The instructor of the concealed carry class I took said that you only shoot at the threat until it is no longer a threat. Many of the training videos I have watched show individuals drawing their firearm as quickly as they can and then firing multiple shots as fast as they can at the target. A slick city lawyer would have a field day with someone pumping 10 rounds into someone when 1 or 2 rounds would have been sufficient. Whether on animals or humans, people always preach bullet placement as being the key. The old sheriff, Wyatt Earp, said to draw fast and aim slow (or something to that effect). I tend to agree.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stopping the threat
- Thread starter AL45
- Start date
The instructor of the concealed carry class I took said that you only shoot at the threat until it is no longer a threat.
He is correct.
Stopping the threat is the reason for carrying. Your instructor is correct. Draw fast, shoot fast and accurately is the recommendation of any credible instructor. I have never heard or seen any credible instructor recommend shooting an attacker 10 times though. If 1 or 2 shots stop the threat, great. Assuming that will do it might get you killed, especially if aiming slow is your plan.
darkroommike
New member
I have seen the same thing happen in videos of law enforcement and military engagements with the "bad guys"; shooting until the slide locks back. I suspect it has more to do with adrenaline than training.
Stopping the threat!
I have to basically agree with the instructors advice. If you must use deadly force, you'll always be better off only using that amount of force needed to stop the threat. While an initial shooting may be totally justified a person may end up in legal trouble by using excessive force.
Shooting till slide-lock or using excessive shots can also be a tectical error. A big one. Often predators hunt in pairs or packs. It's quite possible to run yourself dry, before the confrontation is over.
I have to basically agree with the instructors advice. If you must use deadly force, you'll always be better off only using that amount of force needed to stop the threat. While an initial shooting may be totally justified a person may end up in legal trouble by using excessive force.
Shooting till slide-lock or using excessive shots can also be a tectical error. A big one. Often predators hunt in pairs or packs. It's quite possible to run yourself dry, before the confrontation is over.
g.willikers
New member
So, how do you know when the threat is over?
Can the aggressor be all done and still standing?
Can the aggressor still be a threat after falling to the ground?
After two shots?
After lots more?
Are you going to err on the side of caution or give the aggressor the benefit of the doubt?
Can the aggressor be all done and still standing?
Can the aggressor still be a threat after falling to the ground?
After two shots?
After lots more?
Are you going to err on the side of caution or give the aggressor the benefit of the doubt?
G.Willikers
Ultimately, the DA or a jury will let you know if you guessed correctly.So, how do you know when the threat is over?
If you must use deadly force, you'll always be better off only using that amount of force needed to stop the threat
While this is true, be aware that YOU might not get to decide what is "sufficient" force. It might be a jury that decides that, one instructed by a prosecutor in his "version" of events.
This possibility is compounded by the current preference for high capacity semi autos, speed shooting, and the actually valid advice to "shoot until the threat ends".
Generally speaking, most people don't recognize the threat ending until the attacker falls, or runs away. Even with a "stopping" shot, it may take a couple of seconds for the attack to fall down, and while on their feel, they are still a possible threat, so you keep shooting.
A relatively skilled person can rip off up to a dozen shots from a 9mm in a couple of seconds, and relatively unskilled person can often manage half that in the same couple of seconds.
Which can lead you to having a prosecutor demand you explain to the jury that, since the ME testified the deceased was shot 10 times, and only two of the hits were incapacitating/fatal, WHY DID YOU SHOOT HIM 8 MORE TIMES!!!???
Go ahead, explain it...we're waiting....
(the only valid answer to this loaded question is "you shoot until you know the threat is over (immediate threat). A counter argument is to challenge the question, pointing out that you didn't shoot 8 more times, when you didn't NEED to, you shot until the threat ended. After all, how do you know it wasn't shots# 9 & 10 that were the ones that ended the threat??)
In the past, many taught the double-Tap, shooting twice, then assessing the threat to see if more shots were needed.
