Knife Vs Gun

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Snyper

...The truth is your premise is flawed, because a justified shooting isn't dependent on what the shooter knows or doesn't know, or any training they may have had....

Well, it's clear you don't know much about use of force law. Whether you will be able to establish that your use of force was justified depends very much on your being able to show that you reasonably conclude that your use of force was necessary to prevent your imminent death or grave bodily injury. And that can very much depend on your state of mind and what you know.

That topic has been covered many times on this board -- with citations to applicable authority.

And once again we're left with the threshold question: Is there any reason to pay attention to your opinions?

[hoss1969]

Shooting is more akin to driving a car, in that anyone can learn to do it well enough to get the job done, and the ones who pay a driving instructor really can't do it any better than those who learned by just doing it on the back roads.

So anyone can just go do stunt driving in a movie? Can you do a back flip on a dirt bike? Can you teach yourself evasive driving? You think you can ski a car up on two wheels without screwing it up and getting hurt or maybe listen to someone who has done it and learned from someone else the proper way of doing it? NO you need to study it, have a instructor to correct your mistakes. You maybe able to learn enough on your own to be dangerous to you and others, but that does not mean your doing it right.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by snyper

Shooting is more akin to driving a car, in that anyone can learn to do it well enough to get the job done, and the ones who pay a driving instructor really can't do it any better than those who learned by just doing it on the back roads.

Interesting theory and thought processes. About as valid as your other claims.

Have you ever wondered why every single insurance company gives reduced auto insurance rates for new drivers who have taken a driver training course? Hopefully even you aren't naïve enough to believe that it's because the insurance companies want to lower their rates for random people and make LESS profit? Could it possibly be because real data has proven that new drivers who have taken a driver training course are better drivers and cost the insurance company less money?

http://thelawdictionary.org/article/...wer-insurance/

Law Dictionary: How Much Does Driver's Ed Lower Insurance?

As a rule, low-cost insurance providers issue driver's education discounts on the order of 5 to 10 percent. By contrast, full-service providers may offer credits of up to 20 percent for qualifying driver's education programs.

http://autos.aol.com/article/aaa-dri...-car-accident/

An analysis conducted by AAA, the nation's largest motoring club, found that drivers' education reduces teen crash rates by 4.3 percent and lowers the number of traffic tickets received by nearly 40 percent.

"Licensed to Learn" teen drivers aged 16 and 17 have a 62% lower accident rate in New York State

http://autos.aol.com/article/teen-dr...chools-safety/

In Oregon, the state mandates teen drivers get 50 hours of practice behind the wheel with an adult. Then they can choose to either do another 50 hours behind the wheel, or take a formal driver's ed program.

The teens who take driver's ed are getting to 10% to 12% fewer crashes, and getting 20% to 30% fewer citations. The state is one of just a handful that closely regulate and monitor driving programs.

[OldMarksman]

Frank and I have mentioned the evidentiary value of the documentation of training in a defense of justification. Unfortunately, I became focussed on the mention of a "piece of paper" and overlooked the great importance of training itself.

I completely overlooked this comment:

Shooting is more akin to driving a car, in that anyone can learn to do it well enough to get the job done, and the ones who pay a driving instructor really can't do it any better than those who learned by just doing it on the back roads.

The first problem with that is that, unless one is taught the fundamentals by someone who knows them, he or she is likely to develop bad habits. I am a perfect example of that. I have fired handguns for around five decades, but until I had several instructors show me the fundamentals, I was not improving at all. In my first defensive shooting course around four and a half years ago, I ended the course with around 30 % more hits and around 30 % less time in a modified El Presidente drill on steel plates than I had been able to do before the course. All of that came from none on one coaching that extended to videotaping the grip and hold and where my finger was on the trigger and other things. I could not have done that alone, and I would not have known how.

The second thing is that shooting is just part of self defense. There's the draw, presentation (the method of which will differ depending upon circumstance), instinctive shooting, shooting with sights, where to shoot, clearing malfunctions instantly without looking, and much more. And that's not all, by any means. If one has taught himself to shoot targets and has worked on group size, fine, but he or she will have not yet worked on the right things, such as how to balance speed and precision in a situation that replicates, to the extent possible, a realistic defensive use of force encounter.

