Is there such a thing as "Too Close" ?

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.
 
I think a good shoot is a good shoot....
Click to expand...
I have no idea what people think they mean by that. A shoot is lawful if the totality of the evidence is such that it is not proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

...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.
Click to expand...
All other things being equal, that is very probably true.

Ideally we would never want to allow an attacker to be at bad breath distance before we realized it, but sometimes stuff happens.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
OldMarksman said:
I think a good shoot is a good shoot....
I have no idea what people think they mean by that. A shoot is lawful if the totality of the evidence is such that it is not proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

What I mean by a "good shoot" is that the use of lethal force was justified to
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/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

I live in Florida so I am quoting Florida Law. Everyone should obviously apply the laws of wherever they are.
 
What I mean by a "good shoot" is that the use of lethal force was justified to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to oneself or in the defense of another.
Click to expand...
Who decides that? On what basis do they decide it? Do you think there may have been instances in which the use of lethal force was justified to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, but the actor's use of force was determined to have been unjustified?
 
OldMarksman said:
Who decides that? On what basis do they decide it? Do you think there may have been instances in which the use of lethal force was justified to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, but the actor's use of force was determined to have been unjustified?
Click to expand...

Lots of good info on this site... https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/is-there-always-a-trial-after-a-shooting

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".
 
If the attacker has a contact weapon and is close enough to use it, ..
Click to expand...

IF????

The human body is a contact weapon, capable of delivering lethal force.

Much as I hate all the BS involved with the Zimmerman case, boil it down, and one guy was beating the other guy's head against the pavement. No ADDITIONAL weapon was needed for that attack to be life threatening, and justifying deadly force as a response.

Even the law recognizes that an "unarmed" man is always "armed" with the capability of inflicting deadly force, though it uses "disparity of force" to determine what charges, if any should be brought, after the fact.
 
44 AMP said:
IF????

The human body is a contact weapon, capable of delivering lethal force.

Much as I hate all the BS involved with the Zimmerman case, boil it down, and one guy was beating the other guy's head against the pavement. No ADDITIONAL weapon was needed for that attack to be life threatening, and justifying deadly force as a response.

Even the law recognizes that an "unarmed" man is always "armed" with the capability of inflicting deadly force, though it uses "disparity of force" to determine what charges, if any should be brought, after the fact.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I never implied that an "unarmed" attacked was not a deadly threat. There had better be a fairly obvious disparity of force though.

If you quoted the whole sentence, I think there would be less of an issue.
If the attacker has a contact weapon and is close enough to use it, "too close" should not even come into the equation.
Click to expand...
;)
 
Let me see. A "good shoot" is the use of a gun in which self defense is obvious to all concerned, and the sheriff and the shooter buy drinks for the house.

It may happen that way in the movies, but I wouldn't want to bet on it in real life. Anyone who carries a gun and has the intent to use it "if necessary" had better have memorized the phone number of a good defense attorney (they take away your iPhone in jail).

Jim
 
James K said:
Let me see. A "good shoot" is the use of a gun in which self defense is obvious to all concerned, and the sheriff and the shooter buy drinks for the house.

It may happen that way in the movies, but I wouldn't want to bet on it in real life. Anyone who carries a gun and has the intent to use it "if necessary" had better have memorized the phone number of a good defense attorney (they take away your iPhone in jail).

Jim
Click to expand...

I'm hoping you are a NRA member, which would mean you would receive the American Rifleman. Every month there is a section called The Armed Citizen, detailing instances when firearms were used in self-defense. If that is your idea of it only happens in the movies, I suggest you start watching better movies. ;)

I believe most of us know that there are risks in using a firearm in self defense, but we knowingly take that risk to avoid the what could happen if unarmed in the same situation. Someone using a gun for self defense can still be sued civilly by the attacker's family, even if the shooting was ruled justifiable.

As for memorizing a criminal attorney's number, you can feel free to do so if you wish. My phone call would go to a family member who would call our regular attorney to find out who is the best criminal attorney (oxymoron? :p) around.

I hope we all respect human life and only use lethal force when absolutely necessary, but I also hope that it doesn't cause us to hesitate and lose our own lives instead. Avoid trouble, even at the expense of your ego, but be prepared to take decisive and aggressive action if needed.
 
