PDA

View Full Version : CCW - Contagious Fire / Mistaken Identity


djbooya
04-06-2009, 11:39 PM
If we became a shall issue state, disregarding training for a minute, do any of you worry about contagious fire or mistaken identity? Say this scenario brought up in another thread:

1) Shooting rampage starts in a mall.
2) First CCW carrier sees the bad guy and engages
3) Second CCW doesn't see bad guy, but sees first CCW shooting at someone
4) Second CCW engages 1st CCW
5) and then repeat steps 3 and 4 with additional CCWs
6) LEO shows up and then has no idea who the good or bad guys are

Does anyone worry about this? I was chatting with an LEO friend recently and this was brought up which I hadn't thought of much. In the Utah CCW class I took (which was a 4 hour lecture) there is rarely a time I would engage unless my immediate friends and family were in danger. In almost all other cases I'm told you are to

1) Run if possible -- Call for help and stay safe
2) Fight if you have to.. and only if you have to

Now this probably goes against what some of you believe is the "right" thing to do or dutiful thing to do, but it is actually covered as a responsibility of being a CCW holder.

Thoughts? -- and this topic isn't meant to start any flame wars on being a moral or immoral person.., but to really understand what thought has been placed to this..

creampuff
04-06-2009, 11:47 PM
Much much easier said than done..but I would hope (who knows what I would do in reality), that I would clearly identify who I am shooting at first before I fire.

If the subject is shooting at women and children and people who are fleeing, I can probably safely assume bad guy. Now if the subject is pointing a gun at another guy pointing a gun at women and children; then the enemy of my enemy is my friend :).

djbooya
04-07-2009, 12:10 AM
Much much easier said than done..but I would hope (who knows what I would do in reality), that I would clearly identify who I am shooting at first before I fire.

If the subject is shooting at women and children and people who are fleeing, I can probably safely assume bad guy. Now if the subject is pointing a gun at another guy pointing a gun at women and children; then the enemy of my enemy is my friend :).

I think a lot of us are thinking of pretty clear cut scenarios where we can see everything...I guess what I would worry about is if I'm 2nd CCW holder and you (not you specifically) are 3rd CCW shooter, and you see me shooting at "someone" but miss the guy holding the gun and see women and children fleeing from behind him (say he just took cover when you went to see what I was shooting at)...what would happen... that's a scenario I worry about now. Or you identify yourself and I say "shoot at him", but the bad guy says "shoot at him" while pointing at me..

DDT
04-07-2009, 12:15 AM
Proper shooting requires better target selection than you are suggesting. You cannot just open fire without trying to figure out who the good guys and bad guys are. Do you think that this is a major issue with non-uniformed LEOs? Are detectives regularly shot by uniformed cops?

tyrist
04-07-2009, 12:22 AM
Proper shooting requires better target selection than you are suggesting. You cannot just open fire without trying to figure out who the good guys and bad guys are. Do you think that this is a major issue with non-uniformed LEOs? Are detectives regularly shot by uniformed cops?

Happens more than you would think. Not so much to detectives but to plain clothes and under cover Officers.

CCWFacts
04-07-2009, 12:23 AM
There have been in other states cases of off-duty-cop-shoots-off-duty-cop. I've heard of more of those happening than CCWer-shoots-CCWer. I don't know the statistics but all of those types of scenario seem exceedingly rare, really freak occurrences. The behavior of a defensive shooter is so different from the behavior of a mass-murder-perpetrator that mistaking one for the other seems to almost "never" happen.

Here in CA, even if we were shall-issue, there would be very very few CCWers around. If more than one is in the same place at the same time, it's likely for a party!

creampuff
04-07-2009, 12:24 AM
From one my favorite movies - Shoot the hostages (this way I take them out of the picture) :).





While certainly this will not be quoted for heroism, in fact, the delay may even result in loss of life, but if I lived in a shall issue CCW state, I don't believe I would fire until I knew what situation I was in, and clearly identified the bad guy.

The flip side of the hypothetical scenario..after I shoot and kill what I perceived to be the bad guy would be a director yelling "Cut Cut!!!! who let this guy onto the scene?!!" - because my tunnel vision didn't allow me to notice the camera's and movie props. :)

djbooya
04-07-2009, 12:25 AM
Proper shooting requires better target selection than you are suggesting. You cannot just open fire without trying to figure out who the good guys and bad guys are. Do you think that this is a major issue with non-uniformed LEOs? Are detectives regularly shot by uniformed cops?

I agree with what you're saying, and my LEO friend actually said it has happened with non-uniformed LEOs...I can't say if it is a major issue (althought google fu shows "plain clothes officer shot" showing a number of results) because I don't know first hand, but I guess I'm throwing this out there because I'd worry if we were a straight up shall issue state (again training aside) that some yahoo isn't going to even know about target selection outside of .. "<grunt>. bad guy with gun, must shoot bad guy to help women and children.." and I'm not saying that's anyone in particular...just a generalization...

The question is how easy is it to decide who the good/bad guys are and what obligation do some people believe they have to engage merely because they have a CCW and are packing at the time. From some threads I've read some people feel a moral obligation to do something and may have an "ideal" scenario in mind which it is very clear... but (maybe) haven't thought too much about not so clear scenarios such as what I'm mentioning... any of the responsible CCW folks could be that responsible shooter, but I may be worried about the less responsible CCW holder that while may be perfectly legal to have a CCW ends up shooting me because of poor judgement / decision making at the time of stress.

saki302
04-07-2009, 2:59 AM
If a guy is holding a gun at low ready (over a downed shooter), or returning fire behind cover, he's probably the good guy.

If a guy is walking down the avenue firing at random, odds are he's a nut.

I'm more worried about NOT being able to CCW than the former. Either way, it would be prodent to get behind cover and make a good assessment before proceeding- finding cover is priority even if you plan to engage anyhow.

-Dave

leelaw
04-07-2009, 3:07 AM
Just start flashing your CCW badge - the cops will know immediately who the nutball is.

http://www.popguns.com/badge/badge%20images/nklandgoldstdsealmed.jpg

:D

nicki
04-07-2009, 3:08 AM
Most of us are not professionals like cops.

Even with a CCW, most of us should not be engaging targets at ranges of more than 5 to 7 yards.

That being said, if you do get a CCW permit, then you better train more than the short course to get the permit.

In hostile situations you will react or panic. If you train, you react. If you are untrained, you panic and that is what will get you into trouble because that is when you will do dumb things.

Sure I would like a CCW, but right now, I'm not up to the level of training I would like to be to be a regular carrier.

Nicki

MP301
04-07-2009, 4:04 AM
Sure, shooting the wrong person should be a concern. But you can "what if?" all day long. And its not like every 3rd person is going to be CCW anyway...look at the stats in the shall issue states.

And speaking of shall issue states, you dont hear a whole lot of CCW'er shoots CCW'er by mistake yada yada either.

The question of when and when not to shoot should not be that hard generally. If your carrying a gun then you should always be aware of your surroundings and in "condition yellow". That alone will enable you to tell the bad guy(s) from the rest of everyone else about 80% of the time.

YOU need to decide your line in the sand so to speak. In other words, will you use deadly force for just you and your family or for any human life?
Could you risk everything for a stranger or just watch them die?

I had a CCW instructer tell me that I should let the victim die...its not my problem. But he had nothing to say when I asked him if it were his daughter I was letting die, would he still feel that way?

I really feel that if more people took personal responsibility or ownership of their environment that all would be better and safer. I know that any place I am at, its a much safer place for everyone. I cant just watch and play victim like most people. I think I would lose too much sleep. Besides, I have lots and lots of training and it would be such a waste not to use it if needed...

