TexasCHLforum.com

snorri wrote:

Excaliber wrote:Taking a life sounds and feels much better on a diet of action movies, beer, and potato chips consumed on the couch in front of the flat screen than it does on a diet of doing it for real in filthy abandoned buildings or the deserts of foreign countries. My observation over the years is that eagerness to have this experience is the unmistakable mark of someone who never has.

Eagerness is one thing and I agree with you there. Willingness is another thing entirely. Anyone who owns a gun for self defense should be willing to shoot a goblin, or they should reconsider their choice of tools.

I also think some trainers do their students a disservice by overemphasizing the possible negative psychological effects of a critical incident (or whatever the buzz word is these days). It's one thing to make someone aware of possible effects, so they can cope (or seek help) if they occur. It's another thing entirely to condition someone to suffer all those symptoms.

I was fortunate, in some respects, to not know. After the adrenaline hangover, my reaction was more Cooper than Ayoob (although I had not met either back then). Colors were brighter. Food tasted better. Beer was colder and women warmer. I did have occasional nightmares later, but talking helped and they eventually stopped.

It's not something I'm eager to do again, but in my experience it's much better than being a victim.

I agree with you on the distinction between willingness and eagerness. Eagerness is unhealthy, willingness is not. Warriors generally regard someone who has taken life and is eager to do so again as in need of a checkup from the neckup.

I also agree that awareness of potential aftereffects is a good thing, but dwelling on them is not. They are by no means universal, just like the various altered states of consciousness during a high stress incident don't happen to everyone. The officers I worked with who had to take a life in the line of duty did not suffer any long term aftereffects from their very well justified actions, and neither do many others.

Your heightened experience of life after your incident is a common post incident effect as well, but a generally enjoyable and beneficial one. There are others too, including a strong urge to have sex shortly after the incident. These may be an instinctive drive to celebrate survival, and the celebration is well deserved.

xdfanatic wrote:Well some might say I was too scared to fire my weapon but in reality if you read the whole story you would see that I have fired a weapon before in actual combat/scenarios much worse. There was no fear of firing in me, just the idea that the threat might end before doing so; because in the civilian world you try not to kill someone by firing your weapon despite what you may have been told "if you shoot, shoot to kill." The idea is simply to use your weapon to stop the threat. PERIOD. If the attacker happens to die well so be it but, many people think that taking another mans life is no big deal but if you read into it many people when faced with a scenario like this who actually fire often loose their "lunch" or mess their trousers. Besides all that your facing all kinds of legal troubles to climb your way out of, and also the outcasted effect that Excalibur describes in previous posts. So to sum all of this up I am extremely glad that I had an alternative choice.

I know some people feel that carrying a CHL puts them in the executioners chair because they are the same people that would have shot the man as soon as they saw the weapon no questions asked. I am not saying that in this case you might not have been justified but you should remember I had a choice because I was situation-ally aware and used an assertive/defensive posture to defend myself in hopes not to fire my weapon. I also however understand that there are others that might not have seen the man coming in time to have that choice and would have had no other choice but to fire, I get that and that in my opinion would have been justified because that's really the meaning of self defense. I just don't get where some people think that it's their job to rid the world of bad guys.

I am not a LEO and in the business of catching criminals although I have a tremendous amount of respect for those individuals who are, because they make the choice to do the things that I don't such as chasing down a fleeing armed perpetrator.

Xdfanatic,

I understand what you're talking about here. Your instant recognition of the point in the encounter where the subject disappeared from your sight picture as an end to the threat and therefore an end to the need to fire is not what an observer would see - it's how it's experienced from behind the gun. I know because I've had that experience from that viewpoint, and stopped a trigger press in mid stroke when a threat stopped at the last possible millisecond. For a lot of folks (including me) who've been there multiple times, this is a moment of intensely focused awareness and calculation, matching planned and practiced responses to what's happening around you. Internally it feels emotionless as deeply ingrained decisions are made and actions taken. The experience of the emotional impact of what almost happened hits after the action is over.

You are right about those who are itching to shoot a bad guy and become fantasy heroes in their own minds don't have any clue of what such an act is like. Taking a life sounds and feels much better on a diet of action movies, beer, and potato chips consumed on the couch in front of the flat screen than it does on a diet of doing it for real in filthy abandoned buildings or the deserts of foreign countries. My observation over the years is that eagerness to have this experience is the unmistakable mark of someone who never has.

