Why Do Cops Give Terrible Self Defense Advice?

[@hard2hurt]

Support the channel by downloading Hunting Clash: huntingclash.link/hard2hurt Use code HUNTWITHHARD2HURT for bonus in game perks!

[@joshpeterson2203]

I already had the game? But I tried the code and it’s not working. Perhaps because I already had the game? Not sure but just letting you know

[@justin_kim]

really? mobile game ads? you've changed... u also look weak asf bro. hit the weights for a bit, ya?

[@theovets]

Small joint manipulation for self defense?

[@Diogenes2077]

I get the feeling that this absurd idea is what keyboard warriors and would be gun heroes made of the somewhat reasonable statement that you should never point a weapon, if you are not ready to use it.

[@TooTRUEtoBeG00D]

Do you really need to promote some game?

[@calebcomstock6697]

"Everywhere that has laws--you can find those laws, and you can read them." This is gold--always teaching more than the subject and managing to make me laugh at the same time.

[@hard2hurt]

As I get older, I realize that "wisdom" is usually just an older guy saying very obvious, regular shit in a unique way.

[@BaritoneMonkey]

@@hard2hurt and there's that wisdom, yet again

[@brucewayneissupermanquinn601]

That’s a nugget of wisdom right there!

[@neglectfulsausage7689]

If you like gold, here's some platinum. The Laws are only as good as who decides if the law was broken or not. Two people can violate the same law on paper, but one can be ruled as having not done it, while the other rules as having done it. FOr instance, I rip open my coat in front of kids? Im alone? I go to prison. I do it at a pride parade, Im probably never going to jail or even get arrested. Nearly all states and cities have public indecency laws and lewd/lascvious laws and obscenity laws, ON THE BOOKS. None of them get applied to those priders who strip down to nothing and strut around in front of children. You need to wake up. The law is applied based on what your society believes and who the "bad guys" are, by judges and juries. The law is NOT applied by "this law says X, so we apply it uniformly".

[@ShengFink]

@@neglectfulsausage7689you’re still not allowed to flash children at a pride parade. As someone who’s been to many pride parades and actually seen a flasher arrested (now granted I have no clue whether the guy was convicted or not) at one of them I can assure you it’s still not okay to flash children at a pride parade.

[@formoney5255]

I have drawn my firearm (although never pointed it at someone) in order to prevent violence from occurring on two separate occasions. Killing someone is a big deal. regardless of how badass you think you are, its gonna cause you some serious, long term, mental issues. I served 4 years in the navy, and have friends who did spec-war shit who struggle with that daily. You should never kill someone unless you absolutely have to, and shooting someone generally kills them. Anyone who gives advice that you should unnecessarily kill someone, for any reason, is not a person you should listen to.

[@scaleworksRC]

The attitude these kids carry today.. they don't even care. I already have indirect deaths on my conscience. Don't need any more.

[@VagabondTexan]

Shooting victims actually have an 80+% chance of surviving being shot according to "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, SECOND EDITION (Practical Aspects of Criminal and Forensic Investigations)". Of course if depends on how many times one is shot and where those bullets go, but being shot is surprisingly survivable. Other than that, I quite agree with you.

[@ejokurirulezz]

The law in my place(somewhere in eastern europe) indicates that the officer's weapon should always be equal to the person's they try to capture. For melee weapons they use glop, for firearms, they use their own firearm and if the offender is barehanded, the officer must be barehanded.

[@formoney5255]

@@ejokurirulezz That's...incredibly stupid lol. When i was in the US military doing security forces type stuff, our policy was to always be using one step above what the "enemy" was using.

[@christianc.christian5025]

I was wearing headphones once while walking home and a cop drew and closed in on me when I didn’t respond to his commands - because I didn’t hear him. He then saw that I wasn’t the suspect and apologized to me about it. If that cop followed these made-up rules, I probably would’ve been some lawsuit or political dispute about urban policing and why it’s basically one occupying army treating a territory like a hostile war zone. People cite the murder rate but that’s bullshit. More people died from disease in one year than do from violence in a decade and *nobody* wanted to treat America like a quarantine zone… It’s just an excuse to police in an authoritarian manner.

[@mikeorick6898]

I've drawn and NOT fired several times. Three men with a hammer, pipe, and piece of rebar stopped and dropped that stuff when I drew; no need to shoot anybody. A pilot trying to run a roadblock and run us over with his plane (long story) stopped when we drew our pistols. The use of deadly force in self-defense can be very complicated. Very smart people get it wrong, and any idiot can find themselves in a situation where they have to figure it out.

