1. Given the media intensity given to the Corona or Wuhan virus, there seems no reason to have posts on that very specific subject in several forums Accordingly, all of those posts will be moved to "Headlines". All new items on that subject should be posted there as well. This notice will expire on 1 April, or be extended if needed. Thanks, folks.

cheap backpacker protection....

Discussion in 'Firearms' started by Tango3, Jan 17, 2007.


  1. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Somebody check me on this. Big0O1, I think Andrew's starting posts indicate he is very young. If so, we should cut him some slack and encourage reading a bit before posting what seems to be rubbish. Side issue (arguably relevant) we are more survival oriented than gun, but for sure guns have a place here. My apologies for the, um, whatever this might be called.

    Andy, correct me if I'm off base, but for sure the story you relate has rather a clank to it than the clear tone of a bell. Consider yourself encouraged to read up a bit. Nose guns have their place, but the woods is not one of them.[flag]
     
  2. BigO01

    BigO01 Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Ghirt I respect your opinions after reading many sound posts over the last year + , but when anyone posts XYZ gun was only made for killing just Po's me beyond belief .

    The KID seems to think he can fire one round of 22 "which he even says he uses 22 SHORTS of all things" at somebody's noggin and he can run away safe and sound .

    For GODS SAKE I don't think that even with one of my 357's or 45's as due to all the angles on the human skull there is a very real possibility that it could bounce off of it .

    If being rude and grabbing him by the scruff of his neck so to speak gets his attention enough for him to go and learn better than all of this nonsense he thinks then I may have just saved his rather foolish life !

    A 22 rimfire is a wonderful TOOL and serves a great purpose but as a first line defensive weapon just isn't one of them and advocating it and being unchallenged on a board like this where even less educated people may read it is just utter nonsense .

    The isolation of being in the woods doesn't make one safe , quite to the contrary if you find yourself in a life threatening situation what you have and know is all you can depend on , and what he has and knows couldn't fill a thimble from his posts .
     
  3. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Big, I cannot disagree in any way with what you say above. Eddication sometimes comes at the cost of hard knocks and slaps upside the haid (like most of mine has come.) But let's eddicate him rather than castigate, dolts become un-dolts with trigger time. Busting eggs and skulls are two different kettles of fish regardless of caliber. (Take THAT for mixed metaphores.) I think (from other posts) he has some potential. We shall see how the lessons go. Yes, I know that even a 22 mag shot in the eye socket won't penetrate into the brain unless it hits the optic nerve passage. (Might get him a two step start running, if he's quicker than I am.)
     
  4. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    I'am gulity of wishing rimfires were a panacea,
    The most pertinent point is wishing don't make it so.

    The mere presence of a gun dissuades because dirtbags like easy pickings.

    The only reason to shoot another person is to stop them from killing you or somebody else, You are right not wanting to stop then too much is kinda ridiculous . Once it gets to that point...
    but I have heard the argument that a defense attorney waving a black rifle with a bayonent around will color the jurors opinion of how intentional the shooting was.

    I would not go into Minutman's border environment with a rimfire.

    I was taught if you had to use a small caliber round to defend yourself shooting a human being in the "T" zone formed by the eyes/nose presents a relatively soft target into the brain box.
    I give people room for stories here...
    Big001 You have presented some valid points. For the sake of argument I was interested in hearing ideas outside the usual box( "carry the bigesst baddest hogleg you can physical lift").
     
  5. BigO01

    BigO01 Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Fellas I just want to make this perfectly clear to all .

    I have had two occasions to line up my sights on a mans chest . IN both O was simply minding my own business and groups of late teen early 20's guy with baseball bats and pipes decided they could just do as they damn well pleased and perhaps beat my brians in or even kill me I know not which .

    In one encounter it all started and I was simply pulling into my driveway and within 2 minutes I am looking at 4 guys all armed and one was withint 6 feet of my wife telling her how he was going to shut her mouth , the other I was waiting in a store parking lot with a friend for a friend to come out after getting some smokes .

    I didnt ask for the BS it just happened and I have no intention of being someones play thing at the cost of my life .