One can certainly have a lot of fun plinking at tin cans, as I did, which is akin to driving on country roads, but that will not impart and develop the skills that one would need to recognize and react to a violent surprise attack and to deal with it effectively.

[Snyper]

Well, it's clear you don't know much about use of force law.

Whether you will be able to establish that your use of force was justified depends very much on your being able to show that you reasonably conclude that your use of force was necessary to prevent your imminent death or grave bodily injury.
And that can very much depend on your state of mind and what you know.

No, it does NOT depend on what you know.
It's based on what a "reasonable" person would think and do in the same situation

You're quick with the "you don't know" when the truth is I know exactly what the laws are here

That leads me to believe there's not much point in listening to you, because you just keep repeating the mantra that only what you know counts

A lawyer should know better

[Snyper]

So anyone can just go do stunt driving in a movie? Can you do a back flip on a dirt bike? Can you teach yourself evasive driving? You think you can ski a car up on two wheels without screwing it up and getting hurt or maybe listen to someone who has done it and learned from someone else the proper way of doing it? NO you need to study it, have a instructor to correct your mistakes. You maybe able to learn enough on your own to be dangerous to you and others, but that does not mean your doing it right.

Once again, those are extreme examples having nothing to do with the topic of self defense, NOR what I said

Quote:
Shooting is more akin to driving a car, in that anyone can learn to do it well enough to get the job done, and the ones who pay a driving instructor really can't do it any better than those who learned by just doing it on the back roads.

One doesn't have to be a Ninja to survive, contrary to popular belief
NASCAR got started by a bunch of bootleggers running moonshine in the hills of NC

They didn't attend driving schools

[Snyper]

The first problem with that is that, unless one is taught the fundamentals by someone who knows them, he or she is likely to develop bad habits

Where did I say I was never taught?

I said I never PAID

My Father was a certified rifle and pistol instructor, a police officer, and a smallbore competition shooter.

Lots of my friends are LEO's who have taught me lots of things over the years, for FREE

But here, none of that matters, because I don't have a "certificate" to show

Too many are too quick to assume their way is the only way, and anyone who disagrees is just ignorant, and immediately told if they can't "show" some proof they know nothing

[Snyper]

Interesting theory and thought processes.
About as valid as your other claims.

You're entitled to you opinion, as am I

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by snyper

You're entitled to you opinion, as am I

I find it interesting that you didn't bother to reply to the rest of that post you quoted from, which provided facts in direct opposition to your opinion:

Originally Posted by snyper

the ones who pay a driving instructor really can't do it any better than those who learned by just doing it on the back roads.

Originally Posted by snyper

You're entitled to you opinion, as am I

No one is denying that you're entitled to an opinion. Big difference that you don't seem to be able to understand is that some people's opinions are more valid than others. The people with valid opinions can back their opinions with documented FACTS, while others like you can't. Some people's opinions are incorrect, but they refuse to admit it even when presented with evidence that proves their opinion wrong.

For example, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion that the earth is flat, just as Neil Armstrong is entitled to his opinion that the earth is round.

Since Neil Armstrong's opinion is based on documented facts that can be verified by anyone, people accept his opinion as more valid than yours.

Even though he didn't pay for it.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Snyper: No, it does NOT depend on what you know.
It's based on what a "reasonable" person would think and do in the same situation

Actually, it's "If the circumstances would have created a reasonable belief in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness that the assault was necessary or appeared to be necessary to protect that person from imminent death or great bodily harm..." [NC Jury Instructions; emphasis added]

"Circumstances" will include what the actor knew at the time, which will only be made known to the jury if it is admitted as evidence.

There are limited exceptions in at least two states that I know of; they allow the admission of relevant evidence not necessarily known to the defender about the background of the person against whom force was used. Study the Harold Fish case and its legal aftermath if you want to know a little more.

