Use Of Force - Shoot/No Shoot

[DHJenkins]

There's a difference between doing something that's necessary in the immediacy to protect yourself and stay ahead of the curve, and doing something that really can't quite be justified as necessary.

Exactly how would I be "doing something that really can't quite be justified as necessary" if Title 9 of the Texas penal code says "A person is justified in using deadly force against another...to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing...aggravated robbery...from escaping with the property; and he reasonably believes that the...property cannot be...recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to...recover the...property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury"? (I used the ellipses soley to make the paragraph flow better, page 1 has the fully quoted code)

Jenkins, you may not like it, but the concept of the justifiable use of force in Western society does not permit you to pre-emptively kill, or attempt to kill, someone because of they might come after you in the future. You cannot go kill someone because they have issued you a direct threat that they will come kill you on Friday morning.

I agree, because that was never my position. Someone who's just robbed me at gunpoint and is still within a few feet of me is a threat, regardless of which way they're facing. If having my name and address adds another layer to the "I was in fear for my life" issue, well that's just dandy; however as I've stated repeatedly, self-defense would not have to be my primary justification for the shoot. Basically, my identity is in that bag, and if you've ever had your identity stolen, then you know exactly how valuable that is - it's worth a heck of a lot more than an ipod, laptop, etc...

 

[Kleanbore]

Someone who's just robbed me at gunpoint and is still within a few feet of me is a threat, regardless of which way they're facing.

I presume you mean to say "still presents imminent danger (there are "threats" everywhere, but you cannot shoot them)." Could be. Perhaps others would decide that to have been a reasonable belief. Perhaps not. Eyewitness testimony to the effect that the guy was leaving when you fired could prove very damaging to your argument.

If having my name and address adds another layer to the "I was in fear for my life" issue, well that's just dandy;

It will not.

... however as I've stated repeatedly, self-defense would not have to be my primary justification for the shoot.

Well, in all states except one, recovery of property would not serve as a lawful justification, and even there, the issue of necessity would be critical. In all states except two, self-defense, defense of a third person, or in some jurisdictions, the prevention--prevention--of a serious, usually forcible, felony would be required.

Basically, my identity is in that bag, and if you've ever had your identity stolen, then you know exactly how valuable that is - it's worth a heck of a lot more than an ipod, laptop, etc...

Lay opinion: that one won't go very far as an element of defense of justifiability. However, it is a very good point. Here's an economical way: have some money in a weighted clip and toss that. If the guy leaves with it, great. Even with a value of fifty bucks, you're talking about a fraction of your first hour of billable time for an attorney.

Might be smart to use the time he's reaching down for it to prepare for a contingency, just in case....

 

[DHJenkins]

Well, in all states except one, recovery of property would not serve as a lawful justification, and even there, the issue of necessity would be critical. In all states except two, self-defense, defense of a third person, or in some jurisdictions, the prevention--prevention--of a serious, usually forcible, felony would be required.

Yes, I do mean "presents an imminent danger".

Just so there's no confusion, by "all states except one", you are referring to TX, correct?

If you wouldn't mind, could you please point out where in my state's penal code it says anything about necessity? (posted on page 1) I'm not trying to be snarky, but my state's code seems to be very clear on the use of deadly force for the protection/recovery of private property, so I really don't understand the idea of "necessity". There's no minimum value of property listed, or any other criteria on which necessity could be based; at least, that I can see.

It's entirely possible I'm reading it wrong or missing something. I don't know the law in other states, only the law in mine (at least, from what I can read), which is all I'm concerned with.

I have not advocated others to "do what I would do", I've only ever stated what *I* would do, based on my interpretation of the TPC, since that is where I live.

 

[mbt2001]

This isn't a fast draw where the aggressor KNOWS that you are going to draw. Of course he doesn't know that you are going to draw or even that you have a gun. In order to comply with his action you have to reach in your pockets and move around. By the time he sees the gun HE is the one reacting. Maybe you will get shot, maybe not. I would take those chances rather than drill the dude when his back was turned.

