View Full Version : Concealed Carry in the Era of Terror
Amp Mangum
04-16-15, 05:59
Good read:
http://www.fpftraining.com/concealed-carry-in-the-era-of-terror-part-one/
http://www.fpftraining.com/concealed-carry-in-the-era-of-terror-part-two/
Hahahaha. "Anchor shot so you aren't worried about the guy behind you". This is no more an Era of Terrah than it was 20 years ago, and as a daily carrier I know where the line is. This is silly at best, dangerous in reality.
sevenhelmet
04-16-15, 09:10
No. Just no. Who is this guy?
So, with that in mind, back shoot them without hesitation. The cheaper the shot, the better. As you pass their bodies, “anchor” shoot them, preferably through the brain and from a position of advantage, to ensure there’s not a threat behind you as you move on. While these methods of engagement are illegal and inappropriate for a criminal encounter and would likely see you charged with murder in that context, I suspect a citizen acting this way against a terrorist threat will be given a pass. (Differentiating between the two at that time could be difficult. Choose wisely…)
TACTICS - YOURS
Once away, you can escape, lay in fixed ambush or move through the structure and engage at the times and places of your choosing in a roving sort of ambush/meeting engagement. The latter is a very high risk undertaking but will serve to buy time for other citizens to escape. You will likely be significantly outgunned.
Who is this Walter Mitty MF'er?
I do find it interesting how people in the advanced western world seem shocked and horrified about terrorism when not that long ago (70's-90's) it was all around Europe and America. Groups were much more ballsy and would basically commit all out war with full auto's right in the streets. The IRA, ULA, ILA, ALF, Khmer Rouge, Red Army Faction, Baader Meinhof etc.... People have short memories.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
I do find it interesting how people in the advanced western world seem shocked and horrified about terrorism when not that long ago (70's-90's) it was all around Europe and America. Groups were much more ballsy and would basically commit all out war with full auto's right in the streets. The IRA, ULA, ILA, ALF, Khmer Rouge, Red Army Faction, Baader Meinhof etc.... People have short memories.
Indeed they do. The age of the internet and total abandonment of intellectual honesty and integrity by the media and other factors has people losing all sense of reality and context. If you asked most people, they'd tell you it's a very violent time, when in fact it's one of the most peaceful periods in human history.
Indeed they do. The age of the internet and total abandonment of intellectual honesty and integrity by the media and other factors has people losing all sense of reality and context. If you asked most people, they'd tell you it's a very violent time, when in fact it's one of the most peaceful periods in human history.
Year of the shark all over again. The media will always invent a new shark.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
Amp Mangum
04-16-15, 09:58
So, with that in mind, back shoot them without hesitation. The cheaper the shot, the better. As you pass their bodies, “anchor” shoot them, preferably through the brain and from a position of advantage, to ensure there’s not a threat behind you as you move on. While these methods of engagement are illegal and inappropriate for a criminal encounter and would likely see you charged with murder in that context, I suspect a citizen acting this way against a terrorist threat will be given a pass. (Differentiating between the two at that time could be difficult. Choose wisely…)
I don't think the courts would "give you a pass" even if it was a terrorist event.
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.
So, with that in mind, back shoot them without hesitation. The cheaper the shot, the better. As you pass their bodies, “anchor” shoot them, preferably through the brain and from a position of advantage, to ensure there’s not a threat behind you as you move on. While these methods of engagement are illegal and inappropriate for a criminal encounter and would likely see you charged with murder in that context, I suspect a citizen acting this way against a terrorist threat will be given a pass. (Differentiating between the two at that time could be difficult. Choose wisely…)
I don't think the courts would "give you a pass" even if it was a terrorist event.
I do not know what would happen in court. I think the court would acknowledge that an event like this is different than a criminal encounter. My attitude is this is an act of war and the situation is one of that war's battles. At that point, any combatants on the "victim" side are acting in a militia capacity in a time of war. I do not know if this would stand, but it's just something that occurs to me.
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.'
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.
Terror = Theater of the Mind
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
04-18-15, 09:27
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
04-18-15, 10:05
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
04-18-15, 11:45
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
04-18-15, 12:06
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
04-18-15, 12:15
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
04-18-15, 12:19
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!
