Florida Sheriff: ‘If You Need to Shoot Somebody, Shoot ’em a Lot’

[joe817]

"Polk County, FL — County Sheriff Grady Judd is a peace officer who knows and appreciates the value of armed citizens. In this short video, he encourages people to get guns and become good at using them.

If you’re not afraid of a gun, get one. Become proficient. Get a concealed firearms license and carry it. And if you need to shoot somebody, shoot ’em a lot. He also notes that “the armed assailant doesn’t plan on you fighting back. He plans on having a gun, doing all the shooting, and you’re just the sitting duck.” Well the ducks need to shoot back.

https://www.alloutdoor.com/2019/07/01/f ... Newsletter

[Keith B]

I have to partially disagree. You should only shoot until the threat is stopped. Once they are no longer a threat, if you come back and shoot them to make sure they are REALLY stopped, you may face criminal charges. Just ask this Oklahoma pharmacist that did just that

https://kfor.com/2018/04/17/board-denie ... -sentence/

[joe817]

I have to partially disagree. You should only shoot until the threat is stopped. Once they are no longer a threat, if you come back and shoot them to make sure they are REALLY stopped, you may face criminal charges. Just ask this Oklahoma pharmacist that did just that

https://kfor.com/2018/04/17/board-denie ... -sentence/

And I remember that incident. He should have worded it differently.

[OneGun]

I have to partially disagree. You should only shoot until the threat is stopped. Once they are no longer a threat, if you come back and shoot them to make sure they are REALLY stopped, you may face criminal charges. Just ask this Oklahoma pharmacist that did just that

https://kfor.com/2018/04/17/board-denie ... -sentence/

I remember that incident and the trial. The pharmacist reloaded and returned to shoot the bad guy again after the bad guy was already incapacitated and not a threat. The pharmacist executed the bad guy after the bad guy was out cold. I do not think that is what the sheriff meant in the video.

[Keith B]

I have to partially disagree. You should only shoot until the threat is stopped. Once they are no longer a threat, if you come back and shoot them to make sure they are REALLY stopped, you may face criminal charges. Just ask this Oklahoma pharmacist that did just that

https://kfor.com/2018/04/17/board-denie ... -sentence/

I remember that incident and the trial. The pharmacist reloaded and returned to shoot the bad guy again after the bad guy was already incapacitated and not a threat. The pharmacist executed the bad guy after the bad guy was out cold. I do not think that is what the sheriff meant in the video.

I am sure that was not what he meant, but some people don't see anything but a literal interpretation of what is said. Shoot until the threat is eliminated, but stop shooting once it is. And make sure to try and distance yourself from the former threat during that time if possible.

The Oklahoma incident was a blatant execution of the subject because he came back and put another round into the guy when he was incapacitated on the ground. However, don't think for one minute a anti-carry prosecutor wouldn't try to prove you used excessive force when you shot someone, and that the additional rounds you put into them were unnecessary.

[narcissist]

This may be misinterpreted by people in a bad way. If you empty say 16 rounds into someone even though let's say there's video evidence of him attacking you with a knife. Even if you have stab wounds the D.A. will no matter what try his hardest for Death Penalty. Due to what's called "Over Kill". I say practice enough to shoot them two in the chest and then two in the head with proficinency, The threat should be eliminated at that point if for some strange reason not use the necessary force needed.

[Papa_Tiger]

This may be misinterpreted by people in a bad way. If you empty say 16 rounds into someone even though let's say there's video evidence of him attacking you with a knife. Even if you have stab wounds the D.A. will no matter what try his hardest for Death Penalty. Due to what's called "Over Kill". I say practice enough to shoot them two in the chest and then two in the head with proficinency, The threat should be eliminated at that point if for some strange reason not use the necessary force needed.

But shooting them in the head is cruel and unusual for a choir boy who is just turning his life around. It prevents open casket funerals for their friends and family members! Really, if you were that proficient, you should be able to stop them with a single shot. Anything more than that is "over kill".