Everyone is different I understand, but just remember....that guy you watched shoot the little girl behind the counter at the fast food place just might be the same guy carjacking, raping and killing your wife/daughter/mom/etc next week...

RomanDad
04-07-2009, 6:53 AM
Heres the deal....

Yes... I have a CCW. Yes I think about this stuff.... A LOT.


If I'm in a restaurant, mall, whatever, and shooting starts.... My first concern is my family. My second concern is my own safety.

I AM GOING TO GET UP, AND GET MY FAMILY MOVING AWAY FROM THE SOUND OF THE GUN FIRE AS FAST AS I CAN.... In that instance, UNLESS THE BAD GUY ENGAGES US, the gun wont even come out, because there is TOO Much chaos and an almost 100% chance that I WILL BE SHOT by first responders if I'm running with a gun in an active shooter situation.

If for some reason I CANT escape, Im going to hunker down with the best hard cover I can find. In this instance, YEAH... The gun comes out and hopefully gets held in such a way that it isnt seen by casual observers but that its ready to be used instantly. At this point, its in God's hands. If the bad guy makes the mistake of coming my way, he's done.

ONLY IF I OR MY LOVED ONES ARE IN IMMEDIATE DANGER WILL I FIRE THE GUN. THE REST OF YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN TILL THE COPS GET THERE. DONT LIKE IT??? TOO DAMNED BAD... GET YOUR OWN CCW.

Its not my job to run INTO harms way.... I have no interest in being a hero.

EVEN in an active shooter situation, the odds are on your side. TWO Columbine killers managed to kill only 13 people in a school of 2000. 99+% of the students were able to simply GET UP AND RUN AWAY to safety. THATS THE BEST TACTIC if one can safely do it. The CCW is for those times YOU CANT run away.

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 8:11 AM
"DONT LIKE IT??? TOO DAMNED BAD... GET YOUR OWN CCW."

Damn.....elitism is such a turn off! You say that like it's such and easy thing for most people in the f-ing state to do!

As to the OP.....I would say the best course of action in such a chaotic situation, if you were of the mind to engage the BG, would be to leave your weapon concealed until you were in close enough proximity to use it. I'm not sayin' wait till you're face-to-face with the shooter......but at least until you're in a close enough cover/concealment position to assess the situation and decide on a course of action and are in a position to act.

But I think all in all......such a situation is going to be extremely, extremely rare. Most times...it's gonna be a split second, in your face, no doubt about the immediate threat situation, you will draw and fire and it will be over in 2-3 seconds.

DDT
04-07-2009, 8:22 AM
the fact is that there are damn few shooting situations where a CCW is going to come running to the sounds of gunfire. Most often they will take cover and try to ensure their own safety and that of their family. If you have no choice and your routes of egress are blocked you are going to have to proactively protect yourself and your family. In these situations there is no doubt who the bad guy is. THE ONE PUTTING YOU IN HARMS WAY.

If you're the kind of idiot running to the scene so you can pop a bad guy then yes there is a chance for mis-identification. This is what cops are paid to do and that is why it SHOULD be a bigger issue for them than you and me.

vladbutsky
04-07-2009, 8:26 AM
The CCW is for those times YOU CANT run away.
+1

...and for times when I could run away (my family is safe), but I'm 110% sure who is the active shooter and I have a clear shot and I have a cover. I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I ran when I know I could help to save someone.
But don't confuse it with running towards gunshots to engage the shooter. It is really questionable if you will help or just add more chaos to the situation by confusing these who already engaging that shooter.

bigmike82
04-07-2009, 8:34 AM
"Most of us are not professionals like cops."
Just because cops work as cops doesn't mean they're more qualified than the rest of us to 'engage targets more than 5-7 yards out'. I'm willing to bet that most calgunners get to the range more than the average police officer.

This is not meant as a dig towards cops, btw. I'm simply saying that someone with a CCW isn't necessarily more unqualified to engage targets than a police officer.

For example, take a civilian who's been to Iraq, kicking down doors and engaging insurgents. Compare to an officer who's been working the beat in Newport Beach for 10 years and has never had to draw his weapon in anger.

Who's more qualified to take on an active shooter? :D

eltee
04-07-2009, 8:43 AM
Cops shooting cops (plainclothes, u/c, off duty, retired, secondary empl, other agencies, etc.) is common, so common, in fact, that in New York they instituted a "color of the day" protocol so that cops can do a quick, visual check of the "guy with a gun" who might be a colleague. Not foolproof, but better than nothing.

They teach at the academy to keep your gun down at low ready if the suspect is being held, or reholster if the threat is gone. With your off hand, keep your badge up high when the cavalry arrives. Holding it up makes it more readily visible than chained around your neck or clipped to your belt.

I'm friends with two CCW instructors in two different shall carry states. They've not indicated any problems with CCW vs. CCW confrontations (both thinking the other is a badguy) or LEO vs. CCW.

My instinct is to have folks reholster when it is safe to do so. If holding a suspect at bay, keep the gun pointed at the ground if the suspect remains compliant. The big issue would be a responder (CCW or LEO) seeing you pointing directly at the badguy whereas if your muzzle is simply down you are not viewed as someone about to do a guy in. A common problem with blue on blue (LEO vs. LEO) run ins is when the good guy looks shadier than the guy at gunpoint. Undercover narc type cop with beard and long hair and street clothes pointing a gun at cleancut guy in a suit who just robbed the bank or is a high roller drug dealer.

If there is a surge in CCW's in California, there will be a period of adjustment for the public, businesses, LEO's and the CCW holders. It will be a new phenomenon. Of course, violent crime may drop (i.e., Florida, Nev., Ariz) but there will be a learning curve and a period of adjustment. Hopefully the gun organizations and the law enforcement groups will work something out. As I see it, CCW's are for enabling law abiding folks to defend themselves or those in their immediate vicinity, not be make them first responders although the two disciplines will overlap. A CCW might be the only thing between an active shooter and victims, so the CCW holder might end up choosing to be the on-scene responder to neutralize the badguy but that would be a choice the CCW will have to make at the time.

My two cents.

JDoe
04-07-2009, 8:45 AM
At some point in time a CCW holder is going to get mistaken for the bad guy and shot dead just as plain clothes LEOs are sometimes mistaken for bad guys by other LEOs and shot dead.

Avoiding and escaping and fighting only if necessary are in general the best ideas however it just seems to be in the DNA of some people to run toward the gunfire and seek to engage the threat. That's just the way it is for some people.

My thoughts are that if you as a CCW holder have the training and the inner drive to engage the threat in a responsible manner and would not be irresponsible to others by engaging the threat then go for it.

How to identify the bad guy? Based on real world results it can be difficult or impossible. For every way I can think of to aid in identifying a bad guy I can think of why it wouldn't work 100% of the time. Killing or wounding a good guy or being killed or wounded by another good guy is just the price that some of us will pay should we decide to become involved.

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 8:49 AM
"Compare to an officer who's been working the beat in Newport Beach for 10 years and has never had to draw his weapon in anger."

COPs are allowed to draw their weapons in anger? :confused:

"I'm friend with two CCW instructors in two different shall carry states."

There are "shall carry" states? Can I move there? LOL

M. D. Van Norman
04-07-2009, 9:24 AM
I am far more worried about what will happen if I donít have a permission slip.

Frijolito1988
04-07-2009, 9:36 AM
Just start flashing your CCW badge - the cops will know immediately who the nutball is.

http://www.popguns.com/badge/badge%20images/nklandgoldstdsealmed.jpg

:D

I think this will be my approach If i 100% have to, backed to the wall, no way to escape bodily harm, then pull out handgun and maybe shout POLICE freeze, or put your hands up , that way the BG has two choices shoot, or run, if he muzzle sweeps me, im shooting first. My way of thinking of once shouting out POLICE or STOP, that will let LEO and good guys know , that you are on theyr side. Hope fully there wont be any reprocusion with me"impersonating a LEO"

EDIT

will only do this if we are with civilians only , no LEO, if LEO precense then no more than likely no need topull out handgun.

