Anyone ever have to use their R9 for self defense?

[Carter]

The scenario you describe is exactly why I don't buy gas at conventional stations when possible. A filling station is one of the most vulnerable locations and not just in rough parts of town; I can remember many occasions when I have been approached by shady characters while filling my tank.

Exactly. My scenario was chosen only because it showed how different people might react and have different thresholds of "action".
The scenario itself is really pretty stupid because I doubt if ANYONE who carries and understands first that awareness is paramount would ever put themselves into that situation in the first place.
But there are plenty of legitimate situations where we could come up against something a bit vague, and that's the time that I am most concerned about.

I'm sure it's already been mentioned in this forum at some point, but I'll toss out a reminder that the book "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin DeBecker should be required reading for anyone who carries defensively.
Simply understanding what that book is about will almost guarantee that you will never allow yourself to be put in a situation where you have to use deadly force.
My (concealed carrier) wife thought that it was the most important thing that she, as a woman, had ever read about protecting yourself from predator harm (and I agree with her).

[Richard S]

Since this topic seems to have generated some significant and insightful participation, the following excerpt from the Conclusion of a article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz entitled, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, may be of interest:

[size=10]* * * While all the [reported] incidents involved a crime, and usually a fairly serious one, only 8% of the alleged gun defenders claimed to have shot their adversaries, and only 24% claim to have fired their gun. * * * [/size]

The entire article, for those with the time and inclination to read it, can be found at this link:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

[tracker]

There are a lot of good thoughts in the article. This is one at the end that is particularly significant:



Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year,[101] representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs. Therefore, the number of justifiable homicides cannot serve as even a rough index of life-saving gun uses. Since this comparison does not involve any measured benefit, it can shed no light on the benefits and costs of keeping guns in the home for protection.

[tracker]

Here is a situation at a gas station that started my thought process. I was sitting at home and heard a loud, distant shot. A woman and retired 65 year old school teacher, Helen Orman, was vacuuming her car at a station at Kirby and Bissonnet in Houston, a very busy corner in an upscale neighborhood. A man approached her as she was kneeling down and shot her point blank in the head at 1 p.m. or so. He was later caught and arrested as the result of an alert citizen who recognized his vehicle and recorded his plate number. He was buying ammo in a sporting goods store and recorded on camera.



http://www.lindale-tx.net/lamar56/classdir/hbeltonnewsclips.htm

[Richard S]

That is truly a tragic story!

There are altogether too many cowardly predator types out there just looking for victims of opportunity. I hope Texas justice placed that murderer on the "fast track" at the Walls Unit in Huntsville.

[the_skunk]

If you do need to use a gun  ..... then it better go "bang, bang, bang,"  ......when a gun goes "bang, click, click," then you know you are screwed.

I hear all day long about weight, caliber, recoil, hollow points vs FMJ, etc etc ...  But, get the gun out fast, don't shoot yourself, and don't buy a cheap jam-a-matic

[Big_John_1961]

I hope I never have to use my carry piece to defuse a social situation, but I will if necessary.  I do know that if one does pull one's piece, they'd better be prepared to use it, and their life in immenent danger.  Like someone said earlier, shoot a felon in the back and you'll be going to jail.

I'm always amused by threads I read on various firearm forums.  Choosing a carry firearm is always about caliber (okay) and long range threats (no so okay).  You shoot an attacker from a range not deemed to threatening to you or your family's person, you'd better hire a good attorney.

Massad Ayoob has interesting thoughts on the matter, and he confirms that simply presenting the weapon is enough to defuse most confrontations.

[Lchavezmisc]

Call 911 and your attorney.  I cannot stress enough the importance of your attorney. Find one now that believes in the right to defend yourself.
I had two attackers call 911 and to the cops, there lies where better than my truth. Many months of stress, court hearings, and 20k in fees the case was dismissed. (courts where pushing for 5 years for me)
Attackers never showed up for the court hearings, and both had previous warrants for arrest. Even with this, because a fire arm was involved, the court wanted to continue.
I feel this was do to rookie officers, a lazy investigator, and prejudice prosecutor, therefore the importance of the attorney to protect your rights.

[flintsghost]

Call 911 and your attorney.  I cannot stress enough the importance of your attorney. Find one now that believes in the right to defend yourself.
I had two attackers call 911 and to the cops, there lies where better than my truth. Many months of stress, court hearings, and 20k in fees the case was dismissed. (courts where pushing for 5 years for me)
Attackers never showed up for the court hearings, and both had previous warrants for arrest. Even with this, because a fire arm was involved, the court wanted to continue.
I feel this was do to rookie officers, a lazy investigator, and prejudice prosecutor, therefore the importance of the attorney to protect your rights.

Sadly,  one never knows what you will get, when you or someone else calls the police.    Often, being right and doing everything just as you have been trained or taught to do it won't be sufficient to avoid the tangled legal system or the aftermath which could be years of civil action.   I knew people in my department who were scared to death they would be in a lawsuit over every small thing.   Others just blow it off.   But when it finally comes around everyone takes notice and it does have the effect of making some think when involved in a situation where they would be better off just to react.   In other words thinking at the wrong time can get you hurt badly or worse.    

