Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Xulld]

I'm with you. Maybe it's just me, but as a non gun-owner, as I read several of these arguments, it's almost as if there's an extremely deeply embedded intellectual dishonesty, probably embedded during gun training, that prevents some from admitting to any situation in which a warning shot is feasible. I'm fine with arguing that one should always seek to avoid warning shots at all costs, or perhaps even that they should never be used, but to refuse to acknowledge ANY scenario in which one could have value seems extreme to me.

I think I can understand why this teaching exists though. If people, or police, felt free to issue a warning shot when ever they felt in danger that could be a disaster in the making. Hence the "party line".

I do not think any kind of intellectual dishonesty is needed to understand how as a society we are very skeptical of people firing off weapons and claiming self defense, or I was just trying to scare him, or whatever the rational behind a warning shot might be. It is not that no rationale can be had to make sense of a warning shot, it is that as a society we hold such with extreme skepticism. If your life is really in danger, would you honestly have a chance to fire a warning shot, and then allow a certain duration to pass to see if it had the desirable effect?

I think on its head the idea of a warning shot creates added skepticism, and it is this skepticism which makes a self defense claim less tenable. I see the advice of, "do not pull your gun until your ready to shoot", as more of legal advice than self defense advice.

Many behaviors when viewed from a "legal advice" perspective might be very different if it where for the construct that is the legal system, and human behavior when it comes to claims of necessity.

 

[GWCarver]

The arraignment is tomorrow at 13:30. Zimmerman, O'Mara, and Corey won't be there.

The source is cf13news.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I do not think any kind of intellectual dishonesty is needed to understand how as a society we are very skeptical of people firing off weapons and claiming self defense, or I was just trying to scare him...

Skeptical is fine. Arguing that there is no scenario where it ever makes sense or ever can be justified is what I find unusual. The battered wife is I think, a pretty decent example I think. A drunken idiot who thinks "you won't ever do it" and continues to head towards her as she has a gun might think twice if she fires a warning shot. Again, that's NOT to say it's wise. That warning shot could kill someone else. But I can imagine a scenario where it could be justified and not a bad decision (no one else in the home, fires warning shot upwards where the chance of injury to someone else is infinitesimally small).

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Give me a break. I understood the situation to be one in which I was armed as well.

My apologies if i misread it.

 

[crimresearch]

Skeptical is fine. Arguing that there is no scenario where it ever makes sense or ever can be justified is what I find unusual. The battered wife is I think, a pretty decent example I think. I drunken idiot who thinks "you won't ever do it" and continues to head towards her as she has a gun might think twice if she fires a warning shot. Again, that's NOT to say it's wise. That warning shot could kill someone else. But I can imagine a scenario where it could be justified and not a bad decision (no one else in the home, fires warning shot upwards where the chance of injury to someone else is infinitesimally small).

Too many unintended consequences.

I share your distaste for absolutes like 'never', but this reeks of counting on a magic 'bad guy vanisher'... be it waving a knife, stick, or a gun around, I don't like it.

Attacker becomes enraged instead of frightened, attacker's friends circle behind you while you are focused on seeing if the attacker was suitably 'warned' off, armed passerby shoots you while you are 'scaring' the attacker...

And the previously mentioned legal shell game possibilities where the attacker claims to be an innocent victim of your wild gun slinging.

I'd prefer to expend a lot more effort on not getting into a shooting situation, and 'never' pull a trigger unless you have crossed the threshold where saving your life outweighs putting a hole in the threat... not in the air.

YMMV

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic, and is related to giving a warning shot in a sideways sort of way. Why don't any gun owners (that I've ever heard of) use rubber bullets when they carry? I'm talking about doing it as a choice, not a legal requirement. If people are really just interested in being able to extract themselves from a dangerous situation, wouldn't that do the trick 99% of the time, while allowing them not to have to use deadly force?

 

[crimresearch]

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic, and is related to giving a warning shot in a sideways sort of way. Why don't any gun owners (that I've ever heard of) use rubber bullets when they carry? I'm talking about doing it as a choice, not a legal requirement. If people are really just interested in being able to extract themselves from a dangerous situation, wouldn't that do the trick 99% of the time, while allowing them not to have to use deadly force?