I don't say this to disparage our good Forum members who have expressed this viewpoint, but I feel obligated to say it clearly in the hope that they will think more deeply about some of the things they say and where their thoughts would take them if they turned those fantasies into reality. There's something to be learned from recognizing that the more experience one has on the battlefield, behind the badge and inside the crime scene tape, and in the ALS ambulance and the trauma room, the greater one's reluctance to use deadly force and the more intense the focus on a high level of competence with alternatives until all other options are exhausted.

That approach comes not from a lack of courage because these folks are the indisputedly proven bravest of the brave, but from the reality of what deadly combat and watching someone whose life you've ended going through the dying process (which is not nearly as quiet, clean, or neat as it is in the movies) is like. Folks who have done those things will do everything in their power to avoid having to do it again unless there's absolutely no other way to protect innocent life. I strongly recommend reading Col Dave Grossman's best selling and very readable "On Killing" for a deeper understanding of this issue.

You are absolutely correct that you had multiple options because you recognized the threat as early as you did, even though it was already very close at that point. The later a threat is recognized, the fewer the options remaining. You're also right that someone who saw it a couple of seconds later than you did might well not have any viable choices other than firing to stop it, and there would have been nothing wrong with that. If the attacker had been wounded or died as a result, it would have been a direct consequence of his decision to attack an innocent person with deadly force. Although he might not see it this way, he was extremely fortunate that he attacked you because your situational awareness, training, and tactical decision making literally saved his life.

glbedd53 wrote:That's what I was talkin about. He probably went straight to the next target. It's possible it would have been better to shoot him, good chance he won't live much longer anyway.

Let's think about that - better for whom?

If the intended victim had fired, his life would have been seriously disrupted, he would likely have at least some out of pocket legal expenses to deal with, and he would have faced major social impacts from what is known in some circles as the "Mark of Cain" effect. I haven't seen this discussed on this Forum, but it's an adverse reaction that some folks have to anyone who has killed another, regardless of how necessary and justified that action was. They regard that person as somehow dirty, different, not to be trusted, and potentially dangerous forever, and they emotionally isolate the individual. This can happen with spouses, relatives, and close friends as well as with strangers. It's not something to be brushed off, and it carries forward throughout life.

With the action that was actually taken in this case, the intended victim suffered neither the consequences of the attempted crime nor the consequences of killing in self defense. I can't see any case for believing that the circumstances the OP would now be in if he had pulled the trigger would be better than they are now.

The BG clearly would not be better off if the OP had fired either. I don't think that needs a whole lot of explanation.

Then there's society, which would theoretically be safer with one less bad guy in circulation to prey on victims. While no one wants more BG's creating more victims, it should be remembered that the law and most faith based religious belief systems condone deadly force when necessary to protect innocent life, but not for individuals to go beyond that and mete out punishment at their own initiative. This function is constitutionally reserved to the courts in our society, and ultimately to God.

Police officers have to come to grips with this early in their careers, and they will make scores if not hundreds of decisions guided by these principles. Non LEO citizens don't have any lesser obligations. They rapidly dive into deep legal, moral, and personal kimchee when they assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one.

I maintain my original position that the actions taken by the OP and the outcome are as close to ideal as we'll ever see. I also suggest that when we are confronted by evil, we act in strict accordance with the law and our faith and leave the killing part to God except when there's no other reasonable option for preserving innocent life.

xdfanatic wrote:Thank you Excalibur, your definitely right about the time line. The who incident lasted no longer than 4 seconds total but is ingrained in my head forever. From reading some of your other posts I believe that you may have also professionally been faced with similar shoot/no shoot decisions yourself. It is something that is hard to explain in words really and is hard to convey how that process works. I would bet that my verbal command took him by surprise and drawing my weapon is what made him realize that at that point he would be fighting for his life, something he was not prepared to do with a tire iron. I however was prepared to fight for my life using my handgun and anyone who has faced this matter really understands whether they fire or not. There are so many LEO that face this decision on a continuing basis and make the right call, which for them the decision comes without reward and I praise them for that. As we never hear of those encounters on the news, it's only the guys who make the "bad decisions."

