The Video Thread

[Cybsled]

If you're drawing your gun in any situation, it is for lethal purposes.

If your intent is to wound or incapacitate, perhaps you might want to invest in a taser.

[Khalikryst]

Actually, we talked about this and the lawyer that held that seminar specifically stated you did NOT have to declare your intent. They don't even have to know you're there until you pull the trigger. He said to put this kind of constraint on the law limits it's effectiveness and it's all about citizen empowerment to stop violent crimes that the law allows this kind of action in the first place.

Also, he strongly advised against shooting to intentionally wound for two reasons: 1) it just generally fucks up an already fucked up situation... it's hard enough to hit someone in the chest or head under duress, if you go trying to kneecap someone you probably are going to miss and even if you don't the perp could still be free to shoot back, this is why cops shoot explicitly to kill in the real world, kneecapping is for TV... and 2) if it's proven that you shot to wound, it raises the question of whether the whole situation might not have been avoidable in the first place (if you weren't committed enough to go for the kill to put a stop to the threat then perhaps it wasn't such a threat afterall).

Plus, as he put it (as cold blooded as it sounds), if you get into a situation where some guy was trying to rape your wife, do you really want him around to tell "his side of the story"?

Again, these laws vary from state and they also change from time to time. So depending on where you live you probably have very different definitions and constraints on such things.

And who knows, I'm recalling this shit from a seminar of all things from a couple of years ago. I could have the whole damn thing wrong

[Dintorr]

Originally posted by Khalikryst
And who knows, I'm recalling this shit from a seminar of all things from a couple of years ago. I could have the whole damn thing wrong

Nope, that's pretty much exactly how I remember it being taught too.

I¡¦ll agree with many of the points mentioned here, that teachings and laws will vary from state to state, and instructor to instructor. I was never satisfied with my initial training for my CCW as there was always something left open to opinion or vague in such a way as to be deemed not trustworthy. In other words, you could still end up in jail or slapped with a big civil judgment. Having ties to law enforcement myself I have been able to take a few classes that are 100% geared towards agencies. Even though there is a Federal standard for the LFI-I courses, the courts in each state are often open to their own discretion or common case rulings when applying the law. The "letter of the law" is not the same in each state, that's for sure. This could explain why posts here are always varying on the subject.

There is one thing to keep in mind however that should effect most all of us now, or in the near future. The tie to use of deadly force is weighted more toward law enforcement than civil. Often times courts will use guidelines adapted by law enforcement agencies in ruling whether the use of deadly force was warranted or not.

Because the application of force in any situation is based upon a standard of "reasonableness" many agencies are eliminating a Use of Force Continuum from their policies. Recently there has been a push (Scott v Henrich) by many agencies to remove the "Continuum of Force" and adopt to the "Reasonable" aspect of force. This push is aimed at going beyond "Street Survival" and more towards "Court Survival". I know how to use a weapon and protect myself in the streets, and at home. The last 3 courses I¡¦ve taken (10 days classroom, 2 days range) have all been geared towards this new methodology of "courtroom survival". Being justified in the use of deadly force is never determined on the street, it's always in the courts. Law enforcement agencies are loosing tons of money under the historical "Continuum of Force" guidelines. They are surviving the streets, but losing officers to court and civil rulings.

The last course I took was a level 4 LFI-I class taught by 2 Federal Marshals, and a FBI lawyer. I used to do a lot of business with the FBI here in Tucson, this is where they do their HRT training. (Hostage Rescue Training). These levels of classes have the most kick-ass ranges, and the most grueling classroom sessions. Here are some snippets from the course ¡K

"Courtesy encourages understanding and cooperation. The most desirable method is where a suspect complies with simple directions. When you are confronted with a situation where control is required to protect your safety or the safety of others, you should attempt to achieve control through advice, warnings and persuasion. Where such verbal persuasion has not been effective, is not feasible, or would appear to be ineffective, you may use force that is reasonably necessary."

"The use of deadly force is only authorized when it is reasonable and necessary to protect yourself or others from an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to yourself or another person. If nondeadly force reasonably appears to be sufficient to accomplish the purpose, deadly force is not necessary."

"When the use of force is reasonable and necessary, you should, to the extent possible, use an escalating scale of options and not employ more forceful means unless it is determined that a lower level of force would not be, or has not been, adequate. The levels of force that generally should be included are verbal commands, use of hands, chemical agents, impact weapons, and deadly force."

There currently are pending court cases involving "use of hands" since the skilled use of martial arts has been determined as use of deadly force, so we were told not to chop-suey anyone.

Again, keep in mind that this is all geared towards law enforcement and "court survivability". With recent rulings courts are gearing more towards standard of "reasonableness".

