.22lr, effective round for self defense

I think you are asking for legal issues by holding someone in a bathroom at basically gunpoint by threat if they leave the bathroom.

 

For crying out loud, if a 22lr is effective at killing then what does it matter if someone uses a 357, a 12 guage or a 5.56? Effective is effective eh? One other point...please please please don't ever testify or comment that you are shooting to kill, in self defense we shoot to stop. If the bad person dies as a result of their decision to continue their actions in the face of deadly force then they caused their own demise. Killing and murder is for criminals, stopping and protecting is for law abiding citizens. OK?

 

professionals on you tube? really if you want refer to "professionals" the .22 was/is the weapon of choice for the mafia really who knows more about assassinations than the mafia? well maybe the Mossad and they use the .22 as well, and from what I've read the CIA does tool...but you prefer the professionals of "youtube"?

 

Assassinations and self defense probably have different needs. You are very uninformed, or are badly informed. There ARE tribes around the world who kill the deer they eat with a .22, but to deny that there is a significant difference between that and larger rounds would be comparable to denying that a 2 ton pick up truck would do more damage than a hatchback in a car wreck. I'm not really sure why everyone attacking me on this, it's not really an opinion, it's more physics. A ballpoint pen can be used to defend yourself, and if you're not that concerned with how EFFECTIVE the weapon of choice is, than by all means use it.

As far as the people on youtube who display a large amount of gun safety and knowledge, and give details consistent with the concealed weapon teachers I have talked to, I much prefer them to somebody arguing that a .22 is a good self defense round.

 

"youtube" professionals vs people that actually use them on people, plus the stats that show it to be just as effective...

it's a fantasy based on hollywood/youtube and not facts...

 

The Ohio school shooter killed 3 and injured 3 with a 22. He fired 10 shots.

 

A person that breaks into my house is in violation of the law and detaining them in the bathroom (where they can't escape) is the safest possible means of detention for both the person being detained as well as for myself. I have every legal right to detain a person that breaks into my home while I wait for the police to arrive.

As I mentioned I'd just as soon have them make a rapid exit from my home when I chamber the first round in my 12 gauge shotgun. They had the opportunity to flee and if I've detained them in my bathroom where they can't escape then they are to blame, not me. I'm just placing them where they aren't in danger of being shot and where I'm not in danger of being attacked by them while waiting for the police to arrive. I don't want to accidentally shoot them by misinterpreting their actions.

 

If I were ever to have to use my 12 gauge and I shoot "center of mass" it's going to kill the person. It would be hard to argue that I didn't know that shooting them was going to kill them and that I was only trying to stop them. I'm not going to shoot at their legs, for example, which would merely attempt to stop them. That isn't going to happen.

 

Shooting to kill is murder, shoting to stop is self defense. There is a big difference and a lawyer would advise you to never testify you shot to kill. Now as a result of said bad guys action and your use of self defense he dies, well he brought it on. I know it is legal speak but you risk having bad things happen to you if you "shoot to kill" Just trying to help and all.

 

The use of deadly force (i.e. "shoot to kill") is authorized for a private citizen under the following condition.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force

A person breaking into my home is committing a felony and if they threaten me with death or bodily harm by their actions then I'm authorized to use deadly force (i.e. shoot to kill) in self-defense.

Now a person shooting a burglar in the back as they attempt to flee the scene would have a hard time proving self-defense because someone running away is not threatening death or bodily harm. As I've stated that is not something I'd do because I'd really rather have them immediately leave my house as opposed to having them place me in a situation where I'm threatened and would have to kill them.

 

OK you testify in court however you want, if you do get into a self defense situation where you use deadly force please speak with an attorney prior to speaking with the LEO.
Good luck

 

I guess it depends on each state's laws for the exact definition. I talked to my old man who is really into CC, he says that if the situation arises and you are defending your safety, you shoot to kill. He also said that's what military and police would tell you to do. Of course you have to be in the perfect situation, and you might not want to tell the courts that.

 

I recon shooting to kill implies you are a killer and shooting to stop implies you are protecting yourself from imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Which would you rather present to a jury? That is a nation wide ideology, not a state ideology.

 

Doesn't make me a killer, it makes me someone who killed out of self defense. Ask a cop what you do in these situations, I have. There are instances where someone is gut shot and they pull out a gun and shoot back. I wasn't talking about the law, just what you should do should your life be in danger.

Also in situations like this people often empty the clip and don't know it, just from the adrenaline surge. Some states even have "castle" laws, where if someone intrudes on your property you are well within your rights to kill them in self defense without prosecution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

 

This is my states law, which falls under the "stand your ground" type. I think if I'm not committing a crime and someone tries to rob me I can legally shoot and kill them without having to flee, even if I have a chance.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. NRS 200.120 is hereby amended to read as follows:
200.120 1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human
being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property
or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by
violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or
persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous,
tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of
another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to
any person dwelling or being therein.
2. A person is not required to retreat before using deadly
force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:
(a) Is not the original aggressor;
(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force
is used; and
(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of
criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

 

Please note that this does not authorize a person to shoot someone attempting to flee from the scene of a crime. A person that breaks off from the commission of a crime no longer presents a threat to person or property and is no longer committing a felony. Breaking into a home is a felony that represents a threat to persons or property. Leaving a home is not a criminal act and doesn't present a threat to person or property.

