The reason police unions and police firearms training units fought so hard for hollow point bullets back in the day was that they wanted their cops to survive gunfights with violent criminals. Simply put, expanding bullets stop the bad guys faster.
The history of law enforcement shows it, incontrovertibly. I was a young puppy when I learned of the case in which an NYPD officer emptied his six-shot .38 into a man charging him with a knife. The 158 grain round-nose lead .38 Special bullets just punched ice-pick wounds in one side of the criminal and out the other, and he was still able to stab the officer in the center of the chest. They died together on the street. Then I remember a friend of mine, a mid-Western policeman, who had to use a similar .38 Special revolver against a man trying to murder him: a single hollow point bullet in the center of the chest dropped the attacker in his tracks. My friend, all these years later, is still alive.
That was the history of the old “ball ammo” versus today’s hollow points. It runs true across the range of calibers in handguns, and even up into rifles. Why do hunters use expanding bullets on soft-skinned big game? Same reason: it drops them faster. Mammals are mammals, two-legged or four. Yes, some of both kinds of critters soak up a lot of bullets before they go down. As a rule, it takes fewer hollow points than it does “ball” rounds. This is why, from the Los Angeles Police Protective League to the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association in NYC, police representative organizations shouted long and loud for more effective ammo for their members. Once the hollow points were on the streets and the results were in, those cries died down.
Why is a citizen, security guard, or cop ever allowed to shoot a human being at all? Because that human being is doing something so terrible that the laws of Society and Man and God together have approved shooting him as justifiable homicide, to save the innocent from the man who has to be shot. The sooner he falls, the sooner he stops shooting or stabbing innocent people; the sooner his savagery ends, the better it is for all the innocent people concerned.
Wasn’t it Napoleon who supposedly said that God fought on the side that had the best artillery? If you’re on the righteous side, you want the best artillery…and, history shows, with small arms from pistols to rifles, the best artillery is a bullet that does more than punch a narrow, puckered ice-pick wound.
Okay, we’ve spent the last couple of installments of this series discussing, quite correctly, how the use of JHP’s helps to protect innocent bystanders.
But do you know what also protects bystanders? Not shooting at all when you don’t have to do so by retreating from the confrontation if you can do so safely.
That’s why we had a legal obligation to do so in the past. It is one reason why stand-your-ground-anywhere laws are bad law. While they may increase the personal risk, especially the legal risk, somewhat, they protect the general public.
Okay, we’ve spent the last couple of installments of this series discussing, quite correctly, how the use of JHP’s helps to protect innocent bystanders.
But do you know what also protects bystanders? Not shooting at all when you don’t have to do so by retreating from the confrontation if you can do so safely.
That’s why we had a legal obligation to do so in the past. It is one reason why stand-your-ground-anywhere laws are bad law. While they may increase the personal risk, especially the legal risk, somewhat, they protect the general public.
Could not agree more. The object is to stop your aggressor, not poke little holes that are easy for the medics to patch up in order to be politically correct.
Could not agree more. The object is to stop your aggressor, not poke little holes that are easy for the medics to patch up in order to be politically correct.
Defensive weapons should always use the best ammo/projectile available. At best, all handguns are a compromise between stopping power and portability.
Poor marksmanship/training negates the stopping power of any weapon.
Don’t know what Napoleon had to say on the subject, but Dennis says – ” a gunfight is a piss-poor time to learn how to shoot”.
Defensive weapons should always use the best ammo/projectile available. At best, all handguns are a compromise between stopping power and portability.
Poor marksmanship/training negates the stopping power of any weapon.
Don’t know what Napoleon had to say on the subject, but Dennis says – ” a gunfight is a piss-poor time to learn how to shoot”.
To:Dave (the liberal one)
Thank you from your callus, and cruel, out look on my Constitutional Right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness” guarantied by our U.S. Constitution!
As a 78 year old, presently confined to a wheelchair, if any agressor approaches me, I CANNOT RETREAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH I MIGHT WISH TO DO SO.
ADDITIONALLY, AT MY AGE, AND WITH MY PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS, THE DISPARIGY OF FORCE, BETWEEN MUSELF, AND ANY YOUNGER, PHISCALLY FIT PERSON, IS SO GREAT, THAT I CAN SEE NO SUCH SITUATION, WHERE THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE, BY WHAT EVER MEANS, WOULD NOT BE LEGALLY JUSTIFIED!
