Civilian Self Defense vs Police and Military

[Thundarstick]

Thought I'd bring this up here.

Does it bother anyone else that when it comes to CCW training and opinions that most of it is geared more toward police work? Would it be more difficult to plead self defense if you employed your firearm from 20 yards, or 10 feet away? Does anyone know the average distance of self defense shootings? What's you thoughts on this?

[Petrol & Powder]

EVERY use of deadly force must be justified and the criteria is the same - Was there a reasonable belief that there was a legitimate and imminent threat of death or serious harm at the time the force was used.

That criteria doesn't change based on the status of the person using the force.

A citizen may (not always) have a duty to retreat in some cases where a police officer may be required to engage, but other than that, the decision to use force doesn't change.

[6bg6ga]

Some states say you must turn tail and run first before you can defend yourself and others have stand your ground laws. At any rate be prepared to loose everything in the event you have to defend yourself. I believe also that a lot of programs are geared toward Police and Military instead of the common Joe. Most instances happen very close probably 15 feet or less.

[RU shooter]

As long as you can articulate your justification for use of force in court the range don't matter .A person an be in danger at 2 feet or 20 yards it's all based on how the event happened . Just remember if it goes to trial you and your attorney will have to convince a judge/jury of your reasoning

[dverna]

I saw the average engagement distance one time and it was close...a few yards. Think of a home invasion. Unless you live in a mansion, the longest shot might be 5-10 yards. One reason I stopped carry a Kimber .45. Target trigger is not only silly but foolish, as the chance for a AD increases.

Cannot comment much on training wrt defense vs police work. The best course I took was at FrontSight and it was an eye opener...at least for me. We did a lot (maybe all?) of drawing from concealed. I doubt police need to do much of that.

[Thumbcocker]

IIRC an old FBI study found that shootouts generally occurred around 7 yards.

[2wheelDuke]

I think part of that is bleeding over from the instructors' backgrounds. Many instructors will revert back to their base in LE/Military, because most people haven't had many real defensive encounters as a civilian.

Just my 2 cents as an LE trainer.

[Petrol & Powder]

There are multiple questions posed in the OP:

1. Does it bother anyone else that when it comes to CCW training and opinions that most of it is geared more toward police work?

2. Would it be more difficult to plead self defense if you employed your firearm from 20 yards, or 10 feet away?

3. Does anyone know the average distance of self defense shootings?

4. What's you thoughts on this?

Let's break this down.
1. Does it bother anyone else that when it comes to CCW training and opinions that most of it is geared more toward police work? - No. First, I'm not sure "most" CCW training is geared toward police work. Second, As I stated earlier the criteria for the justified use of deadly force doesn't change based on the status of the person applying the force.

2. Would it be more difficult to plead self defense if you employed your firearm from 20 yards, or 10 feet away? - Whether or not a claim of self-defense will be a successful defense to a criminal charge will depend on the individual facts of that one particular situation.

3. Does anyone know the average distance of self defense shootings? - There are several well used statistics on this but the general answer is most shootings take place at less than 7 yards and more than half of those are at 3 yards or less.

4. What's you thoughts on this? - My thoughts are that each use of deadly force will be evaluated on the facts particular to that case.

[popper]

Interesting one. Knife attack on a LEO.
https://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE%3chttps://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Wow! That went much, much farther than it would have gone in my days as a LEO. Thanks, popper, for posting this.

Here we have the police officers retreating, until no option remains except lethal force. I didn't ascertain which jurisdiction this happened in, but I believe that they went far beyond what was required for the shooting to be justified. The chances of the perp's mama having a successful lawsuit are extremely slim. I guess this is why they went to body cameras.

Knife attacks require the aggressor to get within arm's reach of his intended victim, but they can cover the intervening space very quickly, so a non-lethal 50 ft. can become a lethal 4 ft. in seconds. Somewhere in between lethal force is justified, and 7 yards distance is waiting too long, as the remaining 3 or 4 yards will be covered in a time span in which it is difficult for the normal person to react. I think 15 yards is my personal limit for how closely I will allow someone who is threatening me with a weapon to approach. But, incidents can occur within the 15 yard zone, and go from a perceived threat level of zero to critical in a couple of seconds.

