guns

[datsunfreak]

16 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Are you saying that if you draw, but circumstances change, you are obliged to shoot to kill??? If there is a suspected intruder do you search through the house with gun in holster or carry it in your hand?

 

To the first question, don't be silly. Of course not.

 

To the second question, it ain't doing you any good in a holster.

 

Also (as was stated) there is a middle ground, in your hand but not visible to anyone else. 

 

16 hours ago, datzenmike said:

I mentioned pulling out a gun as a visible deterrence, but it was stated that that would be brandishing it, which is illegal and that once pulled you should shoot to kill. So I was asking some questions on this, like is this always the case?   

 

Having a gun out in your house is not brandishing. As for in public, I'd rather go to jail for brandishing a weapon than end up dead. 

 

If you believe (and better yet could prove) your life was in danger, I don't think you'd get arrested for drawing a gun you didn't use. 

Edited April 8 by datsunfreak

[datzenmike]

That makes sense

[datsunfreak]

But I also live in Texas, so...

 

https://abc13.com/ella-boulevard-robbery-fake-immigration-scheme-rasshauud-scott-killed/14634618/

[frankendat]

2 hours ago, datzenmike said:

That makes sense

But as a legal and practical matter, contrary to every police and detective drama aired in the last decade (or two) ONLY produce a firearm to use it and ONLY if your life or the lives of others are in imminent danger. DO NOT produce a firearm to scare, threaten, deter, force action, or negotiate if there is time to do any of the aforementioned there is time to call the police. Someone stealing parts off your Datsun, you yell "hey, that's my Datsun, knock it off", They yell back, "fuck you".  You can't shoot them. It is sad and it is wrong, but it is the law. You yell "Freeze right where you are, I have a gun and am calling the police." They yell back, "fuck you" and do not freeze. You can't shoot them. In both these scenarios, you actually could shoot them, but you will go to jail for a long time, which is why I say "You can't shoot them" and to be clear, by "them" I mean the individuals actively stealing parts off of your Datsun.   

[frankendat]

1 hour ago, datsunfreak said:

But I also live in Texas, so...

 

https://abc13.com/ella-boulevard-robbery-fake-immigration-scheme-rasshauud-scott-killed/14634618/

Texas is one of the States, which enforces the most fucked up property rights situations in the Country. 

There are USA citizen owned properties along the Mexican/American boarder that are subject to continuous theft and vandalism by the steady stream of illegal immigrants trespassing through their land and when a rancher shot one of these trespassers, who was in fact an illegal immigrant, the rancher went to prison for the reasons I have explained in previous posts. 

In the United States you cannot shoot trespassers and, by in large this is a good thing, but there are exceptions to this rule. For example: you can be shot for trespassing on a government nuclear missile site. You can be shot for trespassing on a nuclear missile site because in no way did you "accidentally" arrive there. There are checkpoints and guard patrols and cameras and much more unadvertised I am sure. 

This idea should be applied to the USA boarders, install fences, a wall, whatever as an obstacle for entry. Next individual land owners along the boarder are responsible to secure their land, fences, barricades etc. If a trespasser breaches the National barrier and the private barriers to gain illegal entry into the land of a United States citizen, then criminal intent against the legal occupants shall be inferred and the use of deadly force justifiable. 

Boarder problem solved--you're welcome

[Dguy210]

4 hours ago, frankendat said:

Texas is one of the States, which enforces the most fucked up property rights situations in the Country. 

There are USA citizen owned properties along the Mexican/American boarder that are subject to continuous theft and vandalism by the steady stream of illegal immigrants trespassing through their land and when a rancher shot one of these trespassers, who was in fact an illegal immigrant, the rancher went to prison for the reasons I have explained in previous posts. 

In the United States you cannot shoot trespassers and, by in large this is a good thing, but there are exceptions to this rule. For example: you can be shot for trespassing on a government nuclear missile site. You can be shot for trespassing on a nuclear missile site because in no way did you "accidentally" arrive there. There are checkpoints and guard patrols and cameras and much more unadvertised I am sure. 

This idea should be applied to the USA boarders, install fences, a wall, whatever as an obstacle for entry. Next individual land owners along the boarder are responsible to secure their land, fences, barricades etc. If a trespasser breaches the National barrier and the private barriers to gain illegal entry into the land of a United States citizen, then criminal intent against the legal occupants shall be inferred and the use of deadly force justifiable. 

