Is there such a thing as "too close" ?

[Rachen]

Here's what it looks like when someone gets it wrong.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ges/ar-BBODl0j

The man wearing orange in the mugshot is a "good guy" --the city commissioner for Lakeland, FL, a strong advocate of gun ownership and the owner of a community business. He shot a "bad guy" (a person with a felony criminal record) who was committing a crime (shoplifting) and who had a potentially deadly weapon on his person (hatchet). But he has resigned his position, and is in jail without bond, charged with murder because his actions in the video clearly show that he was not in any danger.

That is a pretty rude and cold wake-up call to a lot of folks who think that having a gun in their hands automatically gives them a Superman cape too. Tend to see that kind of folk a lot at gun shops. Usually young, energetic and more than a little naive on just how serious the consequences of misusing a weapon can be. In even legit self-defense situations, you are straddling a very fine line between actual justified SD and murder or manslaughter. If a guy is charging at you with a hatchet and you blast him, that may be legit SD. Shoot him again after he's down? Now that will get you a murder charge. Not just for civvies but even for cops too. Many high profile cases recently about LE who have shot suspects as they were fleeing or continued to use "pain compliance" techniques against suspects who were already restrained and cuffed. Even if the officers in these cases beat the raps and avoided jail time, many careers were ended and many guys went bankrupt after all the legal fees were paid.

In China there are cases when real professional martial artists have used excessive force against assailants in situations that were actually SD, but the problem was these guys used too much force and ended up injuring or killing the perps and they were prosecuted much more severely than a normal civilian without such martial training would have been in the same scenario. I have a cousin who worked in Japan for a while for a major tech firm and he told me a story a few years back about one of the project managers in his department. The man was a black belt in either TKD or karate and got into a confrontation with a Yakuza who tried to seduce his wife. During the fight the guy "death-kicked" the Yakuza into a coma and he was practically destroyed by the law after that. Lost his job, sentenced to prison. Really stiff sentence too. Fines, medical compensation. Lost everything, and it didn't help that the comatose guy had a switchblade knife in his pocket. And yes the Yakuza are scary people, everybody knows that, but in THAT case, the TKD master used unnecessary force in a situation that did not require such force. Even if, and when that guy gets out of prison, and thats gonna be in a pretty long time, he is going to be looking over his shoulder and into every dark corner for the rest of his life. Yakuza are not known for their mercy, or short memories and they get quite creative when dealing with folks who pissed them off.

[SIGSHR]

If Askins was a psychopath then so is every sniper, every soldier who actually drew a bead on an enemy soldier, used a bayonet or a knife, etc. As Massad Ayoob wrote, he was not the type of guy you'd want to get drunk with, but you'd want him by your side in a dark alley, a foxhole, etc. I note that Jeff Cooper scoffed at the idea of PTSD. And Charlie noted that the gunfights in his Border Patrol days were all at close range and with no warning.
And real combat is a very fluid and dynamic thing, the only real rule is you have to prevail.

[shurshot]

SIGSHR; now you have done it... thrown fuel on the fire! I thought that old piece of birch wood had burned itself out and was just smoldering embers. Defending Askins on here, even slightly... is like defending Bill Cosby at a Feminist march.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by SIGSHR

If Askins was a psychopath then so is every sniper, every soldier who actually drew a bead on an enemy soldier, used a bayonet or a knife, etc.

I'm just a spectator to what this has devolved into, but this claim seems baffling to me. There are behaviors described here that are not in fact what "every" soldier does and there are international laws specifically for those reasons.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[OldMarksman]

The question had to do with handguns and distance. Let us leave the discussion of Askins and his character and behavior to some other venue.

[Ricklin]

Those here that choose to carry concealed, myself included are not soldiers. Nor are we cops.
We are citizens that choose to carry a tool which may be needed to defend ourselves and hopefully prevent injury to ourselves and perhaps others.

It really is that simple. The fact that we have the tool does not imply that we must use that tool. The tool offers nothing in and of itself. No more so than owning a paintbrush making us artists.

For me the greatest challenge is not using the tool, but knowing with certainty that it is time to do so.

Those young guys hanging at the gun shop mentioned earlier? There are many dangerous drugs, the most dangerous one? Testosterone.

[MarkCO]

^Like.

I tell my wife often (2 teenage boys) that "Testosterone is a powerful drug".

Soldier v. Cop v. Citizen mentality is a thing. It takes me all of about 30 seconds to pick out the guys in LE training who are former military. They are the ones that get reprimanded about "Officer Safety" and "We go home at night" because they are prone to rushing in headfirst.

"Perhaps others" I totally agree with. We all have our personal thresholds of capability and events that we will interject ourselves into. While 20 years ago, it would have been different, the political climate in an area is as much a factor today as anything. If you end up locked up, you have failed in your duty to protect yourself, and in most cases, to then protect and provide for your family. It sucks, but it is part of the reality of the times.

