The "Danger Zone" and the "Step-back technique" - Page 2

**OldMarksman** · November 16, 2009, 08:48 AM

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm

Quote:

You have the right to defend yourself, those under your protection and your property against those whom you reasonably believe to do you grievous bodily harm.

Almost but no cigar; don't include the protection of property as justification for the use of deadly force unless you are in one of very few jurisdictions; and if you are still referring to deadly force, you were right the first time above--the operative phrase is immediately necessary.

Of course, your basis for reasonable belief will be tested by others based on the evidence. If others (the charging authority, DA, grand jury, and if it gets that far, trial jury) determine that a "reasonable person," knowing what you knew at the time and in the same circumstances, would have believed himself to have been were in imminent danger of death grievous bodily harm and that you had no alternative other than deadly force--and, now moving to the subjective, that you did in fact believe that--your use of deadly force is justified.

The elements that will be weighed in that determination were alluded to above; the assailant must have the ability and the opportunity to harm you, you must actually be in jeopardy, and other remedies must have been precluded. Here are two things on the subject, too lengthy to paste.

http://www.useofforce.us/

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm

The distance referred to in the OP has to do with supporting the evaluation of immediate necessity; you may reasonably believe that a guy with a knife who is across the street presents a serious threat to you, but don't even consider gunning him down; you'll never succeed in a claim of self defense. The "Tueller drill" was intended to demonstrate that a man with an edged weapon within seven yards can present an imminent danger to a man with a gun and that drawing and firing would be justified. It was intended for law enforcement officers who had been subjected to criminal charges for having fired under such circumstances.

Most of us cannot draw as quickly from concealment (practice. practice), and the idea of adding to the distance by moving back can be a good one.

Quote:

In an otherwise informative post, that is an absurd statement. Distance does not define a threat, action and intent defines a threat. Your right to protect yourself does not stop outside any so-called "Danger Zone." 25 yards would be right around the point that any bat swinger charging me would get his first and last warning to stop.

Study the material linked above, very carefully.

CWPinSC · November 16, 2009, 12:15 PM

I've said my piece and I'll stand by it. I ain't gonna argue with a wall. I'm outta this one.

**OldMarksman** · November 16, 2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

I've said my piece and I'll stand by it. I ain't gonna argue with a wall. I'm outta this one.

In my opinion, you addressed the question correctly and very well.

JohnH1963 · November 16, 2009, 01:30 PM

If a guy is at 25 yards with a knife, the question will be asked why did you not attempt to retreat? If you are a civilian, then most of the time, the general expectation is that you retreat and do whatever you can to avoid the situation.

You do not have to convince us, but you would have to convince a judge or jury that you acted reasonably and according to the law. Shooting a man at 25 yards is difficult to justify if he is just holding a bat. Go to a football field and you will see that 25 yards is a good distance away.

At the end of the day, the jury has to make a decision whether you go to prison or stay free. Its best to give them as much reason as possible so you want to train and develop methods that will help them make the decision that will set you free.

Hook686 · November 16, 2009, 05:09 PM

Today, 06:34 AM #23 zzbruno wrote:

Quote:

I made no contention that you can "kill for simple assault." Again, you're reconstructing the argument to fit your narrative.

Let me restate:

...

I'll put this as charitably as possible. Any CHP that says "you cannot use your weapon to save yourself from a good old fashioned ass whuppin" is an idiot. At what point do you discern that an ass whoopin' becomes fatal?? Right before you flat-line?

You use your weapon to prevent harm to you and yours. If you're willing to take an "ass whoopin' " to decide what your tolerance level is, more power to you; you've just become an unnecessary but deserving victim.

The first rule of holes is, when you're in a hole, quit digging. You've gone back for a sharper shovel and been left wanting.

I think you ought be cautious of such blanket statements. Here in California the Department of Justice puts out in its CCW booklet:

Quote:

Use of a Firearm or Other Deadly Force in Defense of Life and Body
The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the
attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person
in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit
a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being
accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to
save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.
Self-Defense Against Assault
It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she
has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer
bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a
reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent
great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon
in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the
same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great
bodily injury.

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf ... page 30.

**JohnKSa** · November 17, 2009, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Your assertion that a perpetrator brandishing a baseball bat and "charging" you is simple assault is unsupportable by the reasonable man standard, logic, and precedent.

I didn't make any such assertion.

The reason that assault came up was because you posted the definition of assault in post #9 on this thread and then attempted to justify the use of deadly force by saying that the situation met the definition of assault. You used that to support your contention that "Your right to protect yourself does not stop outside any so-called "Danger Zone.""