As I've stated shooting someone in the back while they are attempting to flee from the scene of a crime is murder even under this law.

I can easily establish that I'm defending myself from an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm if a burgler is advancing towards me and I used deadly force to defend myself. Shooting someone in the chest with a 12 gauge shotgun at 10-15 ft, which would be the case in defense of my home from a bugler, is obviously "shooting to kill" because the likelihood of them surviving is virtually nonexistant.

I cannot make the claim that I was in "imminent threat of death or great bodily harm" or even that I was defending my property if the person is fleeing from me. The key word in the above statute is "necessary" and it's unnecessary to use deadly force if the person is attempting to flee the scene.

 

If you shoot to kill does that mean that if someone breaks into your home with a knife and in your adrenalin fueled state you shoot him in the pelvic girdle and he goes down alive but unable to move that you would go finish the job with a kill shot, or perhaps would you keep your weapon on him because he wasn't a threat anymore and call 911? Look if as a result of the bad guys actions you were placed in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm and you used deadly force and the bad guy died as a result you can then say you stopped him. It is a legal distinction I am trying to point out and how you word it matters. Think about how each scenario I explained above would play in court if you were trying to justify your use of force. BTW I was a cop and I taught other cops in use of force, and use of deadly force, They are justified in their use of force until the bad person stops, they must then stop their actions. STOP is the key legal distinction.

People and cops have been known to empty weapons when placed in stressful situations, however regardless of castle doctrine or threat, if you recognize the threat has stopped and you continue pumping rounds into someone it becomes murder. I fully support your right to defend yourself with deadly force if warranted, I just want you to recognize that using the term "to kill" can create a mind set that can get you put in prison should you use deadly force. LEOs everywhere are taught that they use force to stop.

 

I appreciate the insight Small Town Guy, you've made me take a greater interest in finding out what I need to about this. I'm actually going to look up some of the more famous cases to see how the courts are ruling in these specific situations.

What I am really interested in is if you had shot an intruder in the belly and knocked them down. Then they start to reach inside their coat, could you then shoot because they could be grabbing for a gun, or do you have to wait to see the gun a split second before they unload on you? I definately need to do more research if I play on being able to protect myself.

 

Shiva-I do understand that. I actually jumped into this thread initially trying to make sure someone didn't go out and buy a .22 to try and defend themselves.

 

Thank you for the conversation, I hope you understand that I just want those who use deadly force to protect themselves and others consider the reason and justification for using that force so they don't end up charged with a felony.

That is a very excellent question, my answer would be, if the reason you shot an intruder in the belly was because he placed you in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm and he was, in your belief still placing you in that apprehension then it doesn't matter whether or not he is on the ground or not.

 

Excellent, For LEOs this is represented in Garner v Tennessee.

Here is where we diverge, I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence, your second sentence is incorrect. First I have seen example of people who have taken a load of buckshot in the chest from even closer ranges than you describe and live and while attempting suicide shooting themselves in the head with a shotgun and actually survive. Second whether they die or not from being shot in the chest is irrelevant to this discussion, live or die it's what you do next that matters, your justification was already there for your first shot and if you consider them stopped or dead, fine. If you continue your actions after they are stopped to ensure they are dead it's murder.

Right on!!

 

I would expect my first shot to kill them. It would certainly knock them to the floor and I certainly wouldn't expect them to get up and I wouldn't shoot them again without cause. Now, if by some miracle, they start to get up and threaten be again I'd probably shoot them a second time but that is so unlikely as to not warrant much consideration. I'm using a 12 gauge so that if I shoot them then I expect them to die immediately from the wound. I will do everything reasonably possible to avoid shooting them but would not hesitate to do so if their actions threaten me. But if I'm forced by their actions to pull the trigger I will be "shooting to kill" because I'd expect them to die from the wound. If they somehow manage to live it won't be because I didn't try to kill them.

As I've also noted the likelihood of ever having to use a firearm in self-defense in a home is highly remote. Personally I hope I'm never faced with that situation but I am prepared in case it does happen. I've taken the necessary precautions and will act in according to what the situation presents at the time. My first hope is that they would leave, my second would be that they surrender and I'll detain them in my bathroom (where they cannot escape and present no personal threat to me), and only if given no other choice would I shoot them but if I shoot them I'm shooting to kill and not wound.

 

Good luck with all of that eh

 

How far will a .22 LR Kill?

[video=youtube_share;OUM1r_444CY]http://youtu.be/OUM1r_444CY[/video]

 

One of the responses to the above video.