Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rash on October 10, 2010, 06:17:19 PM
-
This is how it's suppose to work, and the prosecutor followed up with a nice charge against the surviving criminal.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2010/crimesite/article.aspx?subjectid=450&articleid=20100807_11_A16_Prosec993715&archive=yes (http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2010/crimesite/article.aspx?subjectid=450&articleid=20100807_11_A16_Prosec993715&archive=yes)
-
This is how it's suppose to work, and the prosecutor followed up with a nice charge against the surviving criminal.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2010/crimesite/article.aspx?subjectid=450&articleid=20100807_11_A16_Prosec993715&archive=yes (http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2010/crimesite/article.aspx?subjectid=450&articleid=20100807_11_A16_Prosec993715&archive=yes)
Yep...scum got exactly what they had coming...
Excellent report from the front line of "Reality"
Out
Oneway
-
At least he was a polite criminal: "The 911 call was recorded and investigators reported that Holman can be heard saying, "Ma'am, you shot me in the head," according to the affidavit."
-
Here in the States, we had a 4 star General address the speaker of the house as Ma'ma, and she didn't like it at all. It must be degrading, but what do I know?
-
Judging by the wording of that article that woman eventually emptied her revolver into those two guys during the ordeal. Well done lady :salute
-
Woah, didn't see that one coming.
-Penguin
-
Judging by the wording of that article that woman eventually emptied her revolver into those two guys during the ordeal. Well done lady :salute
I guess the aftermath looks like a mess, and I think revolvers have higher recoil.
She could have taken them out efficiently with glocks.
-
Good for her. :aok
-
Ya but the way our court system is screwed up she'll probably face a civil trial for firing on those guys after they were 'down'.
-
I guess the aftermath looks like a mess, and I think revolvers have higher recoil.
She could have taken them out efficiently with glocks.
True, but a glock is harder to hide in a purse then a snub nose revolver like the one mentioned in the article. I sounds to me like this woman kept her head instead of panicking, (and was probably really pissed off at the same time) so I bet she would have emptied the gun even if it had 30 rounds to burn. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think she gave a rats backside about efficiency. :aok
-
Ya but the way our court system is screwed up she'll probably face a civil trial for firing on those guys after they were 'down'.
Just my opinion but if someone came into my house and attacked me I'd do the same. Again just my opinion but until they were dead or in handcuffs I would still see them as a threat to me or my family.
-
Worst part is if you shoot them and don't kill them in some states they can come back and sue you in civil court for damages.
Shoot until they are down and won't get back up.
-
You won't hear me disagreeing with you Larry. The judicial system is a joke. No offense to any lawyers here but the ones I've dealt with with one exception were a bunch of lazy, money hungry, jack asses, that couldn't count to 20 without taking their shoes off. Being an arrogant jerk is apparently a job requirement. Sheesh most of them are bigger criminals than their clients.
But I'm a bit bitter on that subject.
-
No offense to any lawyers here but the ones I've dealt with with one exception were a bunch of lazy, money hungry, jack asses, that couldn't count to 20 without taking their shoes off. Being an arrogant bellybutton is apparently a job requirement. Sheesh most of them are bigger criminals than their clients.
With you 110% on all that
-
random aside.. did the language filter not catch my reference to the gluteous maximus?
-
Worst part is if you shoot them and don't kill them in some states they can come back and sue you in civil court for damages.
Shoot until they are down and won't get back up.
And there you have it ...
-
I guess the aftermath looks like a mess, and I think revolvers have higher recoil.
She could have taken them out efficiently with glocks.
I feel like you don't know what you're talking about.
-
to bad that sob didnt die too and is now wasting our tax dollars
-
From a legal standpoint, never shoot to kill and never shoot to wound.
Only shoot to stop, whatever you feel that takes ;)
-
From a legal standpoint, never shoot to kill and never shoot to wound.
Only shoot to stop, whatever you feel that takes ;)
See that's why I'm for glock and other almost-zero recoil pistols.
You need to precisely, surgically disable them. With revolver you end up basically butchering them.
For example, I disable the perpetrator by shoot the knees with a revolver. With a revolver I'm most likely to end up shooting his balls or the femoral artery which will leave a pool of blood on my carpet.
-
See that's why I'm for glock and other almost-zero recoil pistols.
You need to precisely, surgically disable them. With revolver you end up basically butchering them.
For example, I disable the perpetrator by shoot the knees with a revolver. With a revolver I'm most likely to end up shooting his balls or the femoral artery which will leave a pool of blood on my carpet.
