Self defense shooting!!!!!!!

7849 Views 26 Replies 17 Participants Last post by alba666, Jul 21, 2013

G22GEN4

Discussion Starter · May 24, 2012

This was posted in the Facebook Glock forum.

Targets can be used against you in self defense cases. Qualify with a perfect score and guess what the prosecutor will ask... Well if your such a marksman why did you shoot him in the leg instead of the chest 8 times?

Ok, I have never heard or read anything like this so its new to me. In my opinion, a ccw qualifying Target will not hold up in court in a self defense case simply because there is no time limit on shooting targets. The shooter has time to focus, aim, and fire at a non moving, non lethal piece of paper 21ft away which is extremely different than reacting in a hands on in ur face life threatening situation in a mater of seconds, 2 or less to be exact & the target is armed & moving. But I'm no lawyer.

So if anyone has any info, experience, or knowledge of this please share.

My argument is, if ccw qualifying targets were used against, it won't stick or convict & any lawyer can beat it. Of course law is not common sense, I'm just saying.

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

bhale187

· #2 · May 24, 2012

I have heard a similar arguement applied to police qualification shoots many times, but I have not ever heard of high or low scores being used in court 'against' the shooter either criminal or civil court procedings. I know the questions of training standards and verifying a shooter was up to date on those standards comes up alot in those cases, but never heard of scoring on paper targets coming into play.

That's not to say it hasn't, can't or won't come into play in court; it's just that I've not heard a confirmed case of it happening.

Danzig

· #3 · May 24, 2012

bhale187 said:
I have heard a similar arguement applied to police qualification shoots many times, but I have not ever heard of high or low scores being used in court 'against' the shooter either criminal or civil court procedings. I know the questions of training standards and verifying a shooter was up to date on those standards comes up alot in those cases, but never heard of scoring on paper targets coming into play.

That's not to say it hasn't, can't or won't come into play in court; it's just that I've not heard a confirmed case of it happening.

Same here. When I was an officer wanted to have shooting qualification badges for uniform. The Chief said they could be held against you in court. I think it's an urban legend.
Plus your shooting center mass to stop the threat. That falls back to your training which should cover the shoot him in the foot argument.

G22GEN4

Discussion Starter · #4 · May 24, 2012

That's kind of what I said. I was trained to shoot untill they fall, center mass. Never the leg or foot. I'm sure they will use anything they can, but will it be relevant or even stick is the question.

Danzig

· #5 · May 24, 2012

After Zimmerman anything is possible.

G22GEN4

Discussion Starter · #6 · May 24, 2012

Lol..........

medic1293

· #7 · May 24, 2012

I've heard of families of criminals shot by LEOs who didn't die, suing for medical expenses if the criminal became paralyzed or disabled and their argument is that LEOs are trained to shoot center mass to kill and well, they didn't die and are disabled now so they should be paid for it.

G22GEN4

Discussion Starter · #8 · May 24, 2012

medic1293 said:
I've heard of families of criminals shot by LEOs who didn't die, suing for medical expenses if the criminal became paralyzed or disabled and their argument is that LEOs are trained to shoot center mass to kill and well, they didn't die and are disabled now so they should be paid for it.

Sadly, some criminals actually win those cases.

SeventiesWreckers

· #9 · May 24, 2012

If the circumstances of the event show a clear case of self defense, and no charges are brought, then how would anything else be relevant? There would have to be a criminal case against you to begin with, to admit any additional evidence to.

However....

A civil action can be undertaken by anyone, at any time, as long as legal counsel can be retained, & make a case that a court will agree to hear. Regretfully we do live in a litigious society these days. And I don't fool myself, If I ever shoot anyone in self defense, and they are survived by relatives, I'm sure some ambulance chaser will be retained for a wrongful death suit, even if I was justified, and no criminal charges were filed.

I don't waste time concerning myself about things I have no control over, that may or may not happen sometime in the future. As long as I'm in the right, and win the gunfight, everything else will just have to play out the way they do. I just do the best I can, the rest is out of my hands.

Argyle64

· #10 · May 24, 2012

Urban legend

ncarnage

· #11 · May 24, 2012

Don't shoot to kill. You shoot to terminate the threat.
Paper doesn't shoot back. Say that in court. I have all the time at the range to shoot a non threatening piece of paper. I have microseconds when I have a guy screaming at me with a knife advancing quickly. Big difference.