Several things have been brought up in this very good discussion that people  should check on in their respective jurisdictions.   First, displaying or reaching for a handgun that can be seen, can be considered to be "brandishing a firearm" is some but not all, states.   Second, pointing a firearm without sufficient cause, can be considered to be "Felony Menacing" in some but not all, states.  And third, you must be able to articulate verbally, what and why you perceived that your "life" or "the life of another" was in jeopardy when you presented the threat of deadly force.    You must be able to do that, not only to the satisfaction of the responding officer but also to those who review the case and the DA's representative who will ultimately decide whether legal action is appropriate.  The responding officer is not the last word on the subject whether he agrees or disagrees with you, "if" he does a full report.   "If" he doesn't do a full report because he agrees with you then the incident will be concluded unless the alledged victim seeks civil damages as a result of distress caused by the threat.   Do not for a minute think that there aren't people who won't resort to that kind of thing or attorneys who wouldn't encourage it.   Both exist.

With regard to using deadly force on a fleeing felon or threat that is running from the sight of your weapon...keep this in mind.   Law Enforcement Officers are trained almost universally, though in some states the laws may differ,  that they may not shoot a fleeing felon with one major exception.
That is that the officer reasonably believes that the danger to the public at large would be so great in terms of threat to life that they must prevent the escape in order to prevent further loss of life.   The verbal articulation that would go along with that would have to be exceptional and also supported by some facts in criminal history etc, that civilians wouldn't know or have access to in most cases.  

[JR956678]

Call 911 and your attorney.

I know of at least one attorney well versed in firearms related cases and laws who advises reversing that order.

His rationale is that anything you say on a 911 call is admissible evidence that can and will be used against you if you make the call. He argues that there's a lot of reasons that can be used in your defense for not making that call - you might be afraid of other threats in the immediate area and decide that retreat - actually leaving the area - is the safest course of action to protect yourself and family. Once a 911 call has been made you've given up at least some portion of your 5th amendment rights and he would rather argue why you didn't make the call than argue against possibly incriminating evidence given up as a result of a call.

One LEO who conducted a training class I attended suggested a 911 call that might go something like:

"This is [my name] and I'd like to report an attempted armed robbery. Shots were fired and an ambulance is needed at [my location]" and nothing more. Of course the scenario being discussed was one in which you - the caller - were defending yourself against the attempted armed robbery and you were the one who fired the shots and the ambulance was for your attacker - but none of this was part of the 911 call so while still admissible, you've not implicated yourself in anything more than making a call.

That same LEO also advised having a discussion with an attorney ahead of time so that you have advice and a plan in case the unthinkable happens. Even if that attorney wasn't one who might actually defend you on specific charges he could advise you on how best to avoid making any statement that ends up incriminating you and requiring you to refute that statement.

[Lchavezmisc]

Flintsghost: very well written and informative.


JR: I stand corrected, great advise.  

[flintsghost]

I know of at least one attorney well versed in firearms related cases and laws who advises reversing that order.

His rationale is that anything you say on a 911 call is admissible evidence that can and will be used against you if you make the call. He argues that there's a lot of reasons that can be used in your defense for not making that call - you might be afraid of other threats in the immediate area and decide that retreat - actually leaving the area - is the safest course of action to protect yourself and family. Once a 911 call has been made you've given up at least some portion of your 5th amendment rights and he would rather argue why you didn't make the call than argue against possibly incriminating evidence given up as a result of a call.

One LEO who conducted a training class I attended suggested a 911 call that might go something like:

"This is [my name] and I'd like to report an attempted armed robbery. Shots were fired and an ambulance is needed at [my location]" and nothing more. Of course the scenario being discussed was one in which you - the caller - were defending yourself against the attempted armed robbery and you were the one who fired the shots and the ambulance was for your attacker - but none of this was part of the 911 call so while still admissible, you've not implicated yourself in anything more than making a call.

That same LEO also advised having a discussion with an attorney ahead of time so that you have advise and a plan in case the unthinkable happens. Even if that attorney wasn't one who might actually defend you on specific charges he could advise you on how best to avoid making any statement that ends up incriminating you and requiring you to refute that statement.

I would refer everyone to two cases which illustrate the points about having and not having council.   One is the famous case of Mr Fish, who cooperated fully with the authorities at the scene and despite having NRA sponsored council at trial is now doing a long term incarceration for homicide.   The other is the Jon Benet Ramsey Homicide.   The Ramsey's attorney refused to allow them to answer any questions unless they were presented in writing prior to any interviews. They didn't cooperate verbally in any manner other than basic information.    Regardless of guilt or innocence of the parties involved or judgements about same...the fact is the Ramsey's did not one minute of time in a facility and  Fish is doing a long stretch.  

Possibly, justice was done in both cases.  Maybe not.  Lots of people have opinions on either side.   But the initial thoughts at each scene were that Fish was defending himself with a handgun and  based on the history of in family childrens deaths that the Ramseys were probably complicit in their daughters death.   In both cases the investigations and subsequent actions were based on what was learned through interviews or in the latter case not learned.

[Joe_from_NY]

Fish case was reversed:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/07/harold_fish_con.php

[flintsghost]

Fish case was reversed:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/07/harold_fish_con.php

Thanks for the info.  I did not follow the case after the original conviction.   Last I knew he was actually behind the wall doing hard time.  

[Joe_from_NY]

After reading the case details, and the original circumstances of the shooting, i am kind of undecided on where i stand on the case. i believe he should have least tried to run away first and put some distance between himself and the unarmed attacker. maybe even another warning shot, into the ground. then if you get cornered and the guy keeps coming, you might seem more justified. I dont know, i'm just glad it is not me.