Knife vs. Gun: I think we have a winner...

aircooled wrote: Question that this brings up: Situation: Similar to above, someone threatens you, you pull a gun (one of those high capacity types) and shoot them... Option 1: Using you marksmanship you bore a hole through the base of his nose and blast his brain steam out the back of his head... result: very dead. Option 2: Not being as confident about your marksmanship, you empty the 12 round clip into his chest... result: very dead. Question: Is there any difference to the above two? In both cases the perp is dead, in both cases you shot him, in both cases you intent was to kill him (which is pretty much the rule that cops use, shoot to kill). The reason I ask is, it is likely a cop would get investigated for that second one, even though the intent and result are the same.

Option 3: Try to GTFO of there. If you can't, aim for the center of the chest, fire and then GTFO of there.

Option 4: Point the gun at a passer-by and demand they take his knife and then kill him with it or you will shoot them. (Saw IIIXXVIII)

In option option 1 there is no question. Option 2 has a few things. First, a good cop shouldn't have a confidence issue when it comes to marksmanship. Any shot to an unarmed assailant after they have stopped approaching is excessive. The argument would then settle around when they became unarmed and when they stopped approaching. It should need to be blatant before it becomes an issue.

Clarification. The shooter in this case is not meant to be for a cop, but for a civilian. I mentioned a cop since they seem to come under great scrutiny for "excessive force" all the time.

In the above case, it seems pretty silly, the perp is very dead in either case. I wonder if a civilian would have similar problems.

Either way, stopping to reload and then continuing to shoot is probably not a good idea unless you are certain you are still getting attacked.

aircooled wrote: Clarification. The shooter in this case is not meant to be for a cop, but for a civilian. I mentioned a cop since they seem to come under great scrutiny for "excessive force" all the time. In the above case, it seems pretty silly, the perp is very dead in either case. I wonder if a civilian would have similar problems.

A lot depends on you live, but in most cases yes it would be looked at differently. I knew a guy who had something similar happen. it was in his home and he shot the intruder twice. They got him (1) for shooting more than once and (2) for using a large caliber pistol when there was a small caliber pistol available to him....although farther away. He got off, but it was a big ordeal. He lived in a "left leaning" area where guns were frowned on.

Anyone see American History X? Norton went to prison because he stomped dudes head to mush after he was already down. I know just a movie, but I can see how that could cause a person problems with the law.

We just had this happen here locally... http://www.indystar.com/article/20100419/NEWS02/4190347/-1/ARCHIVE/Cops-Fatal-shooting-of-robbery-suspect-was-self-defense ... Guy shot the would-be robber 4 times center mass. Robber's family called it a "racial" shooting because he was a different color than the shooter, even though he was still on probation for his last armed robbery.

What's the saying: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Some sumbitch pulls a knife on me, if I can't get clear and I have a gun and have to pull it, since he has backed me into a corner I will make damn sure he can't get back up quickly. There will be none of this 'should I shoot him just once or 6 times, I'm worried about what a jury will think', once I am sure he can't come after me I quit firing.

Again quoting my ol' pop: 'Don't you ever let me catch you starting a fight. But if you are in one, you better be the last man standing'.

Dr. Hess wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: Criminals love nothing more than a disarmed populace.

Politicians too.

Redundant. One's a subset of the other.

Jensenman wrote: What's the saying: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Some sumbitch pulls a knife on me, if I can't get clear and I have a gun and have to pull it, since he has backed me into a corner I will make damn sure he can't get back up quickly. There will be none of this 'should I shoot him just once or 6 times, I'm worried about what a jury will think', once I am sure he can't come after me I quit firing. Again quoting my ol' pop: 'Don't you ever let me catch you starting a fight. But if you are in one, you better be the last man standing'.

STOP IT! It's like you're me, only not.

The way our state laws are written, you are allowed to use lethal force until there is no longer a threat, i.e. the target is down. It that means 1 shot, great, 2 shots fine, 5? He was either higher than a kite or one big mofo....

Seems like the perp got the idea after the second bullet to the chest.

I watched a vid on the news about 4 years ago where a crazy SOB attacked a lawyer outside a courthouse with a snub .38. He hit the lawyer, who immediately started dodging, and got behind a skinny tree. The shooter was maybe 15 feet away as he emptied the gun at the guy, and at least a few of the 6 shots connected. The lawyer was still on his feet when the gun was empty and the perp started running. He was then tackled by a security officer.

Moral of the story: You fire center of mass untill its down, or you are an idiot. And, I will personally never waste time on a handgun under .357 Mag or .357 Sig. Small defense firearms are pointless IMHO. I am a novice shooter, 5'10 160 Lbs, and I love firing a .45 ACP and I am reasonably accurate. If you cant handle a 9MM at least, dont own a gun.

2 shots from a .38 is uncommon restraint IMHO. LOL at morons who talk about this as if it is some sort of horrible incident relative to the muggings that happened all the time where innocent people were held at knife point and had their things taken while in desperate fear for their lives. Whats a 65 year-old to do, sprint away? et mugging in that area plunges, and the only person hurt was the perp.

