Nothing you can carry and shoot is going to instantly disable someone with a round to the leg.

Maybe, if you are talking about an artillery piece, but not a hand carried firearm.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Noted. But that's a legal distinction that has no bearing on the fact that a different approach might have yielded better results.

So you said, but how is your experience greater than mine in that respect? Have you actually witnessed men shot in the leg proceeding to stab their opponent to death? I seriously doubt anybody having just been shot in the leg would risk taking another bullet. Especially for a wallet...

Anyone who's trained is trained to shoot "double tap, center mass". It's how it's done. Intentionally shooting someone in the leg to stop them from being a threat goes against every bit of training I've ever received or heard of.

Remember, the use of deadly force is with the intent to stop someone. You're far more likely to stop them with two rounds to the chest...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I was a paramedic for over 15 years, Adrien. I've seen a man shot in the heart proceed to run ~75 yards.

And yes, I've seen a man shot in the leg proceed to stab someone.

I'm sorry, but your statements about someone being instantly stopped with a shot to the leg just do not at all coincide with what really happens.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Well, 15 years as a paramedic, you're bound to see at least six of everything.

Well, if you saw a man shot through the heart run 75 yards, we can agree that a double tap center mass is no guarantee, either. All you can hope for is that your assailant will change his mind, which he's more likely to do if he's not already dead...

GIGN goes for the arm holding the weapon, unless hostages are involved... Of course, they wear body armor.

I'm not disputing that, Steve. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that you're right about that. What I'm wondering is whether trying to deescalate the situation would actually lower your chances of surviving the encounter so much.

You're going to be hard-pressed to find the post where anyone said that it was a guarantee.

It is, however, far more likely that two .40 caliber rounds into the chest will stop someone faster than two rounds into the legs...

Sorry, but if I feel compelled to use my gun, then all the decision making on the assailant's part has been done...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

What's "GIGN"?

If I hadn't pulled my gun, I believe the situation would not have de-escalated the situation. My chances of survival would have been lower.

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here.

Had I tried to "de-escalate" the situation, I believe my chances of survival would've been reduced exponentially...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

French police.

Well, that's my point. It's all right for you to have beliefs, but for all I know you could be a raving lunatic, and your beliefs irrational in the extreme. Unless you're willing to discuss why you believe as you do, there's no way you can convince me, or anybody else, that you're right.

Well, maybe, but it could also enrage his friends and make them charge you, which they might not have done if their friend had not been so seriously injured. Also, you were lucky that this was deemed a legal shooting. It might not have been, had it occurred elsewhere in the US. Is it not possible that the slight additional increase in your personal risk might be worth it, to reduce the risk of being sent to prison?

What do you mean?

Oh.

It doesn't surprise me that they would go for the arm holding the weapon.

It's a stupid tactic, but it doesn't surprise me...

Do they seem extremely irrational to you? What's irrational about wanting to be able to defend oneself?

I believe as I do because four people could've taken my money without weapons. They had weapons, however, which would lead a rational person to conclude that they had to be willing to use them.

I honestly can't see how any other conclusion could be reached by a sane, intelligent person...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

One did charge. He was shot, as well. After the second assailant was hit, the other two took off.

Either way, they weren't going to stop approaching me, of that I'm sure...

Luck had absolutely nothing to do with it. I was licensed to carry a concealed weapon at the time...

I don't know where that place in the US would be. If it had happened in Missouri, and if I was licensed to carry in Missouri, the shooting would've been justified. Or in Vermont, or Texas, or North Carolina, or New York, or Arizona... shall I continue?

Can you tell me where in the United States such a shooting would've been deemed an illegal shooting? See, because I can't think of anywhere that it would be...

Again, being sent to prison was never a real possibility. I was perfectly justified in doing what I did.

But, no, anyone who intends me or my loved ones harm needs to be prepared to be defended against, and that defense will come in the form of something greater than the threat presented.

That's why you don't bring a knife to a gun fight...

When I've decided that no other action will protect me, I pull the trigger. If, the sudden thought of "I've changed my mind" thunders into the brain of my attacker once I've decided to pull the trigger, it's too late. The trigger is being pulled.

If someone stops advancing once I draw my gun, they probably won't be shot. If they continue to advance, they will be.

It really, really is that simple...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Yes - there are no guarantees with small arms.

I think we're talking about 2 different things here.

To me, deadly force is only legitimate if it is used because you must stop the other guy from doing what he is doing right now.

In which case, shooting him in the leg is folly. It's just not going to stop an ongoing violent attack.

Multiple rounds to the torso / head are far more likely to get that unpleasant job done.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

You consider 4 inches big?!?!?! umm...ok....

I call that kinda small, but hey, i guess they just grow em tiny in France...

Either way, thats kinda the point. A relatively small and easily concealable blade is extremely deadly. You were being foolish to suggest otherwise.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.