That is supposing I drew at all. Most likely I would have. You can't recreate the scenario really... Training will not help you recreate it either. But if every time someone had the drop on someone they WON the gun fight, then there would be a lot more dead police and self defense shooters.

The law says that you can defend your property, but each person is guided by a set of ethics and values that they will bring into the jury box. You saw the nightmare that Joe Horn had to live through. I myself would not have done what he did, BUT I don't think he should have gone to jail for what he did either. It was a complex question (ethically and legally).

Drilling a person that is walking away even after they robbed you would be a complex question as well. There is a chance nothing would happen, there is a chance that you would go to jail. The law doesn't necessarily allow for YOUR SAFETY in an altercation. That is something that we have all commented on. The law only allows you to shoot someone in self defense when you are decidedly NOT SAFE. No amount of training will make you safe. The law has stacked the deck this way and for good reason.

Jeff and some of the others say that we are internet commandos because we recognize that very likely the only time that you CAN shoot and defend yourself is when you are being robed at gun point. You obviously can't shoot BEFORE and most likely can't shoot afterward. That is the nature of a self defense shooting and for someone to say that we are commandos and over emphasis our skill is kind of ridiculous.

There are a few options to a robbery as described in the OP:

1.) Draw and fire
2.) Be robbed and possibly killed
2b.) Drill the dude while he is leaving
2c.) Run

The only viable option, the only option where you have a choice and where this becomes and OT conversation is number 1. Most of the time there are police shootings, CCW carrier shootings and HD shootings the criminals has the drop, to one degree or another on the "victims".

I agree, that you might die in a shooting... That is of course obvious. That is why we carry weapons, so that we have a CHOICE of some kind if the cards are dealt that way.

 

[Jeff White]

Most of the time there are police shootings, CCW carrier shootings and HD shootings the criminals has the drop, to one degree or another on the "victims".

Proof??? Let's see some actual data.

 

[mbt2001]

seriously.

Why don't you focus on the questions pointed directly at you? When / what is someone supposed to do? You have tried to rebut every option.

When are you supposed to use a gun in SD Jeff? You can't have it both ways.

To answer your question: there are plenty of news stories in the general forum and here that describe an assailant having a gun and the victim retrieving one and winning the encounter.

BTW I am not dodging your question of proof. Obviously logical inference is what I am using.

 

[DHJenkins]

The law says that you can defend your property, but each person is guided by a set of ethics and values that they will bring into the jury box. You saw the nightmare that Joe Horn had to live through.

Talk about comparing apples to herrings...

He wasn't the victim of a crime, and it wasn't even his property; and yet, even in those far-reaching circumstances, his case was still "no billed" and he wasn't indicted for anything. Thanks for making my point for me!

 

[BullfrogKen]

Exactly how would I be "doing something that really can't quite be justified as necessary" if Title 9 of the Texas penal code says . . . .

Jenkins, necessary means necessary. It means that an action is required, and no other action would really measure up to the task at hand.

If you wouldn't mind, could you please point out where in my state's penal code it says anything about necessity? (posted on page 1) I'm not trying to be snarky, but my state's code seems to be very clear on the use of deadly force for the protection/recovery of private property, so I really don't understand the idea of "necessity".

I don't care what your precious Texas penal code says. It's a piece of paper. It means about as much to avoiding the legal battle as a treaty does to keep peace among nations. Once we reach homicide (or attempted homicide) the legal system becomes much more akin to a political process than it is concerned about justice.

I hope you never have to experience that your belief in the Texas penal code is misplaced and the presumption that it represents the totality of law. If the law were that simple we wouldn't need lawyers to represent us, judges to rule on it, and appellate courts to review everyone's decisions. The law is a lot more than the statute that creates it. Case law defines the statute.