Boarder problem solved--you're welcome

 

 

If you're a rancher in that area... well no one else knows the illegal criminal is there and you have the necessary land to make problems... just disappear. 

[datzenmike]

 

Hang them at the property line.

[frankendat]

2 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

Hang them at the property line.

Gibbeting 

[datzenmike]

A bit extreme for a simple trespass but a great deterrent.

[flatcat19]

1 hour ago, frankendat said:

Gibbeting 

 

Someone watched John Oliver last night. Lol. 

Edited April 9 by flatcat19

[frankendat]

1 minute ago, flatcat19 said:

1 hour ago, frankendat said:

 

 

Someone watched John Oliver last night. Lol. 

Edited just now by flatcat19

Guilty. But is was an annoying J.O. week. I kept telling the T.V. "Just use those air powered spike guns they use for cattle." (the one in No County For Old Men) Problem solved

[Soundline]

There’s another facet here.  If, as you draw, the intruder turns and you shoot them in the back, good luck. WA State has made it clear through civil cases that your “justification” for your lawful use of force ends at producing the weapon. 
 

I was off duty once and I observed an attempted kidnapping of a minor.  As I drew my concealed handgun the kidnapper immediately released the child and fled.  As the reason for drawing my weapon was to stop the kidnapping I was criminally and civilly within my legal rights.  Had I fired the weapon at a fleeing person I do not have criminal or civil justification.  
 

In more than 90% of the over 1,000 cases my dept crime analyst reviewed where civilians drew a firearm, the crime, know legally as the justification of force, was immediately terminated.  Many criminals are cowards.  Once they encounter potentially lethal resistance they retreat.

 

Also know, handguns suck at terminating human life.  For instance Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson was shot 9 times at close range with a 9mm handgun.  He was incapacitated but survived. There are WW2 cases where opposing forces were shot 7 times with the .45 ACP to no immediate effect.  Do not expect the attacker you’re firing on to immediately go down.  Its nice if it happens because you’re safer, but do not expect it.

 

An interesting mechanism in human anatomy that’s relevant is when your blood pressure tanks because you have holes in you, you momentarily collapse. If you regain that blood pressure because of gravity, you will regain consciousness. This means someone who is down, can get back up for a brief round two.  We referred to it as the “zombie effect”.  

[frankendat]

3 hours ago, Soundline said:

There’s another facet here.  If, as you draw, the intruder turns and you shoot them in the back, good luck. WA State has made it clear through civil cases that your “justification” for your lawful use of force ends at producing the weapon. 
 

I was off duty once and I observed an attempted kidnapping of a minor.  As I drew my concealed handgun the kidnapper immediately released the child and fled.  As the reason for drawing my weapon was to stop the kidnapping I was criminally and civilly within my legal rights.  Had I fired the weapon at a fleeing person I do not have criminal or civil justification.  
 

In more than 90% of the over 1,000 cases my dept crime analyst reviewed where civilians drew a firearm, the crime, know legally as the justification of force, was immediately terminated.  Many criminals are cowards.  Once they encounter potentially lethal resistance they retreat.

 

Also know, handguns suck at terminating human life.  For instance Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson was shot 9 times at close range with a 9mm handgun.  He was incapacitated but survived. There are WW2 cases where opposing forces were shot 7 times with the .45 ACP to no immediate effect.  Do not expect the attacker you’re firing on to immediately go down.  Its nice if it happens because you’re safer, but do not expect it.

 

An interesting mechanism in human anatomy that’s relevant is when your blood pressure tanks because you have holes in you, you momentarily collapse. If you regain that blood pressure because of gravity, you will regain consciousness. This means someone who is down, can get back up for a brief round two.  We referred to it as the “zombie effect”.  

I have experienced the "zombie effect" in fights (non firearm and non lethal) I was caught with a left hook and thought I had stumbled, "Why was I on the ground?" I bounced up to resume the attack, a buddy grabbed me in a bear hug. I didn't know why. A few seconds later (maybe milliseconds), without any further contact, I was out. 

 

Since the Fleeing felon doctrine was abolished shooting a fleeing criminal, as a practical matter, is against the law for civilians or police. (I say "as a practical matter" because threading the needle to claim "justification" would be a convoluted and expensive legal nightmare, even if you managed to remain out of prison.  

