Must a person take a butt whoopin before you pull a firearm?

[Worriedman]

Well I disagree here. Sure, name calling ain't assault, but if done with the intent to elicit a violent response knowing you will use deadly force it is premeditated murder. No, it does not excuse the actions of the assaulter, but it doesn't exonerate the shooter as justified. If it did folks could just go around picking fights and then shoot a person when they threw the first punch. That isn't self defense.

For example, Mike Tyson could easily kill me with one punch. If I was attacked by him or someone his size I would use deadly force to defend myself. However, if I call Mike Tyson a n***er knowing he will likely swing at me in response and l use deadly force to stop the fight I should go to jail for murder. No doubt I would in fear for my life, but that alone will not keep you out of a jail cell if you decided to initiate the confrontation. There are PLENTY of folks behind bars right now who tried this very thing, and they deserve to be there.

I would agree with you, had I not had the experience that I have with a "neighbor" and my parents.  Tennessee County DA's will tell you that threatening words (true threats or fighting words) are protected speech. The "neighbor" can put a sign in their yard next to an 85 year old man's home threatening a violent sex act, (for months on end) stand at the perimeter of the elderly man's property and scream violent sexual epitaphs at him and his 83 year old wife (for well over a year), and Law Enforcement and the DA's office will explain that such activity is protected speech.  Said "neighbor" can follow the older man to a Church a mile away for his home where he is caretaker of the grounds and continue the threatening behavior there and nothing can/will be done about it.

[TMF]

County DA's will tell you that threatening words (true threats or fighting words) are protected speech. The "neighbor" can put a sign in their yard next to an 85 year old man's home threatening a violent sex act, (for months on end) stand at the perimeter of the elderly man's property and scream violent sexual epitaphs at him and his 83 year old wife (for well over a year), and Law Enforcement and the DA's office will explain that such activity is protected speech. Said "neighbor" can follow the older man to a Church a mile away for his home where he is caretaker of the grounds and continue the threatening behavior there and nothing can/will be done about it.

Well that scenario sounds to me like an order of protection could have been issued by a judge, especially for the stalking.

I hope you don't misunderstand what I'm trying to say here, but the point I was making is that even if you are doing something COMPLETELY legal, but doing it with the purpose of eliciting a response so you can kill someone will land you in jail. That isn't just me talking out my butt, there are a whole lotta people making big rocks into little rocks who broke no law prior to using their weapon in self defense simply because they started the fight.

A good example is road rage. Lands a lot of folks in jail who pulled over for a fight and it ended in death. Is it illegal to follow someone to a gas station who cut you off? No. Is it illegal to approach him and tell him what a crappy driver he is? No. Is it illegal to tell him that his wife is dressed like a two bit whore? No, but I bet that last one will result in a punch to the face and maybe follow up with a few more blows. If you said all this, knowing that it was very likely he would punch you, then pulled your gun and fired while in fear for your life, it won't matter. You will still go to jail, because you had a gun and started something you planned on finishing with a firearm.

It isn't theoretical at all. This happens all the time, and people go to jail for it.

[Vistar]

LENOIR CITY NEWS-HERALD

(name redacted) found not guilty

 

Published: 7:46 PM, 09/19/2012 Last updated: 12:41 PM, 09/20/2012

 

Author: Jeremy Styron
Source: News-Herald

 

A jury delivered a verdict of not guilty Wednesday at Loudon County Courthouse in the second degree murder case of (name redacted).
(Name redacted) was accused of shooting and killing fellow Tellico Village resident, (victim), on April 15, 2010, at the corner of Toqua Road and Cheestana Way in Tellico Village. He appeared emotionless throughout the trial, until the verdict was read. He then took off his glasses and appeared to be crying.
Frank Harvey, assistant district attorney with the 9th Judicial District, said he thought the difference in the case was Tennessee's so-called "stand your ground" law, noting that it was "burdensome" on the state in carrying out prosecutions.
"It's almost impossible in a lot of situations to overcome that," Harvey said. "It's way above and beyond the standard burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It adds layer upon layer to it - just makes it very, very difficult."
The case stemmed from the question of whether (name redacted) acted in self-defense when (victim) allegedly choked (name redacted) in his car after an apparent argument ensued in the middle of the road. According to witness testimony, a car horn was heard in the neighborhood, followed quickly by a gunshot.
During a police interview after the incident, (name redacted) said (victim) was blocking the roadway, and after (name redacted) blew the horn, (victim) pulled the golf cart next to (name redacted)'s white Cadillac, lunged at him through the window and proceeded to choke him.
Defense attorney Brian Nichols, with Ford & Nichols in the City of Loudon, said in his closing statements that after (name redacted) honked his horn at (victim), (victim) pulled to within about three feet of the car, noting that (name redacted) had a "split second" to respond to the alleged assault.
"People honk their horns all the time," Nichols said. "You don't expect to be attacked from it."
During his closing remarks, Harvey asked the jury if (victim)'s golf cart was blocking the roadway, showing a diagram of the crime scene in which (victim)'s golf cart is a few feet beside (name redacted)'s car, adding that the defendant had shifted his car to park.
"He said, 'I've got plenty of time to interact with this fellow'," Harvey said. "'I'm going to put the car in park and see where this goes'."
Harvey also pointed to the testimony of forensic pathologist Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan, who indicated earlier in the day that depending on a person's health, 15 seconds of choking would be enough time to cause either incapacitation or death. She said a lack of blood flow to the brain was one of the first symptoms of strangulation.
(Name redacted) said during his police interview following the incident in 2010 that the reason he shot (victim) was because he could not breathe.
Mileusnic-Polchan testified that the windpipe was one of the most difficult parts of the neck to crush from stangulation.
"(Name redacted) had to have an excuse for why he pulled that trigger that would fly legally," Harvey told the jury.
Nichols pointed to evidence that (victim)'s shirt had two bullet holes after the shooting, suggesting the shirt was folded at the time. He said that based on testimony earlier in the day from Mileusnic-Polchan, the bullet's trajectory pointed downward.
Mileusnic-Polchan said that after the autopsy on (victim), she found that the bullet entered at 14 inches below the top of his head in front and became lodged in his back at 14.5 inches.
"Why is that shirt folded over?" Nichols asked. "Because he was leaning at the window. Why is that trajectory pointed down? Because he's leaning."
Nichols said that the autopsy and blood tests confirmed that the shooting took place at close range.
"He was right there," Nichols said, raising his voice near the end of his remarks.
"The standard of self-defense says simply, once evidence is presented of self-defense - and it has been - the burden is on the government, the state, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (name redacted) did not act in self-defense."
Nichols said the prosecution "hasn't come close" to meeting its burden of proof requirements in the trial.
"It's not a tragedy that (name redacted) under our law is to be held responsible for," Nichols said. "He has the right to defend himself."
For more details on the case, see the Sept. 23-24 edition of the News-Herald.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Vistar

[Worriedman]

Well that scenario sounds to me like an order of protection could have been issued by a judge, especially for the stalking.

I hope you don't misunderstand what I'm trying to say here, but the point I was making is that even if you are doing something COMPLETELY legal, but doing it with the purpose of eliciting a response so you can kill someone will land you in jail. That isn't just me talking out my butt, there are a whole lotta people making big rocks into little rocks who broke no law prior to using their weapon in self defense simply because they started the fight.

A good example is road rage. Lands a lot of folks in jail who pulled over for a fight and it ended in death. Is it illegal to follow someone to a gas station who cut you off? No. Is it illegal to approach him and tell him what a crappy driver he is? No. Is it illegal to tell him that his wife is dressed like a two bit whore? No, but I bet that last one will result in a punch to the face and maybe follow up with a few more blows. If you said all this, knowing that it was very likely he would punch you, then pulled your gun and fired while in fear for your life, it won't matter. You will still go to jail, because you had a gun and started something you planned on finishing with a firearm.

It isn't theoretical at all. This happens all the time, and people go to jail for it.

TMF, I get what you are saying, it makes sense.  Following a person to a stop after they cut you off is stupid, and looking for trouble, I agree. Evidently however you can start an altercation, and if the person you are baiting responds, they are the guilty party in TN.

