Let's say you are confronted by a knife wielding mugger...?

I would do what I have been trained to do as a Soldier. 2 rounds center mass in a nice controlled pair, and 1 to the head.

Let's say you are confronted by a knife wielding mugger...?

& you tell him back away, which he ignores. You have a concealed weapons permit accompanied by a .45 semi-auto in a shoulder holster under your jacket. Would you place a potentially lethal or a certain disabling shot? Would you place more than one potentially lethal or certain disabling shot?

Well, if I was trained to use my weapon I would try for a disabling shot. If that didn't work and my life was still in danger I would go for the lethal shot. However, in a real world situation you have only seconds to react when confronting danger so anything can happen. Most people without any training would probably kill their attacker or have the gun used on them.

Nothing to see here really. Would you expect anything other than an apparent killer being questioned about it? It's actually beneficial to him to be under arrest while the questioning happens - no doubt as to the intention of the investigation, stands to reason. It's not really for the Police to decide who they keep and let go though, they just go through the process. Some of you either need to get a grip or learn to read and understand what the words you read are actually saying... he was arrested and then released on bail, they don't tend to release violent killers on bail. Would you really expect anything else? Killing someone isnt an everyday occurance for anyone, and when someone is killed an investigation has to be gone through. Just because the guy who died was a petty criminal, saint or mob boss doesn't (and shouldn't) make the PROCESS any different! Any deeds or actions the dead guy was trying to perform/undertake at the time would OBVIOUSLY be taken into consideration as, when and if a trial comes up. Let's consider for a moment, and I'm not saying he is in any way, just consider that the 34 yr old man is a criminal acquaintance (OP says he's a shopkeeper, the link does not... and anyway, shopkeepers are allowed to be dodgy as the rest of us!) of the 25 yr old dead guy and they were fighting over some ill gotten gains, when he pulled out a knife and murdered his mate... do we still give him a medal? Talk about trying to spot fault when there is none... can't see the wood for the trees!

Few are in the right mindset to actually pull that trigger. The reality is that unless we are trained to use such a weapon the odds that we'll be able to quickly and accurately place a shot that disables and or kills him is low.

As Johnny said, we are in the "Red Zone". If particularly untrained or frightened, you may even get into Grey, or worse yet, Black zone. Your heart rate at this point is so fast that you can hardly function and your gun is more of a liability than an asset at this point.

The sad reality is that just having a gun does not mean you are either able or ready to use it. This also means that casually going to the range every now and then is not enough, nor can you try to be Gandhi and assume that your attacker will just run away at the presence of a gun.

Those that do not possess the presence of mind or the necessary determination to take a life if need be should not posses a weapon, they are liabilities to themselves and others.

No rational person wants to take a life, but a rational person should also recognize the reality of what such a situation entails.

You never truly know until you are there in that situation, though.

I hope that you never have to find out.

I teach Japanese Kenjutsu (Japanese Sword fighting) and I can tell you that even the weapons we spar with (foam wrapped over tubing or wood) create in a new student the unwillingness to use them at first. They hesitate, even though both of them have a weapon. While one would like to think that they would act with the necessary amount of determination and energy when danger comes around-the truth of the matter is that if you can't act when the only danger is a bruise and a lost match-then you can't act when the reality is life or death.

So we keep training them more and more intensely, so that when the time comes they are inoculated against the hesitation. In time we go to more and more dangerous weapons, until they act without hesitation when they are attacked.

Are they ever going to use a sword to defend themselves? I hope not. A sword is not a practical weapon in this day and age, but the ability to get into the proper mindset is helpful with any weapon.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvSOo...

I'd definitely aim for the center of the chest, and shoot again if the first shot wasn't enough. There's no time for sympathy in a situation like that. I'm in a wheelchair, so I can't run away after simply disabling the mugger. I don't own a gun so this is just hypothetical speculation on my part. I'd strongly prefer not to ever be in that situation.

If he is close enough to actually be a threat, you would never get the gun out.

If he is far enough away that you can draw, he will drop the knife when you do.

If he is crazy and rushes you, then you shoot, but if you shoot, you shoot to kill.

[In most jurisdictions, defense of self or of others is an affirmative defense to criminal charges for an act of violence. It acts to provide complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. The defense would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. Likewise, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place. Sometimes there is a duty to retreat which makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception (see: Edward Coke) which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home, namely, "a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium" i.e. Latin for "and one's home is the safest refuge"). However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.]

A permit to carry is not a license to kill anyone you feel threatened by.

You are only allowed to use the amount of force necessary to protect yourself.

Well, that happened to me in downtown Sacramento, Ca. Except I wasn't carrying.

I just put the guy down on his back and stood on the knife. When he started to fight back I just told him not to or I'd stomp his brains out. Which I would have done. I still have the knife. Cheap danged thing. It never crossed my mind to call the cops. I still wouldn't. If I'd have shot him, there would have been months in court, my weapon would have been confiscated ("taken into protective custody" is what they call it), and I would have had to spend money for the State to do a background check before I could get it back.

I Calif., you don't want to even suggest that you will protect yourself with a firearm, if you do they will seize all the guns you own, and it takes months to get them back. I had a neighbor that I caught stealing file a false report against me. It took three months to clear my name and another two to get my guns back. They had been damaged while in custody but I was told I was lucky to get them back at all.

Just pointing the gun at him would be enough of a deterrent. Although, I'd rather just handle the mugger unarmed, a swift kick to the face, balls, or poking him the eyes would be enough to catch off guard so i can disarm him.

It's doubtful that most people outside of the military or law-enforcement would have the presence of mind to make that kind of a decision in that type of situation with fear and adrenaline in the "red zone", so, most would aim for the largest target. That being the chest.

I would fire multiple times as close to the heart as possible to make sure the guy was down for the count and wouldn't be getting out of the hospital or jail looking for revenge because I left him injured.

Better a dead offender than an repeat offender.

Shoot to kill, its your God given right to protect yourself, but before going gung-ho on the assailant, let him know you have no qualms about saving yourself, give them a chance to go away.

In either case, immediately following your confrontation call the law.