Is there such a thing as "too close" ?

[JohnKSa]

1. Ok, I have just taken the time to look through all the pictures in his autobiography. Based on cursory comparisons, Askins appears to be taller than, or as tall as the other men in featured in the pictures. There does not seem to be any merit to your claim that "he wasn't very big". But that's not really relevant. Askins doesn't say the German was bigger or stronger than himself--the adjectives "big, burly" (there was no mention of strength whatsoever) were provided without any information that would allow comparison. And, again, we're getting back to this idea that you are working hard to parse the account for every possible bit of information that might support your argument while at the same time making the point that it could be inaccurate and maybe none of it even happened. Which is a ridiculous argument.

2. I've answered your arguments with far more care than they deserve based on merit.

3. Correctly pointing out that you are BEING ridiculous in your arguments is not saying that you ARE ridiculous. It is not a personal attack, it is an accurate critique of your deportment in this debate.

 

[shurshot]

I will point out that your argument is highly subjective and condescending, if not antagonistic. You pick and choose what you want to address and ignore the points you cannot or will not answer.

"You need to pick one approach or the other if you want to be taken seriously--or, alternatively, you could just admit that your only goal is to win the argument and that the facts don't really matter to you at all."

Seriously? Did you carefully read what I wrote, or just immediately jump into your socratic rebuttal? Pointless for me to continue. I usely enjoy reading your perspective, , unless you are Gaslighting.

 

[JohnKSa]

You pick and choose what you want to address and ignore the points you cannot or will not answer.

Tell me which of your points you believe I have not addressed and I will respond.

Seriously? Did you carefully read what I wrote...

Yes. And yes.

I usely enjoy reading your perspective.

Thank you. However, I should point out that my perspective is the same as it always has been when it comes to shooting people who pose no threat.

 

[Rachen]

Did some more reading earlier. Not gonna judge Askins if he did wrong hes going to find his reckoning with the man upstairs. But hammer thing remind me of discussion at work I had long time ago started as a joke but with me holding a hammer by the head with the handle pointing downward and saying this is the only way a hammer can be carried and transported in a non aggressive manner.

No matter in peacetime or combat if someone is holding a hammer in a posture of striking and he is not working on something or have no other reason to be holding it that way I am gonna be watching someone like that really closely. Especially when already doing something illegal or suspicious. Now swing it at someone, or advance on someone with that thing in a swinging posture especially after being verbally confronted might just make em candidate for being ventilated. Stupid games win stupid prizes and that prize is a personally signed Darwin award. Plenty of folk have been killed by hammers, screwdrivers, hatchets and such and any officer of the law would attest to them being deadly weapons or at least potentially deadly weapons. Why a POW had a hammer is now my main question. I am sure if someone at Gitmo was found with a hammer anywhere besides a heavily guarded shop class he is going to be smacked on the noggin none too gently with the butt of a M4 and dragged off to interrogation about why and where he got the hammer.

As for the German caught smashing up trucks with the hammer lets say Askins was telling the truth and he was probably alone dealing with a group of highly excitable and dangerous inmates. What is he gonna do to get them to stop, say "ah excuse me chaps, I think you should lay off on that, eh?" Hammer can be thrown too. I saw results of beer bottle being thrown at someone in a bar fight once. Guy's head was busted up real bad and he was down out cold when ambulance got to the scene. Thing was he tried to break up fight and they turned on him. Not gonna condone killing of POWs but inmates about to take over the asylum at least there is a potential? Gotta put a foot down and restore order. Im going to contribute more to this discussion but Beer O Clock is now well past and I am wondering for the past minutes why my monitor is rotating and then turning my head sideways to try and follow it. Gonna put some cold water on my face and try to get some sleep before I think I can sing better than Gene Autry.

 

[JohnKSa]

...he is not working on something...

This person was obviously working on something and Askins could clearly tell that was what was going on based on his account.

I am sure if someone at Gitmo was found with a hammer anywhere besides a heavily guarded shop class he is going to be smacked on the noggin none too gently with the butt of a M4 and dragged off to interrogation about why and where he got the hammer.

The German POWs were actually being allowed to drive vehicles, this wasn't the remotely the same situation as a maximum security detention center.

... lets say Askins was telling the truth and he was probably alone dealing with a group of highly excitable and dangerous inmates.

"Highly excitable and dangerous inmates" being allowed to pilot multi-ton deadly weapons? I would have to say that sounds more creative than accurate.