But to the point here, imagine what we would have if it were left to each court and to each juror and to each defendant to mull over what distance be close enough to establish a reasonable belief that an alleged aggressor with a contact weapon had been close enough to give him the opportunity to cause great bodily harm. That's not going to happen. If the evidence is ambiguous, and that's where the problem will arise, expert testimony on scientific findings (that takes us right back to the findings of Dennis Tueller and to subsequent research) will be required.

And what is judged about what the defendant "reasonably believed" will include what he knew about that subject--again, admissible only if there is something to support the fact that he had known it at the time of the incident.

You're quick with the "you don't know" when the truth is I know exactly what the laws are here

You may be able to recite the criminal code verbatim, but your comments here indicate that you have little knowledge of what is involved in a defense of justification--or of the rules of evidence.

That "piece of paper" of which you speak so disparagingly could make the difference between acquittal and conviction.

One more time: look into attending MAG-20. Take copious notes, and handle those notes exactly as recommended by the instructor.

Where did I say I was never taught?

I said I never PAID

....

Lots of my friends are LEO's who have taught me lots of things over the years, for FREE

You said nothing about yourself. You spoke of people "who learned by just doing it".

[OldMarksman]

...worth the 15 minutes it takes to watch it. Covers the history and purpose of the drill; points out that as others have said, it is not a "rule"; discusses variations and uncertainty in the times; addresses misconceptions and how they may play out in a trial; and explains how a defendant's training can serve him in the legal aftermath. This is from a MAG-40 session conducted less than two weeks ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og28YV8DUxw

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Snyper

No, it does NOT depend on what you know.
It's based on what a "reasonable" person would think and do in the same situation

You're quick with the "you don't know" when the truth is I know exactly what the laws are here....

You do not understand how the law works and how you will need to establish your defense of justification.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele wrote in Part 1:

In the vast majority of states, the basic elements of self-defense by means of deadly force (firearms and other weapons) include:

• The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.
  
  
• The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger. Establishing this subjective belief often requires the client to testify....

As she wrote in Part 3:

...Most states employ a subjective and objective test for reasonableness. Once the attorney has analyzed the witness’ testimony and the experts’ reports and developed a theory about the facts in the incident, he or she can begin to develop a theory about the client’s intent and why his or her conduct was objectively reasonable.

The AOJ Triad

Reasonableness can be hard to quantify. The attorney may wish to look at the factors self-defense trainers teach their students. Self-defense trainers refer to adversaries or aggressors who have the ability and opportunity to cause harm, and reasonable people who, observing the aggressive conduct, believe they are in immediate jeopardy of death or serious injury. Essentially, these factors (called the AOJ triad) restate the common law of self-defense.

Ability means the aggressor has the capacity to kill or seriously injure the defender. ...

Opportunity means the aggressor is in a position to use his ability. Look at distance, ...

Jeopardy means that the aggressor’s behavior would lead the defender, and a reasonable observer, to conclude the defender is in imminent danger. ...

....

In questioning the client, the attorney is not looking for the client’s conclusion that he was in danger from the aggressor. Instead, the attorney is looking for the observations that led the client to that conclusion. What did the aggressor say and do that showed he or she was dangerous? Members of the jury should come to see the situation as it appeared to the client. They should come to the conclusion that the aggressor intended to seriously injure or kill the client, and that there was no option other than the use of deadly force...

Originally Posted by Snyper

...NASCAR got started by a bunch of bootleggers running moonshine in the hills of NC

They didn't attend driving schools

But NASCAR and other professional race drivers do now.

Originally Posted by Snyper

...But here, none of that matters, because I don't have a "certificate" to show

Too many are too quick to assume their way is the only way, and anyone who disagrees is just ignorant, and immediately told if they can't "show" some proof they know nothing

Some of your opinions expressed here are called to question by others not because you don't have a certificate, but because you haven't convinced some folks that your opinions have solid bases. All opinions aren't equal, and opinions that can be backed up with demonstrated qualifications and/or documented evidence are more worthy of serious attention.

You're common response when someone challenges an opinion of yours is to disparage training and/or the notion that qualifications matter. Such a response is not well calculated to give people confidence in your judgement.