This has fallen out of favor, mostly because it decreases one's odds of surviving a gunfight. When you stop shooting to "assess" IF the threat is still there, you might be taken out.
All a matter of personal risk assessment, and the situation. If you've got a bunch of trophies from winning shooting matches, you're going to be looked at differently than someone who bought their only gun "for protection" last week.
It shouldn't matter, but it does.
Firing multiple shots as fast as they can is the 'Spray and Pray' school of shooting. Practiced by police, regularly, up here. Shots tend to be sent all over creation, endangering by-standers near and far.
"...more to do with adrenaline than training..." Mostly a lack of training. Somewhat typical of the un or under trained. Primarily a reaction to fear.
"...someone pumping 10 rounds into someone when..." Toronto Cop was just convicted of 'attempted murder' for doing just that. Shot some knife wielding kid several times for no apparent reason. Then they let the copper out on bail while his appeal is heard.
"...more to do with adrenaline than training..." Mostly a lack of training. Somewhat typical of the un or under trained. Primarily a reaction to fear.
"...someone pumping 10 rounds into someone when..." Toronto Cop was just convicted of 'attempted murder' for doing just that. Shot some knife wielding kid several times for no apparent reason. Then they let the copper out on bail while his appeal is heard.
T.O'Heir noted:
Unfortunately, that's a problem in many (typically larger, Northeastern) PD's in the US. Their departments don't have the funding to get officers to fire monthly, and the results, most often noted by NYPD, is to hit / kill more bystanders than bad guys.Firing multiple shots as fast as they can is the 'Spray and Pray' school of shooting. Practiced by police, regularly, up here. Shots tend to be sent all over creation, endangering by-standers near and far.
"Spray and pray" is as anti-gun as "assault rifle" or "gun violence" in my opinion. Shooting fast and accurately is not "spray and pray". Judging a cop for shooting a knife wielding kid for "no apparent reason" is a little disingenuous, don't you think? I grow weary of police being criticized every time shots are fired. Is a dead cop more acceptable than a dead felon?
OldMarksman
Staff
Not at all.Firing multiple shots as fast as they can is the 'Spray and Pray' school of shooting.
Maybe I'm off base here but. . .
Deadly force is deadly force. If the situation has not escalated to the point where deadly force is immediately necessary, don't shoot.
If it has, in the legal realm, the amount of times you fire your weapon in the time span that deadly force is immediately necessary theoretically should not be a major component. I'm not aware of any legal definition for "Really, REALLY deadly force". Obviously, it can be brought up or challenged in court, just like anything. But unless you continued shooting after the threat had clearly stopped (ie attacker falls to the ground, weapon tumbles away, etc) I don't think that will be anything other than a fact that the uneducated and inexperienced will try to exploit.
"Shooting the exact number of rounds it takes to stop the threat" is alot easier said than done. As is "shot placement" when you have never been in a gunfight before.
Train and train hard, but unless you are very familiar with the physiological effects of adrenaline and extreme stress on your body, you will more than likely experience an extreme decrease in performance compared to your normal range drills. There is no way to replicate the feeling of believing you might die in the next few seconds.
You may shoot an attacker once and his brain tells him it's time to cease the attack and fall down. But unfortunately that's not something we have the luxury of knowing, and until his body can catch up to those commands, we still have to perceive him as a threat.
I would recommend to anybody interested to study the cases of real life shootings where attackers were shot multiple times and remained a threat. It will add to your training and experience, which is something that can help you justify your actions if you every found yourself in court.
Deadly force is deadly force. If the situation has not escalated to the point where deadly force is immediately necessary, don't shoot.
If it has, in the legal realm, the amount of times you fire your weapon in the time span that deadly force is immediately necessary theoretically should not be a major component. I'm not aware of any legal definition for "Really, REALLY deadly force". Obviously, it can be brought up or challenged in court, just like anything. But unless you continued shooting after the threat had clearly stopped (ie attacker falls to the ground, weapon tumbles away, etc) I don't think that will be anything other than a fact that the uneducated and inexperienced will try to exploit.