Every month there is a section called The Armed Citizen, detailing instances when firearms were used in self-defense.
Click to expand...
Do not infer from those little snippets that each case was deemed a "good shoot" at the scene and/or that the defender is embraced by the sheriff.

Even when it does happen that way, justification remains elusive until the defender is charged, tried and acquitted, or the case is dismissed with prejudice, or the defender is pardoned, or the statute of limitations expires. That last never happens in the event that someone is killed.

Except in the movies.
 
OldMarksman said:
Do not infer from those little snippets that each case was deemed a "good shoot" at the scene and/or that the defender is embraced by the sheriff.

Even when it does happen that way, justification remains elusive until the defender is charged, tried and acquitted, or the case is dismissed with prejudice, or the defender is pardoned, or the statute of limitations expires. That last never happens in the event that someone is killed.

Except in the movies.
Click to expand...

And yet you carry and are prepared to used deadly force to protect you and yours right? Same here.

I don't believe that any of my comments made light of the use of deadly. For me, deadly force is a last resort, but I am prepared to do so. That means that I am willing to deal with any and all ramifications that the use of deadly force brings, including legal and civil.
 
I don't believe that any of my comments made light of the use of deadly.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

For me, deadly force is a last resort, but I am prepared to do so.
Click to expand...
Yep.

No criticism intended.

It's just that the phrase "a good shoot is a good shoot" can make some people less sensitive to things that can help them avid the worst after the shooting.

Anyone who uses it here can expect a reaction.
 
"I'm hoping you are a NRA member, which would mean you would receive the American Rifleman. Every month there is a section called The Armed Citizen, detailing instances when firearms were used in self-defense. If that is your idea of it only happens in the movies, I suggest you start watching better movies."

I have to plead guilty of being an NRA member. But those monthly snippets don't tell the whole story. Yes, there are cases where self-defense is immediately recognized, and a shooter released with few problems. But often that is not the case, especially where the political climate is strongly against self-defense or where the victim is a member of a favored minority. In such cases, the prosecutor will work very hard to put the "armed citizen" in jail or at least make him/her pay out thousands of dollars to lawyers to have justice recognized. A reasonable defense will cost at least $20,000, and could run many times that in a complicated case. That may be chump change to O.J. Simpson, but most of us would be lucky not to lose our homes and just about everything else we own. And that is if the result is acquittal. If it is not, you may have a home for a good many years - "... to protect the citizens of our city from right-wing gun crazies who think they can kill with impunity..."

Jim
 
oldmarksman said:
provides for reimbursement for criminal defense costs if and when one is acquitted.
Click to expand...

what’s covered

your defense costs and damages in a civil suit
reimbursement for criminal defense costs when you are acquitted of charges
bodily injury and damage caused by the use of a firearm
your spouse is automatically included on your policy
annual liability limit options and costs

$100,000 combined single limit $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit $165 per year
$250,000 combined single limit $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit $254 per year
$500,000 combined single limit $100,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit $400 per year
$1 million combined single limit $100,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit $600 per year
Click to expand...
 
Since most private citizens will, more likely than not, be attacked at contact distance, then say 21 ft., I'm guessing it will be legal.
 
I guess I am simply not a deep thinker as many in this thread obviously are. That said, I look at use of force in very basic terms... If I MUST use my firearm to prevent very grievous and potentially life threatening force being used against me, I will. If I don't, I wont. All other considerations are mute in the face of what I MUST do ( in the moment) to survive. I don't want to use force against anyone and if I do, they will dictate the distance not me. Generally speaking, physical attacks are going to be "up close".

If I were to be concerned about use of force distances, I would be more concerned with greater distances to target being frowned upon, not the other way around.
 
If I were to be concerned about use of force distances, I would be more concerned with greater distances to target being frowned upon, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It would be easier to justify having to shoot someone 1 foot away than someone 100 feet away, generally speaking.
 
Well, a "belly gun" would have to be a revolver. Since a revolver doesn't go out of battery the way a semi-automatic does.

Granted, there are some methods to doing a similar thing with a semi-automatic. But you'll only get one round off and then you'll have to rack the slide to clear the brass from the chamber.

That's with better case scenario where you have both hands available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top