 

Back to the referenced situation, there IS restraining order in place, issued by the Chancery Court, restraining the "neighbors" from "any activity that would interfere with the Plaintiff's quite enjoyment or use of their property, or harassing the Plaintiffs in any form or manner".  but, on the ground LE has instructed that the "neighbors" can say anything they want, threaten anything they want, and any retaliation on the part of me or my parents will be considered criminal activity.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Worriedman

[Flyboy]

I would say ask Zimmerman. A good shoot can quickly become a nightmare for you if the wrong people decide to make a fuss. Think about the perception of great bodily injury or death. Punched in the nose is not "great bodily injury", unless the attacker is a big guy and the victim is a women, child, elderly, etc.
I had a DA tell me that he felt you can use deadly force to protect your weapon from getting into the hands of an attacker. He was very clear that not all DAs will agree.

The point is that Zman was around to tell his story, not sure if he would have been disarmed he would be around today. Just another side story of man beat up and died, no witness, no suspect, or Tman out in 5 years.

Not disagreeing here with you. Just saying if someone is beating me, at what point do you say I have had enough, and can you still at that point have the strength to pull a weapon to save your life.
From my carry class I just remember if I feel my life is threatened or my family life is, I'm justify!!!

FlyBoy

Hope it never comes to it, but I want go down begging!!!

[JWKilgore]

From my carry class I just remember if I feel my life is threatened or my family life is, I'm justify!!!

 

In my carry class the instructor told us: If you feel your life or that of your family is threatened, and you think you can convince the investigating officers, the prosecutor, and possibly as many as two juries (criminal and wrongful death) that your life or that of your family was threatened, then you are justified in the use of deadly force. Or, in the case of Zimmerman, you have to convince the local prosecutor, then the state prosecutor, then a second state prosecutor, then a federal task force and then a jury you were justified; and it wont' matter because you'll be convicted by the media and live the rest of your life in fear of being shot in the back.

 

He also emphasized that whatever you're defending had better be worth everything you own, because that's what you could have to sell to pay for your defense.

 

Also, any and all things can and will be used against you, including criminal history, things people you know say about you, and forum posts talking about shooting someone. You know those "cute" signs people stick up in their foyer and share on Facebook saying things like, "I don't call 911"? Imagine a prosecutor holding up a huge 3-ft blowup of that or something similar taken from your house or Facebook timeline while trying to convince a jury of mothers and fathers that you were never in danger, that you just saw a kid you didn't know and started shooting.

[jgradyc]

I would agree with you, had I not had the experience that I have with a "neighbor" and my parents.  Tennessee County DA's will tell you that threatening words (true threats or fighting words) are protected speech. The "neighbor" can put a sign in their yard next to an 85 year old man's home threatening a violent sex act, (for months on end) stand at the perimeter of the elderly man's property and scream violent sexual epitaphs at him and his 83 year old wife (for well over a year), and Law Enforcement and the DA's office will explain that such activity is protected speech.  Said "neighbor" can follow the older man to a Church a mile away for his home where he is caretaker of the grounds and continue the threatening behavior there and nothing can/will be done about it.

This is very disturbing. I'd suggest getting your dad a digital tape recorder or camcorder and record one of these outbursts. I'm not an attorney, but "protected speech" does not allow slander. I'm pretty sure it does not allow threats of illegal acts.  Repeated following can be considered stalking and is also illegal.

 

The guy is probably crazy and is probably doing some other crazy stuff. I'd bet there is a lot to be discovered by asking the members of the nearby church. They probably live nearby.

 

Just a quick aside. We had a bad neighbor in a campground a couple of years ago. We let a couple of incidents slide. Later, we learned at a community meeting that lots of other people were doing the same thing. We all complained and continued to report them. They finally got kicked out.  My point is that this crazy guy is probably doing other crazy things that aren't getting reported. The church community needs to come together to help their church caretaker.

[Glenn]

You may have "cause" to shoot person two but you don't have the legally justified right to do so unless there is a hell of a lot more going on than a simple punch in the nose.

I have a friend that damn near died from "a simple punch in the nose" and still has memory trouble three years later. 

[RobertNashville]

I have a friend that damn near died from "a simple punch in the nose" and still has memory trouble three years later. 

And I've seen a person die from what appeared to be a simple and minor head injury...I never claimed that all "punches in the nose" are equal.

 

Nothing is every quite as cut and dried as we like to think and every situation has to be judged on the totality of the circumstances.

[TMF]

... and you think you can convince the investigating officers, the prosecutor, and possibly as many as two juries (criminal and wrongful death) that your life or that of your family was threatened, then you are justified in the use of deadly force...

