Police say that because they know. You’ll be paying a lawyer to argue that ‘scared shitless’ should be interpreted to mean that you believed your life was in danger.
How many people get brought up on charges each year because they run their mouth and say something that qualifies as setting a legal condition that they can’t back out of?
Then let the lawyers deal with the talking and keep your mouth shut. If you find yourself in a position where you killed someone in self defense, you shouldn't be talking.
Period
YOU have the right to remain silent. Police asked something, there's one word that you should only really say, and that word is , "Lawyer."
You talk to the lawyer, not the police.
‘Stop the threat’ is hardly a ‘meme’. It’s the underpinning rationale for everything from choosing a caliber, determining when to draw your weapon, aiming for center mass, qualifying appropriate use of force, and more. If you’re not actively stopping a threat to your life or the life of another, the legality of you pointing a weapon becomes vanishingly small.
Another thing people forget is that an attacker can still threaten other people even if they disengage with you, and thus you can believe that their lives are in danger from an identified threat. See how that works?
This is why gun courses always say that you don't draw your weapon unless you plan to end a life. There's no halfway measure. You do it or you don't.
I agree with the ‘remain silent’ part, and the gun courses’ teaching. But they teach that as a warning, not an aspiration.
Surely you can see why ‘ending a life’ is a terrible idea to identify as your motivation, and how adopting it as a primary mindset can introduce other possible lapses in judgement and indirect evidence that will ultimately come back to haunt an otherwise justified defensive use of fire.
EDIT to add the fact that developing a (hyper)focus on ‘killing the enemy’ can also hurt operations in a military setting, both on a macro level (Vietnam ‘success’ metrics) as well as a platoon or squad level, where soldiers and leaders often fall into a ‘there’s the enemy, git ‘em!’ mentality that overcomes their detached professional focus on achieving tactical mission objectives, and drives them to make uneccessary maneuvers that result in increased casualties.
Surely you can see why ‘ending a life’ is a terrible idea to identify as your motivation, and how adopting it as a primary mindset can introduce other possible lapses in judgement and indirect evidence that will ultimately come back to haunt an otherwise justified defensive use of fire.
This is why drawing a weapon should be a last resort, not the first. You de-escalate as much as you can.
However, when you have a 100 people trying to mob you and beat you up, and because of so many people, the possiblity of you losing your life is guaranteed, you make the judgement call.
Which takes you right back to fearing for your life and acting to stop the threat.
I feel like we’d be the type to get into loud fights about what type of gun oil is best at different barometric pressures, but I’d happily carry an ammobox for you.
I'd rather have loud fights about what gun oil to use than whatever the fuck the loonie left is doing. I feel like this is a tomato tomahto argument we're having.
Then let the lawyers deal with the talking and keep your mouth shut. If you find yourself in a position where you killed someone in self defense, you shouldn't be talking.
Period
YOU have the right to remain silent. Police asked something, there's one word that you should only really say, and that word is , "Lawyer."
You talk to the lawyer, not the police.
This is why gun courses always say that you don't draw your weapon unless you plan to end a life. There's no halfway measure. You do it or you don't.
I agree with the ‘remain silent’ part, and the gun courses’ teaching. But they teach that as a warning, not an aspiration.
Surely you can see why ‘ending a life’ is a terrible idea to identify as your motivation, and how adopting it as a primary mindset can introduce other possible lapses in judgement and indirect evidence that will ultimately come back to haunt an otherwise justified defensive use of fire.
EDIT to add the fact that developing a (hyper)focus on ‘killing the enemy’ can also hurt operations in a military setting, both on a macro level (Vietnam ‘success’ metrics) as well as a platoon or squad level, where soldiers and leaders often fall into a ‘there’s the enemy, git ‘em!’ mentality that overcomes their detached professional focus on achieving tactical mission objectives, and drives them to make uneccessary maneuvers that result in increased casualties.
This is why drawing a weapon should be a last resort, not the first. You de-escalate as much as you can.
However, when you have a 100 people trying to mob you and beat you up, and because of so many people, the possiblity of you losing your life is guaranteed, you make the judgement call.
Which takes you right back to fearing for your life and acting to stop the threat.
I feel like we’d be the type to get into loud fights about what type of gun oil is best at different barometric pressures, but I’d happily carry an ammobox for you.
I'd rather have loud fights about what gun oil to use than whatever the fuck the loonie left is doing. I feel like this is a tomato tomahto argument we're having.