Posted on 12/27/2008 5:23:50 AM PST by marktwain
A woman's 80-year-old grandfather fatally shot her estranged husband after he tried to take their two children from the grandparents' house, Conroe police said Saturday.
==========cut======================
According to police, Boudreaux's estranged wife and children have been living with her grandparents for about five months. When Boudreaux arrived Friday and tried to take the children, the grandfather intervened and ordered him to leave. Boudreaux refused, pushing the man out of the way, the statement said. The grandfather then allegedly retrieved a revolver from another room and placed it in his back pocket before again advising Boudreaux, who was aware the older man had a gun, to leave, police said.
As the two left the home out to the driveway, Boudreaux again pushed the older man and allegedly struck him in the chest area where he recently had a pacemaker inserted, police said. Fearing for his life, police said the older man then allegedly shot Boudreaux once, killing him.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Nothing allegedly about a gunshot wound to the chest or head. Who let this dummy write this article?
marktwain replies:
Yes. Lots to do to stay alive and out of jail.
Fortunately, most criminals are not expert assassins who wish to kill you at all costs. Every bit of training and thought on the subject can be helpful, but I still consider driving to work each day as the most dangerous activity (after breathing) that I routinely do.
Everyone in the world is under a death sentence. The only difference is when it *will* happen.
What do you say to double taps?
That is very close to what I teach.
If no cover, find concealment.
The person who shared it with me was Denver’s head Trainer
I think it produces 50 to 75 round shootouts in Denver. We in the NRA training teach reassess after each shot or two. A more far-reaching reassessment while changing magazines.I doubt it.
I claim no expertise in this area. I have never been in an actual gunfight on the street, so I defer to the knowledge of you guys on here. (All of my experience is military).
My carry weapon is a Kimber .45. 7 in the mag, one in the chamber. Two spare mags.
IF the day ever comes that it is necessary for me to employ deadly force, I HOPE that I have the presence of mind to fire only enough rounds to stop the threat, and keep any remaining ammo for secondary threats (should there be any), thereby protecting myself from the immediate threat AND any potential legal problems.
That's my plan while sitting here in the safety and comfort of my dining room. However, I know from my combat experience that the FIRST thing to go out the window will be my "plan". LOL. I'm here hoping to gain insight from you guys who teach this stuff.
I also naturally gravitate to the "gun threads" because they are usually the most polite. We usually treat one another on the forums the way we would at the range. Sure, we disagree sometimes, but we try to do it without being disagreeable.
THAT'S what I like most about the FR shooting community.
She stopped when he was down and she only hit him three times. She didn’t hit him ten times.
I don’t see where all this is going and why it’s such a problem for some people.
A responsible CCW holder should know with each shot if the person is a threat or not.
So, you’ve never actually shot a weapon. Understood.
You posted my sentence. Did you not understand the first part? You should be behind cover or finding cover when reloading.
IDPA takes real incidences and repeats them for their stages. Don’t confuse the exercises on shooting ability which are used for some of their stages with real life.
I don’t think the NRA teaches someone to empty out their weapon before they really look at their target. I also can’t believe that of the Denver Police.
New York, I can believe. That would explain the unarmed guy getting hit 41 times.
Is that in the military venacular? Or do you mean a controlled pair?
Stop posting your insulting and childish rants to me.
“A responsible CCW holder should know with each shot if the person is a threat or not.”
A deer shot through the heart with a high powered rifle can run 100 yards before falling over. A person is about deer sized, and personal handguns are usually far less powerful than deer rifles. Even if the threat is shot through the heart, they could easily have 10-15 seconds of active life remaining, enough time to empty a magazine, reload, and empty another.
It is simply prudent to keep on firing until the threat is down and no longer a threat.
I see you have read and follow Massad Ayoob.
“A responsible CCW holder should know with each shot if the person is a threat or not.”
I have simply been making the point that people can shoot many times before the effect of the bullets on the target is known, and that they should not assume that their shots are having an effect until they see the effect.
Uh-huh...you seem to have all the answers.
Consider that the man you are quick to call a 'deadbeat' was laid-off and had no income...or only enough income to keep himself off the street and having just enough food to eat.
Do you think the court gives a damn? NO! Their attitude is the same as that line from the movie Goodfellas when they described the obligation of the restaurant owner.
"...But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week no matter what. Business bad? @$!# you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? @$!# you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning huh? @$!# you, pay me."
The statement above is exactly what I have been saying in my multiple posts. You shoot until the threat is over. There are too many people here who don't know the law. They think you can keep shooting until you run out of ammo and then look at your target.
All of this is theory. In a real situation you have to adjust to facts on the ground. Often, just showing that you have a gun is enough. Sometimes one shot is enough. Sometimes it takes a lot more.
If someone is trying to kill me, I will not play by the code duello.
“It is simply prudent to keep on firing until the threat is down and no longer a threat.”
“The statement above is exactly what I have been saying in my multiple posts. You shoot until the threat is over. There are too many people here who don't know the law. They think you can keep shooting until you run out of ammo and then look at your target.”
marktwain replies:
Excellent. Everyone agrees. Consider that shooting until the threat is over, and shooting until you have emptied the gun are functionally equivalent in a great number of cases.
I do not think that anyone posting here is saying that they should execute wounded unconscious people on the ground.
However, a gun can be emptied so rapidly that in a great number of cases, a person will not be able to tell that the threat is neutralized until the gun is empty and you are taking time to reload, so functionally, we are all saying much the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.