Where Is The Line?

S

smince

Moderator
In the "Trapped Into A Mouse Gun" thread, this line was quoted:
Most self defense classes teach you the range you can legally use a weapon to defend yourself
Click to expand...
Also, I've ran across the statement in many threads that goes something like
If you shoot someone at XX range it can't/won't be considered self defense
Click to expand...
So, I'm asking:

Where is this supposed mythical line I can't cross?

7yds?

10?

15?

If there is a BG shooting at me from 15 yards and 6 inches, am I just supposed to let him?

Personally, from bad breath distance or out past 50yds, if someone is shooting at me, I plan to shoot back if possible.
 
That's one of the things that bugs me when people refuse to practice beyond 7yards. Sure most encounters are less and edged/impaact weapons limit you to somethin like 7yards. If sombodys shooting at you it'd be a good idea to stop that.
 
I don't think distance counts for much if you're being shot at. It does however apply if your attacker has a knife, bat, etc.

Still, there is no literal line or distance that is set in stone. An attacker can close in on you from 10 yrd pretty quick. You won't have time to measure distance, but when you feel your life is in danger ... thats where the line is.
 
There is no line. Determining when to shoot back will require a reasonably accurate assessment of the current circumstances and a knowledge of the law.

Shooting back when shot at is a very basic starting point, however you need more information than that to make a reasonable decision. Some questions one might ask in an attempt to make such a decision.

1. Are there better/safer options available to you? Self-defense is, after all, about preventing yourself from being injured or killed. If you can preserve your wellbeing more effectively by doing something other than shooting back then it doesn't make sense to shoot back.

2. Does the person have a chance of hitting you? If you're behind adequate cover and there's no pressing reason to move from the cover then it would be much smarter to summon the authorities than it would be to expose yourself to shoot back.

3. Would shooting back pose a threat to innocent bystanders? If someone is engaging you from relatively long range and there are people fairly close to them and behind them then spraying the area with lead probably isn't a good idea. Running for cover or leaving the area entirely might be much better options, especially if the shooter is a good distance away and armed with a handgun and therefore doesn't have a really great chance of hitting a moving target.

4. Do you have a chance of hitting the shooter? If the person is a long way off and you're armed with a pocket pistol with vestigial sights then your efforts might be better spent trying to get away than shooting back.

I'm not suggesting that someone get out pencil and paper while under fire to try to work out the situation by making a list of options and advantages/disadvantages. It should go without saying that this type of decision would be made very quickly and further that the efficacy of the determined course of action would depend on how well the defender assesses the situation based on the circumstances.
 
Check your state laws, I suppose. Here in Florida a law-abiding citizen has no legal obligation to retreat if threatened. And according to Murphy's laws of combat "If the enemy is in range, so are you!"

I'm no big city lawyer, but I think your answer lies somewhere in there.
 
It depends so much on the particular situation and your options. Someone threatening you with their fists is different from a knife, is different from a handgun, is different from a full auto AK-47. If you are in an open field vs. behind a locked door or in a car. Or in a mall or restaurant with an active shooter.

Can you safely retreat, or are you trapped? Are you alone, or do you have three small children with you?

And of course, your state laws.
 
IMO the Castle Doctrine is the place to start reading, laws vary by state, I am sure each circumstance is unique inside house outside, in public etc - could depend on jury, record of perpetrator etc....

Castle Doctrine
 
Last edited:
IMO the distance from your assailant is only one slice of the pie. Any shooting incident when investegated will be considered in total. Pre-determining a set distance to be satisfied before you defend yourself is probably dangerous. Consider an adversary armed with a firearm. At what distance is he no danger to your life?

I will not limit myself to particular distance, but I will consider the distance depending on the dynamics of the situation.

Glenn Dee
 
Last edited:
If you're serious about finding answers
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm pretty sure I already know the answers.

I was throwing this out for those who think if you shoot someone past X distance it won't be justified.

Glenn Dee has stated it very well, IMO.
 
Strictly making an observation of your last sentence in your opening post gave me pause to agree at the time. That's why I suggested Kathy's book...
 
I will not limit myself to particular distance, but I will consider the distance depending on the dynamics of the situation.
Click to expand...
I think this is about as close to "the answer" as youre probably going to get.
 
If there is a BG shooting at me from 15 yards and 6 inches, am I just supposed to let him?
Click to expand...

Obviously, yardage distances are not included in any self defense statutes. I don't think that is a surprise. I think that common sense would tell you that if you're being fired upon, then you certainly have the right to use your weapon in self defense, although specific circumstances (cover, a means of escape, innocent by-standers, ect) can sometimes mean that not using your weapon is the wisest choice.

Your original post indicated that you are posing this question based on what you've read in some recent forum threads. Here's some advice: Don't use gun forum threads (this or any other) as a means of getting legal advise about when it's ok to use your weapon. And if you do, I hope you're good at separating legal facts from personal opinion. Read your local laws, and use the best judgment you can.
 
Why is there such a focus on distance. Distance is just one element is a host of elements to be considered. A bad guy 20 feet away on the other side of a busy highway may not have the same opportunity to harm you as a guy 20 feet infront of you on the same sidewalk.
 
Distance is just one element is a host of elements to be considered.
Click to expand...
It is, but how often is it? Considered that is. Seems like 20 feet is a long shot to a lot of people who carry guns, and 20 yards seems unfathomable.

As Smince asked, where is the cut off?

To me, its the point "I know" I can repetitively place a good hit on demand, "if" I have to.


Not to trivialize or suggest you shun the legal aspect of things, but I have to wonder sometimes, if people dont have their priorities in the wrong place when it comes to worrying about them. I put them below winning, and doing whats necessary to insure the other guy doesnt. Seems some arent to sure.
 
ability- opportunity- jeopardy
Click to expand...

I was told it was Ability-Opportunity-Intent. All three must be present to use deadly force. Bad guy must have the intent to cause death of grave bodily injury. He must also have the ability to cause said death or injury. Depending on weapon he must have the opportunity to use his weapon.
 
Would bullets flying by you left and right from 35 yards away fill that bill?

I know how Id "probably" respond, and its going to come before I get the law book out and read up to see if its OK.

Now if they're over there waving their gun around and farting in my general direction, I might have time to look up "the French and the proper response to smelly but very threatening insults" in my manual. :)
 
The conventional wisdom seems to be that anything beyond 7-10 yards becomes much more difficult to legally justify because, at that distance, you should have had opportunity to retreat. The conventional wisdom, however, certainly does not cover all circumstances. An attacker armed with a projectile weapon is obviously going to extend the range at which you are in immediate danger and the Castle Doctrine removes many instances in which you'd legally have to retreat.

Personally, I practice out to 30 yards with my pocket guns and out to 50 yards with my belt guns. While it is unlikely that I'd ever have to take a shot at those distances, it certainly doesn't hurt anything to be able to if the need arises. I think it is ill-informed to limit training strictly to short range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top