TexasCHLforum.com

Serpentine? Have you been watching The In-Laws?

No, the victim wasn't armed, and he was fleeing what he said was a robbery attempt. Might not have been the smartest thing he did, or maybe it was. Who knows? He escaped, and he lived.

Excaliber wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The point of this is that LEOs have a sworn duty to stay in the fight as long as they are able. The rest of us don't.

LEO's don't have any more obligation to stay in the fight when wounded than you do. However, they are taught to continue to fight until the threat they face is no longer a threat because there are no referees in gunfights and the BG who already shot you is highly likely to try to finish the job unless he is either incapacitated or decides to try to withdraw on his own.

Perhaps I worded that incorrectly... I guess I meant that there is a common expectation that LEOs get paid (admittedly not enough) and trained for the possibility of confronting this kind of thing, and the rest of us don't. The example, admittedly an extreme one, that always comes to my mind is the infamous BofA shootout in North Hollywood, California. The cops ran toward the sound of gunfire. The rest of the world ran away from it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The point of this is that LEOs have a sworn duty to stay in the fight as long as they are able. The rest of us don't.

Excaliber wrote:LEO's don't have any more obligation to stay in the fight when wounded than you do. However, they are taught to continue to fight until the threat they face is no longer a threat because there are no referees in gunfights and the BG who already shot you is highly likely to try to finish the job unless he is either incapacitated or decides to try to withdraw on his own.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Perhaps I worded that incorrectly... I guess I meant that there is a common expectation that LEOs get paid (admittedly not enough) and trained for the possibility of confronting this kind of thing, and the rest of us don't. The example, admittedly an extreme one, that always comes to my mind is the infamous BofA shootout in North Hollywood, California. The cops ran toward the sound of gunfire. The rest of the world ran away from it.

That's true. LEO's are paid to go looking for and resolving the trouble civilians take pains to avoid.

That's included in the mission of a professional sheepdog.

srothstein wrote:This is really what we should be looking at. What lessons can be learned from this incident that can be applied to you in a self-defense role?

I think the first lesson is the one I mentioned earlier: mindset. Both your mindset and the BG's will play an important part in the fight.

+1 IMHO, when the time comes for emergency, live-or-die violence, your mindset switch is either on or off...there are no gradations along the dial.

I remember vividly one course I assisted with where the instructor asked the class, "Once you get to the point where you've decided you must pull the trigger, what is your objective?"

There were some predictable, and some not so predictable, responses: "Kill the bad guy"; "Stop the immediate threat"; "Win"; "Survive!"

The instructor didn't like any of the answers. We all know why response number one was wrong, but his rejoinders to the others went something like this (paraphrasing only; so I'll never tell the instructor's name in case I'm ruining his message ):

Stopping the immediate threat is a task, not an objective. If there are multiple assailants, or if you think one is stopped but he is only temporarily incapacitated, you may have to repeat that task more than once in more than one way. Viewing it as an objective can cause you to incorrectly relax after you see the bad guy in front of you hit the dirt. The battle may well not be over.

As to "win": This is not a game, not a sport. It's very wrong to think of it in that connotation. You aren't playing poker; not trying to up the ante or call anybody's bluff. It's not two drunken Neanderthals in a bar puffing out their chests and getting in each other's faces in a territorial display to see who can be the most fearsome. If the gangsta in front of you starts waving a P3AT, you don't start waving your Desert Eagle .50 hoping that it will make you the most intimidating buck in the pasture and forcing the little buck to back down. Doesn't work like that.

Nobody wins a gunfight.

There is a level of probability that you will self-program to achieve the objective you set for yourself, and unlikely achieve anything more. Like most things in life, if you set your sights too low, then you will perform to less than your potential. If your objective is merely to survive, you may be able to meet that objective. But at what cost to you or innocent people around you?