Are you really that bad of a shot? If so, stay away from guns.
-
See that's why I'm for glock and other almost-zero recoil pistols.
You need to precisely, surgically disable them. With revolver you end up basically butchering them.
For example, I disable the perpetrator by shoot the knees with a revolver. With a revolver I'm most likely to end up shooting his balls or the femoral artery which will leave a pool of blood on my carpet.
You really don't understand what you are talking about. Yes, the type of gun can have an effect on recoil, a heavy gun might cut down on some of the recoil. But you say it as if revolvers are impossible to control and tear apart everything they touch while the magic Glock is a precision tool. I'm sorry, but you don't understand firearms or defensive shooting situations. You act as if the ammunition used has no effect. The article says she used a snub nosed revolver, most likely a .38 special. Glocks are made in 9mm, .40, 10mm, .45 GAP, .45 AUTO, .380 AUTO, and .357. She probably carried a revolver because of it's ease of use, safety, and reliability.
In a defensive shooting, you aim for center of body mass, you will find very few people who know what they are talking about disagree with that. Your adrenaline will be pumping and your body's stress response will take away a surprising amount of control from your extremities, you won't be able to make a surgical shot. A person who has a handgun for protection probably has it loaded with quality hollow-point ammunition, as well they should. Although there is no magic answer, most handgun rounds are probably not going to tear apart a person like you see in the movies.
-
You really don't understand what you are talking about. Yes, the type of gun can have an effect on recoil, a heavy gun might cut down on some of the recoil. But you say it as if revolvers are impossible to control and tear apart everything they touch while the magic Glock is a precision tool. I'm sorry, but you don't understand firearms or defensive shooting situations. You act as if the ammunition used has no effect. The article says she used a snub nosed revolver, most likely a .38 special. Glocks are made in 9mm, .40, 10mm, .45 GAP, .45 AUTO, .380 AUTO, and .357. She probably carried a revolver because of it's ease of use, safety, and reliability.
In a defensive shooting, you aim for center of body mass, you will find very few people who know what they are talking about disagree with that. Your adrenaline will be pumping and your body's stress response will take away a surprising amount of control from your extremities, you won't be able to make a surgical shot. A person who has a handgun for protection probably has it loaded with quality hollow-point ammunition, as well they should. Although there is no magic answer, most handgun rounds are probably not going to tear apart a person like you see in the movies.
The article mentioned shots to the head. If that's the case, you aren't getting up from a .38 special round to the head. So, my man is either going to be a vegetable or die from his wounds. If not, he might be the luckiest SOB alive. Albeit, going to prison if he lives. But I don't see him leaving the hospital alive, if it was a .38.
Also, having been at a morgue for Criminalistics and Forensics, the wounds inflicted are not easy on the stomach. But the only thing Hollywood does, is throw bodies backwards. I saw an autopsy on a guy who was killed in a mob hit. He was shot by ten 12 gauge rounds. The view wasn't pretty, as the 00 buck tore his torso up.
Good for the woman though.
-
The article mentioned shots to the head. If that's the case, you aren't getting up from a .38 special round to the head. So, my man is either going to be a vegetable or die from his wounds. If not, he might be the luckiest SOB alive. Albeit, going to prison if he lives. But I don't see him leaving the hospital alive, if it was a .38.
Also, having been at a morgue for Criminalistics and Forensics, the wounds inflicted are not easy on the stomach. But the only thing Hollywood does, is throw bodies backwards. I saw an autopsy on a guy who was killed in a mob hit. He was shot by ten 12 gauge rounds. The view wasn't pretty, as the 00 buck tore his torso up.
Good for the woman though.
Oh yes, you're right. Perrine made it sound like a .38 special would leave a particularly more gruesome wound than a round from a Glock, which doesn't make sense. Also, I'm not trying to come off as any kind of defensive shooting expert or criticizing how this woman did anything, every situation is different, there is no cookie cutter answer. Also, I was more particularly discussing handguns, I can't imagine how terrible a shotgun wound would look like.
-
For example, I disable the perpetrator by shoot the knees with a revolver.