His account gives no indications at all that he was concerned for his own safety. After shooting the man from cover, he simply walked away from a number of these "highly excitable and dangerous inmates" who were still "armed" with the hammer--and, I suppose, the vehicles that they had just driven into the area.

 

[briandg]

I've read a lot of things that I never expected to see.

No degreed professionals have posted here regarding askins and his character. I'm qualified to make a few statements.

Askins murdered the soldier. The conditions and circumstances would be considered aggravating by the courts. He backshot a prisoner in the kidneys, intending a lingering and painful death, when he was fully capable of a headshot. He did that for no purpose than to stop the guy from damaging captured equipment. It must be noted that he mentions nothing significant about the guy, but he described his own gun.

Nothing changes what he did, nothing justifies it, no number of excuses history makes can change that it was wrong.

Those few words are enough to know a lot. He didn't just kill.

Look at the comments about race. Killing whites, including Nazis and criminals was recorded, but not minorities?

Askins demonstrated numerous signs of sociopathic mental illness. He demonstrated signs of psychosis. There is plenty of evidence in his writings. He was used as a killer, assassin by his superior officers. He relished killing, men, women, animals, no difference.



Don't bother saying that lots of people do the same thing. Many of those same people are also sociopathic,many are genuinely psychotic as well.

I am truly glad that I've never met him or anyone that fits his qualifications.

 

[Brit]

The English had the Prisoners of War, sused out. I was born in 1935, so many huge American Soldiers, with shiny big boots, populated my Dad's Pub. I walked amongst them. Till one day, they all were gone.

We had Italian Prisoners of War, in coveralls, with POW on the back. They worked on farms, were allowed to roam more or less free.

One who spoke good English, an Officer? Told my Dad why they surrendered.
"Bill, we Italians are Lovers, not Fighters," said in jest? Who knows.
Some stayed after the War.

But the Germans were not allowed to leave the Camp, armed guards kept them in. Because they were Fighters! And would most likely head home if they escaped.

When I was in Germany, for my National Service, 2 years. I visited a Concentration Camp "Bielefeld" it had ovens were bodies were burned.
Something I saw that only turned my guts later.

The locking latches on the ovens were cast metal. Polished by the constant opening and closing.

 

[shurshot]

Brit, Thank you for your perspective. It adds a dose of cold, harsh reality to a thread where some are attempting to paint the captured Germans as if they were a bunch of naive and misguided, peace loving Boyscouts. Quite the contrary. Whether Askins was morally right or wrong in this scenario, those that served under the Swastika and supported the widespread atrocities of that era deserved no excuses or justification (or opportunity to escape, hinder Allied efforts and continue killing). It is naive to assume that the rank and file German soldiers had NO knowledge of the slaughterhouses and racist philosophy / agenda in Germany. "I was just following orders", or "I didn't know", is simply plausible deniability to otherwise horrific and evil actions of the Third Reich. To believe otherwise is simply ignorant.

 

[HiBC]

I'm not a moderator,but if I may...
The OP's question was about whether a foe can be too close to shoot.

IMO, Askins character perhaps merited some discussion,but that has been done.
Views have been expressed.I learned something,myself.

The argument has become a non productive game of competitive urination.

Positions are entrenched,and no one is changing anyone's mind.

Rules of war have been clarified. War is hell. We all have opinions,we all have armpits. Not everyone wants to experience my opinion or my armpit.

I have my opinions about collateral damage,Dresden,Nagasaki,Hiroshima,the Sand Creek Massacre,the Rape of Nanking...Mi Lai.. Death March to Bataan,Rwanda...And Rules of Engagement vs our troops in harms way...Its good,for myself ,to know my position..

I don't expect anyone to agree with me. And,you may disagree with me.

At my age,competitive urination is no longer my forte.

I'm far more concerned about a corrupted election and the consequences right now.

Which is as off topic as Askins character and the moral and legal implications of shooting POW's.

If I had a mountain lion drop on my neck or an MMA fighter pounding me on the ground,either a knife or a gun might be very useful. Either would require me to have some control of my knife or gun hand/arm. I fail to see how pulling from a holster,and pulling a trigger while pointed in a general direction is more difficult under stress than pulling a knife,perhaps opening a folder,and stabbing or slashing. Make your choice,I'll make mine.

Muzzle blast of a contact shot produces more trauma. A snubbie can hit just fine at 10 or 15 yds.

To argue more would be just boring

 

[shurshot]

HiBC, you are correct Sir, on both accounts (several of us got off topic and snubbies are fine). Thanks for the redirect.

 

[Nanuk]

Is there such a thing as "too close" ?