In the situation where the big black Ex-Con starts dishing out some whoop-ass, a "reasonable" man may not hink it wise to simply pull your gun and pop a few rounds into and killing tubby. Imagine yourself in that situation, being justified to use deadly force, and then ending up in court over it. (Which you will.) Now imagine the jury or that will be sitting in for the trial. If it were the Screenshot gang in the seats, you¡¦d be 100% safe. But we are talking about a jury of folks comprised of possibly people that do not advocate the use of guns. So you have a high chance of being tossed in jail or slapped a civil judgement by the soccer-mom who knows jack shit about deadly force and the justification behind it.

Also, I don¡¦t think tubby the ex-con deserves to die for beating the shit out of the cell phone dude. I also don't think the cell phone duded needs to die either. Courts and States do not like it when a person on the street becomes Judge, Jury, and Executioner. It's almost like working for a union, if you step out of bounds or try to do someboidy elses job, however well intended it may be, chances are you are going to get slapped somehow.

All I'm trying to say really, is however you choose to remedy a situation, make sure it's done in such a way so that you don't end up in jail, or loose your house to a civil judgement.

Peace.

Edit: Fixed funky quotation marks.

[Phoenix]

Dude, wtf is up with your post?? It has tons of wierd characters in it.

As for the fatblack guy, he should of got a bullet int he back of the head.

If more people had CCWs, nothing like this would happen.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Dude, wtf is up with your post?? It has tons of wierd characters in it.

As for the fatblack guy, he should of got a bullet int he back of the head.

If more people had CCWs, nothing like this would happen.

Hmm, dunno whats up with those characters, I'll go back and edit.

Also, CCW holder here. Not saying I'd kill tubby, but it sure wouldn't have gone down that way for sure.

The #1 reason I got my CCW was because ther eis a federal law that states you cannot carry a handgun or such within 100 yards of a public school. In Tucson you can plot out each school and draw 100 yard circles around them. (Somebody did in class.) It's impossible to go from one side of town to the other without breaking the School Safe law. That's ok, I'll just bury the gun under the back seat. Oooops, now it's concealed, need a permit for that.

I only carry my handgun when I ride alone or am out on some rural hicking trail and such. Often times it's not even concealed. But in the winter it can be when using jackets and such.

So even though I only obtained my CCW for tranportations purposes to.from course and ranges ... I would not be opposed to using what I learned to save somebody from harm. I don't carry every day though.

I guess you'd just have to be there and see what happens.

... Bonzai

[Chaotic]

wow this thread has gone downhill.

[Khalikryst]

Originally posted by Chaotic
wow this thread has gone downhill.

You're right, we derailed with a pointless discussion (hooray for boredom!) =/
Here's a semi-ownage video as penance (even though it's a commercial)

[Tuco]

Also, I don¡¦t think tubby the ex-con deserves to die for beating the shit out of the cell phone dude.

Yeah, I don't think so either. I think the question that would go through one's mind is, "How much is tubby going to beat up cell phone guy?" With no one helping I could easily see tubby killing Scarpino by bludgening him to death in various ways. If one were in a position where the only way he could stop tubby is stab him in a place that would not allow tubby to respond violently(IE: throat) that also happens to be a very deadly place, he'd have to make the judgement call of whether or not Tubby is going to suckerpunch and run, or go crazy and kill a man.

If I were scarpino, I'd rather have Tubby suckerpunch me, break my jaw/eyesocket/tooth, and get caught later because of camera, than have some angry guy kill Tubby. Even without the court procedings, I wouldn't want to be involved with the death of someone over some petty ass kicking.

But I'd definately rather be knocked out than have to go to court forever, being knocked out isn't all that bad!

[Grooverider]

Originally posted by Cybsled
If you're drawing your gun in any situation, it is for lethal purposes.

If your intent is to wound or incapacitate, perhaps you might want to invest in a taser.

This reeks of government advice, exactly what a friend of mine says (word for word): he works for the British government.

[Lizard Warlord]

http://od-msn.msn.com/14/mbr/Austin_...rikes1_msn.wmv

[Komido]

Interview with the guy that got beat in the pizza place.

http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.as...3&sid=30596&bw=

[Dintorr]

Bonz, excellent post. /kudos

[Ronne]

Roll of quarters would have done the job, he wasn't exactly paying attention to anyone else. You'd be surprised how much getting punched in the back of the head can suck.

[Coraniz]

I'd like to think that I would find something to bash the guys head with from behind, but I'm not sure if I'd have the balls to do it. If I didn't knock him out with 1 hit I'd be more fucked than the phone guy.