Go find how the Texas penal code describes self-defense. See if it describes how the jury is charged, or the process of the discovery of evidence. There's a lot more about the law than a statute.

The law tries to take a subjective set of circumstances, interpret it, and make it conform to an objective piece of language. If those who look at it don't think the subjective set of circumstances reach the point of breaking the law, then no conviction occurs.

It still doesn't mean you won't have to go through the entire legal process until you reach that point. And its still possible that through manipulation of the discovery process, what the jury is charged with and allowed to hear, and just the luck of the dice that those sitting in judgment over you - far removed from your actions - won't believe your side.


People have a tendency to research an issue until they find the answer they like, stop, and call it a day. A true student, or a professional who has business on the line, continues until he's satisfied that the answer he found is correct and likely to withstand challenges.

Someone who's just robbed me at gunpoint and is still within a few feet of me is a threat, regardless of which way they're facing. If having my name and address adds another layer to the "I was in fear for my life" issue, well that's just dandy; however as I've stated repeatedly, self-defense would not have to be my primary justification for the shoot. Basically, my identity is in that bag, and if you've ever had your identity stolen, then you know exactly how valuable that is - it's worth a heck of a lot more than an ipod, laptop, etc...

You know, I hear this nonsense given all the time, some variation of - "I can't be convinced that he won't just shoot me after I give him what he wants."

If you were going to be shot it would have happened already. The fact that you're being asked to give up your wallet, instead of having your dead body rolled over as he safely takes what he wants means he doesn't want to kill you. Its a lot more risky for a criminal to not simply execute his victim, but most of the time that's exactly what he does - he takes the risk and tries to accomplish the robbery only with threats of violence.


If you're really that worried about what a criminal might do with your identifying papers, do what most of us do - separate your cash from your identification. Like Kleanbore suggests, I also use a money clip.

 

[mbt2001]

+1 Ken

I hate hypotheticals...

 

[Jeff White]

seriously.

Why don't you focus on the questions pointed directly at you? When / what is someone supposed to do? You have tried to rebut every option.

And it bothers you that someone isn't ready to jump on the a gunfight is the solution to every human problem bandwagon? Sorry I am as entitled to my view as anyone here, and unlike most here, I actually have dealt with these issues in the real world, not in cyberspace.

People like Mas Ayoob and other trainers have recommended carrying a money clip with some throw away cash or a dummy wallet to give to an armed robber. Why do you think that is? Because they are soft on crime? Because they want everyone to donate to the poor unfortunates who are driven to armed robbery by economic injustice in this country? Hardly! The recommend measures like that because they know that it's most often the last act of a desperate man to draw against a drawn gun.

When are you supposed to use a gun in SD Jeff?

When it's your last option for safe resolution to your problem. This question leads right into one of the reasons that these discussions don't go anywhere on open forums. Too many people come into them with preconceived notions of how things are and are only seeking validation of their preconceived view of how things are on the street. You don't see tier one trainers posting here anymore. Why do you think that is? It's because they just don't need the aggravation. Oh these same trainers still have an internet presence, but it's on a closed forum where vetted people can have rational discussions. The problem with that is where does the person who hasn't attended any formal training or doesn't carry firearm professionally get good information?

To answer your question: there are plenty of news stories in the general forum and here that describe an assailant having a gun and the victim retrieving one and winning the encounter.

Anecdotal and you aren't getting anywhere near a complete after action review from a news story. And you can't compare police shootings to defensive shootings by private citizens, because the majority of police shootings take place while the officer is involved in some kind of enforcement action, a situation that private citizens are never in.

When people are able to leave their preconceived notions of how things should be at the door and are able to set their moral outrage about crime aside we will be able to have a reasonable, rational discussion of these issues.

Drawing on a drawn gun...not a good idea, a better chance of losing the fight then winning...

Shooting an armed robber in the back as he flees? May land you in jail and probably will get you sued even in castle doctrine states....