Too close for what?

To draw?

To fire?


I believe if they are as close as the OP is saying they are too close to draw. You are better off with H2H and disarming them. That is contingent on having the skills to do that.

 

[OldMarksman]

Charlie Askins described the "belly gun" as one where:
"You press it against your opponent's belly and pull the trigger."
He was active in a different time and place, now I wonder if his definition is still acceptable, and if there is such a thing as "Too Close".

I don't know what Charles Askins' alleged description of a "belly gun" might have to do with the question, "is there such a thing as too close."

Might I suggest that "too close" would describe a distance within which a defender suffers death or serious serious injury.

That could happen because the defender is unable to draw and fire before losing the gun or having it rendered inoperable.

It could also happen because the attacker was already close enough to harm the defender.

It could also happen because shots fired by the defender did not stop an attacker soon enough. Bullets rarely stop attackers instantaneously.

 

[Leaf]

If you've determined it is an immediate life or death situation, you do what you can do to try to survive. Assuming you punctured your assailant's heart, you're looking at anywhere between 10 to 15 seconds for that individual to become incapacitated. A lot more can happen in 10 to 15 seconds so you keep fighting, shooting, stabbing, begging or whatever until the threat has been stopped. Main brain housing hits are pretty much instantaneous assuming you actually put one through the individual's brain and didn't just puncture a jaw or whatever. Obviously accuracy is very important in a situation that doesn't lend itself well to accuracy.

On the written confessions of Charles Askins, I'm of the opinion he probably should have been imprisoned and/or hung assuming conviction by a jury of his peers. Keep in mind that back then like now, things are not always so cut and dry regardless of the evidence gathered. For example, read about the "Herrin Massacre" in Williamson County in 1922. My maternal grandfather was a Herrin Police officer at the time and my maternal great grandfather was a deputy sheriff. Twenty to twenty three non-union coal miners were murdered heinously by pro-union supporters after surrendering as they were paraded from their work site and through town with around a thousand pro union lookiloos and participants. My later to become paternal grandparents were union supporters and would probably have assisted in slashing the throats of my maternal relatives had they attempted to intervene. Plenty of witnesses, plenty of evidence, but no convictions.

 

[JohnKSa]

...some are attempting to paint the captured Germans as if they were a bunch of naive and misguided, peace loving Boyscouts.

To the extent that the discussion has touched on what the rank & file Germans knew or didn't know, what they were or weren't, it was merely to answer incorrect assertions. It was not to paint them in a rosy light--because in reality, as has been stated a number of times, all that is totally irrelevant to the critical issue.

The bottom line is that shooting someone (even a POW) who doesn't pose a threat is murder.

• It has absolutely NOTHING to do with how good or how bad the person (or POW) was in his life up to that point.
• It has absolutely NOTHING to do with who shoots the person (or POW) or what army that shooter serves in or what country the shooter is a citizen of.
• It has absolutely NOTHING to do with what country the victim is a citizen of or what army the victim may have served in.

The argument has become a non productive game of competitive urination.

This is not just some philosophical difference here, nor is the central point really Askins' character qualities; there are critically important principles that apply to all of us today. This discussion isn't just about an incident that took place in the middle of the last century, the general concepts are still valid.

• There is no legal justification for shooting people simply because they are bad. Not even if they are REALLY, REALLY bad. Not even if they are REALLY bad AND are committing a non-violent crime at the moment of the shooting. Shooting people is allowed only to prevent the imminent death or serious injury of an innocent.
• There is no legal justification for shooting people because they are or have been or are probably associated with other really bad people. Even if those other people are so bad that they make satan incarnate look like Mr. Rogers. Shooting people is only allowed to prevent the imminent death or serious injury of an innocent.
• There is no legal justification for shooting someone to punish them for things that they did or might have done in the past. No matter how bad those things may have been. Shooting people is allowed only to prevent the imminent death or serious injury of an innocent.

We see a lot of what appears to be popular support for revenge type activities in movies, but make no mistake. That "popular support" does NOT extend to the courts. Even when heinous crimes are committed against family members, the courts will still hold people responsible for taking the law into their own hands and choosing to punish the criminals after the fact for their atrocities. The Plauche case is a perfect example of this.

Believe what you want about the German POW. Make up whatever history you want for him. Believe what you want about Askins. Make up whatever history you want for him. NONE OF THAT MATTERS.

