But the documents also shine a light on Oregon law, which some critics contend gives residents carte blanche to shoot and kill an intruder with no more justification than the intruder was there. [More]An intruder in your home? That's not enough?
These "critics" ever hear of the Tueller drill...? Do they care?
That said, if there is more to this story, as is being implied, by all means determine the truth and act accordingly.
2 comments:
Sounds like a good shoot to me! But then I'm in the basket with all the other deplorable people.
Re: Tueller Drill
I was taught that if you are within a weapon's "kill zone" and have not yet fired then you are dead. The kill zone for a knife is roughly 7 yards. That is why I practice with the target at 7 yards. If someone is approaching me with a knife, WELL before they reach that distance, I am going to have my sidearm out, up and aimed. I am also going to telling them to "STOP!" repeatedly and in my most commanding tone of voice. If they fail to cease advancing on me and cross the imaginary 7 yard line, I am going to fire at least two shots aimed at their center of mass. My goal is never to kill. I only wish to stop the armed person from harming me or mine. But if I stop them permanently then so be it.
I was taught an acronym - AOJ
Ability
Opportunity
Jeopardy
If someone has a visible weapon (in the Tueller scenario a knife) then they have the ABILITY to do me grievous bodily injury or even a mortal wound. But if they are 100 yards distant and heading away, they have no opportunity to do so.
If someone has a weapon and is moving in a purposeful way, then they have an OPPORTUNITY to injure or kill me but if they have not yet advanced to the point where I am in their weapon's kill zone then I am in no (immediate) jeopardy.
However, if someone has a weapon, and has advanced to the point where I am within their weapon's kill zone, if I have not ALREADY drawn my sidearm AND drawn a bead on the (now highly likely) assailant, then I am, for all intents and purposes, a dead man. You can talk all you want before you are within the potential assailant's kill zone, but once you are within the other's kill zone the time for talk is past. Now your only choice is to surrender and possibly die or discharge your sidearm with the aim of stopping the assailant. If the choice is between "him" or "me", then "me" wins hands down. Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code says that I am justified in using deadly force to protect a third party in any instance where I would be justified in my own defense. I was taught this partly by watching dash cam footage of a (now deceased) Texas State Trooper who tried to talk to someone he stopped despite that person being armed (rifle) and exiting their vehicle despite being told NOT to do so. The one with the rifle was a senior, as we are, David, and the Trooper appeared to be reticent to shoot a senior despite the fact that AOJ was completely fulfilled. That reticence made his wife a widow, his children orphans and pissed away all the tax money spent on training him. Eventually the assaillant was caught, tried for Capital Murder and given LWPP (life without possibility of parole).
Oh, and I was taught NEVER to shoot to kill but to stop. You still aim COM but your goal is only to "stop", not to kill. If you "shoot to kill" and a lawyer asks you under oath if you shot to kill and you DID, then you just admitted to premeditated murder in open court and under oath. I have no desire to KILL anyone. I just want to stop them.
Post a Comment