[The Annoyed Man]

I have to partially disagree. You should only shoot until the threat is stopped. Once they are no longer a threat, if you come back and shoot them to make sure they are REALLY stopped, you may face criminal charges. Just ask this Oklahoma pharmacist that did just that

https://kfor.com/2018/04/17/board-denie ... -sentence/

Quoting the article:

“He’s always said, ‘Hey, I was just being robbed, I was defending everyone,” Prater said. “The fact is he was a victim in the beginning. When the robbery began, he had the right to shoot Antwun Parker in the head but, when Antwun Parker went down… still alive and unconscious on his back, he was no threat to anyone at all.”

According to Prater, Parker was shot once in the head before Ersland ran out of the store to chase the second teen suspect. He returned roughly 45 seconds later, grabbed another gun and shot Parker five more times.

That sounds a lot like an execution to me. Shoot him in the head once and put him down with one shot. Comes back in almost a minute later, and pumps five more rounds into an unconscious man—that’s an execution. I’d say that the sentence is correct.

THAT SAID..... I would not have the same opinion if he had fired all 6 shots in one fast string. In almost every police shooting video I’ve ever seen, the officer draws and fires a whole string of shots in quick succession before pausing to reassess. It’s the recognition that even with calibers beginning with "4", it can take multiple rounds to even slow down an attack, let alone stop it. Someone else posted a police body-cam video here just a couple of days ago, AMPLY demonstrating this. And MOST self defense shootings—both police and citizen shootings—do happen at pretty close range. Unless you’re good/lucky enough to put a first round into the attacker's melon, like this druggist did, one or two rounds into the attacker's COM may well be insufficient to stop the attack.

As far as I’m concerned, the attack hasn’t stopped until the attacker is either unwilling or unable to continue the attack, and is preferably down. If obtaining that result takes a mag dump from a 6+1 round G43, then so be it. The ethical burden is on the attacker. OTH, I would probably not need a mag dump with a 15+1 round G19....one of the clear advantages of a pistol with a larger capacity magazine.

But the interesting thing to me is whether an ambitious DA would draw a distinction between an emptied G43 and a half-empty G19. Roughly the same number of rounds fired, but a shooter with the half-empty G19 might be viewed as having exercised restraint, while the shooter who shot his G43 dry might be viewed as a homicidal maniac.

[ScottDLS]

If someone is stupid enough to interpret what the Sheriff said literally AND take unjustified action then they deserve to be prosecuted IF their misdirected action rises to a crime or negates their defense for shooting someone. The more we encourage officials like the Sheriff to dumb down their statements for the lowest common denominator, the more we feed the narrative that regular people can’t be trusted with their own protection. The proverbial “Florida Man” notwithstanding.

[The Annoyed Man]

Nobody can tell you what the right thing to do is until it happens, so just be flexible in your expectations/skills.

THIS!

[narcissist]

Really, if you were that proficient, you should be able to stop them with a single shot. Anything more than that is "over kill".

In a way I guess you could be right, wonder if you would only shoot someone only one time in a life threatening situation. I hear of cops shooting people a lot more then one time and my understanding is they are well trained and "proficient". There would at least be no proof of my training unlike the police so it could always be looked at a little different. Plus it really all depends how much money you have and how good of a attorney you can afford besides age, sex, evidence also your status in the county in which you reside---> to much to list. District Attorneys always want to try every trick in the book to get the highest conviction rate no matter what so its possible. Guess two in the chest and one in the head would be enough

[crazy2medic]

I imagine that if you attended this sheriff's class that would be a defense to prosecution, if the defense attorney brought the sheriff in and asked did you tell my client to shoot mr. BG alot, then that would make the prosecution's case a bit tougher
I read a case of an old man shooting a BG as he rolled down the stairs because he had attended a self defense class taught by Massad Ayoob, Mr. Ayoob taught his students to keep shooting until the threat stopped moving! The old man was acquitted, after Mr. Ayoob testified on his behalf!

[rotor]

Wish I was on the jury for the Oklahoma pharmacy case.