Based on facts in Askins' own account, what he did was murder because nothing in his account states, suggests, or so much as hints that it was his reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury that led him to fire the shot. Anyone who doesn't understand that fact needs to step back and do a serious re-evaluation of their concepts of what justifiable deadly force looks like. Reality is that we will be held to existing legal standards, not judged based on our own personal ideas about what justifies deadly force.

Getting it wrong is not an option for many reasons.

Here's what it looks like when someone gets it wrong.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...murder-after-shocking-cctv-emerges/ar-BBODl0j

The man wearing orange in the mugshot is a "good guy" --the city commissioner for Lakeland, FL, a strong advocate of gun ownership and the owner of a community business. He shot a "bad guy" (a person with a felony criminal record) who was committing a crime (shoplifting) and who had a potentially deadly weapon on his person (hatchet). But he has resigned his position, and is in jail without bond, charged with murder because his actions in the video clearly show that he was not in any danger.

 

[shurshot]

Johnksa, You are absolutely 100% correct. There, can we get back on topic now??

 

[Rachen]

Here's what it looks like when someone gets it wrong.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ges/ar-BBODl0j

The man wearing orange in the mugshot is a "good guy" --the city commissioner for Lakeland, FL, a strong advocate of gun ownership and the owner of a community business. He shot a "bad guy" (a person with a felony criminal record) who was committing a crime (shoplifting) and who had a potentially deadly weapon on his person (hatchet). But he has resigned his position, and is in jail without bond, charged with murder because his actions in the video clearly show that he was not in any danger.

That is a pretty rude and cold wake-up call to a lot of folks who think that having a gun in their hands automatically gives them a Superman cape too. Tend to see that kind of folk a lot at gun shops. Usually young, energetic and more than a little naive on just how serious the consequences of misusing a weapon can be. In even legit self-defense situations, you are straddling a very fine line between actual justified SD and murder or manslaughter. If a guy is charging at you with a hatchet and you blast him, that may be legit SD. Shoot him again after he's down? Now that will get you a murder charge. Not just for civvies but even for cops too. Many high profile cases recently about LE who have shot suspects as they were fleeing or continued to use "pain compliance" techniques against suspects who were already restrained and cuffed. Even if the officers in these cases beat the raps and avoided jail time, many careers were ended and many guys went bankrupt after all the legal fees were paid.

In China there are cases when real professional martial artists have used excessive force against assailants in situations that were actually SD, but the problem was these guys used too much force and ended up injuring or killing the perps and they were prosecuted much more severely than a normal civilian without such martial training would have been in the same scenario. I have a cousin who worked in Japan for a while for a major tech firm and he told me a story a few years back about one of the project managers in his department. The man was a black belt in either TKD or karate and got into a confrontation with a Yakuza who tried to seduce his wife. During the fight the guy "death-kicked" the Yakuza into a coma and he was practically destroyed by the law after that. Lost his job, sentenced to prison. Really stiff sentence too. Fines, medical compensation. Lost everything, and it didn't help that the comatose guy had a switchblade knife in his pocket. And yes the Yakuza are scary people, everybody knows that, but in THAT case, the TKD master used unnecessary force in a situation that did not require such force. Even if, and when that guy gets out of prison, and thats gonna be in a pretty long time, he is going to be looking over his shoulder and into every dark corner for the rest of his life. Yakuza are not known for their mercy, or short memories and they get quite creative when dealing with folks who pissed them off.

 

[SIGSHR]

If Askins was a psychopath then so is every sniper, every soldier who actually drew a bead on an enemy soldier, used a bayonet or a knife, etc. As Massad Ayoob wrote, he was not the type of guy you'd want to get drunk with, but you'd want him by your side in a dark alley, a foxhole, etc. I note that Jeff Cooper scoffed at the idea of PTSD. And Charlie noted that the gunfights in his Border Patrol days were all at close range and with no warning.
And real combat is a very fluid and dynamic thing, the only real rule is you have to prevail.

 

[shurshot]

SIGSHR; now you have done it... thrown fuel on the fire! I thought that old piece of birch wood had burned itself out and was just smoldering embers. Defending Askins on here, even slightly... is like defending Bill Cosby at a Feminist march.

 

[TunnelRat]

If Askins was a psychopath then so is every sniper, every soldier who actually drew a bead on an enemy soldier, used a bayonet or a knife, etc.

I'm just a spectator to what this has devolved into, but this claim seems baffling to me. There are behaviors described here that are not in fact what "every" soldier does and there are international laws specifically for those reasons.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[OldMarksman]

The question had to do with handguns and distance. Let us leave the discussion of Askins and his character and behavior to some other venue.