I am too old and fat to run or fight. I do not intend to ever be in a life threatening situation, but if it happens, I will respond and the distance will not matter.
|
   
   
|
|
I am too old and fat to run or fight. I do not intend to ever be in a life threatening situation, but if it happens, I will respond and the distance will not matter.
To address that video from post #9:
If there is ever an attempt to sue those officers for wrongful death, assault or any other action - the officers will be on EXCELLENT legal ground. They did everything they could within their power to avoid using deadly force and only used deadly force when there was no other option. Backing up, giving commands, creating distance - were all measures to buy time and distance. Ultimately that was suicide by cop but those officers were looking for any alternative to deadly force they could find. They didn't have a lot of options in that quickly unfolding event.
As for the effectiveness of the rounds, I don't think that was a failure. Handguns SUCK at stopping people. A determined adversary will continue to fight until they are physically unable to fight. To stop a determined human attacker with a handgun you need: A loss of oxygenated blood reaching the brain OR a CNS hit OR break a pelvis or femur. After the first rounds were fired, that subject probably would have bled out enough to pass out and stop fighting after 45-60 seconds. However, he still had enough fight left in that 45-60 seconds to attempt to disarm the officer. Had the second officer been armed with a long gun, that second attack could have been prevented.
The illusion that a handgun round hit in the torso will instantly stop a human is just that - an illusion. If you can score a spinal cord hit, take out the aorta or put a hole in the left vertical - maybe the fight will stop. Even fatally wounded people can continue to fight before they die.
Last edited by Petrol & Powder; 02-06-2020 at 07:12 PM.
I don't believe I stated that anyone in this thread made that claim. But it has been made in the hundreds of other threads on gun forums that I've seen over the years. The way it is most often stated is that using your gun in a distance over 7 yards will get you in legal hot water.Originally Posted by Petrol & Powder
Which is exactly why the OP asked it, because he has seen that claim made over and over again on the internet.
Which was exactly my point.
"Luck don't live out here. Wolves don't kill the unlucky deer; they kill the weak ones..." Jeremy Renner in Wind River
I don't know why the OP asked that question and I'm not sure how you know either.
To use a cliché -- at the end of the day -- it will largely depend on the circumstances. A knife waver at 25 yards and holding isn't much of a threat. A knife waver running toward you from 25 yards rapidly becomes a threat, and more and more shootable as he closes the distance. A pistol waver at 25 yards is a wobbler for threat, but if he becomes a shooter at 25 yards he is definitely a threat. Everything is subject to multiple Monday Morning quarterbacking. You might get acquitted or convicted, but you can't get your life back. Back in my day, and I suspect it's still largely true, the threat had to have (1) motive, (2) ability, (3) opportunity to carry out his evil intentions to justify his demise. As for (1), the Good Lord only knows why people want to kill or harm other people that they probably don't even know. As for (2) and (3), you can only rely on your own judgment and instincts when you decide what your response should be. Legally and financially, flight is preferable to fight. But being an older, fatter, slower guy with one bum leg, I'd rather face the jury than get run down and killed anyway.
DG
I have always heard you don't a person with a knife to get closer than 7 yards. At that distance, a person can charge you and still inflict a stab wound before his body shuts down from a gun shot wound.
I think answers to your questions vary from state to state and situation to situation. I would not shoot someone at 20 yards unless he threaten me with a firearm.
The stand your ground law also varies from state to state. A lot depends on when the situation has de-esculated.
In my area a man put a knife to a victims throat and robbed him. The robber turned away and the victim pulled a gun and shot him in the back. The victim walked about 25 yards and died. That incident was ruled a stand your ground but he was initially charged. No trial
Also, a man threaten to kill another over a domestic dispute. The threating man showed up on his property and the threatened man meet him on his porch. The man branished a gun and the home owner shot him 7 times with 3 or 4 shots hitting him in the back. The home owner was charged with murder. Witnesses testified they heard all the shots over a short time span. The home owner was acquitted but he faced lawyers bills of $80,000.
IMO, best to check court cases and incidents where self defense was used in your state and local courts.
FWIW. Here in Minnesota it will vary by county as to if you are charged. While here by written law there is no duty to retreat, there is an old court case from the '40s that some county attorneys use to prosecute and others don't. In my county the county attorney tried to use it in a case here in the last couple of years, but ended up getting 2 hung juries. So he dropped it. But also here I don't know of any cases on conviction by a jury in a self defense case (short of the one that the guy 'bait' the 2 he shot and killed).
It appears someone failed to use a perfectly good firetruck.
Have mercy.
A haw, haw, haw, haw, a haw.
A haw, haw, haw
wv109323 - The old 7 yard [21 foot] rule was about reaction time of the shooter drawing from a holster, not the amount of time to incapacitate the knife wielding attacker. The person with a holstered handgun wouldn't even be able to draw and accurately fire if the attacker was within 21 feet. Even outside of 21 feet the knife wielding attacker would likely close the distance and wound the person with the gun even IF he took rounds. The point of the drill is to demonstrate that action is ALWAYS faster than reaction.