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 9:37 AM
I think this will be my approach If i 100% have to, backed to the wall, no way to escape bodily harm, then pull out handgun and maybe shout POLICE freeze, or put your hands up , that way the BG has two choices shoot, or run, if he muzzle sweeps me, im shooting first. My way of thinking of once shouting out POLICE or STOP, that will let LEO and good guys know , that you are on theyr side. Hope fully there wont be any reprocusion with me"impersonating a LEO"

EDIT

will only do this if we are with civilians only , no LEO, if LEO precense then no more than likely no need topull out handgun.

Good luck w/that......sounds like askin' for more trouble....at least the impersonating a LEO part, exactly the kinda thing that will give CCWers a bad name if they start runnin' around claming to be COPs

yellowfin
04-07-2009, 9:52 AM
Be more afraid of being hit by a falling piece of an airplane. Most of what I've read points to encounters being almost always too short to have 3rd party participants.

nhanson
04-07-2009, 9:55 AM
CCW is not about being a surrogate LEO. It's about personal protection. If you are lucky enough to have a CA CCW then I suggest you invest in some additional training especially in "Tactics". Not all situation are gun presentation events.....I recently was involved in such a situation in Las Vegas ( yes, I'm CCW legal there too). I made the decision to be the good witness after my wife was in a safe place and I had the engine of my 3/4 Chevy between myself and the activity....my .45 never left it's holster and the LEO on scene never new I had it! Concealed is concealed, your edge, your tactic, your supprise at that 7 meter mark where it is you or them!.......My reward, I get to go testify next month in Las Vegas.

Above all, if you CCW.....train....train and train with all aspects not just shooting! And yes CA needs to be SHALL issue.

Addition, I've done force on force and those that "casually" CCW froze up under training environments. They were no good to themselves or others. We did encounter the CCW on CCW in this training. If you have the appropriate training it becomes easy to deduce a BG. Unfortunately many LEO do not get this much training and are somewhat of the "cowboy".....I trained with them as well..........they shot the CCW help in the training exercise.....watch out!

Piper
04-07-2009, 10:01 AM
Here's the rule of thumb and ultimately the bottom line for me. When I was a cop and armed off duty, had a shooting occured, the first thing is to identify who the shooter is, that's number one. The next thing is to get to a position of cover where you can see what's behind said shooter to avoid hitting anyone else. After, and only after you have identified the shooter and you know that the shooter is placing another person or yourself in immediate danger, should you consider engaging the shooter. The other thing I think about is communications. Since everyone has a cell phone, there is no excuse to not be on the phone with the responding agency, and be a forward observer for responding units.

In the case of someone confronting you with a gun, the same rule of thumb applies. ID shooter, check behind shooter if possible, and engage only if in immediate danger. If you do that, you will come out on top physically and legally.

1911su16b870
04-07-2009, 11:06 AM
Here's the rule of thumb and ultimately the bottom line for me. When I was a cop and armed off duty, had a shooting occured, the first thing is to identify who the shooter is, that's number one. The next thing is to get to a position of cover where you can see what's behind said shooter to avoid hitting anyone else. After, and only after you have identified the shooter and you know that the shooter is placing another person or yourself in immediate danger, should you consider engaging the shooter. The other thing I think about is communications. Since everyone has a cell phone, there is no excuse to not be on the phone with the responding agency, and be a forward observer for responding units.

In the case of someone confronting you with a gun, the same rule of thumb applies. ID shooter, check behind shooter if possible, and engage only if in immediate danger. If you do that, you will come out on top physically and legally.

+1

In all other instances (CCW or off-duty) be a very observant, good witness!

djbooya
04-07-2009, 11:21 AM
CCW is not about being a surrogate LEO. It's about personal protection. If you are lucky enough to have a CA CCW then I suggest you invest in some additional training especially in "Tactics". Not all situation are gun presentation events.....I recently was involved in such a situation in Las Vegas ( yes, I'm CCW legal there too). I made the decision to be the good witness after my wife was in a safe place and I had the engine of my 3/4 Chevy between myself and the activity....my .45 never left it's holster and the LEO on scene never new I had it! Concealed is concealed, your edge, your tactic, your supprise at that 7 meter mark where it is you or them!.......My reward, I get to go testify next month in Las Vegas.

Above all, if you CCW.....train....train and train with all aspects not just shooting! And yes CA needs to be SHALL issue.

Addition, I've done force on force and those that "casually" CCW froze up under training environments. They were no good to themselves or others. We did encounter the CCW on CCW in this training. If you have the appropriate training it becomes easy to deduce a BG. Unfortunately many LEO do not get this much training and are somewhat of the "cowboy".....I trained with them as well..........they shot the CCW help in the training exercise.....watch out!

+1 to this. I think this is the mindset that all CCW holders should have. Regardless of the amount of "required" training needed to get the CCW. I think this would go a long way in ensuring that once we do become a shall issue state that it doesn't become a regrettable decision later.

KylaGWolf
04-07-2009, 11:23 AM
Roman your comment if I don't like it get my own ccw is almost laughable. I live in a county unless I am a small minority of the public ie very rich, have the right contacts AND very very lucky my chance of getting a CCW is NIL. Now that being said IF I had a CCW and i was in a situation of a shooting I would act if it were safe to do so.

Niki and MP both made a very valid point. One must have training to do. I also think that if you have the training your going to be less apt to go and shoot without looking at the situation at hand.

Bigmike um since when to cops just pull their guns in anger? If they did there would be a hell of a lot more police shootings than what there were. My grandfather was a cop. I was raised around them and NEVER ONCE did any of them pull their gun in anger. Hell we even lost one of our family friends to a shooting by two punk teens that stole a van and dad's gun. Now the officers that caught them were mad but not one of them shot the morons in question.

KylaGWolf
04-07-2009, 11:25 AM
"Originally Posted by Frijolito1988 I think this will be my approach If i 100% have to, backed to the wall, no way to escape bodily harm, then pull out handgun and maybe shout POLICE freeze, or put your hands up , that way the BG has two choices shoot, or run, if he muzzle sweeps me, im shooting first. My way of thinking of once shouting out POLICE or STOP, that will let LEO and good guys know , that you are on theyr side. Hope fully there wont be any reprocusion with me"impersonating a LEO"

EDIT

will only do this if we are with civilians only , no LEO, if LEO precense then no more than likely no need topull out handgun.

Good luck w/that......sounds like askin' for more trouble....at least the impersonating a LEO part, exactly the kinda thing that will give CCWers a bad name if they start runnin' around claming to be COPs

Untamed is right it gives us a bad name one TWO its a crime to say your a police officer when your not.

Asphodel
04-07-2009, 12:17 PM
Since we're theorising about hypothetical situations here, lets dissect Frijolito's comment a bit........it does have some potentially interesting aspects.

Yes, its a crime to 'impersonate a police officer'......but in a literally 'life or death' situation, that detail is rather petty, actually.

A more realistic question would be 'would shouting POLICE, FREEZE be likely to help, or to make the situation even worse?'

One possibility occurs to me. What if the shooter is a psychotic who is trying to kill at random, and believes that the man (this pre-supposes a man who has the general appearance of an off-duty or plain-clothes police officer......a demure 18 year old woman of secretarial appearance need not apply, nor would a 'senior citizen' of either sex) really is a police officer, who is expected to 'deal with the situation'.

