I talked to my two brother in laws and father in law.
My father in law was CIA, One brother in law is a Self Defence/Martial Arts trainer. He also teaches hand to hand training for Law Enforcement. The other brother in law is a Police Sargent who is also a trainer of new recruits. Pretty good refrences we had a converse over the speaker phone, and as it turns out there was a classroom discussion with regards to what had happened. The whole class (Veteran Officers) were in agreeance that I did the right thing. They siad that I handled myself well, and was right by not pulling the trigger. His point was that if the perp had a gun or knife in his pocket, that he would most likely had it in hand when he walked up, and made sure I saw it. The new popular thing is to kidnap someone and force them to drive to an ATM to clean out their account. You guys are right about getting more fimilar with the gun I am carrying. The funny thing is I bought that pistol for my wife. I was planning on getting a Kimber .45 for myself at the gun show next weekend.

I must aknowledge that I appreciate Darren, Shank, and the other Admins for letting me use up space on the server. I never thought anything like this could happen to me, and I hope sharing experiences like this wil help some of you avoid a situation like the one I had. I guess the story ties in fairly well with Porsche and other Exotics. Some *******s see us as a target for a quick buck , No Doubt.

 

Here's a government report on this subject:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cus96.pdf

Of the 49,000 carjackings/year from 92 to 96, only 27 deaths/year resulted (these deaths, which were obtained from FBI figures, may NOT have been related to the carjacking).

This very small death count (which may really be much lower) occured even when 97% of the victims did NOT defend themselves with a weapon.

If 100% of the victims defended themselves with a weapon, I would bet that the death toll for the VICTIM would be MUCH higher as a result of unnecessary gunfights, perpetrator using the weapon against you, etc. Also, this doesn't count the unnecessary death of the perpetrator (e.g., a drunk kid with no weapon).

 

You guys are MISSING the point. Listen to me carefully, and UNDERSTAND the legal ramifications.

You DO NOT shoot to Kill... you shoot to STOP THE THREAT. If it takes death to stop the threat, then SO BE IT.

I do in fact carry a CCW... and for all you tough guy pistol totin, police tellin you shoot to kill, he-man types who watch too many police dramas on TV... GET A CLUE.

This is real life... and in real life, you shoot to stop the threat. If you continue to shoot after the threat has been stopped, you could be charged with murder.

If your first shot just so happens to blow open the perps chest, or take his head off, or removes a lung... then so be it.

But you DID NOT shoot to kill... you shot to stop the threat.

Picture yourself in front of a jury friends, the prosecutor for the dead man is up in front of the jury (who just listened to the dead man's mother and family tell them what a wonderful man he was). Dear Jury, Mr. (insert your name here) told the officer at the scene of the crime that he wanted to kill this nice lady's son. By Mr. (insert your name here)'s own admision (as we've heard from the taped interview) what that he "shot to kill" He didn't shoot until he stopped the threat, he intended to kill... in fact, he didn't even consider any other options. Let's review some of the evidence again. We have, ladies and gentlement of the jury, a transcript from an online forum where Mr. (insert your name here) touted his willingness to kill... we have heard multiple officers testify that Mr. (Insert your name here) intended to Kill poor little innocent Mr. (insert dead perps name here) who was just trying to get some money to feed his 10 starving children...

Okay gang... you get the point. If you think for even a second that this is just a made up story... think again... it happens. The police ARE NOT your friend... what you say CAN AND WILL (notice those words) be used against you. It will significantly impact your life... rest assured.

Let's see if you understand now:

You shoot to stop the threat.

You DO NOT shoot to kill.

I really thought we had more intelligence on this list... but I guess intelligence doesn't come with money eh?

And for the only "shoot to kill" comment below... sorry... you only draw your weapon when you feel your life(or in Arizona, if someone else's life) is in danger OR under a bunch of other circumstances which vary state to state.

Read the laws in your state and I promise you, you will NEVER see any law which states:

"If you draw your weapon, you must shoot to kill"

Anyone who believes you must "shoot to kill" should also believe that the tooth fairy, Saint Nick, and the movie "Bowling For Columbine" are real.

Get a grip you tough band o hotshots packing pistols.... or reality may someday create a significant emotional event in your life.