Are those the answers people want to hear? Probably not. But they are the correct answers. All the "but it's not morally correct or "he was still armed as he ran away and therefore presented a threat" arguments may make the member feel better and that his position is the morally right one to take, but they aren't reality.

The use of deadly force is a serious thing. It will be a life changing event. It will be expensive, and making light of these facts by trying to hide behind a castle doctrine law is just sticking your head in the sand and refusing to accept the reality of the world we live in.

 

[DHJenkins]

Jenkins, necessary means necessary. It means that an action is required, and no other action would really measure up to the task at hand.

And that's exactly what the TPC says, the use of deadly force is justified 'to get my stuff back' if any other course of action 'to get my stuff back' would put me in danger. Against an armed assailant, deadly force is necessary.

I don't care what your precious Texas penal code says. It's a piece of paper.

So is the constitution, sport.

If you were going to be shot it would have happened already.

So every shooting by a BG happens before they take the loot, eh? Got proof of that somewhere?

 

[Jeff White]

Quote:
I don't care what your precious Texas penal code says. It's a piece of paper.

So is the consititution, sport.

You completely missed the point Ken was trying to make about how things come down in court. The constitution has volumes full of court rulings stating what it means and so does the penal code.

No legislature is wise enough to craft a law that covers every situation out there. It is impossible to anticipate every possible thing that could happen and write a law that covers them.

We have the courts to decide how the law is applied in every circumstance. The judge can (and has) instruct the jury that provisions of a law don't apply in an incident and can (and has) prevent the defense or the prosecution from presenting them to the jury. And where are these rulings disputed? First in the judge's chambers, then in the appeals court. In the mean time you are in jail or out on a large bond and running up six figure legal fees. Who knows in three to five years a supreme court may even decide your reading of the penal colde was correct and the trial judge's wasn't. Of course you're still out the time and the money, but hey, it's small price to pay for being right........

 

[DHJenkins]

I got his point - don't you understand mine? My state let Joe Horn walk, and his situation was lightyears from this one. Like I said, he wasn't the victim, and it wasn't even his stuff.

I'm happy to 'take my chances', because I believe in the legal system in my state, just like I believe in the constitution. Our legal system has a very long history of knowing who's the criminal and who's the victim.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Anecdotal and you aren't getting anywhere near a complete after action review from a news story. And you can't compare police shootings to defensive shootings by private citizens, because the majority of police shootings take place while the officer is involved in some kind of enforcement action, a situation that private citizens are never in.

Most places, even police have limited latitude to use deadly force on a fleeing felon, and had best be able to articulate a reasonable belief that using deadly force was the only way to prevent commission of additional serious crime.

You completely missed the point Ken was trying to make about how things come down in court. The constitution has volumes full of court rulings stating what it means and so does the penal code.

+1 -- the "homicide cases as politics" comment made earlier is very telling.

 

[BullfrogKen]

So is the constitution, sport.

Yup, it sure is. Supreme law of the land, right?


So, when the Constitution states in Article 1, Section 9:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
​

Now how did that protect those retroactively affected by the Lautenberg Amendment in 1997? Thousands upon thousands of officers lost their jobs over this legislation. Many of them plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence with the specific intent of avoiding the possibilty of a felony convinction in court, under the specific advice of their attorney, and thereby not have their ability to possess a gun stripped from them.

How much help was the Constitution to them?


The law is not the word of God. It only means as much as the justice system chooses to uphold it, in its original intent, and not allow other lessor competing claims to weaken or pervert it.


Your argument is Joe Horn. My argument is much more than one anecdotal case.

This is not Legal, even though that's where this discussion has headed. Because our actions are not committed in a vacuum, we do have to consider if our tactics will withstand the scrutiny of the law. In civil society causing the death of another will be scrutinized to determine whether what we did was acceptable under both the color of the law, and the prevailing attitudes of those in our community.

