Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled "Should You Shoot? Self-Defense Tips You Don’t Know" and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/should-you-shoot-self-defense-tips-you-dont-know/.
Mas Ayoob phrases the standard as "Immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to innocent human life."I like the author's fourth condition - Preclusion. In other words, try to avoid having to shoot the person who is either about to attack you or is actually attacking you. Not only will you possibly avoid having to shoot someone, but if you do end up having to shoot the person, your chances of being found not guilty are a lot better if you can show that you tried to avoid having to shoot the person.
As B'rer Mas often says (anyone who's ever taken one of his classes has heard it several times), "Let us know how that works for you. I shall wait for you here."I told them the story and they listened, talked to each other, and told me, "if you ever shoot a prowler out here drag him in the house."
That was a rural area, no sidewalks or streetlights, way back then. Today? I wouldn't have done it.As B'rer Mas often says (anyone who's ever taken one of his classes has heard it several times), "Let us know how that works for you. I shall wait for you here."
Wish article addressed use of force in defense of others--family, neighbor, local deputy, etc. Plus using lethal force against fleeing bad guys like those burning federal buildings with arshals inside. I am an old guy but seem to remember judge declaring escapee "outlaw" so any one seeing him could kill him. When I was out west they still took rustling seriously re use of force and the old guys from the border patrol still talked about allowing people they knew who worked on local ranches to go back and forth but using lethal force against bandits who crossed the line. Times change but look at the weapons on the Texas patrol boats.I like this guy!
But I like lasers. Never used with lights combined, but it is an option.
View attachment 22026
Pat McNamara of Panteao Productions makes some good points about possibly losing the fight if we hear something go bump in the night and go investigate in our homes. He is of the school of hiding in your safe place, calling the police and throwing your keys out the window for them to come in.
But it is human nature to go see what the noise is in our homes at 3AM. His thinking is the criminal can hide and see us before we see them and get us first. Another tip he gives is; making a thick bookcase full of fat books to stand behind so the bullets can't penetrate if the attacker shoots through the wall.
But getting back to the street...
It is good to carry less than lethal to try and escape the attack. Nitrogen powered pepper spray, maybe a collapsible baton, pocket folder and tactical flashlight may come in handy.
We can see how things turned out in the Rittenhouse case for self-defense in 2021 America. On one forum they speculated that AG Garland will go after Rittenhouse even if he is found not guilty under civil rights violation.
A big part of the self defense equation is; what state and city are you in? If in a dem run utopia, try and avoid the need for self defense at all cost. Especially if you are a white conservatize.
There are 2 tiers of justice in the USA now. And even if in a rep run local, I've been told many times that shooting someone is not the end of your trouble...it is just the beginning. But you can't think too much about what to do. It is all just very dicey. You think too much with a knife attack and your guts may be spilling out.
I am thinking all this will only get worse and worse as our world keeps decomposing and people get more desperate and hateful. We see the mobs that can extract people out of their cars and stomp them unconscious. Even if the attacker is not armed disparity of force is a big threat.
As B'rer Mas often says (anyone who's ever taken one of his classes has heard it several times), "Let us know how that works for you. I shall wait for you here."
That's why lawyers carefully vet the jury. With a few old dudes on the jury he'd probably be fine if his life was threatened. (around here, in a big city I couldn't say.)This is a very good thread, very interesting points of view and some fascinating info.
My dad presents and interesting case. He's disabled, he can't move very fast, he can walk but slowly and he usually carries his Glock 30 in a shoulder rig under his jacket or flannel shirt. We've discussed the fact he's not able to move very quickly so retreat in an active shooter situation might be possible but he'd as likely get trampled by other people moving much faster than him. He's slow but he still gets out and shoots now and then and I'd call him a decent shot if I had to classify him. In a case of him not being able to retreat in time during an active shooter, would that have kind of bearing if he had to fight back do you think?
This is a very good thread, very interesting points of view and some fascinating info.
My dad presents and interesting case. He's disabled, he can't move very fast, he can walk but slowly and he usually carries his Glock 30 in a shoulder rig under his jacket or flannel shirt. We've discussed the fact he's not able to move very quickly so retreat in an active shooter situation might be possible but he'd as likely get trampled by other people moving much faster than him. He's slow but he still gets out and shoots now and then and I'd call him a decent shot if I had to classify him. In a case of him not being able to retreat in time during an active shooter, would that have kind of bearing if he had to fight back do you think?
There’s maybe a practical guideline, and I agree with him that avoiding use of deadly force is preferable for all involved if you safely can, but it’s not necessarily required by law.Mas Ayoob phrases the standard as "Immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to innocent human life."
Good article Mike thanks for sharing.Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled "Should You Shoot? Self-Defense Tips You Don’t Know" and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/should-you-shoot-self-defense-tips-you-dont-know/.
Possibly true (I'm not doubting your word), but keep in mind that shooting another human being, even if justified, is likely to be one of the most expensive things you'll ever do in your life. (I could cite a couple cases from today's headlines.) If there's any way to avoid that expense and keep all the good people safe, I'm taking it.There’s maybe a practical guideline, and I agree with him that avoiding use of deadly force is preferable for all involved if you safely can, but it’s not necessarily required by law.
In many states, including mine, there is no duty to retreat and stand your ground is the law. In your home, castle doctrine governs in many states and provided the entry was unauthorized and threatening in nature, use of deadly force is usually legal even without the perpetrator using it.
Possibly true (I'm not doubting your word), but keep in mind that shooting another human being, even if justified, is likely to be one of the most expensive things you'll ever do in your life. (I could cite a couple cases from today's headlines.) If there's any way to avoid that expense and keep all the good people safe, I'm taking it.
Pretty sure I can accurately define a justifiable shooting. I'm not in a gun-friendly state, though I'm in a fairly gun-friendly area of it, but we live in an age in which unwanted national media attention can descend upon us at any time, drawing down all kinds of hell. If I can avoid any/all of that, I'm perfectly happy to.That is a specious argument Snake. My state ( and several others) has a pre-emption law which prevents you from being sued civily in the event of a justified self defense shooting. I am also in a gun friendly state. I have yet to see any Missourian who justifiably shot someone in self defense wind up being charged with a crime. At least in the last decade or so. So maybe a couple of caveats to your statement are in order. - Presuming you live in a state hostile to gun owners and/or presuming you can't accurately define what constitutes a justifiable shooting.