All I can think of when reading this article and comments is EVERY SINGLE SLASHER MOVIE I've ever seen :)
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.
My take on this article I this:
Thankfully this type of event has been rare, but more likely to occur now than it has in the past. If it happened and you were present, what would you do. Running around with an AK when the uniforms arrive may not be a good idea, but what about before they get there. There are so many possible scenarios in this situation. Also there are not really any legal cases to base any decisions upon that I am aware. I am afraid the way things are going the may be more events like this in the future. When I was growing up I never heard of any school, mall, or movie theater shootings, and they were all nut jobs, not terrorists.
As far as actions/tactics used during this type of event, each individual will have to decide what they are willing to do when the SHTF. Hopefully they will be prepared. I hope I am never involved, but I am not going to think it can never happen.
echo5whiskey
04-18-15, 21:43
While this certainly is a possibility, I would also take into account that the BGs probably already know that there are a lot of gun-toting free people in this country; and I'm sure that would influence their decision-making process. If you think about what terrorism hopes to accomplish, I doubt we would be close to the top of their list for this kind of attack. They want mass casualties and chaos. If they realize that there may be just as many armed civilians in their target as their own numbers, I'm not sure they would want to risk it.
That being said, I do realize that there are areas in this country that would be in that same boat as those other places (unarmed civilians). That article is pretty much pointless for those folks because they wouldn't have a gun to begin with. The only ones who would, would probably be off-duty LEOs who are most likely aware of what the article attempts to point out.
By no means am I saying that this scenario can't happen here, just that the dynamics in this country are different than in other countries. In the African countries, while their police and military might have decent training, I think they are easily sub-par compared to how we would behave in the US. Again, I'm pretty sure they would want to inflict the most damage they can, so I think we have a far greater chance of more Boston style attacks (regardless of whether or not that was linked to terrorism)
As for the legal vs. tactical ideas that the article lists, I think the best way to play that hand is with some common sense. If put in that situation, you will have to decide what you are willing to sacrifice for what ends. Every situation will dictate its own solution(s). No matter what you do, it's a lose-lose situation in some way.
All of this IMHO, of course.
I remember reading about a terrorist attack in Israel where some guys got a machine gun and attempted to mow down civillians. Iirc an IDF member(s) killed 2 and detained 1 who was surprised at the response and complained that it wasn't fair they were armed. A lot of these evil guys are smart, but a small convert group might do something stupid.
This story also shows the mentality that's out there.
echo5whiskey
04-19-15, 00:28
I remember reading about a terrorist attack in Israel where some guys got a machine gun and attempted to mow down civillians. Iirc an IDF member(s) killed 2 and detained 1 who was surprised at the response and complained that it wasn't fair they were armed. A lot of these evil guys are smart, but a small convert group might do something stupid.
This story also shows the mentality that's out there.
Absolutely agreed that it's out there. Also, consider that the attack you mentioned happened in Israel. Of every country in the world, they probably suffer from the most terrorism. Like I said, I'm not at all negating the need to prepare for this. To happen here, I think it would be played out by some small domestic group/individual (insert "dumb" here) [possibly] inspired, not necessarily linked to a foreign terrorist group. ...but to hype it up to the extent that the article did seems a bit extreme to me.
I will say that I fully agree with getting the best and most training that you can if you are going to own firearms for defense or EDC...but that's a different soap box. ;)
Voodoo_Man
04-19-15, 08:48
Absolutely agreed that it's out there. Also, consider that the attack you mentioned happened in Israel. Of every country in the world, they probably suffer from the most terrorism. Like I said, I'm not at all negating the need to prepare for this. To happen here, I think it would be played out by some small domestic group/individual (insert "dumb" here) [possibly] inspired, not necessarily linked to a foreign terrorist group. ...but to hype it up to the extent that the article did seems a bit extreme to me.
I will say that I fully agree with getting the best and most training that you can if you are going to own firearms for defense or EDC...but that's a different soap box. ;)
I recently sat in an EOD unit's (read bomb unit) debrief for an upcoming major event in the US. The commander stated that they are expecting in the area of 5+ million people to show up for this event and every single person he spoke with in every alphabet soup agency he knew of told him that they should prepare for a terrorist (or type) attack. Not possibly, not maybe, not should be prepared, none of that, it will happen, it is expected to happen.