To:Dave (the liberal one)
Thank you from your callus, and cruel, out look on my Constitutional Right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness” guarantied by our U.S. Constitution!
As a 78 year old, presently confined to a wheelchair, if any agressor approaches me, I CANNOT RETREAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH I MIGHT WISH TO DO SO.
ADDITIONALLY, AT MY AGE, AND WITH MY PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS, THE DISPARIGY OF FORCE, BETWEEN MUSELF, AND ANY YOUNGER, PHISCALLY FIT PERSON, IS SO GREAT, THAT I CAN SEE NO SUCH SITUATION, WHERE THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE, BY WHAT EVER MEANS, WOULD NOT BE LEGALLY JUSTIFIED!
Not shooting at all when you don’t have to do so by retreating from the confrontation if you can do so safely.
Retreat is a good idea, but the opportunities to do so are very limited.
1. Most defensive gun uses already end without shots fired, when the criminal runs away. Requiring the victim to retreat reduces the criminal’s incentive to do so.
2. Criminals will seldom leave a safe avenue of retreat. “Your money or run away” doesn’t generate them much in the way of income.
3. I happen to be 67. Successfully outrunning an attacker is largely impossible.
4. Retreating from someone who is killing innocent people hardly “protects” them.
Laws that help the criminal harm the innocent.
Not shooting at all when you don’t have to do so by retreating from the confrontation if you can do so safely.
Retreat is a good idea, but the opportunities to do so are very limited.
1. Most defensive gun uses already end without shots fired, when the criminal runs away. Requiring the victim to retreat reduces the criminal’s incentive to do so.
2. Criminals will seldom leave a safe avenue of retreat. “Your money or run away” doesn’t generate them much in the way of income.
3. I happen to be 67. Successfully outrunning an attacker is largely impossible.
4. Retreating from someone who is killing innocent people hardly “protects” them.
Laws that help the criminal harm the innocent.
Dave [ the Liberal one } if it were you and your family being attacked and I was present and armed , would you rather I withdraw and leave you to be killed or maimed ??
Only a coward would leave you and your family in that situation.
If you don’t like guns — don’t buy one — but please spare us your holier than thou additude
Dave [ the Liberal one } if it were you and your family being attacked and I was present and armed , would you rather I withdraw and leave you to be killed or maimed ??
Only a coward would leave you and your family in that situation.
If you don’t like guns — don’t buy one — but please spare us your holier than thou additude
Mas,
Correct me if I’m wrong, since I’ve never lived in a “duty to retreat” state, does “stand your ground” in any form or fashion negate any of the elements of justifiable homicide? If the answer is no, why do some seem to believe that “stand your ground” is a license to kill without justification. I have yet to see any cases discussed where “stand your ground” got someone off the hook in an unjustified shooting. I have seen many cases in media where victims of violent crimes defended themselves well within the constricts of justifiable homicide statutes, only to have their lives and finances ruined by overzealous prosecutors using “duty to retreat”, usually for politically correct reasons.
Mas,
Correct me if I’m wrong, since I’ve never lived in a “duty to retreat” state, does “stand your ground” in any form or fashion negate any of the elements of justifiable homicide? If the answer is no, why do some seem to believe that “stand your ground” is a license to kill without justification. I have yet to see any cases discussed where “stand your ground” got someone off the hook in an unjustified shooting. I have seen many cases in media where victims of violent crimes defended themselves well within the constricts of justifiable homicide statutes, only to have their lives and finances ruined by overzealous prosecutors using “duty to retreat”, usually for politically correct reasons.
Wackenhut Security, as of about six or seven years ago, still used the lead 158gr round nose in 38 Special, and required the SO to give the bad guy the first shot (no, SHOT, not threat).
And Iliberal Dave, please get just an inkling of what you’re talking about before shooting your mouth off (with HP or lead round nose, or musket balls..).
Wackenhut Security, as of about six or seven years ago, still used the lead 158gr round nose in 38 Special, and required the SO to give the bad guy the first shot (no, SHOT, not threat).
And Iliberal Dave, please get just an inkling of what you’re talking about before shooting your mouth off (with HP or lead round nose, or musket balls..).
@Dave (the liberal one)
Dave, at the risk of you thinking I paint you as a pointy head, I must say, human psyche, and common sense dictate that when danger presents itself, one must remove oneself from danger…UNLESS, it is home, it is impossible, it is too late, the speed of the scenario does not allow, etc. There are legal obligations, past and present. There are moral obligations. And there are ethical obligations. We all accept that. What, please, is your point relative to this post? Thanks!
