Scenario question

[JLouv]

Yeah...I've seen them. Like Nola said...no "good" criminals anymore and life keeps getting cheaper every day.

But I carry for my protection, not yours. I'm not looking for trouble and it hasn't found me in many many years. If you want to stick your neck out for a stranger in a situation where you had to be proactive, that's your decision. I'll contribute a few $$ to your legal defense fund...

I can say, without ever having to make that kind of choice, that I would choose to be reactive. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Maybe it'll be different if I ever have to actually do it. who's to say? I'd most certainly prefer to not be in that situation at all to begin with....

 

[Hitman]

Yeah...I've seen them. Like Nola said...no "good" criminals anymore and life keeps getting cheaper every day.

But I carry for my protection, not yours. I'm not looking for trouble and it hasn't found me in many many years. If you want to stick your neck out for a stranger in a situation where you had to be proactive, that's your decision. I'll contribute a few $$ to your legal defense fund...

I can say, without ever having to make that kind of choice, that I would choose to be reactive. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Maybe it'll be different if I ever have to actually do it. who's to say? I'd most certainly prefer to not be in that situation at all to begin with....

Same here, and I'm not saying I would stick around and force the issue either. However, I will say that it's not in my nature to walk away leaving innocent bystanders to their defenseless selves. I would like to think that I would do what I deemed necessary to protect them.

 

[olivs260]

But I carry for my protection, not yours.

This. I have a wife and child to get home to. Sorry to everyone else, but you had a chance to arm yourselves too.

 

[BobKaro]

From what I understand of the law, it seem the scenario in the OP would be considered justifiable homicide.

After that, it's up to you what you can do and sleep at night.

 

[Fisherman]

These types of sernarios are exactly where I envision myself using my CCW.

Hmmm... I dunno but I think it would be better if you'd use your gun!

 

[honestlou]

These types of sernarios are exactly where I envision myself using my CCW.

Hmmm... I dunno but I think it would be better if you'd use your gun!

This is an interesting comment, as I've seen people use all of these acronyms interchangeably: CHP, CCW, CCP, and probably more.

CCW is an abbreviation for "concealed carry weapon", so that is exactly what you would want to use.

 

[oleheat]

We have all heard the argument seemingly supporting non-action that says "you may kill innocent bystanders".

While this may indeed be the "safest" option from a personal legal standpoint......

....does anyone have any hard statistics on how many times this has actually happened involving a CHP holder?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

This is an interesting comment, as I've seen people use all of these acronyms interchangeably: CHP, CCW, CCP, and probably more.

CCW is an abbreviation for "concealed carry weapon", so that is exactly what you would want to use.

CCW is generally used for those states that issue "Weapons permits"
CHP is used for states that issue handgun permits for handguns only like LOUISIANA.

SOmetimes we use CCW generically since a firearm / handgun is infact a weapon.

CCH- Concealed carry handgun

 

[brfd557]

Same here, and I'm not saying I would stick around and force the issue either. However, I will say that it's not in my nature to walk away leaving innocent bystanders to their defenseless selves. I would like to think that I would do what I deemed necessary to protect them.

+100 Plus the OP to many sernarios could play out, what if the BG is sweeping your 4yo, wife, and yourself ? There are videos where the BG gets the $ shoots the poor clerk and the witness just trying to buy a coke? I play these sernarios out in my head, I just pray to GOD if I am placed in this situation I will make the correct decision!

 

[honestlou]

This is an interesting comment, as I've seen people use all of these acronyms interchangeably: CHP, CCW, CCP, and probably more.

CCW is an abbreviation for "concealed carry weapon", so that is exactly what you would want to use.

CCW is generally used for those states that issue "Weapons permits"
CHP is used for states that issue handgun permits for handguns only like LOUISIANA.

SOmetimes we use CCW generically since a firearm / handgun is infact a weapon.

CCH- Concealed carry handgun

I think he was making a joke about using his gun instead of his permit, but he referenced his CCW, which would in fact be his weapon. I've seen many people refer to the gun they carry as their "CHP", but in this case he said CCW.