The only reason the US has not seen more such attacks as have been seen in other places in the world (like benghazi, mumbai, etc) is because of the extreme stupidity of the would-be perpetrators. Our style of life and system of safety in this country are pretty high by default, we forget exactly how much effort is put into maintaining a safety standard, especially by agencies working in the background, out of sight and headlines.
I read the article as a "wake up call" to those who would otherwise believe they are capable of getting in the fight and stopping something like this....with their Nano 9mm or 5 shot 642.
Some of the information in the article made me cringe. Apparently, the author of the article did not confer with a criminal defense attorney about the content of his material.
The concept of what force you can and cannot use is simple. If LEO would not be justified in firing in a particular situation, it's safe to say a civilian would not be justified. You should have a plan to restrain the hands of an active shooter after they are downed. Anyone who thinks LEO in CONUS are trained to fire security shots when passing an active shooter they downed are living in an internet/videogame world.
You may be able to stop an attacker from inflicting more casualties by engaging them with your compact self defense pistol, which is admirable. When you train for such an incident, do not forget that engaging an active shooter is not without a great deal of risk. In addition to the threat presented by the active shooter(s), if you do everything right you may get shot by another CCW holder or an armed security guard.
but as the saying goes, the best laid plans are thrown out with the first punch.
Not really a very good saying.
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.
True, but the correct course of action is not to "dead check" them by shooting them in the head.
Voodoo_Man
04-19-15, 11:45
True, but the correct course of action is not to "dead check" them by shooting them in the head.
I never said it was, I was just stating a possible scenario which would require the continued shooting of a person who was on the ground.
Dead check by shooting them in the head is to me like saying you only shot to wound them? That leaves the 3 versions to the story. Go ahead and pop them one last time and move on, the dead can't testify. If you are displaying deadly force it's just that, you can't bean bag the guy if you're shooting federal hydra shock, what was the overall intention of not to kill?
echo5whiskey
05-01-15, 22:24
The dead can't testify, but surveillance cameras can.
The dead can't testify, but surveillance cameras can.
Exactly, so active shooter in the production facility that's worked his way thru do you Get his attention so it's "fair"? Or do you just drop him dead with a cheap shot like he did the other 15 sitting ducks? Option 3 is figure out if he got everyone on your list then take him out (I'm kidding, long standing joke at work)
So hopefully the cameras see you save other lives while you had to take one to do so
We've been told not to carry in the plant (yeah right, at our turn-over rate, they're crazy) but based off of local incidents of our cars getting broken into and disgruntled terminated employees giving their supervisor a pure slice of their opinion, most of us have backpacks and have laid out a plan if anything were to go down.
echo5whiskey
05-02-15, 11:42
Exactly, so active shooter in the production facility that's worked his way thru do you Get his attention so it's "fair"? Or do you just drop him dead with a cheap shot like he did the other 15 sitting ducks? Option 3 is figure out if he got everyone on your list then take him out (I'm kidding, long standing joke at work)
So hopefully the cameras see you save other lives while you had to take one to do so
We've been told not to carry in the plant (yeah right, at our turn-over rate, they're crazy) but based off of local incidents of our cars getting broken into and disgruntled terminated employees giving their supervisor a pure slice of their opinion, most of us have backpacks and have laid out a plan if anything were to go down.
I never said anything about being fair or giving a warning. I'm saying there's a pretty big difference between engaging an active shooter, and popping someone in the head, after you already ended the immediate threat, just for good measure. Reassessing a threat after engaging (i.e. dead-checking) is mandatory, but if you don't have time to do something other than drilling another hole in his grape, you should be focusing on whatever it is that requires your attention. And, frankly, if the mofo's already out of the fight and he's got an unknown number of buddies running around, I'm not wasting another round on him unless I need to.
Exactly, so active shooter in the production facility that's worked his way thru do you Get his attention so it's "fair"? Or do you just drop him dead with a cheap shot like he did the other 15 sitting ducks? Option 3 is figure out if he got everyone on your list then take him out (I'm kidding, long standing joke at work)
This is a long ways from the original context. You do not have to give any warning or 'fair' chance. Drop the guy with a head shot, everyone is okay with that. The issue is then going to a downed assailant, who is no longer engaged in trying to kill and anchoring him with a final shot to ensure his demise.