@Dave (the liberal one)
Dave, at the risk of you thinking I paint you as a pointy head, I must say, human psyche, and common sense dictate that when danger presents itself, one must remove oneself from danger…UNLESS, it is home, it is impossible, it is too late, the speed of the scenario does not allow, etc. There are legal obligations, past and present. There are moral obligations. And there are ethical obligations. We all accept that. What, please, is your point relative to this post? Thanks!
Dave – carefully re-read Mas’ words. His emphasis here – his emphasis EVERYwhere on ANYone shooting someone is as a last resort – to be avoided if at all possible – to shoot ONLY to prevent them from shooting the innocents. Every word I have ever read by Mas has stressed this. I totally agree with you that shooting is abhorrent – just talk to someone who has had to make that horrible decision as I have. The experience never leaves you. It is a decision I have made, after strenuous thought and much prayer. I will not hesitate – nor should you if you are carrying a DEFENSIVE firearm. It is no time for thinking if you are to survive. Stay safe, brother!
Dave – carefully re-read Mas’ words. His emphasis here – his emphasis EVERYwhere on ANYone shooting someone is as a last resort – to be avoided if at all possible – to shoot ONLY to prevent them from shooting the innocents. Every word I have ever read by Mas has stressed this. I totally agree with you that shooting is abhorrent – just talk to someone who has had to make that horrible decision as I have. The experience never leaves you. It is a decision I have made, after strenuous thought and much prayer. I will not hesitate – nor should you if you are carrying a DEFENSIVE firearm. It is no time for thinking if you are to survive. Stay safe, brother!
Such barbaric talk of using nasty expanding bullets to injure our fellow human beings, even though some may be vicious beasts trying to kill us. We should turn the other cheek if shot, so our assailants can shoot the other side of our butts.
I carry a .25 auto with FMC ammo and sterilize the bullets every day before putting the pistol in my holster and practice regularly so can accurately place those bullets in a non-vital area to prevent serious injury. I also carry a full first aid and trauma kit with me so can provide immediate medical care for anyone I am forced to shoot. Fortunately with our current excellent obamacare, wounded criminals can be provided with quick, first rate treatment for their injuries. After all, criminals only want to make a decent living and take our money. They don’t want to hurt us.
Please, can’t we all just get along peacefully?
Such barbaric talk of using nasty expanding bullets to injure our fellow human beings, even though some may be vicious beasts trying to kill us. We should turn the other cheek if shot, so our assailants can shoot the other side of our butts.
I carry a .25 auto with FMC ammo and sterilize the bullets every day before putting the pistol in my holster and practice regularly so can accurately place those bullets in a non-vital area to prevent serious injury. I also carry a full first aid and trauma kit with me so can provide immediate medical care for anyone I am forced to shoot. Fortunately with our current excellent obamacare, wounded criminals can be provided with quick, first rate treatment for their injuries. After all, criminals only want to make a decent living and take our money. They don’t want to hurt us.
Please, can’t we all just get along peacefully?
Considering how a handgun is hardly the best at stopping compared to a rifle, but possesses that quality which a rifle lacks: portability while maintaining conceal-ability and deployment speed while in skittish company (and lets face it, that would prevent most of us from being armed in said company if we could not keep it hidden yet available… thank God for concealable firearms), a handgun MUST have the best quality ammunition for its caliber, in order to try and make up for its otherwise anemic (cringing as I write this, but the term is apt, just not in its traditional definition) “stopping power.”
I really want to respond to the liberal Dave, but the only polite response is a Patrick Stewart facepalm.
Considering how a handgun is hardly the best at stopping compared to a rifle, but possesses that quality which a rifle lacks: portability while maintaining conceal-ability and deployment speed while in skittish company (and lets face it, that would prevent most of us from being armed in said company if we could not keep it hidden yet available… thank God for concealable firearms), a handgun MUST have the best quality ammunition for its caliber, in order to try and make up for its otherwise anemic (cringing as I write this, but the term is apt, just not in its traditional definition) “stopping power.”
I really want to respond to the liberal Dave, but the only polite response is a Patrick Stewart facepalm.
Dave,
Not sure if you are just trolling or speaking genuinely, but Mas has had several posts on SYG laws. You are not properly understanding the purpose or effect of those laws.