    Another thing when wilderness situations are involved that hasn't been addressed is what if you were to fall down due to rough terrain and break a leg , would you want to depend on a rimfire as a signalling gun ? Chances are you will be out of range to use a cell phone even if you have one .
     
  6. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    Wow, this has become quite the thread!

    My 2 cents:
    Having lived in the woods for nearly half my life, and been an avid hunter/fisherman for more than 30 years now, I can say most definitely it's a good idea to be armed when your out there. I have run into a few occasions where I was very glad I was armed. Would I have been injured or killed without it..... probably not, but I'm glad I didn't have to find out.

    When you say " if I didn't feel safe enough in the woods to not bring a .357 magnum with offensive rounds, then I would stay home. I would hide under my bed, with a bazooka next to me and claymores in the living room, because I am afraid" I DO feel that you've just called me a coward.


    Why do you carry a firearm in the woods? To protect yourself in the unlikely but very possible scenario of something going horribly wrong. So why would you want to handicap yourself by making that firearm less than adequate for the job?

    Remainder of post removed.... I was a bit miffed ;)
     
  7. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

  8. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    Neat little gun.... and lots of other info on that site about all things survival, especially for you "knife" guys.
     
  9. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Wow things getting a little dicey these days onthe monkey...

    big001, If I was ever asaulted; like you were, you can damn well bet the credit card wouldbe moaning underthe load of a a couple of differentflavors of fullout no bs 1911 and a summerspecial itwb holster.esxcept wi is not a ccw state,Id still find a way top carry legally.. I only drew my service weapon once and that was playing with dea and the cumberland cty narcotics task force outside pope afb/fort bragg.I havent run into that level of no explanation civillian violence personnally, so perhaps" I know not from which end I speak" Nothing wrong with alittle debate without name calling from anyone involved. If I justy wanted my own opinion i'd just listem to myself yap, but I value what others say even the dull and boorish, for they too have their stories.:)


    "its all good."..
     
  10. andrew414

    andrew414 Howdy.

    Wow. Dicey indeed.

    First off, I don't mean to offend anyone here. If I did, you have my sincere and unqualified apologies. My point (which I think I've illustrated clearly), is that if I were attacked by a violent person in the woods, I would not shoot to kill. I would shoot to injure. The caliber that I'd pick to injure someone with is 22LR. If I wanted to carry very cheap for backpacker protection, it'd be my Buckmark lieu of the Ruger. This is also a fine gun in my opinion.

    One has a "duty to retreat" in any wilderness environment. If i had to shoot someone like a bear poacher, or a crack addict, chupacabra, or a martian, or any of the other people I've never ever met in almost three decades of hiking. I would not like them to die. I would not prefer ballistic skull penetration. In fact, if I it were possible and safe to disarm them, I'd probably march them straight out of the woods and to the nearest LEO so they can get medical treatment for his gunshot wounds, psychological treatment for his batshiat craziness, and judicial treatment for his obvious criminality. In my opinion, this is the most compassionate route one can take while still taking steps to defend against violence.

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0616hikershooting0616.html

    He could be 81 when he finishes his 2nd degree murder sentence (right, not 1st degree), because he shot to kill rather than shooting to end the confrontation. He has a family of seven and I feel very badly that somehow, somewhere along the way, someone told him it's ok to escalate to pumping 10mm auto into whatever he thinks is threatening him. If presented with the same situation, I would have drawn my gun if I felt like my life was in danger, and then waited to see the reaction from the human threat. If the dogs attacked with teeth instead of tongues, I'd have discharged one round into the air.

    Ask me what I'd carry post-SHTF? Probably my pistol grip mossy 590 and my SW40.

    andrew
     
  11. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Andy-

    First, my apologies for not checking past posts related to your experience, you are much more so than I assumed from feeble memory.

    Second, you have broached the subject of what is proper self defense, to wound or kill to stop aggression of the sort that Fish experienced. Reading the article and the comments, I can't help but conclude that Fish was justified, bearing in mind that choice.