That won't play well on the camera mentioned above.
I train police officers to shoot to stop deadly behavior. They all (well most) understand that immediately incapacitating shots will almost certainly be fatal, but our intent is to stop the behavior not kill. Statutes regarding the use of force in defense of self or another all speak to using deadly force to stop deadly force actions. They don't speak to 'kill' or ensuring demise.
We do teach officers to ensure the 'switch is flipped to off' with follow-up CNS shots if a person is believed to be wearing a bomb jacket.
JM .02.
so if he's down but not dead and no longer a threat the anchor shot is considered moral turpitude? I get that. Guess it really depends on the situation. Downed active shooter, LE on the way, let them handle the rest. Combat situation, nail him to the ground.
I have zero moral issues with the author's sentiments.
I have zero moral issues with the author's sentiments.
Morals are not the issue at point, the legality of said course of action is problematic. This guy was advocating something that could lead to some jail time. You begin to be a little more circumspect and not play to the crowd if you are called upon to testify as to what you've taught regarding the use of force.
Simply put, do it right the first time. One extra for good measure=jail
Wow, that was some interesting information. The following discussion here though has been enlightening. Morally, I see zero problem with it. Legally, I think they'd nail you to the wall.
Wow, that was some interesting information. The following discussion here though has been enlightening. Morally, I see zero problem with it. Legally, I think they'd nail you to the wall.
It seem most of the discussion is about "if the downed attacker still posed a threat" the post IMHO was in reference to a terrorist attack, as opposed to a self defense situation so to speak.
I hope I never need to find out, but I wonder how a prosecutor, judge, jury, would view the situation? legally speaking if the terrorist was a non US citizen, would they be afforded the same rights as US citizen?
One possible option that has not be disused, is that when the shooting starts someone could just call Time Out, providing an opportunity for the innocent people that have not yet been slaughtered to talk with the attackers and find out what it is was they did to make them so upset! OR we could just ban AK-47's.
In all reality though, unless you're a super secret squirrel, what's the chances of an armed ccw of going up against terrorists who want to die and have ak47s, and living to actually be judged about dead anchoring said terrorists? I'm guessing not real great odds. What's the average ccwer carry one in the pistol, one spare, maybe two?
One possible option that has not be disused, is that when the shooting starts someone could just call Time Out, providing an opportunity for the innocent people that have not yet been slaughtered to talk with the attackers and find out what it is was they did to make them so upset!
That's some funny stuff right there.
Chatterbox
05-10-15, 17:26
Here is a case that happened recently in Los Angeles, CA - one of the most liberal jurisdictions in US, when several burglars attacked an elderly man as he returned home.
http://mynewsla.com/crime/2015/02/03/alleged-burglar-faces-murder-charge-fatal-home-invasion-long-beach/
Greer retrieved a small-caliber gun from his bedroom and fired three shots inside his home as Adams and Miller ran. Prosecutors said bullets struck Miller once in the chest and once in her right knee. She fell at the back of truck parked in the garage and then ran into the alley where she fell again.
Greer dragged her back into the garage, hoping Adams would come back to help her, prosecutors said.
“She says, ‘Don’t shoot me, I’m pregnant — I’m going to have a baby.’ And I shot her anyway,” Greer said at the time of the shooting. “The lady didn’t run as fast as the man so I shot her in the back twice, she’s dead … but he got away.”
Here we have the guy shooting the attacker in the back twice as she is running away, after begging him not to shoot her. What do you think DA's decision was?
Prosecutors announced last month they would not file any charges against Greer, saying he was within his legal rights to shoot Miller.
What does that mean? Damned if I know - besides it being impossible to say with confidence what the outcome of any given DA's or judge's thought process would be.
P.S There was no baby.