Your right to protect yourself depends on several things, and if the attacker is armed only with a contact weapon then the justification of the use of deadly force in self-defense definitely depends on how far away the attacker is. The fact that he's committing assault doesn't automatically justify deadly force because assault does not necessarily justify the use of deadly force.

I stated in a previous post that: "Simple assault, in and of itself, is not grounds for use of deadly force." You responded with this: "If that's legal advice, I'd encourage you to reconsider." Clearly at the time you typed that response you believed that my statement was incorrect but it's also clear that you completely abandoned that belief before making your next post.

Unfortunately what you posted prior to your change of heart is on the permanent record and there is no doubt what you meant to say. I think we can dispense with your pretense that you haven't completely changed your tack on this thread. (By the way, if you had gotten your wife to help compose all your posts on this thread instead of just #21 you wouldn't have been put in that situation in the first place.)

Quote:

...the initial claim that "shooting someone beyond the Danger Zone can get you into some kind of trouble unless they have a weapon that can reach beyond the zone." That was the claim of the OP and it's my contention that that is poor advice at best and certainly inaccurate in relation to substantiated case law.

I agree that it's overstating the case to say that "shooting someone beyond the Danger Zone can get you into some kind of trouble unless they have a weapon that can reach beyond the zone". Clearly at some point an attacker with a contact weapon that is "charging" and will not break off can legally be engaged with deadly force even if he is still outside the zone where his weapon can reach you.

However, that definitely does NOT mean that "Distance does not define a threat" (your initial assertion) when considering the justification for deadly force against an attacker with a contact weapon. Just as, at some point, he gets close enough that one must engage, at some distance he is far enough away that it is absolutely unjustified if you shoot him because he poses no immediate, credible threat which is a critical part of justifying deadly force.

Quote:

advice predicated on their post count

1. No one here besides you has even mentioned post count.

2. No one here is giving any advice predicated on post count.

3. I STRONGLY advise that people not take advice purely based on post count of the person giving that advice.

The information available to determine the basics of when deadly force self-defense is and isn't justified is readily available online and from other sources. People who believe in self-defense should make use of those sources, and if necessary should consult a legal expert.

But that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't discuss such topics here. In fact, if these discussions prompt readers to verify the information discussed then that is a very worthwhile result.

Hook686 · November 17, 2009, 12:16 PM

Today 12:00 AM JohnKSa wrote:

Quote:

"Simple assault, in and of itself, is not grounds for use of deadly force."

This strikes me as a blanket statement of fact. Would it apply if even a simple blow to the head would result in death, or serious injury to the individual assaulted ? Can even the mere threat of an assault that causes significant fear in a person that could not safely experience any sharp blow struck upon them be treated as other than a serious threat ? Is 'Simple' really simple under all conditions ?

coldpointcrossing · November 17, 2009, 12:50 PM

I wouldn't advise taking a "defensive" shot at someone advancing towards you with a baseball bat at 25yd (75ft). That does not seem to me a smart move to make. Call it what you will but I would prefer to move myself and my family AWAY from the attacker if possible.

IF there was no possible way to create space between us and him/her/them then and only then would I feel justified in using lethal force but only when the attacker(s) were within reasonable distance. 75ft doesn't seem reasonable to me especially if the attacker is armed with a bat and I am armed with a handgun.

If the attacker is armed with a firearm and shooting then it's a whole different ballgame. I'll be trying to advance upon him/her/them while trying to avert their attention away from the family.

But this is all fiction here.

Hook686 · November 17, 2009, 03:46 PM

You must be an average healthy person.

I addressed an older, disabled person. Running away, even walking away fast, is not an option. It will take 4-5 seconds just to draw the handgun. The attacker is running towards you with a baseball bat, yelling angry words. How long do you have to decide what to do ? When would you feel 'justified' in drawing your weapon ? firing your weapon ? Is it still simple assault ?

My inquies to this thread, and the judgements rendered therein, have to do with what I view as, 'One size fits all'. Is this the case ? Is 75 feet ALWAYS too far away for lethal force to be used ? That is what it seems to me is being promoted.

**OldMarksman** · November 17, 2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

I addressed an older, disabled person. Running away, even walking away fast, is not an option. It will take 4-5 seconds just to draw the handgun. The attacker is running towards you with a baseball bat, yelling angry words. How long do you have to decide what to do ? When would you feel 'justified' in drawing your weapon ? firing your weapon ? Is it still simple assault ?

Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller performed some research years ago and concluded that an officer should be able to defend himself by (1) recognizing the threat, (2) drawing, and (3) firing at a man with an edged weapon approaching from a distance of 21 feet. Doesn't mean he can shoot--the guy still has to attack (to lunge or threaten with the blade).