    To my mind, it is a moral choice, not a legal one, if one applies more "force" than needed to stop an attack. To take an extreme example, if a 90 year old guy in a wheelchair deliberately runs into me on a street in NY, then pulls an ice pick, I'm backing off regardless (if I can stop laughing long enough to stay out of his reach.) If a younger guy comes at me in the woods, threatening to kill me (no matter what he might have in his pockets) he's dead first if I place my shots correctly. To go for an old cliche, give me the 12 rather than the 6. And, I am not persuaded that there is a duty to retreat in all cases. If, for another extreme example, I am the guy in the wheelchair and some lout threatens me, I may just not be able to scoot off.

    Reading the article and the commentary (admittedly from those that were not there) the court blundered badly in allowing the conviction to stand. This looks like the 12 got it wrong, but I would still take that chance above permanent injury to myself.

    I guess I can see your point (and moral opinion) that stopping the aggression by wounding is preferable to a kill, but would argue that you might wind up in the same court fighting an entirely different legal situation, far less clear cut. What if your shot(s) caused a completely disabling injury, rather than say, a flesh wound as is a probable result of small calibers? And, how would you handle a situation where your shot cold cocked the guy, and he came after you again when he woke up? Your shots then did NOT stop the aggression, and you are faced with continuing the activities. The idea, in my mind is to stop the activities cold and permanently, therefore the 357 cylinder full as needed. I have no guarantee that the "2 to the chest and 1 to the head" doctrine would work, given my skills.

    Is there a followup on the appeals? Might be instructive for us to know what happened later.

    I WILL protect mine and me. In that order.
     
  12. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Armchair mondaymorning quarteback analysis follows: bull excrememt quotient meets minimum fda standards:.

    Whoa man (Andy)....I Think you're gonna kick over a behive here..Any and every trained shooter or leo here will bequick to say " you don't have a right to injure. You shot to stop someonefrom killing or inflicting grave bodily injury on you. ( repeat after me slowly and clearly "I was in fear of my life, I shot him to protect my life)... There are so very few reasons to shoot a person; verbal threats , name calling ,stealing your freeze dried munchies, flashing, flipping you the bird,keying your car, consentually screwing your wife, making you mad, don't rate lethal force. Anything else is a moviescript.

    FIRST OFF HIKERBOY COULD PROBABLY HAVE DONE BETTER WITH A BETTER LAWYER,

    but taking into account we have the unnusual opportunity to see the outcome of courtroom deliberations we can derive the following generalizations..


    Sounds like kuenzli made verbal threats as his screwdriver was "in his back pocket"..a verbal threat is no reason to shoot nor isa a dog snarling .....the hiker guy was probably witihin feet of getting a butt kicking , who knows if the screwdriver was brandished or not. ( doubt it can'tsee him getting shot then taking the time to put it back in the pocket..


    If you are a male of reasonable size I wonderthese days if the law would require you to take a beating from a smaller or similar sized individual, a women doesn't have to worry about that argument.

    Hikerboy lost the court battle IMHO because he caused the whole thing..( but HE IS STILL ALIVE!! THE 10MM WORKED!)

    If Hiker drew thegun with the(edited: heshot at least one dog the gun was out) intention to bluff kuezli, and he kept coming, What choice did he have after kuesli called his bluff???there was only one step left to escalate..Good lesson on presenting aweapon , if the bluff fails there is only one way to go, never bluff or brandish aweapon ina less than lethal encounter
    If kuezli got to hker boy he more than likely could have (possibly, seeing kuensli was obviously very comittedto charge a gun) disarmed him and maybe even killed hiker,hiikers' lawyer should have gotten more milage outta that imho). Hiker boy was wrong in dusting the dogs ( 20/20 hindsight)...Kuesli was nuts.( natural selection ran its course here)..

    if hiker boy shot kuesli with a .22 and he survived kuesli would probably have grounds for a civil suit and owned hiker boys income...
    Hiker should (* mondaymorning qtr backing* have used pepper spray on the dog unless it was on him, less than lethal; thats why cops dress up like batman witha utility belt( linestolen from following article which says it better than i could). They have many levels of force to escalate through. No where does it say hiker boy was injured in anyway he was not under physical atack, verbal assault maybe ..

