Is there such a thing as "Too Close" ?
- Thread starter SIGSHR
- Start date
Hopefully one or more of our lawyers will weigh in on this, but I would imagine that distance would not be much of a factor. If you have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury, I can't see how that would lessen because of being at contact distance; in some circumstances in might even be reasonable to argue that the risk was enhanced by the closeness. (In the latter part of the sentence, I am thinking primarily of edged weapons, but choke holds, chemical weapons, and others could also be more dangerous with decreasing distances.)
Loosedhorse
Moderator
Legal?
Not sure if "legal ramifications" is part of Tactics and Training.
There are many tactical ramifications of being "too close" to one's attacker; not sure if any of them are good. I suspect that Askins may have had in mind a "fighting in a phone booth" scenario in which, because your opponent suddenly produces a weapon, you now need one, too. A no-snag, short-barreled, large-caliber revolver was his preference:
Not sure if "legal ramifications" is part of Tactics and Training.
There are many tactical ramifications of being "too close" to one's attacker; not sure if any of them are good. I suspect that Askins may have had in mind a "fighting in a phone booth" scenario in which, because your opponent suddenly produces a weapon, you now need one, too. A no-snag, short-barreled, large-caliber revolver was his preference:
Source: Askins, C: The Art of Handgun Shooting, 1939
Loosedhorse
Moderator
I believe Askins was well able to "test it completely."mete said:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Askins
Ignore the political controversies and poor tactical decisions involving Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman and consider the question. The best reason for using deadly force against an individual is an ongoing act of violence that is likely to result in severe bodily injury or death. As many perpetrators of such acts do so without a firearm, and sometimes unarmed, I would think that contact distance is not too close.
Now there are all sorts of tactical issues related to this and I would not want to be using a firearm that was intentionally modified for contact distance but I do not think that, in regards to distance and the legal system, too close is an issue.
Now there are all sorts of tactical issues related to this and I would not want to be using a firearm that was intentionally modified for contact distance but I do not think that, in regards to distance and the legal system, too close is an issue.
ShootistPRS
New member
Remember that Zimmerman fired only one shot because the slide was jammed in his clothing and his gun did not cycle. That could have been fatal. He was fortunate that he survived.
This was the OP's post:
His exact question regarded legal ramifications of being too close. My statement was intended only to address legal ramifications of distance. It was not intended to address legal ramifications of a modified firearm or the tactical issues related to attempting to draw and use a firearm at contact distance including issues such as the firearm failing due to contact distance as ShootistPRS referred to.
The legal ramifications of using a modified firearm are a separate topic. The tactical issues of using a firearm at contact distance are a separate issue. My post was intended only to respond to the issue as raised in the original post regarding legal issues and distance. Hence the caveat and statement that you objected to.
OldMarksman
Staff
What, then, was the point of this: "I would not want to be using a firearm that was intentionally modified for contact distance"?
OldMarksman
Staff
I did not see anyone else having raised the issue.
The Fitz special was intended for improved concealment. Nothing about "contact distance".
Loosedhorse
Moderator
Since I posted that, I'll answer.
The OP mentioned that "Charles Askins described a belly gun"; I provided Askins' 1939 description of such a gun, out of historical interest, as part of a longer post.
I'd agree that Askins was (78 years ago) endorsing such a gun "for the purpose intended;" however, I wasn't endorsing it for today, nor raising a question.
I didn't.Lohman446 said:
The OP mentioned that "Charles Askins described a belly gun"; I provided Askins' 1939 description of such a gun, out of historical interest, as part of a longer post.
I'd agree that Askins was (78 years ago) endorsing such a gun "for the purpose intended;" however, I wasn't endorsing it for today, nor raising a question.
OldMarksman
Staff
Not the question of guns "intentionally modified for contact distance".
What put that into your head?
One more time:
I submit that small revlovers work well with this tactic... either you are justified or your not justified in using deadly force. As long as that deadly force was not excessive to the point of putting others in danger. The situation you find yourself will dictate your tactics such as contact shots or how many rounds you fire.
OldMarksman
Staff
If the totality of the evidence shows one to be the defender in a use of force incident, to not have been attacking, and to not have instigated the incident or to have been engaged in the commission of crime such as home invasion, close proximity would not create any negative "legal ramifications".
Rather, it would underscore the of fact of necessity and demonstrate that an armed or ver large attacker had possessed the ability and opportunity to cause death or great bodily harm.
It would undoubtedly be prudent to do everything possible to prevent the attacker for coming so close. That has to do with safety, and not justification.
Rather, it would underscore the of fact of necessity and demonstrate that an armed or ver large attacker had possessed the ability and opportunity to cause death or great bodily harm.
It would undoubtedly be prudent to do everything possible to prevent the attacker for coming so close. That has to do with safety, and not justification.
OldMarksman
Staff
I should add two things related to the modification question.
First, if there is a civil suit, in which the plaintiff argues that the shooting was not intentional, the fact of a "Fitz Special" tigger guard configuration might well come up.
Second, if any the of evidence is not straightforward, a jury might look askance at the modification. Dr. Glenn Meyer's work in the is area is worth reading.
Personally, I would not carry a Fitz Special. I don't like the removal of the front of the guard.
First, if there is a civil suit, in which the plaintiff argues that the shooting was not intentional, the fact of a "Fitz Special" tigger guard configuration might well come up.
Second, if any the of evidence is not straightforward, a jury might look askance at the modification. Dr. Glenn Meyer's work in the is area is worth reading.
Personally, I would not carry a Fitz Special. I don't like the removal of the front of the guard.