Once you're in a situation of deadly-force tactics, the way in which you manage risk changes. Up until the point of "Condition Black" (as the USMC added to Cooper's Color Code), you have choices about mitigating risk: situational awareness; diffusing a potential situation; not going to that bar at 1:00 a.m.; locking your doors. But once the decision is made that you must fire, there are no more good choices. By definition, only bad choices remain because you are now smack in the middle of risk. Your mindset must be not about taking the least risk, but about taking the best risk.

You don't want tunnel vision to lead you to think you only have to stop one, specific threat. You aren't merely hoping to come out alive; if that's your mindset, you're brain is liable to take you out of the fight if you get injured because you'll be suddenly afraid you might not survive. And there is absolutely nothing to win: no prizes, no accolades, no applause. All involved are going to lose something, regardless of the outcome.

So what did this instructor say was the correct objective? Victory. Plain and simple. To overcome all obstacles and be victorious. That means knowing how to take the best risks to accomplish the objective, and not letting up until the objective is achieved.

There are no time-outs, no points awarded; you can't take a break or ask for a do-over. If it ever comes down to it, your entire life is going to be focused on that moment, probably only several seconds long, and if your mindset is not single-mindedly one of "victory," the outcome stands a good chance of being something else.

I know what he is saying, but the point is weakened by trying to make the failed semantic argument that there is some difference between "winning" and "victory."

Someone who says "win" isn't (necessarily) suggesting that it's a GAME. Wars are "won" and they're not a joking matter either.

I know of a couple of departments that do not allow officers to carry .45 ACP. Knowing officers inside the departments, both said the same thing: the chief wants to avoid bad press and thinks .45's are too damaging and covered negatively by reporters. The same ones won't allow single-action pistols. . . not because of safety, simplicity, or any other reason than they hate getting calls from the uninformed public about officers with their "guns cocked in the holster".

Morgan wrote:I know what he is saying, but the point is weakened by trying to make the failed semantic argument that there is some difference between "winning" and "victory."

Thank you, Morgan; and I understand.

In the real world, "winning" and "victory" are, in fact, very different things.

One involves a happy celebration, and the other involves a commitment of both blood and bone.

Skiprr wrote:
In the real world, "winning" and "victory" are, in fact, very different things.

One involves a happy celebration, and the other involves a commitment of both blood and bone.

Huhhh!
Which one is which?

killerfly128 wrote:

you are the exception to the rule. On another DFW forum (DFWstangs) they seem to belive that a .45 acp will stop a bus. Back when i had a 1911 i was carrying 3 mags as well. all of um wilson 47d 8 rounders along with one in the pipe for a total of 25 rounds. Now i have the USP compact with a total of 27 rounds with one spare, 40 rounds with 2 spares. [/quote]


I'm a member of DFWStangs!! Howdy man.

My carry gun will more than likely be a .45 acp, but not because I think it can stop a bus. It's just what I shoot, and since I already have a .45 that I love to shoot, and have shot a Para compact .45 and Kimber Ultra Carry .45, I think I'll stick to a caliber that I know.

Not trying to sound arguementative, just putting my .02 in and saying hello to a fellow DFWStanger.

NTexas_V-Star wrote:

killerfly128 wrote:

you are the exception to the rule. On another DFW forum (DFWstangs) they seem to belive that a .45 acp will stop a bus. Back when i had a 1911 i was carrying 3 mags as well. all of um wilson 47d 8 rounders along with one in the pipe for a total of 25 rounds. Now i have the USP compact with a total of 27 rounds with one spare, 40 rounds with 2 spares.

I'm a member of DFWStangs!! Howdy man.

My carry gun will more than likely be a .45 acp, but not because I think it can stop a bus. It's just what I shoot, and since I already have a .45 that I love to shoot, and have shot a Para compact .45 and Kimber Ultra Carry .45, I think I'll stick to a caliber that I know.

Not trying to sound arguementative, just putting my .02 in and saying hello to a fellow DFWStanger.[/quote]

Im the guy that sent ya over here. Everyones .02 is welcome here, best way to learn IMHO