TexasCHLforum.com

KD5NRH wrote:

badkarma56 wrote: Don't forget to have a way to document that you knew those things; if you say you shot the guy because he got within 21ft while brandishing a knife in a threatening manner and refusing commands to stop, a good prosecutor is going to want to know how you chose 21ft, and may try to claim that you read the Tueller drill information only after the fact. You want to establish prior knowledge of the facts and statistics you're using.

For my own part, I took Ayoob's LFI-I course in 2000 where this was taught. I have also taken a course with a local instructor in RI where we actually did the Tueller drill, drawing from our concealment rigs. ( I got a shot off in a little more than 2 seconds from my IWB rig worn under a leather vest.)

Supercat wrote: The one scenario I have always pondered on a legality level is the following:
Three large men corner you and your wife, saying there going to cause you harm etc...
I am carrying, They have come inside the zone while making threats at me and my wife. I make the call to display in an effort to end their advance......

Please reconsider. This is not a good plan of action.

Photoman wrote:
Please reconsider. This is not a good plan of action.

Photoman,
I was really trying to frame it for the legal implications of possibly defending yourself with deadly force aginst a group of unarmed men bent on doing harm.

But if you could frame a better course of action I would appriciate your input.

KD5NRH wrote:

badkarma56 wrote:Of course, you'd want to be "armed" with as many legal precedents as possible to support this theory. I've read some of Mas Ayoob's work, and I've occasionally heard him discuss these issues via podcast. He's a definite authority on the subject of "justifiable" self defense and defensive handgun tactics.

Don't forget to have a way to document that you knew those things; if you say you shot the guy because he got within 21ft while brandishing a knife in a threatening manner and refusing commands to stop, a good prosecutor is going to want to know how you chose 21ft, and may try to claim that you read the Tueller drill information only after the fact. You want to establish prior knowledge of the facts and statistics you're using. (In the case of the Tueller drill, you'll also want to push the relevant fact that it was based on drawing from an unconcealed non-retention (or was it level 1 retention? guess I need to re-check) holster, which is a lot different than a tuckable IWB or SmartCarry, so that if the reconstruction shows you shot him at 30ft, you'll be able to refute the drill's results being used against you.)

Posting here and on other fora, while maybe not the sort of incontrovertible proof of prior knowledge you might want in that situation, could help to show familiarity with a concept, and discussing the issue shows an interest in improving said understanding. Buying the books can't hurt, since most online vendors could quickly get you a receipt copy showing that you had the book several months or more before the incident. Taking the classes is probably the best, and most documentable way of demonstrating knowledge of a particular fact, though; it would be hard to beat having your attorney call Mas Ayoob to the stand to testify that he personally taught you how to determine the appropriate response to that type of threat. (Incidentally, this could also be a good reason to avoid "Bruno Throatslitter's Masters of Death" type classes.)

Good points, KD5NRH...you are very wise, my friend, very wise indeed.

I'd love to take one of Ayoob's LFI courses, but he doesn't ever seem to stage them in Texas. I've seen him offer courses in several other states (even in California, for goodness sakes). Oh well, maybe I'll just have to fly on up to New Hampshire and get some training.

casingpoint wrote:My thoughts are it's not often one gets good free counsel from a lawyer.

Ya' do tend to get whatcha' pay for, dude!

Supercat wrote:Photoman,
I was really trying to frame it for the legal implications of possibly defending yourself with deadly force aginst a group of unarmed men bent on doing harm.

But if you could frame a better course of action I would appriciate your input.

You don't draw your gun to use it as a threat. You draw it to shoot someone that requires shooting. If, in the process of drawing your gun, the attacker changes course, then adjust your response.

"in the process of drawing your gun, the attacker changes course, then adjust your response"

That may too late if a change in response must happen within milliseconds. In the case of an Arizona self defense shooting, the jury was swayed to believe the victim turned sideways and threw his arms out in a defensive posture after running at the shooter in an aggressive manner. That, coupled with the shooter's choice of "killer" hollow point bullets resulted in a ten year sentence for second degree murder. This case has perhaps set a nasty precedent that unfortunately may bear consideration if not overturned on appeal.

http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba ... n-arizona/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/

casingpoint wrote:"in the process of drawing your gun, the attacker changes course, then adjust your response"

That may too late if a change in response must happen within milliseconds. In the case of an Arizona self defense shooting, the jury was swayed to believe the victim turned sideways and threw his arms out in a defensive posture after running at the shooter in an aggressive manner. That, coupled with the shooter's choice of "killer" hollow point bullets resulted in a ten year sentence for second degree murder. This case has perhaps set a nasty precedent that unfortunately may bear consideration if not overturned on appeal.

http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba ... n-arizona/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/

I don't think the AZ case set any precedents at all. What you had there was a guy who babbled his way into prison, and a legal defense that was horribly incompitent.

Precedents are usually established on appeal, not at trial. Trials examine evidence, which varies from case to case. On appeal, judges rule on the law. Big difference.

I've read too many articles by Mas in one of the Defensive Handgun mags that say, with a good lawyer (including Mas) with expert testimony, ammo preference shouldn't hang you.

an overzealous DA may try that tactic, but a good lawyer (once again, with expert testimony...) can argue against that.
The article that I recall the most gave 10 case studies where that tactic was attempted, but failed due to quality legal counsel, which in some cases, included Mas's expert testimony.

One good thing about taking LFI-I is that if you are involved in a defensive shooting and want Mas' help he promises to:

1) Review the circumstances of your case.

2) Determine in his own opinion if it was a righteous shoot.

3) And if so, provide expert witness testimony free of charge (you pick up travel expenses of course.)

I believe he will also recommend a knowledgeable defense attorney in your area if he knows of one.

Most of the jurists interviewed post-trial indicated the hollow point bullet issue had the most influence in finding the defendant Harold Fish guilty. However, the ballistics expert's testimony for the prosecution is factually flawed and resulted in a clearly erroneous decision of the jury. The witness for prosecution held out hollow point bullets were of greater lethality, when in fact a higher per centage of shooting victims by ball ammo expire because of increased blood loss from entry and exit holes in the body, combined with the fact that it takes more hits with ball to stop someone than hollow points. That according to Mas Ayoob. Exactly the opposite argument could well be made. The jury interpreted Fish's choice of bullets to reflect malicious intent against anyone he encountered while hiking, when he was really arming his 10 mm semi auto for bear and cougar defense. The testimony should not have been allowed in the first place. As the Arizona self defense statute allows for the use of deadly force and does not spell out any prohibited degrees of efficacy, differences in lethality of a weapon are of no consequence. The testimony was predjudicial and unduly influenced the verdict. So there appears to be a factual error and a procedural error in the district court trial.

Supercat wrote: The one scenario I have always pondered on a legality level is the following:
Three large men corner you and your wife, saying there going to cause you harm etc...
I am carrying, They have come inside the zone while making threats at me and my wife. I make the call to display in an effort to end their advance "verbal warnings included" they do not stop.

At this point if I let the advance continue they could gain control of my firearm and bad goes to worse.

Since I'm a woman and I tend to run a lot of my errands alone, I have given a similar scenario a lot of thought. If three men (or even one) approach me making threats, I'm going for the gun. I'm not a small woman, but I don't exactly go by "Big Mama" either; it wouldn't be hard for the average man to overpower me. I keep a gun on my hip for a few reasons, and this is the primary one.

Threat assessment is a very personal and individual thing. A 25-year-old male, 6'4" tall, and 250 lbs, unarmed, may not be much of a threat to another male of the same age and size. However, I'm 66 years old, 5'6" tall, and weigh 165 lbs. The 25-year-old male described above, even if unarmed, would be very much a threat to me. So, if he threatened my wife or me, even unarmed, I would certainly feel justified in using deadly force against him.

(on second thought, I might just let my wife take care of him--She's 5'0" and 115 lbs and he wouldn't stand a chance.... )

Crash