I was referring to physical distance, specifically in reference to opportunity of AOJP. I agree, everyone needs to know when their personal "line in the sand" has been crossed. The actual physical distances will vary based in the specific circumstances: someone standing 10 feet away with a 10 foot chain link fence between us may not have yet crossed the line where someone 20 feet away with nothing but open ground between us will most likely have.Originally Posted by StraitR
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying? So if we're talking apples and oranges just let me know...
I think we are on the same page with a line in the sand being a moving concept depending on circumstances and guided by understanding the law.
The homicide/aggravated assault detectives are going to respond to any scene that I'm involved in. They are going to measure precisely (or as precisely as they can) what happened and where. If that distance does not make sense to them in accordance with the law, there's a good chance I will be arrested. Understanding the legal concepts of time and distance are essential before we make a general plan for what we will do under those circumstances (what if's). In this way and in many others it is necessary to understand things that we cannot control. One of the problems many CCW and even some police officers have is poorly developed mental triggers.
What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.
Lots of good points made here. Especially about the fact there are no ironclad "lines in the sand".
When we used to run "Tueller Drills", I found it relatively easy to get several rounds off at the charging "felon". But it's not very realistic when you know what's coming.
When, where, and how an attack or assailant may be coming is a fluid situation in the real world. What is justified in one set of circumstances may very well not be in an another similar situation. And vice versa.
Not only will the physical evidence be taken into account but one's ability to articulate and justify one's actions under a specific set of circumstances...not ironclad rules of engagement.
There's nothing civil about this war.
This. The Tueller drill is a drill, intended to prove a point. No "21-foot rule," or "21-foot threshold."
My take-away is that one has to change the equation, NOT just stand there and draw and then fire as the knife-armed attacker charges.
Yes. This IMO this not only forces the assailant to react and adjust, but could also be enough to deter any further aggression - though I would not in any way assume that. Learning to deliver accurate fire while moving is obviously a mandatory skill in this case.
This makes me think of the jimmy johns deal. When the dude robbed the store and clearly had a inop. gun. Say you are there and see this unfold. You know his gun is jammed. Do you just let him rob the store and leave, because he can not actually shoot anyone? I have always been very nervous about verbal commands as a civvie. But what if he figured it out and took action to clear the issue. Then he has a live gun?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
IMO - Under those circumstances, absolutely.
There are many variables to this equation and if you choose to shoot you must clearly articulate your reasons why you felt compelled to do so.
(Such as being in fear for your life or the life of another, not being certain the gun was inoperable and that even if it were, a tap might have been all that was needed to get it back in battery and begin firing, putting lives at great risk of death or grave harm.
If challenged, you can make the counter argument that if he did tap and get it back in battery, you wouldn't have had sufficient time to draw your weapon from concealment and offer up a defense. This moment was your one and only opportunity. It's much easier to Monday morning QB now...but in the heat of the moment, not so easy. You only get one chance to be right.)
Last edited by blues; 05-04-2017 at 10:43 AM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I understand, and I'm specifically speaking to trying to define physical distance and weighing that against a go/no-go metric. See below.
What I'm saying is, we cannot define a "line in the sand" all on our own to cover every scenario. Attempting to do so could potentially cause vaporlock trying to take measurements in your head when someone is "staring at you with a hunting knife mumbling something about cutting you up". I understand that distances come into play, since if that guy was 50 yards away, shooting would be a ridiculous choice both legally and morally, IMO. But, unless there are clear definitions in your local law, trying make black and white pass/fail criteria like distance, obstructions, and who's with me are frivolous because you cannot possibly cover all the possibilities... Well if he's on the other side of a fence, I'll do this. If my daughter is with me, I'll do this. If he's 21' away, I'll do this. If he's 27' away, I'll do this. If I'm in a car, I'll do this. If he's in a car, I'll do that etc etc. Thinking "does this scenario meet the metric and qualify as a deadly threat" while pushing aside or overriding the "OMG this guy is going to hurt or kill me or my family" comes across as a dangerous line of thinking to me. It's the latter that we should use to define shoot/no shoot, not the former. Isn't the metric measuring to avoid lesser than serious injury or death consequences the same thing that often gets our LEO's hurt or killed?
Knowing your local laws, having a sound moral compass, a good grasp on reality, and being able to clearly articulate why you felt deadly force was necessary seems to be more prudent.
It's a good discussion.
Last edited by StraitR; 05-04-2017 at 10:48 AM. Reason: added second quote/response.
Just to add, this is based on me being another customer and NOT the focus of the robber's attention. I'll choose to be just a witness in that case. That said, if the gun is being pointed at me my response might be different...
Reply With Quote