At what distance is a threat no longer “a threat”?

[Harmonica]

..if he runs away from you and is still armed, I consider that a threat still....he can be 100 yards away, he is still threat...
...if he is armed and running away, I would vote not guilty for someone who shot him in the back

 

[stansdds]

Up until this "modern" era of disturbed people engaging in mass attack events, the 21 foot rule was probably a good rule of thumb. These days, we have seen events in which the good guy took out a bad guy, yet the good guy was not specifically targeted as the bad guy was busy shooting at other targets within his sight. Personally, I practice at 25 yards, not 25 feet.

 

[cracker57]

getting tired of hearing "THE 21 FOOT RULE' there are no rules when it comes to fighting for your life. Ever hear if you find yourself in a fair gun fight your tactics suck?

 

[1911haulic]

If the person continues to be a threat to your life then he's still within distance.

This sounds logical to me.

 

[OFT II]

Knife, 30/06 or 155mm howitzer?

 

[Breakaway500]

6 feet...straight down.

 

[rockquarry]

If the person continues to be a threat to your life then he's still within distance.

Good post. A few others here have said about the same thing, but you put it in the fewest words. However, it's too much logic for the gunfighting theorists and YouTuber maestros to accept. They have a mystical distance measured in feet, no exceptions.

 

[tmd17]

Average floor height of a building is about 14.5 feet, so maybe the answer is 135.3 yards ? History buffs will understand the reference.

Although I do incorporate the Tueler drill in my personal training, it is just one of many things I use to sharpen and maintain my self skills.

 

[sotexas]

If you can't safely get out of harms way you are under a threat.

 

[BE Mike]

For the average armed civilian anything beyond spitting distance will likely put innocent bystanders more at risk than the threat. Hitting an innocent will require even more explaining and would be a huge burden to bear.

 

[Marshal Tom]

ISPCAPT stated it correctly. Very good response. I was working as an armed security officer at a high end resort for a few years. I was in a gunfight with an individual who had shot at passing cars and aimed his gun at several people in the area. It started at our General Store, owned by the resort. I responded with another security officer. I stopped about 60yds from the guy and yelled commands at him to get on the ground etc. He instead picked up two handguns he had laid on the side of the road and got behind his drivers door. He then put a .44mag through the front of my security Jeep, through the dash, dead centering with instrument panel. We found the slug on my drivers seat later on. Long story short. I stopped where I did because I had an AR. I kept him pinned down behind a cottonwood tree for 48 minutes until the Sheriff's Dept. arrived on scene from Grand Junction. I could have taken him out on several occasions but as it worked out I was able to keep him entertained until the cops arrived. The point I am making is that he was about 60yrds out at the time and missed me by approximately 18 inches. I have always shot at distance with my handguns just in case I would have to such as the well known mall incident.

 

[WR Moore]

Ever hear of the 21 foot rule?

Here's a quote from google:

According to research, a person charging toward you with a knife or other sharp-edged instrument can travel 21 feet in the time it would take you to recognize that there is a threat, draw your firearm, and fire two shots.

"It's simply the principle that an average person can sprint 21 feet in roughly 1.5 seconds. Incidentally, that's about the same time it takes an officer to draw a firearm and fire two unaimed shots.”

Like many things you read on google, they either found an incorrect source or mangled what it said.

 

[dave1918a2]

When it's in a coffin and buried.

 

[LimaCharlie]

Sure glad I learned to shoot and learned about ballistics before Al Gore invented the internet.

 

[Matt_X]

..if he runs away from you and is still armed, I consider that a threat still....he can be 100 yards away, he is still threat...
...if he is armed and running away, I would vote not guilty for someone who shot him in the back

Everyone has to make their own decisions, ones that they can live with. However, I feel some obligation to point out that there may be legal consequences. Goldstar has summarized when a citizen may generally use deadly force and not be charged.

...a reasonable person would believe themselves to be in jeopardy of loss of life or serious injury is the key.

Each case has to be decided on it's own meritsbased upon the actions of the offender. Has he demonstrated (words/actions) intent to harm, does he have the opportunity to cause harm, and does he have the capability to cause harm.

While there are circumstances where a fleeing person is such a danger to innocent people that it is justifiable for a citizen to stop them with any means, those are pretty rare.

Most of the time when the offender no longer is threatening or capable of threatening the life or limb of you or a person you know, then law say its no longer self defense. It will first be up to the prosecutor to decide whether any reasonable person would have done the same. If he or she decides no, then it will go to a jury to hear the case and decide.

If anyone is interested in this topic, I will second a post made in another thread that Massad Ayoob's classes are invaluable. A lot of his advise is available from his books, magazine articles and in recent years, youtube video. I'm not LE, but first heard about Massad Ayoob from LE coworkers long before the internet. This is just to say he is not an recent self-proclaimed expert. Rather he is a long respected former police officer and trainer who has been accepted as an expert witness by courts in many many cases.

 

[fiasconva]

If the assailant is 15 yds or more away and running toward me with a weapon in his hand I'm not going to think about the 21 ft rule or anything else at that time. I'll let the courts decide if my shooting to stop the threat was justified. At least I'm still alive to go through the proceedings. That's about the best I can do.

 

[DETROIT]

I was watching a Gun Blast video reviewing a customized Model 10. The presenter stated that the sights were regulated out to 15 yards. He made the statement that if you fired at a threat at a distance greater than 15 yards, you have some explaining to do. So, at what distance does a threat cease to be a threat? At what distance does a justifiable shooting cease to be justifiable because the distance between you and the threat minimizes the danger?

Any distance if they are shooting at you.

 

[rockquarry]

Everyone has to make their own decisions, ones that they can live with. However, I feel some obligation to point out that there may be legal consequences. Goldstar has summarized when a citizen may generally use deadly force and not be charged.


While there are circumstances where a fleeing person is such a danger to innocent people that it is justifiable for a citizen to stop them with any means, those are pretty rare.

Most of the time when the offender no longer is threatening or capable of threatening the life or limb of you or a person you know, then law say its no longer self defense. It will first be up to the prosecutor to decide whether any reasonable person would have done the same. If he or she decides no, then it will go to a jury to hear the case and decide.

If anyone is interested in this topic, I will second a post made in another thread that Massad Ayoob's classes are invaluable. A lot of his advise is available from his books, magazine articles and in recent years, youtube video. I'm not LE, but first heard about Massad Ayoob from LE coworkers long before the internet. This is just to say he is not an recent self-proclaimed expert. Rather he is a long respected former police officer and trainer who has been accepted as an expert witness by courts in many many cases.

A question and not a criticism, but to clear things up ...Was Ayoob a paid full-time police officer or was he a part-time unpaid reserve officer? There's a big difference. Number of years experience in one or both capacities would also be worth knowing.

 

[RCL-09]

A question and not a criticism, but to clear things up ...Was Ayoob a paid full-time police officer or was he a part-time unpaid reserve officer? There's a big difference. Number of years experience in one or both capacities would also be worth knowing.

He served as a part-time police officer in New Hampshire since 1972 and retired in 2017 with the rank of Captain from the Grantham, New Hampshire, police department.
Massad Ayoob - Wikipedia

 

[Matt_X]

A question and not a criticism, but to clear things up ...Was Ayoob a paid full-time police officer or was he a part-time unpaid reserve officer? There's a big difference. Number of years experience in one or both capacities would also be worth knowing.

Perfectly OK with me. This is the type of question I'd ask.

His job was with a small town police force which gave him opportunities to attend a variety of training with other agencies. As years went on, one of the duties he took on was Police Prosecutor. In New Hampshire this is a non-lawyer position that can charge misdemeanors and assist with low level felonies.

Based on the above it is my impression that this was a full time permanent job. He has stated he began when he was in his early 20s. That would be roughly 1970. Based on the sources in the Wikipedia article, he was part-time when he retired as Captain.


edit: @RCL-09. Thank you! Did not see your post when I started typing mine.