what are the steps to take after you fire and kill?

[WildBill]

We got our CHL's purely for self-defense purposes. We're adults and we know that shooting the worst of the bad guys is not going to be for free. The above having been said, I have learned more about our reponsibilities and liabilities of having a CHL and the law from this forum than our class ever started to touch on.

A former LEO told me that some LEOs, even the "macho" and "gung-ho" types, can have severe psychological problems after shooting and killing someone. Even if the shooting was necessary to prevent themselves from being killed.

[Oldgringo]

We got our CHL's purely for self-defense purposes. We're adults and we know that shooting the worst of the bad guys is not going to be for free. The above having been said, I have learned more about our reponsibilities and liabilities of having a CHL and the law from this forum than our class ever started to touch on.

A former LEO told me that some LEOs, even the "macho" and "gung-ho" types, can have severe psychological problems after shooting and killing someone. Even if the shooting was necessary to prevent themselves from being killed.

This may be true. Our neighbor was a DPS Trooper for 24 years and has been Cherokee County Sheriff for at least the past 16 years and hasn't fired his weapon but once in anger. That one time was at a fleeing escaped convict and he missed. He has never shot anyone in over three dozen years of being a LEO.

Shooting someone is a $eriou$ and a co$tly proposition...even if you're adjudged to be right. I think that I could handle the mental aspects of shooting somebody but I'm gonna' try really hard not to find out.

[El_Tortuga]

3 S's!

[srothstein]

A former LEO told me that some LEOs, even the "macho" and "gung-ho" types, can have severe psychological problems after shooting and killing someone. Even if the shooting was necessary to prevent themselves from being killed.

I know of one captain with more than 25 years on a department. Gung ho enough to still go out on calls. Went out with four other officers to serve a felony arrest warrant. They got into the hotel room with the wanted guy, who then drew a gun. Captain fired from a distance of across a room, along with other officers.

He retired from the department within a week because he never wanted to go through that again.

[Hos]

not so much into depth, the main focus was only draw with intent to shoot in kill if no other way is out. we didnt get into the after effects of a shooting, when the gun if fired

what about a justified shooting a man in the back who is robbing a store and you happen to be in the back, and he has a gun to the clerk?

The intent is NEVER to shoot and kill. If your instructor taught you that, I'd be concerned. The goal should be to STOP the threat.

This is a basic premise of self defense. If you are unsure of the law, maybe you should obtain some more training. IANAL

Like Beiruty above, some of the posts that have shown up of late cause me to question the level of training AND/OR if the post has been made prior to receiving any training OR are TROLLS?

A CHL is a serious committment to self-defense requiring mature judgement. It comes with serious responsibilites and accountabilities. It is not a Batman license.

While I understand it's a difficult decision and even more difficult to discuss in an open forum for various reasons, I appreciate the original poster asking the question for I too was told what Glock was told and come to this forum to learn since a one day course can only teach us the basics but not all that we need to carry out this big responsibility.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


Thanks to those who responded to a pretty good question with very good responses and ideas for continued training and not flames or jokes. There IS a lot to learn.