This is S&T. Tactically speaking, the notion that there will be one person trying to rob us, and once we've gunned him down we'll be safe, is a speculation based on a fantasy.

It's about as much fantasy as believing that the law will look the other way when you shoot someone in the back. Even in Texas.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you wouldn't mind, could you please point out where in my state's penal code it says anything about necessity? (posted on page 1) I'm not trying to be snarky, but my state's code seems to be very clear on the use of deadly force for the protection/recovery of private property, so I really don't understand the idea of "necessity".

Jenkins, that was probably an imprecise choice of words on my part--here's the issue that twelve people will have to mull over: whether the person had reason to believe that he could not recover the property without using deadly force:

From code Section 9.42:

...the land or [tangible, movable] property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means...

For the benefit of others, that applies only in Texas. Nowhere else. But what does it really mean there?

It's entirely possible I'm reading it wrong or missing something. I don't know the law in other states, only the law in mine (at least, from what I can read), which is all I'm concerned with..,... I've only ever stated what *I* would do, based on my interpretation of the TPC, since that is where I live.

If I learned one thing in working closely with attorneys off and on for more that two decades, and directly for a company chief counsel for a couple of years, it is to never take single statute out of context and try to apply a layman's English dictionary to try to determine the real meaning. Bullfrog Ken and Jeff White have been saying the same thing.

A local attorney intimately familiar with the field of law at hand can bring to bear legal theory, including precedent that goes back for a long time; how the statute in question fits into the context of related laws (for example, Code Sections 9.31, 9.32, and 9.41 in this case, to name a few); and the relevant case law.

It is possible that he would concur with your lay interpretation, or that he may not, for some reason.

It is also possible that he may tell you that there is as yet no relevant, definitive case law. That means that you might become the test case. Now that could prove exciting!

And even if you do shoot someone who has taken something of nominal value from you, and if you are charged, tried, and acquitted, you may become the person most responsible for causing Code Section 9.42 to be amended.

I had been under the mistaken impression that Joe Horn's case had been a test case for Code Section 9.42, which does permit the use of deadly force for the protection of the property on a third person who has requested such.

Apparently I was wrong. As I now understand it, there was an eyewitness-- a sworn officer--who said that he saw Horn fire to protect his own life. Self defense. Imminent danger. Of course, because Horn was not tried and acquitted, a future Grand Jury could decide that the case should go to trial, particularly if he happens to do something unwise such as committing to paper or to electrons a statement that damages his credibility.

An hour with a Texas attorney who has handled self defense cases himself could be a very good investment for you.

I hope you find this constructive and helpful.

 

[Jeff White]

Most places, even police have limited latitude to use deadly force on a fleeing felon, and had best be able to articulate a reasonable belief that using deadly force was the only way to prevent commission of additional serious crime.

The Supreme Court settled the fleeing felon issue in Garner v. Tennessee many years ago. That decision effectively ended using deadly force to stop someone from fleeing simply because they were suspect of committing a felony.

I was referring to the fact that most police shootings stem from actions initiated by the officer and wouldn't have occurred at all if the officer hadn't been taking that action.

Private citizens don't make traffic stops, respond to domestic disturbances or other complaints. The officer often already has his wepon in hand when the situation deteriorates to the point shooting is necessary.

A private citizen's defensive use of deadly force almost always involves reaction to an attack on the citizen, he doesn't usually have the option of going into a situation with his weapon in hand or even his hand on his weapon. And the deadly force situation almost never evolves from an action the private citizen deliberately took.

Comparing police shootings to those by private citizens is an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Responding to an post made after my response . . .

I'm happy to 'take my chances', because I believe in the legal system in my state, just like I believe in the constitution. Our legal system has a very long history of knowing who's the criminal and who's the victim.

Well, there's your problem. You've put mistaken faith in two things that aren't reality.

The legal system is not run by angels. It is run by men. Men are fallible. Men make mistakes. And men have agendas. Those agendas may or many not be in the pursuit of the unbiased, blind application of the law in the interests of justice and fairness. Any seasoned, professional attorney will attest to this.