Terryg I understood exactly what you were saying and was just clarifying, thanks for your insight. Frankly I am just glad the title didn't read "I was attacked with a tire iron and my wallet and vehicle were stolen."

As for the flashlight I honestly don't think it would have helped me in this situation, as Excalibur stated. I also don't think I would have ever reached the holster had I drawn a flashlight first. All that said I believe a good light works very well especially in a lot of HD (i.e. identifying friend or foe) situations.

Thanks again everyone, I am still a little shaken today but I am certainly glad I survived. I just hope the sheriffs have rounded these guys up and no one else has gotten hurt behind their madness.

Xdfanatic,

Yes, like any LEO (now retired), I have made more shoot / no shoot decisions than I could possibly count, and served as a post incident investigator for many more. That doesn't make me an ultimate authority, but it does give me some insight into the experience.

Your verbal command and body language should have been the BG's first clue that he was in trouble because people who aren't prepared to back it up rarely use this tactic, but he ignored it. He got the message when he saw the wrong end of your pistol aimed at things he wanted to keep unperforated with a guy who was very clearly willing and able to ruin his day behind it. His survival instincts and quick reactions served him well also and probably ended his victimization efforts for the evening, or at least until he could change underwear.

All in all, you achieved an ideal ending to what could easily have gone tragic had you not reacted as competently and quickly as you did.

lowonair wrote:This is a good reason to carry a light. He might not have gotten as close if you blinded him with 200 lumens. Glad your okay.

In the type of encounter Xdfanatic described, use of a light to manage the threat would almost certainly have ended with a critically wounded or dead victim and a bad guy who got away with a wallet, a gun, and a really nifty flashlight.

I've seen stories where it worked on certain animals that have very sensitive night vision and were temporarily blinded and deterred when hit with a high intensity light, but I don't buy the theoretical hype that a bright light will stop an armed and charging bad guy in his tracks. I and many of my colleagues carried and used SureFire lights on duty. I've never seen this result happen in the real world, and I've never seen a credible account of such a successful use elsewhere.

In my book this tactic is listed under "not recommended."

OldCurlyWolf wrote:Only one thing wrong. You let him get way too close with a weapon in his hand without firing. The second deputy was correct. Otherwise you did quite well and the outcome was very good.

OCW

What's missing is consideration of the very short initial distance when the threat first became visible and the time needed to assess and react to a rapidly closing threat. Recognition of the threat was immediate as he came into view from the concealment of another vehicle. The threat was rapidly closing as the OP closed his car door and positioned himself to take action. He assessed the threat as a deadly one, drew from concealment (about 2 seconds right there), took action to protect his head from a blow because he knew a handgun round might well not stop the threat from hitting him with the tire iron, and correctly made an extremely fast and difficult shoot / no shoot decision based on an instinct level recognition of a change in the threat's intent and tactics.

I would be surprised if the entire incident described took more than 4 - 5 seconds start to finish (XDfanatic - please correct me if I'm wrong on this). Time was used very efficiently here. Someone with less experience and practice and without a mentally stored reaction sequence would have been severely challenged to be able to react as effectively in the time frame available.

I can't agree that the OP let the assailant get too close. This wasn't a situation where he allowed anything. He was faced with a rapidly closing threat that didn't respond to a verbal command and he made his shoot / no shoot decision as soon as shooting became possible - when he had drawn the gun and aligned with the target. He had justification to fire earlier as soon as he saw the advancing subject with a tire iron, but his gun was still in his holster at that point. It took time to bring it into action.

When all is said and done, results are the most important criteria for judging action. In this case a deadly attack in progress was skillfully and successfully thwarted with no injury to either party, and no loss to the victim. That's as good an outcome as possible.

The actions taken here were as close to perfect as these things ever get, and the results speak for themselves.

Terrific situational awareness and reaction to a fast breaking threat with a well practiced and effective response.

Although you clearly had justification to use deadly force, I compliment you on your recognition that "it was over for him" and holding your fire because you knew it was no longer necessary.

This incident is another validation check for carrying 24/7 or guessing right.

As I'm sure you know, your after action jitters are from the so-called "adrenaline dump" which is a lot more complex than that name implies. I also suspect that at some point not long after you finished your post, your energy level crashed and you were able to sleep after all.