    Gentleman, I present a rather liberal view; but what else can you logicaly derive seeing thesecourt results?? I eagerly await the oncoming flames.(No I don't... I'im going back into a freezing garage to finish my door then find a new disturbing noise in my truck).:)
     
  13. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    try this on for size in this touchy subject:

    http://www.geocities.com/gunversation/useofforce/useofforce.htm

    <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="3480" width="523"><tbody><tr><td height="3260" valign="top" width="312">
    Use of Force
    The only thing more important than shot placement is
    knowing when to shoot.
    by Adam Celaya
    A lot of time is spent talking about which weapon or ammo will best suit your particular needs for each facet of personal defense. One topic that is rarely discussed though is how these lethal tools should be employed. Just what are the guidelines?
    Years ago I took my first use of force training while I was at the Maricopa County Detention Academy. At the time I thought that what they were teaching me was just watered down ‘jailer’ training, far different from actual police training. A few years later I found out how wrong I was when I had the opportunity to attend the firearms certification course required for all peace officers in Arizona before they may carry a weapon. As I sat in that class I was shocked to find that it was almost identical to the course I took for unarmed use of force back in the academy. Many people who have taken the instruction required to obtain their concealed weapons permit also have the same belief that I held then. Guess what? When I took the CCW course, it was not only the same material, but the same two cops taught it! In fact the only difference between lawful force for police and civilians is that peace officers are not given the option of fleeing the scene to avoid confrontation.
    Lawful use of deadly force has nothing to do with shoot ‘em up, spray & pray tactics. It is a last ditch option when no other course of action is available.
    Regular police training emphasizes less on SWAT tactics and more on judgmental use of force. So when gun writers lambaste cops by saying that many are less proficient with their sidearm than the average IPSC shooter, they are doing a great disservice to the law enforcement community. Police are trained to know when to use force in a discretionary manner. Anyone who buys into the belief that police should be able to shoot like the Terminator needs to spend more time as a ride along and less time at Blockbuster video. Lawful use of deadly force has nothing to do with shoot ‘em up, spray & pray tactics. It is a last ditch option when no other course of action is available.
    [​IMG] Here, two shots have caused the attacker to break off and back pedal away from the victim. Shoot to stop means shoot until they stop doing whatever bad thing they were doing. However, this attacker is still well within the minimum safe distance of for an edged weapon (21feet.) At this range, holding a knife he needs to be leaving or laying down. Put some distance between yourself and this attacker
    The governing logic behind all use of force is simple, "You may use only that amount of force necessary to overcome the threat." Police apply this logic best by stair stepping their levels of force. If you have ever wondered why modern police carry more weapons than Batman, here’s an example; Two police go to arrest a transient. First they verbally command him to comply, he resists. Next they grab him and begin to use Akido holds to administer pain compliance, but he pulls a knife from his belt. One officer pulls his sidearm and covers his partner who responds to the threat with a blast of OC pepper. More verbal commands are given, "Put down the knife and surrender!" The subject still refuses and threatens the two officers who (in some departments) respond by firing two darts from a hand held Tazer. Still resisting, and impervious to the barrage of non-lethal devices used on him, the transient charges one of the officers. Officer number one responds with a single shot that stops the attacker.
    <form method="get" action="http://www.qksrv.net/interactive" target="_top"> <input name="url" value="http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/product.asp?sku=AMM-422" type="hidden"><input name="aid" value="10273826" type="hidden"><input name="pid" value="442161" type="hidden">[​IMG] <table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="306"> <tbody><tr> <td bordercolor="#008080" style="border-style: solid; border-width: 1px;" bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top" width="289">
    [​IMG]
