Man Who Tackled Loughner Interviewed - Guess What?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Actually that's not what CCW holders are taught.

They are taught that if a person's life is in danger, they should shoot to kill center mass with a rapid succession of shots.

They are also taught not to fire into a crowd.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Correct.

Always know what is behind your target.

Going out on a limb here but I bet Joe is a conservative.
He's gotta be, he even has respect for a person like Ed.

Class act.

I wonder if Ed regrets doing the interview.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Actually that's not what CCW holders are taught.

They are taught that if a person's life is in danger, they should shoot to kill center mass with a rapid succession of shots.

No. As a CCH permit holder I can honestly say you are wrong. As someone that has taken training courses I can tell you from experience that this is not true in most cases.

Every tactical discussion or lesson I have had, with professionals and responsible citizens, has revolved around one concept. Shoot to stop. You shoot to stop the threat. If the threat stops continued force is excessive force and you can land in jail.

You fire center mass because it is the largest possible target available. Center mass actually means, the center of which ever piece of the body you are most likely to hit successfully.That cuts down on missed shots. Many people mistake "center mass" to mean center of the torso. Center of the torso is actually the best place to aim, if it is the clearest shot. Because of how a bullet acually stops some one, it increases the chances of stopping someone.

Rambo style spray and pray is not taught by any truly professional trainer. It is not taught by any one with any real world experience. Niether is shoot for a knee, or try to "blow out a shoulder." Those types of shots look great in the movies. Mike Hammer seems real cool shooting the gun out of a tough guy's hand in the book. In real life that kind of shooting leads to stray bullets and injured civillians.

The guy in the video did exactly what should have been done. He is/was either well trained or well studied in proper gun use.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
The lad in the interview is a stand-up model citizen with his head scewed on the right way round. He came through as decent, honest, sharp-minded and with high moral standards (in-built, not programmed).

He just played his part, just like the old woman the two men shouted at to grab the gun and when she balked to grab a freshly produced magazine. He said he grabbed a guy who was holding a gun, by the wrist, and then people told him "the other guy". It isn't made clear in any interview who was the shooter and who wasn't, because he then said a minute later something to the effect that he would have shot the man with the gun if he'd drawn his weapon. So is he saying he would have shot the shooter, or he would have accidentally shot the person holding the gun thinking he was the shooter? All in all it's confusing and that's probably intentional. A typical viewer will hear it and not understand it so their brain will make up its own story to fill in the gaps. As you can see, we already have people saying "he tackled the shooter", yet his own statements conflict with virtually every aspect of that sentence.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
The guy in the video did exactly what should have been done. He is was either well trained or well studied in proper gun use.

Proper gun use, now there's an oxymoron.

Originally posted by PlautusSatire

Originally posted by MikeNice81
The guy in the video did exactly what should have been done. He is was either well trained or well studied in proper gun use.

Proper gun use, now there's an oxymoron.

Only to city folks and idiots.

ETA:

I should be more kind but I won't. I get tired of people telling me about gun use. It is real simple. My father saved me and my mother from serious harm when I was a child. He did it using his revolver. He never had to fire a shot. The guy with a 6" knife threatening to make me and my mother bleed gave up real quick when he saw the gun. As a bonus we got to keep my father's pay check the guy was trying to take from us.

I also know more than a few country folk that put meat on their table by hunting. They use a semi-auto rifle to feed their family.

Knowing how to use a gun in these situations, without endangering others, should be considerred proper gun use.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Correct.

Always know what is behind your target.

I guess this is the rule, if you're not trying to spray a crowd with bullets. One would expect a professional to do exactly what happened, spray the crowd with bullets, release and then tackle your patsy, wait for other witnesses to break cover and come along to help you detain the patsy so they can give their witness testimony to the television cameras and news reporters instead of you. If one of those witnesses is an old lady, have her pick up the gun to contaminate it and explain why the patsy's fingerprints aren't on it. If she won't pick up the gun throw down a magazine and pick the gun off the ground, just point it at the ground so all the concealed carry nuts don't shoot you and wait for one of them to come along and play hero.

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Originally posted by PlautusSatire
Proper gun use, now there's an oxymoron.

Only to city folks and idiots.

