A Primer for Bloomberg, Northam, Newsome and others: Citizens’ Use of Deadly Force

I’m going to show you a video. It may be disturbing for some, so if you’re squeamish, click elsewhere.

Five comments, with resources:

First, a person armed with any sharp object, even a wooden pencil, CAN KILL YOU IN LESS THAN ONE SECOND if they’re within 21 feet. Heck, they don’t have to be armed with anything. If they know what they’re doing, or even if they can throw a hard punch, they can kill you. They can kill you with a single push. Just today I read of a story of a landlord who was murdered when one of his tenants got angry and pushed him down. I knew a guy in college who died when he was pushed, fell, and hit his head on the asphalt.

My point is this: You’re NEVER completely safe around others, and they do NOT need to be armed to kill you.

Thus, when Michael Bloomberg, the former Governor of New York and contender for President dismissed the Texas hero insisting it wasn’t his job to have a gun or decide to shoot, well, YES IT WAS, Bloomberg. EVERYONE has a right to defend themselves and others from harm.

Dumbass…

The good news is that with a firearm and some basic training, you can become and remain aware of your surroundings become able to protect yourself and those around you. Armed citizens stop violent crimes between 650,000 and 800,000 times each and every year in the United States, almost always without ever firing a shot. It just works.

It doesn’t work if you’re not armed. When you’re not armed, you almost always become a victim, and all too often a dead victim.

It also doesn’t work very well if you let a bad guy get within 21 feet of you.

“Through experimentation, Tueller developed what became known as the “21-Foot Rule,” which concluded if a bad guy armed with a knife or a club was within 21 feet of you, the reasonable conclusion would be you were within his danger zone.”

Article: The 21-Foot Rule: Why Is It Important?

This doesn’t mean you need to live in an exclusive 21-foot lone zone. It does mean, however, if someone is threatening you and they’re within 21 feet of you, you may not have enough time to draw and fire before they reach you. Whether they are armed or not, they can kill you when they reach you.

The point is this: Know when it’s time to draw, as well as when it’s time to fire.

Second, NO human being is capable of accurately hitting a person’s legs or arms while they’re running.

It never ceases to amaze me after a shooting with the perpetrator’s grieving family says, “Oh, my God! Why did you have to kill him? Why didn’t you just shoot him in the leg”

Uh… Because he was trying to kill someone else. That’s why. Why didn’t they raise him better?

Back to reality…

“Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, explained in a position paper for the Institute the physics involved in the notion of training officers – who are often running after suspects – to shoot to wound: “Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts,” Lewinski said. “For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.

“David Klinger, a professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, put it another way speaking to ABC News — with officers trying to stop a threat to their life or the lives of others, “Why would we want to injure or maim people?” he said. “It doesn’t stop them.”

Video Article: Here’s Why Police Don’t Shoot to Wound in the Case of Deadly Force

Clearly, the idea of “shooting to wound,” or “just shoot ’em in the leg” is absolute nonsense, pure fiction.

When another person threatens you to the point where you are reasonably afraid for your life, a condition that’s met when someone is threatening you with a DRAWN firearm or brandished (held in their hand) knife, you have every right to tell them to STOP. If they keep coming, they’re a threat, and you have every right to draw. If they still keep coming, you have every right to defend yourself.

The laws in all 50 states largely support this, but they vary state to state, so check with your state laws.

Third, some select quotes on the use of deadly force from Wikipedia:

“The United States Armed Forces defines deadly force as “Force that is likely to cause, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm or injury.”.

“In the United States, the use of deadly force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful when the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. The use of deadly force by law enforcement is also lawful when used to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon when the officer believes escape would pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to members of the public.”

Interesting Aside: Recognizing the need to stop violent crime sprees, like the eight stabbings we had early yesterday morning here in Colorado Springs, all perpetrated by one individual, the laws in many states use the same application of the law to citizens, as well.

“Most law enforcement agencies establish a use of force continuum starting with simple presence through deadly force. With this model, officers attempt to control subjects and situations with the minimum force necessary. Agencies often have policies limiting the force used to be equal or one step higher on the continuum to the force they are opposing.

“A civilian’s use of deadly force is generally justified if he or she reasonably believe that he or she is or other innocent lives are in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Justification and affirmative defenses vary by state and may include certain property crimes, specific crimes against children or prevention of sexual assaults.”

Fourth comment stems from a quote I found in an ABC news article: “Police Shoot to Stop Life-Threatening Behavior.” When I first read it, I thought, “Well, DUH!” Then my eye caught the subsequent paragraph:

Shooting to injure or maim someone wouldn’t stop an aggressive subject, Klinger said, and officers are trying to stop the threat to their life, or the life of their partner or a citizen (David Klinger, professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis).

Well, guess what? When an armed citizen fires, it’s for precisely the same reason. When we fire upon someone else, it’s because they’re threatening our lives, the lives of our partner/significant other/spouse/children or the lives of other innocent people nearby. That’s WHY most states afford We the People the legal authority to use deadly force in self-defense, commensurate with our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights to life and to keep and bear arms.

Thus, this “Bloomberg moment” about how cops should be the only ones authorized to make this decision is supremely stupid for one simple reason: They’re almost never there until after they’re called, but by the time they arrive, it’s invariably minutes to sometimes tens of minutes after it’s all over. Or, as it’s often put: “When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.”

And it’s sometimes not even seconds. Remember the “21-Foot Rule.” By the time you’re aware of a deadly threat and start reacting, you might not even have one second left.

Look at the video of the recent church shooting in Texas. If you look closely, you’ll see that our former FBI law enforcement officer and hero began reaching for his firearm before the first shot was fired, essentially within about half a second after the perpetrator exposed his shotgun. There was still a full second between when the shotgun was exposed and the perp fired his first shot. Another second elapsed between the perp’s two shots. A third and final second elapsed between the perp’s last shot and when the former FBI agent fired, taking him out.

That was a highly trained and competent professional, folks, one who clearly maintained his proficiency. If there was every anyone who was ready to stop a threat, he’s the prime example. Even then, the perp got two shots off — killing two people — before he was stopped.

Things happen THAT fast. There is absolutely NO room for Bloomberg’s philosophy about “waiting for the professionals to arrive.” When things start happening, YOU the armed citizen are by far the BEST hope for both yourself as well as all others around you.

Fifth comment: An astute poster remarked that the officers had shown too much restraint.

My observation: They definitely showed too much restraint. The first officer fired when he should have, definitely not too soon and perhaps a bit too late, firing seven rounds. So why didn’t he fire again when the perp got up and lunged at the office again? He was out of ammunition! You can see him trying to get at his spare magazine when the camera dodges left, twice. The other officers should have fired long before the knife wielder made contact with the officer.

This is yet another prime example of WHY magazine capacity bans are STUPID and ONLY harm law-abiding citizens. Only law-abiding citizens follow the law. The only one you’re hurting with magazine capacity limits are law-abiding citizens.

In summary, we’ve seen just how quick things can go bad. There’s no way we can remain safe if we’re forced to wait on the cops. This is one of several reasons WHY our Founding Fathers saw fit to prohibit EVERYONE, including the courts, from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms when they wrote:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you have doubts about who “the people” are and under what “conditions” this applies, you need to read the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It contains all the quotes from our Founding Fathers you need to put all doubts to rest.

In the meantime, take a page out of the Boy Scout manual and BE PREPARED!

One final word for Governors, Legislators, Judges, or ANYONE who infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms:

Leave a Reply