[Snyper]

I find it interesting that you didn't bother to reply to the rest of that post you quoted from, which provided facts in direct opposition to your opinion:

Nothing else in that post had anything to do with self defense, nor what I stated

[Snyper]

Actually, it's "If the circumstances would have created a reasonable belief in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness that the assault was necessary or appeared to be necessary to protect that person from imminent death or great bodily harm..." [NC Jury Instructions; emphasis added]

I'm not going to play word games with you when you know what I said (a resonable person) was accurate

A defendent has no obligation to "prove" anything, and the law doesn't change according to what they know or don't know.

That "piece of paper" of which you speak so disparagingly could make the difference between acquittal and conviction.

That's an opinion, not necessarily a fact and it's definitely not a requirment

[Snyper]

You do not understand how the law works and how you will need to establish your defense of justification.

Nothing you posted after that is radically different from what I stated
It's more pointless rambling which says nothing about a defendent needing "qualifications" to justify anything at all

But NASCAR and other professional race drivers do now.

So?
It doesn't take away the knowledge of those who didn't
Knowledge is infinite

You getting a little doesn't mean I lose any of mine, and it doesn't mean yours is more "correct".

Some of your opinions expressed here are called to question by others not because you don't have a certificate, but because you haven't convinced some folks that your opinions have solid bases. All opinions aren't equal, and opinions that can be backed up with demonstrated qualifications and/or documented evidence are more worthy of serious attention.

You're common response when someone challenges an opinion of yours is to disparage training and/or the notion that qualifications matter. Such a response is not well calculated to give people confidence in your judgement.

LOL
You're back to your standard reply now, wherein any opinion that doesn't match yours is met with demands for "credentials" or they can't possibly be valid, even though you have no idea of what training or instruction I've had over the years

That's why these discussions are pointless, since they all have the same ending

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Snyper

...You're back to your standard reply now, wherein any opinion that doesn't match yours is met with demands for "credentials" or they can't possibly be valid, even though you have no idea of what training or instruction I've had over the years...

Nope. I've learned a lot form folks here like pax, OldMarksman, Spats McGee, Mike Irwin, KyJim, Bartholomew Roberts, kraigwy, Glenn Meyer, Al Norris, Tom Servo, JohnKSa, Cosmoline, Double Naught Spy, and some others. We haven't always agreed, but over time they've shown that they have the backgrounds and evidence to back up their opinions; and their opinions therefore warrant being taken seriously.

You on the other hand ......

Originally Posted by Snyper

...That's why these discussions are pointless, since they all have the same ending

I agree with that.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Snyper: A defendent has no obligation to "prove" anything, and the law doesn't change according to what they know or don't know.

The defendant's objective is to prevent the state for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that his action was not self defense.

He must provide evidence to that effect.

Part of that evidence will pertain to his knowledge at the time of the incident.

Listen to all of the video posted in Post #111. Pay particular attention to the part that pertains to how the defendant's training provided a basis for a reasonable belief that he had been faced with an imminent threat.

Let's go over that one more time: The defendant's use of force may be adjudged justified if he can produce sufficient evidence of a reasonable belief that the alleged attacker had had the ability (in this case, the knife) and the opportunity (relating to distance) to inflict serious harm; that he had been in jeopardy (as indicated by the alleged attaker's statements or behavior); and there is the issue of preclusion.

This thread has been entirely about the question of opportunity. In the case of the use of force against someone with a contact weapon, the outcome could hinge heavily upon the work of Dennis Tueller, and upon what the defendant was able to relate about it from information he had before the fact--what he knew or didn't know.

Your continuing unsupported denial of those very basic legal facts will not help you.

The video linked in Post #111 should explain the key points rather clearly to most people. One does have to listen and think about it.

If you would like to have a really good explanation of how what the defendant knew or did not know can influence the outcome of a criminal trial, and of what is necessary to substantiate assertions relative thereto, attend this. Should you ever be faced with the need, the cost will seem very inconsequential indeed.

By the way, Frank Ettin has assisted Massad Ayoob in training sessions.

[Snyper]

they have the backgrounds and evidence to back up their opinions;

Using your logic, nothing you learned from them counts at all unless they handed out certificates, since you discount everything I learned from equally qualified people, simply because I sometimes see things differently.

