CHLer shoots burgler in Manvel

[Oldgringo]

KD5NRH wrote:

Oh good: I've never quite trusted the Methodist Rabbis.

I get it.

[Sangiovese]

There's a couple of false presuppositions that have gone unchallenged in this thread so far:

1. Shooting center mass is not "shooting to kill".
2. Shooting somebody in the leg is not "not shooting to kill".

A firearm is deadly force no matter where you aim it. There are critical arteries in the legs that - if hit with a bullet - could cause death as quickly as an abdominal or chest wound would. Most victims of a handgun wound LIVE.

You can be in a lot of trouble if you "shoot to injure". Why? Because you used deadly force and then admitted that you didn't feel like the BG's death was necessary. If the situation doesn't warrant the possibility of the BG dying, then you shouldn't be using deadly force.

For proper self-defense, we're in the business of stopping threats. We aren't looking to kill. We aren't looking to injure. We are looking to stop the actions of another that seriously threaten our lives, the lives of others, or serious bodily injury.

A center-of-mass shot is the highest probability shot that one can make. It has several benefits:
- Possibly reduce the number of times you have to shoot the BG, which could end up saving his/her life
- Reduce the likelihood of an errant shot hitting an innocent bystander, in which case not only will your conscience be guilty, you will be guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and possibly manslaugter
- Increase the possibility of you, your loved ones, and other innocent lives of escaping unharmed from a situation that required deadly force

Once the threat is stopped, you should stop using deadly force.

Excellent points and well stated.

The homeowner was lucky that his attacker was either not intent on pressing the attack, or that hit to the shin was far more debilitating than a hit to an extremity normally is. Attackers, even those not under the influence of drugs, can and very often do continue their attacks after receiving wounds which eventually prove fatal. As close as the attacker was, and armed with a knife, there is a high probability that he could have continued his attack and seriously injured or killed the homeowner. Fortunately, it worked out for the best. I hope that the homeowner and his family recover fully from the emotional trauma.

I do not have any desire to take a life. However, in a similar circumstance, I will not gamble my life that the attacker will voluntarily stop his attack after being wounded in the leg. I will shoot as I have been trained... the highest probability of one or more hits that will cause sufficient damage to stop the attacker's assault.

As for the psychological aftermath. I don't know how I will react. Intellectually, I believe that I will be fine knowing that I did what was necessary to defend innocent life and that any consequences for the attacker are the result of his own decisions. But it's not always all about intellect. If I am ever forced to defend myself with deadly force, I may very well lose sleep over it, need counseling, and have permanent psychological effects. I have given this serious thought and am willing to risk that in order to defend myself. I spent a lot of time making that decision before I started carrying a weapon. I won't delude myself into thinking that I will sleep like a baby after taking a life in self defense. But if that moment comes, I will do what I must and deal with the aftermath, whatever it is.

[texas1234]

I still have not gotten over a home invasion that happened next door a year ago and I wasnt even home nor was it my house. I still to this day have anxiety attacks over what took place next door. However, being a former Marine I have all the confidence in the world that I will pull the trigger if I need too.

But like you I am well aware that pulling that trigger will take an emotional toll even when necessary to defend myself and my girls.

But thats life and those of us who have faith will persevere, and to hell with those who chose to prey on the innocent.

[texas1234]

"Most victims of a handgun live", is not entirely correct, dont underestimate your handgun. Virginia Tech and Luby's are examples of living through a handgun round not happening. Yes if you were to compare a perfectly placed rifle shot at 3000fps vs. to an imperfectly placed handgun shot at 950fps your correct, but both are extremely deadly. I think sometimes handgunners compare their ability to a rifle to the point of mentally losing the effectiveness and deadly attributes of their sidearm. Handguns are deadly and dont forget that, not that you did, but often times I read people making light of the effectiveness of a handgun. For example I shoot a 45+p its muzzle velocity is 1140fps with a 185 grain bullet. That is going to have an affect on someone in an adverse way.

[fickman]

I do not have any desire to take a life. However, in a similar circumstance, I will not gamble my life that the attacker will voluntarily stop his attack after being wounded in the leg. I will shoot as I have been trained... the highest probability of one or more hits that will cause sufficient damage to stop the attacker's assault.

As for the psychological aftermath. I don't know how I will react. Intellectually, I believe that I will be fine knowing that I did what was necessary to defend innocent life and that any consequences for the attacker are the result of his own decisions. But it's not always all about intellect. If I am ever forced to defend myself with deadly force, I may very well lose sleep over it, need counseling, and have permanent psychological effects. I have given this serious thought and am willing to risk that in order to defend myself. I spent a lot of time making that decision before I started carrying a weapon. I won't delude myself into thinking that I will sleep like a baby after taking a life in self defense. But if that moment comes, I will do what I must and deal with the aftermath, whatever it is.

Well said yourself. I'll pray that God protects you from ever finding out!

"Most victims of a handgun live", is not entirely correct, dont underestimate your handgun. Virginia Tech and Luby's are examples of living through a handgun round not happening. Yes if you were to compare a perfectly placed rifle shot at 3000fps vs. to an imperfectly placed handgun shot at 950fps your correct, but both are extremely deadly. I think sometimes handgunners compare their ability to a rifle to the point of mentally losing the effectiveness and deadly attributes of their sidearm. Handguns are deadly and dont forget that, not that you did, but often times I read people making light of the effectiveness of a handgun. For example I shoot a 45+p its muzzle velocity is 1140fps with a 185 grain bullet. That is going to have an affect on someone in an adverse way.

Point taken.

I should have further explained my "stat". I read it a few years back (sorry, no source). . . but it's a little misleading. It stated that "the majority (over 50% - not necessarily great odds) of victims of handgun wounds recover from their injuries". The stat definitely counted extremity wounds and probably even people who were grazed, nicked, or hit by shrapnel. Each successive handgun wound would significantly drop the victim's survival rate. Also, many of these victims receive nearly immediate medical care for their wounds.

Guns - even .22's - are extremely deadly. May I never imply otherwise.