Bobzilla wrote: ...The way our state laws are written, you are allowed to use lethal force until there is no longer a threat, i.e. the target is down. It that means 1 shot, great, 2 shots fine, 5? He was either higher than a kite or one big mofo....

OK, I realize this comes down to laws, but lets just say the guy is clearly dead on the ground (head splattered) and you put a few more rounds into his chest. How is this a problem? You are not killing him more! Are you humiliating the dead man? Making the mortician work harder?

aircooled wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: ...The way our state laws are written, you are allowed to use lethal force until there is no longer a threat, i.e. the target is down. It that means 1 shot, great, 2 shots fine, 5? He was either higher than a kite or one big mofo....

OK, I realize this comes down to laws, but lets just say the guy is clearly dead on the ground (head splattered) and you put a few more rounds into his chest. How is this a problem? You are not killing him more! Are you humiliating the dead man? Making the mortician work harder?

You are demonstrating intent to kill rather than just remove the deadly threat to yourself.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

Crime of passion? You cannot say that after an attempted mugging you were exactly cool headed.

snippet of definition: To make this claim the defendant must have acted immediately upon the rise of passion, without the time for contemplation or allowing for "a cooling of the blood."

But he is already dead!

Also, (I would say) shooting someone at all is intent to kill.

If you threaten me with deadly force or real concern of serious physical harm, I will respond with deadly force. Whether it's a gun, knife, a baseball bat, convenient rock or my hands by threatening me you have put yourself in mortal danger. Anyone who responds in any other way ( with the exception of being able to flee to safety ) will be known as a victim. I speak from direct experience and I'm still here. Draw your own conclusions.

If I am in fear of my life or another person under my care I will fire and continue to fire until the threat is no longer present.

That is almost verbatum from the Victorian Police standing orders

If a drug user is so zoned he doesn't recognize a firearm, how is that my problem?

That said always remember

"Dead Men tell no lies"

aircooled wrote: But he is already dead! Also, (I would say) shooting someone at all is intent to kill.

I don't write the laws but my wife sits in court all day observing many people who thought they didn't apply to them... empty the mag... be prepared to do time for manslaughter.

A police officer in Australia emptied his weapon into an offender who produced a firearm, the offender was still standing and holding his weapon so the officer took his stunned partner's weapon and fired 1 more shot into the offender Gary Abdullah.

Abdullah died about 20 days later from the wounds.

Charges were laid but not taken to court.

aircooled wrote: . Question: Is there any difference to the above two? In both cases the perp is dead, in both cases you shot him, in both cases you intent was to kill him (which is pretty much the rule that cops use, shoot to kill). The reason I ask is, it is likely a cop would get investigated for that second one, even though the intent and result are the same.

Actualy cops are trained shoot to disable. You want them to cease whatever they are doing, but still take them alive. Now, real world, the most efficient way for them to stop is a kill shot

Some people seem to think that the mere sight of a gun will make a criminal wet himself, drop his weapon, and run screaming. That doesn't always happen. This perp was not scared of a gun pointed at him.

Anyone whose last words are "Berkeley you and your automatic weapon," is both dangerous and very, very stupid.

spdracer315 wrote:

aircooled wrote: . Question: Is there any difference to the above two? In both cases the perp is dead, in both cases you shot him, in both cases you intent was to kill him (which is pretty much the rule that cops use, shoot to kill). The reason I ask is, it is likely a cop would get investigated for that second one, even though the intent and result are the same.

Actualy cops are trained shoot to disable. You want them to cease whatever they are doing, but still take them alive. Now, real world, the most efficient way for them to stop is a kill shot

I would like to know where you go that from, I was a cop and was trained to shoot at center mass, every time.

No if, but or maybe, center mass

As others have said, brandishing a gun to achieve an effect (to get the knife guy to leave you alone) is never the right thing to do. That's a good way to get arrested. Then try and prove it was in self-defense. Same thing with shooting in the leg. The main thing you must be able to prove in court (after the fact) is that YOU thought you were in mortal danger (whether the person had a gun, knife, bat, or just plain planned to beat you to death). Shooting in the leg shows you had time to plan and consider just injuring them. "Hardly something a person who feared for their life would do" (quoted from the prosecuter)...

anyone here ever been stabbed? it berkeleying hurts.. Been shot? it berkeleying hurts even more. people watch too many movies i think. the bottom line here is that some asshat decided it would be cool to try and deprive a total stranger of their life and liberty by pulling a knife. A Citizen refused to allow this to happen, which is not only his right, but his duty and part of the responsibility of being a citizen. It sucks that anyone has to be in the position to be forced to shoot someone, but its the asshats fault and no one elses. If more people had the balls to stand up to these thugs, less people would have too., of that I am convinced...

924guy wrote: anyone here ever been stabbed? it berkeleying hurts.. Been shot? it berkeleying hurts even more. people watch too many movies i think. the bottom line here is that some asshat decided it would be cool to try and deprive a total stranger of their life and liberty by pulling a knife. A Citizen refused to allow this to happen, which is not only his right, but his duty and part of the responsibility of being a citizen. It sucks that anyone has to be in the position to be forced to shoot someone, but its the asshats fault and no one elses. If more people had the balls to stand up to these thugs, less people would have too., of that I am convinced...

Plus one for you!