    Sellier & Bellot 9mm 115 gr FMJ Ammo - 50-Rd Box Sellier and Bellot ammunition from the Czech Republic. Boxer primed, fully reloadable, very clean. Caliber 9mm, bullet type FMJ ( Full Metal Jacket) bullet weight 115 grain, muzzle velocity 1280fps, muzzle energy 423 Ft. Lbs. 50 rounds per box.
    <hr> <input value="Buy" type="submit"></td> <td valign="top" width="1">
    </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </form>
    [​IMG] An extra magazine or speedloader is always nice in a protracted gunfight, but the entire philosophy of civilian defensive shooting is to extricate yourself from the threat as quickly as possible. The tradeoff of an extra magazine in favor of an OC canister makes more sense in terms of bulk/non-lethal alternative.
    In each of these steps, the officers responded to each threat increase by raising the level of force slightly in response. While most real world police shootings do not have this many steps, this scenario is common and in almost all cases the officers are quickly cleared. Because they took such extensive pains to avoid shooting the perpetrator, it would be very unlikely for them to be convicted of criminal wrong-doing. Also, they could have shut down the situation at any time had the transient yielded.
    One of the aspects of modern defense is the ‘shoot to stop’ doctrine. It is not uncommon for people to believe that the proper intent in a lethal encounter is to shoot to kill. In our litigious world just uttering that phrase following a shooting is enough to guarantee that you will become the next David Goetz, sued for your entire future.
    <form method="get" action="http://www.qksrv.net/interactive" target="_top"> <input name="url" value="http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/product.asp?sku=MAG-303" type="hidden"><input name="aid" value="10273826" type="hidden"><input name="pid" value="442161" type="hidden">[​IMG] <table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="321"> <tbody><tr> <td style="" bgcolor="#fefefe" valign="top" width="297">
    [​IMG]
    H&K .308 G3 Steel 20-RD Magazine - Made in Germany Factory H&K German magazines for the Model 91 or G-3 .308 rifle, 20-round. Steel 20-Rd, used, in excellent condition. High capacity magazines are NOT legal in all areas, not legal in CA, MD, MA, HI, and NJ.
    <hr> <input value="Buy" type="submit"></td> <td valign="top" width="1">
    </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </form>
    </td> <td height="3260" width="29"> </td> <td height="3260" valign="top" width="295">
    [​IMG]Use of your handgun as an impact weapon not only raises weapons retention concerns, but may damage some guns. The author’s father once destroyed an early alloy frame revolver by using it to repeatedly strike an unarmed attacker. Since then he carried a Colt 1911.
    To intentionally kill an attacker actually violates the use of force code, Only that amount of force necessary... Yes, it’s a bizarre world we live in, designed by lawyers and built by judges!
    In modern force methodology, you shoot to stop the bad guy from doing whatever he is doing. Upon compliance you stop firing, his death is a coincidental factor of your response. We don’t care if the offender goes away mad, just so long as he goes away. If this can be done with the mere sight of a .50 cal Desert Eagle with suppresser and Tac light, then all the better for you!
    Chances are, you will find that [in your state] you are not even legally permitted to use your weapon to stop the commission of a felony unless there exists reasonable fear of death
    There will be those that argue that deadly force has its own doctrine above and beyond normal levels of force because most state statutes specify that imminent danger to yourself or another must be present in order to respond with deadly force. But these requirements fall within the bounds of ‘only that amount of force...’ The simplest way to understand deadly force is that it can only be used in response to deadly force. Think of it like a chess game where only a pawn can attack a pawn, bishops can only attack bishops. You must have a reasonable fear for your life or that of another before you can administer deadly force. The threshold for reasonable fear may vary from person to person. I might lack legal justification for shooting a 6’, 180 lb man who attacks me with fists. Because I’m healthy, have no physical impairments, and have both the professional training and experience to respond to the threat, I would be less likely to be able to convince a grand jury that I had serious fear of death. By contrast, if that same man attacked my 5'3" wife then his death would likely be ruled as justified because she is shorter, weaker, and has no defensive training. In her case it would be prudent to assume that she would be overcome by almost any male attacker
    </td></tr></tbody></table>
     
