Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

[Chuck]

Just to warm up the debate (great taps joke, loved it..that's also a good cure for water on the brain):

I would suggest that a double tap to the head immediately is justified only after a controlled pair to the centre body....unless you are non civvie.....

From legal and justifiable viewpoint CPS/ Fiscal WOULD argue that you had decided to kill rather than stop the threat, hence shotS to head rather than body. Two to body followed by one or two to head is more likely to be justifiable as you TRIED to stop the threat with the first two but were scared for your life when those shots failed to get the attackers attention.

It's a minefield area at the best of times...but 2+1 is a lot easier to justify..and if the perp drops the weapon during the first two shots then you are hard pushed to justify further shots...

Would be great to hold a CCW / Personal defence class somewhere with Airsoft and blueguns and exchange ideas.......bet it would make a great day or two.

[Dougan]

As I've said before, guns don't figure in my home defence strategy...but speaking hypothetically.....

Having left my muffs off one ear in the range before - I would imagine that just the noise of a couple of well placed (to avoid ricoches) warning shots would see most burglers off. If not, does a shot have to be leathal? - one in the foot could be effective. I remember watching (online) a cop having a hand gun fight with a criminal across a car - dispite both being hit several times, it just went on and on...uncomfotable to watch - so I do realise that even central shots don't always stop someone..especially if they're on drugs. That known, I'm still not sure if I could shoot someone - so if a burgler was armed, and was still coming forward, dispite one in the foot/leg - I'd probably 'reverse' the gun, and use it as a club...

[Porcupine]

Would be great to hold a CCW / Personal defence class somewhere with Airsoft and blueguns and exchange ideas.......bet it would make a great day or two.

I have attended CCW classes in the USA but I was also lucky enough to attend a 'force on force' training weekend. It is as you describe - airsoft/paint guns and plastic knives etc used to play out endless scenarios. The difference between what you are taught in live firing on the range and what actually happens when these things play out is quite stark. You often never see your sights for one thing, rarely draw whilst standing square on to your attacker as you would train for at the range, and a lot more shooting is done one handed or on the move than you might imagine. Despite this, you rarely miss.

One instructor had a cute line: Amateurs train until they get it right, professionals train until they get it wrong. Most of the people there were not professionals but boy did a lot go wrong! It certainly irons out the many issues with people's training and systems - guns getting caught in holsters or on clothing, accidentally hitting mag releases, struggling with external safeties, and dumb decisions to all extremes. One guy, when held at gunpoint, cooperated with his attacker right up to lying down on the floor with his hands behind his back and being executed - never tried to resist! On the other hand, one guy being held at gunpoint simply tried to draw on his attacker to full extension as if he was doing a round of Police Pistol and got shot to pieces. Of course sometimes these scenarios can be like Kobayashi Maru (any Star Trek fans out there? :lol: ) - no-win situations. On the other hand, if someone puts a gun to your forehead you at least stand a fighting chance of surviving if you swipe the gun away and draw to shoot from the hip...

I think it also impressed upon people the advantages of having a continuum of force - often an encounter would begin with threatening behaviour (getting right up in your face, trash talking etc) or mild physical contact (pushing, shoving etc). And of course you can't shoot someone in the face for that - if the only tool in your toolbox is your gun then you can end up allowing your personal space to be compromised so that your gun becomes useless.

[Porcupine]

As I've said before, guns don't figure in my home defence strategy...but speaking hypothetically.....

Having left my muffs off one ear in the range before - I would imagine that just the noise of a couple of well placed (to avoid ricoches) warning shots would see most burglers off. If not, does a shot have to be leathal? - one in the foot could be effective. I remember watching (online) a cop having a hand gun fight with a criminal across a car - dispite both being hit several times, it just went on and on...uncomfotable to watch - so I do realise that even central shots don't always stop someone..especially if they're on drugs. That known, I'm still not sure if I could shoot someone - so if a burgler was armed, and was still coming forward, dispite one in the foot/leg - I'd probably 'reverse' the gun, and use it as a club...

I know of a case a few years ago in Manchester, New Hampshire, where a man fired a warning shot to scare off an intruder. The bullet hit a woman watering plants on her balcony, entered her heart, and killed her. He is now a guest of the state at one of their finest residential complexes...

Legally speaking, there is no such thing as a warning shot. It is lethal force so if you can justify a warning shot then you can justify shooting the bad guy in the face. If you can't justify shooting him in the face, then a warning shot may land you in jail. Legal issues aside, a warning s*** might scare off an attacker, or it might do what it says on the label: warn him as to your location and the fact you are armed, allowing him to do a better job of trying to kill you. It might seem funny to us that an intruder would stay and fight but that's because we're smart, mentally stable and not-on-heroin enough not to make a living by breaking into people's homes. There are some very stupid, very angry, very cruel, and very disturbed people out there. Some think they are invincible, some value their life less than you or I value a penny, some are desperate, and some just enjoy that sort of thing.

The reason one does not generally 'shoot to wound' is firstly because, legally, there is no differentiation. If you shoot someone in the little toe and you couldn't justify shooting them in the eye, you're in trouble. If you can justify shooting center of mass or in the head - why do anything else? Limbs are narrow and have a tendency to move quickly and unpredictably - this makes them difficult to hit. The reason most civilians, law enforcement and military units are trained to shoot center of mass is partly because this is where the major organs are, but also because it is the easiest way to score hits. A notable exception is the pelvis. More powerful defensive handgun catridges (.40/.45/.357/10mm etc) can shatter the pelvis which essentially imobilizes an attacker. The pelvis is a fairly large and stable target so it can be, at least in theory, a realistic choice if your attacker is armed with a knife or some such and is far enough away for you to make an aimed shot. If he has a gun however, immobilizing him is not enough.