[@TheIBOY11]

I really feel like an explanation is warranted here. A PLANE??

[@afterlightdesigns]

Seconded. A plane running a roadblock?

[@allanon93]

What a plane running a roadblock. This has to be a story on the channel.

[@mikeorick6898]

If a small private plane with an IFE (in flight emergency) entered restricted air space and landed by mistake on a top-secret military airfield that was near and on the same heading as the airfield he wanted to land at it could get interesting. The pilot/plane might be stopped, detained, investigated, debriefed, and non-disclosure/secrecy agreements signed. Could take hours/days. Might fly way again, might lose the plane. A pilot might try to avoid all that by going around blocking vehicles trying to get on a taxiway/runway to take off again. That would not be allowed to happen.

[@mikea.6608]

Shouldve used one of Steven Seagals one liners and shot 🤷‍♂️

[@verager2493]

That "you gotta shoot if you draw" stuff sounds like a red flag against whoever told that to you. Like, the only reason I can think of for someone to come to this conclusion is that they drew when their life was clearly not in danger and ended up threatening someone, and subsequent legal action made them bitter about the whole ordeal

[@bigmanbarry2299]

Same people who think undercover cops need to say they’re undercover cops if asked

[@ScottGarrettDrums]

A California Highway Patrol officer once told me "if you touch the trigger you fire." These are some of the most professional law enforcement officers in the nation. Yet, the advice is still just as bad.

[@Diogenes2077]

Perhaps he tried to say 'never touch the trigger, unless you have to fire'. This also breaks down to 'when you touch the trigger, you fire' but has kind of the opposite intention to what you seem to read into it.

[@dondajulah4168]

@@Diogenes2077 Yeah, I think this is a bastardization of dont draw unless you are PREPARED to fire, which is valid. That you HAVE to shoot anyone under any circumstance other than a life is in immediate danger is either an alteration of valid advice or just plain BS

[@bigguy7353]

I think the idea, in a nutshell, is that if there is no exigent need for someone to be shot, your firearm should stay in it's holster. I understand the philosophy of that, but I disagree in it's praxis.

[@bjornnilsson1827]

I was told "never point a loaded gun at anything unless you're planning to shoot at it" as a conscript thirty years ago. But honestly that was more in the context of gun safety than self defense or anything else. I guess if you're calling up roughly 80% of young men to do military service (as Sweden was at this time) you want as many "layers" of "foolproof" rules as possible regarding guns, because you're basically guaranteed to have plenty of fools with guns around.

[@josepandreu7448]

I was told that, too. But, besides all you said, which is totally on target, he army trains you for the battlefield, and suburbia are normally not battlefields. They should not be, in any case.

[@sylaconnocalys8443]

But even that phrase I feel like semantically is fine. Planning to shoot doesn't mean you are going to do it. Just like setting up a plan to go on vacation, or planning a heist is not the same as going on a vacation and going on a heist. Plans can be withdraw or not executed and saved for a rainy day.

[@ArthurMorgansDeadHorse]

@@sylaconnocalys8443 exactly. In the case of drawing a firearm, it doesn't mean "i drew it so i have to shoot you." Its more along the lines of "I drew it and WILL shoot you if you continue to endanger me (or others)." You draw and aim because you are serious about taking them down, but offer an opportunity for them to disengage on their own. As former military police, its the classic Use of Force triangle. Always resort to the least amount of force necessary to put an end to the situation. Sometimes that least amount of force is pulling the trigger but many times the situation will be neutralized with less force than you'd think.

[@SonsOfDeForest]

'unless you're willing' one can be willing to do something without necessarily wanting to or actually doing so.

[@armind4555]

That's similar to what I learned regarding gun safety and use. Though it was phrased as "only point a loaded gun at something you have a reason to shoot" ie : a target, game, someone threatening. Mostly done to avoid fools pointing their guns at each others as a prank or flagging the whole gun range. Or accidents due to poor trigger discipline.

[@EmveeEss]

"Well... this dude with a G.E.D. and two years of writing speeding tickets says I have to MERK you now, so..." Dude, amazing. Hahahaha. This is one of your best vids.

[@Pharto_Stinkus]

I have heard my whole life that you SHOULDN'T pull a weapon unless you are WILLING to use it. I have NEVER heard ANYONE say that if you pull a weapon, you MUST use it.