(if you detect a certain distain in my post... it is because it is there. Too many people believe the ignorant crap being spewed on this thread, and it needs to stop somewhere).

Joe West

 

Joe the problem is that of semantics really. What should be said is that you shoot to kill, but you only shoot UNTIL you have stopped the threat.

This means that every shot you take should be taken with the intention that it kill the person you are shooting at. However, when there is no longer a threat, you cannot keep shooting.

-Steve

 

Shawn,

You absolutely did the right thing... You pulled your weapon because you felt your life was in danger, but you did not shoot because the perp didn't elevate the threat.

In your case, you stopped the threat simply by showing that you felt your life was in sufficient danger to draw a weapon to protect yourself.

I'm pretty sure I saw this suggestion made earlier, but you should never drive around with your doors unlocked (this being said... I still forget to lock my doors sometime).

Good job, and I'm glad you posted this... it may clear up a few misconceptions that are rampant in our "shoot first and ask questions later" society.

Joe

 

Not really. It is first, a change in attitude. From the attidude of "shoot to kill" to the attitude of "shoot to stop the threat".

When you understand that you carry a weapon only to stop a threat, then your thought process about when to shoot (and when to stop shooting) changes.

The difference is HUGE.

When you shoot to kill... it means you may not stop shooting until the perp dies.

When you shoot to stop the threat... it means you stop shooting when the threat is gone.

This last statement may mean the difference between life in prison for you, or simply a lighter pocketbook because of the millions it may cost you to defend yourself.

It's not just semantics... it is a very real change in thought process which will help you make correct decisions under stress.

Kind Regards,

Joe

 

That is exactly what i said

 

Sorry... I got hung up on your semantics comment

You are absolutely correct.

Joe

 

My initial message got lost. I initially said that I think you completely think you did the right thing under the circumstances and that you should feel relief or good about yourself for handling THAT situation appropriately. I see nothing wrong with carrying a gun to protect yourself if you sincerley have to use it to protect yourself. I agre with what others have told you. If there was a gun and it was shown or pulled on you, I hate to think what would have happened next, but you would probably have been put in the position to shot to kill or be killed if threat elevates to that level.

I don't carry a gun, because I figure I would only elevate the threat and end up getting shot due to my hesitation that there may still be a peaceful way out. But those are my issues/fears that would effectively or ultimately place me in more danger by having a gun and not really be willing to use it. I just don't think it is right to take another's life to protect a car or property if there is no emminent threat of death or bodily injury. To me it is warped thinking that one should take the life of another that is unarmed merely because they are a ******* car jacker. You did the right thing and you should feel good about yourself in the way you handled youself. That was truly a level headed response and a responsible tact you elected to pursue.

 

To paraphrase the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, "Those skilled in the art of war subdue the enemy without battle."

As Turbo owners should know, with great power comes great responsibility. With a gun, that power and responsibility are amplified. In my mind and others, (Joe West to name one), it does comes down to using as much force as necessary to stop the threat. In this case, Shawn judged correctly that amount of force.

I also think that Shawn used the amount of force that was "clearly justified". To a defense lawyer, actually shooting an unarmed (as far as you know) man in your car fogs up the "clearly justified" window nicely. In fact, they'd probably argue that you stopped to buy drugs but instead shot their client when he said he'd go to the police! Now, how much time, money and emotion is it going to take you and your family to solve that? It's about what you have to lose.

Sure, a lot of us would love to shoot the bad guy. I know I would! I also think shooting horse thieves is a good idea, so my thinking may be a little bent.

Ask Bernard Goetz if he's glad he shot the bad guy? In 1984, he shot four "youths" (18) on a New York subway train, after he said they threatened to rob him. The "youths" claimed they were only begging for $5 to play video games, even though it turned out all had criminal records and three were carrying screwdrivers. A trial that polarized the city with political and racial emotion ensued. Although Goetz, now nicknamed the "Subway Vigilante" by the media, was found not guilty of intent to kill he was found guilty of carrying an unlicensed handgun and spent 250 days in jail.

