11 year old on bus threatens adults with .22 in waistband

[vern10mm]

I have two questions.

1. Are you capable of making the shot that won't kill the aggressor yet not hurt anyone else.
2. What do you plan on doing if/when your aggressor is not "disabled"

Thank you for your maintaining the rules and having a respectful and intellectual exchange.

#1- Yes, otherwise it is eliminated as an option.

#2- You can always shoot again. Please understand, i am speaking of very , limited circumstances. A kid posturing at you with a gun in his waistband will most likely be dissuading simply from the pain compliance of getting shot-- then again, maybe not. If not, shoot again.

This kinda falls under the same pretense as warning shots. generally speaking, like shooting non vital areas, it is a no-no. But in isolated very specific circumstances, it is appropriate. I am thinking of times like the LA riots, Katrina, where a warning shot to a crowd of potential attackers, or when you really just want to scare someone away who is pressing the fight in a borderline lethal/non-lethal way, but do not necessarily want to shoot them or potentially kill them. Normal circumstances, we do not warning shoot. However, in other than normal, it may be an appropriate option.

Again, I am only exploring the possibility of it. Not necessarily saying it was right in this case. I think most people could have handled it with hands based on their skill set and the size of the attacker. Simply trying to offer a different potential viewpoint.

 

[vern10mm]

LOL. I have seen a few myself. I had a full conversation with a guy who had three AK rounds in him. That doesn't mean the one sitting in his gut wouldn't have been fatal if the proper medical facilities weren't available. The fact that people survive gunshot wounds is more a testament to our advances in rapid response and in medical technology. However those wounds would be fatal in the majority of cases.

I am at the point where I think your are just making statements to get a rise out of people. If so I am not playing. If not you really do need to do more research on the topic.....

I agree with the bolded part entirely. Furthermore, I think most of those wounds would not necessarily be lethal considering there are plenty of thugs running around with multiple gunshot wounds who never sought medical attention in order to avoid arrest. i have spoken to many of them personally. Handguns generally suck at killing people effectively or efficiently, but medical attention has saved the majority of those who would have been lucky enough to die.

You are completely wrong on your second point. I have done plenty of research. This is an open discussion. If you choose not to discuss, thanks for your input thus far. Overall, like several others, I think you are missing the point of my discussion.

 

[03protege]

Well the way I imagine this particular scenario is very close quarters. I would think if you fired once and your brain was trained for the mindset of stop and see if attacker is "disabled" then you could be in trouble if you were then tackled and a brawl ensued.

Granted I do realize you mentioned only utilizing this in very limited situations, I tend to revert back to what was said earlier and that is if you don't feel you need to kill said person (for your safety) you should not be deploying the weapon.

No matter the intentions I think the line is way to fine to try and make that decision on the fly. I've read way to many stories on people having to deploy their weapon to save their skin and the one common thing mentioned in all of them is "split second".

The other big issue is ballistics, there seems to be no guarantees on what will happen. People have been killed from ricochets and others have survived 10+ shots, which is why if I am ever placed in this position I will be trying to put as many rounds on target as fast as possible. You do not know if they will instantly fall over, run away, run towards you, or return fire. These are not variables you can account for so I say take control of the only thing you can and hope for the best.

 

[vern10mm]

Well the way I imagine this particular scenario is very close quarters. I would think if you fired once and your brain was trained for the mindset of stop and see if attacker is "disabled" then you could be in trouble if you were then tackled and a brawl ensued.

Granted I do realize you mentioned only utilizing this in very limited situations, I tend to revert back to what was said earlier and that is if you don't feel you need to kill said person (for your safety) you should not be deploying the weapon.

No matter the intentions I think the line is way to fine to try and make that decision on the fly. I've read way to many stories on people having to deploy their weapon to save their skin and the one common thing mentioned in all of them is "split second".

The other big issue is ballistics, there seems to be no guarantees on what will happen. People have been killed from ricochets and others have survived 10+ shots, which is why if I am ever placed in this position I will be trying to put as many rounds on target as fast as possible. You do not know if they will instantly fall over, run away, run towards you, or return fire. These are not variables you can account for so I say take control of the only thing you can and hope for the best.

very good points.

I am pretty sure, with the level of training I have had, that if I shoot someone, it will be center of the target provided. That said, i was wondering if anyone saw a viable argument for potential (incapacitation) type shots like I discussed. ALl the things you said are legitimate concerns, which only further shows how "limited" the employment might be.

I am thinking maybe someone not charging but not giving up either with say a bat, at a distance that allows a little time (again, extremely specific and unique).

Then again, there are the legal issues surrounding the surviving lethal threat deciding to come back and sue and all manner of tother considerations.

Just wanted to throw it out there and see if anyone had anything intelligent to say in support of it.

Thanks

 

[CEHollier]

I guess the rules about personal attacks only apply to certain people. It really is a shame you cannot have a discussion on a discussion board without such childish comments.

Childish comments? You are the one presenting childish jibber and expect everyone to treat you as an adult. Seriously? What CCP instructors are teaching your wound the aggressor philosophy? Should you be in a situation and have to shoot someone and miss and an innocent bystander is hit because you refuse to follow your instructors training. These posts will be excellent information for the civil suit filed against you. Attorney: And Mr. Vern just what instructor taught you to shoot to wound? Reply: Uhhhhh I just made it up myself. If you want people to treat you seriously present a serious discussion.

 

[leVieux]

I don't want to shoot any one, especially a Kid. But I believe a Kid will kill you just as dead as any one else will. Some one pulls a gun on me, I will defend my self as best I can.