 

There are very few substantiated stories of individuals surviving (continuing to be in the fight) after center mass .45 hits. The .45 was developed to be and has proven itself in combat to be an effective man stopper. Do you know the story of how and why the .45 came into existence? Comparing "stopping power", in Elmer Keith terms, of the .45 and 9mm the .45 outshines the 9 significantly. (hardball to hardball) the 9mm in some tests beats the .45 in penetration and those with poor aim and weak wrists tout easier second shot and capacity as 9mm selling points. The best argument I heard for a 9mm was a when a friend of mine went to Gunsite and swapped his 1911 over to 9mm. It saved him over 1k in ammo costs (Gunsite does not allow reloads)

 

Now if pistol power is causing you grief, the 1911 carbine with the 16in barrel increases the velocity a couple hundred ft/sec and if you swap to the .460 barrel.... either is a fourth scoop on a 3 scoop sundae, not needed, but can't complain.

*Note: Best barrel length for a 1911 was determined long ago around 11in for max performance from hardball. However, with an 11in barrel the 1911 carbine is an SBR. 

[datsunfreak]

On 4/10/2024 at 7:28 PM, frankendat said:

The best argument I heard for a 9mm was a when a friend of mine went to Gunsite and swapped his 1911 over to 9mm. It saved him over 1k in ammo costs 

 

This was my main reason for wanting to try out a 1911 in 9mm. Slight upgrade in capacity, HUGE reduction in ammo cost. 

[Skib]

52 minutes ago, datsunfreak said:

 

This was my main reason for wanting to try out a 1911 in 9mm. Slight upgrade in capacity, HUGE reduction in ammo cost. 

 

Go with a 2011.

 

Get a 1911 with 9mm and a double stack mag.

[datsunfreak]

3 hours ago, Skib said:

 

Go with a 2011.

 

Get a 1911 with 9mm and a double stack mag.

 

It is a life goal, they are just out of my budget. Springfield Prodigy is high on my wish list, but $1400-1500. And all of the other ones are double that price or higher. 😳

[datsunfreak]

On 4/10/2024 at 3:51 PM, Soundline said:

There’s another facet here.  If, as you draw, the intruder turns and you shoot them in the back, good luck. WA State has made it clear through civil cases that your “justification” for your lawful use of force ends at producing the weapon. 
 

I was off duty once and I observed an attempted kidnapping of a minor.  As I drew my concealed handgun the kidnapper immediately released the child and fled.  As the reason for drawing my weapon was to stop the kidnapping I was criminally and civilly within my legal rights.  Had I fired the weapon at a fleeing person I do not have criminal or civil justification.  

 

See the article I posted above. Apparently, in Texas, if said fleeing suspect has a gun, you can shoot them in the back in the name of "stopping future crimes" by said person. 

 

Not 100% relevant to your post, just thought it worth noting.  

[Soundline]

On 4/10/2024 at 5:28 PM, frankendat said:

I have experienced the "zombie effect" in fights (non firearm and non lethal) I was caught with a left hook and thought I had stumbled, "Why was I on the ground?" I bounced up to resume the attack, a buddy grabbed me in a bear hug. I didn't know why. A few seconds later (maybe milliseconds), without any further contact, I was out. 

 

Since the Fleeing felon doctrine was abolished shooting a fleeing criminal, as a practical matter, is against the law for civilians or police. (I say "as a practical matter" because threading the needle to claim "justification" would be a convoluted and expensive legal nightmare, even if you managed to remain out of prison.  

 

There are very few substantiated stories of individuals surviving (continuing to be in the fight) after center mass .45 hits. The .45 was developed to be and has proven itself in combat to be an effective man stopper. Do you know the story of how and why the .45 came into existence? Comparing "stopping power", in Elmer Keith terms, of the .45 and 9mm the .45 outshines the 9 significantly. (hardball to hardball) the 9mm in some tests beats the .45 in penetration and those with poor aim and weak wrists tout easier second shot and capacity as 9mm selling points. The best argument I heard for a 9mm was a when a friend of mine went to Gunsite and swapped his 1911 over to 9mm. It saved him over 1k in ammo costs (Gunsite does not allow reloads)

 

Now if pistol power is causing you grief, the 1911 carbine with the 16in barrel increases the velocity a couple hundred ft/sec and if you swap to the .460 barrel.... either is a fourth scoop on a 3 scoop sundae, not needed, but can't complain.

*Note: Best barrel length for a 1911 was determined long ago around 11in for max performance from hardball. However, with an 11in barrel the 1911 carbine is an SBR. 