The best description I have read, by far, is here (linked in a previous post by Mas): http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02/breaking-e-j-dionne-unable-to-grasp-stand-your-ground-laws/
Quoting from that article (which is in response to a negative article about FL’s SYG law):
“Note, also, that while removing the legal duty to retreat stand-your-ground does NOT prohibit the Florida State prosecutors from arguing that a defendant’s failure to retreat should be considered by the jury. Indeed, Florida’s prosecutors are fully entitled to argue to the jury that because the defendant could have safely retreated they ought to deny his claim of self-defense. All stand-your-ground does is prevent them from arguing that because the defendant could have safely retreated they MUST deny his claim of self-defense as a matter of law. The issue of retreat is still fair game for the jury’s consideration.”
The idea that when life/limb is being threatened by someone severely enough that use of a gun is justified, the person with the defensive weapon should run away, when innocent bystanders are helplessly nearby, makes the defenseless SAFER, is absurd. But that is EXACTLY what the legal duty to retreat requires. It’s not so much that they should or should not retreat, but they MUST retreat. Consider that the decision to defend or to flee can happen in a microsecond, but can be dissected by a court and jury over weeks, it’s unreasonable to require such careful reflection of ones environment, and possible exits, and what the risk is to the innocent people if you flee, in that microsecond. What SYG does is allow the person to use their best reasonable judgment, WITHOUT the threat of zero-tolerance duty-to-retreat hanging over their head. In other words, it allows reasonable decisions, instead of forcing decisions that may be blindly objective, legally correct, and result in catastrophe.
But it does not excuse acting recklessly. Shooting at a perpetrator who is not shooting back, when they are surrounded by innocents, and killing one or more of the innocents, would not be excused automatically by SYG. It forces the prosecutors to prove the defendant did not act reasonably. While SYG is not a legal loophole for defendants, as so many have characterized it, lack of SYG technically IS a loophole for prosecutors. Without SYG, they need not prove any kind of reasonableness at all, just that the possibility of retreat was there.
Dave,
Not sure if you are just trolling or speaking genuinely, but Mas has had several posts on SYG laws. You are not properly understanding the purpose or effect of those laws.
The best description I have read, by far, is here (linked in a previous post by Mas): http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02/breaking-e-j-dionne-unable-to-grasp-stand-your-ground-laws/
Quoting from that article (which is in response to a negative article about FL’s SYG law):
“Note, also, that while removing the legal duty to retreat stand-your-ground does NOT prohibit the Florida State prosecutors from arguing that a defendant’s failure to retreat should be considered by the jury. Indeed, Florida’s prosecutors are fully entitled to argue to the jury that because the defendant could have safely retreated they ought to deny his claim of self-defense. All stand-your-ground does is prevent them from arguing that because the defendant could have safely retreated they MUST deny his claim of self-defense as a matter of law. The issue of retreat is still fair game for the jury’s consideration.”
The idea that when life/limb is being threatened by someone severely enough that use of a gun is justified, the person with the defensive weapon should run away, when innocent bystanders are helplessly nearby, makes the defenseless SAFER, is absurd. But that is EXACTLY what the legal duty to retreat requires. It’s not so much that they should or should not retreat, but they MUST retreat. Consider that the decision to defend or to flee can happen in a microsecond, but can be dissected by a court and jury over weeks, it’s unreasonable to require such careful reflection of ones environment, and possible exits, and what the risk is to the innocent people if you flee, in that microsecond. What SYG does is allow the person to use their best reasonable judgment, WITHOUT the threat of zero-tolerance duty-to-retreat hanging over their head. In other words, it allows reasonable decisions, instead of forcing decisions that may be blindly objective, legally correct, and result in catastrophe.
But it does not excuse acting recklessly. Shooting at a perpetrator who is not shooting back, when they are surrounded by innocents, and killing one or more of the innocents, would not be excused automatically by SYG. It forces the prosecutors to prove the defendant did not act reasonably. While SYG is not a legal loophole for defendants, as so many have characterized it, lack of SYG technically IS a loophole for prosecutors. Without SYG, they need not prove any kind of reasonableness at all, just that the possibility of retreat was there.
Dave The Liberal – I think you did a good job of justifying why we have Stand Your Ground laws when you said “IF you can do so safely”. If you can’t do so safely you must Stand Your Ground and defend yourself so you don’t get shot running away from a thug who could care less about any law or laws. Why are you not worried about who or what the criminal element is shooting (whatever type of) ammo at?
