Don't shoot that bad guy too many times

[TripleDigitRide]

I was just listening to the John Harris interview on The Ralph Bristol Show. During that interview John was discussing the "what ifs" had the Martin/Zimmerman situation had happened here.

John talked about a case here in Tennessee where someone was forced to defend his life with a gun. The bad guy was shot three times. When all was said and done, the good guy was charged and convicted of - if I remember correctly - homicide. The courts felt, based on Tennessee law, the good guy shot the bad guy too many times. According to John, you are allowed to shoot the bad guy only as many times as necessary to stop the threat.

John didn't have time to go into great detail about the case, but 3 shots doesn't sound excessive to me. Unless they can prove you shot the bad guy enough to stop the threat, then stood over his body and pumped another round or two into him just for good measure, who's to say how many is too many?

I guess a situation like this affirms the importance of proper shot placement.

[Guest RCLARK]

I was listening to the show too. I remember hearing about a similar case but dont know if this is the one Harris was referring to. Seems like the guy shot the attacker who retreated and he shot him again in the back while he was running away. IIRC first shot missed and the attacker kept coming. Second shot hit and the attacker turned to run away. Third shot in the back was the kill shot.

[TGO David]

Threads like this bother me because I know that somewhere, someone will read it and take it to heart that you should shoot once and then hope the bad guy has given up the fight. That sort of thinking when actions should be autonomous gets the good guy hurt because he hesitates.

Almost every defensive handgun class out there teaches you to utilize "nonstandard response" (i.e. shooting more than once, but only as many times as it took to stop the fight) when defending yourself. I've completely ingrained into muscle memory quick repetitive strings of 2-3 shots each and can guaran-damn-tee you that it's exactly how I would respond if, God forbid, I were ever put in the position to use deadly force for my protection or that of my family.

Either we're not hearing the whole story or this guy needed a better attorney and needed better (or any) subject matter experts testifying on his behalf regarding the use of nonstandard response.

So was John Harris in agreement with the charges or was he disgusted with the court's ruling?

[Steelharp]

IIRC first shot missed and the attacker kept coming. Second shot hit and the attacker turned to run away. Third shot in the back was the kill shot.

Threat was over. Therein is the issue, with just the info in this thread. I don't think any self defense shoot in TN is going to go well if there's a shot in the back involved, IIRC my class from 12 years ago. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Guest Oaklands]

If indeed he was shot in the back, then that would be what got him prosecuted.

[TripleDigitRide]

John didn't go into great detail regarding the case he was speaking of. He only mentioned that Tennessee law only allows enough force to stop the threat, not necessarily enough to kill the person. He didn't mention anything about a shot in the back or while retreating. He just said the bad guy was shot three times, but the courts felt the threat was stopped with just one or two.

Ralph did mention that every instructor he has dealt with talked about two to the chest, one to the head, or something similar. John didn't have much of a response.

[Fallguy]

Well hasn't this always been the case? You are trying to stop the threat, not necessarily kill the person. Of course if they are dead, the threat is over (from them at least) but it is possible the threat could be stopped without it being lethal or at least not lethal at that moment.

I think someone firing 2-3 shots in rapid succession would be much different than 1-2 fired quickly and then walking over to the person as they law on the ground and firing one more shot. I wouldn't think it would make a difference if you fired 4-5+ shots if the person kept coming at you.

So I don't think it's so much about counting shots as it is stopping shooting once the threat is over.

[Ebow1]

I've always told myself I would empty the magazine, as I would think that would make it more convincing to a court that you were in fact in fear for your life. IE I just got so scared I just started shooting until I ran out of ammo.

[Makiaveli]

I've always told myself I would empty the magazine, as I would think that would make it more convincing to a court that you were in fact in fear for your life. IE I just got so scared I just started shooting until I ran out of ammo.

My luck that's when the bad guy's buddy would show up!

That said, the point of self-defense is to defend yourself, not kill the guy. Sounds like the guy talking to Ralph didn't know the case that well or was just trying to stir things up. Neither of which helps us any.

[TGO David]

I would not recommend a "mag dump" on the attacker unless he just won't go down. I would recommend understanding the difference between shooting enough to stop the threat and shooting gratuitously. Once the threat is gone, stop pulling the trigger.

There's an old joke out there that I've read on the Internet to the effect that a guy was asked why he shot the bad dude eight times. His answer was because seven wasn't enough and nine would have been too many.

Flippant, yes. Morbid, perhaps. But it actually contains a grain of truth. Shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. No more.

[Ebow1]

Makiaveli-That's what spare mags are for.

In all seriousness I do understand the point is not to kill the threat but to stop it, but if I'm in danger, rounds are goin' downrange as fast as I can squeeze that trigger until I don't see anything standing anymore. Besides, I don't have any high-capacity handguns, I can only get 8 out the barrel before I actually do need a new mag.