Having played out these scenarios as I mentioned in my previous post however, I for one would never attempt a pelvis shot. When attackers are armed with knives, bats etc things are just too fast, frantic, hectic and at too close a range for you to select a target. They're moving, you're often moving, there's no time to shoot at anything more specific than a torso. When your attacker has a firearm and the scenario is something like a liquor store robbery that you get caught up in, then you can actually use your sights and aim - but in this case a pelvis shot is not appropriate since they can shoot back even if they can't run!

[Porcupine]

Interesting observation though: Despite nobody aiming for the limbs, a highly disproportionate number of shots hit people in the hands. The instructors said this is always the case - and it actually matches what you might think were urban myths circulated in Irish bars by drunk cops about how people are always getting shot in the hands. They speculated that it's because your eye is naturally drawn to your attacker's weapon - in his hands - and you shoot where you look.

[Sim G]

I've actually seen genuine West German police targets from just after WWII. They are "man shaped and sized" but have the scoring rings on the right knee. Obviously an attempt to make the "new" police all fluffy as the "old" police made such an effort in the Nazi cause.

If memory serves, they were dropped quite quickly as criminal were not incapacitated and bystanders were regularly hit by stray rounds and richocets.

[Sim G]

They speculated that it's because your eye is naturally drawn to your attacker's weapon - in his hands - and you shoot where you look.

Exactly. And the theory has been proven many times in actual shootings.

[swampy]

it takes 3000+ repetitions to make a fine motor skill happen almost automatically. when you have a mega dump of addrenaline running round it makes that really really dificult... thats why military training is drills.

as for wounding- well if you didn't need to kill them then you wouldn't be using a lethal weapon. don't go for legs or mobile arms and heads. Centre mass. Shoot until the threat is nuetralised (dead in our world)

[Dougan]

As I've said before, guns don't figure in my home defence strategy...but speaking hypothetically.....

Having left my muffs off one ear in the range before - I would imagine that just the noise of a couple of well placed (to avoid ricoches) warning shots would see most burglers off. If not, does a shot have to be leathal? - one in the foot could be effective. I remember watching (online) a cop having a hand gun fight with a criminal across a car - dispite both being hit several times, it just went on and on...uncomfotable to watch - so I do realise that even central shots don't always stop someone..especially if they're on drugs. That known, I'm still not sure if I could shoot someone - so if a burgler was armed, and was still coming forward, dispite one in the foot/leg - I'd probably 'reverse' the gun, and use it as a club...

I know of a case a few years ago in Manchester, New Hampshire, where a man fired a warning shot to scare off an intruder. The bullet hit a woman watering plants on her balcony, entered her heart, and killed her. He is now a guest of the state at one of their finest residential complexes...

Legally speaking, there is no such thing as a warning shot. It is lethal force so if you can justify a warning shot then you can justify shooting the bad guy in the face. If you can't justify shooting him in the face, then a warning shot may land you in jail. Legal issues aside, a warning s*** might scare off an attacker, or it might do what it says on the label: warn him as to your location and the fact you are armed, allowing him to do a better job of trying to kill you. It might seem funny to us that an intruder would stay and fight but that's because we're smart, mentally stable and not-on-heroin enough not to make a living by breaking into people's homes. There are some very stupid, very angry, very cruel, and very disturbed people out there. Some think they are invincible, some value their life less than you or I value a penny, some are desperate, and some just enjoy that sort of thing.

The reason one does not generally 'shoot to wound' is firstly because, legally, there is no differentiation. If you shoot someone in the little toe and you couldn't justify shooting them in the eye, you're in trouble. If you can justify shooting center of mass or in the head - why do anything else? Limbs are narrow and have a tendency to move quickly and unpredictably - this makes them difficult to hit. The reason most civilians, law enforcement and military units are trained to shoot center of mass is partly because this is where the major organs are, but also because it is the easiest way to score hits. A notable exception is the pelvis. More powerful defensive handgun catridges (.40/.45/.357/10mm etc) can shatter the pelvis which essentially imobilizes an attacker. The pelvis is a fairly large and stable target so it can be, at least in theory, a realistic choice if your attacker is armed with a knife or some such and is far enough away for you to make an aimed shot. If he has a gun however, immobilizing him is not enough.

Having played out these scenarios as I mentioned in my previous post however, I for one would never attempt a pelvis shot. When attackers are armed with knives, bats etc things are just too fast, frantic, hectic and at too close a range for you to select a target. They're moving, you're often moving, there's no time to shoot at anything more specific than a torso. When your attacker has a firearm and the scenario is something like a liquor store robbery that you get caught up in, then you can actually use your sights and aim - but in this case a pelvis shot is not appropriate since they can shoot back even if they can't run!

Hi there Porcupine,

Just to put things into perspective for you - I'm from Dorset in England...so we don't have that many really 'bad guys' to worry about (Unless you live in a mansion with a lot of valuables, and even then, it's rare for burglars to carry guns)...I think your attitude to self defence will depend greatly on where you live/or are living.

As for a 'central mass' shot - "why do anything else"? Simple answer...I don't want to kill anyone.

I agree with you though about a real life situation being very different from training (real fear for a start off) - I did a few martial arts when I was in my 20s, and remember being stabbed many times with a rubber knife, even though it was in controled conditions, and I knew it was comming....but I'd still bet on the 'brass butt end' of an Enfield against a knife.

[barney57]

You can or should fire AIMED SHOTS ONLY and only as many shots as is neccessary after giving a warning...
If the perp turns and runs or drops any weapon that he/she might be carrying once you have given a warning,,,,then the threat is no more,,,,that means if that happens you cant shoot him/her legally...

SO BEWARE!!