falcon

i don't know where you live or what you call a "good prosecutor". In the state of OK the prosecutor would be required to give the shooter a pass if he/she was fired on first. The idea that a person on his own property, minding his own business could not legally return fire is absurd.

Oklahoma is pretty good on self defense shootings. In OK the prosecutor can decline to take a good shoot to the grand jury. Our last prosecutor gave three passes on lethal self defense shoots in a 18 month period. One of them was the shooting at the link below.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/print...A27_hApro53278

Palladin8

I will conceed that I was thinking of contact weapons such as knives and clubs that this would mostly apply to. Dennis Theuller had established the distance it would take for a person to cover in the time (1.5 seconds) it took a person to unholster a weapon and fire. This rule has been used in many court rooms to prove that it was either a justifiable homicide or murder. That distance is 7yds or 21'. If someone was shooting or going to shoot at you then I would say that distance is going to be less important.

Many States now have adopted the Castle Doctorine where it basically means you have the right to protect yourself and your property. It means you don't have to flea your home while you are being robbed. It doesn't give you the right to shoot someone from long distances such described in the original post.
I will still say that your best bet is a well lit area with security cameras. If you are wanting to stay out on the property then that would deter theives as well. I would suggest just don't go looking for trouble. Cameras and a phone are a pretty good weapon.

mr.mc54

A 12 ga. with buck shot is more than what you need for personal protection. You don't need to shoot em 200 yds away and you wont be killing a neighbor a mile away with stray bullets.

NCZ09

I realize the subject has pretty much been covered here, but I've watched this thread develope and would like to add a thing or two. I took the CC class hear in Minnesota last summer and I've had my permit for about a year. The 1st thing our instructor told was if you draw your gun be ready to draw your checkbook. The average cost to defend your actions in court cost about $30,000. We were also taught the 7yd distance. Basically if you are being threatened with something other than a gun, you have other options to get out of the situation fleeing may be a good option. When it comes to inside your home you have more rights, but you still have to give the intruder a way out. You can't shoot him just because he wakes you up and you find him standing in your living room. It will obviously be better for all parties involved if the intruder finds his way out. If you have to shoot someone to stop a threat make sure you were out options. It will be alot easier to keep yourself out of jail.

ipscshooter

While most of what you said makes sense, this one requires further clarification. You cannot be saying that if someone is 7 yards or farther away, he is not a threat and therefore you cannot exercise lawful self defense. Are you?

I took the course here in Texas a couple weeks ago, and we were taught about 7 yards also... as in, "if a guy has a knife and is within 7 yards, he can cut you up before you can draw, aim and fire." Therefore, you'd best start your draw when he's more than 7 yards away. This advice that the guy has to be inside of 7 yards is advocating suicide.

I have a direct line of sight from where I am now sitting to my front door. The distance is about 12 yards. Seems to me rather crazy that if someone kicked in my front door, I'd have to wait until he was five yards inside before I could begin defending my home...

Nomercy448

The 7yrd defense rule stems from a study done in the 80's (typically called the "21ft rule"). The idea is that if you're going to shoot someone with a bladed weapon, you best do it before they enter 21ft. The idea being is that you CAN BE in mortal danger if an attacker is within 21ft (which seems VERY far when you think about hand to hand combat). Where people get mis-informed, like many of the posters on this thread, is that they believe that ONLY attackers within 7yrds will be deemed a mortal threat. This is TRUE for unarmed, or cutting weapon attackers, however, for attackers with the gun are obviously mortal threats beyond 21ft. The 21ft rule is pretty loosely followed in courts, if it is even referenced at all, as it has become obvious that in civilian self defense situations, the victim has no clue the attack is coming, so his reaction time is likely more than 1.5sec, which is the premise for the 21ft rule (it is proven that an attacker can cover 21ft within 1.5sec, which is the standard draw and fire time for an ALERTED victim).

But that said, there's a BIG difference between 21ft and 200yrds. My problem with the initial post was that this guy is planning to take LITERAL shots in the dark across a long distance against an unidentified attacker. It will NOT be difficult for a criminal prosecutor, or a civil lawyer, to prove that this guy could not guarantee that the person he's taking shots at is THE person that took the shots. He'll contest that his client did NOT take the first shot, but maybe returned fire when THIS guy took a shot at him, or maybe he'll contest that the "attacker" didn't have a weapon at all and was a victim of attempted murder or felony reckless discharge of a firearm. The courts will argue that there is no way to tell without a shadow of a doubt that THE person you're returning fire against is THE SAME person that took the shot at you... When someone takes a run at you from 21ft, you KNOW who's attacking. From 200yrds in the dark, you can't be so sure.

The other comment that I might reiterate, as I have on other posts, is that while you might be found to have made a justifiable shot, leaving you free and clear from criminal suits, you MAY still be found liable in the ensuing civil suit, and as we've seen time and time again, civil courts are even further off the reservation than criminal courts as far as following the spirit of the law. Getting sued for a million dollar price tag isn't a fun experience in my book.

I'd agree, most states aren't as "progressive" as Oklahoma (or Kansas for that matter). At least Oklahoma has the common sense that if they give you the right to defend yourself, they'll uphold it. However, again, the subsequent civil suits, even in Oklahoma, don't necessarily follow the same rules as the criminal courts.

Todd1700

I have no clue where this 7 yard rule comes from and if an intruder fires at me first I doubt seriously if an Alabama jury is going to burn me for firing back irregardless of how far away they are.

That said, I agree that a shotgun is probably the best home/property defense weapon. If an intruder hasn't fired at you and is outside the range of a shotgun then you will probably have some serious trouble in court proving that your life was in immediate danger. At night, 70, 80 yards away can you even be certain they have a weapon? I have never had to shoot anyone in self defense and I hope I never have to. But I would imagine that a real life or death situation just might have an effect on your aim. Shotguns are a little more forgiving in that department. I work as an RN at a hospital and have cared for numerous people in our ER that have been shot with a wide variety of firearms. By far a shotgun blast to the chest or abdomen has the worst survival rate of wounds inflicted in those areas. A load of 00 buckshot in the torso at home defense ranges is a fight stopper.

I don't recommend assault rifles for home defense for two reasons. (No I'm not anti-assault rifle. I own one.) First, even a moderate powered rifle round like a .223 or 7.62x39mm will not only strip through the person you shoot but the wall behind them as well. This endangers the lives of other people in your house or perhaps even a neighbor outside your home. Second, if you shoot someone and it does go to trial who knows what kind of jury you will get. A lot of people out there have some pretty negative opinions of assault rifles and the people who own them. Is it right for them to hold such preconceived notions? Nope, but that knowledge will be small comfort to you as you spend the next 15 years in a cell or as you spend the rest of your life paying the civil court settlement to the dead guys family.

statjunk

I wish they'd bring back the ignore feature. He'd be ignored bigtime.

LOL

Tom

jdhogg

shotgun with rock saltshooting someone isnt fun even if they deserve it