[Wheelgunner]

Read a case today from the '80s in NYC where the guy was confronted on a subway by four BGs. They made it clear that when the car cleared out he was gonna have trouble. BG no. 1 then walks over and says, "Give me some money." The defendant pulls a J-frame and shoots all four BGs. Then he goes back to BG no. 1 and says, "You don't look so bad. Here's another one for you," and shoots again.

Turns out they were armed with screwdrivers, knives, etc. Despite the fact that he was carrying illegally, a jury acquitted the defendant of all charges based on self-defense. Great, right? However, in a later civil suit the estate of BG no. 1 was awarded something like $5 million based on the defendant shooting him that second time. My point is just to highlight that if you shoot after the threat is neutralized, even if you don't go to jail there may be severe civil consequences.

[Guest Kamikaze]

This makes a good argument for my 10mm I carry everyday. One ought to do it if it's on target. Especially with my hand loads. 165g gold dots crono'ed at 1475 fps. Although my luck I would get the jury that would consider that overkill and make me out to be some crazy vigilantly even if it was only one shot. You know how evil Glocks are, especially black ones...

[Fallguy]

Read a case today from the '80s in NYC where the guy was confronted on a subway by four BGs. They made it clear that when the car cleared out he was gonna have trouble. BG no. 1 then walks over and says, "Give me some money." The defendant pulls a J-frame and shoots all four BGs. Then he goes back to BG no. 1 and says, "You don't look so bad. Here's another one for you," and shoots again.

Turns out they were armed with screwdrivers, knives, etc. Despite the fact that he was carrying illegally, a jury acquitted the defendant of all charges based on self-defense. Great, right? However, in a later civil suit the estate of BG no. 1 was awarded something like $5 million based on the defendant shooting him that second time. My point is just to highlight that if you shoot after the threat is neutralized, even if you don't go to jail there may be severe civil consequences.

I read somewhere where he said he hasn't paid a dime of that and never intends to.

But your point is well taken....

[Ebow1]

Wheelgunner-Didn't that happen in Predator 2?

[TGO David]

Wheelgunner-Didn't that happen in Predator 2?

He's referencing the Bernie Goetz case. This was a big news story when I was growing up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

Hit the link and read more.

[Mark@Sea]

What happened to Bernie Goetz was what happened to many people before SYG and Castle Doctrine. A prosecutor decided that self defense was no reason to kill someone, and continued persecuting Goetz even after he was cleared.

Guy in Massachusetts (sorry, no link) was just found guilty for killing a home intruder, because he did not 'retreat' from his home. The fact that his young daughter was in the home, asleep, and wouldn't have been able to retreat cut no ice. No CD in that state, obviously.

[Steelharp]

Guy in Massachusetts (sorry, no link) was just found guilty for killing a home intruder, because he did not 'retreat' from his home. The fact that his young daughter was in the home, asleep, and wouldn't have been able to retreat cut no ice. No CD in that state, obviously.

Which is why I really wish S&W would move.

[TGO David]

Which is why I really wish S&W would move.

Well they are a publicly traded company. If enough of their shareholders marched into an annual stockholder's meeting and demanded it, they would pretty much have to listen to the majority of ownership.

[tnhawk]

Makiaveli-That's what spare mags are for.

In all seriousness I do understand the point is not to kill the threat but to stop it, but if I'm in danger, rounds are goin' downrange as fast as I can squeeze that trigger until I don't see anything standing anymore. Besides, I don't have any high-capacity handguns, I can only get 8 out the barrel before I actually do need a new mag.

Under those circumstances, I probably won't count very well.

[Mark@Sea]

Judge in Texas asks the old lady why she shot the carjacker six times in the head.... "Your Honor, I was just too nervous to reload"

[Cruel Hand Luke]

There is a difference between firing 3 rounds that sounds like a burst from an SMG and firing 3 rounds 1 at a time 5 seconds apart. If the BG has stopped his aggression then STOP shooting. The number of rounds is not the issue. The TIMING of the rounds is . If the BG has ceased to be a threat and then shot again ...then that is a problem. If he takes a 5 round burst to the chest before he falls down then that is different.

I KNOW of a case in Memphis where the good guy shot the bad guy ELEVEN times (shot to slide lock) in a continuous burst. Thi happened in a parking lot when the bad guy attempted to carjack them and grabbed the good guy's wife. Even though he shot the BG 11 times he did not get prosecuted.

The number of shots in and of itself is rarely the issue.....

Edited April 19, 2012 by Cruel Hand Luke

[Guest Lester Weevils]

My reflexes are so slow it would be my luck to get off two rounds then the guy turns to run exactly the same time I pull the trigger the third time, resulting in a round in the back when it wasn't intended to go in the back.

[TGO David]

My reflexes are so slow it would be my luck to get off two rounds then the guy turns to run exactly the same time I pull the trigger the third time, resulting in a round in the back when it wasn't intended to go in the back.

If you're serious, you need to work on that.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If you're serious, you need to work on that.

Thanks David. Am hoping it would be better than that, but have never been exactly quick with the reflexes. Well, am hoping it is never put to the test actually.