 

 

While I won’t deny the ballistics of a .45 ACP being better, for me it’s about getting more rounds on target faster.  On average the FBI says it takes 0.32 to 0.37 more 9mm rounds to incapacitate an attacker.  Specifically if you’re using the type of self defense load I carry.  Is the .45 ACP better with one round?  Yes.  But if I can have 17 rounds before a reload and only need one more round to stop someone, now I can theoretically stop more than one bad guy in a single magazine.  I still believe it’s personal preference, and people should shoot the gun and the caliber they’re comfortable with.  I have seen more than one homicide with a .22 LR.

 

Here’s another factor to consider.  This does not constitute legal advice, if you have questions contact a local attorney to review your laws in the place you live.  I’m in Chelan County, wa as I type this so I’ll address the rules here.  The RAND institute released a study on civil lawsuits post shootings in self defense scenarios that discussed “man killing calibers”.  They defined the term as .40 S&W and higher.  In instances where a qualified defender who had been either not charged or acquitted criminally, the person was still found to be civilly liable for the death.  For instance Kyle Rittenhouse is being sued by the estate of a man he killed in self defense and was criminally charged and acquitted at trial.  
 

One of the things you can do is to acquire self defense insurance to be able to keep your home after defending yourself.  I started carrying that insurance before I became a cop, and it saved my ass.  I was sued for ‘wrongful death’ in a case where a suspect who was actively trying to stab me tragically lost his life.  The case was ruled a justifiable homicide criminally but I was still found civilly liable for the death.  The matter was settled for a court sealed sum, most of which was covered by that insurance.  To give you a bit of background, the deceased had sexually assaulted a 14 year old female in the basement laundry facility of their apartment building.  He assaulted her with a knife after the sexual attack.  He then took a high dose of PCP and attacked myself and another officer with a seven inch bladed knife.  Due to the physical proximity and reaction times I was unable to draw and fire my service weapon.  Instead I went hands on and ended up rendering the perpetrator of a rape and three attempted murders unconscious and he later passed due to the injuries he sustained in that fight.  
 

In civil court it was determined that I should have been aware of this specific brain reaction that occurs when a human brain is struck with “an impact tool”.  In this case, an elbow.  I had a hold of the man’s wrist and was ordering him to drop the knife.  Unfortunately he locked out with his eyes opened as you will sometimes see in the UFC.  As he maintained resistant tension on the knife and did not comply with my lawful order to release the weapon, and my partner was incapacitated I struck the man with elbows until I realized what was happening.  Witnesses said that I struck the man as many as 3-5x with my elbow total.  In my report and my sworn testimony I stated that believe I struck him 7 times.  There was no video that clearly showed the incident because this was before body cams were prevalent.  This incident gives you a feel for how chaotic fights of this nature can be.  Despite not having broken any laws, department policies, or statutes on use of force, I still had to pay.  

[Soundline]

18 minutes ago, datsunfreak said:

 

See the article I posted above. Apparently, in Texas, if said fleeing suspect has a gun, you can shoot them in the back in the name of "stopping future crimes" by said person. 

 

Not 100% relevant to your post, just thought it worth noting.  

This is where knowing your local, state, and federal laws is prime.  However there will be a challenge that goes to the US Supreme Court over this Texas law eventually.  I would prefer to leave my fate out of the hands of that specific group of 9 people.  I’d like anyone who concealed carry do a thought experiment to decide right now, if you’d be ok shooting someone in the back.  That decision needs to be made before hand.  
 

In my own personal lines I’ve drawn the person I’m shooting needs to be posing a substantial and immediate threat to the community.  For instance, I live near a school.  If there’s an active shooter there, I see them with a gun pointed at a kid, I don’t care what the potential civil or criminal penalties are later.  I’ll be tried by 12 before I let a child get carried by six.  To the same point, if someone is robbing a gas station at gun point and I intervene, I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot the criminal in the back.  But if a lone, unarmed burglar is in my home, encounters me and immediately runs out the door, not gonna back shoot them.  Just do yourself a favor and make those decisions before hand.

[MikeRL411]

On 4/8/2024 at 5:42 PM, Dguy210 said:

 

 

If you're a rancher in that area... well no one else knows the illegal criminal is there and you have the necessary land to make problems... just disappear. 

Are you meaning Shoot and Shovel?

[frankendat]

6 hours ago, datsunfreak said:

 

See the article I posted above. Apparently, in Texas, if said fleeing suspect has a gun, you can shoot them in the back in the name of "stopping future crimes" by said person. 