That's your problem right there. I don't know who taught you how to shoot but I, along with most people, was taught to shoot to kill and not wound. I don't own a pistol but if I did and were in this situation I would aim center mass and squeeze two or three rounds off. I do on the other hand have a pistol griped 12Ga shotgun right next to my bed with a couple 00buck rounds hidden within reaching distance. There have been several home invasions in my area this past year, one of them just three houses down from mine where multiple purps broke in and tied up the family while they robbed them blind. Thank god no one has been hurt so far but Iv prepared myself and have actually rehearsed what I would do if someone broke into my house. One thing that I for sure will not do is aim below the SOB's waist. If I have to defend myself, my family, or property I'm aiming for the heart or head if I get the shot.
-
When you take a concealed carry class, they teach you to empty the gun into them. 1. So they die 2. So if they manage to get hold of the gun there arent any bullets left.
-
When you take a concealed carry class, they teach you to empty the gun into them. 1. So they die 2. So if they manage to get hold of the gun there arent any bullets left.
They didn't teach that in my concealed carry class, but I've heard it and understand it. The body can withstand a tremendous amount of damage and still operate (at least for a few seconds or minutes). Shoot until they are no longer a threat, 2 or 3 may not be enough.
-
From a legal standpoint, never shoot to kill and never shoot to wound.
Only shoot to stop, whatever you feel that takes ;)
And just how you going to do that (never shoot to kill and never shoot to wound.Only shoot to stop,) Is it just me or doe's this not make any since ?
-
I believe that would be his answer should he be prosecuted for shooting someone.........(dont take jimsons post in the literal sence)
Prosecuter " Did you shoot to kill Mr Scumbag?"
Civilian " No sir i shot to stop him ( the threat etc ) "
While you want to shoot center of mass and kill him, what you want to do is stop the threat.
Regarding wounding someone and or shooting them in the knees, its good for TV, In RL it will get you or your loved ones killed
-
If it is threatening you, shoot it, if it twitches.. shoot it again.
-
When you take a concealed carry class, they teach you to empty the gun into them. 1. So they die 2. So if they manage to get hold of the gun there arent any bullets left.
Emptying a handgun into a perp. can land you a charge for "Mayhem". Whoever teaches that method, should not be allowed to Instruct. It's just that simple.
-
.45 acp 230 grain full metal jacket round nose
let them bleed out
-
Here in the States, we had a 4 star General address the speaker of the house as Ma'ma, and she didn't like it at all. It must be degrading, but what do I know?
You have to be a lady to appreciate being called ma'am. The speaker is no lady.
If you have to pull a gun be prepared to shoot. If you have to shoot then shoot to kill. Trying to wound someone can and will get you killed.
-
Well , If one brakes into my house on me , They would be looking at a 12 gauge with OO buckshot . So , I don't think one would have to worry about shooting again .
-
Well , If one brakes into my house on me , They would be looking a 12 gauge with OO buckshot . So , I don't think one would have to worry about shooting again .
You may be right but be prepared to just in case.
This is not aimed at you but some folks think a shotgun is be-all end-all. While it can and will make a mess, you still have to hit what you shoot at. Some have a false sense that ratcheting the shotgun will ward off a perp. What it usually does is alert the perp to your position which he may have covered.
-
I use to shoot trap for year's so I don't think I would miss in my case but you are right and some people don't need a gun at all . End up shooting there self , lol .
-
When you take a concealed carry class, they teach you to empty the gun into them. 1. So they die 2. So if they manage to get hold of the gun there aren't any bullets left.
That must be one of those State 2 hour courses taught by the local Sherrif's office that allow them to tick off the "proper training" box on the CCW application.
Any reputable CCW school will never teach you to empty your magazine into a target, unless the target you are engaging is continuing to close distance on you and isn't going down....this is usually because of missing the target, not the target being on some pyschostimulating drugs like hollywood always says. You continue to fire on the threat until it isn't a threat, but for example if you had hit a target multiple times and he wasn't stopping your brain lightbulb should pop saying "this guy has armour on" and you proceed to engage him with the BA drill (ie shooting him in a non armoured spot such as the head or the pelvis".
-Emptying magazine = likely not a good idea, however multiple displaced shots are often taught as being a sound tactic. The old "double tap" is rarely taught anymore as the rounds hitting the same or near to the same location it's been proven that this does less damage and puts less stress on the targets Central Nervous System than having two shots hit farther apart...hence most schools teaching the "Vertical Track" style of defensive shooting in a 1 v 1 threat scenario. This is usually when the first shot is fired right out of retention (holster) and then followed by 3-5 rounds being fired progressively higher and higher from the targets belt buckle to his head, usually taken 1 second or less for all rounds fired. This is the only example I can think of that comes remotely close to "emptying the magazine" into a target, and it isn't even 1/3 of the way there for most capacities
for modern day semi autos.