The amount of force required to stop a grown person intent on harm, is going to overlap with lethal force, any way you apply it.
People have been maimed and killed by 'rubber' bullets, and there are other people out there who wouldn't even slow down for them.

What does any of this have to do with GZ and TM?

 

[This is The End]

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic, and is related to giving a warning shot in a sideways sort of way. Why don't any gun owners (that I've ever heard of) use rubber bullets when they carry? I'm talking about doing it as a choice, not a legal requirement. If people are really just interested in being able to extract themselves from a dangerous situation, wouldn't that do the trick 99% of the time, while allowing them not to have to use deadly force?

That seems to be about the same as carrying a good pepper spray, which many people do.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

What does any of this have to do with GZ and TM?

Did you miss this part ?

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic..

Seems like the entire warning shot thing doesn't have much to do with it, so I figured it wouldn't do any harm to pose another question about it. But if you must know, I was thinking that if GZ shot TM with a rubber bullet, he'd have been able to extract himself from the situation, and TM would likely still he alive. But as OTT (sort of) points out, pepper spray would likely have done the job too. Either way, it's all pretty much off topic.

 

[crimresearch]

That seems to be about the same as carrying a good pepper spray, which many people do.

Except that bullets rarely blow back into your own face in a stiff wind, or bounce off the attacker with little or no effect.

The choice of what to carry (including nothing) is up to the individual. The choice to allow or deny people the right to defend their own lives with the highest level of force is up to the society.

As I said, instead of substituting rubber bullets, or pepper spray, or love beads for real bullets... I prefer to visualize not getting into such situations.

 

[Drs_Res]

Sometimes even a bullet or two won't stop someone.

 

[LTC8K6]

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic, and is related to giving a warning shot in a sideways sort of way. Why don't any gun owners (that I've ever heard of) use rubber bullets when they carry? I'm talking about doing it as a choice, not a legal requirement. If people are really just interested in being able to extract themselves from a dangerous situation, wouldn't that do the trick 99% of the time, while allowing them not to have to use deadly force?

If you point a real gun at me (with rubber bullets in it), I am going to shoot you with 2 real bullets. I am not going to wait and see.

That's basically why you don't carry a fake gun, or a real gun that's empty, or a real gun loaded with less than lethal ammo.

If you want to go with a less than lethal approach, you should go with something else entirely, like mace/pepper spray/stun gun.

 

[Cylinder]

OK here's a question that hopefully isn't too far off topic, and is related to giving a warning shot in a sideways sort of way. Why don't any gun owners (that I've ever heard of) use rubber bullets when they carry? I'm talking about doing it as a choice, not a legal requirement. If people are really just interested in being able to extract themselves from a dangerous situation, wouldn't that do the trick 99% of the time, while allowing them not to have to use deadly force?

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest here. I think you have added real value to this conversation. That being said...

The main consideration, I think, is that LTL rounds have a signifigant mortality rate at self-defense ranges. Using FBI stats for LEOs killed by firearms (which is really the best stat we have) around half are killed 0-5 feet, around 70% 0-10' and somthing like 85% 0-20'. This tends to match ancedotal studies done within the industry for self-defense shootings though I agree that the universal use of body armor probably skew the stat to the lower ranges. Certainly at near-contact ranges like in the present case, LTLs would have no real difference in mortality than conventional loads.

I'm not a certified instructor, but in my personal experience the single overriding theme of self-defense training should be that of assessment. IMO, anything that detracts from assessment like employing LTLs or warning shots would tend to give the shooter a reason to skip this step. There's just no way around the great legal and moral risk that is taken when one decides to employ lethal force. Make no mistake, civilian use of LTL rounds will be cast as lethal force by law enforcement and (IMO) should probably be viewed that way under the light of personal morality.

That being said, I think bean bag rounds would be an interesting alternative for some specific instances like an unknown person breaking in to your house (a scenario that I was involved personally.) While not perfect, those are designed to spread out, lose momentum through air resistance and deliver a spread out blow to shock and disorient a perceived agrressor - but again you have to question your use of potentially lethal force in a situation where you have (by your choice of armament) have presumably shown that, in your mind, was not perceived as absolute neccessity. At least under the current law, that would tend to be unworkable from a standpoint of legal liability.