When confronted with an attacker armed with a knife in their hand the defender should draw, aim the handgun and attempt to create additional distance or escape if possible.
As for the cases you quote - can you provide names, dates and jurisdictions?
My father lost a partner in the late 50s or early next 60s. The guy charged them with a knife and they emptied their revolvers (38 special LRN) and the guy had enough enertia to fatality stab his partner once.
Some old time firearms training consultant (AYOOB?) did training film something like the 21 yd rule for knife assailants where he broke down a knife attack starting at close distance and demonstrated that to draw and engage a charging suspect you need 21 yards. Should be on the tube. It is eye opening.
"Stand your ground" laws may remove the duty to retreat in certain cases BUT the standard for self defense doesn't change.
So while one person may not have a duty to retreat, that doesn't mean they get to execute the other person. There still must be a credible, imminent threat of death or serious harm before deadly force may be applied.
Here's an example: In a "Stand your ground state" an armed intruder breaks into your house, you arm yourself and confront the intruder. The intruder drops his weapon and retreats. The "Stand your ground" law doesn't permit you to shoot him as he is fleeing simply because you're in your house. The imminent threat no longer exists.
"Stand Your Ground" simply removes the duty to retreat in some select situations; it doesn't alter the underlying concept of self-defense.
Again, it depends the state and local area.
Here it isn't "deadly force" it's "the intent to kill". And when less than "the intent to kill" can be used which is in situations other than "imminent threat of death or serious harm".
So what the laws/court cases are in Virginia or any other state are of little bearing to those outside of Virginia or a different state.
I see where you are including the language from the Minnesota laws on murder (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19).
The words "with the intent to effect the death" in that code are part of the definition of murder in Minnesota but that's not referring to self-defense. It's defining murder (the intentional, unjustified killing of another with malice)
Self-defense can be a justification for homicide. Not all homicides are murder. One of the justifications for homicide is self-defense.
Deadly force is a term associated with case law involving the legal defense of "self-defense".
I believe you may be mixing the statutory language included in the definition of murder with the case law that addresses the legal defense of "self-defense".
I reworded the Minnesota self defense law. I see I really shouldn't have used the quote marks and it may have caused you a bit of confusion. Here is the Minnesota self defense law in full. Plus when force can be used in some what normal situation when there is no intent of killing the person.
FWIW. As there is some case law in Minnesota for the duty to retreat, in the recent case in my county that is what the county attorney was basing the case on. The jury asked the judge for the legal definition of duty to retreat and the judge told them there was no legal definition in Minnesota of it. The guy wasn't found guilty by the jury. The guy had walked over to his, gotten his pistol and returned.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property;
That makes a little more sense, thank you for clarifying that.
And while we're on the issue; failing to obtain a conviction after placing a charge is not proof that the original charge was improper.
The standard to arrest or indict is merely probable cause. The standard to convict is "Beyond a reasonable doubt". The first standard (probable cause) is a pretty low bar (as it should be).
The second standard (beyond reasonable doubt) is the highest standard in our legal system (also as it should be).
There are very good reasons those standards are far apart.
A prosecutor that charges but fails to obtain a conviction isn't necessarily acting out of malice or acting foolishly. He may be allowing the people (a jury) to exercise the power ultimately held by the people. And remember, once jeopardy attaches and the defendant is acquitted, that defendant can never be tried for that offense again.
It may appear cruel at first glance but that prosecutor may be allowing the people to set the standard for the community while simultaneously protecting the defendant from ever facing prosecution for that offense again.
There are some cases where it is apparent the person should not be put on trial. The guy that shot the insane gunman in the Texas church is a good example. There are also cases where putting the person on trial and allowing the citizens (a jury) to acquit the accused; is actually a good thing.
The right to a speedy trial, a trial by jury and the prohibition against double jeopardy - are all powerful forces held by the people and not by the government. Our founding fathers were very smart men. A prosecutor that trusts and respects the power of the people may be a better guardian of liberty than he first appears to be.
Self Defense may be a legal defense to: Assault, Aggravated Assault, Manslaughter and Murder.
Sometimes the claim of self-defense is obvious and we don't need to explore the claim.
Sometimes it is a good idea to dig a little deeper into that claim of self-defense and make certain that it actually was a valid self-defense and not just an excuse to commit murder.
Sometimes it is a good thing to let the power rest with the people.
Last edited by Petrol & Powder; 02-07-2020 at 09:17 PM.
Perp got what he wanted. Suicide by LEO.
He took several rounds and was still lethal.
Why didn’t LEO start shooting as he was getting closer and closer?
Second LEO had some good shooting under pressure with his buddy blocking the perp.
I hope to never have to encounter this.
Why couldn’t they close in and use less lethal when he was still up by the original officers camera car?
I suppose I should know better than post a new thread at 3:30 in the morning.The questions of legal self defense has been answered, you could be in for the fight of your life, or it could be so obvious that charges are dismissed out of hand, and you jurisdiction makes all the difference as well. Distance may not play into it, or it could be a huge factor.