Draw time was measured at 1.5 seconds. Instructors (mine, and others about whom I have read) say that a citizen should become sufficiently proficient to draw from concealment in 1.75 seconds. That's cutting it close--too close, IMHO.

This has been of great concern to me. One thing I've done is to get a pocket holster. Should I be worried, I can pocket both hands without starting to exhibit threatening behavior myself and draw very quickly indeed should the need arise. I intend to enroll in a course that involves drawing and shooting next year, and I'll be using an inside waistband holster.

Should you shoot someone attacking you with an edged weapon or a bat and end up in court, experts on your side or theirs is going to explain to the jury that the Tueller drill is widely accepted. Those on the other side will point out its shortcomings.

Now, a sworn officer as no duty to retreat. Others may have duty to retreat if they can do so safely, depending on the jurisdiction. Proving that safe retreat was not possible should not be too great a challenge for a disabled person.

I don't think the OP was suggesting retreat--just adding to the distance to give yourself more time.

Angry words will not justify your producing a weapon.

I don't know whether "simple assault" is listed as a crime in any particular jurisdiction, but once the perp has indicated an intent to harm you seriously and has acted on said intent, I think that probably constitutes aggravated assault in most places. Lay opinion

**JohnKSa** · November 18, 2009, 12:38 AM

Hook686,

It's not that assault NEVER justifies the use of deadly force, the original statement I was responding to was stated in such a way as to imply that assault automatically justifies deadly force.

The point is that using assault, in and of itself, as a justification for deadly force is problematic because not all assaults justify the use of deadly force.

Erik · November 21, 2009, 12:39 PM

Models defining legal justifications for action based upon distance are rapidly falling out of favor, and for good cause. Familiarize yourself with the applicable laws and act accordingly (within the law), regardless of distance.

As for stepping back in instances where creating space is desirable, there are whole threads on which way to get off the X is best. I find straight back to be the less productive option.

**OldMarksman** · November 21, 2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Models defining legal justifications for action based upon distance are rapidly falling out of favor, and for good cause. Familiarize yourself with the applicable laws and act accordingly (within the law), regardless of distance.

Yeah, it would not be a good idea to rely on such models for actual decision making, much less to try to estimate the number of paces to an assailant in a serious confrontation!

Having said that, I will opine that the longer the distance, the more difficult will be the defense of justification.

As I suggested above, Should you shoot someone attacking you with an edged weapon or a bat and end up in court, experts on your side or theirs is going to explain to the jury that the Tueller drill or some derivative is widely accepted. Those on the other side will point out its shortcomings.

Quote:

As for stepping back in instances where creating space is desirable, there are whole threads on which way to get off the X is best. I find straight back to be the less productive option.

Sounds logical and I guess I could search, but can you point us to it? Thanks in advance.

**Shane Tuttle** · November 21, 2009, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik

As for stepping back in instances where creating space is desirable, there are whole threads on which way to get off the X is best. I find straight back to be the less productive option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Sounds logical and I guess I could search, but can you point us to it? Thanks in advance.

Are you trying to find writings on this to read or are you opening discussion on the why's, how's, and therefore's?

**OldMarksman** · November 21, 2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Are you trying to find writings on this to read or are you opening discussion on the why's, how's, and therefore's?

The former, thanks. Don't know what to search for.

NightSight · November 22, 2009, 09:46 PM

What if they throw the bat at you from 75-feet?? Can we shoot him then??

(I am kidding by the way)

oldkim · November 22, 2009, 10:13 PM

So back on topic.

I believe the intent of moving is to get off the line of attack. If you look at it from a shooting perspective - it's more difficult to shoot at a moving target. It's a heck of a lot easier to shoot at a stagnet non-moving target.

You can look at it as more distance or as a moving target, either would make it harder for the BG.

Most people have a foundation of shooting from behind a bench at some range. Your target is typically not moving and you are holding a shooting stance.

Movement by either or both increases the difficulty to shoot and hit the target. Again most shooters do not appreciate this since most have not ever shoot on the move and/or at a moving target on the move.

For those that have never shot on the move:
Shooting on the move is like relearning how to shoot all over again. You have to learn how to walk (move) and also shoot while doing this.

The ability to move while defending yourself is the next level most people never get to experience or practice unless you go to some special course.

If you want to experience shooting on the move and live in the Seattle, WA area. Drop me an email.

[email protected]

Shooting Like the Good Old Days - Shooting on the Move!

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=374756

smince · November 23, 2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Shooting on the move is like relearning how to shoot all over again. You have to learn how to walk (move) and also shoot while doing this.