 

[kedo1981]

This is why I’m dead set against Conceal and Carry.
If I’m in a place where I am in danger I want to BEAR MY ARMS, as in let the bad guys know I got um and have the training to use them, and I only get them if I have training.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest here. I think you have added real value to this conversation. That being said.......

Thanks for the thorough answer.

 

[Xulld]

If you want to go with a less than lethal approach, you should go with something else entirely, like mace/pepper spray/stun gun.

Yep! KISS principle.

Sometimes even a bullet or two won't stop someone.

Yep, often bullets are "less than lethal", dont get me wrong I think the stats are something like 80% of poeple shot in the chest who dont get immediate medical attention die, but that leaves a lot who dont.

In almost any situation where someone could bring lethal force against you within seconds, you would be a fool to pull punches.

If you really do not think the situation is such that the person can bring lethal force against you within seconds, then you should use a much less than lethal option, like pepper spray, or a tazer, if you do not have them, then try to gain as much distance as possible while remaining at the ready to draw your defensive firearm.

From my own training: most of the emphasis is on deescalation, gaining distance, and either avoiding or removing myself from the situation WITHOUT the need to draw.

However once you have assessed that lethal force is seconds or less away from being met out against you, you must stop the attacker with maximum force as quickly as possible.

I think rubber bullets are a terrible idea for self defense for a couple of reasons. One is this idea that all options have been exhausted before lethal force is employed, and as was said earlier rubber bullets are going to be seen as lethal force regardless of your intentions. So legally this grants you no advantage.

If you determine that lethal force is needed, he reaches for a gun, he draws a knife and starts moving toward you after making threats, ect ect, if you fail to drop him with the rubber bullets, all you have done is escalate the situation. Also, being shot with a rubber bullet hurts like hell, but just like being shot with a real bullet often the person will know they have been hit, but it does not stop them, or via adrenaline they dont feel most of the pain right away, if you shoot me with a rubber bullet chances are I am going to think I have been shot with a real bullet, and if desperate enough may just do something even more crazy. This means that both legally, and practically rubber bullets are a bad idea.

Now if you are a squad of police officers, its a different story. You have backup, you have a team, you are not a single person in a dangerous situation, you have backup and more options. Rubber bullets are really only viable in a small subset of situations, and limiting yourself in that way is not a smart choice.

This is why I’m dead set against Conceal and Carry.
If I’m in a place where I am in danger I want to BEAR MY ARMS, as in let the bad guys know I got um and have the training to use them, and I only get them if I have training.

When I lived in North Carolina I carried openly every day for almost 2 years. I really wish every state had the same basic arrangement. I think if GZ would have been OC'ing his firearm the altercation would have never occurred, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Skeptical is fine. Arguing that there is no scenario where it ever makes sense or ever can be justified is what I find unusual. The battered wife is I think, a pretty decent example I think. A drunken idiot who thinks "you won't ever do it" and continues to head towards her as she has a gun might think twice if she fires a warning shot. Again, that's NOT to say it's wise. That warning shot could kill someone else. But I can imagine a scenario where it could be justified and not a bad decision (no one else in the home, fires warning shot upwards where the chance of injury to someone else is infinitesimally small).

I dont know is really my only answer. I am feeling this one out.

I would like to think I am a reasonable person, if someone pointed a gun at me, I would immediately want to find cover or get out of the line of sight of the gun, especially if I am not armed with a gun. So putting myself in the place of the drunk guy who is aggressively walking toward a frightened person of less stature (ie a women in your description). If she drew and pointed the gun with a command to stop that would be enough for me. I think firing a warning shot is a reasonable person hoping the attacker is also reasonable, and I think its a deadly assumption. Just my .02

I think if there is some kind of mistake in intention when a person such as your hypothetical situation find themselves in such a situation, giving vocal commands and trying to find a way out would be enough. The drunk guy would probably realize he is freaking this person the F out, and stop . . . unless his intentions are really malicious.