  14. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Under the law at least the duty to retreate depends on whereyou are. Some states DO require, even in your own home and many outside your home, that if there is ANY way that you MIGHT be able to run away that you atempt to retreat. It runs the spectrum from some where if a person chops down your door with an axe and comes in screaming they are goingto kill you and you shoot them rather than dive out a second story window you can be convicted for a 'bad shoot' to some where if you are in a park and someone comes up and tries to mug you and you shoot them its a good shoot. So in some areas there IS a legal duty to retreat.

    That said, IMO, if I am forced to fire on someone then I see them as an imediate threat to life and would shoot to kill for 2 reasons. First would be practicality of the fact that a wound may or may not be enouph to stop them, a determined person with a knife for instance that is shot in the heart when 40 feet away can still make it to you and inflict fatal wounds before being stopped, I figure the only way to be sure they are no longer a threat is that they are dead. Second would be the legal side of it, if they are dead then especialy if there was no one else present, then there is only one version of what happened which is much preferable when/if you have to defend yourself again in court (which is almost certian ANY time you have to shoot at someone) as well as the fact that if you injur them then a civil suit is almost certian and with it life long financial ruin.

    If I feel that a flesh wound would stop the attack then I would opt for a different means of defence than a gun, like hand to hand, an extendable baton, pepper spray, a taser or some such. If I have to point a gun at some one/some thing it is NEVER with wounding in mind.

    JMHO
     
  15. BigO01

    BigO01 Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Well that is the one of the most Bizarre cases of a shooting that I have ever read when you consider the trial outcome .
    Andrew I apologize for accusing you of making the whole thing up please accept that .

    That whole deal is so wrong in so many ways it boggles the mind at least my mind .

    Personally I can't see that Mr. Fish did anything that I wouldn't have done , and in light of all the comments about the judge refusing the admittance of evidence that would seem to have a great deal of bearing on the case I wouldn't be the least bit surprise if the Appellate Court set aside the guilty verdict and there were a retrial or perhaps a different Prosecutor simply left it alone .
    This is what I found on the AZ state website that after ready it will boggle everyones minds .
    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=13

    13-404. Justification; self-defense
    A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
    B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
    1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or
    2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or
    3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
    (a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
    (b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

    13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
    A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
    1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
    2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

    <TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=8 width=680 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD>13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability
    A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
    B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
    C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
    D. This section is not limited to the use or threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

    Now while I freely admit I am not the best at reading legal goblygook it certainly appears to me that Mr. Fish had no duty to retreat and acted in according to AZ law in the use of deadly force , UNLESS the jury thought that he was responding to a verbal threat "the acceptation is in bold above" only which how that could be I have no idea .

    This whole case stinks of a Politically ambitious prosecutor attempting to ride it into higher office , notice it took 2 years for this to get to trial and the defendant is a retired School teacher not some deep pocketed fat cat with millions to blow on his defense .

    Andrew while cases like this will always happen I wouldn't assume that the carrying of a 22 is just the ticket to avoid such unpleasantness should you ever need to defend yourself with an inadequate firearm . While stopping such an attack with a less than lethal wound might keep you from a murder charge with a Prosecutor like this you would still be facing criminal charges that could land you in jail for years AND as has been pointed out a huge Civil suit . You do know also that while that 22 might not stop an attacker right away it can still kill them and leave them in a state that would allow them to kill you before the attacker dies of his wounds .

    Quite frankly this is one of those cases that I define as breaking one of MANS laws not Gods or Natures by natures law all animals "and we are of course are animals" have a right to defend themselves from any vicious attack and afterwords let the chips fall where they may , yet Men with an agenda"Usually the acquisition of power over other men" have written their own stupid laws which simple refuse to acknowledge natures laws .
     
  16. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    You never, ever, ever, shoot to wound. You shoot to stop the perpetrator from inflicting harm upon yourself or those that you are protecting.
     
  17. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Seems If you can survive the attack by only wounding, you were not in enough jepeordy (excuse me "jeopardy") to warrant apllying deadly force...I know what we all feel about having to provide a scumbag a punching bag or loot for his criminal enterprise.and thereby proffering more rights to him than he would return...If only I wasn't afraid of going to prison to become the crack spiders b***h I would be far more aggressive...but with todays laws and "loyahs"...I spend time going over scenarios to try to get clear shoot/noshoot ideas engraved in my mind without the adrenaline, rage, elevated bloodpressureand righteous indignation: To sway me into"the Bernie Goetz "oh yeah, you don't look so bad off, here take another one wid ya..." stage..
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7