Getting back to the OP's original questions, yes, most shootings occur within 7 yards or even closer. I suppose that is why so many folks practice at the 7 yard line. Personally, I've always thought that to be a mistake, as a threat can occur from farther away. For example, a recent shooting where (for no apparent reason) a lunatic started shooting at fellow in a gas station pumping gas from across the parking lot. A gun extends the zone of potential lethality or harm to a distance much farther than 7 yards. I've always practiced at 15 yards to 25 yards. The average attacker is less likely to be trained to hit beyond 25 yards or even at 25 yards, but if he's shooting at me I'm going to be shooting at him. Also, I figure that if I'm proficient at 15 yards, then 7 yards is no problem.

About the video again-- one needs to know how many times the attacker was struck by the officer's bullets. They didn't seem to have the desired effect, and there was a lot of shooting. I wonder what caliber they were using. The pistols seemed to be Glocks. I'm not too sure how to address the OP's question about the comparison/influence of military shooting training to police shooting training. in the military one is much more likely to be armed with a shoulder weapon, and range is of far less importance as the enemy is wearing a different uniform and is fair game as far as he can be observed. So are you! I do recall one bit of military training that carried over to my philosophy of police shooting, which is to continue firing until you see the attacker fall down at which point the immediate threat is eliminated. In this instance we saw the attacker come back for seconds. Perhaps he was on drugs or completely insane, and sometimes people operating under these circumstances feel no pain. A police tactic that has gone the other way to military training is the "double tap", the theory being that two shots are likely to be more incapacitating than one. It would seem that a double tap from a .45 ACP is more effective than a double tap from a 9mm, but here there were many more shots than two, and we're left with the unanswered questions about how many actual hits and what caliber.

Anyway, things have sure changed, and I'm glad my LEO days are 30+ years behind me. Time was, the officer would not have retreated, and the attacker would have been perforated with some .357 Mag. JHPs somewhere beyond 7 yards.

For what it's worth.

DG

[dverna]

Interesting one. Knife attack on a LEO.
https://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE%3chttps://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE

Wow.

I wonder if retreating was a good plan. It might have emboldened the attacker. Walking backwards has another downside...easier to trip and fall...then you are in trouble. One thing is shows is how quickly the gap is closed. I am too old and fat to run. Not sure if have the guts to wait until the guy is 7 yards away, as even if you hit him, there is little chance you will stop him in time.

What was with the other cop that appeared to need to draw and was over powered? Have limited bandwidth so did not want to run the video again.

[Biggin]

Interesting one. Knife attack on a LEO.
https://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE%3chttps://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE

I think With all the accusations of officers being too quick to shoot this is what you are getting. Not good for officer safety.

[RU shooter]

In that video the officers did many things contrary to what I was taught in the academy on how to deal perps with armed with weapons other than firearms . Deployment of a longgun by at least one of the officers would have been a real good idea

[Omega]

Interesting question, and I'll muddy the waters a bit more. Self Defense will have to be proven and an arrest may be forthcoming if it is not very apparent it is an SD case right away. And even then, other variables may play into it. Take this one playing out here in TN.

I have to explain the timeline a bit as it can be confusing.

This guy shoots a car thief, gets arrested, bonded out, then rearrested for reasons in the second link. Both are bad guys in the end, but the shooter may have a case of self defense if the driver tried to hit him, the driver has a case of self defense if the shooter drew his weapon before he tried to leave. It will be interesting how this one plays out, the shooter may even have to take a plea due to the second case.

https://fox17.com/news/local/911-call-details-moments-after-man-sees-teen-trying-to-steal-girlfriends-car-shoots-them

https://fox17.com/news/local/police-man-free-on-bond-after-shooting-teen-driving-a-stolen-car-arrested-in-drug-bust

[Paper Puncher]

Wow.

What was with the other cop that appeared to need to draw and was over powered? Have limited bandwidth so did not want to run the video again.