"Shooting the exact number of rounds it takes to stop the threat" is alot easier said than done. As is "shot placement" when you have never been in a gunfight before.
Train and train hard, but unless you are very familiar with the physiological effects of adrenaline and extreme stress on your body, you will more than likely experience an extreme decrease in performance compared to your normal range drills. There is no way to replicate the feeling of believing you might die in the next few seconds.
You may shoot an attacker once and his brain tells him it's time to cease the attack and fall down. But unfortunately that's not something we have the luxury of knowing, and until his body can catch up to those commands, we still have to perceive him as a threat.
I would recommend to anybody interested to study the cases of real life shootings where attackers were shot multiple times and remained a threat. It will add to your training and experience, which is something that can help you justify your actions if you every found yourself in court.
A pause for the COZ
New member
I practice three shots then assess the situation. Why three? Seems reasonable.
I have never had to shoot at any one. ( thank God)
Certainly not an expert. But from the evidence that I have seen. Many times bad guys get shot with a pistol and they dont even know it until the action is over.
So for me that 1st chance to get three into center mass may be my only chance at a clear shot. The rest may be zipping and ducking and diving.
Almost all the video that I have seen that shows the event from beginning to end. Shows the confrontation. Then an explosion of action from all sides as people try to react to the action.
I feel you need to be at your most effective right away.
But there is a good reason cops shoot guys 10 times.
I have never had to shoot at any one. ( thank God)
Certainly not an expert. But from the evidence that I have seen. Many times bad guys get shot with a pistol and they dont even know it until the action is over.
So for me that 1st chance to get three into center mass may be my only chance at a clear shot. The rest may be zipping and ducking and diving.
Almost all the video that I have seen that shows the event from beginning to end. Shows the confrontation. Then an explosion of action from all sides as people try to react to the action.
I feel you need to be at your most effective right away.
But there is a good reason cops shoot guys 10 times.
Last edited:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
The problem is that one can not know what it's going to take to stop someone.
In the FBI Miami Shootout, the criminal Platt was effectively "killed" by the first bullet that hit him. It was a mortal wound. But he still managed to live long enough to survive several more wounds, to kill at least two FBI agents, and to wound a few more.
Then there was LAPD Officer Stacy Lim. She was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:
On the other hand, in a case in Virginia, a prosecutor's decision to file murder charges was based, at least in part, on the number of rounds fired. The person charged might be acquitted, but he's still going to need to spend time and money defending himself in court.
In the FBI Miami Shootout, the criminal Platt was effectively "killed" by the first bullet that hit him. It was a mortal wound. But he still managed to live long enough to survive several more wounds, to kill at least two FBI agents, and to wound a few more.
Then there was LAPD Officer Stacy Lim. She was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:
... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....
On the other hand, in a case in Virginia, a prosecutor's decision to file murder charges was based, at least in part, on the number of rounds fired. The person charged might be acquitted, but he's still going to need to spend time and money defending himself in court.
A pause for the COZ
New member
Yup Frank, thats why I have always been of the opinion. Dont pull a gun unless you have to because win or loose your life will not be the same after.
buckhorn_cortez
New member
You never know how many shots it will take -
In this domestic defense case, the defender fired 40 shots, and the wounded attacker finally committed suicide. From theadvocate.com:
Stephanie Averett heard him yell he was “bleeding out” and said Johnson told him they would get him help if he would stop shooting. But the gunfire resumed.
Eventually, deputies arriving on the scene directed Johnson and Stephanie Averett out through a window. By the time some of those deputies made it inside the house, Sidney Averett had shot himself and was pronounced dead at the scene. A semi-automatic handgun and a revolver were found near his body. Another bloody handgun was found in his car, the report states.
Investigators believe he fired about 20 rounds. Johnson shot 40 from his service pistol.