The Greer case isn't a fair comparison simply cause the attackers weren't actively engaged in mass murder. The law is pretty ear about when one may use deadly force. If you believe that the person poses an immediate threat of death or severe injury you can use deadly force. It makes no mention of the attacker needing to be upright, sitting, or standing on their head for that matter. If you can articulate a reasonable fear for death or injury you can shoot even a downed murderer. If he tries to pick up his gun he is fair game. If he's trying to access his bag (like Garland PD is claiming) you can engage him because it's reasonable to believe he is going to blow shit up. If he's trying to make a phone call he is fair game for the same reason. If he's immobile and has no access to weapons or you can't articulate a good reason why he's a threat he's off limits. Hopefully you put enough holes in him to bleed out before EMT's arrive.
Inkslinger
05-10-15, 20:01
In all reality though, unless you're a super secret squirrel, what's the chances of an armed ccw of going up against terrorists who want to die and have ak47s, and living to actually be judged about dead anchoring said terrorists? I'm guessing not real great odds. What's the average ccwer carry one in the pistol, one spare, maybe two?
The cop in Texas managed to do it. The odds are not really in favor of the good guy, but it's not impossible.
Too many variables. If I'm alone, and can get away w/out engaging the threat, that's what I'm doing. I don't care if I outgun the terrorist. I'm not a cop or a soldier, and I have a family to attend to. Let those who are on the x deal with the terrorist. If they aren't properly equipped, that is the choice they made when they left the house that day.
If my family is possibly in danger, then I'll engage. But I'm not using any "anchor shots." If the threat is that dangerous, butnthe immediate threat is down, I'm conserving ammo and minimizing my noise signature. I usually have other means to dispatch. But yeah, I'd go on the extreme offensive if my family is in danger. If I didn't, and something happened to them, I'd quite literally have no reason left to live, IMO.
But that is the black and white. There are many shades of gray in between.
daddyusmaximus
07-09-15, 12:27
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
I agree. I also agree with the others out there advocating against dead checking as a bad legal move. The thing is, there are so many people out there who have different mindsets. Not everyone is comfortable with using deadly force... in ANY situation. Thankfully the numbers of the jihadists and nut bags are also small. (though it does seem they are growing)
I like the video link you posted about mindset as well. I firmly believe in the "die well" philosophy. Everybody has certain things that bother them. People being mean, evil, and violent are mine. I also wonder what God would think of me being a person with the training and experience to help, and then I fail to by selfishly thinking only of myself. I just don't see why we as a society should put up with criminal behavior or terror threats. I'm like the guy in the video in that it would really eat at me if I were to see something happen and choose not to help.
I remember a couple of deployments back when I got an e-mail from my wife. Her, and our two children, along with her friend and her two, were driving my Suburban and got a flat tire. No one stopped to help them. Two women, with 4 kids, on the side of the road trying to change a very large, very heavy, off road tire, and not one person offered help. I was livid for a week. I firmly believe we need to be helpful to each other. I stop on the side of the highway quite often (every chance I get) to help when I see a stranded motorist. I feel guilty those times when I'm pressed for time and do not stop. If there were lives in danger from some evil criminal or terrorist, I just could not live with myself knowing I did nothing to stop it.
Beyond being a bad legal idea to dead check a bad guy you put down... I would probably do it. The use of deadly force is most often authorized only if there is a real fear of danger. I feel that with a good lawyer you could defend your actions, if you were able to convince the court that you were sincere in thinking the bad guy still posed a serious threat. I'm sure it would be a tough legal fight, and the media may portray me as overacting, but I'm just not sure I could handle knowing any bad guy I left behind me, hurt another person because I left the area before ending the threat.
I also agree with those warning against arming yourself with the downed assailant's weapon, especially a long gun. We all know that a long gun is the prefered weapon to bring to a gun fight, but I an concerned how responding officers would view a civilian with a long gun upon arrival at an active shooter call. Understandably, they will be just as on edge as I, or even more so. Yes, there is a chance I would do just that if my own weapon was down. It's very possible I would go for my truck gun in such a situation as well. I just want to advise people of the risks in doing so.
Eurodriver
07-12-15, 06:27
I remember a couple of deployments back when I got an e-mail from my wife. Her, and our two children, along with her friend and her two, were driving my Suburban and got a flat tire. No one stopped to help them. Two women, with 4 kids, on the side of the road trying to change a very large, very heavy, off road tire, and not one person offered help. I was livid for a week.
