TASERS are not effective enough for self-defense against an armed opponent

me: "whether they represent a danger of grievous bodily harm or death to you or your family"
you: "forcible felonies"

You think you are trying to argue with me but you aren't. You are confirming what I said.

"A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

 

I take exception to the shoot first analogy, I can shoot first and justify it under numerous circumstances.

 

Are you saying that you carried illegally for years?

 

LOL I did!

 

Yes. So what?

 

You said: "Uhhh, no.
That got me shot during a home invasion.

No thanks."

Implying that shooting first and shooting to kill was the proper protocol.

If you never heard the term "shooting to stop" during all your training then you were not listening.

You *can* have an attorney present during questioning *IF* you retain enough presence of mind to ask for one. That's why the USCCA provides you a wallet card laying out *exactly* what you should say to law enforcement. It's designed to actually give it to law enforcement while you keep your mouth shut.

But lots of people have still been convicted of crimes by making utterances off the top of their head to law enforcement immediately after a shooting before asking for an attorney.

 

You gave Off the Cuff advice which I have never followed and likely never will.

When I have taught, it was always based on proper and approved procedure.
Howsoever, I will always take the high ground in any Personal Defense encounter as I always have, this has no bearing on what is acceptable to teach to students,
ie the State Penal code.

 

Where did I say that I would kill them no matter what? I'll give them a chance if they surrender to me. If it's dark, they are better off running. I won't take the chance that they are armed and I can't see their weapon. Don't forget that we are talking about the inside of MY house.

 

Some people need warning. You should post one..

 

No. You shoot center mass. There's a major difference between "I shot in self defense" and "I shot to kill" in the eyes of the court. Just because I shot center mass doesn't mean I wanted to kill the assailant. Shooting center mass is the fastest and most effective way to stop him under a high stress situation. A faster way is to shoot the hard but as anyone with any understanding of shooting while under stress, the head presents a small moving target.

 

Center mass also gives you the best chance of a hit; any hit is better than any miss.

 

I was taught centermass in LE training, however, we did various hostage scenarios, and I have trained people in various scenarios, it was expensive training due to the logistics was involved in such training.

 

I think some of the most eye-opening firearms training I ever received included force-on-force. It's very different standing on a square range banging away at a stationary target that simply turns away and engaging in an honest-to-goodness gunfight with a moving, thinking opponent. Okay, we were using Simunitions and it only hurt (a LOT) to get shot, but that negative reinforcement focuses one's attention quickly. It was amazing to me how effective tactical movement is when performed correctly, and how quickly you could ascertain whether what you were doing would help you survive in the real world. The highlight was engaging in a close range, running gun battle with three individuals (well, three individuals, two with guns and one with a "knife") and finishing the scenario with all three having solid center hits that were judged to be effective combat accuracy and me having suffered not a scratch.

 

Getting shot at adds a dimension. Short of actual combat, the more you practice in such exercises the better able you will remain steady of mind under fire and when flooded with adrenaline.

 

I don't think there is a police dept in this country that demands you use a taser against a suspect with a gun

 

Simunition has been a great improvement in training as have been MILO simulators.

 

I haven't seen many studies on standard police sidearms failing. I'm guessing almost all failures are caused by human error. The best modern handguns are almost foolproof:

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/defense-beretta-92/

Does that sound about right---that current police handguns might have failures to fire 2% of the time?

 

I remember the testing phase and how the Berettas had frame cracking and slide failures, I also remember hearing the NIB Berettas were tested against well worn badly maintained 1911's.

Truth is, a 1911 has a low parts count, the pre series 70 is my favorite incarnation and a very simple robust design, a clean trigger and very very reliable.

The Beretta has too many parts, and is a bit too big and heavy by comparison.

As far as failures of Police sidearms, I do not know any real figures, Revolvers seem to be very reliable giving decades of trouble free service with a rare parts failure or a squib load tying up the cylinder.

Autoloading pistols have a good record too, a rare ammo failure or parts breakage.

 

1911's have their thumb safety. For cops that fire their weapons few times a year, not good to have.

The .40 round is just plain better at stopping people and going thru doors and glass than .45's or 9 mm's.

My guess is that almost all Euro-cops that can carry a handgun use 9mm's.

 

Murphy is always with us. I've seen pistols fail due to lack of maintenance, bad ammo, and parts failures. I don't know if it's 2% but you can guarantee it's most likely to happen when you really need it not to....

 

A couple of years ago ATK came into our range and demonstrated and tested a lot of new ammo they were making especially for LE. Surprisingly they were making ammo do specifically penetrate 12-14" in gel tests with four layers of denim in front. They are realizing cities have budgets and if the switch was made from 40 to 9mm there would be a tremendous savings for the municipality.

We shot into gel, through windshield glass, and at various armor plates. They now have 9mm ammo that will stay right with 40cal and that gives the cops a higher round count per firearm. ATK amazed us with how far they have come with short barrel ammo for the 9mm and .380 which got nearly the same penetration and expansion. It all comes down the the makeup of the actual bullet which allows them to get the penetration/expansion they desire. Their .223 stuff was just your basic off the shelf 55gr varmint load with a tactical name added to the box.
To sum up, over time, they predicted the demise of the 40 in favor of a more refined 9mm round.
Oh, after seeing the testing of the lowly .380, I have new respect for that little Glock 42 as a BUG.

 

Tasering a perp is fine if there are several officers on the scene.

One officer alone would be ill advised to try this however.

I agree.

 

Normally an officer won't draw his weapon unless the perp he/she is trying to arrest becomes combative. And then only if that perp has a weapon of some kind or tries to take the officer's weapon. Most cops are big guys and good wrestlers, and they normally will wrestle a perp to the ground and then cuff him.

 

Truth. Frankly, officers should be given more incentives and opportunities to train/practice with their sidearms. Too many of them are nothing less than incompetent with them.

That's really not true anymore; not with the latest advancements in propellant and bullet technology. A lot of agencies have even gone so far as drop the .40 in favor of transitioning to the 9 as its newest loads are showing a street effectiveness the match of any other commercially available chambering. I spent years as a member of the "If it doesn't start with 4 it needs to end with magnum!" mindset, but I've actually become someone who carries a 9mm regularly.

Some carry 9mms; most street police carry either 9mm Short (called the .380 here) or the 7.65 mm (.32 ACP).

 

Normally cops are taught the one up principle. If the suspect only has his hands you can use the baton or capstun. If he has a knife you can use a gun. There are numerous exceptions to this but in general cops should not be INTENTIONALLY getting into wrestling matches with suspects if they are alone.