Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns The FBI shoot Out In Miami 1986

Last time I checked, the FBI could carry a number of guns/calibers from 9mm to .45.

The 10mm is a great cartridge, but it's not THE right cartridge for everyone, which I believe is why the FBI offers some variety in what their agents can carry. But even when carrying the 10mm, the FBI carries the down loaded (10mm lite) version of the 10mm with ballistics similar to the .40 S&W.

What's interesting to note is most surgeons will tell you there isn't a ton of difference between JHP's and FMJ's when it comes to actual tissue destruction. Yeah, there may be a huge difference on paper when we measure the two in ballistic gelatin. But something many people fail to understand is what it all equates to when measured against the target.

A .45 caliber hole when measured against the average human torso, becomes a very small hole indeed. Spreading that hole out to .60 sounds really impressive on paper, but when you compare it to the torso, it really doesn't make nearly as huge of a difference in comparison to the target shot, as it looks on paper.

Bullets, caliber & guns...None of them will ever compensate for bad bullet placement. Hitting your target trumps everything.

TRH, would I be concerned about my family? You bet I would be concerned and if I lost the fight there is no doubt that their safety would now be in the hands of the intruder. One must win against an armed advisary in ones home, that is the bottom line. Thoughts and planing if this unthinkable were to ever happen must be done before the confrontation begins, not after

I don't know the law well enough to really know; but this doesn't sound right to me. If you're in a gunfight, at some point YOU make the decision to deploy your firearm, and when your gun comes out, YOU are responsible for what happens/happened as a direct consequence of pulling your gun.

Now some states (and this is all on a state by state basis) make provision for the use of lethal force to defend against those committing a felony, but most states don't.

Now Emericus, you're a cop, and as a cop, what you said definitely applies, because cops have different rules than us civvies.

I don't mean to offend, but I don't believe your statement is true; certainly not in some states (Maryland, New Hampshire, etc.), and could be true in others.

But one should heed this piece of advice: Never take any legal element for granted; find out for sure.

Very well said, E!

No doubt, truely the unthinkable! In my home, the layout is such that my kids would very likely be on the other side of the bad guy I'm shooting. So when I'm at home, I'm quite likely to favor the less penetrating rounds such as the Hornady 200gr XTP or 185 grain Silvertip for my .45. In a 9mm it would be 115's inside the house.

Since it's inside the house, I'm not concerned about barrier penetration; there's nothing a 185 grain Silvertip won't go through in my house with the exception of my gun safe.

So when we size up the security situation, we have to make some assumptions. In my case, I assume I won't have anything tougher than wallboard to shoot through inside the house. I also assume no body armor, just clothes. If I use the 200gr Hornady or 185 Silvertip, I'm intentionally choosing expansion over penetration because I will not tolerate the thought of over penetration at all, because my kids are very likely to be on the other side of the target.

Now pull me outside the house, and things get very different. But then again, if I'm responding to an indident outside the house, chances are, I have enough time to respond with a rifle instead of a pistol.

Good answer.

I recall learning this in law school. If your shoot is justified, you are not liable criminally or civilly for stray bullets, but the bad actor, or his estate, is. That is, at least, the common law on the matter. I don't know if there are any states that deviate substantively from this common law rule.

Bullshixt.

I'm not a lawyer, but if this were true, you wouldn't have so many CCW class instructors stressing not hitting innocents.

The first thing is though, I personally am not going to kill three or four bystanders just so I survive. If watching your front sight and killing only bad guys gets me wasted, so be it, but I am not going to go out having kilt a bunch of innocent people. You have that mindset and the legalities don't come into play.

I am pretty sure if you fire the bullet you are responsible for that bullet. If it hits anyone or anything I think you will have to pay.

If I am working and bounce a bullet into something or someone the city I work for is probaly going to have to pay. I don't really see what the difference would be if I was defending my life while working or not. I will ask though and get a good answer for this in this state.

Dink

Wasn't making a value judgment, Cole, but the reason I remember this so clearly is that it was a bit surprising when I first learned it. Upon reflection, however, it made logical sense to me that the bad actor bears the full measure of blame for what the innocent are forced by his actions to do in defense of their lives or the lives of innocent others.

I think you are wrong Hawk.

I don't believe so, since my memory of it seems fresh to me, but I'm open to evidence that I'm wrong. I don't have a Restatement of Criminal Law (or Tort Law) handy to look it up in, and Google isn't much help on this specific a legal question. I'd need to visit a law library or use one of the law specific websites that charges a pretty penny to join. If I still had my notebooks from law school, that would do the job too. I still have my Criminal Law and Tort Law textbooks, but they are in New York in my parents' garage.

Would have to agree with Cole on this, here in this state, You are held responsible in Civil court for the shots you make. Even the BG or his Estate if that be the end result can Sue you. The perp and his estate may not win, but an innocent bystander hit by one of your stray rounds will, and if you do hit an innocent bystander, you will definately go to jail for it. This applys even if in your own home. We have no Castle Doctrine, and as the law is written now you must make every effort to retreat from the confrontation, even if it means running out of your house while the BG do what they want.

Swifty

If reality were determined democratically, you guys would win on this one.

To take it even further, in many jurisdictions, if the bad guy survives the shooting, he can be charged with the murder of the person you (the self defense shooter) accidentally shot when you were defending yourself. That's called felony murder.

That sounds really good but Sopranoes and Scarface aside, most bad guys don't have much money, whereas most good guys do. Who do you think will get sued in Civil Court? You take some shots and you will be held responsible for each and every one. Make no mistake about it.

Like I said, you're not liable for shots fired with self-defense justification. That's civilly or criminally. That's the common law rule, but there may be some oddball jurisdictions that substantively depart from it.

Cole, I found it. In criminal law, it's called the doctrine of excused homicide, and in tort law it's called the doctrine of transferred privilege.

Stated simply, in the absence of negligence (i.e., if your actions in self-defense would be deemed reasonable by the standard of the ordinary prudent person), the privilege of self-defense protects one from liability when a third party is accidentally (i.e., not the object of your intention) injured or killed (Restatement (Second) of Torts � 75). The rule is identical in criminal law.

YOu are incorrect on this point for sure. One will not go to jail if one mistakenly or accidentaly hits an inocent in defense of ones life. One may get sued for the unitended consequence, but no criminal action

Not liable civilly either. Read my post above. The rule is based on the 1864 case of Morris v. Platt.

This legal doctrine has been interpreted even to go so far as to protect you from liability if the assailant, against whom you are defending yourself, uses an innocent third party as a human shield, and you shoot back to save your life, killing the innocent human shield in the process. No liability on your part so long as standard self-defense justification is demonstrated. It's strictly the liability (both criminally and civilly) of the assailant who used the innocent third party as a human shield.