The above is the unfortunate position we in New Orleans have found ourselves. The infamous "Byrne" murder a couple years ago has made us all realize this horrible fact. Ms. "Byrne" was victim of an armed robbery in the French Quarter by three teen & pre-teen thugs. After giving up her purse & jewelry in cooperation with her robber; being a "good" victim, she was shot dead by the 15 year old.

Woe to the citizen who shoots a kid using a toy gun; or, somehow, in fear for his/her life, shoots an unarmed street kid.

This is caused by the "revolving door" Orleans Parish Court Judges ! Our police can only do "catch & release". The 19y.o. thug who put 39 rounds of 9mm into a crowd of innocents last Halloween had 15 prior gun-crime arrests on his "rap sheet".

leV

 

[Tulse Luper]

Where do you shoot to only wound a person?

 

[oleheat]

This doesn't apply to me- because you would not catch me dead or alive riding a f**king city bus in the first place.

 

[JR1572]

Where do you shoot to only wound a person?

Pinky toe.

JR1572

 

[cheese]

Then again, there are the legal issues surrounding the surviving lethal threat deciding to come back and sue and all manner of tother considerations.

Legally thinking, isn't a firearm always considered "Lethal Force" on the escalation of force ladder? I'd not want to start looking at a firearm as a "less than lethal option" from a personal standpoint if I couldn't back it up in court. I'd only want to use a firearm where lethal force is required.

As to the question of "what would I do", it sounds like the mother handled the situation perfectly. She called the cops, and the kid was arrested. Nobody got hurt, and no future legal issues for the mother.

 

[dawg23]

Are you sure about that Mr. Ernie?

Just because you teach something does not mean all your students swallow it without question.....

I am thinking of times like the LA riots, Katrina, where a warning shot to a crowd of potential attackers, or when you really just want to scare someone away who is pressing the fight in a borderline lethal/non-lethal way, but do not necessarily want to shoot them or potentially kill them.

Vern:

1. I am 100% sure that you are not one of my students.

2. I guess it's possible that, at some time, you were in one of my classes (Internet screen names are a great way to maintain anonymity). But it's abundantly clear that if you did attend one, you wasted your time and money, and occupied a seat that would have been of benefit to someone wanting learn.

3. Please don't take this the wrong way, but anyone who suggests firing warning shots "to scare someone away", or "shooting to wound" is living in a fantasy world.

4. Post your real name, and I'll check my training records (assuming you are claiming that you actually took one of my classes). It would be interesting to know (and might be of interest to members here, assuming you give permission to post the info)) exactly what level of skill you demonstrated with your handgun. All that "shooting to wound" stuff requires a pretty high level of skill -- quite a bit more than the video games some people play.

5. Since you feel that students shouldn't "swallow without question" the concepts that I present in my CCW classes, perhaps you might consider enrolling in a defensive handgun class. I'm thinking a two-day or three-day class with Tom Givens, James Yeager, Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob, John Farnam, Andy Stanford or Paul Gomez would (hopefully) provide you with some skills, broaden your horizons and provide a dose of reality. In all fairness, however, I suppose you would have to "swallow" their teaching in order to benefit from it. So that might prove to be another waste of your time and money.

6. I should add that I don't have a "dog in this fight." And I really don't care if you choose to apply some "shoot to wound" technique. I have posted for one reason (and I presume others have for the same reason) --- when someone posts poorly thought out advice on a board such as this, it is available to inexperienced members who might somehow think the proponent is offering sound advice. Hopefully this sort of dialog will serve to educate others.

 

[CrkdLtr]

Pretty outrageous story but I'm taken back by everyone talking about what they would have done in that situation. I have my doubts that said hooligans would have dared to try this to a grown man. I think it's pretty logical that the kid(s) felt that woman was vulnerable and easily intimidated which is why they went as far as they did. If a grown man would have stood up in defense of the lady those hooligans would have likely backed down or started crying.

 

[RisingRebel]

I'm a little confused at one point. The gang of punks get on the bus and start kicking this woman's stroller. Hard. She moves away. They follow and the punk with the gun shows her (what she took to be and what later turned out to be) a gun. She moved away. What did they want? She moves away again. And the little bastid puts the gun away. After the cops intercept the bus at the station the punk gets detained. He cries at the Juvie court. I don't get this.

They kicked her stroller and she moves away. They follow cursing at her. Punk flashes something. She moves away again. How far did this woman need to move to keep this (seeming) predator away from her? She moved twice. He moved once. He cries after being picked up by cops. Am I supposed to feel sorry for this kid? Too bad the woman couldn't have just punched him in the face as hard as she could. Bet he woulda cried at that point, too.

What I want to know is where are all the men and what the hell were they pre occupied with? I have seen this sort of thing happen and it took me a nano second to step in and intervene. What the hell is wrong with people out there?

I have a friend that shot and killed 2 kids that were 14 when they got on his boat in Venezuela with knives. He was a bit scared when the constable showed up and made a remark that he would not have shot if he knew how young they were. The Constable read him a riot act stating that was the main problem with the USA. We let trash grow full grown before we get rid of it. He said my friend did the world a favor by blowing them away. I just laughed and agreed. I was on my boat - not his but I'd have shot them too.

I don't care how young a kid is. My kids wouldn't do that and if they did, they wouldn't be my kids anymore.

 

[Jdalton]

I carry a gun to protect myself. If someone shows/draws a gun in public, mine is coming out and im using it b4 they do. I dnt think i wld shoot to wound; im putting rounds where they count-center mass. No one wants to kill another person, esp a kid; but when its my life on the line that goes out the window. Criminals are becoming younger and younger. But ill b damed if i let the age of an attacker prevent me from defending my life.