Dave The Liberal – I think you did a good job of justifying why we have Stand Your Ground laws when you said “IF you can do so safely”. If you can’t do so safely you must Stand Your Ground and defend yourself so you don’t get shot running away from a thug who could care less about any law or laws. Why are you not worried about who or what the criminal element is shooting (whatever type of) ammo at?
Tom 606-if I were you I would retire that .25 auto and find a small 9mm. We recently had a domestic dispute In town and the firearm used was a .25 auto. The bullet did not penetrate the winter clothing.
As for Dave–the liberal one: lighten up people. As Limbaugh says: We need to keep a few liberals around
to keep us on our toes.
Tom 606-if I were you I would retire that .25 auto and find a small 9mm. We recently had a domestic dispute In town and the firearm used was a .25 auto. The bullet did not penetrate the winter clothing.
As for Dave–the liberal one: lighten up people. As Limbaugh says: We need to keep a few liberals around
to keep us on our toes.
I used to think that Duty to Retreat laws were not a problem (as long as they only required retreat when the victim could do so without any danger to himself or others), and that Stand Your Ground laws were not needed. After all, anyone in his right mind would do anything possible (including running away) to avoid getting into a gunfight, whether the law required it or not. I am now convinced of the exact opposite: SYG laws are absolutely necessary to protect innocent people from being railroaded. The victim of a violent assault may have a split second to make the life-or-death shoot/don’t shoot decision. A prosecutor or plaintiff’s lawyer can take weeks or months to fabricate some hypothetical scenario in which the defendant theoretically could have retreated.
And, as was pointed out in that above-mentioned Legal Insurrection article, SYG does not change the rules of engagement, because it can only be invoked in cases where the shooting was legally justified in the first place. You can’t pick a fight, shoot your opponent, and then claim immunity under Stand Your Ground. You have to be the victim of an unprovoked assault, and reasonably in fear for your life at the time of the shooting. As Andrew Branca pointed out, the kind of people who could meet those criteria are the kind of people who will not resort to deadly force if they have an alternative (again, including running away) open to them.
Getting back to what was supposed to be the topic, there was a shooting in Atlanta, GA, in the late 1980’s that illustrated the need for expanding bullets. At the time, APD issued .38 revolvers with 158-grain semi-wadcutter ammunition, and prohibited hollow points. An off-duty APD cop was moonlighting in a private security job, and got into a shoot-out with an armed robber. The robber shot the cop, causing a slight flesh wound. The cop then shot the criminal. Then the robber shot the cop again, severing his spine and leaving him paralyzed. An on-duty cop arrived and shot the robber. The bullet over-penetrated and injured a bystander. The .38 Special (with round nose or flat point bullets) has often been criticized, either for inadequate stopping power or over-penetration. That incident was an example of both at the same time. The APD later adopted the 158-grain lead hollow point “FBI load,” then later went to automatic pistols, first the 9mm, later the .40.
I used to think that Duty to Retreat laws were not a problem (as long as they only required retreat when the victim could do so without any danger to himself or others), and that Stand Your Ground laws were not needed. After all, anyone in his right mind would do anything possible (including running away) to avoid getting into a gunfight, whether the law required it or not. I am now convinced of the exact opposite: SYG laws are absolutely necessary to protect innocent people from being railroaded. The victim of a violent assault may have a split second to make the life-or-death shoot/don’t shoot decision. A prosecutor or plaintiff’s lawyer can take weeks or months to fabricate some hypothetical scenario in which the defendant theoretically could have retreated.
And, as was pointed out in that above-mentioned Legal Insurrection article, SYG does not change the rules of engagement, because it can only be invoked in cases where the shooting was legally justified in the first place. You can’t pick a fight, shoot your opponent, and then claim immunity under Stand Your Ground. You have to be the victim of an unprovoked assault, and reasonably in fear for your life at the time of the shooting. As Andrew Branca pointed out, the kind of people who could meet those criteria are the kind of people who will not resort to deadly force if they have an alternative (again, including running away) open to them.
Getting back to what was supposed to be the topic, there was a shooting in Atlanta, GA, in the late 1980’s that illustrated the need for expanding bullets. At the time, APD issued .38 revolvers with 158-grain semi-wadcutter ammunition, and prohibited hollow points. An off-duty APD cop was moonlighting in a private security job, and got into a shoot-out with an armed robber. The robber shot the cop, causing a slight flesh wound. The cop then shot the criminal. Then the robber shot the cop again, severing his spine and leaving him paralyzed. An on-duty cop arrived and shot the robber. The bullet over-penetrated and injured a bystander. The .38 Special (with round nose or flat point bullets) has often been criticized, either for inadequate stopping power or over-penetration. That incident was an example of both at the same time. The APD later adopted the 158-grain lead hollow point “FBI load,” then later went to automatic pistols, first the 9mm, later the .40.
