The Gun Counter

“SAY WHEN”

Who doesn’t remember Val Kilmer’s (playing Doc Holliday) classic line in Tombstone as he faced an impending gun duel against the reputed gunman Johnny Ringo! Doc smiled and told Johnny Ringo, “Say when”.

One of the things I’ve noticed about persons facing a fight is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about when the line is actually crossed, when the red flag really has gone up. Its almost as if they are asking someone to follow them around and “say when”. Well, there usually is someone saying “When”, and that is the adversary. We just have to be attentive enough to pick up the clue. The main concern of many people is just exactly when are they “safe. legally-speaking” in blasting the beejabbers out of some miscreant.

This is difficult to answer in a book since the reader may be in a region with completely differing laws. Nevertheless, survival takes precedence over any laws, and that usually means that you must win. Its sort of the old “judged or carried” thing, but within reason. I strongly suggest becoming intimately familiar with your state’s laws on this matter. The following guidelines, however, should cover most civilized parts of the world. If the place where you live does not allow you to fight to save your life, my only suggestion is, again, MOVE.

Generally speaking, you have the right to use deadly force as self defense under certain circumstances. Lawful self defense is always a complete defense to a charged crime. You must honestly and reasonably believe you were in danger of being killed, seriously injured, or sexually assaulted (and be able to explain why). This means the belief must be seen legally as both honest and reasonable. However, your belief need not be correct. In other words, if you believe you are in such danger, and that belief is reasonable, even though you were incorrect in your perceptions, self defense is still available and you are NOT criminally liable.

For example, you are walking in a rough part of town when some night creature aggressively jumps out of the darkness toward you, brandishing a long cylindrical object that you would bet the farm is a long barrelled revolver. So you blast him to smithereens, fully convinced he was about to kill you with his 8” barrelled S&W 686. Only it turns out he was a street-psycho with a fireplace lighting tool! Bad situation, but you acted legally based on your perceptions, beliefs, and state of mind. By the way, this one really happened, and the shooter was not charged. We’ll talk about the civil end of things later.

The amount of force must be consistent with the threat. You can’t use deadly force to combat a threat of minor injury (i.e. A punch in the nose). There is a corollary to this about disparity of force: If the aggressor of the “punch in the nose” is a Steroid abusing Visigoth in his twenties and you are a frail 90 year old, you can assume that a punch in the face by someone like him will be a very serious life altering threat indeed. You may use deadly force due to the amount of damage he is likely to cause you. The same is not available to you if you are a 200+ pounds power lifting kick-boxing champion facing the same person.

The danger must be perceived as immediate. A threat to do harm in the future does not legally justify self defense. You cannot cut someone’s head off for promising that “one day” he will kill you and your whole family. There are other ways to deal with this threat, but immediate deadly force is not one of them.

The requirement that the use of self defense must be reasonable has direct implications for the trained tactical shooter. What is a reasonable response for a person with no training will not be deemed reasonable for a SWAT Point man, an ex-GSG9 Commando, or a multiple graduate of our flourishing modern day Salles de Armes.

A trained person will be expected to know the difference between a minor threat and a life threatening assault. A trained person may also be expected to resolve the matter with less force (greater accuracy and less violence) than would a neophyte (for whom panic may be excusable). If you are a high-speed/low drag type, hold your standards high, because everyone else will do the same.

In some locations, a person must try to retreat before using deadly force if it is safe to do so. This is a tactically foolish law obviously penned by those who have no understanding about how these things are. If you run, they will often chase you. Thankfully, this does not generally apply in one’s own home. Just remember your situation and keep that in mind. Retreat only to the point where it would place you in tactical jeopardy, then stand an fight like a monster!

The burden of proof relative to self defense is generally on the prosecution. That means that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense rather than requiring the defendant to prove he did act in self defense. Unless there are other issues, their case is extremely difficult to make. They may try if you are an unpopular sort, but its all uphill for them.

The right to defend others is essentially the same as the right to defend yourself. If you’re acting against a group, self defense can be claimed against any member of the group. However, one can legally use deadly force only against a member of the group who has been perceived to have threatened death, or serious injury. You can’t attack all of them because they were standing in the same corner when his companions tried to rob you. There must be more to it than that.

One thing which must be present, is your full understanding of the Rules of Engagement under which you operate. In general, the Core Defensive Concept motivating most police use of force policies, as well as guidelines for civilians can be characterized by the acronym I.D.O.L. (Immediate Defense of Life). When faced with a tactical problem requiring a likely deadly force decision, the operator (civilian, police, or whatever) must ask himself the question, “If I don’t stop this man - right now, will someone be killed or seriously injured by him”? If the answer is “no”, or if there is any doubt, then immediate violence on your part is not the answer. The pure reason of this concept cannot be disputed. I hope I’ve answered the question of when “legally”. When “tactically” may be little different.

I was called one day by an acquaintance from Europe. This man is one of those ultra-marathoners that eats tofu and grains and runs twenty miles a day while listening to Zen Rock. He’d been to a course with me on the continent and knew that I frequented the desert regions from time to time. He was intent on spending his vacation running across Death Valley!

After I discussed his sanity a few times, he assured me that it was not going to be a problem. He was, however, concerned about the wildlife…more specifically snakes…rattlesnakes. They don’t have them in his part of the world and he wanted to know how he could tell one when he saw it. I told him, he’d know when he saw one.

The same goes for knowing that an aggressor means business. You’ll know. First impressions are usually correct. Don’t dismiss them. There will the obvious clues (gun in hand, raised machete, etc.), and there will be some other not-so-obvious clues. Don’t try to rationalize them away.

Instead pay attention to them! They are saying,

“WHEN”.