Officer Harrison calls out "less lethal" and Officer Bidinger attempts to switch from his service weapon to his taser. That is when Harrison is attacked.

[frkelly74]

The class I took in Michigan seemed to be geared toward keeping me out of trouble. Lots of look around and be aware of what is going on around you. Michigan is a stand your ground state. Only shoot to stop the attack, which includes if the attacker turns tale to run, the threat is ended. So don't shoot them in the back. And buy the insurance which will get you baled out quick and buy you an interested lawyer. That is mostly what I got from it. It sounded pretty civilian oriented to me.

[popper]

I posted this to show how bad a situation can get real bad, real fast. I assume Georgia from the street stated. Look how many rnds fired for the original stop (I counted 7 shots), then the final (from 2nd LE -5 if I counted correctly) after the 1st officer was attacked. IMHO the first LE was re-holstering his gun when the knife attack started (on the ground fight he is doing something with the gun and it is loose in the end). If I were a shooting defense lawyer I'd collect a bunch of these to show the jury!! Imagine yourself, with IWB holster, decide to draw, thinking all the time. I've posted before, most of us (IMHO) won't survive an aggressive attack. Thinking more (for us) like RUN is the best attitude. Caliber really doesn't make much difference but yes, I suspect 9mm. I also guess this guy was on something nasty.

[Thundarstick]

Here's the video that got me thinking on this subject. https://youtu.be/Cv6PxB2TqLM

Perhaps I'm generalizing about my training and doing some local IDPA competition. The IDPA shoots certainly are very much geared in an offensive training mode. If you followed the training your teaching yourself, you'll likely be defending yourself as the aggressor in a shooting. I have mentioned to some of my fellow shooters, that run high capacity 9s and blast away as fast as their finger can move, you do realize that your responsible for where every one of those stray slugs ends up, don't you? I'm a little concerned that civilian shooters will fall back to their training (M-P), instead of practicing situational awareness, a smooth fast draw from concealed, and good first shot placement. More likely most civilians probably never practice anything other than stand in front of a target, pistol in hand, and burst a few caps every year or two. :roll:

[Idaho45guy]

The argument over distance is silly. There are people that argue anything further than 7 yards away will get you thrown in prison. Really? Is the man in the Texas church shooting in prison? Should he have ran away when the shooting started? Because that's what too many people on gun forums are saying when they make silly statements about set rules of distance.

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't think anyone on this thread has said that a shooting over any specified distance will "get you thrown in prison".

A question was posed concerning distance and whether or not distance would factor into a successful application of a self-defense claim.

The OP asked a series of questions (4 questions) and received opinions. Asking the question about distance as it relates to a self-defense claim wasn't a statement about distance and self-defense.

[Froogal]

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.

[Petrol & Powder]

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.

[Idaho45guy]

I don't think anyone on this thread has said that a shooting over any specified distance will "get you thrown in prison".

A question was posed concerning distance and whether or not distance would factor into a successful application of a self-defense claim.

The OP asked a series of questions (4 questions) and received opinions. Asking the question about distance as it relates to a self-defense claim wasn't a statement about distance and self-defense.

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.

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.

[Petrol & Powder]

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.

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.

I don't know why the OP asked that question and I'm not sure how you know either.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

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

[wv109323]

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.

[perotter]

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).

[wills]

Interesting one. Knife attack on a LEO.
https://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE%3chttps://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE

It appears someone failed to use a perfectly good firetruck.

[Petrol & Powder]

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?

[Greg S]

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.

[Petrol & Powder]

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).

"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.

[perotter]

"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.

[Petrol & Powder]

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".

[perotter]

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;

[Petrol & Powder]

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.

[osteodoc08]

Interesting one. Knife attack on a LEO.
https://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE%3chttps://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE

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?

[Thundarstick]

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!

[Petrol & Powder]

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.

[Petrol & Powder]

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!

I'll address some of this.

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.

[flagman1776]

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.

[osteodoc08]

P&P,

Thanks for the insight. I should have clarified question about waiting until he was closer. I should have clarified that after he shot the perp, when he was staggering towards him and began running towards the LEO after being shot, it looked like he attempted to holster his weapon. Why not empty the weapon into the perp? Thank God the perp didn’t get his service weapon and shoot the LEO.

[Stephen Cohen]

Interesting one. Knife attack on a LEO.
https://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE%3chttps://www.full30.com/embed/MDIxMjI3?fbclid=IwAR0v1EABqKjxCg84mCjxLNOv_E7S9wJ2 gzCG1YMzy3ZTwj9ZtGznwjp4CHE

As a parent with a son and daughter in the Police force that video rammed home how fast things can go bad. My son had a situation like that last year and he did not shoot and very near got knifed. I understand that my son has been told not to engage a target further than 7mtrs, they are to take cover and call back up, I don't need to tell you how silly that policy is. I pray that Officer was ok. Regards Stephen

[samari46]

I forget where I either read or heard about this. Basically the police are not responsible for your personal protection. This is in no way a slight, dig, or insult to all the police departments in this country. Plain fact of the matter is that the police cannot be everywhere at anytime for personal protection. And usually when they show up it's after the fact and whatever happened is now a basis for facts and information. To be used by the district attourney to detirmine wether to go to court with the information gathered by the investigating officers, and statements from victims and witnesses. It is an inescapable fact that there are numerous shootings everyday. A sorry state of affairs but there it is. Those who make the conscious decision to take the responsability to legally carry a concealed firearm have a moral duty to the general public and themselves. states with stand your ground and castle doctrine laws is a step in the right direction. But more should be done. I don't know how many articles I've read but in a lot of shootings lately it seems the agressor has a criminal record and carrying a firearm is a felony. So he's already stacked the books against him and faces more jail time. My FIL was shot in the stomach and the guy who did it was never caught. And in case you are wondering I've carried over 15 years. Thankfully never had to draw my firearm came close once. As much as I hate to say this you/we/and I are all responsible for our own personal safety wether in our homes or out in the public at large. Frank

[Mr_Sheesh]

I, too, was impressed by those 2 officers' trying so thoroughly to avoid killing the knife-wielder.

[Petrol & Powder]

P&P,

Thanks for the insight. I should have clarified question about waiting until he was closer. I should have clarified that after he shot the perp, when he was staggering towards him and began running towards the LEO after being shot, it looked like he attempted to holster his weapon. Why not empty the weapon into the perp? Thank God the perp didn’t get his service weapon and shoot the LEO.

That subject wanted the police to kill him.
Just guessing here- but it appears when he realizes one officer will apply a TASER, he charges the other officer, forcing the first shooting. The suicidal subject knows that if the TASER is successfully deployed he will be captured and not die. His goal was to have the police kill him and not to be captured alive (he ultimate achieved his goal but it took some work).
When the officer yells "less lethal" to the other officer, they exposed their intentions to use a TASER. That was unavoidable in the rapidly unfolding situation. There was no other way to quickly communicate that information at that intense moment.

After the first barrage of gunfire the subject goes down and it appears he may have dropped the knife. There was something on the ground when he got back up. So it's reasonable for the first officer to holster his pistol and prepare to put his hands on the now unarmed subject (handcuff him, search him, get medical attention for him)
When the subject attempts to disarm the first Officer, the second Officer appropriately uses deadly force to protect the officer on the ground who is fighting to retain control of his pistol. That action ended the threat.

When the officers first encounter the subject with the knife they could have stood their ground and shot the subject when he closed the distance. Instead, they choose to back up and give ground. That tactic allowed them to buy time. That time allowed for more officers to arrive on scene, that time allowed them to formulate a plan.

They didn't NEED to give ground, they CHOSE to give ground.

The oficers were trying the best they could to not kill that man. The mentally ill subject took that option away from those officers and he forced the officers to shoot him.

I think those officers did an outstanding job ! I'm glad they got to go home to their families that night.

[Adam_Selene]

Thought I'd bring this up here.

Does it bother anyone else that when it comes to CCW training and opinions that most of it is geared more toward police work? Would it be more difficult to plead self defense if you employed your firearm from 20 yards, or 10 feet away? Does anyone know the average distance of self defense shootings? What's you thoughts on this?

No, there's more gained than lost by picking up lessons from police engagements, especially if the differences are noted and addressed.

As noted by several in this thread, there are a lot more variables than distance that play into whether or not something is justified. I'm not particularly interested in the "average gunfight". If, God forbid, you find yourself in one, you get whatever that situation is - it may be clear cut, it may be ambiguous; it may be an easy shot to make, it may be difficult.

It is generally wise to be prepared for as much of that spectrum as possible, and I'll loop back to this - police are frequently injected into violent, ambiguous situations and have built training around environment. It's not a perfect match, but it's pretty good and is backed by multiple use cases across the country.

[dverna]

These thread makes us think. You will not know what situation you may face, but part of being prepared is studying different scenarios.

Keep in mind we will most likely not be viewed as much of a threat initially. Our attacker will not know we are armed until we draw our gun. That, in itself, may defuse an attack...they will find an easier victim. One reason it may be prudent to draw the gun quickly when a threat is perceived...but then we may be charged with brandishing. Good to have a cell phone so your call to the police is the first one.

We would be prudent to post carefully. Making multiple statements like "The bastard deserved to die" on various thread and forums might be used against you. Our job is to evaluate the threat we face...not the person.

[Thundarstick]

I certainly didn't mean for this thread to turn into a police shooting critique thread. They where tasked with stopping and taking into custody an armed threat, I've seen video of an officer loose his life because he failed to act until he was out gunned. I meant to have a discussion revolving around civilian training and firearm use. I've personally come very close to drawing (hand on the butt, gun still concealed) a handgun on two occasions, had it escalated in either situation the first indication I was armed would have been muzzle blast! I've avoided completely or de-escalated many more.

As far as that church shooting, so it's ok to critique that police video, but not that civilian men died while attempting to draw their weapon, or that the congregation as a whole did nothing when so many suspected something was off long before the shooting started?

[Petrol & Powder]

...........As far as that church shooting, so it's ok to critique that police video, but not that civilian men died while attempting to draw their weapon, or that the congregation as a whole did nothing when so many suspected something was off long before the shooting started?

I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this.

In the Texas church shooting the attacker shoots and the defenders respond, stopping the attacker from continuing his attack. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I'm not going to Monday Morning Quarterback that event. I wasn't there but from what I saw on the video, the armed church members acted appropriately.

here's the video:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=texas+church+shooting+2019&&view=detail&mid=9B0FD822F33637796B039B0FD822F33637796B03&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dtexas%2Bchurch%2Bshoot ing%2B2019%26%26FORM%3DVDVVXX

[ol skool]

Thought I'd bring this up here.

Does it bother anyone else that when it comes to CCW training and opinions that most of it is geared more toward police work? Would it be more difficult to plead self defense if you employed your firearm from 20 yards, or 10 feet away? Does anyone know the average distance of self defense shootings? What's you thoughts on this?

My class and my wife's (for ladies only) were put on by LEO's specifically for civilians. IIRC Massad Ayoob wrote in "The Gravest Extreme" most gunfights are under 7 yards.

My thoughts are no more and no less than what the law requires. The perp must;

> Specifically express intent to kill or inflict extreme injury to you or others, this can be verbal or by actions.
> Must have the means to do so.
> Must have proximity to execute the threat.

Our classes specifically set up scenarios every night for you to comment on. The objective was to make you live, to visualize a life vs death situation and what the law required of you.

So stop a low life at 20 yards holding a pocket knife you'll likely be in prison. A 380 at you car in the dark you may be ok.

Keep in mind half the nation and therefore half the jury members HATE you and all of the so called "news" media.

[Thundarstick]

I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this.