I have seen many people refer to a CWP or CCW in Louisiana, and of course Louisiana only issues a CHP. But in this case I think his point was to use your weapon, not your permit.

 

[oleheat]

+100 Plus the OP to many sernarios could play out, what if the BG is sweeping your 4yo, wife, and yourself ? There are videos where the BG gets the $ shoots the poor clerk and the witness just trying to buy a coke? I play these sernarios out in my head, I just pray to GOD if I am placed in this situation I will make the correct decision!

Same here.

Just as in everything else in life- no guarantees.

 

[aroundlsu]

My only problem in this scenario is what if you pull your gun, you have the perfect point blank shot, you pull the trigger, and CLICK. No bang.

If you think your magic glock, revolver, or whatever can't go click instead of bang you should spend a day at the range with me.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I think he was making a joke about using his gun instead of his permit, but he referenced his CCW, which would in fact be his weapon. I've seen many people refer to the gun they carry as their "CHP", but in this case he said CCW.

I have seen many people refer to a CWP or CCW in Louisiana, and of course Louisiana only issues a CHP. But in this case I think his point was to use your weapon, not your permit.

werd

 

[Yrdawg]

Scenario: you are in line at a bank, fast food place, or other similar location. Bad guy decides to rob the place and points a gun at the teller/clerk/etc. Bad guy's attention is on the teller/clerk/etc. You are concealed carrying and have the opportunity to draw and get a clear bead on the bad guy.

Question: do you just begin shooting, or is there some duty to demand the bad guy drop his gun and surrender?

I raise the question in terms of the legal issues afterwards. If you shoot the guy in the back, will you face tougher legal issues afterwards? Do you risk demanding he drop the gun and the possibility of him getting off shots in your direction?

What say ye?

Does not apply to me, as I carry a Glock 10 mm, a single shot inside a building would collapse the structure

Had to be said

 

[spanky]

My primary goal, as stated, is to make it home alive. If I have to use a certain tool to ensure that goal is met then so be it.

 

[spanky]

So the bad guy has a gun....odds are that he doesn't want to use it.

While I would like to believe this, I would never bet my life on the mindset of someone willing to point a gun at someone and take things from them.

 

[buddy_fuentes]

Mike, I didn't read all the post, but what I read was pretty close to what is written in law.

There was a case in New Orleans were an off duty LEO and a friend were in a pizza place eating when an armed robbery went down. The LEO thought he could make one sure shot and stop the perpetrator before any violence could escalate. He pulled his concealed firearm and fired a shot...the fire fight started and (don't remember who-employee-customer?) someone was killed by a stray shot from the perpetrator.

Was the off duty LEO justified? Yes he was in the criminal proceedings that followed. However, the civil courts stuck it to him in the civil arena. The court felt that the robbery in itself is very dangerous, but most likely would not have escalated to the point of gunfire if the LEO had not started shooting. The courts felt that the LEO was (don't remember the %) mainly responsible for the death of an innocent person. Therefore, had monetary responsibility.

We all know that we can shoot and kill a gnat in the air at 25 yards, but when you add the stress of killing someone or them shooting back....it would be hard to hit an elephant standing still at 25 yards.

My thought is that you might want to hold off until you see that the perpetrator is actually past the point of demanding money or property. Something that triggers the thought that someone is going to die or get seriously injured. At that point, you have to do what you have to do to protect yourself and others.


One final point, think about the legal cost of defending yourself in criminal and civil proceedings. An attorney will have to spend many hours preparing your defense and going to court. They don't work for minimum wage, think about the after cost.

Work out everything in your mind before you take the first step, so you will know what you are going to do. It is too late for a plan when it starts to unfold in front of you. Plan to be scared and have a huge adrenalin dump that will affect your motor skills.

Buddy

 

[Yrdawg]

Mike, I didn't read all the post, but what I read was pretty close to what is written in law.

There was a case in New Orleans were an off duty LEO and a friend were in a pizza place eating when an armed robbery went down. The LEO thought he could make one sure shot and stop the perpetrator before any violence could escalate. He pulled his concealed firearm and fired a shot...the fire fight started and (don't remember who-employee-customer?) someone was killed by a stray shot from the perpetrator.