I see this a lot and I don't understand the mentality. If you are in fear for your life or the lives of your loved ones then you are in fear for your life. It is that simple. Folks who conspire justification before hand are not in fear for their life, they are looking for permission to shoot.

That is, saying that all this criteria is met and I believe that an investigator/DA/jury would agree. If you are weighing the opinions of the cops/DA/jury when you are about to use your firearm then you are clearly not in fear of your life. If you were truly in fear for your life the opinions of all those people would be moot, because it is your belief that you will be dead soon anyway.

I have been in imminent fear of my life before. At no point was anything considered other than how to eliminate the threat as fast as possible.

[JWKilgore]

Technically, we are both right. The cliche, "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is valid and I agree with it. If you are attacked and truly in fear of your life, then the circumstances are such that convincing everyone you were justified should be straightforward. Even if you can't convince everyone, it's better to be alive and in jail than dead.

 

My statement was addressed more at the mentality that it is acceptable to attack someone and shoot them when they fight back, or shoot someone in the back as they are running away with your purse or wallet, or shoot someone who is trying to break into your house but is still outside. Just because you say you were in fear of your life doesn't mean you can convince everyone else you are telling the truth.

Edited July 25, 2013 by JWKilgore

[TMF]

Technically, we are both right. If you are attacked and truly in fear of your life, then the circumstances are such that convincing everyone you were justified should be straightforward. My statement was addressed more at the mentality that it is acceptable to attack someone and shoot them when they fight back, or shoot someone in the back as they are running away with your purse or wallet, or shoot someone who is trying to break into your house but is still outside.

 

Gotcha.  I didn't consider the context when I was posting.  I get what you're saying.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

One major problem is that the people on the jury probably will have had little to no experience with violence and will be basing their decisions on things they think they know from movies and TV.  Hence the old..."you shouldn't have shot him, he "just had a knife"...or "you can't shoot unarmed people".  

 

Keep in mind also that Trayvon Martin was the same size as Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard.....they all fought at the same weight Martin was. I was 5'11 165 lbs my sophomore and junior years in COLLEGE...so Martin may have only been 17...but he was already a grown man physically. And if that individual is using your head to beat a hole in the pavement you ABSOLUTELY are justified in shooting them, stabbing them, doing WHATEVER it takes to MAKE them stop. 

[RobertNashville]

One major problem is that the people on the jury probably will have had little to no experience with violence and will be basing their decisions on things they think they know from movies and TV.  Hence the old..."you shouldn't have shot him, he "just had a knife"...or "you can't shoot unarmed people".  

 

Keep in mind also that Trayvon Martin was the same size as Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard.....they all fought at the same weight Martin was. I was 5'11 165 lbs my sophomore and junior years in COLLEGE...so Martin may have only been 17...but he was already a grown man physically. And if that individual is using your head to beat a hole in the pavement you ABSOLUTELY are justified in shooting them, stabbing them, doing WHATEVER it takes to MAKE them stop. 

One of the MANY things I learned in Massad Ayoob's MAS20 "Rules of Engagement for the Armed Citizen" is that the victim (the person who defended his life) and his attorney must, with the help of expert witnesses, be able to explain his actions, educate the jury and counter all the stuff the prosecution will throw at you...you have to be able to articulate why you did what you did and why it was the correct action.

 

Why do you use the ammunition you use? Why did you keep firing? Why do you practice shooting so often; were you practicing so you could go out looking for a chance to shoot somebody?, etc.

Edited July 25, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

This is very disturbing. I'd suggest getting your dad a digital tape recorder or camcorder and record one of these outbursts. I'm not an attorney, but "protected speech" does not allow slander. I'm pretty sure it does not allow threats of illegal acts.  Repeated following can be considered stalking and is also illegal.

 

We have been told numerous times that such threats and actions are in fact protected speech.  LE saw a sign posted next to my parents property for over three months that threatened a violent sex act against my father, and they did nothing about it.
 

[midtennchip]

Seems like we have one of these threads every few months. One thing I keep seeing (and cringe every time) are scenarios like "a punch." To be frank, it is not going to matter what YOU think. It will only matter what a "reasonable person under the circumstances" (that's the legal threshold) thinks was necessary (but in most cases, what the DA thinks was necessary). The fact that someone COULD die (or be seriously injured) from a particular action (like a punch) really doesn't come into play. If the puncher is a 125 pound kid, there won't be too many people who agree with you. If the puncher is a 300 pound giant, you probably are going to be okay.

