|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 28, 2017, 03:05 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
|
Is there such a thing as "Too Close" ?
Charlie Askins described a belly gun as one you press against your enemy's belly and pull the trigger. This go me wondering if there are any legal ramifications from being 'too close" ?
|
March 28, 2017, 03:23 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,786
|
Hopefully one or more of our lawyers will weigh in on this, but I would imagine that distance would not be much of a factor. If you have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury, I can't see how that would lessen because of being at contact distance; in some circumstances in might even be reasonable to argue that the risk was enhanced by the closeness. (In the latter part of the sentence, I am thinking primarily of edged weapons, but choke holds, chemical weapons, and others could also be more dangerous with decreasing distances.)
|
March 28, 2017, 08:55 PM | #3 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
|
Legal?
Not sure if "legal ramifications" is part of Tactics and Training.
There are many tactical ramifications of being "too close" to one's attacker; not sure if any of them are good. I suspect that Askins may have had in mind a "fighting in a phone booth" scenario in which, because your opponent suddenly produces a weapon, you now need one, too. A no-snag, short-barreled, large-caliber revolver was his preference: Quote:
|
|
March 28, 2017, 11:11 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
Trigger guard cut away ?? Put a little thought into that. It's made of rather soft steel and if you bump it can bend and jam the trigger !!
This was brought up by Ayoob IIRC ! If you come up with ideas test it completely !!
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver ! |
March 28, 2017, 11:46 PM | #5 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 14, 2017
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 12
|
Wasn't that called a FITZ SPECIAL???
|
March 29, 2017, 06:29 AM | #6 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
March 29, 2017, 06:32 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Ignore the political controversies and poor tactical decisions involving Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman and consider the question. The best reason for using deadly force against an individual is an ongoing act of violence that is likely to result in severe bodily injury or death. As many perpetrators of such acts do so without a firearm, and sometimes unarmed, I would think that contact distance is not too close.
Now there are all sorts of tactical issues related to this and I would not want to be using a firearm that was intentionally modified for contact distance but I do not think that, in regards to distance and the legal system, too close is an issue. |
March 29, 2017, 08:50 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
Quote:
|
|
March 29, 2017, 09:02 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
Remember that Zimmerman fired only one shot because the slide was jammed in his clothing and his gun did not cycle. That could have been fatal. He was fortunate that he survived.
|
March 29, 2017, 09:16 AM | #10 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Quote:
Quote:
The legal ramifications of using a modified firearm are a separate topic. The tactical issues of using a firearm at contact distance are a separate issue. My post was intended only to respond to the issue as raised in the original post regarding legal issues and distance. Hence the caveat and statement that you objected to. |
||
March 29, 2017, 09:44 AM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
March 29, 2017, 10:03 AM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Quote:
|
|
March 29, 2017, 10:25 AM | #13 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
The Fitz special was intended for improved concealment. Nothing about "contact distance". |
||
March 29, 2017, 10:28 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Quote:
|
|
March 29, 2017, 10:37 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
If under violent attack, where the attacker is in contact range and death or serious injury is imminent, what choice would you have? Anytime a lethal weapon is used in a self-defense situation there are potential legal ramifications.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
March 29, 2017, 10:43 AM | #16 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
|
Since I posted that, I'll answer.
Quote:
The OP mentioned that "Charles Askins described a belly gun"; I provided Askins' 1939 description of such a gun, out of historical interest, as part of a longer post. I'd agree that Askins was (78 years ago) endorsing such a gun "for the purpose intended;" however, I wasn't endorsing it for today, nor raising a question. |
|
March 29, 2017, 12:14 PM | #17 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
What put that into your head? One more time:
|
||
March 29, 2017, 06:39 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
I submit that small revlovers work well with this tactic... either you are justified or your not justified in using deadly force. As long as that deadly force was not excessive to the point of putting others in danger. The situation you find yourself will dictate your tactics such as contact shots or how many rounds you fire.
|
March 29, 2017, 07:07 PM | #19 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
If the totality of the evidence shows one to be the defender in a use of force incident, to not have been attacking, and to not have instigated the incident or to have been engaged in the commission of crime such as home invasion, close proximity would not create any negative "legal ramifications".
Rather, it would underscore the of fact of necessity and demonstrate that an armed or ver large attacker had possessed the ability and opportunity to cause death or great bodily harm. It would undoubtedly be prudent to do everything possible to prevent the attacker for coming so close. That has to do with safety, and not justification. |
March 29, 2017, 07:26 PM | #20 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
I should add two things related to the modification question.
First, if there is a civil suit, in which the plaintiff argues that the shooting was not intentional, the fact of a "Fitz Special" tigger guard configuration might well come up. Second, if any the of evidence is not straightforward, a jury might look askance at the modification. Dr. Glenn Meyer's work in the is area is worth reading. Personally, I would not carry a Fitz Special. I don't like the removal of the front of the guard. |
March 29, 2017, 08:13 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,840
|
I think a good shoot is a good shoot and "too close" is a heck of a lot easier to argue than "too far". If the attacker has a contact weapon and is close enough to use it, "too close" should not even come into the equation. Ideally we would never want to allow an attacker to be at bad breath distance before we realized it, but sometimes stuff happens.
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency! |
March 29, 2017, 10:31 PM | #22 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
March 30, 2017, 12:06 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,840
|
Quote:
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to oneself or in the defense of another. "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be." Florida Statute 776.012 (section 2) http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html I live in Florida so I am quoting Florida Law. Everyone should obviously apply the laws of wherever they are.
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency! |
|
March 30, 2017, 12:20 PM | #24 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
March 30, 2017, 02:27 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,840
|
Quote:
Who decides whether or not to prosecute depends on where you live. It could be a grand jury or a prosecutor. The decision to prosecute or not is based on evidence presented by the officers and any witnesses. I'm sure there have absolutely been instances where lethal force was justified, but that is the chance we take. Hence the saying... "Better judged by 12 than carried by 6".
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency! |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|