WMLs are Useless on CCW Pistols

[GardoneVT]

WMLs are quite useful on CCW guns. How else is one supposed to see the target in a dark and smoky gun range with their carry pistol?

[TGS]

I suppose I missed this, who is dismissing having a WML?

It's an idea that has been floated many times in various conversations on the forum over the last couple years when the idea of CCWers carrying WMLs comes up.

In this thread in particular, BBI is dismissive of them. He's indicated that it's fine if you want to carry it, but that it's of little use to a CCWer or off-duty LEO.

That's literally the definition of dismissive; the act of dismissing an object/idea from consideration; not important, no value.

[Sigfan26]

I always carry a handheld light. I tend to train with that. If I spent more time out and about after dark, I’d consider a wml on my CCW Pistol. But, I tend to go home when the streetlights come in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[orionz06]

It's an idea that has been floated many times in various conversations on the forum over the last couple years when the idea of CCWers carrying WMLs comes up.

In this thread in particular, BBI is dismissive of them. He's indicated that it's fine if you want to carry it, but that it's of little use to a CCWer or off-duty LEO.

That's literally the definition of dismissive; the act of dismissing an object/idea from consideration; not important, no value.

So one guy? I guess I'm reading these posts with far less investment into any side.

[TGS]

So one guy?

I guess I forgot to mention in my post about how the idea that WMLs are of little-to-no-use for CCWers has been commonly floated on the forum over the past couple years. There's even been threads about it, and the topic usually comes up tangentially when people talk about CCW purposed WMLs such as the Surefire XC1, TLR-6, TLR-7, etc.

[BehindBlueI's]

In this thread in particular, BBI is dismissive of them. He's indicated that it's fine if you want to carry it, but that it's of little use to a CCWer or off-duty LEO.

That's literally the definition of dismissive; the act of dismissing an object/idea from consideration; not important, no value.

Right. Because that's what the real world has shown us. Between my personal case files and Givens' studies we've got at least 200 shootings of criminal actors, zero of which required a WML. If you don't mind the inclusion of criminal on criminal shootings, I can easily approach 1k shootings where neither side had or needed a WML. The situations where people are victimized simply don't lend themselves to needing one.

What actions constitute "assault on an occupied vehicle" in your state? Is someone allowed to shoot someone simply for banging on their car and screaming angrily?

That'd be a situation where, if I thought it likely such actions would convey hostilities (high crime area, notable amount of "assaults on occupied vehicles", armed car-jackings, etc), I could draw my pistol and assess the threat instead of 1) Drawing only my flashlight, or 2) Shooting them.

Now, if I draw my gun and illuminate them, and they're hanging onto a gun, or perhaps some sort of object that looks like was being used for the banging and my mind registers them as trying to bust out my window, I've now articulated a reason to shoot the person and I can hopefully do it before they cause grievous bodily harm to me/mine. If I draw my gun and illuminate them, and they don't need to be shot (drunk dude, doesn't look like he has anything in his hands and is thus unlikely to breach my vehicle), I just saved myself from having to take someone else's life.

(d) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

If you are angrily yelling at me and physically striking my vehicle while I am inside, that is an attack on my occupied motor vehicle. Empty hands or gun held down to their side is irrelevant. Pointing at me in a manner consistent with a firearm is no different then any other furtive movement shooting, justified if reasonable given the circumstances. Not terribly long ago we had a road rage incident where a guy did a furtive movement as though pointing a gun at another driver after blocking him in. That driver then shot him based on the furtive movement (which was captured by his dashcam). Good shoot, no charges filed.

I think that's largely the issues with the hypotheticals is they are in a vacuum, whereas reality has a lot more going on. What's he yelling? What happened immediately before?

As far as the example you are using, I don't think "not enough light" was the problem there and I seriously doubt a WML (assuming he didn't have one, MPD authorizes them) would have made any difference at all. Was his view of her hands obstucted because it was that dark or because they weren't in the field of view allowed by his window?

"According to the account by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which is investigating the shooting, the officers were driving through an alley, the lights on their squad car off, looking for an assault suspect."

There was apparently enough light to navigate without headlights, enough light to look for a suspect, and enough light for the decedent to see the car moving and approach it. What am I missing that leads you to think this is a case where a WML would have mattered, and that he didn't have one?

[Sigfan26]

Can we, at least, all agree that every person carrying a firearm for defense of their life (or the life of others) should be carrying a hand held light at a minimum? I'd love to get to the point where everyone with a CCW is carrying a decent handheld before we start preaching about WMLs.

[TGS]

There was apparently enough light to navigate without headlights, enough light to look for a suspect, and enough light for the decedent to see the car moving and approach it. What am I missing that leads you to think this is a case where a WML would have mattered, and that he didn't have one?

I guess it goes back to what I previously said about how I've been in plenty of lighting situations where I can make out a person or car rolling down the street, but not what a person's hands are doing/holding; a heavy value has been placed on such in my judgmental shooting training thus far.

Specific to the Noor shooting, the trial seemed to hinge on his lack of properly ID'ing the shadowy figure and their furtive movement, and shooting simply because he thought the person was a threat. A WML would have given him the ability to illuminate the person while still being ready to rapidly engage the threat if need be.

Your state law might allow a driver to smoke someone simply for banging on their door and yelling angrily, but that's not a standard I'm comfortable with using as my baseline. If I can properly illuminate the target to ascertain OAJ or not, I'd rather do that given the capability is available to me as opposed to just defaulting to "furtive movement in the dark". Noor is going to jail for murder because that argument didn't hold up....I'd rather not find myself in the same situation when there's a commonly available tool to help me avoid such. It appears to me to be an obvious best practice.

[Joe in PNG]

I guess it goes back to what I previously said about how I've been in plenty of lighting situations where I can make out a person or car rolling down the street, but not what a person's hands are doing/holding; a heavy value has been placed on such in my judgmental shooting training thus far.

Specific to the Noor shooting, the trial seemed to hinge on his lack of properly ID'ing the shadowy figure and their furtive movement, and shooting simply because he thought the person was a threat. A WML would have given him the ability to illuminate the person while still being ready to rapidly engage the threat if need be.

And that's where my question comes in- do you then point your gat at a person or car rolling down the street to illuminate them with a WML?
Edit to add:
One can still identify a threat with a handheld light, and draw/shoot if needed. A WML can be one of those situations where "the perfect is the enemy of the good".

[TGS]

And that's where my question comes in- do you then point your gat at a person or car rolling down the street to illuminate them with a WML?

If in whatever initial actions has drawn my attention to them I've assessed that they're a threat of some type, I'm fearing I'm running into the danger of grievous bodily harm, and we're heading towards a situation where I'm thinking I might need to shoot them, yes.

You don't need to make a 100% decision to shoot prior to illuminating a target with a WML. The WML is supposed to help you make that decision.