The CIRCUMSTANCES matter! Unfortunately, I was faced with this very issue about two weeks ago at an Atlanta Braves game. We were in the park as the game ended. The guy behind me (who I estimate to have been at least 6'6" and probably north of 275) got upset with how quickly (or slowly) we were moving. He took it upon himself to shove me in the back. Of course, I responded to it. Since we were in the ballpark, I did not have my carry weapon, so that really didn't factor into it. He calmed down, but it was heated for a brief moment. The point is this: the fact that we were in the park, with many people around who likely would have jumped in to stop it, I seriously doubt I would have been justified in shooting him ( had I had the gun with me). But, if we had been outside the park, things likely would have been very different.

The long and short of it is, circumstances matter. There is no clear cut rule on any of this. People can die from a simple push (if they fall wrong). Yes, you could die from one punch, but it isn't likely. It is not the action (the push, the punch, etc) that defines whether or not you are justified in shooting. You have to consider ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES. If you go into every situation saying "I am not taking a butt kicking," then you increase the risk of having a problem if ever faced with the situation. No two situations are the same and what might be appropriate in one situation will not be appropriate in another. The key is "reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury." Not the fear that you might die if something out of the ordinary happens (like a lucky punch that could kill you). We are not talking about what could happen, but what is the reasonable fear.

[TMF]

We are not talking about what could happen, but what is the reasonable fear.

I think this goes into the realm of "can" and "should". The problem I see in these threads is folks using the "can" I shoot in this situation. The point I make is if you're asking "can" I then you are asking the wrong question, as if asking permission. To me, that shows someone who is looking for an excuse to shoot someone, regardless of whether they are in actual fear of their life.

The question one should ask should be directed at yourself, and the question should be "do I NEED to." If you are in genuine fear for your life then whether or not you "legally can" is moot, is it not? If you don't think you will survive the incident unless you use deadly force to intervene then jail time isn't really a concern. Of course, the flip side to that are folks who say "I won't take even one punch, even if I started the fight" tells me that person isn't concerned about preventing death or great bodily injury, they just want to shoot someone.

[K191145]

I think this goes into the realm of "can" and "should". The problem I see in these threads is folks using the "can" I shoot in this situation. The point I make is if you're asking "can" I then you are asking the wrong question, as if asking permission. To me, that shows someone who is looking for an excuse to shoot someone, regardless of whether they are in actual fear of their life.

The question one should ask should be directed at yourself, and the question should be "do I NEED to." If you are in genuine fear for your life then whether or not you "legally can" is moot, is it not? If you don't think you will survive the incident unless you use deadly force to intervene then jail time isn't really a concern. Of course, the flip side to that are folks who say "I won't take even one punch, even if I started the fight" tells me that person isn't concerned about preventing death or great bodily injury, they just want to shoot someone.

 

I'm not going back and read 6 pages of posts in this old thread so if this has been discussed yet I apoligize. The answer to the thread title, "Must you take a butt woopin before you pull a firearm", my personal answer is hell no. First of all I don't intend to start or provoke an incident with anyone and i'll "TRY" to ignore a punk or jerk as long as i'm able to, i've done it before with idiot drunk rednecks who just wanted to mess with someone and nothing happened. I'm not perfect and I have allowed my temper before to flip the bird which might aggravate an incident but again, I wont start it. Now the title says, "pull a firearm" or show a firearm which you can very well be arrested for if you don't have probable cause, that's threatening deadly force but it's a lighter charge than manslaughter. Whatever the incident is and how it started, if I feel someone is potentially going to harm me or kill me I will do whatever I have to, if they are angry at me and making threats or walking towards me in a threatening way and I feel like they are capable of harming me weather they have a weapon or they are the champion UFC fighter I'll probably show or draw my handgun to let them know i'll defend myself with deadly force if need be. If they continue and I feel they are getting too close or the situation is getting too dangerous for me then I plan to shoot, even though I don't wat to shoot anyone. I say I probably will or plan to because i'm not going through a dangerous situation while typing this. No one can know for sure how just a "butt woopin" will turn out, people have been killed before from a "butt woopin" so I plan not to let that happen to me.

