From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Bad tactical position ( was Psychology in Defense)
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:15:53 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1992Nov16.212303.14944@news.acns.nwu.edu> mikea@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson) writes:

#viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

##	I remember a thing known as "Turkish Revenge."  Basically, if
##you shot somebody below the waist it wasn't considered attempted murder
##but only assault with a deadly weapon.  While I strongly discourage
##aiming for a knee or something like that, in these situations it might
##bear discussing whether a DA would consider it attempted murder or if
##it could be considered a method of stopping a perp and ending the threat.
##I assume you will need to prove that it was an intentional shot and not
##accidental, and the DA will try to smear you handily, but would it be an
##option that the jury would be sypathetic to?  There is the real question.

	[our humble Moderator convincts me while playing DA -- deleted]

#The one thing I've had drilled into me the most after basic firearms safety
#(treat all weapons as if they are loaded, don't put your finger on the
#trigger until you are ready to fire, never point one at something you are
#not willing to have dead) is that you shoot to STOP.  You shoot, hopefully
#at the center of mass, until the guy has STOPPED.

	That's the real question, isn't it.  I had the same training, and
yet I don't see how shooting to stop necessarially means shooting for center
mass given some very important considerations.  Let's take my grandfather,
for example.  He's just over 75 years old, rather frail, and can still
shoot the gnards off a gnat at 1000 meters.  Even with a 4" pistol he
consistently hits birds on wires at 60 feet.  I, certainly, will shoot
for center mass.  He can possibly afford to shoot to immobilize and stop,
whereas I shoot to stop in the hopes it doesn't kill.  The subtle
difference depends on the skill you have and what you're willing to do.

#I really don't think that shooting below the waist is a good idea unless
#that's your only good target.

	For me, that's true.  For others, in specific situations and
given certain skills, I have to wonder how the DA and jury might decide.

#My earlier point, about shooting if the guy refused commands, was based on
#the premise that I would be in immediate fear of my life.

	Same here.  However, the object is to shoot to stop.  Certainly
a shot to the thigh or knee is a shot that stops mobility.  My thought
is that, if you're afraid of his buddies jumping you, stopping him with
a shot to the thigh or knee is a stop but not a kill; the specific
circumstances here could throw the case either way depending on the
actions of the perp, the shooter, and the DA and jury opinions.

	I just wonder how my grandfather would be prosecuted.  In
conversation, he seems to not care.  Being over 75, he has stated that
he'll aim for vital areas -- he's too old to go to prison, and figures
he'd die before serving the time for unpaid parking tickets, let alone
murder charges.  Most of us don't have age as an advantage; we do have
skill to fall back upon.  The notes from our humble Moderator indicate
the DA would screw us all.  I'm still not so sure, given a decent
defense attorney.  This probably is a district-by-district consideration,
but perhaps we can learn what to look for in present case law?

	NOTE: I'm not advocating 'Turkish Revenge'; I trust that is
clear from my included text.  I am advocating stopping a threat.  In
the event a perp doesn't obey your commands and does as he damn well
pleases while you've a gun on him, you have time to aim.  What will
you do with that time and how will it affect your court case?  That
is what I'm after here.

	BTW: thanks to Our Humble Moderator for pointing out what
a DA is likely to do.  I seem to be guilty in this instance, but
I still wonder if my attorney couldn't counter this somehow?
	[MODERATOR:  Dan, *I* know you didn't advocate it, and *you*
	 know you didn't advocate it.  But we do not battle an honorable
	 enemy, and a skillful weave of words can indeed present the 
	 adversary with a powerful weapon.  Just provoking thought...]

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >