Delos
Member
The Tueler Drill, or 21 foot rule, has no legal standing that I am aware of. If anyone knows of any "Case Law" involved here please let me know.
So lets review. Say a police trainer is telling policemen that they need to be prepared before barging in on that drug lab bust, or a call where weapons were in use. A policeman, doing the job he is required to do, has almost no "brandishing a weapon" law to worry about. He is more concerned about not having the tools of his trade available when he knows they will be needed. A policeman must respond to the incident, or call for help then respond.
A private citizen can walk or run away from a crime in progress. Even just standing in the area with a gun in your hand, when police arrive, can cause confusion. (Yes, with cell phones people no longer run for phone booths - they often become cell phone zombies - or detached spectators watching a movie).
When a private person must defend himself, or decides he should defend a third person, there are rules and laws involved. A radical extreme example would be someone who shoots an attacker, attacker falls limp on the floor, and the defender is still shooting or still kicking him when police arrive. Then minimum necessary force laws come into play. (Lots of other extremes to discuss - like the bar-room chatter about "stand you ground laws").
When some firearms trainer trains average citizens, using the same words he would use to train a police class, he might be mixing-up an important issue. It is often a policeman's job to go into a violent confusing situation with his gun drawn, or his hand on his holstered handgun , or sometimes guns blazing, or stun guns zapping.
At one time the basic private person concealed weapon advice was "do not let anyone even see your gun unless "your life is in imminent danger". Lately with the stand your ground laws (long overdue - people were being told to run out back doors even into bad weather because someone was breaking in the front) so things are going through opinion readjustments.
My opinion is that nothing has changed except you no longer need to hide in bathroom or run out back door in places like California. You are no longer required to prove you took evasive action.
You can defend yourself or another person but the threat must be so obvious that you can convince a jury you were doing what a logical person would do in that situation.
If anyone wishes to debate I hope some retired policemen here will jump in and help give logic to a subject that is often distorted. Lawyers and prosecutors invited.
Input on the Reasonable Person Law, or Reasonable Man Doctrine or however stated is welcome.
(sites like this are nice)
California Self-Defense Laws
And yes this might be helpful in picking a holster. Check the crimes in your area. If someone in a bus station bathroom, has been using his shoulder to push someone who is using a urinal, against the urinal, while picking his pocket - that might be a different holster and conversation.
So lets review. Say a police trainer is telling policemen that they need to be prepared before barging in on that drug lab bust, or a call where weapons were in use. A policeman, doing the job he is required to do, has almost no "brandishing a weapon" law to worry about. He is more concerned about not having the tools of his trade available when he knows they will be needed. A policeman must respond to the incident, or call for help then respond.
A private citizen can walk or run away from a crime in progress. Even just standing in the area with a gun in your hand, when police arrive, can cause confusion. (Yes, with cell phones people no longer run for phone booths - they often become cell phone zombies - or detached spectators watching a movie).
When a private person must defend himself, or decides he should defend a third person, there are rules and laws involved. A radical extreme example would be someone who shoots an attacker, attacker falls limp on the floor, and the defender is still shooting or still kicking him when police arrive. Then minimum necessary force laws come into play. (Lots of other extremes to discuss - like the bar-room chatter about "stand you ground laws").
When some firearms trainer trains average citizens, using the same words he would use to train a police class, he might be mixing-up an important issue. It is often a policeman's job to go into a violent confusing situation with his gun drawn, or his hand on his holstered handgun , or sometimes guns blazing, or stun guns zapping.
At one time the basic private person concealed weapon advice was "do not let anyone even see your gun unless "your life is in imminent danger". Lately with the stand your ground laws (long overdue - people were being told to run out back doors even into bad weather because someone was breaking in the front) so things are going through opinion readjustments.
My opinion is that nothing has changed except you no longer need to hide in bathroom or run out back door in places like California. You are no longer required to prove you took evasive action.
You can defend yourself or another person but the threat must be so obvious that you can convince a jury you were doing what a logical person would do in that situation.
If anyone wishes to debate I hope some retired policemen here will jump in and help give logic to a subject that is often distorted. Lawyers and prosecutors invited.
Input on the Reasonable Person Law, or Reasonable Man Doctrine or however stated is welcome.
(sites like this are nice)
California Self-Defense Laws
And yes this might be helpful in picking a holster. Check the crimes in your area. If someone in a bus station bathroom, has been using his shoulder to push someone who is using a urinal, against the urinal, while picking his pocket - that might be a different holster and conversation.