 

Not 100% relevant to your post, just thought it worth noting.  

Supreme Court nixed the Fleeing Felon doctrine. If you shoot a fleeing suspect even if they have a running chainsaw and are screaming death to everybody, your balls are going to be in a knot. I wouldn't. 

[frankendat]

6 hours ago, Soundline said:

 

While I won’t deny the ballistics of a .45 ACP being better, for me it’s about getting more rounds on target faster.  On average the FBI says it takes 0.32 to 0.37 more 9mm rounds to incapacitate an attacker.  Specifically if you’re using the type of self defense load I carry.  Is the .45 ACP better with one round?  Yes.  But if I can have 17 rounds before a reload and only need one more round to stop someone, now I can theoretically stop more than one bad guy in a single magazine.  I still believe it’s personal preference, and people should shoot the gun and the caliber they’re comfortable with.  I have seen more than one homicide with a .22 LR.

 

Here’s another factor to consider.  This does not constitute legal advice, if you have questions contact a local attorney to review your laws in the place you live.  I’m in Chelan County, wa as I type this so I’ll address the rules here.  The RAND institute released a study on civil lawsuits post shootings in self defense scenarios that discussed “man killing calibers”.  They defined the term as .40 S&W and higher.  In instances where a qualified defender who had been either not charged or acquitted criminally, the person was still found to be civilly liable for the death.  For instance Kyle Rittenhouse is being sued by the estate of a man he killed in self defense and was criminally charged and acquitted at trial.  
 

One of the things you can do is to acquire self defense insurance to be able to keep your home after defending yourself.  I started carrying that insurance before I became a cop, and it saved my ass.  I was sued for ‘wrongful death’ in a case where a suspect who was actively trying to stab me tragically lost his life.  The case was ruled a justifiable homicide criminally but I was still found civilly liable for the death.  The matter was settled for a court sealed sum, most of which was covered by that insurance.  To give you a bit of background, the deceased had sexually assaulted a 14 year old female in the basement laundry facility of their apartment building.  He assaulted her with a knife after the sexual attack.  He then took a high dose of PCP and attacked myself and another officer with a seven inch bladed knife.  Due to the physical proximity and reaction times I was unable to draw and fire my service weapon.  Instead I went hands on and ended up rendering the perpetrator of a rape and three attempted murders unconscious and he later passed due to the injuries he sustained in that fight.  
 

In civil court it was determined that I should have been aware of this specific brain reaction that occurs when a human brain is struck with “an impact tool”.  In this case, an elbow.  I had a hold of the man’s wrist and was ordering him to drop the knife.  Unfortunately he locked out with his eyes opened as you will sometimes see in the UFC.  As he maintained resistant tension on the knife and did not comply with my lawful order to release the weapon, and my partner was incapacitated I struck the man with elbows until I realized what was happening.  Witnesses said that I struck the man as many as 3-5x with my elbow total.  In my report and my sworn testimony I stated that believe I struck him 7 times.  There was no video that clearly showed the incident because this was before body cams were prevalent.  This incident gives you a feel for how chaotic fights of this nature can be.  Despite not having broken any laws, department policies, or statutes on use of force, I still had to pay.  

It is a screwed up world. A while back someone was found criminally innocent and civilly gutted for using hydra shocks. In court, they brought in all the expansion details (which is great to avoid over penetration) but blows a massive hole. They said anyone carrying such ammo wanted to extra hurt someone and the jury believed it. 

[Dguy210]

On 4/12/2024 at 4:10 PM, MikeRL411 said:

Are you meaning Shoot and Shovel?

 

No evidence

No witnesses

No crime

Act Accordingly

 

 

[datsunfreak]

On 4/12/2024 at 10:49 PM, frankendat said:

Supreme Court nixed the Fleeing Felon doctrine. If you shoot a fleeing suspect even if they have a running chainsaw and are screaming death to everybody, your balls are going to be in a knot. I wouldn't. 

 

I wouldn't either, just pointing out that this guy did and has so far not even been threatened with criminal prosecution. Even if the SCOTUS nixed it, it is up to the Texas state courts whether they choose to prosecute or not. The SCOTUS can't exactly force them to prosecute. 

 

That particular story just gets weirder and weirder the more you dig into it, though. Apparently this was all a set up because the initial victim believed if he was involved in a violent crime that it would help him earn citizenship (in the US illegally). Apparently he and the dead man were in cahoots, and just happened to pull this shit at the wrong damn gas station.