police shooting involving a single .40 to the chest and the guy lived and was ok afterwards. I would say shoot what you can but launch at LEAST 2-3 rounds as quickly as you can while maintaining accuracy. Myself I would prbably put 4-5 in them back to back. Center mass is good but be prepared that the person you shot can still shoot back.

 

[pillsbury1983]

Center mass is good but be prepared that the person you shot can still shoot back.

Center mass is good? It's taught because it's the biggest target that is most often presented in a shoot situation. Headshots are fine if you are that good, but I am going to guess that few shooters are going to be that calm in a shoot situation. I know the first time my squad took SAF in Iraq my heart was pumping so hard my hands jumped with my heartbeat.

 

[HD1911]

Center mass is good? It's taught because it's the biggest target that is most often presented in a shoot situation. Headshots are fine if you are that good, but I am going to guess that few shooters are going to be that calm in a shoot situation. I know the first time my squad took SAF in Iraq my heart was pumping so hard my hands jumped with my heartbeat.

Don't know if a well placed head shot would go over real well with a jury. Not saying it can't be done...just saying maybe it shouldn't be done.

 

[Glock21]

Don't know if a well placed head shot would go over real well with a jury. Not saying it can't be done...just saying maybe it shouldn't be done.

If lethal force is justified, and that is an available shot, it can be explained. At that point it will be a matter of how well you and your legal team have prepared the arguments - and the same should be said any time you shoot anyone anyplace on their body and find yourself being prosecuted for it.

Shooting someone on the back of the head may present a problem in some unknown situation, but not if they are holding a child hostage with a knife to their throat as you did it. Same goes for a shot to the front of the head if badguy is hiding the rest of his body behind a wall, or your wife....or, you are in a hand-to-hand struggle with him and the side of the head is the only place you can get your gun to. It all revolves around the urgency of the situation, and what you can articulate in court.

The jury preception of your actions will of course depend on many things, but no matter what you did (in a self defense shooting), it will be your job to educate that jury during trial and get them to understand that anyone knowing what you did at the time would have done the same thing. If you can do that, they will find you not guilty. (....probably.)

 

[pillsbury1983]

I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6. If you are able to make a headshot fine, go ahead. In the end you're alive and your attacker is not. If a jury finds fault with where you put your shots and that is the reason they give a guilty verdict then I would file an appeal. But you have to remember if it's a self defense situation and the investigating agency and prosecutors office are not full of DB's then it won't even make it to a jury.

 

[HD1911]

Maybe I should've been more clear....I'm talking about you and your threat are face to face, and you draw and put a single, well aimed shot to his cranium...might not go over too well.

Yes, I agree that every situation is unique, and must be dealt with accordingly. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that it is better to be judged by 12 then be carried by 6.

But lets use some common sense....it is widely accepted that Center Mass shots are the standard. Why is there a 36 page thread on this? All these what ifs and ppls opinions are not going to influence on how you react under stress when faced with a threat. You WILL fall back to your level of training.

 

[Glock21]

Maybe I should've been more clear....I'm talking about you and your threat are face to face, and you draw and put a single, well aimed shot to his cranium...might not go over too well.

Yes, I agree that every situation is unique, and must be dealt with accordingly. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that it is better to be judged by 12 then be carried by 6.

But lets use some common sense....it is widely accepted that Center Mass shots are the standard. Why is there a 36 page thread on this? All these what ifs and ppls opinions are not going to influence on how you react under stress when faced with a threat. You WILL fall back to your level of training.

Is it "common sense" to assume members of the non-gun owning public know where it's best to shoot someone in self defense? I think not. I think the best way to go into this is assuming every member of the jury will not have the slightest clue about guns or self defense.

And as far as the fight goes, in this thread it has been pointed out more than once that any pre-planning on where you'll be able to shoot any given knife weilding maniac is an effort in futility. I know I will shoot when and where I can, and if the brain stem presents itself, I'll take it, as I know that is the best place to hit to get this person to stop doing what they are doing. And I can articulate that to a jury, and so can the people I would bring in to testify about such things should it come to that.

Now, as also stated multiple times in this thread, I doubt there are many of us who could actually hit a knife weilding maniac in the brainstem while they are running at us.

However, if you're suggesting that I forego a brainstem shot if presented, and instead aim for somewhere in the torso, simply because a jury somewhere might consider it excessive, that I won't do. That could very well be the difference between my (or another innocent person) living and dying.

And before anyone accuses me of back stepping on my legal position, this is a completely different decision based on proper tactics and ending the fight. I'm not shooting him twice in the head after he's down and no longer a threat, nor emptying my gun in him because I happen to have extra ammunition. I'm stopping a violent felon in the act with the best option available, and that is certainly something any defense attorney worth his salt can articulate in court.

 

[96firephoenix]

Whatever piece of bone or meat he presents me, is the factual answer.

Hypothetically, the thorax, and ideally, the brainstem.

THIS. its easy to say "aim for thus and such part of the body," but in reality, any shot you have on the BG is enough to make him bleed.

 

[jeremy]

I am going to shoot them repeatedly with my staple gun...

Nothing quite as satisfying as listening to a good staple gun chunk a staple into something...

 

[pillsbury1983]

I am going to shoot them repeatedly with my staple gun...

Nothing quite as satisfying as listening to a good staple gun chunk a staple into something...

Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon 2 "Nailed'em both".

 

[trigger_happy57]

double tap to the chest then 1 to the head if required

 

[finity]

Ok...

I'm not sure what this has to do with the thread, or the question originally asked.

But, I'll bite. What I gather here is you're suggesting that if anyone considers the legal ramifications of their actions in regard to defensive tactics, they're losers. (granted, that's what Ted is suggesting, but you're quoting him in agreement.)

Or, perhaps it's more along the line of: if anyone doesn't see your way as the true shining light of absolute truth, they are to be pitied.



Look, I don't disagree with you even a little bit that my and my families lives are my #1 priority, and that the right to self defense is self evident. I just don't understand what good you hope to achieve with the caustic approach.

Believe it or not, there is some empty space in your argument - just because you are under threat of attack, dosen't mean you won't go to jail for life if you put four rifle rounds through a badguy and kill four innocent people next door. And just because defense of your family is you first priority, it doesn't mean you can mine your front yard and not tell the postman. There are, at this time, legalities in regard to self defense, and that is a fact of life. One can ignore them, and I might even argue that some laws actually need to be ignored under certain circumstances. But when talking about inflicting lethal force on other human beings, I think we all need to be as fully informed as possible. It is, in my opinion, the worst time for bravado, and should instead be treated with the severity it deserves.

And even if you don't, is it too much to ask that folks have a serious conversation without resorting to belittling and name calling?

QFT!

I'd give you reps again but I still need to spread some more around first.

 

[steve666]

Where ever I happened to be!!!