You don't just do it to me either
You first post in this thread was:

In other words, you don't understand the history or purpose of the "drill."

Your second post:

Are you suggesting I'm not fit to carry, or to teach? What are your qualifications for making that claim?

Third post:

Thank you for confirming that you don't know what you're talking about and that there is no reason why any of us should take your opinions seriously.

None of those were directed at me
It just seems to be a consistant pattern.

[Snyper]

The defendant's objective is to prevent the state for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that his action was not self defense.

He must provide evidence to that effect

Evidence of the details of the event has nothing to do with what he "knows" as far as any training, and is merely a description of observations at a specific time, along with any forensic evidence

By the way, Frank Ettin has assisted Massad Ayoob in training sessions.

And how does that take away anything I have learned?
Is it supposed to mean he's always right?

Is Massad always right?
If so, anyone who hasn't personally trained with him must be oblivious, huh?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Snyper

Using your logic, nothing you learned from them counts at all unless they handed out certificates,...

I've never said anything like that. It's not matter of certificates. It is a matter of demonstrating in some way that one's knows what he is talking about.

Originally Posted by Snyper

...you discount everything I learned from equally qualified people, simply because I sometimes see things differently...

I have no idea what you think you've learned from folks you think are qualified. But it appears that you haven't convinced a number of people that you have sound bases for some of the opinions you've expressed.

It's apparent that you're frustrated. But you keep going off on tangents about how qualifications and evidence don't matter. The reality is that they do matter. So you might want to think about how you could present your opinions in more convincing ways and back up those opinions with evidence.

This isn't the first time we've gotten caught up in this kind of circular discussion, and once again, you don't seem to be getting anywhere.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Snyper: Evidence of the details of the event has nothing to do with what he "knows" as far as any training, and is merely a description of observations at a specific time, along with any forensic evidence

What you do not seem to understand is that evidence relating to other things can be crucial. Foremost among those things are the defendant's state of mind, and anything that could shed light on the reasons for his stated belief that he had been faced with an imminent threat requiring the immediate use of deadly force.

Training RE: attack and response distances would fall into the latter category.

Your continuing to insist otherwise does not change that.

I hate to put it quite this way, but it seems to me that there has been ample explanation of the subject in this thread already. Perhaps you should spend some time rereading the above posts carefully and reflecting upon the content. Pay particular attention to the links to the writings of Lisa Steele--study them very carefully. Watch the video linked in Post #111 a couple of times, too.

If after all of that you still do not understand it, take my advice and attend MAG-20. Better yet, do it anyway.

[Snyper]

I've never said anything like that. It's not matter of certificates. It is a matter of demonstrating in some way that one's knows what he is talking about.

Really?
That's your view?

This isn't the first time we've gotten caught up in this kind of circular discussion, and once again, you don't seem to be getting anywhere.

LOL
Neither do you since you just keep denying what's been shown
It proves what I said about it being a pattern

It is a matter of demonstrating in some way that one's knows what he is talking about

I haven't seen where anyone here has any monopoly on that

[Snyper]

What you do not seem to understand is that evidence relating to other things can be crucial. Foremost among those things are the defendant's state of mind, and anything that could shed light on the reasons for his stated belief that he had been faced with an imminent threat requiring the immediate use of deadly force.

More rambling that really has nothing to do with what the defendent has been taught

All that matters is the details of the specific event

I get that some of my views aren't popular, but rather than prove them incorrect, it's the same old "you don't know" or "you' don't understand".

[OldMarksman]

Snyper, Frank Ettin, who is well qualified to do so, has provided a great deal of information on several aspects of how training, and proof of same pertain, to the application of use of force law.

If he is not "getting anywhere" with you, the problem resides in you.

You have repeatedly asserted a number of things that demonstrate a great lack of understanding about how things work in a defense of justification.

If you want to learn, make an attempt. But continued denial is not constructive. It does not change anything.

Fortunately, it does not seem that anyone else is being misled by you, and that is important.

What you do is up to you.

[HiBC]

I am reminded of the scene in "The Magnificent Seven"

"Clap hands"