🚀 go-pugleaf

The-Trainers  <trainers@best.com> wrote:
>Uh, well you had better tell my uncle and my cousin the POLICE OFFICERS
>for two different departments around here, because they have BOTH
>told me the same thing!

The comments about "acting like a guilty person by rearranging the crime
scene" come straight from Massad Ayoob's LFI-I class.  Mas is generally
considered to be one of the nation's top Use of Force instructors.
He teaches it to civilians and law enforcement trainers.  Clint Smith
brought Mas in to Thunder Ranch to teach that topic to his students.
Other sources include the Texas DPS commander who teaches "use of force"
to DPS cadets and CHL instructors, a local criminal defense attorney who
has trial experience with deadly force cases, and other instructors that
I've trained with, too many to list here.  Perhaps your relatives should
ask their local prosecutor about the viability of the "drag em inside"
tactic.    

>You DO have to use your brains! If the guy is standing in your door
>with a gun and you shoot first and he stumbles across your front
>lawn to leave a blood trail out to the sidewalk, oh well, but
>if he simply falls back a bit and you can pull him back onto
>your floor, then you might think about it.

Again:  it doesn't matter where the incident occurs.  Day or night,
home or in public.  Either you are in legitimate fear for your life or
you aren't.  

>More likely I would hear the break-in and be waiting for him (with my
>gun) to round the corner of my hall where he would be stopped.

I encourage you to come take our AT-II class, where we run live-action
scenarios with live people using paintball ammunition in modified firearms.
We run home defense scenarios that would allow you to test your plan against
a live opponent in a realistic situation.  The scenarios include after
action tasks like calling 911 (if there wasn't time to do so before the
shooting occurred), checking on the safety of family members, rendering
first aid to family members, etc.  It's a completely different kind of
training than target practice: something that's far more valuable in
preparing for bad situations. 

>shooting not being legit, simply that IF the bad guy falls right out side
>your home, this fact alone can make things a great deal more difficult
>for the lawful defender!

Are you aware of an actual case in which that played a factor?
In class Ayoob referenced several cases in which he was brought in as
a consultant, because the defendant had created problems for himself by
doing unwise things like lying and rearranging the crime scene.

The only situation in which the location of the deceased becomes a real
issue is when deadly force is used only to protect property - which as I
already posted is a bad idea in almost all situations.

>Look, you recall that guy who shot the young man in the weird outfit on
>his porch? You know, the one looking for the costume party, the guy
>who did not speak English? The home owner went through hell for killing
>that young man, he was prosecuted, but I don't recall him going to jail
>for it either! And that shooting occurred OUTSIDE the house!

It occurred in the garage.  Mr. Peairs was found not guilty in criminal
court, but he lost in civil court - a multi-million dollar settlement
against him.  The key issue was "did he do everything possible to avoid
that shooting situation?"  The answer was no: at great personal risk to himself
he went out into the garage, with no cover, and closed the distance with
an unknown, possibly violent attacker.  

>Personally, if I wonder if the home owner had backed away from the 
>"invader" and the young man had entered the home first, I wonder
>if there would have even been a prosecution?

Conventional wisdom is that it would have helped his defense a lot,
and might have prevented him from losing the civil suit.  More importantly
in the "worst case" version of that situation (an aggressive armed
intruder), he would have had more time to assess the situation, better cover,
and possibly better (more socially acceptable) weapons, such as a shotgun.
The fact that he shot the kid with a .44 magnum (="Dirty Harry"= vigilante)
certainly didn't help his case either.  What kind of gun you use shouldn't
matter, but to the non-shooters on the civil jury, raised on TV and movies,
it affected their perception of his character.

Karl