The question that's not been addressed.
Do you think civilian training programs focus too much on offensive training (such as the M&P HAVE to use), at the expense of so many other areas of defensive hand gun use? Should training focus in other areas such as, situational awareness, putting your weapon into use, and making first shots count under pressure? After all, if we know we're going to be in a gun fight we'd all bring long guns, and have ample cover and concealment wouldn't we? It seems in the last church shooting lives where lost because of failure to put concealed weapons into action soon enough. Again, probably because the carriers didn't train at all!
osteodoc08 wrote:
Perp got what he wanted. Suicide by LEO. - Yes, but that still sucks for the LEO's that were forced to kill him.
He took several rounds and was still lethal. - Yep ! , And it wouldn't have mattered if the rounds were JHP's from a 44 magnum or FMJ 25 ACP. A determined attacker will continue to fight until they are physically unable to fight. Until the damage physically prevents further mobility, a bullet will not absolutely stop an attack. You need a Spinal Cord hit, a Brain stem hit, a broken Pelvis or enough disruption of blood flow to the brain to stop the ABILITY to fight.
Why didn’t LEO start shooting as he was getting closer and closer? - Because they didn't WANT to kill him. They would rather place themselves in mortal danger than to take a life. Police officers are very reluctant to kill even when it is legally justified. Colonel Grossman writes about this extensively. Most humans are very reluctant to kill other humans.
Second LEO had some good shooting under pressure with his buddy blocking the perp. - YES HE DID ! But both of those officers showed incredible restraint. AND, those officers were not just watching a video - they had no idea how that situation would end. They both did a good job.
I hope to never have to encounter this. - You're not alone
Why couldn’t they close in and use less lethal when he was still up by the original officers camera car? - The short answer is, "Because they didn't". They did what they did, when they had to do something. There are a thousand things they "could have done". The situation was unfolding in real time, there was no script and they did an outstanding job. Would have, Should have, Could have; plays no role when it's actually happening.
Last edited by Petrol & Powder; 02-08-2020 at 12:29 AM.
I'll address some of this.I suppose I should know better than post a new thread at 3:30 in the morning.
The question that's not been addressed.
Do you think civilian training programs focus too much on offensive training (such as the M&P HAVE to use), at the expense of so many other areas of defensive hand gun use? Should training focus in other areas such as, situational awareness, putting your weapon into use, and making first shots count under pressure? After all, if we know we're going to be in a gun fight we'd all bring long guns, and have ample cover and concealment wouldn't we? It seems in the last church shooting lives where lost because of failure to put concealed weapons into action soon enough. Again, probably because the carriers didn't train at all!
Do you think civilian training programs focus too much on offensive training (such as the M&P HAVE to use), at the expense of so many other areas of defensive hand gun use? - No for police , maybe Yes for military - those are NOT the same situations.
The military has a different role than the police. A soldier engaging and killing the enemy at time of war doesn't have the same goal as a police officer attempting to carry out his/her duty. Most civilian lawful uses of deadly force are based in self-defense. Most wartime uses of force are based in defeating your enemy. Those are all (civilian/police/military) different goals and situations.
Should training focus in other areas such as, situational awareness, putting your weapon into use, and making first shots count under pressure? - YES ! (and by the way .......you REALLY LIKE MULTIPLE PART QUESTIONS)
After all, if we know we're going to be in a gun fight we'd all bring long guns, and have ample cover and concealment wouldn't we? - YES ! And if we could predict that situation...... wouldn't we just AVOID IT ??????
It seems in the last church shooting lives where lost because of failure to put concealed weapons into action soon enough. Again, probably because the carriers didn't train at all! - I have to disagree with this. Lives were lost because some criminal took lives. Fewer lives were lost because other people stopped that criminal. There was no FAILURE to put weapons into action. The blame rests solely on the criminal and I refuse to shift that blame to those that did their best to stop that criminal. I will have NO part in Monday Morning Quarterback criticism. I wasn't there but from what I saw - they responded well.
Last edited by Petrol & Powder; 02-08-2020 at 12:23 AM.
The overriding tenant of Concealed Carry is self defense. As a civilian your overriding goal is to save your bacon and other inocents you are responsible for like family. You don't have a legal requirement to defend anyone else. In a self defense shooting, the hardest thing may be to stop shooting or withhold fire if the aggressor ceases to be a threat. If the bad guy turns and runs, you can't legally shoot. Reaction time comes into play here, both in commensing action and ceasing. If anything, a civie CC does not have the risk of closing with the perp to take him into custody. Oh, yes, if you draw but do not fire... call the Police immediately so HE can't claim YOU were a crazy dude with a gun who tried to rob him! You want to be the complainant on the Police report. Holster your gun before the Police arrive. Have your id and permit ready. Expect to be disarmed by the Police during the investigation.
NRA Life Member
member South County Rod & Gun Club
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote