I am a civilian and I was talking to my concealed carry instructor and he just laughed when I told him about this forum.
He said there is no way you could convince a judge that you were defending yourself from a threat at 50 yds away.
So all the talk about flat shooting, accurate handguns is not an issue in Minnesota.
What I want is something to defend against home invasion. Which would be a twelve gauge or a second choice would be a 45 acp


I will start the pop corn.
whelennut

Me thinks your instructor is a moron


A recent case in TX comes to mind where a CCW'ER shot an assailant with a handgun at 65 yards..

Judges and their rangefinders...it ain't right!

In a city 50 yards might seem like a long way not so much in a rural environment

Mike

If you see that super awesome instructor again, tell him that I said to eat a bag of dicks.

Fifty yard handguns are for deer hunting,........aren't they?

If I am forced to defend my life from a distance of fifty yards, in most scenarios, I would have access to a rifle.

Inside my house, when I thought the threat was imminent, I slept on the recliner with a Marlin 1894 in 41 mag across my lap and a Mossberg 500 w/ 12 ga #4's propped against the wall beside me.

A handgun is for when you really just don't expect any trouble.

This.

What guarantees that trouble will only occur within 7-10 feet?

[quote=
He said there is no way you could convince a judge that you were defending yourself from a threat at 50 yds away.

I would think that would depend on the circumstance(s) that lead up to confrontation.

I am just glad I sleep in the trailer when I visit.... Knock-knock....BOOM..."whose there"....

Well your instructor is about 99% correct...95% of civilian shootings take place within 7 yards...rarely over 25...but what if you were in the theater during the showing of Batman...or in one of the mall shootings.. Or drive around the deserts of the SW with Ron some time...

And quiet honestly I don't own a gun that I regularly carry that won't hold "minute of badguy" at fifty yards.... I know the three guns I regularly carry will do it...

Bob

So if I'm walking in my yard and a guy starts slinging shots at me for 150 yards I should just accept death?

Also, be sure to remind him that he is a Conservative Yankee, which as we know means a liberal.

A number of years back I responded to an incident on the snake river where some A-hole outlaw biker types were taking pot shots at some boaters/kayakers on the river. They were on the bluffs up top and were shooting down onto the people on the water.

The range was well in excess of 50 yards.

Again, years back, I responded to an incident where an estranged husband/boyfriend was shooting at a house occupied by his ex wife/GF.

The range was more than 50 yards from the road to the house.



Not too long ago, I responded to a hotel, in which a person murdered one guest, and shot one trooper, before shooting a bunch of rounds at me.

While the range was quite close where I pinned him up (in a stairwell), had I been able to engage him in one of the long hallways, I could have had a 50 yard shot opportunity.

Locally, the walmart, Costco, Winco, and various local grocery stores parking lots are all well over 100 yards across.

We have school hallways longer than 50 yards.

We have grocery stores where a 50 yard shot INSIDE would be possible.


The punchline is that while the "average" shooting is up close and personal, what guarantee do you have that you will have an "average" shooting?

You get the fight you get, not the one you want.

Some fights start up close, and due to people running, ducking dodging, etc, the ranges get extended. It is very easy for a fight that started inside, to spill out onto the street, where ranges can greatly increase.


In all seriousness Whelennut, I would find a different instructor.

There are a TON of guys out there who really want to be somebody important. They attend a basic NRA school, which to pass really does not require much more than a pulse, and the ability to pay, and then they hang out a shingle as an "NRA Instructor"

All of the sudden these guys are subject matter experts on virtually everything, including gunfighting, which I find a bit amusing, since the very vast majority have NEVER even heard a shot fired in anger.

So, with absolutely NO experience, they feel qualified to teach all about the subject. Personally I think most are in it, not because they like to teach others to improve their skill set, but do it instead to validate their "manhood" and convince themselves that they are alpha males.

Back on the topic of yardage:

Practicing at 50 yards is a smart move. If you can make solid hits at 50 yards,on a square range, then hits at 10 yards, while under pressure should be much easier.

Purely my observation.

Methinks also, X2....

"There are a TON of guys out there who really want to be somebody important. They attend a basic NRA school, which to pass really does not require much more than a pulse, and the ability to pay, and then they hang out a shingle as an "NRA Instructor" "

As one NRA Training Councilor {instructor trainer} I unfortunately know said... "Pay your money nobody flunks my class" ..and he was not kidding. Pulse and money are the only requirements.

Bob

Exactly. I've never practiced to kill someone; I shoot because I love pulling a trigger. Exceptional marksmanship ability is its own reward; if you can shoot well at 50 yds, you'll have no problem defending yourself at 5.

I think the vast majority of handgunners should be working on basic marksmanship, instead of "scenarios". But exercising sight alignment and trigger control is boring stuff, kinda like weight training. Much more fun is shooting lots of rounds quickly into multiple Bin Laden targets while ducking left (or right) after a draw. So cool.

Learn to shoot, then learn to fight. Tactics change, fundamentals don't. Too easy.

Maybe you should find another instructor. Mackay's post is "spot on". My thoughts on this are probably counter to most, but in my limited experience it's a good plan.
Bob

Not sure I totally agree with you Bob...

I have seen a LOT of shooters who can run 100 on a qualifier and do just fine to the point of making head shots from the holster from 25 yards completely fall apart when hit with a blind scenario...to the point of completely missing a silhouette target at 7 yards.

You talk about "scenarios"...IDPA puts on a lot of them...but they are really nothing more than choreographed target shooting. Put these same guys in the same scenario blind and watch the Grand Masters fall apart..have seen this for 20+ years...almost universally they rush and get themselves killed because they can't get the clock out of their head.

One of the guys on here has a son-in-law who is with the CHP..and a real good shooter. He made a "small" tactical error on a car chase and almost got his butt run over. The car passes within FEET of him and even with the drivers window down didn't not just hit the driver BUT NEVER TOUCHED THE CAR either.

Then there is the Dallas sergeant who fails to qualify {again} and is going back to the substation to write himself up and stops for a coffee on the way. Stops at one of the Stop N' Robs and runs right into a robbery in progress..and kills the robber... So much for the quals having anything to do with reality.

Gun fighting is a mentality with a little bit of ability.

Bob

ps...the above said, I regularly train shooters to hit out to 100 yards with their handguns and have done scenarios out to probably 50.

Notice the "when I thought the threat was imminent" part.

Our daughter's first ex was giving her grief, violating his restraining order, and generally being a complete POS. She and her little girl spent a couple nights at our house, and I spent the nights on the recliner.

Usually all of my firearms and ammo are locked in the safe.

I did notice that and hope we know each other well enough to know I was joking... I figured there must have been some serious problem for you to do that...Bob

Roger that. On my old dept I had a sgt that was terrified of qualifying...he got a 2-day suspension after not being able to after 3 tries. I helped him get through the 9mm transition course, which he barely completed. A few months later, after 2 more quals that almost got him removed from street duty for poor marksmanship, he got into 2 different shootings in 3 weeks...3 shots, two dead suspects.

I had a partner in Hollywood when I was in uniform who'd been in 4 shootings...no hits. Good policeman, though; we had fun together in patrol.

On the other hand, there's SGT York, phenomenal marksman, who commented after the war that he found it easier to head-shoot Germans shooting Maxim machine guns at him than hitting turkeys back home. Classic coupling of ability and performance under pressure.

My thoughts are that some people handle pressure and fear better than others. It's up to the shooter to apply the training he's been given. Confidence in your ability goes a long way towards prevailing.

Sometimes the situation isn't what you've trained for. But if you live, you've won.
Bob

Had a marine sgt tell me that once.

An idiot instructor instructing an idiot.

Win/win?



Travis

I'd like to know who the "Grand Master" was who "fell apart" in a scenario you put on.

I meant to be sarcastic in that one; guess I didn't quite succeed.
Bob

"Confidence in your ability goes a long way towards prevailing."

I've always said this because being able to unconsciously get your gun into play allows one to give 99% of your concentration to the situation at hand. In all the times I had to draw on someone I can only say the gun appeared in my hand. I have no memory of drawing it. It's the same way when doing the scenarios, buzzer goes off and the gun is on target....

Having confidence in your ability also allows you to not shoot someone, giving them that few seconds to decide to live instead of die...

Bob

I was sure your comment was tongue in cheek. no worries!

I probably should not have said "Grand Master" as I only know these people to be top shots and internationally known instructors...and it was not my shoot...it was the National Tactical Invitational...

The last part of the shoot was live fire Simunitions against real people...who for a change were very good actors. I think there was 11 or 12 teams. All the rest of the teams died in both scenarios because they went in with a "Game" mentality..bully your way through. They were all covered with hits. My one hit was in the support hand pinky knuckle and I killed the guy. My partner got hit in the shoulder just as we were about to exit the second scenario...and I killed the guy.

I just did it like I did on the street...none of the others had ever done it "for real" before.

Bob

Having the capability of hitting at 50yds and 100yds, on a man size target, with a duty/CC carry gun, should never be diminished by any instructor.

Any instructor that would do so is a fugking moron.





Travis

It was before a bar fight anyway.

Lawton, OK. 1987

A well-rounded shooter should be able to do reasonably well at any reasonable distance, but why this silliness must continually be debated in theoretical terms continues to escape me.

The paradigm of small arms conflict involving both citizens and cops has been fairly steady since the invention of black powder. It ain't rocket science.

While the occasional anomaly will always exist, the overwhelming majority of engagements are predictably measured in feet – not yards. A prudent man will prepare himself well for the probability before wasting time and resources on the outlying possibility.

Shooting static, full-size steel targets at 50 yards or more in the bright light of a square range bears little correlation to the skills necessary to dominate close range engagements at moving targets in low light.

Agreed, Gitem, instructor is a idiot!
And I beleive the incedent your referring to, happened in Brown County, TX, about 75 miles south of me. Local SO responded to a shooting where the bad guy killed his neighbor over a dog barking dispute. When SO arrived on scene, the bad guy shot and killed the first Deputy that responded. During the shootout, a elderly CHL holder in his late 70's shot and killed the Perp at 60 to 75 yards with a .357 Magnum.
Moral of the story, don't piss off a old Texan that can shoot a handgun!

And as to making long range shots with a handgun, I started shooting Sillhoutte Competition in 1980 with a Super Black Hawk with a 7.5" barrel in 44 mag. We shot Ram steel targets at 200 yards, and turkey steel targets at 200 yards in the shoot off if the match was tied after 40 rounds. And it wasn't unusual to see a shooter hit all 5 turkeys at 200 yards with just a plain old revolver.
Personally, I can hit a 10" steel plate fairly regularly with my Glock 10mm. Not all that hard to do with some frequent practice, IMO

Grand master B?

So we should only train for close range, moving targets, in low light?



Travis

long time ago playing county popo we regularly practiced out to 50yards, strong hand, weak hand, double handed, left and right barricade.
You don't know what you are going to run into. distances can be short, or they can be longer. The cartels station people up on hilltops to monitor floor/valley activity. Those carry good long range optics setup systems.
If you had a choice you would chose a rifle for sure but you may not have that choice.
I remember the first dept public safety course i ran through, they did a lot of their shooting up close like five and 7yards. I thought it was pretty funny.
but what do you expect from tail light chasers.
I have always felt the capability to hit at longer distances made shorter distances like shooting at the side of a barn.
The other comment is if you are going to carry, it isn't about paper targets. Probably admitting what it could be potentially used for is a good thing, and the mind set/skills needed to do it.

sometime stand between two patrol cars when it is pitch black out with all lights going and the sirens and welpers at full blast and try to hit some targets. Much different game.

if that guy was shooting at you, i don't think 50yards would throw a judge, particularly with a rifle.
tell the instructor to go back to class. all of that is situational.

a lot of these firearms training classes are on paper targets, places like gunsight being the exception. Reading some of sagebrush's exploits with a pistola on rabbits always made me think of my dad.
His comment was when you get good enought to pop bunnies on the run consistently, then you have learned the game.
It isn't so easy.
Many times out quail hunting that is the game. trying to hit jackrabbits at a full gallop with a handgun till they are out of sight.

For me it all boils down to one thing before a trigger gets pulled, can I obtain the necessary sight picture, sight alignment and trigger pull to achieve the desired hit? If I am trying to hit an 8" circle at 3 yards just about anything will work. Trying to hit that same 8" at 50 yards in bad light might be a shot I would take under one set of circumstance and will pass under others.

Someone said something like "a man's gotta know his limitations". I agree but add that a man needs to know his lowest true level of abilities, when he is at his worst. Under stress we do not rise to the occasion, we tend to drop to our lowest level of unconscious competence.

I am still alive so GFY!

Yet another of God's many miracles.




Dave

Any time someone has to resort to name calling they are admitting they have run out of ammunition in the battle of wits.

When you gather some wits, you let me know.



Travis

When the feces hits the fan you will do what you were trained to do. Shooting static line qualifications can be used to better your fundamentals of trigger control, sight picture, front sight, front sight, front sight, follow through. Unfortunately for officers who have their qualifications run that way I'd hazard a guess that most deadly force encounters are anything but static, but rather are ever-changing dynamic situations where decisions must be made in fractions of a second.

Shooting a blind course, where you have to clear a "house", and each time the arrangement of bad guys and victims is altered forces the shooter to find another unique solution to their deadly force encounter.

It bears repeating: when the feces hits the fan you will do what you were trained to do. If you weren't trained to deal with dynamic, fluid, ever-changing situations where you have to make split second decisions, you'll just stand there and get shot. If you didn't train to deal with a such a deadly force encounter you will do what you trained to do - nothing.

It's amazing, then, that so many armed Americans who aren't trained to a particularly high level, manage to come out on top against armed bad guys every year.

It's my opinion that the difference in practical "bad guy stopping ability" between the type of trained shooter you're referring to and your average weekend paper target shooter is small compared to the difference between your average weekend paper target shooter and the typical sock drawer handgun keeper, yet even the sock drawer handgun keepers rack up lots of victories against armed bad guys every year.

You can take the necessity for training to ridiculous extremes, in other words. Ninety percent of the gains in ability against armed criminals is acquired by just being familiar with your sidearm, being smooth and sure in your draw and fire, and a reasonable amount of range time per month shooting static targets with a serious state of mind. Being a regular attendee at Gunsite, etc., helps fill in the gap between 90% and 100%.

In other words, it becomes a matter of diminishing returns after a certain point. Not that there's anything wrong with it, and for those who put themselves in harm's way for a living, it's likely a prudent measure, but for all others, its benefits vs costs are questionable, apart from satisfying Walter Mitty type fantasies.

If you carry a handgun and only are trained to shoot, or only practice shooting at close range, it's like taking flying lessons where they only teach you to take the plane off...

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate……...



I'm no candidate for mensa, but, slow witted as I may be, it seems that this whole discussion doesn't have anything to do with police officers responding to "shots fired" calls or squad leaders on a recon patrol in the desert. Neither does it have to do with whether you should be able to shoot in the dark, hit moving targets or practice at distance. A cursory glance at the text would seem to indicate that the instructor was talking to a CIVILIAN taking a CONCEALED CARRY CLASS about convincing a judge/jury that he was DEFENDING HIMSELF when he shot someone 50 yards away.

At 50 yards there is no disparity of force argument---the size, age, number, gender, etc. of the perp is irrelevant, as are threatening verbiage and movements. In fact for a concealed carrying civilian (not a responding officer or soldier on patrol)--a person at 50 yards only becomes a justifiably "shootable" threat if they are an active shooter that initiates the altercation (i.e. they shoot first). Taking into consideration the typical skill level of the typical civilian in the typical concealed carry class, when you add the pucker factor of taking incoming fire, they are for all practical purposes unarmed and represent a greater threat to innocent bystanders than they do the perp if they return fire. If you subscribe to Clint Smith's dictum that "every round you shoot has a lawyer attached to it," it's easy to see why an instructor would tell a class that shooting someone at that distance would be difficult to justify.

Should we be able to hit a target at 50 yards? Absolutely. Should we practice on moving targets in low light while we're moving? Absolutely. Is that the point being made by in the original post. I don't think so.

JMO--of course, I could be wrong.

Gmoats, no way does the 50 yard adversary have to fire first, all he has to do is demonstrate intent to fire and one is justified in defending ones self

….at 50 yards "demonstrating intent" in most urban environments will be pretty hard to establish I'm guessing…..Out on the ranch, no problem…….on a crowded city street, different story…….if someone walks into a mall carrying a long gun, are you justified in shooting them??? Better not…….a few months ago, I friend of mine was in a Starbucks in Cheyenne. A guy walks in with a collapsible stock AK slung over his shoulder, ordered a cup of coffee and sat down……not sure where injudicious behavior ends and "demonstrating intent" starts…...of course, I could be wrong….

You're in a "duty to retreat" state and your ex-wife comes rolling up to your place and gets out of her car with a handgun yelling that she's going to kill you. You're standing beside your masonary construction house and can just step inside and close the solid hardwood door, slam the dead bolt and call the cops. Instead you take a rest and kill her dead relying on your uber bear shooting skills. Hopefully you've got some bear-grease left over from your last kill for Tyrese to use on your ass. You might be wishing Tyrese didn't have such a big meplat.

Interesting that you know Tyrese's preference

Just guesswork. As you're so fond of saying, knowledge trumps it so I'll defer to you on the subject.

There's no downside in being able and confident with a defensive handgun at 50 yards...or even further.

At the USMC's "High Risk Personnel" course, we did tons of shooting in all kinds of dynamic scenarios, near to far.

One of the things we did was 200 yards prone, with 9mm pistols. Yeah it's a low percentage shot, but you might at least be able to suppress an active shooter for a short time.

Different times nowadays, it's not just muggers in dark alleys anymore.

If the OP's info applies to his state and he wished to share it for the edification of fellow residents- fine, I get that.

If his 'instructor' is insinuating those restrictions apply everywhere or that one is never entitled to defense at further than spitting distance, he is full of schizzt as the proverbial Christmas goose. All it takes is one drunk or crazy fool with a .22 rifle or Grandpa's shotgun. If you think getting leaded down at 50-100 yards is preferable to being option of being able to use your handgun at those distances- then by all means be that duck in a shooting gallery.

Like Mr. Sagebrush, I can instances where morons were taking potshots at folks from what would be considered long range in defensive circles. Even had such an exchange myself late one night involving some drunk coon (I suppose) hunters some 200 yards away, where they had stopped along my creek to raise hell. My dogs heard the ruckus and woke me up. They had lit themselves up; I hadn't. I yelled, from behind a tree, that they were trespassing and to get moving along, Our brief exchange of words soon turned into cursing and threats, spiced with a barrage of what sounded like .22 semi-auto fire up the hill toward the sound of my voice. Four rounds of 30-30, directed into the hillside about 50 yards above them, resolved the matter w/o apparent bloodshed; or at least the deputy and I didn't find any blood among the dropped booze, .22 casings and garbage left in their wake. He seemed to find it all rather humorous and mentioned to me later that is was the talk of bars and coffee shops for several weeks.

It makes sense after seeing a few photos that GREASE would be your pick.

Thank you! You seem to be the only person who understands the point I was trying to make.
Most shootings take place at 7 yards or less.
(Not 50yds.)
Also a civilian normally cannot act like an infantry soldier. We may have to explain ourselves to a judge. There is a case I heard about where a Chicago cop could get life in prison for shooting a kid with a knife. I can only imagine the consequences if a judge in Minnesota decided that
there was a chance to leave the situation but instead stayed to have a gun battle from 50 yds away. We would end up with free room and board for a long time.
whelennut

Rich girls use Vasolene,
Poor girls use lard,
My girl uses axle grease,
and takes it twice as hard.

A lot of these 'active shooter' situations in public places like shopping areas, malls, theaters, restaurants, schools, workplace, etc, etc, have 'terrain' that could easily put you in a defensive situation at a distances well beyond 7 yards.

Not everybody is a soldier, cop or gamer and gets to train and practice constantly. Given that fact, practicing the most likely scenario is probably the best. The most likely scenario is a defensive shooting at very close range. No doubt that practice can be augmented by longer range shooting/different scenarios if there is opportunity. As to whether or not a given shooting is defensible in court, it would all depend on what happened, but there are possibilities in both realms.

MM,
I will leave those scenarios to the Soldiers of Fortune on the forum.
I will only fire as a last resort. I don't think I would enjoy prison life.

I don't train much these days either. But even if I'm only going to shoot 50 rounds, I'll shoot 40 doing close range drills, and 10 of them at some distance.

Some people obviously die easier than others.

Do you do any unaimed? Point-shooting or the like? Or do you only do aimed fire?

I've got to where I do a lot of 7 yard practicing. The more I did unaimed fire even from close range, the more I think aimed fire is the way to go.

MontanaMarine…..absolutely agree; we need to train at distance and with multiple "no shoots" to include "shoot thru" targets……however your typical concealed carrying civilian shooting at 50 yards thru a crowded mall, theater, restaurant, school, workplace is certainly not prudent and possibly not defensible in court assuming that it isn't successful with the first shot……not saying it isn't possible nor that we shouldn't train for it, just that (as the original poster said) that the average civilian in a concealed carry class should be told it's generally a VERY bad idea.

There was a home invasion in town here awhile ago.
Some guy had a an intruder come in through the back door while two were coming in the front door.
They pistol whipped him and took some cash and who knows what else.
Why do I think he maybe was a drug dealer?
I have never heard of any long range gun battles around here.
I think the best strategy is to stay out of these situations. I am retired and live in the country
and am familiar with the Ithaca 37 LAPD.

That's why I never drive anywhere I could get into an accident...

Cover and concealment!

My son is 14 fugking years old and I can promise you don't want to be a coffee can at 50yds if he's shooting his Model 14 in that direction.

Anybody that can't make solid hits with a pistol at 50yds is a moron, or lazy.




Travis

…..well flave, he's not an "average civilian"……..he won the heredity and environment lottery from the get-go. BTW, how do those compare to dog years?

I only practice point shooting at 3 yards or so. I like to at least get a flash front sight beyond that distance.

I do some practicing up close, fast, moving, from the ground, and so on.

Here's a couple rough vids from a while back. not polished, so go ahead and laugh if you need to,

https://www.facebook.com/shane.pitz...3271/817610011595374/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/shane.pitz...3271/817704008252641/?type=3&theater

I'd say your guessing wrong. Some points a gun in my direction in an urban setting in a shooting position seems to make intent rather clear.

Making a lot of assumption here, hope the windows are bullet proof as well.

Is Tyrese the name of the EE's Pedersoli?

Thanks.

You maybe on to something!

His EE putting on a few pounds?

How many of those have you been to?

that walking into the target is something i try to get people to do that are used to punching paper targets from a stationary position.
as it was explained to me, people expect you to retreat, walking into the target gives you a psychological atvantage, as their little brains without thinking tell them to retreat. It is more difficult than it looks.

Not sure. I hate dogs.




Travis

When I took Ayoob's LFI way back in the '90's, I recall him talking about a case where someone shot a man holding a J frame S&W on him. The range was "long" (but I don't recall how "long"). Ayoob was called to testify because the DA chose to press charges on the grounds that a J frame at that range was no threat (I'm thinking it was somewhere between 25-50 yards). So Ayoob took out a J frame (on video) and put 3 our of 5 rounds onto a man sized target at 100 yards, which pretty much shot down (no pun intended) the DA's case.

Seems like instead of bragging that one can't hit a target at 50 yds, they should practice.

I don't ever recall anyone being criticized for being too good of a shot after a shooting.

People that think too much figure that the information will be held agin' ya' in a court of law, showing that you are some sort of uber gun nut.

Or some such [bleep].

The number one rule of a gunfight is to win.

Sometimes people ignore the obvious.

458 Lott
In Minnesota we have to be a "Reluctant Participant". Shooting a human being has to be a last resort.
Otherwise you can brag about what a great shot you are to your cell mates after they lock you up.
Is has nothing to do with your ability to make a long shot. That is why there are prairie dog towns,

As I said, some people die easy. Seems folks living in liberal states are as easy to slay as sheep.

Congrats?

I just enjoy the crap out of long range handgunning. And I've found that if I can hit a clay pigeon against a backstop at 100 yards, than a coke can at 7 yards is a piece of cake.

But perhaps those days are over for me. Just got a new eyeglass prescription and while I can see the clay pigeon just fine, the sights are REALLY fuzzy now. I haven't been out shooting since I got the new specs....gonna suck if I cant hit at long range anymore...like REALLY suck.

No, the number one rule of a gun fight is to SURVIVE. There have been many who "won" a gun fight, and died after the fact.

My "goal" is if I'm ever in a gun fight (God forbid), I hope to leave with absolutely no more holes than I was born with. While shooting I plan on moving around like an ADHD 6th grader after a a six pack of Red Bull. Be where the bullets ain't.

What is the definition of "Reluctant Participant"? Does that mean you have a duty to retreat if possible?

In most states there are 4-5 basic conditions for lethal force in self defense:

1 - You have to be the innocent party; as in, not the aggressor
2 - The threat has to be imminent
3 - The amount of force you use has to be proportional to the threat
4 - Your conduct has to be deemed "reasonable"
5 - In some states you have the duty to retreat

In Minnesota you have the duty to retreat. What a frigging shameful thing that is.

I'm pretty sure you have taken at least 2 slugs to you're body before you can return fire in Minnesota.

HOW THE [bleep] anyone could live in such a liberal state and happily pay taxes to those bastards is BEYOND me.

I was a Charter Member of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.
We had to lobby a long time just for the right to carry.
I used to shoot on the State Service Rifle team and we had a district judge on the team.
He told me that we had a duty to retreat to the furthest corner of the house if someone came in the front door. If jumping out the window and running to the neighbors house was an option
that would probably be expected.
Things have changed a little for the better but not enough.
whelennut

Would you rather be judged by 12 or carried by six?

The government can tell me I have a duty to be a coward, but I damn well won't put the "duty to the state" above my duty to protect my family.

True dat. MN Castle Doctrine bill went nowhere in 2015 (IIRC). And it won't get passed until and unless Governor Mark (Crazy Eyes) Dayton gets his azz voted outta office..

Nah - not that bad. But if you're just getting the chit kicked outta ya, ya can't draw that howitzer and let 'er rip.. Azzkicking dude's gotta have a weapon of some sort.. And yes - it's idiocy..

WI laws are quite a bit easier for a person to defend themselves, and this state does have a Castle-Doctrine law.. Last, as a bonus, it's NOT controlled by the damn Dems..

Good ol' "Evacuatin' Dayton". You guys can't get rid of HIM?

I believe there's less than 5 states that still have that requirement, all in the NE. Let's hope common sense arrives sometime soon.

This thread has been a hoot to read through, & since about everything that could be said has been said, I can only say that I just love the (idiotic & news-flashy) term "active shooter".

But anyone carrying or using a gun, long or short would be well advised to be somewhat proficient over most of the capable range of the weapon.

And, personally, I see very little point for a gun used as an EDC weapon not to have a lethal & effective working range well past 50 yards. (Not talking about a BUG.........)

MM

1.means
2. capability
3. intent

"Reluctant participant" might be the opposit of "stand your ground." In other words, even if you have a right to be there, you are not permitted to stand your ground if confronted with a potentially lethal attack unless you cannot safely retreat.

We ise AOJ in Oregon

Ability-knife gun disparity of size or number

Opportunity-this is the range limitation. If bad guy is 2 miles west and has a J frame I am not in jeopardy

Jeopardy-bag guy intends injury

This is where the OP's instructor is going. At 50 yards you may or may not be in jeopardy.

Mackay notes the fallacy of this position. Nevertheless, even a clean shoot will ruin your life for a long time.

Ding! We have a winner! We used to call that 'shooting up to your gun' and it was considered an asset instead of a liability.

If 50 is too far, at what distance should we be accurate? 3, 5, 7?

I feel like some Dot Torture is in order!

The practice is not on the range.

The practice is determining a threat and proper response at ANY range and condition.

What is your backstop at the mall?

What is the best cover at the theater?

Is the exit at Umpqua Community College close to your desk?

If you shoot and kill the bad guy, will your bullet hit the baby behind him?

Shooting is easy

Deciding when to shoot, where to place your shot, and shutting up when the police arrive is the hard part

LOL

Maybe I should say:

"Shooting is the easy part to practice.

The decision to shoot is the hard part to practice"

This is another argument over relatively nothing. A person should practice at a lot of varying distances if they have time. I don't think anybody with any sense is going to practice seriously for self-defense by spending a huge amount of time practicing at-distance unless they have a lot of time and ammo and/or have mastered close range shooting. IME and from most of the stuff I've read over the years, that's where TRAINING comes into play because one tends to lose a step if they don't practice regularly (in this case, at close range). I wouldn't purport to be experienced enough to know whether there are guys who can quit training much after mastery though, and continue to shoot well at close range while spending all their time training at longer ranges. Maybe there are.

On the court part of it, there are a whole lot of variables. Just a lot of scenarios here. I don't consider myself, as Jan Libourel used to say, "The Master Gunfighter", nor am I out to kill somebody just because I can or even because I can legally. If somebody is shooting at me from fifty yards and I can get behind cover and further assess the situation in a safer manner than shooting back AND there is no other innocent person at risk, then I am going to duck behind cover and do what is called for next. If some jaybird is shooting at me from fifty yards and the conditions warrant it, then I'm gonna shoot back and hope I shot enough at that distance that I get him before he gets me.

I don't think there's really a lot of room for argument in that assessment.

The range was about 50 yards on a city street if memory serves.

Hey, if you're in the luxurious position of having tons of ammo provided at someone else's expense, and tons of range time, you can do it all, baby. If, however, one must, as is the case with most of us mere mortals, restrict himself to say a hundred rounds a week, and say one hour a week of live trigger time, it's likely better spent focusing on the most likely self defends scenarios.

Lots of folks hung up on cities. I don't live in one, I'm seldom in one.

If something is going to happen the odds are it will happen where a person spends 99% of their time and that time is spent at home.

50 yard shots defend are more than likely and I ain't worried about backstops.

Either that story is part of an incredible imagination, or they encountered the stupidest DA on the planet.



Travis

There was a time when police actually had to qualify with a 50 yard course of fire. But then, there was a time when most gun writers actually fired groups with their hands at ranges beyond "combat" distances to test both the metals mettle and their own.

Then there was the Air Force Security Forces patrolman who brought down a deranged killer at 75 yards with his M9.

I killed a groundhog with a 2" Model 10 at a hair over 50 yards as well. But I cheated. I leaned across the hood of my car.

I'd have to check to confirm it's still the case, but I believe NHF&G still does.

I would not lol at that, not even lower case.

I would even say that shooting isn't complicated, decision making is. Not to correct, but to contribute.

So, is that a maybe that you'll shoot it? What I'm hearing is that there's a chance....

Based on his parameters he should be able to shoot it twice......

George

Scenario:

A negro boosts your pit.

He stops at 50 yards to get into his green truck.

What do you do?

The form of your question is confusing, and seems cryptic in meaning. Could you make it less so?

http://pistol-training.com/drills/dot-torture

Here......you're whining about having one hour and 100 rounds to work with. This course of fire meets your parameters..... He's wondering if you're actually going to shoot or continue to talk. I know where my money is.....

I was whining??

Thanks.

Would you not agree that it's easier to practice and train if somebody not only pays for the ammo, but provides a place to do so, possibly an instructor to train you, and probably pays you for doing it?

The average guy shoots because he likes to, but has to pay for a place to do so, buy his own ammo (and firearms), pay for instruction and do it on his own time not while getting paid to do so.

Do you see any difference here in why, how, etc. regular folks train as opposed to LE? Many here like to knock guys who haven't taken a half-dozen nationally-known courses and who don't "train" every day inclusive of at distances that would make Elmer Keith cringe in shock and awe. There are differences though.

None of which has anything to do with a slow fire, 50 round drill at 3 yards that lasts 15 minutes.

Instead of just shooting the drill or just shrugging and thinking "I don't want to", people start talking about why they can't shoot-why other people shoot more. Lots of typing, not much shooting.

If one is going to carry a gun, one should be proficient with it. Seems pretty logical to me.

Are you talking to me? I've got a target in my back yard about a hundred yards from where I sit. Set up is what prevents me from doing more. Lots goes into practice that ain't practice. I keep my guns clean and ready. I've got some calls to make and some stuff to do pretty quickly, or I could be out shooting right now...Of course I'd have to wade through mud to do it. My "range" isn't inside, heated, a/c'ed, etc.

I'm probably coming off as griping about cops getting to shoot. Cops shooting a lot is a good thing as long as they're a good cop. I was just explaining some of the aspects of average guys' and their "training" and "practice" and why it differs from somebody who is a professional.

You've been on this forum long enough to know logic rarely if ever enters into the equation.

Sure had that "tone". Maybe a failed attempt at snarky/smarmy......Either way, the 50 round course meets your mere mortal criteria.

Call 911 wave goodbye to the dog.

Shoot the pit...and hope the bullet over penetrates.

Where did the dog get a green truck?

50 yards......close the distance enough that you can hand him gas money for carrying the dog off?

i've always felt that respectable handgun accuracy at 50 yards was a good skill to have. when i'm out at the range and shooting various stagings at closer ranges, i usually conclude by shooting at 50 yards--both supported and unsupported. targets are either paper plates, steel, or milk jugs.

in general however, i place most emphasis on 25 yards and under. back in 1988, i designed a target and guidelines for this exercise that other shooters dubbed "Jerry's Standard" to sharpen skills with--and to use scores from each session as a "benchmark" for reference. any sidearm will work, and it was deliberately designed to be compatible with 5-shot snub revolvers so often carried for self defense. (i'll note that .22 rimfires are great for getting one's feet wet in this type of shooting).

the target is made from butcher wrap, which comes in rolls 18 inches wide. cut a piece off the roll that is 30 inches long. you work on the side of the paper that is not waxed. using a pencil, a yardstick, and a scissors, make a target with the dimensions as shown below. note that the red lines are part of the directions in how to make the target--nothing more. when the target is finished, you will have a silhouette sporting a long, narrow rectangle, and a "u" shape around the rectangle. these lines are very lightly drawn in pencil, so they are barely visible. once you have one made, you can use it as a pattern for the others. my wife and i make a couple dozen of these at a time on the kitchen table. (hope my hasty measurements were all correct).





to shoot the Standard:


from the "low ready position" at the beep, or a partner's signal:


5 shots at 25 yards in 5 seconds or less;

5 shots at 20 yards in 4 seconds or less;

5 shots at 15 yards in 3 seconds or less;

5 shots at 10 yards in 3 seconds or less, firing with weak hand;

score is 5 points in the inner rectangle; 3 points in the section immediately outside that inner rectangle; 1 point for anything outside of the previous two areas. if a round breaks a line, you get the higher point value. total points are 100, for a perfect score of 100%.


(note: if you want to fire these from a draw, lengthen each time given above by one second--ie., 5 seconds at the 25 yard line changes to 6 seconds).


this target is designed to assist one in acquiring CNS hits. the Standard covers many desirable skills, such as target acquisition, precision at longer ranges, shot placement (most fire somewhat low their first time, hitting at or below the diaphram), etc., etc.

over the past 27 years of watching a cross section of various shooters perform this course of fire, some things i've noted:

most shoot too fast, doing poorly in shot placement;

most score below 50%;

most shots fall far too low;

often, shots fall to the side of center;


shooting the Standard will test your mettle, and it took a lot of effort for me to push my scores into the mid to upper 90's using a self defense rig, such as a Hk P7, Sig P226, Hk USP in 9 mm, Colt Commander in 9 mm, etc...

no, it's not a "perfect" exercise--there is no "THIS IS THE WAY", but it will help sharpen skillsets. as one gains some experience, it can be easily modified to meet your specific needs...

They WAY over-penetrate on Pits.




His bitch had connections...

LOL

Today's situation in San Bernadino is a good example of why it's good to be able to shoot at longer distances. Say you are in a position where you want to or NEED to stop an active shooter in a public environment.

As has been stated, "You get the fight you get.....not the fight you want!".

Walter Mitty is day dreaming again.

Talking about not shooting. Where's our monthly drills?

Dink

It's posted. Dot Torture.

The DT looks good.

Thanks Mav.




Dave

A FOS faceoff?

Gibson vs. Ayboob!

Who can fill the room most fastest?

TFF.



Clark

I missed it.

I have been spending to much time on the rifle range and haven't shot a pistol much lately. It should be ugly.....lol.

Dink

It's according to how good you are with a hand gun at 150 yards.

In Minnesota you might get charged with second degree murder.
They have an aversion to people acting out what they see in Chuck Norris movies.

just holler at him "it's a gun free zone, go next door"


or two rounds in the air with the ole dbl barrel shotgun, and Uncle Joe sez you'll sleep sound as a bug in a rug


sometimes I forget just how stupid Democrats are and the stupid chit they say

Did your mentally handicapped instructor teach you that?



Travis

So if I find the specific case and post it, are you going to STFU; yeah, I thought not. You're a douche.

"MIGHT" get charged with Second Degree murder, vs quite likely being killed by a terrorist OR being able to stop said terrorist from killing other innocent people.

If those are your choices and you'd rather be concerned with the "might get charged" bit, then WTF are you actually carrying for in the first place? You "might" get charged in ANY SD situation.

Oh, and quite clearly MN SUCKS as far as the 2A is concerned. What a ridiculous situation to be put in, and what a horsechit "law" that must be.

STFU? No.

But I'd love to see the case.



Travis

So getting back to the OP's original thoughts and statements. Here's an article where 10 case of "longer range" defensive fire was used and justified.

http://www.tactical-life.com/combat-handguns/justifiable-long-shots/

Well here's the thing. If you will man up for an apology if I post it, then I'll make the effort and call Mas.

Means - Would a reasonable person feel the potential threat had the means to inflict egregious bodily harm or death?


Opportunity - Would a reasonable person feel the potential threat had the opportunity to inflict egregious bodily harm or death?


Intent - Would a reasonable person feel the potential threat demonstrated an intent to inflict egregious bodily harm or death?



This is all you need to know.



Perry

I see you've finally opted out of the quick disconnect vagina, and went full time.




Dave

So you're legally obligated to be a coward.

Congratulations?

That is humorous. No way around it.

The perps had body armor. How would being able to shoot longer distances with a hand gun have helped?

Secondly, getting yourself or your family to safety without having to fire a shot is not an act of cowardness.

Wow. What a brain tease.

I'll have to really think about this one.



Travis

It is if other people are dropping like flies and you have the means to stop the threat.

But then again, I'm not from the south. You probably see things different.



Travis

Any gunfire will cause them to pull back to cover, which reduces their ability to shoot people. A vest doesn't make anyone superman. Even with a vest, you don't want to be shot at with a handgun. At the least, it's quite painful to be shot with substantial handgun rounds, and they can even inflict lethal wounds through and around them. Basically, I'm speaking of suppressive fire.

The Sheriff here told us that everybody doing the ALICE training thinks they are cold-blooded because they are stepping over kids who are laying there (pretending to) bleed out, while trying to neutralize the shooter(s). It all depends on the situation. If the shooter wounds somebody beside you and then moved to a different area, administering first aid could get done. But if the shooter was continuing to shoot, right there in the area, it doesn't matter if it's your son, your wife or some stranger who has been shot, you have to take the threat out NOW because if you don't then how will you administer first aid later or do anything but but be somebody else to deal with if you become a casualty too. These situations are replete with hard decisions. Talking body counts of two or three as opposed to a dozen sounds totally uncaring, but there it is.

It's never too late to turn a Muslim into a Hindu

If you have a hand gun, you don't have the means to stop the threat.

Think a little more about the body armor.

But then again, I'm not from deflave vill. Being another fly may seem heroic to you.

Why not? What class 'body armor' were they wearing? Helmets? what body armor did they have on their extremities?

Don't assume your ability/limit with a handgun is everyone's ability/limit with a handgun.

Despite the bravado expressed here often, I fully expect that anyone without close quarter "active" military battlefield experience can say what they will do in such circumstances.

I expect most would crap their pants.

One would have to have a huge tactical advantage in their position to negate the tactical advantage of rifle over pistol.

Don't assume that under the nature of that incident, you would do anything other that $hit yourself.

Shoot them in the face or the crotch. Both if you can.

So you can't answer the question. Apparently your answer is to DIE.

You thinking the broad with a nursing 6 month old had EXTREME MILITARY training? She was likely a Ninja in her home country, is that what I'm getting?

How about the husband, tell me about his EXTREME MILITARY training.


PS: Hopefully if you're out with the family and something happens their will be a man around to protect your wife.

They had the element of surprise and superior fire power. No EXTREME MILITARY traing needed for a mad-man mission.

Got it, you'll just wait to die.

In Minnesota we have the four pillars governing the use of Deadly Force.
Section 609.065 Justifiable Taking of a Life.

Reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm.

Reluctant Participant

No reasonable means of retreat.

No lesser force will do.

Other states have other laws but this is the way it is in Minnesota.

What are the four pillars that killers need to adhere to?

Sorry, no. Did you just make that stuff up?

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

MN Statute 609.065

You analyzed your way into losing without a valid reason. The San Bernadino killers were relying on victims to be unarmed and feeling intimidated by their tacticool rifles. They went to a center for developmentally disabled people, not a police station, gun store or inner city gas station.

Wrong again

No. You don't. Read farther up the thread. Maybe you will catch the context....but again, maybe not.

They could have went into a shopping mall--dispatched a dozen people with that weaponry in less than 30 seconds.

The end result would more than likely be the same.

Oops, damned facts hump up bullschit every time.

That statute SPECIFICALLY authorizes deadly force to prevent an offense in which the "shooter/actor" believes exposes another person to great bodily harm or death.

I.e., engaging a damned terrorist if possible.

You would not stand a chance, because you have a negative attitude. I on the other hand "expect" to come out on top and will do so by never giving up.

Sounds like GeorgiaGal lets her uterus handle all the critical thinking.




Travis

Amen.

The element of surprise gives them a good chance of “dispatching” people wherever they choose to hit, but they tend to pick places where people are more likely to go into panic mode than to fight back and they thereby up their odds from the start. These psychos and terrorists (whether Columbine, Planned Parenthood or San Bernadino) don’t take prisoners, so surrendering is the same as suicide. Playing Dodge Ball in a conference room with incoming rifle bullets is a more risky, less effective proposition than turning it into a two way street with pistol fire.

Critical thinking is foreign to you.

All of this sounds good...just remember, when you're returning fire...you are responsible for every round you fire.

Agreed, we should be held to a much higher standard and more liable than the killers.

I do not agree with your position.

However, it does not matter if you use your weapon to save your life, or the life of someone else, you will have to answer for any of your rounds that cause colateral damage.

Then I shouldn't shoot, I'll wait to be shot.

That's up to you. It's your call.

You've scared me.

We are all talking about long range accuracy but just a thought to stir it up. If I am carrying a pistol and find myself needing to use it against a threat with long range capabilities I will need to consider closing ground. Just like proximity negates skill, proximity can also negate a ballistic advantage.

If armed with a pistol against someone with a rifle I would not want to start my portion of the fight at 50 yards, I would want to get as close as possible before I fired the first round. I agree that most wolves will run when they are engaged whether they are hit or not and even shots that miss can save lives, but to finish the fight with a pistol I would rather be at 5 feet than 50 yards.

I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the tip.

"Hopefully if you're out with the family and something happens their there will be a man around to protect your wife."

Laughing my ass off...

No wonder the south is the south.




Travis

So is acting like a pussy.

Good thing we got gals like you to coach us along.




Travis

Bill really has his schit together.

Holy fugk...

My ribs hurt.




Travis

Bill needs to learn how to read

No. Actually, you pull that off very well.

It's litttle wonder that GFY is such a familiar term with you.

It must be one of several little talents you posess.

What is your talent?

Besides talking out your ass, hiding, and not being able to use a handgun?



Dave

Hey now...!!! Don't judge us all by one guy in Georgia that is scared of his own shadow and can't shoot.

You gotta wonder if he even carries. And if so, why?




Travis

There is a Woody Allen-like mindset in the the CCW community I jokingly refer to as being 'Ayoobed to Death'. It results from endless stories of eeeee-vile prosecutors whose only goal in life is to torment folks who dust some azzhole who really needed it.

Now I don't know exactly where this is occurring but it ain't in MO. I've got about four decades in LE here, spent over one of the working directly for a prosecutor. In that time I have seen maybe a dozen righteous defensive shootings and none of them was charged with anything. Yes, some were questioned by the po-po. If they truthfully related a set of circumstances that met the legal requirements for a justifiable use if deadly force--and the evidence, witness accounts etc. supported their story--they went on their way. This is not to say they weren't sued, but many states have added legislation that prohibits civil action for a justified use of force. You are responsible to know the laws governing the defense of self or others, wherever you might need to defend yourself.

There's another thing that needs to be said here. There is an undeclared war against the civilian population of the United States in particular and western civilization in general. In many parts of the US, you can go about armed. This accomplishes nothing if you are not willing or able to shoot down a rabid dog hiding inside a human body.

Yes, you are responsible for every round you fire. IMO there is no better insurance than the ability to shoot with surgical precision. I have worked hard for the ability to accomplish that with my carry gun to 50 yards, or a tad further.

I think the close/fast skillset is just as important as it ever was. A lot of these mass killings occur at very close range, either because the killer wants to see the reaction or they are just a piss poor shot. If they stumble onto a committed pistolero who can index fire instantly and precisely, they are going to get a face and/or crotch full of hot lead. Assume they are wearing body armor or explosives. Send the MF'ers to their reward as unrecognizable eunuchs.

The present enemy don't take marksmanship very seriously; but they have some strengths, which must be understood to be exploited.

The enemy has no compunction for killing and gets brownie points for high body count. They average CCW guy (or cop for that matter) doesn't want to kill anybody. If you get caught up in one of these incidents and you can't 'throw that switch' you are asking to be another slaughtered sheep. What we are dealing with is rabid wolves in human form. Ignore the biped and kill the wolf inside him.

The enemy exploits the element of surprise and has little fear his victims will fight back effectively. He has no understanding of OODA and no Plan B. Instant and precise return fire will fook up his murder spree or kill him outright.

Only you can decide whether you can do that.

One of them is recognizing insecurity.

You really are a jr. high kid inside, and have never gotten over those trying years.

You fight that insecurity by watching cowboy movies i'd wager.

When you carry, do you feel like you're Clint Eastwood, or John Wayne?

Maybe, you just want to feel Eastwood? Afterall, Wayne is dead.

Oh, you're a High School guidance counselor

Never mentioned High School.

Did outgrow Jr. High mentality. How bout you?

The choice is fight to stay alive or die worrying about civil liability. Simple foe me, I will always choose to fight for survival first.

Those are not your only two choices. I did not suggest that one fear civil liability. My comments about return fire was about making sure you did not do as much harm to the innocent as the perp.

Nope, can I do your mom?

You grown tired of yours?

You couldn't read a room if it came in the form of a book.

And you don't carry, or shoot, do you?



Travis

Holy fugk...

Does somebody write your material for you? Or were you born a comedic genius?

Best stick to what southern gals know best. Fugkin' and suckin'.



Dave

I don't have one, me and dad share yours.

Scott. Your father has passed.

Hit a nerve

Exactly what one would expect from someone stuck of stupid.

I certainly did.

You've made that more than a little obvious.



Travis

Smart enough to spot a person that doesn't know WTF he's talkin' about.

You might wanna pull up a chair next to Gibson.



Travis

You're not smart...just a masturbator...a jerk with one hand.

Doesn't take more than one hand and a cock to keep a gal like yourself dazed and confused.

Do you carry, Madame?



Travis

I carry both. You cannot put your hand on either.

Why do you carry?

Keep your 'gina safe?




Travis

Gibson,

Did you get in touch with "Mas?"

I'm dying to read what that DA's name was and how his career in lawyering is doing today.




Dave

This schit gets funnier every time I read it.

A Souther Belle's Tactics. You'd sell a million copies, but only if you include pics of that huge vagina God blessed you with.



Dave

You need pictures...Dave

Try to overlook to covert bias.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540


I don't care about 50 yd accuracy either. You have to train under stress. It is a perishable skill.

I am not saying do not carry, or do not defend yourself and others.

What I am saying is that should this happen, the perp has the advantage...and chances are...even with all the bravado...you will be shot.

I just pray that it never happens to myself or family, or anyone else.

I'm done.

You were done two pages back.

AWESOME link!

Rebel yell!




God bless,
Dave

In the states in which you must retreat, you only have to retreat if you can do so safely. There's a lot of reasons, in a gun fight, that you can capitalize on to articulate why you could not have safely retreated.

In the People's Republik of Illinois, the last state to be forced to pass a shall-issue CC law, we have the Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground doctrine. In this liberal mecca there is no duty to retreat if you are legally where you are and someone threatens you. It's such a disconnect - those two doctrines would be the last laws I would have thought Illinois would honor.

There are states where you are required to retreat from your own damned home, if you can do it safely, if someone breaks in. Illinois' Castle Doctrine takes care of that.

If I'm in the mall parking lot and someone pulls a firearm on me from 50 yards away I don't have to retreat; I'm where I am legally, and I can stay there and battle it out with some loony tunes waving a gun around and lobbing rounds my way.

Regarding the court case I mentioned earlier in this thread; I heard back form Mas Ayoob...



"The case was Florida v. Wilburn Brooker, back in the '80s. Brooker and his secretary were terrorized in his real estate office by a 26 year old career criminal named Terry Johnson, who robbed them at the point of a stolen Charter Arms Undercover .38. When Johnson fled, Brooker told the secretary, "Call the police and tell them what I look like, I'm going after him. He grabbed his 12-gauge deer shotgun, a Savage pump loaded with #1 Magnum buckshot, and pursued. Caught up with him a few blocks later, lots of witnesses. When Will shouted for the suspect to stop, the left-handed suspect turned on him aiming the .38 to his rear at Brooker, and Brooker fired one shot, killing him outright.

Dade County, FL had seen a spate of self-defense killings of bad guys by armed citizens. Janet Reno was then state's attorney for the county. Miami Herald had been calling for her to do something about all the armed citizens taking the law into her own hands. Janet and her minions apparently decided that since the shooting was cross racial, Will's shot from behind had "struck the deceased in the back," and the pursuit must have meant he was seeking revenge, she would make an example of him. He was charged with, IIRC, Manslaughter.

During my deposition, the prosecuting ASA suggested that since they were fifty feet apart when the single shot was fired, Brooker was in no danger and "out of range" of a "snub-nose .38." I replied that this was not the case at all. He asked snidely how far away the man would have to be for me to feel safe from him, I almost replied, "Oh, Kenosha" but instead answered that at 100 yards I would still consider myself to be in deadly danger from a man so armed. The ASA was writing furiously in his legal pad at that point, so it was obviously going to be a point when he cross examined me at trial. Shortly after the dep, I took a notary public with me to a 100 yard range with 4 .38 snubs: A Charter Arms like Johnson's stolen gun, a Model 36 S&W, a Model 12 S&W, and my wife's Colt Detective Special. The notary documented 2 hits out of 5 shots on the Colt silhouette at 100 yards with the Charter, the same with the Model 36, 3 out of 6 with the Airweight M&P snub, and 6 out of 6 with the DS.

We also went to the range and videotaped speed of turning and firing at 50 feet left-handed with a Charter 2", using blanks when firing at the camera (Will's perspective) and live ammo so the camera could see the hits to show accuracy potential at 50 feet.

Jeff Weiner, the brilliant lawyer who defended Brooker, wanted to take it to trial and so did I. However, Brooker's doctor said his heart condition was such that the stress of trial would jeopardize his life. Jeff went in with the prosecutors, showed them the evidence we were gong to present, and they decided to plea bargain WAY down. The judge gave a withhold of adjudication, and a couple of years later i was told Will Brooker was again a citizen with a clean record and a carry permit."


Now this is a quote from Mas, but I think he oopsed, Reno was AG in the '90's.

Another point - LR capability and practice can help with closer range shooting.

I practice with my hunting rifles at ranges I'll likely never shoot at game. Why? Because if I can hit a target at 1k, then 300 on a deer is easier. If I can pop small target balloons at 200 with a .22, then a squirrel's head at 50 is an easier shot for me.

Ditto the same with handguns. If I can keep rounds in the chest of a silhouette target at 50 (or further), and ring a 12" gong at 100, then if need be I've got a better chance of making a shot under pressure - and possibly on a head or other small target - at much closer range.

Oh, and unlike the OP, I have a much better grasp on the laws in this area, don't pay for classes from some buffoon that doesn't know the law, and don't live in a schit hole that requires me to run away.

Travis

I love when a good story includes some self-fellating by the way.






Travis

Yes, but in those states there's a legal presumption that you should have retreated, which you then have to overcome by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that you could not do so safely. In stand your ground states, not only is there no such legal presumption, but the question cannot even be asked, as you are presumed to have had a right not to retreat, whether you could or not.

Preponderance of evidence is a civil litigation bar. Reasonable doubt is criminal. Duty to retreat therefore would only require a reasonable doubt as to whether one could have retreated safely.

Some jurisdictions, like New York State for example, use the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof for an affirmative defense in a criminal case, where the burden is on the defendant. Self defense is an affirmative defense. Other states, after an affirmative defense is proffered by the accused in a criminal case, place the burden of proof on the state (i.e., to prove the self defense claim defective), and in those jurisdictions, the standard is, as you say, beyond a reasonable doubt. It varies by jurisdiction. There's no single rule on this. The must-attempt-retreat-where-possible states, however, also tend to be the states that place the burden of proof (by preponderance of the evidence) on the defendant when an affirmative defense of self defense is proffered.

Ah, you're citing NYS. I was citing American jurisprudence. Obvious deviation in law between the two.

We're in agreement on that.

LMAO...

Damned shame that the home of Timothy Murphy, and the patriots of Ticonderoga and Saratoga, as well as the martyrs of Cherry Valley and others, has come to define all that isn't American.

Of course, that has everything to do with the down state counties and Burroughs...

True enough.

You argue just to argue. What you've posted here is no different than what I posted. You're splitting hairs in a vain attempt to appear knowledgeable and better informed than all of us poor hillbillies. The only difference in what I posted and what you tried to refute is the language you used. The meaning/content is no different than what I wrote.

Actually, I wasn't arguing, so much as agreeing while making an additional point that might be of interest to readers here. Sorry I came across as being argumentative.

At best, TRH has pumped the neighbor's cat.

That first question is a doozy...

Soft body armor typically covers from the upper/mid sternum, down to roughly the belly button. On most folks the lower 1/3 of the body is completely exposed. This includes the critical pelvic girdle.

Consider this like a Tank.

When you take out the tracks/main body of the tank, the turret can spin and function to a degree, but the tank is going NOWHERE.

If you are not getting the desired results after making a couple of good controlled pairs center mass, go for the head or groin.

Hammer someone with a pelvic girdle shot and they are going DOWN.

They may still be a major threat (most likely not), but they are not going to be mobile. Close the distance if possible and take a good solid shot to the computer.

The reality is that pelvic girdle shots are phenomenally painful. Most people who take a hit in this region are completely done with any fight, and are going to be in very bad shape.

Consider this, the pelvic region, is basically the load bearing platform. If you break this down, the target goes down.

Most big game hunters have seen the difference between lung shot and a shoulder shot animal. Not too much different here.

Beside skeletal structure, this area is also where the aorta feeds the iliac arteries, which feed the femoral arteries in the legs. You also have the very bottom of the intestines.

Pelvic Girdle shots are generally total fight stoppers.

Most body armor does not cover this.

Body armor also does not usually completely cover the center, upper chest, as well as the neck and head.



"How would being able to shoot longer distances with a hand gun have helped?"

The ability to shoot in a precise manner, targeting one of the above described areas, should be self evident.


Giving up because you "only have a handgun" and the range is beyond the "magical/typical average 3 yards" is really not an option for a determined defender.

BTW, I sure as hell don't want to rely on just being in a statistically "average" fight.

Personally I know a whole bunch of guys who if they only had their issued handgun and a bad guy started shooting people, or shooting at them, with a rifle, they would not even slightly hesitate to get into the fight.

The objective still remains the same. Close with, engage and destroy the enemy/neutralize the threat, utilizing the concept of speed, surprise, and violence of action.


If you choose to give up and die because you are engaged by a person with a rifle, or you are leaking fluid somewhere, that is your prerogative. To each their own.

I have had my bell rung more than a couple times in a fight, I did not just curl up and call it quits.

Mac, as always excellent response from someone who has been there and done that... A guide for us less experienced souls..

Having actually broken my pelvis, I'm always skeptical of the guarantee that someone shot there WILL go down. Certainly shoot at the bad guy there, and anywhere else that presents itself, but I don't think it's the guaranteed stop that we've been told for so long.

I've seen real war-time films taken during the Viet Nam war. Whoever was filming chose to film Viet Cong soldiers charging a Green Beret A Team camp. The Viet Cong had explosive packs strapped to their backs. They were getting hit with everything, including a .50 cal BMG. Those BMG rounds were hitting and exiting in a huge spray of blood and tissue. However, the only Viet Cong that were stopped appeared to be those who sustained a CNS strike. They were so high on opiates and other compounds they probably didn't feel the bullet strikes. Several of them, already looking like red Swiss cheese, made it to the wire and detonated their packs.

America has a drug, PCP, that is fairly common and produces the same state of disassociation. Another rather infamous incident that happened in the 1970s or 1980s - two motorcycle officers pulled a motorist over for driving erratically. Autopsy results revealed the motorist had recently taken a large hit of PCP. When one of the motorcycle officers grabbed him the fight was on. The motorist grabbed a motorcycle helmet and began to beat the officers with it. Each officer carried a "wonder 9". Each officer emptied his mag into the motorist. The motorist beat the officers to death with the helmet he was holding. Back up arrived, and the officer pulled his unit up, grabbed his shotgun and put 2 slugs center mass into the motorist. One slug severed the motorist's spine, killing him.

There is NO guarantee any shot will stop, or anchor, your adversary, especially shots from a handgun, but the groin shots have produced more debilitating shots, with the exception of head shots, than any other shot placement.

I hope everyone hasn't already forgotten the Denton TX cop who took out TWO muslim terrorists armed with carbines and body armor. Pretty much the scenario we're discussing here.

It was reported that the cop used his pistol to win the fight (that he was given) while out-numbered and out-gunned. I can't testify that this cop is a great 50yd shooter, but I wouldn't want to bet against it.

Mindset, tactics, skill. The officer responded with all three.

If you got a 50 yard shot, take it.

Still stuck on stupid, and doubling down on it.

whelennut, pay attention.

He's had 14 months to think about his stupid post. Maybe he's reconsidered stance since then..........or maybe his laughing instructor has.

Doubt it though........

How many concealed carry citizens come out on top, as you put it, against bad guys who probably have more training just dodging rounds from rival gangs on the way home?

How many?

Homicide is a relatively rare crime when you compare it to other crimes, and I'd bet all I have that 95% of the homicides come from the inner-cities, and are black on black shootings.

If you don't train to do anything, then when the schite hits the fan that's what you'll - nothing but get shot and die. This isn't a debate. It's well documented that training saves lives. I taught pursuit driving too. I had at least one deputy a month come to me and describe a situation wherein he steered and accelerated and steered out through a possible vehicular collision, and came out the other side, on the road, untouched with no memory of how he did it. They did it because I drilled them and drilled them and drilled them in evasive lane change and running the highway course. We used the same reasoning to go to a hot range and the building of our own little "Hogan's Alley".

Pistol shooters would do well to quit thinking of their shots in terms of distance. It's not distance that matters, it's the difficulty of the shot.

Yes, most 50 yard shots are difficult. But not all of them. And most 3 yard shots are easy. But not all of them.

Splitting a bullet on an axe blade at 7 yards requires about the same amount of (or a bit more) sight focus and trigger control as a 50 yard shot on a torso.




Being accurate at 50 yards is about your ability to shoot, which is a different topic than the legitimacy of a 50 yard defensive shot. Dismissing the former, because of the latter, is likely done because you can't perform the former.

Where you been? Nice your back.

Thanks. I don't know how "back" I am, just logged on to answer some PMs. It got too dramatic around here for a while. Maybe it'll calm down now that an (R) is in office, lol.

I don't mind a spirited debate, or even a good argument, but both of those can be done without all the bitterness that has come to dominate this site. Rick's unmoderation will keep his ad revenue flowing in, but eventually the good guys will get fed up with having to wade through it all. IMO, anyway.

Please don't confuse me with someone who has a knowledgeable opinion. However, I've been wading through this conversation, and I am still stumped as to how a guy like me is going to get himself into a situation where a 50 yard shot from my conceal carry pistol is going to save my life. I can understand how it might save someone else's. I can understand how a law enforcement officer would need to take one. I'm trying to think of a scenario where I would be making a shot in self-defence at that distance and I'm coming up short.

Let me use Walmart as an example.

1) If I see a fellow armed with a pistol in the parking lot at 50 yards, my first instinct isn't to start shooting. I'm going to get low and put as many vehicles between us as possible. If the shooter wants me, he's going to have to find me first.
2) Inside the store, it's kind of like Reagan's story about the bear. I don't have to outrun the bear, just outrun the people around me. In this case, I just have to be less of a target than the other people in the store. I'm going low and moving towards the exit in the opposite direction from the shooter.

Outside of town, I can understand. However, when I'm outside of town I'm either carrying a 357 mag Lever action or a 357 mag single action revolver and my main motivation is 4-legged coyotes, not 2-legged ones. When I'm out and about on the farm, I'm the perp. I'm the aggressor. Things need to avoid me, not the other way around.

Going back to the OP, I got similar advice from our CC instructor. It was not worded the same way. I don't mean to say a judge in Cincinnati would rule out a 50 yard shot in self defence, simply because of the distance. What I mean to say is that my instructor wanted me to stop worrying about well-aimed shots and concentrate on putting rounds into the target.

My point in posting is to simply ask y'all when I'm in town and carrying concealed, when would a 50-yard shot be the best way to save my own skin?

An Active Shooter targets you from 65yds away.

He is closing distance.

You are behind adequate cover.




Dave

Blue,

Don't quit on me. Don't quit on us.





Dave

Do you ONLY go in public places by yourself and never with a loved one/family member?

Are said loved ones/family members ALWAYS right next to you?

I just re-read this thread and I have to say two things.

1.) I crack me up.
2.) There are some stupid fugking people walking this earth. I mean really, really fugking stupid people.




Dave

Could you really leave an active shooter when you are armed. I don't know what I would do, no one does untill in that situation. That said, if I was armed, and ran, it would haunt me.

You only need to be able to outrun the 4 year old next to you.....

My first reaction would be to try and make it 100+ yards, and from there, try to leave that end of the county as quickly as possible.

I see what you're saying. I can see a scenario where I get caught in an open parking lot, and I have to duck behind the nearest light pole. The next nearest pole is 25 yards away. However, if the shooter is really intent on shooting me, he's going to have to close the distance. If I have good cover, he's toast. He's at least going to get a close enough miss that he'll rethink his intentions.

Although I can see this as a possibility, I don't see it as a probable scenario given my habits. I've outlived all the jealous husbands and wacky girlfriends that might have wanted to ambush me. I'm more worried about the three beggars I had to deal with while I was getting gas the other day. I'm more worried about the fellow who walks up to me looking for directions. I've got enough threats inside 3 yards than worry about outside 50. I'd be the first to admit that YMMV.

....Garland, Tx....he was a MotorJock.

And don't forget about the Austin Officer who shot a perp at approximately 100 yards.

You're going to leave cover while I close distance on you with an AR?



Dave

Try watching the news some time.




Dave

This predates the channelized frozen food aisle at Walmart.

You're going to leave cover while I close distance on you with an AR?



It depends. If I'm stuck out in an open parking lot, no. Besides, why are you closing on me with your AR? Is it something I said in the previous post? If so, I'm sorry I offended you. If it's about your wife, I'm sorry. It was over 30 years ago, and I didn't know you two were even dating. Put the gun down and I'll buy you a drink.



In most everyday situations, I'm not in a wide open lot with no other choices. If I was in my average Walmart lot on an average day, I'd do everything I could to evade the danger and save the option of shooting for the odd possibility that I get cornered.

Look, I'm no hero. I started carrying, because it would be damned inconvenient for my family to live without me. That being said, I'm going to do everything I can to evade a shooter. From the sound of it, there are plenty of others on here that feel they can handle the situation. I'll leave the field to them.

The thing of it is, I do read the news, and most of the gun-related murders in our region have nothing to do with this sort of scenario. The bulk of what I read have something to do with a home invasion and the rest are a couple of guys from the hood settling an argument with handguns. I just don't see a lot of confrontations that involve airmail, and they don't involve AR-style weapons. If that became a regular occurrence in a particular neighborhood, I'd avoid.

You really can't see a need to engage a person at 50yds with a handgun?

Is that what you're honestly stating?




Dave

When people refuse to train for longer shots, to me it just seems like they're being lazy. Chances are, they suck at precision shots, or shots beyond 7-15 yards, so they only want to do what makes them look good.

And to just automatically rule out any chance it will ever be needed...good luck with that one.

But hey, it's his life.

But I personally don't want to feel as if I'm unarmed just because the guy won't stand there at 7-15 yards and strike a B27 pose for me.

No.

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of instances I know I will encounter when I carry concealed are generally going to be very close things.

I can shoot a pistol. I can hit targets at a considerable distance with a pistol, but most of that proficiency is not going to come into play when I'm in town. Outside of town, where the distances might stretch out, I'm usually armed with something other than a pistol and it is not concealed.

I conceal carry for those instances where I cannot evade a situation. If you start shooting at one end of the Walmart, I'm on my way out of the other end of the store. If you drive by the gas station while I'm filling up and start spraying bullets, I'm hitting the deck and trying to put an engine block between myself and the action. If you're bunched up with your friends on the sidewalk, I'll cross 2 blocks down to avoid you. If I hear shots in a particular neighbourhood, I'll avoid that street for years. If its my own neighbourhood, I'll move. I used to drive through bad neighbourhoods before I got my CCW. Now I go out of my way to avoid them.

One thing is for sure: now that I am carrying concealed, the last thing I want to do is fire that weapon at someone. I am going to exercise every option to evade and escape before I come out shooting. If I've got 50 yards worth of wiggle room, you can bet I'm going to exploit it every way I can.

One other thing: Most of the examples I've seen in this thread concern LEO's responding with deadly force. I appreciate those of you who sign up to go in harm's way. I'm just a husband and a father and a grandfather who wants to keep breathing for his family.

Good.



Dave

In a Walmart parking lot? Need cover? Just hide behind a fat woman

This whole thread seems to be based on people trying to rationalize their incompetence with a pistol.

You don't know what your fight will look like until it happens. Trying to make up scenarios that fit your preconceptions does nothing to make you better, faster, more accurate, or more likely to survive.

Quit making excuses, and spend that time improving your performance instead.

WGAF? Really.

Not necessarily. For my part, I'm sitting at the feet of the masters here. I've been shooting for 35 years, but only in the past few years considered getting a conceal carry license. When I did, my reasons were as follows:

1) Coyotes were becoming more numerous on the property, and I wanted to start carrying. Not as much for personal protection, but I was missing opportunities to kill the buggers at close range.
2) It was cumbersome and obnoxious to carry a loaded gun in the truck for yotes, and then unload and store gun and ammo separately when I took a trip into town. To be honest, I forgot a few times. A CC license got rid of all that hassle.
3) I'm 58. I'm not as lithe as I used to be. The neighbourhoods in town are not getting any better. Eventually I was going to be a target. When I retire, I'm moving to the farm, and staying as far away from urban life as I can.
4) Until I retire, things are such that it would be very inconvenient for my family if I died. There are a lot of folks depending on me.

I'm not incompetent with a pistol. I'm probably not as good as you all, and I'm probably not as good as I would like to be.

My reason for asking y'all about this thread is two-fold:

1) I wanted to agree with the OP: Our CCW instructors did not say exactly what the OP's did, but they did stress that any self-defence shooting we would likely encounter would be close and fast: "3 shots, 3 seconds, 3 paces." I'm not disputing their statement. I'm not disputing your statements to the contrary. I'm just looking for the truth of the matter.

2) A 50 yard shot at a man-sized target does not scare me. What does scare me is the idea that shooting someone at that distance might be construed as something other than self-defence.

2). If they are shooting at you from 50 yards are they a threat?

That is idiotic.




Dave

Dave:
You may think it is idiotic, but that's what the OP's CCW instructor indicated, and that is close to what mine said. Mind you, I'm just asking the question as to why this is so.



MOGC: Yes, I would take any shot as a threat, no matter what the distance.

There's your answer...

Distance does not and never has defined a legal use of deadly force. If you are someone else is in danger of great bodily harm are death is what defines legal or illegal.
No where is distance a requirement.

The instructor that said distance defines legal or illegal is an idiot.

Check Minnesota Law. We are required to be a reluctant participant.
Shooting somebody from 100 yds away, give me a break.

When did 50 become 100? If someone is shooting AT you or others, are you still reluctant until you're dead?

Someone is shooting at you from 100 yards away. Your response is to say neener neener neener? Or in a loud voice do you tell the assailant he should stop shooting because Minnesota Law won't allow you to return fire? Please play fair Mr. criminal?

Does Minnesota have classes in elementary school or offer college degrees in stupidity?

No wonder MN goes blue every time. Some people die easy.

I don't think it's idiotic. I know it's idiotic.




Dave

Now it's 100?





dave

I got a $50 bill says them boys shared a cup at one time with BobinNH and Savage99

After all this enlightened discussion that's .......... stunning.

i would make the assumption that in each state things vary as one constitutes a reasonable and defendable shoot.
Arizona is among the least restrictive of states.
I.E. open carry, of anything, in most places.
concealed carry, in most places without permit
Castle doctrine, stand your ground which also extends to
vehicles.
We also have issued permits, which basically are good in two areas, less paperwork on buying a firearm, and travel outside the state.
Having said that I know one of the guys instrumental in writing the original concealed permit bill. And i have taken the classroom instruction, and on renewals when that was required.

a. You have to be in reconizable fear of death or grave physical harm from your assailant.
b. That person has to show intent of inflicting grave physical harm.
c. that person has to have the means of doing same.
They kind of standardized on the ten yard rule, meaning within ten yards a guy with a gun or knife has a lot more capability of harming you than someone back at 100yards.
but it is all situational. Meaning a guy waiving a pipe screaming at you they are going to kill you and they are 100yards out, the question comes up as to capability.
If that same person has a ar15with a scope on it pointed at you it means something else entirely.
Point meaning it is situational, but will be answered by a county attorney where ALL shootings are reviewed.

Thanks, I didn't know that piece of the puzzle.

Motors guys never seem to suffer from a lack of confidence, so I'm not surprise. Still very impressed.

I was replying to Sean, who bumped a '15 thread.

wn, even if for some reason there was a weird law saying you flat out can not shoot anyone past 50 yards, or 100, etc - is that a real reason for not having the skill to do so, or is it just an excuse?

I'll say again - you don't know what kind of fight you might end up in. If that time ever comes, do you want to make excuses for not winning, or do you personally want to have the skill and mindset to get the job done and be the guy who goes home? I know my answer, YMMV.

I'm pretty sure that a gun that will shoot minute of bad guy at 50 yards will also hit at 7.

I also dunno many handguns bigger than a derringer or something that one can't shoot minute of bad guy at 50 yards if one invests a modicium of practice time.

Didn't read through all 30 pages, prob'ly these points have been made already.

Birdwatcher

Bingo! I left this forum for a while because of the bitterness and decided to come back and check things out again since there truly is a wealth of knowledge here. However, not only have things not changed, but they seem to have gotten worse.

Most people don't have the laser rangefinder capability to know what is 42 yards versus 57 yards versus 100 yards under extreme stress. They do have a subconscious ability to understand danger, which, hopefully, they can articulate in words after a life threating event occurs. Distances in common places like movie theaters and restaurants can easily exceed 25 or even 50 yards, and a bad person with a gun, such as the Batman movie dude, can easily cover exits with fire and penetrate stuff like seat cushions. A shooter in a fixed position such as a sniper or trapped shooter can control long ranges, and some victims may be trapped close in with some cover or concealment but no other place to go without risking major exposure.

Excellent points.

I don't see any bitterness on here.




Dave

QFT.

When I was a teenager, I shot rocks, gallon cans etc scattered across a bare hillside using various centerfire revolvers and an old Colt 1911. I could only guess the distance, but I soon learned where to hold with each of them.

A few years later at the police academy an old Range Sgt. walked us out to the 50 yard line, apparently to teach us humility. We stood there at attention with a holstered, fixed sight 38 revolver, staring at a B27 that looked big as a house to me. Finally he says "Do any of you puppies think you can hit that from here?" I raised my hand and he says "Load six and go for it." I shot like I was always had, one handed, single-action and put six in the nine or ten ring. "Gawd DAMN Son! Where did you learn to shoot like that?" Me- "Shooting at rocks, groundhogs and coyotes Sir."

Why practice the long shots? The AH shooting at you only has to be lucky enough to skip one off the pavement into your femoral artery. You have to be good enough to nail him before he gets lucky.

You need a new instructor , 50 yards isn't that far in a rural area.

Better have a lawyer on speed dial if you shoot somebody in Minnesota and it is not justified.

WHO, exactly, (other than you) is talking about an unjustified shooting?

Okay, what section of MN law are you harping on that defines distance?

It's not 609.06 - https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.06

And, it's not 609.065 - https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065

Where is it?

If your life is truly on the line enough to justify shooting .....

WHO GIVES A [bleep] ?

Sort the rest out later , Alive..






Old proverb "he who lets mans law sanction his saving of his own ass is a fool "

Uhhhh, that's not really unique to the wonderful state of Minnesoduh.

It's called murder.

Google it.




Dave

NEWS FLASH! That is the way it is everywhere!

One of the all time dumbest phucqking threads ever.

Hey, has anyone yet found that section of MN law that defines a distance for self-defense?

"Please state to the jury what happened next."

"I shot the man shooting at me six times. Reluctantly."

"ACQUITTED!"





Dave

150 feet is not long, unless you are digging a ditch with a shovel.
Think about it.

Yep.

Most of this is the same in every state. You cannot be the aggressor (i.e., you can't start the fight and then shoot the guy because you're losing); whether it's called a "reluctant participant" or "clean hands", or whatever.

There has to be an immediate threat of death or serious/grievous bodily injury to you. That means that a verbal threat without means or without clear intent isn't enough. But, an armed assailant with a clear or reasonably implied intent to cause death or serious harm is a threat. That threat has to be immediate, not potentially in the distant future, and it has to be immediate in proximity (this depends upon the weapon; a knife at 50m isn't immediate - likely - whereas a handgun at that distance certainly could be and a rifle would be well beyond 50m).

In some states, and MN is almost assuredly one of them, there are case law precedents or perhaps statutory provisions requiring a "duty to retreat"; i.e., if you can reasonably/safely get yourself, then you have to do so or attempt to do so before deadly force is permitted. This muddies up the water badly, because it is entirely situational and open to interpretation as to what might have been a retreat option, when, and whether or not it was potentially reasonable or safe. Several states have gone to "stand your ground" laws where you no longer have any duty to retreat in order to remove this confusion from the prosecution/defense of self-defense cases.

Some states, probably MN, also require that no lesser degree of force be appropriate to the situation. The response has to be proportional to the actual threat. A healthy, relatively fit and strong man cannot simply shoot a much smaller, unarmed woman for smacking him in the face and claim self-defense; that would be a disproportionate response. However, a small, elderly, mobility impaired man might very easily be able to claim self-defense for shooting a large, aggressive female who physically assaults him. This also brings in lesser available options for defense; a healthy, strong male might easily be able to incapacitate that smaller, aggressive woman or extricate himself from the situation, the older man without strength or mobility would not be seen as having those available options. Again, this muddies the water badly because it leaves a ton to interpretation.

In certain states, this may apply to third-parties as well; most extend the same standards to family members, others extend it to any individual stating that all people have a right to life and defense of life of another is a legitimate use of deadly force if parameters are met for the victim to have used deadly force. I.e., in those states, a person can use deadly force to eliminate a threat of death or serious bodily injury to another, if the victim would have been justified in using deadly force to defend themselves.

Regardless of the state, if there is a legitimate threat of death or serious bodily injury to you or another and that threat is immediate enough in time and proximity that it likely could kill you, if you don't react and eliminate that threat, you're likely going to be dead. That will result in you being carried by six men. If you do react and eliminate the threat, you might be tried by twelve men. If that's the choice, I'll take my chances with the latter over the former any day.

Presumably, the answer is different in Minnesota...

Well written. I wonder how the Zimmerman case would have ended in MN. Zimmerman (lawyers) went with self defense and did not seek stand your ground as a defense.

IIRC, "stand your ground" wasn't at issue in that case. It was a straight up self-defense case.

As to how it would have turned out in MN - no telling; with or without the media circus would have made it a different case anywhere, I suspect.

There are no additional provisions in Minnesota. The statute in entirety:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

I agree. I could find ONLY 609.06 and 609.065 as far as statutory requirements. What has been established by case law, however, is an entirely different matter and might have bearing on how such cases are prosecuted in MN. Sorry, but I'm not going to delve that deeply into researching self-defense cases in MN to determine whether there is a common law precedent for a duty to retreat.

I should have stated it as precedent and not provision, however. That verbiage was a mistake on my part. Edited to reflect your points, and thanks again.

You're doing just fine, thanks. A few years ago the governor vetoed a "castle doctrine" law, and since that time it has been assumed by some that Minnesotans have a duty to retreat. That isn't correct - the existing law's provision for taking a life "preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode" makes tossing in a few buzz words redundant.

I had a rasty ol firearms instructor in training too. He use to let us shoot, then his wife. Wife was about 4ft7inches and had a chief's special. She liked to do head shots at 50 yards to put the puppies in their place.
I grew up shooting like you described, cept i've never seen a woodchuck. My dad said a running rabbit is a perfect target to develop handgun skills. I think to this day he was right.

Fine DA work Flave. Sgt. Deibler would slap you on the back so hard you'd swaller that lip full of Copenhagen you weren't supposed to be dirtying up his gawddam range up with anyhow.

Sarge!

Two things are memorialized in my brain.

1.) A Drill Instructor telling me to "put it in your pocket" after I spit.
2.) A career LE guy asking "What the fugk are you doing?" after I thumbed a hammer.

Merry MLK day.


Travis

Nice shooting..

Wow! That is some good shooting there!

You have that down I'd say. I think you found your new favorite.

The DC baseball field shooting reminded me of this old thread, misconceptions people have, along with the mountains of bad info people get from "Certified Instructors".



I bet being able to make fast and accurate hits at 50 yards would have been a rather useful skill set to have when the liberal whackjob started shooting at the GOP baseball field in DC a couple days ago.

And bad info from the certifiable on this forum

Amen...

And how many other incidents over the years have caused you to think that same thought. The North Hollywood gun fight comes immediately to mind.

The LAPD 1997 North Hollywood gun battle was a long range affair, with patrol officers shooting from 35-100 yards while advancing on the suspects. The officer that killed the 1st suspect shot him with his last round of 9mm in the side of the head at 35 yards. He started following and engaging the suspect from a distance of 100 yards.
Bob

MS, your damn reality checks sure mess with opinion based logic.


mike r

Mike,

I just had a "Father-Daughter day" with my middle kiddo and after fishing (we got skunked) and ice cream (that made things better), we went and played on a big set of playground equipment that had a baseball field right next to it.

I took note that some kids on the far side were well in excess 50 yards. In fact, the fence and entrance was probably a good 75 yards from where I stood. I am carrying my G17 today along with a spare 22 round ETS mag (downloaded by 1, to 21). I made the observation that it would not have been too hard to get behind one of the big trees that line the outside of the field, and get inside a nutjob/active shooter's OODA Loop, and keep him occupied dodging 124 grain gifts, until a better course of action could be determined.

MS, visualisation is a useful training tool, made even better when you know what it takes to make the shot and do the work to make it happen. Your credibility adds a lot to this site.


mike r

In defensive situations we are dealing with two different scenarios..one being a "property" crime and the other being murder where the object is to kill not steal.

Most property crimes start within conversation distance, the object usually being to just take your property not necessarily kill you.

Killings on the other hand can start anywhere from contact distance to as far away as you can be seen by the perpetrator.

Problem of course is being prepared mentally and physically as well having the equipment and ability to take care of any situation that arises.

Robberies of course happen all day, every day, every where....but so do killings, even the long range ones happen frequently. Think of the Texas Tower shooting, how many shopping malls, movie theaters and sporting events have been hit....and now we have Jihadist shootings to add to the mix....

Be the best you can be with what is most practically advantageous to carry...Bob