In an ideal world, the bad man would indeed 'freeze', and could be ordered to drop his weapon......but isn't it more likely that the offender would be likely to immediately fire on the 'police officer', particularly if he is in a 'multiple murder, then suicide by cop' psychotic state?

If something like that were to happen, would not the person who shouted 'Police' have no choice but to do his best to kill the threat individual? I'd think this would come down to a matter of 'accuracy, and in micro-seconds' when the offender already has a weapon deployed.

This would be literally 'as serious as it gets', especially in a 'shopping-mall' or 'office building' situation with some number of innocent bye-standers, and wall surfaces which could cause ricochets.

If someone engaged a threat, and a ricochet killed or injured an innocent bye-stander, how would that be evaluated?

cheers

Carla

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 2:03 PM
"If someone engaged a threat, and a ricochet killed or injured an innocent bye-stander, how would that be evaluated?"


I would think if someone claimed to be a COP and wasn't and then the shooting went bad that person is going to be in a much less defensible situation in any legal proceeding that would follow. I can here all the "vigilante, wanna-be-cop" headlines now!

Who ever posted the original idea needs to burn that phrase out of their mind right now, because if it's in there now and he's willing to post it....guaranteed in a high stress situation that's gonna be the first thing that comes out his mouth. Someone has been watching to much TV.

djbooya
04-07-2009, 2:52 PM
A more realistic question would be 'would shouting POLICE, FREEZE be likely to help, or to make the situation even worse?'


Well I guess this comes back to how much training the CCW has had. What if the perp doesn't drop the gun but is just holding it in his hand. I for one do not have the desire nor ability to properly negotiate that situation. Maybe others do, but I'm really not sure what I'd say besides repeatedly telling the person to drop the weapon. What if they turn their back to me and then start running. Would I then chase them down? I don't know if I'd want to do that either. Basically what I'm getting at is there are a lot of "what ifs" and I think many folks that are pro CCW in these forums only imagine the ideal scenario where it is black and white and everyone can agree what to do. What I'm trying to get folks thinking about are a lot of these real world scenarios that can happen and how that may effect their feeling about CCW / shall issue / amount of training required, etc... I've read a lot of peoples posts about how they are hoping CCW will be shall issue and that very minimal training should be required (so that it isn't prohibitive). I'm not saying I know what is right / wrong, but I do think more thought needs to be placed into this by the active firearms community that we are so that these issues can be addressed when they inevidibly arise.

<snip>
If someone engaged a threat, and a ricochet killed or injured an innocent bye-stander, how would that be evaluated?

cheers

Carla

From what I understand about the Felony-Murder rule is that any death as a result of the criminals felony act falls on them regardless of circumstance. Then again it's been awhile since I've read about that.

RomanDad
04-07-2009, 2:58 PM
Roman your comment if I don't like it get my own ccw is almost laughable. I live in a county unless I am a small minority of the public ie very rich, have the right contacts AND very very lucky my chance of getting a CCW is NIL.

I really dont care if its laughable. And its in no way meant to be elitist. Many here can attest, on this particular issue, Ive worked as hard as almost anybody to see that California's CCW laws change for the better, despite the fact that I ALREADY HAVE ONE. I've done so WITHOUT remuneration for my efforts and without seeking a big pat on the back from anybody. I do it and have done it for the last 15 years or so, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THERE. I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO NEED A GUN, AND NOT HAVE ONE.

But if the **** hits the fan, bottom line- you're on your own. I've had my brush with death from the hands of criminals. I survived. Im not volunteering for a second tour to save some complete stranger who would probably flip me the bird on the freeway if they didnt like the way I was driving or roll their eyes at me if I took longer than my fair share of time at the bank teller.

ITS NOBODY ELSE'S DUTY TO SAVE YOUR *** BUT YOU. And if more people learned the real truth of that statement, maybe CCW reform would happen sooner in this state.

hvengel
04-07-2009, 6:23 PM
Well I guess this comes back to how much training the CCW has had. What if the perp doesn't drop the gun but is just holding it in his hand. I for one do not have the desire nor ability to properly negotiate that situation. Maybe others do, but I'm really not sure what I'd say besides repeatedly telling the person to drop the weapon. What if they turn their back to me and then start running. Would I then chase them down? I don't know if I'd want to do that either. Basically what I'm getting at is there are a lot of "what ifs" and I think many folks that are pro CCW in these forums only imagine the ideal scenario where it is black and white and everyone can agree what to do. What I'm trying to get folks thinking about are a lot of these real world scenarios that can happen and how that may effect their feeling about CCW / shall issue / amount of training required, etc... I've read a lot of peoples posts about how they are hoping CCW will be shall issue and that very minimal training should be required (so that it isn't prohibitive). I'm not saying I know what is right / wrong, but I do think more thought needs to be placed into this by the active firearms community that we are so that these issues can be addressed when they inevidibly arise.



From what I understand about the Felony-Murder rule is that any death as a result of the criminals felony act falls on them regardless of circumstance. Then again it's been awhile since I've read about that.

This is exactly correct. A few months ago I read the appeals ruling in a case where one of the victims was someone I went to high school with (we were on the football team, were in the band and graduated at the same year). A second victim was hit by a bullet that had passed through the intended victim and the perp was convicted of two counts of 2nd degree murder.

One of the points being argued was if perp was culpable for the second death to the same degree as that of the intended victim since he did not intend to hurt the second victim (IE. there was no malice toward the second victim). The ruling stated that it didn't matter what had caused the unintended victim's death or what the degree of malice was toward the unintended victim since the person who initiated the sequence of events was responsible to everything that happened and that the malice relative to the intended victim applied to all victims.

To quote the actual ruling (http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/567/767/194582/):

"6 Legal malice does not require ill will toward the victim. A crime may be murder although the person killed was not the one whom the accused intended to kill such as in the case where one shooting at another kills a bystander. Actual malice toward the unintended victim is not necessary. The intent is, in effect, transferred to the person whose death has been caused.

7 The result is that the slayer may be held guilty of murder, manslaughter, or excusable or justifiable homicide, according to the attendant circumstances. If the killing of the intended victim can be reduced by the circumstances to murder in the second degree, or to manslaughter in any of the degrees, then the unintended and accidental killing of the bystander resulting from any act designed to take effect upon the intended victim would likewise be reduced to the same grade of offense as would have followed the death of the victim intended to be killed."

The key part of this is "..or excusable or justifiable homicide, according to the attendant circumstances.." If a bystander is killed by a CCW engaging a perp on a murderous rampage and presumably the CCW was engaged in an act of self defense then for that person it is "excusable or justifiable homicide" but for the perp who was murdering people it would be considered criminal homicide to what ever degree fits with their malice that day relative to victims who the perp actually attacked even if none of them died.

By the way the intended victim in this case, William (Billy) Elk, was basically a good guy who would not have hurt anyone. He did have issues with alcohol however. The perp in this case argued self defense but this happened in a small town where everyone knew the intended victim and also knew he would not do something that would have justified being shot.

RomanDad
04-07-2009, 9:41 PM
From what I understand about the Felony-Murder rule is that any death as a result of the criminals felony act falls on them regardless of circumstance. Then again it's been awhile since I've read about that.


Yes.... Somebody goes in to rob a liquor store at gunpoint, I pull my CCW and Shoot at him. I miss. I hit the clerk and kill him, no doubt the robber can and will be charged with Felony Murder because he created the dangerous situation where death resulted.

****HOWEVER****

That has NO BEARING on whether I CAN ALSO FACE INDEPENDENT CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR MY ACTIONS (and reckless/negligent homicide, aka MANSLAUGHTER wouldn't be unheard of in that situation depending on a whole host of factors). And then there will be the civil suit from the clerk's family.... Which I will undoubtedly lose..