It's 2015 dude. I'm a generally helpful person but I'm not stopping on the side of the road to help nobody...especially a woman with some kids.
Next thing you know you're getting sued for sexual harassment or some crazy ass allegation about making advances on a kid. Women are crazy.
daddyusmaximus
07-12-15, 12:10
^^^ and this, is what's wrong with 2015.
What would make me reluctant to pull my piece in a mass shooting incident is that there would be a good chance I might be killed by arriving officers. Some non-uniformed guy waving a pistol around might be a tempting target for nervous cops.
What would make me reluctant to pull my piece in a mass shooting incident is that there would be a good chance I might be killed by arriving officers. Some non-uniformed guy waving a pistol around might be a tempting target for nervous cops.
That is a very real possibility and it's worth your while to train accordingly.
It's 2015 dude. I'm a generally helpful person but I'm not stopping on the side of the road to help nobody...especially a woman with some kids.
Next thing you know you're getting sued for sexual harassment or some crazy ass allegation about making advances on a kid. Women are crazy.
Generally our perceptions are jaded by past experiences. Just saying[emoji6]
echo5whiskey
07-19-15, 00:25
Beyond being a bad legal idea to dead check a bad guy you put down... I would probably do it. The use of deadly force is most often authorized only if there is a real fear of danger. I feel that with a good lawyer you could defend your actions, if you were able to convince the court that you were sincere in thinking the bad guy still posed a serious threat. I'm sure it would be a tough legal fight, and the media may portray me as overacting, but I'm just not sure I could handle knowing any bad guy I left behind me, hurt another person because I left the area before ending the threat.
There are other options for dead-checking besides shooting.
There are other options for dead-checking besides shooting.
They all have downsides though. I think shooting several times until down and then once or twice more after they've stopped moving just to be sure is the best bet. Definitely not a significant break in between shots though. That would make it a much harder battle in court. Pretty much every other option involves getting close and/or spending time focused on him - not ideal if you're alone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
echo5whiskey
07-19-15, 01:34
They all have downsides though. I think shooting several times until down and then once or twice more after they've stopped moving just to be sure is the best bet. Definitely not a significant break in between shots though. That would make it a much harder battle in court. Pretty much every other option involves getting close and/or spending time focused on him - not ideal if you're alone.
I see your point, and I'm not going to totally disagree. Shooting as a threat is going down is one thing. Per the article,
The cheaper the shot, the better. As you pass their bodies, “anchor” shoot them, preferably through the brain and from a position of advantage, to ensure there’s not a threat behind you as you move on. That is totally different. If you are getting close enough and focusing on that individual enough to pop his grape, you have enough time to do otherwise.
If you don't have enough time to do otherwise, (as you said) it is best to keep your focus on other [possible] threats.
I see your point, and I'm not going to totally disagree. Shooting as a threat is going down is one thing. Per the article, That is totally different. If you are getting close enough and focusing on that individual enough to pop his grape, you have enough time to do otherwise.
If you don't have enough time to do otherwise, (as you said) it is best to keep your focus on other [possible] threats.
Agreed. The part you quoted sounds like it came from someone in the military, I know we're taught that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eurodriver
07-19-15, 06:04
^^^ and this, is what's wrong with 2015.
How so? They want equal rights. She should change her own damn tire.
Generally our perceptions are jaded by past experiences. Just saying[emoji6]
No way bro! That's because I'm careful about it.
Agreed. The part you quoted sounds like it came from someone in the military, I know we're taught that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wait...you are saying that you are taught to shoot wounded enemies in the head as you walk past them?
Wait...you are saying that you are taught to shoot wounded enemies in the head as you walk past them?
Well maybe not the head specifically, and more like walk up to them. Once you've passed them, that's where the line is drawn. But yeah, I've heard it many times as part of assaulting an objective.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well maybe not the head specifically, and more like walk up to them. Once you've passed them, that's where the line is drawn. But yeah, I've heard it many times as part of assaulting an objective.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well that's a LOAC violation if I ever heard one....
Well that's a LOAC violation if I ever heard one....
Does everyone else normally shoot until the guy drops and that's it? Couldn't he still be a very viable threat on the ground?