Ive actually been in such a situation and was able to deescalate by making my unease known to the drunk dude, and explaining in a commanding tone to DO NOT GET ANY CLOSER. It was a stressful situation, I do not think I moved my hand to my weapon, but I def backed up squared to target and started looking at his hands while issuing my commands and basically letting it be known he was freaking me out. Upon reflection I think he was pretty harmless, but I did not stick around to find out.

 

[LTC8K6]

The problem with LTL in the real world is that it can get you killed.

A lot of people think they should load LTL as the first round. They shouldn't.

An attacker can get to you surprisingly quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

 

[Xulld]

The problem with LTL in the real world is that it can get you killed.

A lot of people think they should load LTL as the first round. They shouldn't.

An attacker can get to you surprisingly quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

EXACTLY. 1.5 seconds. My current average draw time to first accurate shot (from concealment) is about 1.8 -2 seconds, and I train fairly regularly. There is just no way to be sure. You need every advantage you can get when someone really wants to harm you.

Basically you just dont need a gun up and until the point something like this happens, but once it does you need a lot more than a pistol, your lucky if you have even that in today's anti gun age.

 

[RandFan]

The main consideration, I think, is that LTL rounds have a signifigant mortality rate at self-defense ranges. Using FBI stats for LEOs killed by firearms (which is really the best stat we have) around half are killed 0-5 feet, around 70% 0-10' and somthing like 85% 0-20'. This tends to match ancedotal studies done within the industry for self-defense shootings though I agree that the universal use of body armor probably skew the stat to the lower ranges. Certainly at near-contact ranges like in the present case, LTLs would have no real difference in mortality than conventional loads.

Perhaps I'm missing something but isn't 15% statistically significant? I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise.

I'm not a certified instructor, but in my personal experience the single overriding theme of self-defense training should be that of assessment. IMO, anything that detracts from assessment like employing LTLs or warning shots would tend to give the shooter a reason to skip this step. There's just no way around the great legal and moral risk that is taken when one decides to employ lethal force. Make no mistake, civilian use of LTL rounds will be cast as lethal force by law enforcement and (IMO) should probably be viewed that way under the light of personal morality.

Please don't take the following as impertinent. It's not my intention to simply be provocative. First off, I think it prudent for anyone who carries a gun to take safety courses. That said, isn't concern for safety a bit overblown when it comes to carrying a gun? What I mean is this, given crime stats, does cost benefit analysis justify carrying a weapon like a gun? If the avoidance of taking a life is important then are there not better strategies and/or better technologies? What is the relative risk of dying for lack of a hand gun? According to the FBI, in 2010 there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms. For comparison, in 2010 there were 32,000 auto fatalities. Are the risks of having a gun greater than the risks of not having one? To be honest I can't say categorically either way. I don't fear riding a car and I don't fear being shot by someone. There seems to be a logical consistency in that. And yes, I get putting on one's seat belt, obeying the laws and defensive driving. But at the end of the day, no matter what you do, when you get into a car you are taking a risk. So, while I don't think people without the ability to carry a gun would live in fear, I think the concern a bit overblown.

If it is not clear then my point is this, anyone who has serious concerns about the possibility of taking the life of another person ought not carry a gun.

 

[Xulld]

If it is not clear then my point is this, anyone who has serious concerns about the possibility of taking the life of another person ought not carry a gun.

. . anyone who has serious concerns about being in a fatal auto accident ought not drive in a vehicle.

Your argument.

The conclusion is untenable however, serious concerns or not basic standards of living require us to drive, and to interact in society where violent people may attack us.

Being prepared is different than disengaging. The real counter argument is that being prepared harms no one. Defensive driving harms no one, carrying a gun and following self defense protocols hurts no one. When a deadly situation occurs you can make the best of it, but I am going to be prepared.

According to the FBI, in 2010 there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms.

Which ignores how many were prevented due to having a firearm. Its pretty hard to capture a statistic for an event that is prevented.

I find it interesting this argument from statistics. It seems the argument is that no one should carry a gun becuase of the statistical probability of needing one. Is this not the case?