Was the off duty LEO justified? Yes he was in the criminal proceedings that followed. However, the civil courts stuck it to him in the civil arena. The court felt that the robbery in itself is very dangerous, but most likely would not have escalated to the point of gunfire if the LEO had not started shooting. The courts felt that the LEO was (don't remember the %) mainly responsible for the death of an innocent person. Therefore, had monetary responsibility.

We all know that we can shoot and kill a gnat in the air at 25 yards, but when you add the stress of killing someone or them shooting back....it would be hard to hit an elephant standing still at 25 yards.

My thought is that you might want to hold off until you see that the perpetrator is actually past the point of demanding money or property. Something that triggers the thought that someone is going to die or get seriously injured. At that point, you have to do what you have to do to protect yourself and others.


One final point, think about the legal cost of defending yourself in criminal and civil proceedings. An attorney will have to spend many hours preparing your defense and going to court. They don't work for minimum wage, think about the after cost.

Work out everything in your mind before you take the first step, so you will know what you are going to do. It is too late for a plan when it starts to unfold in front of you. Plan to be scared and have a huge adrenalin dump that will affect your motor skills.

Buddy

^^^Really good advice and If any part of this advice should be in red......^^^

Not knowing how familiar with the courts you may be let me say it is a eye opener how much all your good intentions and how much your mama loves you has to do with the legal system.

I don't mean to be rude, that just how I saw it from my first time dealing with it long ago, it's no better now.

*The only voice you will have will cost a minimum of more $ per hour than I make a week.

*Right and wrong will have little to do with anything

*NOTHING happens fast, and you may be sitting in jail waiting on some of these things that don't happen fast

*My friend NOLACOP said it best, ( and I paraphrase cause my memory ain't good enough to plagiarize ) You will be tried not by the law you have read, but, by 1 old cranky judge and 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty

*Take pictures of " the farm " ASAP after the incident. the reason will most likely become obvious as time goes on

Take the shot if you must but remember the aftermath may well make divorce look like a trip to Baskin Robbins

 

[LACamper]

If you took your own pics of the incident, wouldn't the defense portray you as bloodthirsty? 'Look, he wanted to save a copy of what happened, probably to brag on the internet! Maybe frame one to hang on his wall.' The police are going to take a box full of photos anyway.

 

[Gus McCrae]

NEGATIVE, IMO.

Eventhough there are many factors that could determine and make you step up and take control of the situation.

Keep in mind there is NOT a duty to kill for private citizens, that could be argued for LEO's who are off/on duty but for 95% of the population it does NOT apply.

THat means unless that situation gets completely out of hand and you have the need I would make sure to know how to escape if I need to, where to cover and plan my attack from there,

What would happen IF you decided to play weekend hero and killed not only the atacker but also 3 other innocent people at the bank????? Would your actions be justified then ??????

Also does your training allow you to take control of the situation ??????? have you ever tried to engage moving targets that are shooting back at you????? way to many things to be taken into consideration

We can all post the laws that apply to the defense of others but if you dont have the training to do so those laws will NOT protect you when you have to face a jury for homicide.

Again its just my opinion/

This is my answer too.

So the bad guy has a gun....odds are that he doesn't want to use it. He just wants the money and the gun is a tool to make getting it easier. Hopefully the clerk would be smart enough to hand over whatever the guy wants, then let him go. There's really no point in, or a good argument for escalating the incident by pulling your iron if no one is being physically hurt. I carry for MY protection. Not anyone else's.

The counterpoint to that is if someone does get hurt, you're going to have to deal with the fact that you waited. On a personal level, I'd rather be the hero that stopped the madman after only one victim, instead of the next poster-boy for the gun-tot'in, looking for trouble, shoot first-question later, gun-nut wacko all the anti-gun crowd makes us out to be.

While I tend to agree, you do have to consider the fact that you don't know what someone else is thinking. By robbing the store, they are putting you in harms way by proxy at best and with intent to hurt you at worst. You have to consider in this scenario the fact that you may have a serious advantage while his attention is on the person at the counter. You may not have this advantage when he reveals additional details on what he plans to do with you.


Is there a tactical consideration here?