Your faith in the law, and specifically in the men who carry it out, is quaint. I wish it were reality. But any sober view of the American landscape of the Constitution, the law, and those involved in exercising it prove many, many instances of injustices and a failure to follow it to achieve what a layman would consider a "fair and just" outcome.

Minorities and civil rights advocates in America figured out long ago that the justice system isn't interested in the pursuit of justice. Even a first year law student from an upper class upbringing, attending an Ivy League law school, quickly disavows himself of his quaint notions surrounding the practice of law.


The other mistakenly placed faith is in the effectiveness of your handgun to solve a problem. Gunfights are chaotic, unpredictable things. Every reputable trainer out there will tell you that a handgun is a marginally effective tool. Even with well-placed hits, it takes time for the wounds to take effect. Once you've decided to make it a fight all bets are off. You can get good, solid hits, but the likelihood that the person you've shot is going to fall down dead like he was hit by a death ray from a Star Trek phaser is just not reality.



Like Jeff said, there's a reason why professional trainers and knowledgeable people don't participate in open-forum discussions. The level of speculation about life events that people have no experience in is too tough an obstacle to get beyond. It makes it impossible to have an objective discussion.

 

[mbt2001]

Jeff,

I have never said that shooting is the answers to man's problems. It bothers me that you immeadiatly retrench the conversation in terms like that. The hypothetical gave three options. Go read the three. Carrying a spare money clip wasn't what Bob was asking about.

I started sounding off that it would be better to shoot while the guy was in front of you for legal and psychological reasons. The SAFE thing to do, isn't always the SAFE thing to do. Shooting someone in the back will jigger your head. No point in doing it.

I also said that if you give over your wallet and possessions and the guy leaves, then as a point of honor, you couldn't forcibly take them back. If you want to resist it has to be while he is in front of you. Not just for legal reasons, but ethics and morality. Someone being a criminal doesn't make the fair game to what ever brutality occurs to us...

Anyway, here is to totally misunderstanding. Happens.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

I'm happy to 'take my chances',

you haven't had to take your chance much if at all then.
i was charged with something a few years back where the plaintiff recanted and apologised there was zero evidence the commonwealth agreed that it was bogus along with everyone else involved along the way cop magistrate etc. i went to court with a lawyer. i've seen what can happen "taking a chance" mistakes will usually get sorted out but not till you've sat in a cell and/or spent a ton.

 

[TheElyrian]

In my opinion, TheElyrian's answer to the original question in his (her?) 15th post on THR (# 96 in this thread) was more on point and tactically and legally sound than any other.

Since I'm the OP, I get to say...

Bullseye! Give the man (woman?) a cigar!

Feel free to send my winnings in the form of 9mm JHP, preferably Speer Gold Dot 9mm+p (#23611). And I'm a dude, fwiw.

I wonder what an Elyrian is?

Why, someone whose birth place is Elyria of course.

If you were going to be shot it would have happened already. The fact that you're being asked to give up your wallet, instead of having your dead body rolled over as he safely takes what he wants means he doesn't want to kill you. Its a lot more risky for a criminal to not simply execute his victim, but most of the time that's exactly what he does - he takes the risk and tries to accomplish the robbery only with threats of violence.

I cannot buy into this at all. While I'm not advocating shooting him/her in the back, I don't think you can predict their behavior one way or another, regardless of what "usually" happens. There is no way to predict anyone's behavior with 100% accuracy and my life is not something I'm willing to play the odds with in this fashion. The robber has already made it perfectly clear that they have no regard for your life. I would not be so quick to assume to know what their future actions will be and I'm not willing to put faith in "what usually occurs".

 

[BullfrogKen]

The hypothetical gave three options. Go read the three.

OK. . .

Assume you are armed and were taken by surprise and did not see the gun until it was pointed at you at close range.

