Defensive shooting is never "just point and shoot"

[Mandy]

The guy who told me defensive shooting was "just point and shoot" had clearly never run a force-on-force drill with his heart pounding at 160 BPM. It is absolutely not just point and shoot!

 

[Rimfire Fanatic]

Sometimes it’s so close as to be drawn and fire from the hip. Sometimes it’s at “get off me” distance a foot or two away from your target.

I would argue that if you have time to align your sights perfectly and squeeze that trigger that you may have a hard time convincing a prosecutor that you had no other choice but to fire.

It depends on the gun too, whether you can point and hit where you need to vs aiming with the sights.

Charter Arms makes a ported 44 special without a front sight and if you just try to point it or use just the rear notch, you will shoot really high. But if your attacker was so close that you could reach out and touch em, you’d probably be ok.

 

[MisterEd]

I would argue that if you have time to align your sights perfectly and squeeze that trigger that you may have a hard time convincing a prosecutor that you had no other choice but to fire.

This is true and was evidenced by the situation last year in Seattle where a guy shot another who was in a wheelchair and calmly took the time to aim and fire.

There were some other 'circumstances' (mostly against the shooter) but largely in part it WAS the fact he had time and opportunity to flee as he was under little to no threat personally and was charged with felony assault.

 

[Rimfire Fanatic]

This is true and was evidenced by the situation last year in Seattle where a guy shot another who was in a wheelchair and calmly took the time to aim and fire.

There were some other 'circumstances' (mostly against the shooter) but largely in part it WAS the fact he had time and opportunity to flee as he was under little to no threat personally and was charged with felony assault.

Yeah, I remember that case. Against a veteran in a wheelchair. Just disgusting. The perp was griping something about the guy not really being a veteran, when in fact he was.

 

[MisterEd]

The perp was griping something about the guy not really being a veteran, when in fact he was.

Yea that 'perp' was a psychologically twisted wackjob.

He essentially 'instigated' the whole thing out of nothing basically.

An unfortunate case of a 'gun owner' looking for a reason....

 

[SuperTrooper]

Sometimes it’s so close as to be drawn and fire from the hip. Sometimes it’s at “get off me” distance a foot or two away from your target.

I would argue that if you have time to align your sights perfectly and squeeze that trigger that you may have a hard time convincing a prosecutor that you had no other choice but to fire.

It depends on the gun too, whether you can point and hit where you need to vs aiming with the sights.

Charter Arms makes a ported 44 special without a front sight and if you just try to pint it or use just the rear notch, you will shoot really high. But if your attacker was so close that you could reach out and touch em, you’d probably be ok.

That depends on why you were shooting in the first place. A civilian may indeed have trouble with prosecutor regarding having the time to take aim, but not if the shooter was a LEO. Many things can bite you, even stuff as silly as buying a gun with a violent sounding name, reloading your own ammo etc. They can paint you in a light where you reloaded your own ammo because store bought ammo wasn't deadly enough for you.

 

[MisterEd]

They can paint you in a light where you reloaded your own ammo because store bought ammo wasn't deadly enough for you.

The 'reloaded ammo' issue is one of the most often repeated 'allegations' with regard to self defense shootings but in my 'life' of following MANY cases of defensive shootings only ONCE was reloaded ammo presented by the prosecution but was 'sustained' by the judge as 'irrelevant'

If reloaded ammo WAS an issue certain 'store bought' ammo could be regarded similarly by it's name such as 'Hornady Critical Defense' or 'Underwood Extreme Defender' .

 

[SuperTrooper]

The 'reloaded ammo' issue is one of the most often repeated 'allegations' with regard to self defense shootings but in my 'life' of following MANY cases of defensive shootings only ONCE was reloaded ammo presented by the prosecution but was 'sustained' by the judge as 'irrelevant'

If reloaded ammo WAS an issue certain 'store bought' ammo could be regarded similarly by it's name such as 'Hornady Critical Defense' or 'Underwood Extreme Defender' .

I agree it's uncommon, but a dear friend of mine, a retired postal worker was presented as someone who made their own ammunition because store bought wasn't deadly enough. He wasn't initially charged when he defended himself, it wasn't until 6 weeks later when a grand jury brought charges. Never been arrested in his life, they made him out to be someone just itching to see what his killer bullets would do. He was out with good behavior in 4-1/2 years, but he was never right again having lost his home, family, peace of mind.

 

[SuperTrooper]

The 'reloaded ammo' issue is one of the most often repeated 'allegations' with regard to self defense shootings but in my 'life' of following MANY cases of defensive shootings only ONCE was reloaded ammo presented by the prosecution but was 'sustained' by the judge as 'irrelevant'

If reloaded ammo WAS an issue certain 'store bought' ammo could be regarded similarly by it's name such as 'Hornady Critical Defense' or 'Underwood Extreme Defender' .

Defense isn't the same as killer, but you better believe those names were vested by very thorough legal teams.

 

[A11mo$t]

Wow. What a thread.

 

[MisterEd]

Wow. What a thread.

Well, add in your ideas or opinions and make it even more WOW!

 

[Rimfire Fanatic]

This is true and was evidenced by the situation last year in Seattle where a guy shot another who was in a wheelchair and calmly took the time to aim and fire.

There were some other 'circumstances' (mostly against the shooter) but largely in part it WAS the fact he had time and opportunity to flee as he was under little to no threat personally and was charged with felony assault.

I saw that vid. That was messed up. The guy definitely shouldn’t have shot a guy in a wheel chair, even though he brandished a knife, being that far away. And the shooter was the aggressor initially to boot. He ripped the guys patches off and accused him of stolen valor.

 

[MisterEd]

Yea, and the WORST part is he was only sentenced to 3.5 years for this AFTER have previously being convicted of criminal mischief for driving a van into a tent of political supporters in Jacksonville, Florida.