Another reason emptying magazine is a bad choice is that the "one" threat you thought you had might have friends out there, and you just wasted needless rounds on contestant number one, and now you're going to have to either take a precious second or two to reload, if you even can, or fight them now with your defensive option #2 now that your weapon is smoking and locked open on an empty magazine, and that option 2 for most people is their hands and feet, which really suck in a 1 v 2 fight.
This is not aimed at you but some folks think a shotgun is be-all end-all. While it can and will make a mess, you still have to hit what you shoot at. Some have a false sense that ratcheting the shotgun will ward off a perp. What it usually does is alert the perp to your position which he may have covered.
X2 here.
A shotgun is the most "gross motor skill", meaning easy to use when the adrenalin has caused the blood to leave your fingertips in a gunfight, making small tactile things harder to do, but it is still something you should get professional training with, and practice often, as well as having a defence plan created for your living space. Also, the ratcheting sound mentioned can not only give away your position, and can galvanize a threat into taking action, as in violent encounters cowardice happens less often than you would think.
-
Always aim for center of mass...
Always
-
Wouldn't you want to damage the attacker's CNS though? You are firing shots to stop the attacker as quickly as possible, damaging the CNS is going to be the fastest way to do that.
Btw, I think you are much much more likely to run into an attacker on drugs than wearing body armor. You don't have to empty your magazine, but shoot until he is no longer a threat, then reload.
-
That must be one of those State 2 hour courses taught by the local Sherrif's office that allow them to tick off the "proper training" box on the CCW application.
Any reputable CCW school will never teach you to empty your magazine into a target, unless the target you are engaging is continuing to close distance on you and isn't going down....this is usually because of missing the target, not the target being on some pyschostimulating drugs like hollywood always says. You continue to fire on the threat until it isn't a threat, but for example if you had hit a target multiple times and he wasn't stopping your brain lightbulb should pop saying "this guy has armour on" and you proceed to engage him with the BA drill (ie shooting him in a non armoured spot such as the head or the pelvis".
-Emptying magazine = likely not a good idea, however multiple displaced shots are often taught as being a sound tactic. The old "double tap" is rarely taught anymore as the rounds hitting the same or near to the same location it's been proven that this does less damage and puts less stress on the targets Central Nervous System than having two shots hit farther apart...hence most schools teaching the "Vertical Track" style of defensive shooting in a 1 v 1 threat scenario. This is usually when the first shot is fired right out of retention (holster) and then followed by 3-5 rounds being fired progressively higher and higher from the targets belt buckle to his head, usually taken 1 second or less for all rounds fired. This is the only example I can think of that comes remotely close to "emptying the magazine" into a target, and it isn't even 1/3 of the way there for most capacities
for modern day semi autos.
Another reason emptying magazine is a bad choice is that the "one" threat you thought you had might have friends out there, and you just wasted needless rounds on contestant number one, and now you're going to have to either take a precious second or two to reload, if you even can, or fight them now with your defensive option #2 now that your weapon is smoking and locked open on an empty magazine, and that option 2 for most people is their hands and feet, which really suck in a 1 v 2 fight.
X2 here.
A shotgun is the most "gross motor skill", meaning easy to use when the adrenalin has caused the blood to leave your fingertips in a gunfight, making small tactile things harder to do, but it is still something you should get professional training with, and practice often, as well as having a defence plan created for your living space. Also, the ratcheting sound mentioned can not only give away your position, and can galvanize a threat into taking action, as in violent encounters cowardice happens less often than you would think.
Awesome post Gman. My father was a tactical firearms instructor for the Maine State Police and there SRT teams. I read your post and heard my dads voice while reading it.
Gman, what is your opinion of Thunder Ranch? (Defensive Handgun course ) I had the pleasure of going out 3 or 4 years ago,and learned more from that course then i had learned from any formal training i had up to that point. ( sans Dads lessons, he made sure i could do a tactical reload before i was old enough to drive a car.....lol )
And yes i took my SIG :aok
-
you talking about ratcheting a shotgun . No need when it's loaded and ready . You will not hear a sound from mine . I can even push the safety off without a sound . But like I said I shot trap for year's ..
-
Right on Flench, no point in having a defensive firearm without a round in the chamber, excellent point.