Yes, but it isn't all that difficult. I took Extreme Close-Range Gunfighting from Gabe Suarez in 2007. He had us moving and shooting (and getting good hits) by the afternoon of the first day.

Dragon55 · November 23, 2009, 07:43 PM

Posted by hook686
25 yards can be covered by a man already in motion, in what 4 seconds ? A previous post seemed to suggest that the average untrained CCW holder would be lucky to get a shot off in 4 seconds. It seems to me this means the average guy is in a bad situation, and ability, intent and opportunity are very much present.

in other words 25 yards = 4 seconds by Joe Average.

So Joe Average will be very lucky if he can even get a shot off.

orionengnr · November 23, 2009, 08:20 PM

^^^^^^^^
In reading this thread, that distance/time equation kept running through my head. We are not talking about a guy standing 75' away, waving a bat. We are talking about someone who is bearing down at you at speed. Four seconds at 25 yards, if he is already in motion? In reality, it may be closer to half that. Many college/pro football players do a 4-ish second 40 yards from a standing start. Many/most(?) assailants are young and in shape, certainly moreso than many of us. In which case, from 25 yards, you may or may not get an adequate presentation and one shot off in two-four seconds.

Lots of variables involved; far too many to make any hard and fast rules.
In the scenario presented, I would not open fire at 25 yards (in reality, unless he was coming from the forward quadrant and yelling, I might not recognize the threat (my head is not like an owl's). Given good luck and/or good SA, I would be drawing before he was upon me.

One other thing concerns me though...how many overt attacks begin from 25 yards away? I would guess not too many, which makes this argument mostly academic (not that that's not fun)....

Kmar40 · November 23, 2009, 09:47 PM

That's a really old article. Like older than the Izod crazy, totally.

Nobody gives a crap about the MPC. Is there even a single state that has adopted it? And the pseudo legal tit for tat is boring.

Our tactics branch insists that we move offline when an aggressor is advancing on us. It makes no sense to step backward, we basically just change the point of impact an inch or two by doing that (depending on the angle and closeness of the attack).

Besides, it real freakin easy to trip trying to backpedal. I am not an NFL cornerback. At least there's a chance I can see what's going on to my left and right while I try to move offline and bring my weapon up.

Everyone should practice moving offline and drawing quite often.

November 17, 2009, 12:50 PM	#33
coldpointcrossing Senior Member Join Date: November 12, 2009 Location: Georgia Posts: 246	I wouldn't advise taking a "defensive" shot at someone advancing towards you with a baseball bat at 25yd (75ft). That does not seem to me a smart move to make. Call it what you will but I would prefer to move myself and my family AWAY from the attacker if possible. IF there was no possible way to create space between us and him/her/them then and only then would I feel justified in using lethal force but only when the attacker(s) were within reasonable distance. 75ft doesn't seem reasonable to me especially if the attacker is armed with a bat and I am armed with a handgun. If the attacker is armed with a firearm and shooting then it's a whole different ballgame. I'll be trying to advance upon him/her/them while trying to avert their attention away from the family. But this is all fiction here. __________________ CPC

November 17, 2009, 03:46 PM	#34
Hook686 Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2005 Location: USA The Great State of California Posts: 2,090	You must be an average healthy person. I addressed an older, disabled person. Running away, even walking away fast, is not an option. It will take 4-5 seconds just to draw the handgun. The attacker is running towards you with a baseball bat, yelling angry words. How long do you have to decide what to do ? When would you feel 'justified' in drawing your weapon ? firing your weapon ? Is it still simple assault ? My inquies to this thread, and the judgements rendered therein, have to do with what I view as, 'One size fits all'. Is this the case ? Is 75 feet ALWAYS too far away for lethal force to be used ? That is what it seems to me is being promoted. __________________ Hook686 When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.

November 18, 2009, 12:38 AM	#36
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,990	Hook686, It's not that assault NEVER justifies the use of deadly force, the original statement I was responding to was stated in such a way as to imply that assault automatically justifies deadly force. The point is that using assault, in and of itself, as a justification for deadly force is problematic because not all assaults justify the use of deadly force. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

November 21, 2009, 12:39 PM	#37
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	Models defining legal justifications for action based upon distance are rapidly falling out of favor, and for good cause. Familiarize yourself with the applicable laws and act accordingly (within the law), regardless of distance. As for stepping back in instances where creating space is desirable, there are whole threads on which way to get off the X is best. I find straight back to be the less productive option. __________________ Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective Last edited by Erik; November 21, 2009 at 01:05 PM.

