Utah Guns Forum banner

A weird Question

13K views 16 replies 15 participants last post by  James 
#1 ·
I have a friend that has conceal weapons permit for a long time, which I use to have one for 15 yrs but need to renew it again but any ways, he talks about if someone pulls a gun (CQ) in a situation or any other situation where you pull your hand gun, his instructor/him said to empty your whole clip, that's like overkill, prison sentence even for a conceal weapons permit holder? if a guy is down he's down on 1 to 3 shots give or take unless he pulls a gun again then one shot should do it or just leave and call the cops on this situation.
this comes up time to time with this guy.

What's your take on emptying your clip on someone on any situation?
 
#2 ·
You only shoot to stop the threat. If it takes a couple shots, don't shoot any more. If he/she keeps coming at you, shoot until they stop. If they are on the ground and are not a threat, don't shoot. If they are trying to get away, don't shoot. If they are still trying to kill you, shoot.

I'm not a lawyer, but shooting to stop a threat seems reasonable to me. Shooting after they are down, or running away, is a really bad idea, and will most likely land you in jail.
 
#4 ·
If the situation necessitates firing, I intend to fire until the threat is neutralized. No more.

If that happens with two shots, I'm not going to empty the remaining 3, 4, 5, 6, or 13 rounds (depending on the day's carry piece).

Imagine yourself as a district attorney looking at an incident in which a concealed carrier dropped an attacker with 3 shots, but then fired an additional 10 with the threat neutralized and attacker lying on the ground. ....And it's all on video (like everything else in today's world).
Would you let the extra 10 rounds slide? Or would you consider it to be excessive, and possibly worthy of serious charges (murder?)?
 
#5 ·
The Utah (Concealed) Carry Permit course focuses on the legal aspects of carrying a gun including use of deadly force laws. Re-taking that course from a well qualified instructor should provide pretty solid answers, backed up by references to State code, on when deadly force can be used, and when it can't.

Simply put, emptying a magazine is a poor decision for a couple of reasons.

1-Legally and morally, once the threat is ended, the shooting must stop. A man who has turned tail and is running away, or who is flopping on ground unarmed, poses no threat and it would be both immoral and illegal to use deadly force against such a person.

2-Bad guys have been known to travel in packs. Even if one were to ignore legal and moral considerations, why would one want to waste ammo needlessly? Just because one threat has been eliminated doesn't mean another threat won't materialize before the police can arrive to secure the scene.

Sometimes, such advice as "empty the magazine" or "drag them inside" come from a mis-understanding of the law. A person need not be so terrified as to lose all control of his ability to think about how many shots he is taking in order to be fully justified in using deadly force. In Utah, an attacker need not be inside the home for deadly force to be justified...and forensics are pretty good about determining whether the crime scene or other evidence has been tampered with.

A perfectly moral, legal, justified self-defense situation can turn into a serious crime if the defender does something unnecessary, stupid, or criminal after the threat to his life/limb has ended. Using deadly force after it is no longer needed is one such criminal and stupid thing. Tampering with evidence, lying to cops, hiding, etc are also criminal and stupid.

Take or re-take the class. Then spend some time reading Utah law until you understand it well for yourself.

And then as one of our members has said, remember that even the most justified of self-defense cases has some potential to end up with a wrongful conviction and you spending the rest of your life in prison and/or you bankrupted from mounting the defense. Do not shoot your gun unless the consequences for not shooting are going to be worse than prison and/or bankruptcy.

Charles
 
#6 ·
Would not be a good thing where the "other side" brings in the computer animation or showing bullet trajectory with the 'Red Yarn' showing 12 of 14 shots coming at an odd angle, into the perp's back from 20 feet away from where your spent casings are deposited.

you should only use the "amount of force necessary to stop the threat", hopefully that means not even having to fire your weapon.
 
#7 ·
:agree: Especially the last sentence.

Just because we're legally able to shoot doesn't necessarily mean we should. That's why taking good, dynamic situational training is so important as it can help us assess a situation and only escalate with actions (notice I didn't say shots) necessary to stop the threat. In other words, if by just presenting our firearm it's enough to encourage the perp to turn and run then the threat has been stopped at that point with no shots required. Obviously if the perp keeps coming at us in a life-threatening manner then we take whatever action(s) we deem necessary to stop the threat.

These decisions may have to occur within a matter of milliseconds. That's why situational training, such as force-on-force, not only helps us develop muscle memory but also the mental skills to hopefully help navigate through those milliseconds resulting in us making the right legal, moral, and ethical decision. That latter is something we need to mull around in our own minds as soon as we decision to buy and carry what could be deemed as a lethal weapon -- not just a firearm -- for personal protection so our minds don't have to grapple with that dilemma in the heat of the moment.
 
#9 ·
Shoot until the threat is stopped. That might be one shot, that might be 10, depending on shot placement, accuracy, any foreign substances the perp might be on, etc. I dont see any situation in which I would empty my entire magazine into someone who is already on the ground and incapacitated. If they had a weapon, and were still making any sort of attempt to bring it to bear despite being on the ground, then the situation might be different.
 
#10 ·
I think that it would actually be bad training and bad practice to empty your magazine unless absolutely necessary.
You use only what is needed, as in some scenarios there may be more than one threat.

A lot of things that might be threats may not be a lone threat, but multiple, so if given the mentality that you should empty your magazine then you could find yourself in worse trouble than just explaining it to the police.
 
#11 ·
Not good advice, but often readily excusable. Forcing the mind to start shooting is significant enough an event that often stopping is hard to do. Which is why police shootings will often result in the officers emptying their mags, People try to make an issue of how many bullets are fired but only real question was did they need to fire, if so then the rounds fired is not an issue. So in some sense I can see the logic, you aren't likely to be prosecuted because you fired all 17 rounds when the first shot was fatal. Unless they can show your shot placement was deliberate and vindictive.

Shoot to stop the threat should be the correct answer, but this one is somewhat understandable.
 
#12 ·
DaKnife said:
Not good advice, but often readily excusable. Forcing the mind to start shooting is significant enough an event that often stopping is hard to do. Which is why police shootings will often result in the officers emptying their mags, People try to make an issue of how many bullets are fired but only real question was did they need to fire, if so then the rounds fired is not an issue. So in some sense I can see the logic, you aren't likely to be prosecuted because you fired all 17 rounds when the first shot was fatal. Unless they can show your shot placement was deliberate and vindictive.

Shoot to stop the threat should be the correct answer, but this one is somewhat understandable.
Risk of prosecution most likely gets elevated when the video of the situation shows one stepping past and turning back on the downed BG then coming back and sending two more rounds into the downed BG! (Pharmasist in one of the midwest states a couple of years ago did this and got charged and convicted!)
 
#14 ·
BobF said:
It's not a clip it is a magazine. Bob.
They've been called clips for 100+ years... so what. Even the US Army Ordinance Dept. refers to what would become the detachable box magazine for the 1911 as a clip (per American Rifleman article March 2014). Again, so what, language changes. I don't get the 'holier than thou' attitude of calling people out on something nobody is confused about in the first place.
 
#15 ·
Because semantics is important in the debate and many do not in fact understand the difference. And just because the terminology was used over a century ago does not make it accurate today. Language changes, the concepts of a clip and magazine were rather new to firearms back then and the differences weren't always understood. Now they are not and the differences are distinct.
 
#16 ·
Thanks for your comments.
I'm with you guys on that, pretty much what you guys said is what I've learned when I went through the course which I'll be renewing mine again pretty soon with my daughter but the guy I work with, I think, he needs to go through the course again / retake it.

Thanks for you input.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top