Yes we know you love your guns, you can floss your tooth with it. Everyone who doesn't love guns is an idiot and a city slicker.

reply to post by PlautusSatire


Great the ignorant red neck jokes. I always love when people drag that out instead of making a real point.

We can speak on an educated level. If a gun is used for the intended purpose, and does not harm an innocent person or go off due to a negligent discharge, it is being used properly. Improper use of a fire arm would be a use that led to a neligent discharge or the harming of an innocent person.

So there is actually a proper way to use guns.

An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms. Since gun, use, and proper do not contradict each other the statement is not an oxymoron. You may believe it is a non sequitor, but you would still be wrong. You may very well believe that the word proper should never come before the phrase gun use. However, there is actually a proper way to handle and use a gun. That means that the end of the statement does follow after the begining, depending on circumstance and context.

So, in other words, you are wrong. Your snide comment is factually wrong and shows a poor grasp of the word you tried to use.

thanks for posting this clip... interesting.
so, only one firearm discharged at the scene? i thought i heard a report of at least a second firearm discharge... any possibility of a crossfire situation injuring or killing someone that is not being reported? cauliflowerd ear.. dudes a scraper..

reply to post by MikeNice81


Stopping is killing.

Again, center mass, multiple shots.

End of story.

The goal is to depressurize your opponents circulatory system as rapidly as possible.

But don't take my word for it, what do I know?



I'm only former military, former security, and shoot regularly.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Stopping is not killing. Stopping is stopping. I have worked personal security. I have trained with a gentleman that is certified by, and teaches weapons for, the Secret Service. I have trained with LEOs that have real world experience in gun fights. I know how a bullet stops a person. Loss of blood or interuption of the nervous system are the main two ways a bullet stops a person. (If enough pain is inflicted it can cause the brain to interupt the functioning of the CNS.) You can also take away the ability to breathe if the bullet penetrates the lungs.

If the person drops their gun and makes no attempt to pick it up they are considerred to have stopped. If the person throws down their weapon and verbally says they surrender, they are stopped. If the person ceases to fire and runs away they are stopped. At least from a legal perspective. When the threat of iminent death, grave bodily injury, or sexual assault ends, you must halt your use of force.

Shoot to kill is a military mindset. In the civilian and LEO world that is not the accepted doctrine. I have trained with and studied with men that are certified by the federal government, and state governments, to teach LEOs.

I haven't watched the video yet. I am getting ready for bed right now. So, I can not comment on it. I just want to drive home one important point. If a person takes three shots when two clearly would do the trick they are asking for trouble. Excessive force can land you in jail. It can also get you stuck with a murder charge. Failure drills, El Presidente drills, and all of that stuff is cool. You better make sure that shot to the head is necessary though. You might want to try assessing the situation before you empty 13 or 16 rounds in to a person. You can quickly turn self defense in to man slaughter, assault ith intent to kill, or worse.

I'm not going to derail the thread though. You can continue to go on believing what you will. I just ask you don't preach it to civillian CCH or CCW holders. Each CCH or CCW permit holder needs to study their state laws regarding the use of force.

reply to post by MikeNice81


If some county/city is training their police to shoot once, look, wait, watch, then shoot again, I feel sorry for them.

That is not how gun fights work.

Stop giving bad advice because you may cause someone to get hurt that takes you seriously and is in a life threatening situation.

If the situation is not life threating - you do not shoot - period.

If the situation is life threating - you shoot to neutralize the threat as efficiently as possible - period.

That amounts to multiple shots, rapid succession, center mass (upper chest/vitals).

I suppose I should correct myself, since I keep saying center mass, which isn't exactly accurate. The best place to aim is the upper chest for the heart, but I'm using the term loosely to mean the torso. You should never shoot at limbs if the torso is available.

Pulling the trigger is deadly force no matter where the shot is directed - given that this is the case, any confrontation that requires you to pull the trigger means someones life is in imminent danger. Which means you should be shooting to kill.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I took your meaning of multiple to be more than three or four. I do believe that double or triple taps are the best way to engage, and gain distance. I would never encourage someone to shoot once and look. However, shoot to kill still is not accepted and was never mentioned in the video.

(I had to stay up and watch it. I never miss a "training" opportunity.)