November 22, 2009, 09:46 PM	#41
NightSight Member Join Date: July 6, 2009 Location: Westminster, CO Posts: 74	What if they throw the bat at you from 75-feet?? Can we shoot him then?? (I am kidding by the way) __________________ "Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July; democrats believe every day is April 15." -Ronald Reagan

November 16, 2009, 12:15 PM	#27
CWPinSC Junior member Join Date: July 1, 2009 Posts: 863	I've said my piece and I'll stand by it. I ain't gonna argue with a wall. I'm outta this one.

November 16, 2009, 01:30 PM	#29
JohnH1963 Junior member Join Date: October 22, 2008 Posts: 416	If a guy is at 25 yards with a knife, the question will be asked why did you not attempt to retreat? If you are a civilian, then most of the time, the general expectation is that you retreat and do whatever you can to avoid the situation. You do not have to convince us, but you would have to convince a judge or jury that you acted reasonably and according to the law. Shooting a man at 25 yards is difficult to justify if he is just holding a bat. Go to a football field and you will see that 25 yards is a good distance away. At the end of the day, the jury has to make a decision whether you go to prison or stay free. Its best to give them as much reason as possible so you want to train and develop methods that will help them make the decision that will set you free.

November 22, 2009, 10:13 PM	#42
oldkim Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2008 Location: Renton, WA Posts: 462	Wow is all I got to say.... So back on topic. I believe the intent of moving is to get off the line of attack. If you look at it from a shooting perspective - it's more difficult to shoot at a moving target. It's a heck of a lot easier to shoot at a stagnet non-moving target. You can look at it as more distance or as a moving target, either would make it harder for the BG. Most people have a foundation of shooting from behind a bench at some range. Your target is typically not moving and you are holding a shooting stance. Movement by either or both increases the difficulty to shoot and hit the target. Again most shooters do not appreciate this since most have not ever shoot on the move and/or at a moving target on the move. For those that have never shot on the move: Shooting on the move is like relearning how to shoot all over again. You have to learn how to walk (move) and also shoot while doing this. The ability to move while defending yourself is the next level most people never get to experience or practice unless you go to some special course. If you want to experience shooting on the move and live in the Seattle, WA area. Drop me an email. [email protected] Shooting Like the Good Old Days - Shooting on the Move! http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=374756 __________________ "Shoot Safetly, Shoot Often and Share Your Sport." Jim Scoutten, Shooting USA Check out my new website: www.shootonthemove.org

November 23, 2009, 07:43 PM	#44
Dragon55 Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2009 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 811	I like simple... Thanx hook686 Posted by hook686 25 yards can be covered by a man already in motion, in what 4 seconds ? A previous post seemed to suggest that the average untrained CCW holder would be lucky to get a shot off in 4 seconds. It seems to me this means the average guy is in a bad situation, and ability, intent and opportunity are very much present. in other words 25 yards = 4 seconds by Joe Average. So Joe Average will be very lucky if he can even get a shot off. __________________ sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W

November 23, 2009, 08:20 PM	#45
orionengnr Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2004 Posts: 5,177	^^^^^^^^ In reading this thread, that distance/time equation kept running through my head. We are not talking about a guy standing 75' away, waving a bat. We are talking about someone who is bearing down at you at speed. Four seconds at 25 yards, if he is already in motion? In reality, it may be closer to half that. Many college/pro football players do a 4-ish second 40 yards from a standing start. Many/most(?) assailants are young and in shape, certainly moreso than many of us. In which case, from 25 yards, you may or may not get an adequate presentation and one shot off in two-four seconds. Lots of variables involved; far too many to make any hard and fast rules. In the scenario presented, I would not open fire at 25 yards (in reality, unless he was coming from the forward quadrant and yelling, I might not recognize the threat (my head is not like an owl's). Given good luck and/or good SA, I would be drawing before he was upon me. One other thing concerns me though...how many overt attacks begin from 25 yards away? I would guess not too many, which makes this argument mostly academic (not that that's not fun).... Last edited by orionengnr; November 23, 2009 at 08:34 PM.

November 23, 2009, 09:47 PM	#46
Kmar40 Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2009 Posts: 668	That's a really old article. Like older than the Izod crazy, totally. Nobody gives a crap about the MPC. Is there even a single state that has adopted it? And the pseudo legal tit for tat is boring. Our tactics branch insists that we move offline when an aggressor is advancing on us. It makes no sense to step backward, we basically just change the point of impact an inch or two by doing that (depending on the angle and closeness of the attack). Besides, it real freakin easy to trip trying to backpedal. I am not an NFL cornerback. At least there's a chance I can see what's going on to my left and right while I try to move offline and bring my weapon up. Everyone should practice moving offline and drawing quite often.