Edited July 31, 2013 by K191145

[wjh2657]

Do what you have to do to stay alive. After that, regardless of any logic, it is up to a jury and state laws. In one state you could break down your neighbors door and blow him away on his couch because you don't like the color of his car and the jury would let you go. Another jury in another state would burn you for murder if you shot and killed a member of MS13 when 5 of them attacked you in your own house at 2:00 a.m. There is no magic formula here, the jury is going to do whatever matches their beliefs and their mood. Even within Tennessee the outcomes will vary greatly. Trying to guess what a jury in Memphis would do versus what a jury would do in Macon County is an exercise in folly.

 

Zimmerman drew a really savvy jury. Even though several members were upset by his actions they stayed within the law. The state prosecuted him for the wrong crime and the jury would not convict him for the stated crime. I think he would still have walked on a self defense plea against a Manslaughter charge, but for sure he didn't commit Murder, as defined by Florida statutes.

[RobertNashville]

Do what you have to do to stay alive. After that, regardless of any logic, it is up to a jury and state laws. In one state you could break down your neighbors door and blow him away on his couch because you don't like the color of his car and the jury would let you go. Another jury in another state would burn you for murder if you shot and killed a member of MS13 when 5 of them attacked you in your own house at 2:00 a.m. There is no magic formula here, the jury is going to do whatever matches their beliefs and their mood. Even within Tennessee the outcomes will vary greatly. Trying to guess what a jury in Memphis would do versus what a jury would do in Macon County is an exercise in folly.

 

Zimmerman drew a really savvy jury. Even though several members were upset by his actions they stayed within the law. The state prosecuted him for the wrong crime and the jury would not convict him for the stated crime. I think he would still have walked on a self defense plea against a Manslaughter charge, but for sure he didn't commit Murder, as defined by Florida statutes.

Your post is very true.

 

However, just because juries vary and we can't predict what a particular DA or jury will do, Chip's post above and Massad's class I took recently points to that fact that there are plenty of common sense things we can do to either avoid being charged at all (best outcome) or prevail in a trial should we be charged (next best outcome).

 

Zimmerman did have a jury that actually listened to the law and the facts and reached the only obvious conclusion but they were able to listen to the facts and the law and understand them in large part, because Zimmerman's attorneys and witnesses were able to properly educate the jury about the facts and explain Zimmerman's actions; even in spite of what many feel were Zimmerman's mistakes (like spilling his guts to police immediately after the shooting...a very dangerous thing to do).

[Guest ab28]

I am 6', 155lbs, and I work out 5 days a week. I also do martial arts training. Being in good shape at this weight, I can't see how anyone could say someone of my height and weight isn't a threat, unarmed. I can hit pretty damn hard, am lean, but very strong for my weight.

[DaveTN]

I am 6', 155lbs, and I work out 5 days a week. I also do martial arts training. Being in good shape at this weight, I can't see how anyone could say someone of my height and weight isn't a threat, unarmed. I can hit pretty damn hard, am lean, but very strong for my weight.

I’m not sure what you are saying. So if someone gets in an altercation with you they should shoot you because you are in such great shape for a guy that is six foot 155 lbs.? Keep in mind that no one really cares what the shooter was thinking; they will apply the “reasonable person” concept to decide if they thought you should have shot someone. “They” being the jurors who consider themselves to be reasonable people.

[Guest ab28]

I’m not sure what you are saying. So if someone gets in an altercation with you they should shoot you because you are in such great shape for a guy that is six foot 155 lbs.? Keep in mind that no one really cares what the shooter was thinking; they will apply the “reasonable person” concept to decide if they thought you should have shot someone. “They” being the jurors who consider themselves to be reasonable people.

No, I'm saying people didn't consider Tray a threat because he was my build. People still have this Hollywood myth in their head that only big guys are a threat unarmed. I don't attack people, so I'm not worried about it, merely clearing up a common misconception.

 

The problem with most people is they don't realize you may have to shoot someone up to 5 times with a pistol to stop them. To anyone that knows firearms, the fact that handguns are weak is pretty common, the average person will think it is excessive. It would suck to have a jury convict someone on something that sounded excessive to them.

Edited August 13, 2013 by ab28