Again shoot to kill is not accepted doctorine for LEOs or civillians. Even the Secret Service shoots to stop the threat. They only shoot to kill if all else fails. Death is always possible in a shooting incident. It should not be the intended outcome unless it is the only possible way to stop the person.

Start with between two and four shots to the triangular area between the niples and base of the throat. Then take a quick assesment and continue as necessary is usually taught as the "optimum" tactic, in my experience. However, most situations aren't face on, give you weird angles, and involve a lot of movement. So, it is rarely the tactic that you can use. That is why most LEOs and CCH holders (again in my experience) are trained to shoot for what you are most likely to hit. Then shoot no more shots than necessary. It saves you afterwards and protects innocents/civillians.

I think we are closer in opinion that we realize. If we sat here and hash out the particulars I feel they are very close. I just disagre with the "shoot to kill" philosophy. That isn't what any one I know in the LEO or civilian world teaches.

I made the Rambo comment because I have read an untold number of keyboard comandos, and self anointed "experts," talk about "keep squeezing untill you run out." That isn't what you meant and I see that now, sorry.

reply to post by MikeNice81


I'm not sure what your point is. The instructor in the video is giving good advice. Multiple shots, rapid succession, ideally aimed at the upper chest.

That is a kill shot.

He is clearly saying you should be shooting to kill, not shooting at limbs or trying "wound" the target until he stops threatening you.

If you are shooting, it can be assumed that your life or someone else's is in imminent danger requiring the use of deadly force.

Further I might add, any cop that shoots to wound rather than shoots to kill obviously did not think that someones life was in imminent danger, yet chose to use deadly force. As a consequence, that officer is guilty of using excessive force.

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Private citizens with guns are a thousand times more restrained in their use than the police.

Like loughner was?

I think the main point of menmeth's argument is overlooked.

The people that we give these weapons to in order to protect us are entirely more dangerous than private citizens. Police officer's kill innocent people, often with little to no recourse. Our army's are sent oversea's to kill others, and when we have staggering statistics like over 60,000 Iraqi civilians massacred, having weapons in the hands and control of the imperial government is ridiculous.

Having laws that hurt law abiding citizens and neither prevent this nutjob from getting weapons nor using them is utterly crazy.

For every nutcase out there, there are thousands of responsible people. Why prevent these responsible people from protecting themselves if and when the nutcase cracks?

You can't stop people from getting fire arms like you can't stop maximum security prisoners from getting heroine. The very least we can do is create a system without corrupt and violent "protectors of freedom" and allow Everyman the chance to protect his or her self.

not wanting to spout about gun control debate, though does the responsible person on the street really need such high powered automatic, semi auto weapons of any kind just to use as form of defence in protection situations. if outlawed, would this then prevent some who do these kinds of multi shot shooting sprees,

only a crackdown on these type of guns, registration permits, psych evaluation tests, mandatory safety training courses would help to deter and add as prevention of known nutjobs holding these kinds of high powered firearms and also prevent kills in mass due to the capability detracted of such weapons.
the trigger happy can never be stopped, though the weapon of choice may be preventable in the long run.

reply to post by redgy


ORLY?

You mean making all guns 6 shots would save us?



Of course, criminals would not use 6 shooters.

Making all guns 6 shooter would mean all innocent civilian CCW carriers would be restricted to 6 shooters while criminals like Loughner would continue to use automatics purchased off the black market.

Banning guns is exactly like banning drugs.

It has no effect what-so-ever on the criminal element, since by definition, criminals do not care about the law.

if your laws have no effect what so ever, why even bother with ccw permits or any laws in force already, or is it always only the innocent that gets caught or charged.
it also seems a free for all system of handing out guns to everyone hasn't stopped these kinds of crimes either.

since around 1 in 17 people suffer from some kind of serious mental illness, should they also be allowed guns as a right, or should laws be stricter as a preventitive even though these measures might not be followed for all cases.
not to say that all mental disorders lead to mass shootings, just think that not everyone should hold a right to bear arms.

Mental Disorders in America
Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.1 When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people.2 Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness.1 In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada.3 Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.1
In the U.S., mental disorders are diagnosed based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV).4

www.nimh.nih.gov...