[bababooey32]

DNS...

don't know why you think they would necessarily cover tactics in this situation.

Never said that or even alluded to such a sentiment.

Wow...chill out dude. I really suggest you back off your high horse and enter a civil discussion with the rest of us.

Besides, the question was fairly straight forward and the instructor gave a straight forward answer. The person making the query wasn't asking about safety or tactics, but the legal aspect.

Sorry, didn't see you in the room there on Saturday. Can you tell me whatthe question was then? I forgot...what? What's that? You WEREN'T there?? Strange, sure sounded like it from your factual statement about what the question was. As I've stated TWICE now, the question was a hypothetical scenario (of which we evaluated several that day) about shooting through a closed door. As I have also stated TWICE (at least), the instructor said it was justifiable if reasonably fearful of life or limb. I have stated TWICE that I agree with that assesment, but thought it strange that the instructor did not go on to say "but it's proabably a bad idea". The instructor HAD infact engaged in brief discussions of tactics as asides to the class (e.g. "You may be justified, but it's not a great idea").

SO, my friend, you have become worked up over a disagreement which barely exists! Relax!

Whether or not it is unsafe or bad tactics is a matter of opinion and that is going to vary with situation.

Ahhh! There! You've caught up to the rest of us. My question was precisely that: What is your opinion?

I don't know what this "perhaps" garbage is.

Again...relax, turbo! The argument is made often that even in a justified shoot, certain things might be used against you and "painted" a certain way by a zealous DA: Handloads, suppressors, ARs, etc. Shooting through objects at people "MIGHT" be seen as reckless and could be used to further paint a picture of you that is unsympathetic. I said "perhaps" because a) I'm not sure I buy it and b) "perhaps" there won't be an overzealous DA!

Okay got it. The CHL instructor was asked a simple legal question to which he gave the simple legal answer, only that answer did not include caveats that YOU think are important and so should have been covered by the instructor and so you are complaining about it?

Yup. Did you just copy and paste my OP?

Do you have any idea how much longer CHL classes would last if CHL instructors answer all possible ramifications of simple legal questions?

I don't know. You sure seem to know alot, why don't you fill us in?

Of course, if you think that is how it should be handled, then become a CHL instructor.

I doubt I qualilfy...That's why I come here and ask questions and solicit opinions.