TexasCHLforum.com

casingpoint wrote:

I don't believe anyone can say, in this case anyway, that it would have been better to shoot. How would that have made the outcome of this case any better??? It could not have come out any better.

Because the outcome was undeterminable at the outset, the only sure way out was to shoot the carjacker. That course of action certainly cannot be considered better than the final outcome. But the latter did expose the victim to unnecessary risk, which could well have proved fatal. In which case, the shooting option would have been better. Now, ya'll excuse me, my Ninja has gotten loose from his cage and I gotta go find him before somebody in the hood calls the cops.

While I agree that using deadly force would have been a reasonable response, doing so would not have delivered a sure outcome of any kind. Most pistol wounds are not immediate fight stoppers unless there's either extraordinary skill or luck involved. An arms length gunfight between two opponents with drawn handguns, like a knife fight, often ends with no winners - just degrees of losers.

The individual in the situation made a judgment call based on his "feeling" of what was right - and everyone came out alive. The good guy went home to his family with no medical or legal issues pending, and the bad guys went to jail. It's really hard to argue that a tactic that delivered the best possible outcome wasn't a good choice, but it's also good to keep in mind that the solution chosen here was situation specific and not a new standard that would deliver equally favorable results if applied in all carjackings.

BrianSW99 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Excaliber wrote:I guess I'll just have to get used to clumsy language on this point unless someone can suggest a slicker way of talking about regular folks who aren't cops.

On Adam-12 they called them citizens.

That would solve the problem if it weren't for the fact that LEO's are citizens too.

I suppose we could start a whole new set of terminology for those with Level 1 arrest powers (citizens with the power to make a citizen's arrest) and Level 2 arrest powers (local LEO authority), and go up through levels 3 and 4 for state and federal jurisdiction.

(Sigh) It was so much easier when I could just call regular folks "civilians".

It was pointed out in another thread recently that the word civilian can be used to refer to non-leo's according to the dictionary definition. From the Webster's dictionary:

Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

Thanks, Brian.

I'll resume my use of "civilian" with the understanding on this forum that all such references are to be read under Webster's Dictionary definition 2 above.

WildBill wrote:

Excaliber wrote:I guess I'll just have to get used to clumsy language on this point unless someone can suggest a slicker way of talking about regular folks who aren't cops.

On Adam-12 they called them citizens.

That would solve the problem if it weren't for the fact that LEO's are citizens too.

I suppose we could start a whole new set of terminology for those with Level 1 arrest powers (citizens with the power to make a citizen's arrest) and Level 2 arrest powers (local LEO authority), and go up through levels 3 and 4 for state and federal jurisdiction.

(Sigh) It was so much easier when I could just call regular folks "civilians".

wheelgun1958 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:The only difference between an LEO command and a civilian one in this situation is verbal annunciation of the LEO's authority - e.g. "POLICE!" Obviously, a civilian leaves this part out of his planning.

If you are not in the military and subject to the UCMJ, you are a civilian. Recall the distinct effort of Ft Hood officials in their reporting that a civilian police officer stopped the attack.

I find using "non-LEO" cumbersome, so I took a linguistic short cut.

You are correct, though, and I am aware of the distinction.

I guess I'll just have to get used to clumsy language on this point unless someone can suggest a slicker way of talking about regular folks who aren't cops.

casingpoint wrote:Excalibur wrote:

In my opinion the best option would be a command: "Drop the gun - NOW!"

Agreed. But that's more for cops who have some training and experience along that line, not necessarily for others who are statutorily only empowered and taught primarily to use deadly force in self defense.

If you're alert and well trained

Most of us are probably deficient in both on a daily basis and will be lucky to pull a gun and get off a disabling shot, much less talk a perp down.

If you decide to use verbal tactics in a situation like that, you can't afford to be fuzzy. You need to tell the guy to do what you want him to do as clearly and with as few words as possible. A short, sharp command has the best chance of success. This has nothing to do with police authority or civilian status. The only difference between an LEO command and a civilian one in this situation is verbal annunciation of the LEO's authority - e.g. "POLICE!" Obviously, a civilian leaves this part out of his planning.

I agree that verbal tactics are not always (or even often) the best option for facing someone with a drawn firearm. The OP's friend felt he had more options and exercised them successfully, but that course of action was situation specific and may not be available next time.

KFP wrote:He was there, it was his decision to make and he got to go home without any physical harm.

As for the shoot, don't shoot discussion - we don't have all the facts, many of which would be difficult to explain. We all assess a person's body language everyday in order to determine threat level, mood, health, confidence, etc. I would guess that your friend's initial assessment of his body language played a major role in his decision not to fire at that time.

The guy pulling the gun to scare him out of the truck, then putting it down by his leg to hide the gun, is entirely different than the gun being held on him with his finger on the trigger.

Being able to shoot and needing to shoot are two separate issues. I give him an A+ for handling himself so well under such a high level of duress.

I agree.

While justification for use of deadly force clearly existed and the intended victim was equipped and prepared to use it, he believed he could end the threat without firing. He was right. It's hard to argue with success, but I also could not criticize him if he had brought his gun up and fired as soon as the muzzle aligned with the target.

My only Monday morning quarterback suggestion would be,if one is going to use verbal intervention at a time like this, to use wording that would move things in the right direction less conversationally. In my opinion the best option would be a command: "Drop the gun - NOW!"

There's an awful lot of subconscious analysis that goes into making these decisions in an actual situation, and it comes out as intuition. If you're alert and well trained, following that intuition is almost always the best course of action, and there usually isn't time to do anything else.

This brings up a logical follow on question - what do you do if you're not alert and well trained?

The reality is that you will very likely freeze in a crisis because you will have more problem and less plan than you can manage in the time available, and the outcome will be decided by the BG.

While you're thinking about if before it happens to you, I suggest making immediate plans to take advantage of the opportunity to fix those problems before they get you into something you're not yet prepared to get yourself out of.