First, I’d suggest that all of the knee-jerk commenters read the reply by Steven S., above, as well as the Legal Insurrection article to which he links. While I’d not read that article before he suggested it, it is indeed an excellent and reasonably careful summary of the issues involved here. I was fully aware of those issues before I wrote my post, but I disagree with the conclusion drawn by the article as to the need or purpose of SYG laws.
What SYG laws do is set aside a legal duty best stated in Sections 3.04 and 3.05 of the Model Penal Code: “The use of deadly force is not justifiable … if … the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety … by retreating. … [W]hen the actor would be obliged … to retreat … before using force in self-protection, he is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person…”
Okay, let’s first note those “knows:” This isn’t a absolute duty to retreat whether or not you know retreat is possible, as suggested by someone, above. For the prosecution to defeat your right of SD with this, they have to prove that you knew that escape was safely possible.
Next, let’s note that when you’re using force to defend another person that the obligation does not apply except in extremely limited circumstances, generally those where it is your presence which is causing the danger to the person who you’re seeking to protect.
Third, let’s note those “completes:” It’s not that you can retreat just sorta safely or kinda safely, but only if it’s completely safe, and to reiterate, only if you know that it’s completely safe.
Fourth, note that I always specify “SYG-anywhere” when I criticize SYG laws. I have no objection to the castle doctrine, which allows you to SYG at your residence.
By the way, I’m not a troll nor did I just wander by, I’m a regular here and Mas has even recently referred to me as a “respected blog commentator.” (In truth it was kind of a damning-with-faint-praise compliment at the time but, hey, I’ll take what I can get. And to avoid giving a false impression, let me note that Mas was NOT implying that he necessarily agrees with me. I would hope that by it he means that he believes that my assertions are principled and reasoned, but even that would be putting words in his mouth. Just call me the loyal opposition.) As I’ve recently said, I’m also not a gun hater, I’m a gun owner (see my Feb 28 post under Mas’ piece on “SYG IGNORANCE: THE CURE IS KNOWLEDGE” for details).
Finally, @Don – Pa., I agree that Mas advocates the use of SD only, well, In The Gravest Extreme (which I bought and read when it first came out 30+ years ago and have had on my bookshelf and referred back to ever since), and would likely always advise retreat if safely possible. While I believe SYG laws are bad in and of themselves and that the duty to safely retreat if you know you can do it is a good thing, a large part of my problem with SYG as touted by the NRA and others is that if liberals are ignorant about it and either consciously or unconsciously use it unfairly and incorrectly as an avenue of attack on the rights of SD, concealed carry, and gun ownership in general — note I say “if” — there is also a huge amount of SYG ignorance on the other side by gun owners who misunderstand SYG as justification to take a John-Wayne-by-God-I-don’t-have-to-take that stance and position.
First, I’d suggest that all of the knee-jerk commenters read the reply by Steven S., above, as well as the Legal Insurrection article to which he links. While I’d not read that article before he suggested it, it is indeed an excellent and reasonably careful summary of the issues involved here. I was fully aware of those issues before I wrote my post, but I disagree with the conclusion drawn by the article as to the need or purpose of SYG laws.
What SYG laws do is set aside a legal duty best stated in Sections 3.04 and 3.05 of the Model Penal Code: “The use of deadly force is not justifiable … if … the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety … by retreating. … [W]hen the actor would be obliged … to retreat … before using force in self-protection, he is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person…”
Okay, let’s first note those “knows:” This isn’t a absolute duty to retreat whether or not you know retreat is possible, as suggested by someone, above. For the prosecution to defeat your right of SD with this, they have to prove that you knew that escape was safely possible.
Next, let’s note that when you’re using force to defend another person that the obligation does not apply except in extremely limited circumstances, generally those where it is your presence which is causing the danger to the person who you’re seeking to protect.
Third, let’s note those “completes:” It’s not that you can retreat just sorta safely or kinda safely, but only if it’s completely safe, and to reiterate, only if you know that it’s completely safe.