Does everyone else normally shoot until the guy drops and that's it? Couldn't he still be a very viable threat on the ground?
Well, this is a topic that is very debatable....
If there is any activity that can be taken as not giving up, for example moving for cover or trying to recover a dropped weapon etc., then he can be said to still be a combatant.
A Norwegian officer (mech inf platoon leader) was cleared after an investigation to determine if he had violated the LOAC when he shot a wounded insurgent from the hatch of his CV90.
The insurgent was in a compound building that had been engaged by 30mm from the CV90's. He was seriously injured. As the CV90's were rolling through the enemy position, the platoon leader spotted the insurgent in a doorway. He was armed, and was moving away from the doorway. The PL engaged him with his HK416, and killed him.
The charge was that the insurgent was injured, and as such he was granted protection via the Hague and Geneva Convention. The PL, and other "witnesses" maintained that he was actively trying to hide, as opposed to properly signalling that he was injured and in fact out of the fight.
Another example where it will be difficult to place blame is during an assault on an enemy position, for example a trench system with bunkers and such. If you throw grenades and then proceed to enter the trench or bunker and engage enemies, you are not breaking the LOAC if they happened to be injured from the grenade blast. It is understood that surrender should happen well before an assault takes place.
Both of these, however, are markedly different than approaching a seemingly fallen enemy and anchor shooting him in the head. If they are alive and wounded, secure them and leave them for medics trailing the assault force. If dead, remove weapons etc and continue on. A good way to dead check someone is to poke them in the eye with the muzzle of you rifle - you'll definitely get a reaction if they are still alive.
Inkslinger
07-19-15, 19:35
Well, this is a topic that is very debatable....
If there is any activity that can be taken as not giving up, for example moving for cover or trying to recover a dropped weapon etc., then he can be said to still be a combatant.
A Norwegian officer (mech inf platoon leader) was cleared after an investigation to determine if he had violated the LOAC when he shot a wounded insurgent from the hatch of his CV90.
The insurgent was in a compound building that had been engaged by 30mm from the CV90's. He was seriously injured. As the CV90's were rolling through the enemy position, the platoon leader spotted the insurgent in a doorway. He was armed, and was moving away from the doorway. The PL engaged him with his HK416, and killed him.
The charge was that the insurgent was injured, and as such he was granted protection via the Hague and Geneva Convention. The PL, and other "witnesses" maintained that he was actively trying to hide, as opposed to properly signalling that he was injured and in fact out of the fight.
Another example where it will be difficult to place blame is during an assault on an enemy position, for example a trench system with bunkers and such. If you throw grenades and then proceed to enter the trench or bunker and engage enemies, you are not breaking the LOAC if they happened to be injured from the grenade blast. It is understood that surrender should happen well before an assault takes place.
Both of these, however, are markedly different than approaching a seemingly fallen enemy and anchor shooting him in the head. If they are alive and wounded, secure them and leave them for medics trailing the assault force. If dead, remove weapons etc and continue on. A good way to dead check someone is to poke them in the eye with the muzzle of you rifle - you'll definitely get a reaction if they are still alive.
How does this work in a setting where explosive vest are not unheard of?
How does this work in a setting where explosive vest are not unheard of?
Then you have to apply C-IED principles (Counter-Improvised Explosive Device).
If that is a threat in the AO, or a likely TPP, then you will have to adapt your actions accordingly, in order to minimize the risk from those threats.
Dead-checking the guy wearing a vest is not guarantee that it won't go off. One TTP is for handlers to observe, and remote detonate if the suicide bomber chickens out.
Fair points on everything - I do know that being told that often spurred questions with similar responses. I probably should have been more clear that it wasn't a 100% of the time and without question kind of thing. In trying not to thread jack too much more, the following is also something that I've heard quite a bit, in favor of a knee to the balls or similar.
A good way to dead check someone is to poke them in the eye with the muzzle of you rifle - you'll definitely get a reaction if they are still alive.
echo5whiskey
07-20-15, 06:02
I hadn't had the chance to list them, but those are some of the methods I was talking about.
In the end, I think that if one stays calm, applys some common sense, and relys on one's training; he or she will survive the situation.
And also very important fill all hollow points with bacon grease[emoji2][emoji379]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.