2009_gunner
04-07-2009, 10:17 PM
The officer sounds like he doesn't have much respect for regular civilians carrying guns, and is just spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt with this scenario.

There are 31 other states that are Shall-Issue and there are no chain reaction shooting sprees reported. This shows that CCW carriers are a responsible group and that people who can not handle that responsibility are not going to be the type to get the permit.

In a nutshell, those of us who want to protect ourselves, should be able to. It's not up to law enforcement to tell us we can't.

djbooya
04-07-2009, 10:23 PM
The officer sounds like he doesn't have much respect for regular civilians carrying guns, and is just spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt with this scenario.

There are 31 other states that are Shall-Issue and there are no chain reaction shooting sprees reported. This shows that CCW carriers are a responsible group and that people who can not handle that responsibility are not going to be the type to get the permit.

In a nutshell, those of us who want to protect ourselves, should be able to. It's not up to law enforcement to tell us we can't.

I wasn't posting this because I don't believe in CCWs. It had more to do with how people treat the right to carry. Your point is valid, about protecting ourselves. Some people feel with a CCW they would feel obligated to help protect others. The reason we may not see any issues in the other shall issue states may be because those same people with a CCW understand it isn't about anything more then protecting themselves and there immediate friends and family in the vicinity. I've just read many many forum threads here where those who don't currently have a CCW talk about how having one would help them stop all these tragic shootings such as the Oakland rampage from Mixon. I don't agree. Unless Mixon was putting my family and me in immediate danger, a responsible CCW carrier should be trained to not pull that weapon out. Just as a previous poster mentioned it isn't to for us civilians to be surrogate LEOs. My LEO friend feels the same. He's actually very pro-gun and is one of the most pro-gun / 2A in his dept. He just brought up some of these concerns when I was chatting with him the other day.

Piper
04-07-2009, 11:57 PM
"If someone engaged a threat, and a ricochet killed or injured an innocent bye-stander, how would that be evaluated?"

You're referring to transferred intent. I know that if the BG fires at police, and the police accidentally hit someone other than BG, BG is charged with committing murder or Great Bodily Injury to that person. I'm not sure if that works with private citizens defending themselves.


I would think if someone claimed to be a COP and wasn't and then the shooting went bad that person is going to be in a much less defensible situation in any legal proceeding that would follow. I can here all the "vigilante, wanna-be-cop" headlines now!

Who ever posted the original idea needs to burn that phrase out of their mind right now, because if it's in there now and he's willing to post it....guaranteed in a high stress situation that's gonna be the first thing that comes out his mouth. Someone has been watching to much TV.

Can we say 538(d) PC. I don't think that there are exceptions.

Meplat
04-08-2009, 9:44 PM
I'm not going to wade through all of this thread to see if someone else has brought it up, but after over ten years of having nearly 40 shall issue states, equaling over 100 state/years of modern American experience, can you point to even ONE instance of this happening? And if it ever had it would have been gleefully and obsessively covered for weeks in the MSM. So I doubt we missed it. I call FUD. I also call:willy_nilly:. You have a much greater chance of being struck by lightning than being shot by another CCW.

I do think it is good you are thinking about these things. And someday, if you stick around this forum, you will probably understand the flawed logic that brought you to this dilemma.

Cops make a lot more gun mistakes than civilians. It's not that they are stupider than civilians; it's their sense of entitlement to a monopoly on the use of force. Cops seem to think it is open season on anyone with a gun. They also have a natural "nobody can F with ME attitude. We can see how this could become awkward when two of them collide without benefit of uniforms.

Finally, I don't know who came up with the concept of only intervening when your family is threatened and not helping other obvious victims, but I ain't buying it. Just be sure you understand what is going on. Why would you ever even think of using deadly force if you are not sure of the situation, you don't shoot on speculation.:eek:


I agree with what you're saying, and my LEO friend actually said it has happened with non-uniformed LEOs...I can't say if it is a major issue (althought google fu shows "plain clothes officer shot" showing a number of results) because I don't know first hand, but I guess I'm throwing this out there because I'd worry if we were a straight up shall issue state (again training aside) that some yahoo isn't going to even know about target selection outside of .. "<grunt>. bad guy with gun, must shoot bad guy to help women and children.." and I'm not saying that's anyone in particular...just a generalization...

The question is how easy is it to decide who the good/bad guys are and what obligation do some people believe they have to engage merely because they have a CCW and are packing at the time. From some threads I've read some people feel a moral obligation to do something and may have an "ideal" scenario in mind which it is very clear... but (maybe) haven't thought too much about not so clear scenarios such as what I'm mentioning... any of the responsible CCW folks could be that responsible shooter, but I may be worried about the less responsible CCW holder that while may be perfectly legal to have a CCW ends up shooting me because of poor judgement / decision making at the time of stress.

Meplat
04-08-2009, 9:59 PM
Your statement is quite true for most who only want a gun for defense. Most Cops fall into that category. The belief that just because a person has a badge he is any good with, or even safe with a gun is folly. Many are, many are not. In the interest of self preservation I have to point out that my friends who are LEOs all fall into the first category.

I have a lifetime of shooting and training behind me. I know what I can do and what I can't. The best road is honest self evaluation, and staying within your limitations.:thumbsup:



Most of us are not professionals like cops.

Even with a CCW, most of us should not be engaging targets at ranges of more than 5 to 7 yards.

That being said, if you do get a CCW permit, then you better train more than the short course to get the permit.

In hostile situations you will react or panic. If you train, you react. If you are untrained, you panic and that is what will get you into trouble because that is when you will do dumb things.

Sure I would like a CCW, but right now, I'm not up to the level of training I would like to be to be a regular carrier.

Nicki

Meplat
04-08-2009, 10:22 PM
Bad idea. I will never (again) try to intimidate, stop, or frighten off a bad guy with my gun. No warning shouts or warning shots. If you are justified in drawing it you are justified in using it. If my gun comes out it goes off. The best case would be that the BG never even sees it until it goes off. Never try to control a situation' with a gun. It will get you killed.



I think this will be my approach If i 100% have to, backed to the wall, no way to escape bodily harm, then pull out handgun and maybe shout POLICE freeze, or put your hands up , that way the BG has two choices shoot, or run, if he muzzle sweeps me, im shooting first. My way of thinking of once shouting out POLICE or STOP, that will let LEO and good guys know , that you are on theyr side. Hope fully there wont be any reprocusion with me"impersonating a LEO"

EDIT

will only do this if we are with civilians only , no LEO, if LEO precense then no more than likely no need topull out handgun.

DDT
04-08-2009, 10:31 PM
Why would you ever even think of using deadly force if you are not sure of the situation, you don't shoot on speculation.:eek:

If more people followed this VERY BASIC rule we wouldn't have to wear a big orange vest to go hunting.

AndrewMendez
04-08-2009, 10:33 PM
If a crazy guy, has a gun, and spraying like crazy, and a CCW holder is hiding behind a wall, waiting for a good shot, your probably going to be able to tell the difference!

Meplat
04-08-2009, 10:43 PM
Yep. Learned that from granddad when I was four.:thumbsup:


If more people followed this VERY BASIC rule we wouldn't have to wear a big orange vest to go hunting.

Meplat
04-08-2009, 10:44 PM
If a crazy guy, has a gun, and spraying like crazy, and a CCW holder is hiding behind a wall, waiting for a good shot, your probably going to be able to tell the difference!

+1:thumbsup:

TheBundo
04-08-2009, 11:50 PM
Can we say 538(d) PC. I don't think that there are exceptions.