Fourth, note that I always specify “SYG-anywhere” when I criticize SYG laws. I have no objection to the castle doctrine, which allows you to SYG at your residence.
By the way, I’m not a troll nor did I just wander by, I’m a regular here and Mas has even recently referred to me as a “respected blog commentator.” (In truth it was kind of a damning-with-faint-praise compliment at the time but, hey, I’ll take what I can get. And to avoid giving a false impression, let me note that Mas was NOT implying that he necessarily agrees with me. I would hope that by it he means that he believes that my assertions are principled and reasoned, but even that would be putting words in his mouth. Just call me the loyal opposition.) As I’ve recently said, I’m also not a gun hater, I’m a gun owner (see my Feb 28 post under Mas’ piece on “SYG IGNORANCE: THE CURE IS KNOWLEDGE” for details).
Finally, @Don – Pa., I agree that Mas advocates the use of SD only, well, In The Gravest Extreme (which I bought and read when it first came out 30+ years ago and have had on my bookshelf and referred back to ever since), and would likely always advise retreat if safely possible. While I believe SYG laws are bad in and of themselves and that the duty to safely retreat if you know you can do it is a good thing, a large part of my problem with SYG as touted by the NRA and others is that if liberals are ignorant about it and either consciously or unconsciously use it unfairly and incorrectly as an avenue of attack on the rights of SD, concealed carry, and gun ownership in general — note I say “if” — there is also a huge amount of SYG ignorance on the other side by gun owners who misunderstand SYG as justification to take a John-Wayne-by-God-I-don’t-have-to-take that stance and position.
Mr. Liberal…
If outside,in a public space, indoors or out,if someone is try to injure or rob me (armed or not) I would do my best to retreat from said situation. However if I’m in my place of residence I have no duty to do so! If I am outside in a public area and “blindsided” by a physical attack I have no choice but to fight back. In an “active shooter ” situation I may well have an obligation to “do something” if concealed carry.
The active shooter scenerio has its own complications ………..
Mr. Liberal…
If outside,in a public space, indoors or out,if someone is try to injure or rob me (armed or not) I would do my best to retreat from said situation. However if I’m in my place of residence I have no duty to do so! If I am outside in a public area and “blindsided” by a physical attack I have no choice but to fight back. In an “active shooter ” situation I may well have an obligation to “do something” if concealed carry.
The active shooter scenerio has its own complications ………..
I think Dave (the liberal one) is right about one thing. If you can avoid the confrontation, or flee from it, do so. None of us want to go though the missery of having to defend ourselves in a court of law, while our personal finances are ruined.
And one way to help prevent needing to defend ourselves, is keeping a sense of situational awareness. If I stay alert to what’s going on around me, I stand a better chance to be ready when someone trys to attack me or my loved ones. And if things don’t look right, by all means I’ll head us all in a different direction. That still may not be an available option. So all the while, I’ll be carring with JHP bullets in my carry gun. Because I may not have the option to get away. And this series of articals are not meant to discuss the merits of SYG. So it helps all of us if we to stay on topic.
I think Dave (the liberal one) is right about one thing. If you can avoid the confrontation, or flee from it, do so. None of us want to go though the missery of having to defend ourselves in a court of law, while our personal finances are ruined.
And one way to help prevent needing to defend ourselves, is keeping a sense of situational awareness. If I stay alert to what’s going on around me, I stand a better chance to be ready when someone trys to attack me or my loved ones. And if things don’t look right, by all means I’ll head us all in a different direction. That still may not be an available option. So all the while, I’ll be carring with JHP bullets in my carry gun. Because I may not have the option to get away. And this series of articals are not meant to discuss the merits of SYG. So it helps all of us if we to stay on topic.
Liberal Dave,
Count me as one who respects your comments, even though most times I disagree with your positions, including this one.
You are obviously well read and, judging from the length of some of your posts, a much better typist than me.
I will end my comments on this post with this. During my many years in law enforcement I was constantly telling younger officers and all my peers the importance of being as sure as humanly possible that anyone you arrest is guilty of the charge, because that person is going to be financially impacted no matter what the outcome is in court.
My opposition to duty to retreat is based on the same premise, it gives overzealous prosecutors in those jurisdictions a fall back tool, basically saying “I can’t get you for what you did, so I’m going to try and get you for what you didn’t do”. It appears, at least where I’ve seen it used against a survivor, mostly comes into play in racially charged incidents where a prosecutor believes it will be to his/her political advantage to nail a survivor’s hide to the wall.
