Jon Low posted a new Defensive Pistolcraft Newsletter over the weekend. He starts off with a rather grim tale: Andrew F. Branca posted a video "of a convenience store armed robbery in which both the clerk and customer being robbed appear completely compliant with the robbers' demands." Branca says:
Despite this compliance, the customer is shot through the head, and the clerk is gunned down as well, both with apparent fatal results.
This video is an abject lesson that compliance cannot guarantee safety at the muzzle of a bad guy's gun. So if you find yourself the victim of an armed robbery, should you simply comply? Should you promptly fight back? Should you think through that tactical problem TODAY, rather than in the moment?
I don't think Branca is saying that you need to follow a set plan no matter the circumstances. As the saying goes, no plan survives your first contact with an enemy. But having a plan at least gives you something to work off of when you modify it. More importantly, though, is that you need to make certain decisions before faced with a lethal force scenario. Will you use lethal force if necessary? A lot of people won't, even when faced with certain death. Better to make that decision now than try and figure out the moral quandary when you are staring down the barrel of a crazed robber. What are some actions by a robber or attacker that will cause you use lethal force? If he/she is point a firearm at someone? If he/she tries to move you or others into a back room, or take someone with them? There is no good that comes if the robber decides to remove you from the initial crime scene to a different location (e.g., a storeroom in the back of the store, to a car, etc.) and many experts assert that any such attempts by a robber are grounds for using lethal force.
On that note, you don't dare wait too long. From the newsletter:
In the April 2023 issue of "Concealed Carry" magazine, K. L. Jamison writes, "Skin is an organ. In the course of a scuffle, it will be bruised, scraped or even cut. These wounds do not cause it to be lost or suffer protracted loss of use. There is some chance of disfigurement. The possibility of a minor scar has never been taken as an excuse for deadly force."
You cannot predict when the attack will stop. It might not stop until after you are dead. Are you so stupid that you will wait before using lethal force to defend yourself? If you wait, you will be injured and not be able to defend yourself. So please don't listen to ignorant persons. The use of lethal force does not require you to suffer any injury. All you need is a reasonable fear of death or serious injury. You don't even need a scrape. Jamison is steering his readers in the wrong direction. Don't be deceived.
You never need an "excuse to use deadly force". As if it were something that you didn't need to use, but rather chose to use, and now you need an "excuse". Your use of lethal force was forced by the assailant attacking you or your loved ones, or others you were defending. You had no choice in the matter, and certainly don't need an excuse for what you did, as you were completely justified in using lethal force. You only need an excuse if you did something wrong. If you think you did something wrong, you should confess to the crime of murder and save everyone a great deal of time and money. The prisons are full of such weak minded persons. You are not such a person. Death Before Dishonor. Never confess. Maintain your innocence to the grave. You would never lie by confessing to the crime to get a lesser sentence or to gain parole. Because you will have to explain that lie to God.
Why would such a ridiculous article appear in "Concealed Carry" magazine? USCCA has always had difficulty discriminating between justified self-defense and criminal homicide. Consider the case of Kayla Giles. Her attorney thought it was an excellent self-defense case and was eager to take it to trial. But USCCA pulled the rug out from under her by refusing to pay her attorney and withholding the money needed for private investigators (to gather exculpatory evidence and to determine which jurors need to be excused for cause or for other reasons), expert witnesses, subject matter experts, attorneys for motion practice (all the pre-trial motions, which really determine who wins or loses at trial), and such. So she got convicted. Then USCCA claimed that her conviction justified their refusing to pay legal expenses as they had promised to. Dishonest, disingenuous, dishonorable. Because she would not have been convicted if she had had the money for a proper defense. You get as much justice as you can afford in the U.S.
George Zimmerman had only superficial injuries after his encounter with Trayvon Martin. Yet a jury acquitted Zimmerman of all of the crimes of which he was accused. Because they understood that you need not suffer any injury before your use of lethal force. So the author, Jamison, is wrong on many levels. And is doing his readers a grave disservice.
Jon offers the following comments by Stephen P. Wenger on news story of a home invasion in Tulsa:
This tragic story offers a few lessons. Know whom you invite into your home. Once you've persuaded unwelcome visitors to leave, don't follow them out of the home unless you feel that they may attempt an attack such as arson from outside. Just because you've got a rifle does not mean that you can't be shot with a handgun. If you are forced to engage multiple threats, engage the ones posing the most immediate threats in that order and don't stand in one place while doing so. Make use of any available cover or concealment. While the latter may not stop bullets, it can gain you time and obscure your subsequent movement.