[SIGSHR]

Interesting that Askins has such a bad reputation now.
I will try to rephrase the question, can a contact shot be justified, both legally, and ethically ?

[Double Naught Spy]

I will try to rephrase the question, can a contact shot be justified, both legally, and ethically ?

There is no law stipulating distance what which a shot made in self defense has to be. There are numerous situations in which such shots have been made. There is no law stipulating where a person is to be shot in self defense.

Ethically? That is a personal issue between you and your conscious. After all, it is your life or the life of another that you are defending. You can let them be killed or seriously hurt or you can work to stop the bad person. A contact shot means you WILL hit your target.

[Rachen]

Interesting that Askins has such a bad reputation now.
I will try to rephrase the question, can a contact shot be justified, both legally, and ethically ?

It is not about the nature of the shot, but the circumstances in which such a shot is made. There was an incident last year where a Texas man used a .357 Magnum to make a 138 yard shot to save the life of a State Trooper who was about to be killed by a hardened career criminal. It was one of these things that literally ignited all of the gun communities on the Web and was discussed for a long time afterward. And what the man did was absolutely justified following a review and investigation.

There is another thread here about a nurse whose husband hired a hitman to kill her so he could take her property and she managed to put a lethal chokehold on the guy after a several minute fight for her life. If she had a handgun, she would have been MORE than justified to make a contact range shot. As a matter of fact that would have been the only shot she could have made, as the would-be killer closed in on her without warning and was pretty much determined to do the deed quickly, with a hammer, and then scram. Classic predatory attack.

You can use what ever methods you have at your disposal to protect yourself or others from the actions of a criminal. The really tricky part is convincing a jury and judge to justify your actions afterward. If there was no lethal threat present and the situation could have been diffused simply by walking away or waiting for proper authorities to show up and take care of it, the use of ANY force, including the brandishing and use of a firearm or another weapon, would not be viewed too favorably.

[JohnKSa]

I will try to rephrase the question, can a contact shot be justified, both legally, and ethically ?

I think the answer is yes.

If anything, justification becomes more difficult as the distance grows because increasing distance increases the chances of being able to withdraw safely and reduces or even eliminates some types of threats.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that there is no set of circumstances where a contact shot might be less justifiable from an ethical or legal standpoint, but off the top of my head I can't think of any.

The reasons that I would avoid a contact shot, if possible, have to do with tactics and weapon limitations, not with legality or ethics.

[briandg]

I will try to rephrase the question, can a contact shot be justified, both legally, and ethically ?

We now have a question that can be answered without even a word of debate. Remove a single word from your question.

I will try to rephrase the question, can a contact shot be justified, both legally, and ethically ?

It has just been made absolutely clear. Can a shot (based entirely on the circumstances that lead to the person firing the gun) be proven to have been legally and morally justifiable?

Go to your state legal database, there will be one that has all of the laws and codes clearly written out exactly as they are on the books. Read and understand what those words say, and carefully determine what circumstances can justify use of lethal force. That is the only thing that should be admissible in an arrest and prosecution.

You can be taking a shower, hiding in a dumpster, hanging upside down from a trapeze, none of that is relevant to the single question: Were you or another in your vicinity in danger of death, grievous injury, or destruction of property of such value that your laws would allow for use of lethal force?

This is what will be in the laws that you read. It will list the conditions that justify lethal force, not the technique or method.

unless you find a specific line in your state laws that either explicitly or implicitly limits the manner of applying lethal force with a handgun, and it allows for lethal force in the situation that you were in when you fired, the laws of your state will have been followed, and you should not be at risk of prosecution.

Ethically? frankly, not my problem. You have to decide ethics for yourself. I know what is right and wrong, many don't. I can't teach ethics via internet. You are going to be in the situation and you can only work out what you choose to.

Ethical and legal aren't the same issues. If you have done something that a prosecutor deems 'unethical' during a self defense shooting, well, he may find that you broke laws and you will be prosecuted.

Is it ethical to shoot an attacker in the belly when he is in contact range? If you have a sure and absolute way of sparing the person from death or grievous harm and still accomplish what you need to, then ethically ( and in all probability legally) you will have done something unforgivable.


Put yourself in my situation. My 90 year old mother in law is as crazy as a frog on a skillet, and she has scissors in her hands all of the time. She doesn't like me too much. I carry a pistol everywhere, including when I am in her house.

Now, it is entirely conceivable that this looney bin washout might be angered beyond reason some day when I say something like "oh, boy, your roses are ugly." She may conceivably grab her big stabby scissors and poke me. I personally TRULY believe that she could cause me terrible physical harm or death if I can't defend myself. Now, is it really possible that she could put me in a situation in which I could not save my own life without killing her? NO.

If I can get her armed hand under control, she can't even try to bite me. she has no teeth and no strength in any other part of her body. If I chose at that point to shoot her to save my own life, sure, I could still use the scissors as an excuse, but it is an excuse, not justification.