All those sections mention "fraudulently impersonating a peace officer". I doubt you would be charged for that if you said it for the noble purpose of getting a shooter to stop shooting, even if it's ill-advised for a number of reasons. The only "fraudulent" benefit you would possibly get is that he stops shooting and surrenders, a generally good thing. It's not like you're doing it to pick up chicks (if that even works) :43:

TheBundo
04-08-2009, 11:53 PM
Finally, I don't know who came up with the concept of only intervening when your family is threatened and not helping other obvious victims, but I ain't buying it. Just be sure you understand what is going on. Why would you ever even think of using deadly force if you are not sure of the situation, you don't shoot on speculation.:eek:

I agree, as that would make all the arguements about people going to college with CCW's a weak point, if they would only shoot if they were being shot at. "Well, officer, I didn't take him out because he was shooting at little Johnny 3 rows over"

djbooya
04-09-2009, 12:49 AM
Finally, I don't know who came up with the concept of only intervening when your family is threatened and not helping other obvious victims, but I ain't buying it. Just be sure you understand what is going on. Why would you ever even think of using deadly force if you are not sure of the situation, you don't shoot on speculation.

I agree, as that would make all the arguements about people going to college with CCW's a weak point, if they would only shoot if they were being shot at. "Well, officer, I didn't take him out because he was shooting at little Johnny 3 rows over"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_7_50/ai_n6038086/

This is a pro CCW article that mentions:


Some have suggested a person carrying a concealed firearm has a "chip
on his shoulder." The truth is carrying a concealed handgun gives the levelheaded citizen peace of mind in the knowledge he is able to defend himself and his family if absolutely necessary. If you know there's going to be a fight, leave. If you have a choice choose a weapon other than a handgun. If you have no other choice, no other way out, then draw smoothly and shoot carefully.

The liabilities of carrying concealed handguns are numerous. Right at the top of the dangers are the cases of mistaken identity. You know you are the good guy but others might not. The police even have a hard time with this and in places like New York City with so many agencies and so many cross over jurisdictions it is bound to happen, cops shoot cops. Not good, not bad, just real.


emphasis added by me... I encourage anyone that doesn't feel this is right to at a MINIMUM take the Utah CCW class... it'll only be 1 day of your life, cost you less then $200 depending who you use (I recomment Matt P who is here in the forums) and you'll learn something. One of them is what is repeated many times by myself and others. CCW is about protecting you and your family. College students that want to CCW should be doing it to protect themselves, not being a hero. I doubt those college students will bother to take any training other then the minimum to get the CCW. I doubt all of the college students that carry would bother going to the range to practice often enough either. Just my opinion though..

I think anyone that is remotely thinking they would get a California CCW when it becomes available SHOULD get a Utah CCW now. If you're committed to a CA CCW at least take the minimal training for a Utah CCW and then come back and tell everyone what you learn about the purpose of a CCW. Not what you want a CCW to be.

djbooya
04-09-2009, 1:09 AM
If a crazy guy, has a gun, and spraying like crazy, and a CCW holder is hiding behind a wall, waiting for a good shot, your probably going to be able to tell the difference!

Again, this is part of the point I was trying to make... I'm trying to get people to think about the not so obvious cases. You're right, this would be obvious. That isn't the point I was trying to make though.

Let's see think of this:

1) You hear a gun shot
2) You turn the corner and see a guy behind cover and someone else shooting at him.

Who's the good guy, who's the bad guy.

The fact is there are many cases (documented) where plain clothes cops are killed by uniforms. If that happens to cops who's to say it isn't going to happen to CCW holders as well? People argue it hasn't happened yet...

you know why? All of those CCW holders in the other states were not trying to save other people. They probably left, didn't try to play hero. They were not directly threatened, they knew what their responsibility was in being a CCW holder was. That's my feeling on why we don't see (currently) CCW holders being killed on accident. The reason I brought up my original post is that many people in the CG forums seem to think that a CCW would be great because many armed / good citizens would start to protect the weak / unarmed citizens because of what they feel is their moral / ethic responsibility regardless of what training they will eventually receive as to the purpose of a CCW. Reading that over and over is what prompted me to talk with my LEO friend and what prompted the post.

In any case, I think I've said my piece repeatedly so I probably won't post in this thread again. I think enough people have chimed in on both sides of the issue and if I can get at least a few people to think about the purpose of the CCW and their responsibility with it when they eventually get it then I'll be less worried about being gunned down if I was ever forced to defend myself because the yahoo (ill trained civ "moral hero" CCW holder) that shot me thinks he just helped the crook I just shot defending myself.

proudamerican831
04-09-2009, 1:53 AM
deleted

Mayhem
04-09-2009, 4:46 AM
All a CCW permit does is allow you the bearer the ability to legally carry a concealable weapon on your person concealed in public outside your home and off your property.

It does not change your right to self defense or right to project lethal force for self defense. It does however change your capacity to project lethal force for self defense.

That all being said you are under no obligation or expectation to protect anyone other then yourself or yours (Family Friends Company Ect) . So in the case of self defense you should have a reasonable real fear of great bodily harm or Death. Some one shooting at someone other then you or yours does not necessarily put you in immanent threat of great bodily harm or Death.

If you shoot the wrong person you will opening your self to prosecution and civil liability. Even if you do Get "the bad guy" I can almost guaranty your going to be open to a civil suite by the "The bad guy" or his family if the "bad guy' wasn't threatening you.

So until some one is shooting at you, pointing their weapon at your or at least in your general direction or presenting a real threat to you I would keep yourself in check and not point your weapon or shoot at the person you feel is the "Bad Guy" until you feel you are in real danger.

Scenario: You are shopping at your local mall. You hear shots ring out. You turn to see some guy in a 3 piece suite carrying a brief case running for his life shooting back at a some guy that looks like gnarley hippy looking guy shooting at him. Now in all honesty either guy could be the bad guy. The suite could be a jeweler trying to defend himself from a robber. The hippy could be an undercover narcotics officer trying to apprehend a drug dealer.
While no one would question you for capping some gang banger while he is executing school children on a street corner in this scenario if you draw your weapon and shoot either person you could be shooting the wrong person. and if you did actually guess right and shoot the bad guy there is a good chance he or his family is going to sue you because the bad guy never threatened you or yours.

So if California does become a Shall issue state (Not Very likely) the entire shootout scenario is avoided if every CCW permit holder remembers not to use lethal force until they or theirs is in real perceived fear of immanent threat of great body harm or death.

M. Sage
04-09-2009, 5:11 AM
I think this will be my approach If i 100% have to, backed to the wall, no way to escape bodily harm, then pull out handgun and maybe shout POLICE freeze, or put your hands up , that way the BG has two choices shoot, or run, if he muzzle sweeps me, im shooting first. My way of thinking of once shouting out POLICE or STOP, that will let LEO and good guys know , that you are on theyr side. Hope fully there wont be any reprocusion with me"impersonating a LEO"

EDIT

will only do this if we are with civilians only , no LEO, if LEO precense then no more than likely no need topull out handgun.

You would wait that long? If you wait until the muzzle swings your way, you waited too long. You shoot as soon as a BG does anything except leave you alone or surrender.

Untamed1972
04-09-2009, 9:28 AM
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the liability of a CCW shooter. A cop kills a gang banger, they don't sue the cops. If they do, the City or County pays legal fees and awards. You shoot a gang banger you are very likely to be sued by his family. If you miss the bad guy and shoot someone else, the liability could be worse than a law suit. Having a CCW doesn't make you an instant hero. A CCW is for your protection and your family, you are not obligated to save the world, in trying, you may end paying for the rest of your life. Obviously if your in a situation where your involvement could save lives, you would be less than human not to try. From the many stories I have read, most of the CCW victors were in one on one or two on one confrontations.


