Concealed Carry in the Era of Terror

[26 Inf]

Really? I would take the opposite approach. If a guy with an ak is killing people at your local mall, I'm pretty sure shooting him in the back of the head is legal. But maybe I missed something. I think finishing off a threat while moving to another is also legal when in self defense or the defense of others.

No offense, but that is the problem 'you think' is not a good thing to bet the bank on legality wise. In terms of 'if a guy with an ak is killing people at your local mall, I'm pretty sure shooting him in the back of the head is legal' you can look at the law and see that would clearly be an appropriate use of force.

In terms of 'finishing them off' being legal, show me one example of a case where anchor shots as you move pass someone has been an adjudicated issue, I have never heard of one. Recent case law for police officers (not the same standard, I know) indicate that 1) your actions have to be objectively reasonable at the time force was used, and 2) there is a growing body of law which says each application of force - as in I fired 7 rounds at the guy in 3 seconds, then pause and fire another - has to be justified on it's own face as a separate, distinct use of force.

I do not know if you remember the movie 'Heartbreak Ridge' with Clint Eastwood. There was a scene as they crossed a bridge that had been defended, and the Marines were anchoring wounded/dead Cuban soldiers as they approached them in the assault. Huge shit storm. And that was in 1986 - Ronald Reagan was President and we were in the middle of the cold war.

Rudimentary forensic examination of the crime scene, not the fantasy CSI shit, will point out trajectory and body position when shots are fired at downed subjects.

By the same token, a rudimentary search of your electronic footprint will disclose everything you've posted on social media, forums like this, and whatever.

I sure the heck wouldn't be playing to the crowd writing the crap that guy was peddling. Do you really think he is going to show up and say, 'well, yeah, I wrote that in an article, for the purpose of instructing people in appropriate action to take in such events, I accept full responsibility.'

[Hank6046]

Good little read, I haven't heard of FPF Training before but I really agree with John R. Murphy's bio about how he gained more knowledge on the civilian side when it came to shooting then on the military side. "I did ten years in the Marine Corps and currently work for the DOD, but I make no claim to being a combat veteran. I’ve learned much more about shooting and self-defense outside the military than I ever did during my service." Very honest words all around.

As to everyone saying what they intend to do once the bullets start flying, I say that situation dictates. I've never been in a situation other than an after school fight, but as the saying goes, the best laid plans are thrown out with the first punch.

[Pilot1]

Terror = Theater of the Mind

[SOW_0331]

I'm not doubting that a good DA could convince a jury that it was necessary to engage a downed bad guy to prevent further threat. Its not a guarantee but given the circumstances I would imagine that would be an unwise and unpopular course of action to pursue criminal charges .

What I have a problem with in this piece is the entire concept that anyone carrying a CCW is in any way capable of, qualified to, or responsible to run around conducting one man ambush missions, hunt down other threats, and anything else. Oh sure, I'm gonna kill a bad dude and take his AK, and the responding LE will just know that I'm the GOOD guy with an AK walking around. I should probably travel with a day pack of medical gear, a water purifier so me and the band of survivers can drink from puddles in the parking garage, and a primary and secondary compass to land nav out way out of whatever building were in. And finally someone else agrees that it's a scary world, an Era of Terrah and I'm not crazy for wearing my size 46x30 multicam tactical pants and plate carrier everywhere I go.

[Voodoo_Man]

I'm not doubting that a good DA could convince a jury that it was necessary to engage a downed bad guy to prevent further threat. Its not a guarantee but given the circumstances I would imagine that would be an unwise and unpopular course of action to pursue criminal charges .

What I have a problem with in this piece is the entire concept that anyone carrying a CCW is in any way capable of, qualified to, or responsible to run around conducting one man ambush missions, hunt down other threats, and anything else. Oh sure, I'm gonna kill a bad dude and take his AK, and the responding LE will just know that I'm the GOOD guy with an AK walking around. I should probably travel with a day pack of medical gear, a water purifier so me and the band of survivers can drink from puddles in the parking garage, and a primary and secondary compass to land nav out way out of whatever building were in. And finally someone else agrees that it's a scary world, an Era of Terrah and I'm not crazy for wearing my size 46x30 multicam tactical pants and plate carrier everywhere I go.

The point of the article, in my opinion, was to pass the understanding that CCW's maybe the only people in that area that are capable of stopping something like this and to push those people who are trained into training and the right mindset.

I wrote something similar (though long winded) in an article.

http://vdmsr.blogspot.com/2014/10/get-in-fight.html

[Inkslinger]

If any wing nut decides to start killing innocent people, I could care less about any potential legality issues. I will do my best to shoot them in the front, back, head, anywhere I can put a hole in them. I would rather rot in prison or go to the electric chair knowing I stopped the slaughter of innocent people than worrying about what the law might do to me for it.

[sevenhelmet]

If any wing nut decides to start killing innocent people, I could care less about any potential legality issues. I will do my best to shoot them in the front, back, head, anywhere I can put a hole in them. I would rather rot in prison or go to the electric chair knowing I stopped the slaughter of innocent people than worrying about what the law might do to me for it.

I don't think you would go to the electric chair for shooting someone who was confronting you with deadly force. However, stopping a threat any way you can is very different from advising people to train to a technique which can (and has) caused legal problems for combat troops in a war zone. This guy is giving bad advice, period. In the heat of the moment, would you be able to differentiate a terrorist from a common criminal or an Adam Lanza? I am not sure I would, and I'm better trained for stressful situations than an average civilian. Also, who says the bad guys will be using AKs? Who says a guy with an AK is a terrorist? In the heat of the moment, does it really matter?

Too many assumptions, and too little supporting information for his arguments leads me to believe this author is an armchair commando.

[Inkslinger]

I don't think you would go to the electric chair for shooting someone who was confronting you with deadly force. However, stopping a threat any way you can is very different from advising people to train to a technique which can (and has) caused legal problems for combat troops in a war zone. This guy is giving bad advice, period. In the heat of the moment, would you be able to differentiate a terrorist from a common criminal or an Adam Lanza? I am not sure I would, and I'm better trained for stressful situations than an average civilian. Also, who says the bad guys will be using AKs?

Too many assumptions, and too little supporting information for his arguments leads me to believe this author is an armchair commando.

I would take common criminal out of the equation, but I see no difference between Adam Lanza and a terrorist. I'm not advocating dead checking a mugger. I'm talking about a situation where someone with a gun (pistol or rifle) is shooting anyone they can put their sights on. I don't think you should use a "spray and pray" technique. I do think that as long as bad guy still moves he should have bullets put in him. If one of those bullets enters his head while he's lying on the ground moving and bleeding then so be it.

[Voodoo_Man]

re; dead-checking.

Just because someone is on the ground and appears to be out of action does not, in any way, mean that they are.

Especially if are still armed.

[Inkslinger]

re; dead-checking.

Just because someone is on the ground and appears to be out of action does not, in any way, mean that they are.

Especially if are still armed.

Amen!