Rule 4 in Context
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
You missed the point. The post was about the use of deadly force in a manner that does not endanger the safety of others. And in the case at hand, such use of force would have been done in self defense:
I did muddy the water by saying "intervene" and "lives". But it was really not an "important fact", as my life would have been in danger, had the robber proceeded.
Would I have slipped out, had it been possible to do so in perfect safety? Most probably.
the several experiments shown illustrate the downrange danger of firing a shotgun with buckshot very realistically indeed.
No need to continue to Quote me.
“ I “ didn’t miss anything-
The Information I stated was sufficient- you need to understand, If you going to tell a story with that subject matter… To be clear about some items. Items like that important one ,at least.
What do you think was unclear?
What? Do I understand that you believe that something that you believe important was overlooked in the OP, but you do not care to say what it was?
Lnf, I'll try to put it another way.
I bumbled into what was obviously a robbery that was about to occur.
I found myself standing between the robber and the manager whom the robber was about to target. The getaway driver was immediately outside the door. Safe escape was impossible. I was armed, and I made myself ready to defend against the robber, should it become necessary, by using deadly force in the safest possible way by moving in a manner that would fulfill all aspects for Rule 4.
The "Rule of Law" here is basic self defense law.
I neither drew nor placed my hand in my pocket.
The robber was alarmed by my movement, and he dropped what the was holding and bolted. I had gotten a good luck at the driver, the robber, and their car, but i was so shaken by the event thatI could recall none of that. Nor could anyone else.
I don't know what you mean by "justification", unless you are asking why I entered a store when were indications of a possible impending robbery, or asking how I could not describe the perps and their car.
I bumbled into what was obviously a robbery that was about to occur.
I found myself standing between the robber and the manager whom the robber was about to target. The getaway driver was immediately outside the door. Safe escape was impossible. I was armed, and I made myself ready to defend against the robber, should it become necessary, by using deadly force in the safest possible way by moving in a manner that would fulfill all aspects for Rule 4.
The "Rule of Law" here is basic self defense law.
I neither drew nor placed my hand in my pocket.
The robber was alarmed by my movement, and he dropped what the was holding and bolted. I had gotten a good luck at the driver, the robber, and their car, but i was so shaken by the event thatI could recall none of that. Nor could anyone else.
I don't know what you mean by "justification", unless you are asking why I entered a store when were indications of a possible impending robbery, or asking how I could not describe the perps and their car.
One other practical aspect of Rule 4..... Many people I know carry their guns seldom or not at all. I do not fall into that category. That's not because of philosophy. It's just that I have had a couple of scares after having headed out unarmed.
BUT: there are times when my concealed firearm would not help at all. It has to stay concealed.
We've seen recent incidents in which persons at crowded sidewalk cafes being robbed by armed men. The use of deadly force would be lawfully justified but for the circumstances. One could not reasonably use the gun because one could not get a clear shot. One can think of any number of similar situations in crowded places.
BUT: there are times when my concealed firearm would not help at all. It has to stay concealed.
We've seen recent incidents in which persons at crowded sidewalk cafes being robbed by armed men. The use of deadly force would be lawfully justified but for the circumstances. One could not reasonably use the gun because one could not get a clear shot. One can think of any number of similar situations in crowded places.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
In "context", the Four Rules are ALWAYS in effect.
People may ignore them, but that does not obviate their relevance or importance.
People may apply mitigating factors, but that does not eliminate any of the rules.
People may dream up "exceptions", but that does not excuse being lax about them.
The Four Rules should be integrated with use of tactics and strategy...failure to do so does not relieve one of the responsibility for any consequences which may result.
In short, mindset is critical with this. One's mindset should be such that consideration of the Four Rules is as ingrained as possible in all their actions when it comes to firearms.
People may ignore them, but that does not obviate their relevance or importance.
People may apply mitigating factors, but that does not eliminate any of the rules.
People may dream up "exceptions", but that does not excuse being lax about them.
The Four Rules should be integrated with use of tactics and strategy...failure to do so does not relieve one of the responsibility for any consequences which may result.
In short, mindset is critical with this. One's mindset should be such that consideration of the Four Rules is as ingrained as possible in all their actions when it comes to firearms.
Yes, and complying with Rule 4 has to be part of "situational awareness".
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Well put.
- Status