My greater concern is taking down a gangbanger would be retaliation against me and my family from his homies! :28::25: :helpsmilie:

Meplat
04-09-2009, 7:28 PM
I have a CA CCW already, thank you. And I don't need anyone to tell me why I carry a gun. :rolleyes:




http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_7_50/ai_n6038086/

This is a pro CCW article that mentions:



emphasis added by me... I encourage anyone that doesn't feel this is right to at a MINIMUM take the Utah CCW class... it'll only be 1 day of your life, cost you less then $200 depending who you use (I recomment Matt P who is here in the forums) and you'll learn something. One of them is what is repeated many times by myself and others. CCW is about protecting you and your family. College students that want to CCW should be doing it to protect themselves, not being a hero. I doubt those college students will bother to take any training other then the minimum to get the CCW. I doubt all of the college students that carry would bother going to the range to practice often enough either. Just my opinion though..

I think anyone that is remotely thinking they would get a California CCW when it becomes available SHOULD get a Utah CCW now. If you're committed to a CA CCW at least take the minimal training for a Utah CCW and then come back and tell everyone what you learn about the purpose of a CCW. Not what you want a CCW to be.

MontClaire
04-09-2009, 7:33 PM
Much much easier said than done..but I would hope (who knows what I would do in reality), that I would clearly identify who I am shooting at first before I fire.

If the subject is shooting at women and children and people who are fleeing, I can probably safely assume bad guy. Now if the subject is pointing a gun at another guy pointing a gun at women and children; then the enemy of my enemy is my friend :).

I agree here. I think if I see another CCW engaging, I'd assist, but I have to be able to identify the target. If it's not possible, then I'd help the innocents to get away to safe place, perhaps escort women, children and those who can't defend themselfes. I would not unholster my carry unless immediate threat is identified.

Meplat
04-09-2009, 7:54 PM
You are beginning to sound like a wannabe cop who thinks anyone else who wants to have a CCW is also a wannabe cop.

How many times do you have to be told "If you don't know, don't shoot". It ain't rocket science. Just because you are having so much trouble with this concept does not mean the rest of us do! No one is going to have a red strobe on his hat indicating he is a bad guy. If you doubt your ability to sort things out and take the appropriate path, perhaps you should not have a gun.







Again, this is part of the point I was trying to make... I'm trying to get people to think about the not so obvious cases. You're right, this would be obvious. That isn't the point I was trying to make though.

Let's see think of this:

1) You hear a gun shot
2) You turn the corner and see a guy behind cover and someone else shooting at him.

Who's the good guy, who's the bad guy.

The fact is there are many cases (documented) where plain clothes cops are killed by uniforms. If that happens to cops who's to say it isn't going to happen to CCW holders as well? People argue it hasn't happened yet...

you know why? All of those CCW holders in the other states were not trying to save other people. They probably left, didn't try to play hero. They were not directly threatened, they knew what their responsibility was in being a CCW holder was. That's my feeling on why we don't see (currently) CCW holders being killed on accident. The reason I brought up my original post is that many people in the CG forums seem to think that a CCW would be great because many armed / good citizens would start to protect the weak / unarmed citizens because of what they feel is their moral / ethic responsibility regardless of what training they will eventually receive as to the purpose of a CCW. Reading that over and over is what prompted me to talk with my LEO friend and what prompted the post.

In any case, I think I've said my piece repeatedly so I probably won't post in this thread again. I think enough people have chimed in on both sides of the issue and if I can get at least a few people to think about the purpose of the CCW and their responsibility with it when they eventually get it then I'll be less worried about being gunned down if I was ever forced to defend myself because the yahoo (ill trained civ "moral hero" CCW holder) that shot me thinks he just helped the crook I just shot defending myself.

Untamed1972
04-09-2009, 7:59 PM
You are beginning to sound like a wannabe cop who thinks anyone else who wants to have a CCW is also a wannabe cop.

How many times do you have to be told "If you don't know, don't shoot". It ain't rocket science. Just because you are having so much trouble with this concept does not mean the rest of us do! No one is going to have a red strobe on his hat indicating he is a bad guy. If you doubt your ability to sort things out and take the appropriate path, perhaps you should not have a gun.

It wold sure be nice if they did though. Maybe we could get out legislators to pass a law requiring all bad guys to wear a red strobe lite on their head. I mean why not....they pass all kinds of other laws that BGs don't pay attention too....why not that?

Meplat
04-09-2009, 8:02 PM
While liability is something all who go armed should consider, you don't see it addressed much because, quite frankly, it is small potatoes compared to the moral questions.:thumbsup:




One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the liability of a CCW shooter. A cop kills a gang banger, they don't sue the cops. If they do, the City or County pays legal fees and awards. You shoot a gang banger you are very likely to be sued by his family. If you miss the bad guy and shoot someone else, the liability could be worse than a law suit. Having a CCW doesn't make you an instant hero. A CCW is for your protection and your family, you are not obligated to save the world, in trying, you may end paying for the rest of your life. Obviously if your in a situation where your involvement could save lives, you would be less than human not to try. From the many stories I have read, most of the CCW victors were in one on one or two on one confrontations.

Meplat
04-09-2009, 8:10 PM
So, if Dr. Hupp had had her pistol she should have waited until the killer get to her and her family before taking him out?:TFH:


All a CCW permit does is allow you the bearer the ability to legally carry a concealable weapon on your person concealed in public outside your home and off your property.

It does not change your right to self defense or right to project lethal force for self defense. It does however change your capacity to project lethal force for self defense.

That all being said you are under no obligation or expectation to protect anyone other then yourself or yours (Family Friends Company Ect) . So in the case of self defense you should have a reasonable real fear of great bodily harm or Death. Some one shooting at someone other then you or yours does not necessarily put you in immanent threat of great bodily harm or Death.

If you shoot the wrong person you will opening your self to prosecution and civil liability. Even if you do Get "the bad guy" I can almost guaranty your going to be open to a civil suite by the "The bad guy" or his family if the "bad guy' wasn't threatening you.

So until some one is shooting at you, pointing their weapon at your or at least in your general direction or presenting a real threat to you I would keep yourself in check and not point your weapon or shoot at the person you feel is the "Bad Guy" until you feel you are in real danger.

Scenario: You are shopping at your local mall. You hear shots ring out. You turn to see some guy in a 3 piece suite carrying a brief case running for his life shooting back at a some guy that looks like gnarley hippy looking guy shooting at him. Now in all honesty either guy could be the bad guy. The suite could be a jeweler trying to defend himself from a robber. The hippy could be an undercover narcotics officer trying to apprehend a drug dealer.
While no one would question you for capping some gang banger while he is executing school children on a street corner in this scenario if you draw your weapon and shoot either person you could be shooting the wrong person. and if you did actually guess right and shoot the bad guy there is a good chance he or his family is going to sue you because the bad guy never threatened you or yours.

So if California does become a Shall issue state (Not Very likely) the entire shootout scenario is avoided if every CCW permit holder remembers not to use lethal force until they or theirs is in real perceived fear of immanent threat of great body harm or death.

Gunm
04-09-2009, 8:17 PM
Bad idea. I will never (again) try to intimidate, stop, or frighten off a bad guy with my gun. No warning shouts or warning shots. If you are justified in drawing it you are justified in using it. If my gun comes out it goes off. The best case would be that the BG never even sees it until it goes off. Never try to control a situation' with a gun. It will get you killed.
:iagree:

From http://www.mouseguns.com/tactics/seltac.htm

"As Tuco said in the film The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk." DON'T TALK TO THE BG. Don't say "stop or I'll shoot." Don't say, "Freeze." Don't say "Drop your weapon." Don't say anything at all, just shoot immediately and without any warning."


