No, I didn't miss that part... and once the decision is made to "go for the gun" I agree that decisive and overwhelming force is both necessary and justified to stop the attack. .Much has been written about the force continuum I don't want to speak for the OP, but I think that this discussion was meant to focus on tools and techniques that can be deployed prior to lethal force being justified. While it is true that one can not be "just a little pregnant", I have a hard time applying this same logic to threat levels. I can be in danger but the threat level represented by that danger may not justify my application of deadly force in response. Things may escalate VERY quickly, and I must be able to adjust my response to a dynamic situation. When deadly force becomes justified, then by all means, go for the gun and end the attack.
I think this is where LEO influence crosses the line into the civilian sector. As civilians we have no escalation of force requirement like most law enforcement agencies. In fact trying to duplicate their tactics can get you killed or in some serious legal trouble. As a civilian we need to do our best to get out of dangerous situations.
The only time I would ever engage a bad actor is if there is imminent danger of grevious bodily harm or death to myself or my loved ones and then my primary goal is to stop (not kill) the attack. One fatal shot to the thorasic region won't neccesarily stop the threat from hurting or killing me, Massa Ayoob has said if he ever is fatally injured his last effort will be to take the SOB with him, much like the Miami shoot out perps Matix and Platt on the other side.
Other than that if I am carrying my primary responsibility is to de-escalate and the only time I would go hands on is if they are too close to draw the weapon. There are times when less leathal is appropriate when I can't carry a gun though, I like impact weapons and lights or lights that can be used as impact weapons.
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
Poll