Assume you give up your stuff (except your firearm), and the robber begins walking away.

Do you watch him walk away? (It's only replaceable stuff.)

Do you draw your firearm and command him to halt? (At which point he may turn and fire.)

Do you draw your firearm and shoot him in the back? (Scratch one violent predator.)

There are never just a few choices. And there are a lot of assumptions here. There are a lot more unstated assumptions than stated ones.

The hypothetical assumes he's acting alone. It assumes the interaction will play out with you in a position to casually watch the criminal actor walk away. It even assumes he's going to walk away. It assumes I'm alone, and have no consideration for anyone besides me in the environment to worry about.


I don't do hypotheticals. They're interesting on one level to discuss I guess, but I discuss principles.

We're all different. We have different skill levels and different personalities. My answer won't work for you any more than your answer will work for me. And my answer today, for one particular set of circumstances, might not work tomorrow when the circumstances are just different enough to matter.

The principle I practice is I'll do what's necessary, and offers me the best chance to come out on the good side of a bad day based upon the totality of the circumstances. When we align our principles with what's tactically sound, morally ethical, and legally justifiable we have a basis from which to make a decision - no matter the circumstances.

All we can do is make the best decision we can, built on a foundation of a lifetime of good judgment and sound principles. After that chips fall where they may.

 

[DHJenkins]

I hope you find this constructive and helpful.

I did, thank you. I've got an excellent attorney already, and another one (in the family) who we keep trying to convince to move down here.

Well, there's your problem. You've put mistaken faith in two things that aren't reality.

Only because this entire discussion isn't rooted in reality. The reality is, given what I look like and my personal habits, I have a better chance of winning the lotto than being involved in a situation like this. Speculating that the law will take my side is no different than speculating I'll hit an imaginary man walking away from me with my imaginary stuff.

you haven't had to take your chance much if at all then.

My attorney will get a big laugh out of that one.


In the end, it's ALL speculation. This thread, life in general, whatever - no one really knows with absolute certainty the outcome of anything or how they'll really react to any given situation.

It's been fun arguing about it, though! C'mon - admit it.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I cannot buy into this at all.

Whether you do or don't doesn't bother me. It's not mine to sell and I neither benefit nor lose from your acceptance or rejection of it.


But we do make assumptions based upon exhibited behavior all the time. Certainly the ramifications for being wrong are pretty serious, but even the severity of the consequences - death or grievous injury - are not limited to an interaction with a criminal.


We have plenty of evidence to draw upon from how a violent criminal actor makes his decisions. They are not boogie-monsters. They do have plans, and use a fairly rational decision-making process when they select a victim and perform their work.

Only because this entire discussion isn't rooted in reality.

A number of people here have done our best to keep this discussion based on reality. Professions of faith in the Constitution and a trust that your justice system will refrain from engaging in political mongering isn't reality. Once again, how much protection did thousands of police officers in our country have when Congress passed an ex-post facto law in 1997? I thought that was against the Constitution. Yet it happened.

Texas ain't God's country. Terrible injustices have happened in Texas. And even Texas won't protect you from a Federal prosecution.

The reality is, given what I look like and my personal habits, I have a better chance of winning the lotto than being involved in a situation like this.

And that's my hope for myself, too.

 

[Fred Fuller]

It's been fun arguing about it, though!

Actually, it hasn't been. And with the open admission that this entire discussion isn't rooted in reality, we are now done with it. When a scenario-based discussion goes so far off track from producing useful results, it no longer serves any useful purpose. When good advice from members in such a discussion is so lightly disregarded and contradicted, the discussion ceases to serve any useful purpose.

That is not what we're here for. I let this go on so long hoping it would achieve something worth while. That seems unlikely to happen at this point.

Please let me reiterate one more time the best free advice anyone here is ever likely to get, from one of the nation's preeminent defensive firearms trainers:

This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the "penalty" for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable. -- http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2003/19Mar03.html

lpl