As for contagious shooting by CCW-holders, how many times has this happened? The media and the Brady campaign would be over such an incident like bees to honey (or some other colorful metaphor). Wikipedia does not cite a single instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_shooting

Meplat
04-09-2009, 8:18 PM
Ya. It might destract them from passing other laws that are not only useless but counter productive. It wold sure be nice if they did though. Maybe we could get out legislators to pass a law requiring all bad guys to wear a red strobe lite on their head. I mean why not....they pass all kinds of other laws that BGs don't pay attention too....why not that?

N6ATF
04-09-2009, 9:39 PM
Ya. It might destract them from passing other laws that are not only useless but counter productive.

Counterproductive implies they're trying to do a good thing but achieving the opposite of what they intend. Politicians do not get the ignorant defense that they could win Academy Awards for acting as such. Criminals back other criminals when the reward outweighs the risk. In their case, no real risk at all compared to what we have to face disarmed by criminals in power supporting other criminals.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-10-2009, 9:53 AM
I'm not going to wade through all of this thread to see if someone else has brought it up, but after over ten years of having nearly 40 shall issue states, equaling over 100 state/years of modern American experience, can you point to even ONE instance of this happening? And if it ever had it would have been gleefully and obsessively covered for weeks in the MSM. So I doubt we missed it. I call FUD. I also call:willy_nilly:. You have a much greater chance of being struck by lightning than being shot by another CCW.

I do think it is good you are thinking about these things. And someday, if you stick around this forum, you will probably understand the flawed logic that brought you to this dilemma.

Cops make a lot more gun mistakes than civilians. It's not that they are stupider than civilians; it's their sense of entitlement to a monopoly on the use of force. Cops seem to think it is open season on anyone with a gun. They also have a natural "nobody can F with ME attitude. We can see how this could become awkward when two of them collide without benefit of uniforms.

Finally, I don't know who came up with the concept of only intervening when your family is threatened and not helping other obvious victims, but I ain't buying it. Just be sure you understand what is going on. Why would you ever even think of using deadly force if you are not sure of the situation, you don't shoot on speculation.:eek:


Absolutely! This, along with everything else you've posted in the thread, is right on the money.

But to add just a bit (to counter what someone else said), there's no requirement under the law that a defensive shooting has to be done to save your own life. The legal requirement is a shooting is justified if done to preserve the life of yourself or others. If the BG's gun is pointed east & if you're to the west, you're good to shoot if there are others to the east. And tactically, you're better off because the BG won't see the shot coming to the back of his head.

Someone else mentioned lawsuits. Always a concern, I guess. But, one word: COUNTERSUIT. Along with that, sue their lawyer as well for Abuse of Process. Also, sue the estate of the BG for all the bad dreams & such you have to live with now. Sue his mom & dad for bringing a BG into the world in the first place. No reason at all that we can't use the same weapons as they do. The best defense is a good offense & there's no reason not to be as offensive as possible.

The Raisuli

djbooya
04-10-2009, 11:36 AM
You are beginning to sound like a wannabe cop who thinks anyone else who wants to have a CCW is also a wannabe cop.

How many times do you have to be told "If you don't know, don't shoot". It ain't rocket science. Just because you are having so much trouble with this concept does not mean the rest of us do! No one is going to have a red strobe on his hat indicating he is a bad guy. If you doubt your ability to sort things out and take the appropriate path, perhaps you should not have a gun.

I'm far from a wannabe cop. I'm a civ that doesn't want a wannabe cop shooting me. While you may be one of the guys that knows exactly what they would be doing, I'm not 100% convinced that should we become a shall issue state that 100% of the individuals obtaining a CCW would be in the same boat. I agree with the statement "if you don't know, don't shoot".. I never said I didn't agree with that (if I did quote me so I can correct myself). However, if you can't see that some CCW holders might get into trouble becuase they haven't put enough thought into it then you're just naive. And WTF does my ability to "sort things out and take the appropriate path" have ANYTHING to do with owning a firearm or even a CCW? I clearly would know if my life or family/friends was in danger and would be able to sort that out and take the appropriate path. There is no requirement for me to have to go save other people and have to worry about "sorting things out" there just because I have a CCW.

Untamed1972
04-10-2009, 12:02 PM
I think everyone gets what you're saying DJ......but if you look at the imperical data from all the other shall issue states I think it pretty clearly shows that your concern is of a miniscual, to point of almost non-existent part of the spectrum.

Mayhem
04-10-2009, 1:53 PM
So, if Dr. Hupp had had her pistol she should have waited until the killer get to her and her family before taking him out?:TFH:

It's a question of common sense. Some guy drives his vehicle into the peaceful little Cafe your in while your eating launch and starts systematically blasting people I don't think your going to have any doubts as to Who the bad guy is and Why you need to use lethal force on him. Remember I made the comment no one is going to question you for killing a gang banger who is executing school children on a street corner.

It's going to be far harder to know who's the good guy and who is the bad guy If you didn't see how it started such as you walking into it or it coming to you.

Let's just say Hubb and Others where armed at that cafe that day, but you another CCWer was in the rest room when it started and you run out to see people exchanging gun fire, Now its far more difficult for you to know immediately who the bad guy is.

Lets say your some where else like out back or in another building. You hear the crash and gunshots. You go see what all the commotion is about. Two people exit the building shooting at each other how do you know who is the good guy and who the bad guy is? You don't know either of them and you didn't see how the incident started. SO You don't know who the bad guy is.

Basically YOU BETTER BE SURE of Who your Aiming your weapon at and/or shooting at and WHY.

It's the not knowing Who and Why that gets people in trouble and causes contagion shootings in the first place.

Realistically a CCW class is going to cover all of this. So the likely hood of contagion fire is slim at worse most likely non existent in nearly all situations.

But then again California requires a hunter safety course for a hunting licenses yet every year we have accidents that where 100% preventable and should not have happened if the people involved where using common sense and safety.

If people have problems telling the difference between a deer and their kids then one can make the argument that the inability to tell the difference between the good guys and bad guys is far harder and therefore no one should get a CCW permit. I mean honestly If I was against "Shall Issue" I would probably use these threads and some of the "Shoot first ask questions later" post as evidence as to why California shouldn't be "Shall Issue".

All it's going to take to start a contagion fire is one person pointing their firearm at the wrong person for the wrong reason.

From a realistic stand point I'm going to use leathal force on the person or persons that are putting me and mine in threat of great bodily harm or death, SO if some CCWer doesn't know what he is doing and points his gun at me or mine He's a threat by his own stupid actions regardless of wither his intentions are good or bad, me personally, I'm not wait and pray he gets a clue before he gets an itch in his trigger finger. Saddly it can be avoided if the CCWer Doesn't point his weapon at some one not presenting a threat.

I know better then to point my weapon at some one I don't see as an immediate threat to me and mine and have no intentions of shooting just as I know better then to put my finger on the trigger before I intend to shoot.

I'm not sure how good the CCW courses are in California as I have been and probably always will be exempt from the requirement of taking the course for my CCW. I hope the courses run people threw realistic shoot/No shoot scenarios.

Lastly Your odds of being in the middle of a spree killing is about the same as winning the lottery, People DO WIN THE LOTTERY, But the way the media plays down these high profile nutjob spree killings You get the impression they are happening all the time everywhere and their not, They don't even cause a minor spike in the crime rate or homicide stats.

DDT
04-10-2009, 2:53 PM
Now its far more difficult for you to know immediately who the bad guy is.


Uh...... so don't fire immediately?

Take cover, assess the situation then try to escape or assist those in need. It ain't rocket science.