As for Thunder Ranch, my personal opinion is that is one of the top 3 organizations in the USA, arguably the best depending on what criteria you use to judge such operations. Clint Smith is one of the longest serving instructors in gunfighting in the world, and really cares about his customers. I'm glad you went there and learned what you did, make sure you practice what they taught you whenever you are able.
Btw, I think you are much much more likely to run into an attacker on drugs than wearing body armor. You don't have to empty your magazine, but shoot until he is no longer a threat, then reload.
Rgr that my brother, and that was exactly what I was getting at, I wasn't saying that you would have a combination of the two, it's just likely going to be one of 3 things if you have a target that won't go down - you're missing, he's got armour on, or is really hopped up on life/meth/allah/whatever...
Wouldn't you want to damage the attacker's CNS though? You are firing shots to stop the attacker as quickly as possible, damaging the CNS is going to be the fastest way to do that.
Precisely correct, and that was the point I was moving towards. We teach the basic Time-Distance-Cover circular equation way of thinking about a gunfight, as all 3 things relate to one another simultaneously. If you have only one attacker, then you have more time than if you had more than one you see, etc...
Given that you have said time, you always try to place your shots exactly into the CNS cone of vulnerability, which is an target shaped like a large circular dowel, that starts where the spinal cord begins and goes up to the center of the head where it connects with the brainstem. It's about 4 to 6" in diameter and has nice things like the spinal cord, heart, lungs, liver, and MU where the brain and spinal cord meet, directly behind the split in the top lip on most people when facing them headon. The more rapidly you can place multiple shots into this cone, the more likely your target will not be bothering you anymore.
-
As to Flench...
Tactically your correct...if a round is chambered as it should be...cyclic is not necessary...
However strategically, cycling the action, if prudent given the circumstances to 'warn off' a predator makes perfect sense...
Everyone who owns a weapon for self defense must be aware of the massive legal minefield you will be forced to negotiate, both criminal and civil...if you live in an unfriendly jurisdiction you will face criminal charges...on top of that you will get "wrongful" death civil suits...and if your really unlucky you will get Federal Civil Rights suits brought on you...
Think again....
If your shotgun has an extended mag...which it should...dropping a single round with a cyclic is very prudent strategically...and will have no outcome on the engagement if the rubber meets the road...
I believe that any and all methods should be employed to avoid the use of deadly force...if you can simply cycle a slide gun and avoid a confrontation...without compromising your safety....DO IT
Think of the bigger picture guys....
Out
Oneway
-
My 2 cents...
Like Larry said, shoot to kill. If you just wound, more things can be turned against you in court of law.
Look at it this way...if a guy breaks into your house and has a weapon, you shoot & kill him, and go to court about it, it's going to be your word against his...and he doesn't have a word.
-
Just like what my 2x3 poster say's I have at the end of my drive . I live in the stick's btw .
Trespasser will be shot
and
survivors will be re-shot .
-
As a Law Enforcement Officier and over 10 years of road experience were taught this:
1. You are allowed to use 1 step up of force then your opponent is using against you
2. If your opponent is using deadly force against you, you can also use deadly force, shoot to neutralize your target.
Whether that means he's dead or he's not posing a deadly threat anymore
On the range we practice 2 center mass 1 to the head.
Rule of Officers: we rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6
hind sight is 20/20 but when your in the situation decisions are made in split seconds, your training and judgement must take over and hopefully in the end you done the right thing.
-
Emptying a handgun into a perp. can land you a charge for "Mayhem".
Only if you killed him with the first round and the DA can prove you weren't in dire fear for your life...I was always told "if you're not on camera, it's a minimum of 2".
I believe that any and all methods should be employed to avoid the use of deadly force...if you can simply cycle a slide gun and avoid a confrontation...without compromising your safety....DO IT
Sorry Oneway, can't agree with you on that. I've lived and worked in areas where 12yr old kids carry 9mm pocket pistols. Just waving a gun around or "cycling a round" gets ammunition sent in your direction.
In a home invasion scenario, you are on the defensive with little to no time to react so every action has to count or you could be just another blurb on page 3 of the local newspaper. If you own a gun and have to use it to defend yourself in your home, there is no you should do this or you should have done that...shoot as many times as it takes to ensure there is no further threat to you and your family.
-
i have a 45 in the nightstand and my mossberg 0/0 leaning next to the bed, how they die depends on which one i get to first, i'm sorry but if i hear my door being kicked in or window beings smashed i can almost bet it's not santa coming for milk and cookies and who ever it may be is going to have a bad night if they make it thru it, my dogs will be the first warning you wont hear one from me