Three of the men went on to a life of crime with one now serving time for rape. The fourth, paralyzed by Goetz's bullet, sued Goetz in civil court and in 1996 won a $43 million settlement against him. Extreme example? Yes. But, if Goetz had to do it over again, don't you think he might this time elect to point his (now registered) iron at the thugs while uttering, "Your move, punks!" in his best Dirty Harry voice?

I guess what I'm trying to say with this long post is that Shawn did everything right. He decided carrying a concealed weapon was the right choice for him, got training, and got licensed. Then, he was able to use his legal weapon with a cool head to deter a potentially violent crime. All without bloodshed. This is exactly how the law is designed to work.

Like your Turbo, having the power is one thing, knowing when to use it is another. In this case, Sun Tzu would be proud.

Later,
MNM3/4

 

Joe, Have you ever been shot at? Have you ever shot at someone?? I have, and believe me on this one, you are not thinking about wounding your target. You are not aiming at a knee cap or a pinky finger. You are just trying to hit the target and stop the threat. You can not "try" to wound someone. I am sure it looks good on paper though.

There is nothing "Wild West" or "Macho" about it. It is what it is.

I agree that trying to KILL the target on purpose ie; dropping someone then walking up and putting one more into their head is absolutely wrong. I also agree that, in this situation, once the threat is stopped the firing is stopped.

My point is simply this, when the adrenalyn is flowing, it is very difficult to control the emotions, especially since most people have never and will never even be placed in a situation like this. To expect an individual to fire a weapon without killing the intended target is asking too much.

Personally I thinking pulling a weapon is absolutely the last thing you should do. But once you decide to pull out that weapon you better be ready to start shooting, and when you shoot at someone ... big suprise here ... they may die.

 

Florida statutes consider the circumstances where use of deadly force is justified.

776.012 Florida Statutes states, "Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

What is a "forcible felony"? The definition is contained at 776.08 Florida Statutes: "Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Carjacking appears to be a "forcible felony." 810.02 Florida Statutes:

(1) "Burglary" means entering or remaining in a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain.

It would appear that the circumstances as we know them, Shawn faced the sudden, uninvited entry by the perp into Shawn's car. This would seem to justify his reasonable concern that he faced a threat of great bodily harm or that the perp was intent on engaging in the commission of the crime of burglary (carjacking). Could a prosecutor prosecuting Shawn for shooting the perp or an attorney representing the perp in an action for damages against Shawn argue other circumstances, such as the perp's belief that Shawn was looking for a supplier of drugs, and he (the perp) entered the car for that purpose? Of course. As another poster pointed out, why was Shawn in that neighborhood anyway? It apparently has a reputation as a bad area. Any of us can go to any neighborhood we want, but if our reason for being somewhere drugs are sold is to find a drug seller, the outcome of the legal analysis may well be different. Not to imply that was infact Shawn's purpose for being there, but to point out that other arguments can be made. It's never simple

The foregoing information is available on the Web. It is not legal advice.

 

No where did I *ever* say wound.

What I said was:

Do not shoot to kill.

Shoot to stop the threat.

If you are shooting to stop the threat, it is sheer stupidity to aim at anything other than center of mass.

I suspect you are missing the point. You do NOT shoot to wound, you DO NOT aim for arms, legs, limbs, kneecaps, etc.

You shoot to stop the threat. You aim for center of mass. When the threat stops... you stop.

Simple eh?

Also... you train with targets that are shaped like human torsos, not bullseye targets. You train and train and train, and if you are ever in fear of your life... you know just where to aim to stop the threat.

Joe

 

This happened yesterday afternoon. Car jacking I'll bet the poor guy and his wife wish they had been carrying. The car jacking stats sited above don't mean sh*t to these two victims and their family.
Watch out at gas stations, also it's better to carry on your person than have the weapon in a glove box or under the seat.

Joe,
Your take on deadly force is exactly right.

 

I wonder what that low life thug would of thought when a colt .45 was pointed at his head and the trigger was pulled. Or if we understanded why he has to be a robber, did he not get enought government support, was he mistreated in school, or is he just the scum of the earth and should be locked up in the dirtest, rat infested, overcrouded prison we have, instead of the air condition, clean, 24 hour fitness of a prison system we have today. The prisoners get better treatment than some people that bust their *** to bareley get by today. Most prisoners would love to go back to jail so they can be treated like royality.