CountryMick

· #12 · May 24, 2012

Meh... sounds like BS to me, a prosecutor trying to compare how you shot an assailant in a life or death situation versus a controlled environment qualifying target. Apples and oranges.

bigben

· #13 · May 24, 2012

SeventiesWreckers said:
If the circumstances of the event show a clear case of self defense, and no charges are brought, then how would anything else be relevant? There would have to be a criminal case against you to begin with, to admit any additional evidence to.

However....

A civil action can be undertaken by anyone, at any time, as long as legal counsel can be retained, & make a case that a court will agree to hear. Regretfully we do live in a litigious society these days. And I don't fool myself, If I ever shoot anyone in self defense, and they are survived by relatives, I'm sure some ambulance chaser will be retained for a wrongful death suit, even if I was justified, and no criminal charges were filed.

I don't waste time concerning myself about things I have no control over, that may or may not happen sometime in the future. As long as I'm in the right, and win the gunfight, everything else will just have to play out the way they do. I just do the best I can, the rest is out of my hands.

Well said. Do what you have to and pray for the rest

bigben

· #14 · May 24, 2012

SeventiesWreckers said:
If the circumstances of the event show a clear case of self defense, and no charges are brought, then how would anything else be relevant? There would have to be a criminal case against you to begin with, to admit any additional evidence to.

However....

A civil action can be undertaken by anyone, at any time, as long as legal counsel can be retained, & make a case that a court will agree to hear. Regretfully we do live in a litigious society these days. And I don't fool myself, If I ever shoot anyone in self defense, and they are survived by relatives, I'm sure some ambulance chaser will be retained for a wrongful death suit, even if I was justified, and no criminal charges were filed.

I don't waste time concerning myself about things I have no control over, that may or may not happen sometime in the future. As long as I'm in the right, and win the gunfight, everything else will just have to play out the way they do. I just do the best I can, the rest is out of my hands.

Well said. Do what you have to and pray for the rest!

Levelcross

· #15 · May 24, 2012

medic1293 said:
I've heard of families of criminals shot by LEOs who didn't die, suing for medical expenses if the criminal became paralyzed or disabled and their argument is that LEOs are trained to shoot center mass to kill and well, they didn't die and are disabled now so they should be paid for it.

Sad to say it does happen. I think a counter suit against the criminals and their family for the traumatic and financial stress the LEO had to go thru due to the criminals actions should follow.

G22GEN4

Discussion Starter · #16 · May 24, 2012

Levelcross said:
Sad to say it does happen. I think a counter suit against the criminals and their family for the traumatic and financial stress the LEO had to go thru due to the criminals actions should follow.

Well said....

buzznrose

· #17 · May 24, 2012

Is anyone a member of the armed citizen defense network? I am thinking about joining and wanted feedback since there isn't any on their website www.armedcitizensnetwork.org

jonm61

· #18 · May 24, 2012

I am. Joined two years ago. I think it's worth it. Like any insurance policy, only you can decide if it's right for you. There are a lot great things about it, though, like having local lawyers that are, basically, already on retainer by the network. They also send you CDs with various training topics that are good. They cover things like pre-attack awareness, handling the immediate aftermath of a self defense shooting, etc., and the material is done by big names in the industry, like Massad Ayoob.

As to the original topic, it's unlikely. Consider how many states don't require CCW training at all or those that have alternatives, like FL, where proof of military service is sufficient for the training requirement. There's absolutely no way they could get my training targets, from a now closed base, from 20 years ago. And if they can, then I've got some other stuff I need them to find!

Besides, everyone that is trained with a handgun, be it law enforcement, military or civilian CCW, is trained to shoot center mass. Any question regarding shooting someone in the leg is easily dismissed.

See less See more

dslmac2

· #19 · May 25, 2012

Just wondering, I know I read a thread somewhere about self defense shooting if a dog was attacking, but do not remember any final answers. So, to what point (if any) could you shoot an attacking dog if you were just out for a walk in the city? What if there was 2 or 3 dogs is it a different answer? Now what if one or two dogs were attacking your dog and not so much you? I almost had two dogs attack my dog tonight walking a nature trail.

SeventiesWreckers

· #20 · May 25, 2012

Well, this has come up locally from time to time. A situation arises where a dog, or dogs, attack in an urban setting, on a city street. The attacked person defends themselves with a hand gun, usually firing downward at the attacking animal(s). Fired rounds are deflected off the pavement and into nearby structures. So in some cases reckless endangerment/ or unlawful discharge of a firearm charges have been brought. The local statutes here are pretty wobbly on this, and I would imagine it probably varies quite a bit, depending upon where you live, & where the actual event takes place. It might bear doing some local research on.

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.