And another story with important lessons, from comments to an article on situational awareness:
Dennis says:
Situational Awareness works both ways. For both the potential victim and the potential aggressor.
My son and I were in the largest city in our state to attend a sporting event. We were approaching the entrance to our hotel from the parking lot. An older model car with two young women pull into the parking lot and parked in a space just passed us, rolled down a window, waved at us and asked if we could help them. I had noticed that the car had a “donut” type spare tire on the right front as they had driven in. The girls ask if we could please change their tire on the front with the “new” one in their trunk. At about the same time, I observed a second car pull into the parking lot and park about three spaces down, driven by a couple of meth head looking young men in their twenties. Thinking we were being “set up” for a robbery, I stepped back a couple of paces and told the women that my son would be glad to help them, while I watched. My hand slid into my pocket, resting on my, you guessed it, Ruger LCP. I alternately looked between the young women’s car and the car carrying their accomplices that had followed them in. The woman driver observed what I was doing, looked at the other car with the young men, then started the car and took off, leaving my son standing at the rear waiting for her to open the trunk. The other car followed them out of the parking lot. Their plans obviously foiled, not worth the possible risk.
I recognized the possible intent, they recognized my awareness and resolve. They chose to find an easier victim(s).
Besides the obvious lesson on situational awareness, it also illustrates that criminals try and take advantage of people's innate trust, kindness, and courtesy. Many years ago, I was driving with my family back home and passed a convenience store. It was dark, but both the main and side parking lots were well lit. In the side parking lot, out of view of any windows, I spotted a young woman lying on her back on the pavement, as if she was unconsciousness. I slowed but the situation was quite suspicious to me, so I didn't stop. Watching in the mirror as I drove by, I suddenly saw a man run out of the shadows to the woman, who had sat up, and he helped her up. I have no doubts it was a robbery set up.
On that note--how criminals think and take advantage--Jon includes links to a series of videos on "Understanding Bad Guys: A Psychological Endeavor with Ross Hick".
Jon writes:
Do not give verbal warnings, you will lose the element of surprise. To quote Tuco from “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”, “When you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk.” We are not police. We have no obligation to give a verbal warning. If you waste time saying, “Halt! Military Police.” You’ve given the enemy 7 syllables, enough time for him to shoot you several times. The way human brains are set up, talking is a high order intellectual activity. It’s almost impossible to talk and shoot at the same time. But it’s easy to get punched, shot, or stabbed while talking.
I would also add that I've read that if you are talking, it adds about half a second to your reaction time on top of, as Jon points out, the time you are using by saying something.
The important part of the above, however, is "when you have to shoot". I'm reminded of the incident of the Washington building owner that encountered an unarmed man using the shower in a house the owner was using for a business (i.e., not a residence) and apparently decided to shoot rather than give a warning or issue instructions. The owner is in jail because the shooting was not justified--he didn't have to shoot. If you don't have to shoot, a word or two might get the burglar, car thief, etc., to be on their way. And if they flee, let them flee:
You're not a cop. Don't chase the bad guy. Once the bad guy flees, you WIN! Go back inside your house, lock the door, and call 911. Because you've WON! Chasing the bad guy is a path to losing.
And that brings me to this:
Excerpt from an email from Mike Ox -- (edited so that the excerpt will make sense)
When it comes time to shoot, shooting is a critical skill. But there are several things besides shooting that are more important in a gunfight: the "pre-fight", the "fight", and the "post-fight" skills.
Pre-fight -
Awareness is more important than shooting.
Accurately assessing threats is more important than shooting.
Avoidance is more important than shooting.
Deterrence is more important than shooting.
All of these can prevent you from even needing to shoot.
Fight -
Did you accurately determine that you needed to shoot?
Did you keep shooting after the threat was stopped?
Did you re-holster only to have the threat "re-animate"?
Post-fight -
Did your interaction with 911 or law enforcement turn justified self-defense into legal jeopardy?
[No, you don't have to explain what happened. No, you don't have to tell your side of the story. YOU must keep your mouth shut! If you think you are articulate and intelligent, you are WRONG! Just as protestations of love are meaningless during and after orgasm, so declarations of "truth" are nonsense after a high stress lethal encounter. Because you will have false memories, amnesia, warped perceptions, time distortion, distance distortion, tachypsychia effect, tunnel vision (so there are all kinds of things that you didn't see), auditory exclusion (so there are all kinds of things you didn't hear), et al. If you think your experience, training, and practice puts you above all that, you are a damn fool. -- Jon Low]
I've barely scratched the surface of what I thought to be useful and interesting in the newsletter, so be sure to read the whole thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment