Personal Tactics

[crossbow]

wounding the other person only worked when others were wounding Americans as we're the only ones who take care of our wounded. In a SHTF situation, i think the attitude will be, he's dead, there'll be more for us or if a person is severely wounded and screaming, i'd put him out of his misery myself.

[Klayton]

OK, so how is "yaws" different from tumbling?

=)

[protus]

OK, so how is "yaws" different from tumbling?

=)

deviation in the bullets path once making contact with the target medium vs turning over and over in a "head over heels" fashion while making forward progression through the target medium :P

[Lowdown3]

I think the "wound one of them" mantra came from "irregular" type forces. A lot of that has been negated by the more current combat lifesaver training.

Gone are the days in the old war movies wherein someone gets clipped, yells "medic!" and the medic comes running wading through a wall of lead to save the guy's life. They stress self care as much as possible now, as well as things like tourniquets and labor savers (hey weren't we just talking about labor savers in another thread? LOL).

The best way to explain I can think of-
If I get shot in the arm and Hawk and Protus are there, old doctrine was that Hawk would cover and Protus would apply a bandage.

If I get shot in the arm, Hawk and Protus continue the fight, meanwhile I'm supposed to put a C.A.T or similar tourniquet on and then continue the fight also or evacuate myself, etc.

With modern body armor and CLS training, they've negated alot of the "wound one take 3-4 out of the game" deal- at least with soldiers.

In a civilian/PAW context, I can think of a few times wherein you might seek to wound the person but not for reasons like you didn't want to kill him.

In the every day context some may see a use for just "wounding" the person and trying to escape. Just remember you'll face that person in court one day......

[thereisnospoon]

The OP asked if a really important question in hiw initial post..."could you finish him off?"

I am reminded of the scene in Unforgiven when Clint Eastwood's character shot the first bad guy using the sharps rifle he took from Morgan Freeman's character. He wasn't as proficient with the weapon as he should have been and gut shot the guy. Clint kept everyone from going to his aide and the guy eventually bled out, but until he did, there was a very long protracted period of time of cries for help and pain and suffering. I know its a movie, but in real life, I think there are very few people who are so callous and cold hearted as to just leave someone in that shape.

Now, I feel confident that if someone were trying to harm or kill one of mine that I can take the fight to him, but cold calculated execution is a whole different thing.

Something to think on.

Spoon

[Klayton]

deviation in the bullets path once making contact with the target medium vs turning over and over in a "head over heels" fashion while making forward progression through the target medium :P

Dictionary:::
YAW: To turn about the vertical axis. Used of an aircraft, spacecraft, or projectile.
Tumble: To fall or roll end over end.

hmm seems like I used the layman word and you used your harvard word... =)
sorry about that

[Bearman202]

There is a long post on SurvivalBlog about this very topic, in a way. It's a discussion of the M-4/M-16. One of the people writing in said that the reason the round was chosen was because it would wound, rather than kill, taking 2 others off the battlefield. I knew I'd heard that somewhere. In a SHTF situation, I'm not going to worry about it. We're talking targets of opportunity here. As for whether or not my .308 will go through body armor, I don't expect to be facing a fully-equipped military force. In that situation, I will be beating feet in the opposite direction. Simply put, I don't think there is any way that a small group of however well-armed people are going to take out a trained, equipped, and competently-led military force. It's the main reason our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan have mostly resorted to IED's. They know there is no way they're taking on the U.S. military head-to-head and coming out on top.

[protus]

Dictionary:::
YAW: To turn about the vertical axis. Used of an aircraft, spacecraft, or projectile.
Tumble: To fall or roll end over end.

hmm seems like I used the layman word and you used your harvard word... =)
sorry about that

naw i was trying to be a smartbutt ....;p

[birdseye.2]

San Diego Sheriff's Department, as well as many other law enforcement agencies; state, train, and enforce, you must justify the use of lethal force. Any time a firearm is pulled from the holster, it is considered use of lethal force. You should never pull a firearm unless you can justify the means. If you feel that there is a threat to you and yours, and the threat will stop at nothing less than the use of a firearm, shoot to kill. If someone comes at you with a fist, use a bat, if they come at you with a bat, pull your gun. If you have to shoot, shoot to kill, nothing less. Too many law enforcement officers are injured or killed because they hesitated or were unwilling to even use their sidearm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PSE-...9811&index=119 In this situation, the coarse of action should have been, sprayed initially, when he charged(pull asp), when he went to the truck (If you were stupid enough to let him), pull firearm, approach with intent and commands to prone out, fire upon as soon as you see the weapon come out. One of the most discusting things I've seen both on poor training, poor response, poor control, poor composure, poor outcome... These are some of the "BAD GUYS"

This guy died because he was unwilling to take action... this is not a game. You cannot say, "Time out!" You can not say, "I'm out!" You cannot say, "I'm down stop shooting!" And don't expect them to either. If you want to see as close as possible to the type of people you may encounter, and what they are capable of, watch that video.

For those who wondered about who the bad guys are, I quote Sheena, "One who takes without asking." To expand, if someone wants a piece of what you have, and is unwilling to negotiate for it and instead chooses to attempt to take it by force, that is a "Bad Guy". One who is willing to kill by means other than self-defense or other just cause is a "Bad Guy". To kill another to achieve gain for oneself, whether it be food, wealth, or supply, in despondency or not, is a "Bad Guy"

[Klayton]

If someone comes at you with a fist, use a bat, if they come at you with a bat, pull your gun.

Well, guess one more reason why I am glad I do not live in bankrupt liberal California.
If ANYBODY comes at you with a fist, that is considered bodily harm, that equals I can pull out my concealed carry and prevent it from happening.
Whether just by show of my own force, or if need be, eliminating his force.

GOD BLESS TEXAS!!

[birdseye.2]

Problem being, if you are found to have any hand to hand combat experience, or self-defense training, and instead of defending yourself by other means and resorting directly to lethal force, you may get off, but it would be a hard, hard fight. The individual would have to be, larger, stronger, faster, went for your weapon, or on drugs. The use of force should be that force which is greater than the resistance, and you must first justify following through with that use of force before employing it, whether it be to intimidate or eliminate. (Self-defense training is one step above untrained hands). Of course, most people with a ccw only have two choices, hands or gun, as I'm sure a great number of us aren't about to run. As a law enforcement officer, and that includes any law enforcement officer in California, having at least four use of force options, I would have at least been repremanded, if not placed on suspension pending investigation for such an occurence. As for justifying your use of force when being attacked, it's hard to justify lethal force against an unarmed opponent when you take the attack I was involved in for an example. I am a small guy(Tunnel rat size), 5'6" 138 lbs. and the most I've ever weighed in my life. I was attacked by a 260 lbs. man on pcp, and by using some of the basics of both my instinct and DTack training, I contolled the individual receiving myself nothing more than a fat ear from the first punch and a dislocated thumb caused by my own actions. If you're much larger than me with any defense training, I'm sure you can hold your own without a gun. And of course, NEVER DRINK AND CARRY AT THE SAME TIME. One of the leading causes of ccw revocation.

For another example, there was a very recent altercation where a women used her car to intimidate an off-duty Coronado PD officer. The officer pulled his off-duty carry weapon and fired into the car striking her in the arm and hitting her son who was in the carseat directly behind her; he was releaved of his duty and faced criminal charges, though I stopped following and never discovered the outcome. (Of course Law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard, but they can no more be tried by the word of the law than a civilian.)

You have to remember that not to long ago, Texas didn't allow Concealed Carry.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis). Though it may be Liberal, I like Vermont's law, how about we stick to the Constitution. I can't stand California, there are too many reasons why I left.

[SamT]

Don't worry about kill vs wound. The only time a deliberate wound, or choosing a caliber that more likely wounds is when you are facing a disciplined force, IOW, an army. Yo don't want to get in a battle with an army, maybe a small patrol, if you are already on the way out of the area.

In any other case, the idea is just to stop the bad guys. Aim for center of mass, if it only wounds, it will be a debillitating wound.

The only questions are "Do you spend YOUR resources nursing the guy? Do you have what it takes to finish him off?" And, are you wise enough to make the correct decision? Gotta pray on that one every time. While you're at that, take the time to pray for every person you just had to kill in battle.

[UK_Army]

When you are fighting for your life, it does not matter if you kill or wound your enemy. You will do everything you can to survive and defend yourself from the bad guys.

[Klayton]

Link Removed? never seen that before, was that you admin?

[KirkMcquest]

again.

Your ROE for what scenerio your planning for is what you will deem nessasry to end the threat to you and yours.



Your point about the pastor and neighbors is a good one.....if....

If you see the threat yet fail to engage because of the make up of that group you have negated your ROE and have now put yourself in a "flight" or die scenerio!

Yes no one will know "what" the bad guys are, or who they will be. But once you start "thinking" about that verse stopping the threat at hand your plan has failed.

This takes some brain training to over look "who" the threat is. Personally for me, if the event is that bad that it dictates me to put my rattle on and defend what is mine or my family, the make up of the group threatening me is the last thing on my mind! They are a threat 1st and foremost...not the local baptist preacher, johhny the plumber, carl the lawyer, or susan the teacher ........


this thread is starting to border on a "shoot/dont shoot" topic. I suggest everyone really think hard about what threats that they may come in contact with and how this effects their ROE in their preparedness plan.

True. Basically, stopping to consider those who threaten you could be the last mistake you ever make. I hope if the time comes I will be able to do it.