I’ve read with interest most of your posts, even though I usually disagree with your positions. I don’t recall your ever mentioning being involved in a deadly force incident yourself, which in of itself doesn’t negate your point of view. Those of us that have will testify to the fact that when things go to hell, you want to be anywhere but where your at. If retreat (and time ) is available, you bet your butt you will take it, but, the fact is, in these incidents, assuming you’re the good guy, you’re starting out way behind the curve, and really don’t have the time to worry about what some politically ambitious prosecutor will opine after the fact. To do so may very well end your life and add another ten years probation to the puke who ended it.
Liberal Dave,
Count me as one who respects your comments, even though most times I disagree with your positions, including this one.
You are obviously well read and, judging from the length of some of your posts, a much better typist than me.
I will end my comments on this post with this. During my many years in law enforcement I was constantly telling younger officers and all my peers the importance of being as sure as humanly possible that anyone you arrest is guilty of the charge, because that person is going to be financially impacted no matter what the outcome is in court.
My opposition to duty to retreat is based on the same premise, it gives overzealous prosecutors in those jurisdictions a fall back tool, basically saying “I can’t get you for what you did, so I’m going to try and get you for what you didn’t do”. It appears, at least where I’ve seen it used against a survivor, mostly comes into play in racially charged incidents where a prosecutor believes it will be to his/her political advantage to nail a survivor’s hide to the wall.
I’ve read with interest most of your posts, even though I usually disagree with your positions. I don’t recall your ever mentioning being involved in a deadly force incident yourself, which in of itself doesn’t negate your point of view. Those of us that have will testify to the fact that when things go to hell, you want to be anywhere but where your at. If retreat (and time ) is available, you bet your butt you will take it, but, the fact is, in these incidents, assuming you’re the good guy, you’re starting out way behind the curve, and really don’t have the time to worry about what some politically ambitious prosecutor will opine after the fact. To do so may very well end your life and add another ten years probation to the puke who ended it.
Damn, pretty sure the post was about the use of expanding bullets. That said, I read last night that the San Francisco council has, in their limited liberal knowledge of self defense, outlawed hollow point ammo. The article did not say if it was for just civilians, LEO or everyone.
Those comfy council chamber chairs must suck brain matter down to where it’s soft. Awww hell with the PC, they got their heads up their a**s.
Damn, pretty sure the post was about the use of expanding bullets. That said, I read last night that the San Francisco council has, in their limited liberal knowledge of self defense, outlawed hollow point ammo. The article did not say if it was for just civilians, LEO or everyone.
Those comfy council chamber chairs must suck brain matter down to where it’s soft. Awww hell with the PC, they got their heads up their a**s.
Sorry I missed you last weekend, just couldn’t make it.
Sorry I missed you last weekend, just couldn’t make it.
Just don’t get in Dave’s way when the trouble starts.
Just don’t get in Dave’s way when the trouble starts.
Randy:
Thanks for your good advice. I was just joking. I actually carry a Springfield 1911 in .45 ACP customized by myself and loaded with Winchester SXT with two spare magazines and a Kahr .45 ACP as a backup.
I also carry a SIG 516 in my car with extra mags and a Remington 870 in 12 gauge loaded with Brenneke slugs and lots of spare 00 bucksot shells.
I completely agreed with Mas aka Yoda and am not a bleeding heart liberal.
Randy:
Thanks for your good advice. I was just joking. I actually carry a Springfield 1911 in .45 ACP customized by myself and loaded with Winchester SXT with two spare magazines and a Kahr .45 ACP as a backup.
I also carry a SIG 516 in my car with extra mags and a Remington 870 in 12 gauge loaded with Brenneke slugs and lots of spare 00 bucksot shells.
I completely agreed with Mas aka Yoda and am not a bleeding heart liberal.
> By the way, I’m not a troll nor did I just wander by,
> I’m a regular here and Mas has even recently
> referred to me as a “respected blog commentator.”
And this justifies tossing a troll-bomb into Mas’ comment section, how?
What comes across is that you knew what kind of reactions you were likely to get, and did it with malice aforethought.
> By the way, I’m not a troll nor did I just wander by,
> I’m a regular here and Mas has even recently
> referred to me as a “respected blog commentator.”
And this justifies tossing a troll-bomb into Mas’ comment section, how?
What comes across is that you knew what kind of reactions you were likely to get, and did it with malice aforethought.