Positive Identification

[Budget]

My thought is, isn't (felonious) assault a specific intent crime? IE if I have no intentiontion of assaulting that person or intimidating, whatever, then isn't ID'ing someone at range, especially since it is your intent to ID, no crime. Maybe brandishing depending on your state laws, but who is gonna know?

For me, LPVOs tighten my groups. Even at 100 yards off hand shots are easier for me. LPVOs in general seem to be a great all around optic since you can stretch it out a little and still be quick up close. If you don't like em, pick your favorite red dot and charge on. I have uses for both personally and am deciding what my next upgrade is, but it will be a LPVO for sure.

Red dots for entry/CQB/HD but maybe needs are different than others. For patrol LE work I do like a LPVO, especially in low light since i can get a little clearer picture. Theres also people with farms and secluded property.

If you dont like em, again, its 2019, we have options. If you ever wore a shoulder holster or carrier mounted holster, are you F/A'ing everyone when you laser them, even though its holstered?

We all have different needs and different opinions. I don't like that guys only carry J frames, but ya know, it's not my business. I'm glad that we can have a reasonable discussion and you ask a decent question but think about the implication that your rifle is already deployed and you're looking for a bad guy. It's probably not to ID as much as it is to just find him. Gunshots are harder to locate than you might think and 400 yards is closer than you might think.

TL;DR, just pick what suits you and drive on and when the bullets fly don't worry about trivial stuff.

[jack crab]

Since we’re talking hypothetically anyway, what are the chances of escalation if two non-hostiles are looking at each other through their respective riflescopes? Let’s say you’re looking out your home window with a riflescope and find someone looking back at you?

For hostiles, about 100% if you're Carlos Hathcock.

[Watrdawg]

I'm thinking about it this way, maybe I'm wrong. If I have come to a situation where I have a weapon in my hand and I feel that I need to determine if there is a hostile whatever out there, then I am not worried that the tool for doing so is mounted on that weapon. If I'm just casually checking out what is going on around my property then I have bino's for that.

[Todd.K]

Your perspective is limited. The idea that you may be shot at from a distance that makes it difficult to POSITIVELY ID the threat is not a part of your world view. That doesn't mean the threat is too far away to kill you before you get your binoculars out.

I agree that a scope should not be casually used for observation.

[Don Quijote]

Your perspective is limited. The idea that you may be shot at from a distance that makes it difficult to POSITIVELY ID the threat is not a part of your world view. That doesn't mean the threat is too far away to kill you before you get your binoculars out.

I agree that a scope should not be casually used for observation.

To whom are you directing that statement? It's hard to make sense of it without an associated quote that you're responding to.

?

[grizzman]

If I "need" to identify someone (or confirm what they are doing) that I truly believe plans to harm me, and are too far away for the unaided eye, and I don't have access to binos, a range finder, or some other magnified optic, then I'm gonna use what I do have, even if it's mounted on a weapon.

Of course, if the "threat" is too far away from me to see what's going on....then why would I believe that my life is in danger? I wouldn't. This entire scenario wouldn't occur, because I'm not paranoid.

[seb5]

If you're in a life or death situation and someone had already shown HI and HA then PID is when you know who it was, in the context of our rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan they were bought and paid for. Obviously you're not asking about that but I couldn't help but think back to those monotonous lectures upon getting in theater.

For our life here the three still work but I just can't see an aggravated assault charge for trying to determine who shot at you or might be. There's still that whole totality of the circumstances thing, along with the reasonableness doctrine. OP are you overthinking this? If it becomes a justified shooting being able to see your target more clearly wouldn't seem to hurt you in almost any reasonable circumstance where I live. If you prefer LPVO vs. red dots use them. Or not. You'd have to justify why you were commiting aggravated assault if you were seen glassing someone and got caught without reason of course but I think in the context of the post you were asking in case of extremely low incident high risk cases.

[Don Quijote]

If you're in a life or death situation and someone had already shown HI and HA then PID is when you know who it was, in the context of our rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan they were bought and paid for. Obviously you're not asking about that but I couldn't help but think back to those monotonous lectures upon getting in theater.

For our life here the three still work but I just can't see an aggravated assault charge for trying to determine who shot at you or might be. There's still that whole totality of the circumstances thing, along with the reasonableness doctrine. OP are you overthinking this? If it becomes a justified shooting being able to see your target more clearly wouldn't seem to hurt you in almost any reasonable circumstance where I live. If you prefer LPVO vs. red dots use them. Or not. You'd have to justify why you were commiting aggravated assault if you were seen glassing someone and got caught without reason of course but I think in the context of the post you were asking in case of extremely low incident high risk cases.

I was trying to get a sense of where most people who use PID as an advantage of LPVOs were coming from.

Clearly I'm not talking about a military situation, and from my discussions with some police officer friends, it's apparent that the use of weapon optics for observation is not commonly accepted.

The instance I envision when other mention PID in a self defense concept is glassing people with the rifle to see if they can discern evidence of hostile intent.

I re-looked at my state's laws and aggravated menacing (what pointing a firearm without actually creating injury falls under) requires that the victim have reason to believe the actor means him harm. So obviously if the person being observed never knows that he was in a riflescope, the offense didn't happen (an element is missing).

[SteveL]

I tend to agree with the notion that PID applies to any and all targets whether two-legged, four-legged, paper, steel, or soda can. When people rattle it off as an advantage, are they generally referring to the two-legged variety? Possibly, but that doesn't make the advantage of PID any less valid. It just may not apply to you or me as readily as it does to others.

[Todd.K]

To whom are you directing that statement? It's hard to make sense of it without an associated quote that you're responding to.

?

My post is a response to your original post.
Generally if you don't quote someone or are not involved in a back and forth, a reply would be to the original post.

It would be outside of many people's idea of where they would be defending themselves, so I understand your position. It's just limited by not being out in the country or thinking about an extended breakdown of social order.

PID is happening after hostilities have commenced or are obviously going to. It's being sure of your target where there are often non combatants. Often at ranges where it's difficult to see details, but very uncomfortable to be shot at from.