"Good Shoot?"

[PD Sgt.]

How about this one. You are with your wife and daughter. You see 60 yards away a man with a rifle strike a woman to the ground. You yell at him and with his rifle held in one hand down near it's mid section and down by his thigh. He walks toward you angry looking. You have told your wife and daughter to run and call 911. He's still walking towards you barrel pointed to ground and being held in a non confrontational manner. The other woman is still down. He keeps coming at you with out raising rifle into a ready position. What do you do?

While the distance would preclude a handgun shot for many, and retreat (or retreat to cover) would probably be prudent, I don't think I would consider a man who just butt stroked a woman walking toward me with a rifle looking angry to be non confrontational, no matter how he held the rifle.

[VooDoo6Actual]

Actually it should ALWAYS be a consideration. I know that the "hero" comes out in us (especially if you have been highly trained on how to use a firearm), but at the end of the day, you arriving at home safely and or your family doing the same is priority one. So if that means escaping, then that is your best option.
C4

This.

[glocktogo]

For me, a "Good Shoot" would have several elements. First, it would meet all the legal requirements for a justifiable homicide if the aggressor died of his wounds. Second, the case would be "No Billed" by the Grand Jury, if it made it that far. Third, yet equally important for my peace of mind would be that after careful reflection, I felt my actions were necessary to ensure the safety of myself or another that was being attacked. Having the ability to not feel guilt or remorse over taking the life of another is critical to me. Just because you can shoot, doesn't always mean you should.

I train hard to give myself the greatest likelihood of making the correct call in a life or death situation. That doesn't guarantee a livable outcome, but it it does stack the deck in your favor.

[Axcelea]

In OH there are the conditions of;

1: The defendant not at fault. The person using deadly force cannot be the initial aggressor.

2: Reasonable and honest belief of danger. Has to be afraid that they are in danger of serious bodily harm or death.

3: Duty to retreat. The person using deadly force is more or less "trapped" into the situation.

Affirmative defense: The defendant must prove that they did act in self-defense and meet the criteria of "a good shoot".

Defense of others. I am hazy in this area but the rule of thumb seems to be if the person the defendant is defending has the right to use deadly force then the defendant is justified using it on their behalf. This seems to be where a lot of dangerous legal ground seems to be.

Castle doctrine: Removes affirmative defense and assumes your in the right unless proven otherwise. Removes duty to retreat. Applies to the defendants residence and vehicle.

So for a good shoot on the street you would need to prove you couldn't of just walked away, was afraid for your life and you were not the aggressor that lead to it. Your size vs their size, their weapon/s, behavior, and other acts of the other person can be used to prove you were afraid of serious injury or death. How aggressive they are, following you, location, etc can be used to show the inability to retreat. Have to have a good defense that you were just a victim and not the instigator.

Alcohol I would imagine would be used by a prosecutor to show you were impaired and might of been the instigator, unable to judge properly that you were in danger, etc but if something like a BAC test done by responding officers show no significant impairment then I imagine nothing can be done save other charges related to the alcohol but not the lethal force.

[stinkyDrunk]

See

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/sho...d.php?t=183095

for an unfortunate story involving a concealed carrier and alcohol.

[rackham1]

Many formulas for all saying the same thing. I assume the go-by that I was trained for is a fairly common approach in other CCW and Def. HG classes. I must be able to articulate:

1. Danger was immediate.
2. Danger was unavoidable.
3. Threat had ability to cause injury.
4. Threat had opportunity to cause injury.
5. Threat acted as to put me/others in jeopardy.

I've never needed this... hopefully never will... but this is what my "mental training" is founded on. The first two are just as important legal/moral justifications as the other three, and are in way no way separated from any castle doctrine, duty-to-retreat discussions.

[rackham1]

See

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/sho...d.php?t=183095

for an unfortunate story involving a concealed carrier and alcohol.

It's asking for login. Is there a public link by chance?

[gunrunner505]

Why do all these kick ass threads come up when Im at frickin work? I'll chime in with my 1.5 cents tonight from the hacienda....

[rackham1]

I feel the presence of alcohol creates a greater liability in a civil court, where the threshold for conviction is lower, and it is even easier to obfuscate the facts than in a criminal proceeding.

I think your whole post was great, but this line especially is damn important. While "judged by 12 better than carried by 6" and all that macho is true, a person that doesn't think CCW all the way through to the civil court side of the shoot is doing his family a disservice. That's why I think most all of us would probably best off if we made "no (or very little) alcohol in public" as much of the CCW ritual as "carry extra mag".

[IPApilot]

Actually it should ALWAYS be a consideration. I know that the "hero" comes out in us (especially if you have been highly trained on how to use a firearm), but at the end of the day, you arriving at home safely and or your family doing the same is priority one. So if that means escaping, then that is your best option.




C4

Great thread.

What I do to eliminate most of the "what if's" is this.

Instead of thinking about when "can" I shoot, I try to think of when "MUST" I shoot.

To me it removes all the fuzzy "legal" entanglements and reduces it to strictly a "moral" question.

It has been said by better men than me but "There are worst things than Prison or Death". Can you live with the consequences of your action or INACTION?

Not to derail this thread but concerning the "duty to retreat" aspect. What is our "duty" as free MEN in a free society? How would our Founding Fathers have treated this question? There is a quote that goes something like this - "All that is needed for evil to prosper if for good men to do nothing"

Do we let "bad" laws prevent us from doing the "right" thing?