buttonjockey308 said:
If she managed to break free of the attacker, and THEN filled him full of lead, she’d be subject to charges since the threat had already subsided.
Not according to the Washington County Sheriff’s Department in Pennsylvania. If you manage to break the grip of someone armed with a lethal weapon, that person is still armed and still a threat.
** Agreed, however in the OP, it was made fairly clear that the victim was in the house and able to use the telephone, thereby removing the threat**
Quote:
Your hands are your first line of defense. Stun guns or tasers, pepper spray, and clubs or bats, are the second. Guns are the third and final step to take, courts have upheld this use of force continuum time and time again, and as much as it might suck, it’s reality. As a private citizen, you are able to react only with the force equal to the force you meet. Meaning you can’t shoot a man who’s wielding a menacing looking q-tip. You can however, push him away, (and so on, and so on).
Again, not what I was taught in my licensing process. I was taught that you don’t have the kind of time to try 85 different tools during one attack, and that so long as you are in reasonable fear for your life or the life of someone else, you are justified in a decision to use deadly force.
** And your instructor was absolutely correct, except. Your instructor isn’t going to pay for your lawyers fees and legal bills. Not that that should keep you from defending yourself, but it’s something every single gun owner had best address. Moreover, if a courtr of competent jurisdiction finds that you in fact were NOT defending your life (i.e joe bad guy was slinking out of your window with your television) then you’re phucked. **
I was also told flat out by the county sheriff that the only words he’d ever want to hear out of the mouth of someone who shot an attacker are ‘I feared for my life.’
** Indeed, those are catch phrases worthy of the ‘get out of jail free’ card on your monopoly board, and may indeed keep you out of general population, but the civil court system is far less forgiving to gun owners, and if the family of the bad guy sues, you’d best be ready for that**
Quote:
Still, I’m a trained and field tested operator, and I’d doubt the victim is.
I’m just a regular, private citizen who got a gun for herself as her 21st birthday present and then learned how to use it. Until the night some crackhead broke into my home, you could’ve said I’d have no idea how I’d react in a stress situation like that, that I might’ve ‘froze’.
In actuality, I did everything I had practiced, and nobody (most importantly me) got hurt in the process.
So, regular people without military or law enforcement experience can’t completely be discounted as being able to effectively defend themselves. I might be just one example, which doesn’t make for proof, but there are (depending on whose numbers you use) anywhere between 200,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the US every year. Not all of those are being done buy LEOs and military personnel.
** We agree here as well. The crux of my post was train, train, train. That gun may as well be a blender in the hands of someone unable, on rote, to do what’s necessary to stop the threat on their lives. I’m glad your situation turned out in your favor, and I’m glad you didn’t freeze or panic. Sadly though, that’s exactly what many people do, and the fear that that precise thing may happen, is a valid one.
That said; It’s false to believe you’re just as safe without a gun. It’s false to assume that the police are there to protect you. We’re a reactionary force that sweeps up the mess after the crimes have been committed. Sometimes we get there while things are in progress, sometimes not, in any case, a gun and proper training, may just be all that stands between you, and dead. **