In the Texas church shooting the attacker shoots and the defenders respond, stopping the attacker from continuing his attack. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I'm not going to Monday Morning Quarterback that event. I wasn't there but from what I saw on the video, the armed church members acted appropriately.

here's the video:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=texas+church+shooting+2019&&view=detail&mid=9B0FD822F33637796B039B0FD822F33637796B03&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dtexas%2Bchurch%2Bshoot ing%2B2019%26%26FORM%3DVDVVXX

The very first man the gunman shot was attempting to draw his weapon (possibly the second as well) that's the only point.

[Idaho45guy]

I don't think anyone on this thread has said that a shooting over any specified distance will "get you thrown in prison".

A question was posed concerning distance and whether or not distance would factor into a successful application of a self-defense claim.

The OP asked a series of questions (4 questions) and received opinions. Asking the question about distance as it relates to a self-defense claim wasn't a statement about distance and self-defense.

Here is an excellent example of the lack of common sense and critical thinking in regards to self-defense and distance on this very forum...

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?396058-Put-the-new-P365-through-it-s-paces-today

"Most social encounters/threats occur at less than 10 yards............so I don't understand why 25 yard accuracy is that big of a deal. Best of luck, explaining to the prosecutor, why you felt threatened at that distance."

It's a perfect example of how some people think that someone pointing a gun at you at 25 yards is no reason to feel threatened and will put you in legal jeopardy, while the same situation at 10 yards or less is justifiably a reason for self-defense.

The poster (who I've since put on my ignore list since he is obviously completely lacking in basic reasoning skills) thought that 25 yards was way too far to use your CCW to defend yourself.

The fact is that a lot of people who carry think that you can't defend yourself against someone trying to kill you if they are further away, which I think is absolutely ridiculous. Furthermore, they think that doing so will put yourself in legal jeopardy.

Yes, they are obviously absolutely wrong. But your assertion was that nobody in this thread had asserted that. Which is correct. But my point is that people with that belief absolutely do exist, as shown by my example.

[Idaho45guy]

I have personal experience in regards to knife attacks and LEO engagement.

Back in `99 or so, I was living in a small town about 20 miles from work. I left around 6am from my house and was driving on a rural 2-lane highway in my pickup on my way to work. It was a typical spring morning in that it was cold and drizzly outside.

I spotted a person walking on the side of the road, wrapped in a blanket, headed towards me. I slowed down to see if I could help. When I was down to about 30 mph or so, I could see that it was a white male, wearing sweats, and wrapped in a blanket. I got a feeling that was almost supernatural, that this person was evil and to keep going.

I dialed 911 and advised dispatch of what I'd seen and that they should send someone to check him out.

The next day, I learned what had happened.

They dispatched a deputy that I knew and liked. Phil Gray. He was also one of the deputies involved in an active shooter scenario I've referenced in other threads.

He approached the suspect, parked his patrol vehicle, and got out to talk to the suspect.

The suspect started yelling incoherently about how he was Satan and that the cop must die. He charged the officer with a large knife and a chase ensued around the parked patrol vehicle. The officer fired his .40 S&W Beretta several times, striking the attacker three times at a distance of less than 10' as he was being chased around the car.

The suspect was then neutralized and flown to a nearby trauma center and survived his wounds. He was later diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic who was off his meds and stated he wanted to kill someone in uniform.

[Thundarstick]

You post a good example of how we must hone and use our intuition and listen to our gut feelings to avoid using our firearm, yet at the same time not just ignore a potentially dangerous situation (being a concerned citizen). The officer was doing his job by approaching this suspicious individual, engaging him, and eventually having to use deadly force. I know there are many on this site that are, or where LEO. I understand that.
In retrospect I probably shouldn't have asked about putting one's self in legal jeopardy because of the huge disparity in the laws pertaining to selfdefense in different jurisdictions.

Personally I'd like to see more training geared towards thinking! How will you likely be presented a threat, recognizing a threat, de-escalation of a situation. How you conceal, do you practice your draw, from seated, kneeling, in you car? Do you think about concealment or cover, are you moving? Getting off that first shot, do you look for that front sight before you pull the trigger? How will you retain you firearm, do you carry a good flashlight?

Just wanting to get folks thinking about how they train. Do you train, do you just carry, do you have a CC, but seldom do so? Think about it.