[@abortedlord]

Oh I have, a bunch of times. I'm an FFL in Indiana and not only have I heard this shit, I've heard it from old guys, young guys, cops, obvious gang bangers, and at least one old lady, and usually they're saying this shit to someone else at my shop. At this point I don't engage with that shit. I wait for them to fuck off away from my sale, and then I speak to whoever they were talking to and I try to straighten them out.

[@jakubprzybylski6670]

Yeah, it's really strange thing to say, I have never heard anyone saying it that way. 😅

[@astrotecn]

He probably misinterpreted this common saying. The whole point is that if you pull and the other dude is willing to shoot and you are not, you just fucking killed yourself. Guns can be deterrents but they depend upon the wielder.

[@Pharto_Stinkus]

@@astrotecn I mean, it would be weird if he just "misinterpreted " It, he an ex-cop, and steeped in self-defense and gun culture for years. I think it's more likely that it's a regional saying, where he lives, and he HAS heard it a lot, but it isn't common in other places. I don't know, it's still a weird thing to say, regardless.

[@DioTzu]

I have heard people interpret the two statements, interchangeably. Its a simple lack of training and research. Also, a lack of philosophy of self defense. I have also heard people say, if you shoot, mag dump, or the lawyer can say you weren't afraid! So stupid! That's a alot of unnecessary flying projectiles that could hurt innocent bystanders.

[@bob67497]

The phrase, "like children, or rookie cops" can be slapped on so many other scenarios LMAO

[@natthansenteni]

I might be wrong on this, as I'm not american and so I had never heard that. But there's a saying you hear sometimes in Canada ( and I'm guessing elsewhere just as well ) which is : you should never pull a firearm unless you a READY to shoot. ( The logic being, if you escalate the situation with a gun, without being ready to use it if necessary, you've just made the whole thing more dangerous for everyone involved ). Is it possible it's that saying that got transformed over time ?

[@andrewanastasovski1609]

I was thinking it could be a safety rule like 'don't point your weapon at something you're not okay with shooting' that got mixed up to 'shoot everything you point your weapon at'.

[@BeersAndBeatsPDX]

Being ready to shoot and having to shoot aren't the same. A majority of home invaders just want to grab stuff and run. They don't want a fight. Just seeing you there willing to defend your home will send them running. If you pull a firearm on someone you should be willing and ready to use it, but you also shouldn't have to use it. If you can defend your home and family without killing anyone then it's a good day.

[@natthansenteni]

@@BeersAndBeatsPDX I couldn't agree more. And it honestly goes the same way for the home invader. If all you really want to do is grab some stuff and run ( legality and morality aside ), you defininetely shouldn't be bringing a gun during your break in. You are bound to send the wrong message, and end up getting shot. And that was kind of my point. I feel like the saying ' don't draw unless you are willing to shoot " turned into " don't draw if you aren't gonna shoot ". One is sound advice, the second is idiotic to the highest extent.

[@VacuumJockey]

That whole "if I draw it, I fire it" thing is from an Elmore Leonard book. I can't recall exactly which one, but I believe that it is a Raylan Givens quote.

[@LukeC908]

I believe there was a situation where a DA prosecuted someone for “brandishing” when rioters demanded he get out of his vehicle. That situation is both confusing and messed up from a legal perspective.

[@williamnicholson8133]

You never draw your weapon without the conviction to pull the trigger if neccessary.

[@necromancer0616]

The difference in drawing a weapon and using a weapon is NO ONE dies! That simple. The only thing with drawing and pointing it at a person is the intimidation factor.

[@kaufmanat1]

Unless the dude's buddy who is standing besides you has a gun, then you're probably going to die. When you draw a gun you make yourself a target. Some situations, it's a risk you need to take, but if you're ONLY trying to intimidate someone, definitely not a risk worth taking imo.

[@necromancer0616]

@@kaufmanat1 True, all situations vary.

[@tannertighe479]

The idea of “you cant draw a firearm unless you will use it” when i was brought up was more of a mental thing, like pulling my firearm changes the situation, and to only pull it if its my life or theres, so its more of a keep it on my side unless someone needs to be shot

[@tannertighe479]

But i agree with everything said, its just when i was told that it wasnt the legal aspect, its just the last ditch “ if you pull it be prepared to use it”

[@Jay-ho9io]

It's been a couple of years now that I have been watching your channel, and the sudden revelation that you were not just an FTO, but an FTO of FTOs.... It's a near religious epiphany that explains everything from your sense of humor, the lack of hair, the necessity of finding a job where you can be paid to do terrible, often hilarious things to others (and yourself.) Truly, a moment of enlightenment. 🤣👍🏼

[@hourglas]

I've never even heard of this. Lol. Only thing I've heard similar is, "If you do shoot, you shoot for center mass" This isn't fallout, you don't get to pick limbs. Then if you actually say that you aimed for a limb, your "fearing for your life" defense comes into question. Not too life threatening if you felt the need to only maim.. then your whole defense will snowball under pressure.

[@Daves_Not_Here_Man_76]

There is a time where you might get that opportunity. 2-3 shots in center mass. They drop then get back up. Either due to drugs or body armor. More to the chest isn't likely to work so you have to do something different. I was taught to immediately shift towards the hip. Pretty much the same size of target as center mass but with different results. Not even on near lethal doses of PCP can somebody walk with a shattered hip. The body mechanics don't work that way. Also, no armor. You're going to get results. The chances of that happening are low. But not zero.

[@hourglas]

@@Daves_Not_Here_Man_76 well even in the situation you described you shoot for center mass first, only shooting a limb if for some crazy reason that didn't stop the attacker. That's understandable. I'm talking about people who think it's a good idea to shoot a limb first like it's a movie.

[@davidharrison5873]

What's scary is people who can't work this out in under a minute are allowed to own firearms. Thanks for pointing out how dumb comments about self defence in the UK are as well. Good stuff.

[@neglectfulsausage7689]

I want you idiots to read this and figure out WHY going to jail for self defense in UK is a MEME. The case of pensioner Richard Osborn-Brooks, who was arrested on suspicion of murder after the death of a suspected burglar, has again focused attention on what you can and can’t do if an intruder comes into your home. Am I entitled to kill a burglar? Yes, but only under certain circumstances. And you would almost certainly face detailed police questions about your actions. The police and courts would have to be satisfied that when the burglar died, you were engaging in what the law regards as legitimate self-defence. The legitimacy of that self-defence relies in part on the long-established common law right of honest citizens to use “reasonable force” to protect themselves. The Criminal Law Act 1967 also encoded a similar “reasonable force” defence for actions taken to prevent crime. But what does the law mean by 'reasonable' force? The law has said that “reasonable” should be assessed in the context of the danger that you honestly believed you were facing - not the danger you were actually facing. In other words, even if your threat assessment is later shown to have been wrong, you are still entitled to be judged on the basis of the danger you thought you were facing - provided your actions were based on a genuinely held belief. So, for example, if you act on the belief that you are facing an intruder armed with a gun, you will still be entitled to a “reasonable force” defence if it turns out the supposed weapon was in fact a realistic-looking toy. If, however, you form a mistaken belief about the danger you are facing while intoxicated, you may not be entitled to a “reasonable” force defence. But what if, in the heat of the moment, I react to the danger with violence that I later realise was excessive? You may still have a defence. Crown Prosecution Service guidance has long emphasised that people are not expected to make “fine judgments” in the heat of the moment. And in 2013, for people facing intruders in their own home, David Cameron’s coalition government further relaxed the reasonable force requirements by introducing the so-called “householder defence.” The Crime and Courts Act 2013 stated that if you were in your own home, you only had to prove that the force you used in self-defence was not “grossly disproportionate.” In effect, the government accepted that in the heat of the moment people might over-react and do something that on calm reflection is seen to have been disproportionate. The then Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said: “I think householders acting instinctively and honestly in self-defence are victims, not criminals. They should be treated that way.” He added: “We’re saying you can do anything as long as it’s not grossly disproportionate. You couldn’t, for instance, stab a burglar if they were already unconscious. “But we really should be putting the law firmly on the side of the homeowner, the householder, the family, and saying ‘when that burglar crosses your threshold, invades your home, threatens your family, they give up their rights’.” So does that mean that once an intruder enters my home, I can mete out whatever violence I like to them? No. In January 2016 the High Court ruled on what had effectively become a test case, brought by the father of alleged intruder Denby Collins, who had been left in a coma after being confronted by a homeowner who put him in a headlock. The judges decided against Mr Collins by ruling that the 2013 rule change did not breach Article 2 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects the right to respect for life. At the same time, however, the judges were careful to stress that they were not giving homeowners “carte blanche” to use any degree of force without facing legal repercussions. If what you did to a home intruder was “grossly disproportionate” - as opposed to just disproportionate - you could face prosecution for offences including murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, wounding and assault. Why was the law changed in 2013? The change came after farmer Tony Martin was convicted of murder in 2000 for shooting dead a teenage burglar. It prompted more than ten years of calls for greater legal protection for people who took violent action against intruders in their own home. What were the details of the Tony Martin case? In August 1999 Tony Martin shot dead 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras and wounded his 29-year-old accomplice Brendon Fearon after they entered his Norfolk farmhouse, which was called Bleak House. There was a public outcry when Martin was arrested and put on trial for murder. With Martin complaining of repeated burglaries and a lack of police action to stop rural crime, many took the view that he had a right to protect himself, his home and his property. At trial, however, Martin failed in his claim of self-defence. The court heard he had waited in the dark with a loaded, illegally-held pump-action shotgun, before going downstairs and shooting the two burglars. Barras had been shot in the back, suggesting that he had been trying to run away.

[@davidharrison5873]

@@neglectfulsausage7689 I don't know what point you're trying to make. Osborn-Brooks was released on bail and charges were dropped less than 48 hours after the killing. Martin set an ambush, which is almost never a valid self-defence claim in the UK. If you are having trouble understanding UK self-defence law, you should look up the Clapham omnibus principle. UK law is not half as prescriptive as US law; judges and juries are entrusted with more autonomy.

[@Shiresgammai]

You bring up some good points! One problem certainly is that people tend to overestimate the fighting abilities of both police officers and soldiers. The idea that police officers and soldiers spend daily with fighting people unarmed is fantasy, we live in a time of guns, pepper spray and tasers, most conflicts are not resolved by throwing bare fists.

[@thebobbytytesvarrietyhour4168]

I would love to see more of this content from you. I think this is one of the areas that you are the only voice I hear discussing these topics with expertise.

[@neonclear8500]

I always thought, and have told others never draw/present a firearm unless you are WILLING to fire. That always has, and STILL makes sense to me. If I present a firearm while I am unable to pull the trigger, I have now escalated the stakes in that confrontation despite an unwillingness to engage with those stakes. This is literally the first time I have ever heard the "If you draw you have to fire" and that doesn't even make sense to me. Some states explicitly allow for a "Defensive Display" of a firearm, and in the other states, I can't imagine any person being arrested for NOT killing someone.

[@sparrow420500]

He is right, if you draw your gun you are not legally required to shoot somebody with it. In fact millions of people every year in America use their gone purely as a deterrent. However, I would say if you do dry your gun you should definitely be READY to use it. In the military the first and most important rule for weapons is the one I still live by now. "NEVER Point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot." Now, that doesn't mean you should always shoot, BUT if you draw your weapon and your attacker is not deterred, you should be prepared and willing to squeeze that trigger!

[@David-wq3dq]

sounds like it started off along the lines of 'you can only draw your gun if you were justified to use your gun' that condensed over time to 'if you draw your gun you have to use your gun'.

[@blackmagick77]

I agree, those sayings are dumb. If you can pull your gun and diffuse a deadly situation without anyone getting hurt,, that's a win in my book.

[@YounginBallin]

But what if they retaliate?

[@blackmagick77]

@@YounginBallin Then you gotta do what you gotta do. Moat peooleni assume don't want to get shot

[@GuacJohnson]

its just that statistically the guy pulling the gun is the one making it into a deadly situation

[@blackmagick77]

@@GuacJohnson Because they feel their life or someone else's is in danger... Someone once told me they heard someone screaming for help in a parking lot. Everyone was ignoring it. So he went to look. Some girl was getting abused by her boyfriend (assumably). So the guy was like hey leave her alone. The "bad guy" said mind your own fucking business and started to walk up to the person I know. He flashed his 45 and the guy fucked off. No one ended up getting hurt and she was (at least at the moment) ok.

[@RavenSaint1]

I was trained in the Army. I don't know where you got your "military" information. My platoon was taught that we do not draw a firearm or point a firearm at someone if you are only going to use it for intimidation. That is what police training teaches, I have a buddy who got police training after service. His opinion was no wonder police shoot people so much. Police are trained in a VERY different way than Military. Police are still civilians. Civilians do not have the same training for situations in an active combat zone. Military are trained for combat zones. Police are not in deadly situations 24/7, and still draw their firearms and kill other civilians for no other reason other than bias based beliefs. Not saying that a military personnel cannot have biased beliefs, but I do know we (in the military) are trained to handle situation where we know everyone can be considered a danger until they are proven to not be. So as military at a check point in a combat zone. A small child who walks towards a check point in an active warzone, isn't going to automatically be allowed to approach and not identify themselves at a safe distance for those at the check point. (a lot further than 20 feet, 20 feet is still considered death zone for explosions) They could be a suicide bomber, whether willing or not. You need to make sure the situation warrants a firearm being used in a combat zone situation. Anyone refusing to follow instructions in an active war zone, and stop at what the check point considers a safe distance, will be fire on. If you are using just a pistol at an active combat zone check point, that is stupid, as a pistol isn't as accurate at distance as a rifle is. A pistol is a firearm of last resort in the active war zone situations, because it does not have the accuracy at range that a rifle does. Police Check points are not considered war zone check points, and as police, you would be less likely to have a suicide bomber approaching you. Firearms (for military or police) are not, and should not, be used (pulled or pointed at another) as intimidation tools. They were made to kill, so unless you do not care if you accidently kill someone because you "accidently" pull a trigger from feeling unsafe, life threatened, or just hopped up on adrenaline. Go ahead, you just became a murderer, even if the person was innocent and you kill them. If you shoot them, as military or police, even if they are not innocent, you are not a judge, jury, nor executioner. You are a law enforcement officer who should not be Kill first, kill second, then ask questions. You, as a police officer, are not in a combat zone. Criminals have upgraded their weapons in response to police upgrading their weapons. Death is death. Weapons for killing are weapons for killing. You cannot make them completely safe, even with rubber coated metal balls or bean bags. You can still kill a person with any high velocity wireless device (ammunition). A firearm (used by military, police, or anyone) is a tool for killing others. Nothing more or less. Does not matter when you pull a firearm, whether you pull the trigger or not, it is still a tool for killing another being. You have elevated the situation to a deadly situation by drawing a firearm. A person (military, police, or average citizen) who handles firearms NEEDS to understand that they (firearms) ARE NOT TOYS. That they (the person using firearm) cannot recall ammunition once fired, and cannot make excuses about why they should not be the one responsible for that ammunition killing (or harming) the one shot by their firearm. I was taught that in the military, it is what I know from using firearms, and nothing can convince me that pulling a firearm on a person will not potentially cause that person's death. Especially if the person using that tool of death decides to use that firearm when they startle, get scared, or are just hopped up on adrenaline. Accidents happen, and a tool of death can become a fatal accident that you cannot recall, no matter how much you want that to happen. A person who does not understand that, or can sleep well after something like that, is either numbed to it or wanted to kill someone in the first place. Even you, hard2hurt, have said that adrenaline inducing situations, you lose fine motor control when the "fight or flight" adrenaline has started effecting you. Your first thought is to grab the MOST DEADLY, tool of death, you have access to to try to "intimidate or dissuade" someone when you have impaired motor control? That is a stupid reaction or response when you KNOW your motor control is impaired. This is why military are drilled, taught how to function during combat situations, and have it drilled that firearms are the weapons of last resort to protect and save as many lives as possible in active combat zones. It is to lessen that "fight or flight" function, the effect that impairs your motor control, until after the situation has been resolved. You (in the military) are taught that you can fall apart (allow the "fight or flight" response to effect you) after the situation is no longer immediately dangerous and everyone is as safe as they can be.

[@kaufmanat1]

He's saying if you draw your weapon, you aren't legally obligated to shoot. That's it. I dont think he's trying to justify the use of firearms for intimidation.

[@tonisaaviksaar6658]

I think there is also a more general problem with statements that people have heard several times. They no longer try to think critically about them. Sometimes, when something that contradicts such statements is obviously happening in front of them, they prefer the repeated statement and ignore what they see. Not only "them", I have also caught myself doing it.

[@Spencer-to9gu]

in the army, the only thing I was told that was similar to this, was don't fire warning shots and don't shoot to wound. if you must fire your weapon, shoot with the intent to kill.

[@charlescollier7217]

"I'm not sure what you're supposed to do when your logical fallacies catch up to you." I cackled. 😂😂😂

[@FlamesofRebirth3836]

I’ve gotten that advice before and I always take it as “if you draw your gun, be ready to shoot.” As in don’t take it out unless you are prepared to pull the trigger and kill someone. That’s a little different than “if you draw your gun, you absolutely have to shoot.” If the attacker runs away then obviously you don’t have to shoot them.

[@TheJjjoj]

Drawing the firearm in preparation of a potential, perceived threat is different from pointing it at a target. It's also different from being forced to draw. I can't think of a genuine self defense scenario that a non-LEO would run into which would cause me, specifically with my current aptitude with my particular firearms, to point the firearm without it being objectively reasonable to fire it. If they are close enough to force the draw, they are also likely close enough to force the shot. That doesn't mean continuing to shoot, and it doesn't mean firing because someone caught you by surprise. I think the concept is more that you should fire with intention. You specifically are aware of why you are choosing to shoot or not shoot. This is the essential point you seem to be getting across.

[@charlescollier7217]

Outstanding (and hilarious) video, Mike! My only critique (sort of) is that I think you're underselling your intuition. I don't think you "just guessed." I believe that what we call "intuition" is actually our unconscious awareness of the vast volume of non-verbal information that we constantly process. And I believe that frequent exposure to situations in which that information is essential helps us overcome the social training that teaches us to ignore it. In short, all that time facing threats taught you to respect your intuition, rather than to drown it out. That's an essential lesson for self-defense, in my view.

[@hard2hurt]

I try to avoid claiming expertise or proficiency in areas that can't really be measured online. It just invites a type of response that I don't feel like dealing with, but you're absolutely right. I did that type of thing for a long time and had a well trained intuition with plenty of data behind it.

[@Cetok01]

I believe the proper term is "Don't draw your weapon unless you are WILLING to use it" (i.e., mentally prepared, IF circumstances require it), not that you MUST use it. I guess it needs to be explained better, like so many things these days.

[@TheJoedonbakerfan]

Great information. I have heard of cases of people being prosecuted in cities for firing warning shots when no assailant can be found, but I don't know how true it is.

[@mohammadalighani5213]

This video made me realize how much I don't know about the rules in the country I currently live in or even my own home country. It's...pretty alarming and I should probably do research or consult experts on these things. Thank you for making me realize that.

[@BoodskiBro]

This is a seriously good breakdown of the issue of self-defence, reasonable force and dangerous situations. Thanks for the insight.

[@gallantdon]

Happy to see you getting a cool sponsor bro. Dunning-Kruger rears it's head a lot in the "self-defense law" arena and I think you hit the nail on the head.

[@graythebruceii]

Loved that you addressed this, but I felt a particular solidarity with you over your "I taught cops how to be cops and I taught cops how to teach cops" and your simultaneous dismay that people are citing those former trainees as authorities. I teach English teachers and I train people to teach English teachers (or rather I did until I recently got moved into university assessment). And my Lord, the number of times I get to hear someone say something wrong, tagged with "my high school English teacher told me that." I mean, maybe they heard the teacher wrong (it happens), but frequently I ask some follow-up questions and then I realize I know who the teacher in question is: someone who got Bs in my seminars, which is enough to pass a grad school class, but only barely. Many teachers know a lot more folklore than science about instruction. Anyway, thanks for that moment of powerful identification. I don't often hear from people who know what that feels like.

[@hirakisk]

I haven't heard either one of those before. I HAVE heard advice given, "never pull your gun unless you are WILLING to shoot". In the full context, it was people who say that they could never shoot someone, but want to carry a gun and said that they would just pull it out and point it at someone. I wonder if it has been twisted, or if people actually have given that advice.

[@DeezyP]

Love you and the channel bro!

[@sarakajira]

Here's my concern though: pulling a deadly weapon on somebody, even in self-defense, can (and often will be) easily spun into a felony menacing charge. I know this from experience as my ex and I were attacked in the city by some relatives of my ex who basically wanted us to break up as they didn't approve of our relationship (we are LGBT, and they were against us being a couple). They got very aggressive and came at us and I pulled a knife to "keep them at bay". Trying to "tactically" not hurt them, but you know, give them a reason to re-think their aggression. -It worked. They did, in fact, rethink their aggression and backed off. They also called the police, and I was charged with menacing. The charge was later dropped (my ex hired a lawyer), who was able to convince the DA it was self-defense. BUT, we had the money for a lawyer. If we didn't, if we had been poorer (and my ex had to sell our macbook's just to pay the lawyer), then I very likely would have ended up with a felony. One of the shitty aspects of the American legal system is that it does this. It penalizes people for using the *threat* of deadly force, to *prevent* the deadly force from ever being necessary. It often assumes that someone pulling a weapon is doing so as a bad guy: if the other people call the cops first. Which really sucks. And can ruin some people's lives. In the case of my ex and I, the way it went down is it was *presumed* that we were in the wrong. We got the charges dropped, but it still cost us thousands to do it, and we didn't get that money back. I also spent 30 days in jail while we were doing the lawyer and court thing. Which sucked, and was terrifying. And enormously stressful. And that experience, has really made me rethink the use of carrying deadly weapons as a means of self-defense. Because *unless* I'm actually willing to kill the person (which in 99% of cases is not necessary), I may loose thousands in attorney fees convincing the courts that it was self-defense. Nowadays I carry a mace pepper gun, and a tactical flashlight. If I pull and *use* those, I know I'm not going to get a menacing charge for doing so. (Nobody's going to mistake a hot pink mace pepper gun for a deadly weapon). And it's easy for me to defend the use of that if someone is acting crazy. And they both act as a deterrent ( an ultrabright light in someone's eyes will definitely get them to rethink things, and the threat of a face full of mace will definitely cause people to reconsider), and something I can legit use on someone if I need to. And in either case, I'm not likely to get into serious legal trouble for doing so. PLUS, I'd rather not kill somebody if I can help it. And the problem with deadly weapons: is they're deadly. I'd rather incapacitate someone than kill them, any day of the week. One thing to keep in mind, Mike, is you are an ex-cop. If you ended up in a situation like mine, it would be easier for you to talk to the officers and explain to them that as a former police supervisor you felt the need to pull your weapon in self-defense. In a court, you could easily argue the case, that you are both an ex police supervisor, and a professional self-defense trainer, and so are an "expert" and therefor in your expert opinion, felt the situation justified pulling your weapon. For ordinary folks though, they don't have that kind of "inside" experience, and so often just feel threatened for their life or safety and just do what's instinctual to protect themselves. In my case, I felt genuinely threatened for my and my ex's life and safety and so pulled a knife to keep the attacker at bay. But we still lost thousands as a result. Just adding this bit for what it's worth. I agree, people don't need to shoot if they pull a weapon. 100% But people also need to be prepared that the moment that weapon comes out of its holster, or the moment they draw that knife, they may be facing a felony charge, that they have to fight off at their own expense.

[@David-ug8jc]

I think the learning lesson here is actually to be the first one to make the report by calling 911. Otherwise, you’re behind the curve and presumed guilty. Obviously, it sucks that this is how it is, but it is what it is until the laws change…

[@sarakajira]

@@David-ug8jc yeah unfortunately, that's how it is. And it makes a society where everyone "calls the cops on each other". It's basically a race to call 911 the first. Which sucks because anybody who has any willingness to just solve things on their own, has to call the cops anyway just to be the first one on the line.

[@ArmchairViolence]

I learned "if you draw your gun, you have to shoot," but it DIDN'T mean 'you're obligated to shoot.' It meant, 'if you don't HAVE to shoot them, why did you draw your gun?' (Assuming that they continue doing what they were doing.) So, it wasn't a lesson about shooting people. It was a lesson on not drawing your gun unless you definitely, 100% need it. Do those caveats totally fix the saying, make it slightly better, or is it still just as dumb that way?

[@wildys6]

I'll do you another one, maybe it's originally meant more along the lines of "if you're drawing, you damn well should be *prepared* to fire and deal with all consequences?

[@Jay-ho9io]

It's still just as dumb.

[@hard2hurt]

I'm not even 100% on the idea that you can only draw when using it would be justified. That is not morally, tactically or even legally a requirement. There are tons of scenarios where it isn't true. I just wasn't ready to go that far... yet.

[@ArmchairViolence]

@@hard2hurt Alright, I definitely want to hear THAT video, because that SOUNDS like something that only a cop would be dumb enough to believe, but I want to hear your argument. I like these kinds of videos because you CAN construct a good argument when you feel like it, and persuasive arguments are my jam!

[@sodalis]

My father was a firearms instructor in the military. (NCOIC of CATM) Being a young moron as a child, who has arguably not improved much in cognition, my father used a variation of that phrase in teaching me about guns. But there is a key difference in the wording, "Do not point a gun at anything you are not planning to shoot." The key word is planning. The goal was to impress upon me the seriousness of waving a gun around and that it is not a toy. But you might change your PLAN to shoot someone or something based on new information, like the one you articulated about your neighbor warning you about a fire. I have never heard that if you draw a gun you MUST shoot. I think the wording, and thus the intent of the maxim, has been changed through the telephone game.

[@angelsjoker8190]

Sounds more like a misinterpretation of the firearms safety rule to never point a gun at something/someone that you're not willing to shoot. "Willing" as in "ok with" not "wanting"

[@john_2730]

Regarding the reasonable use of force for self defence in the uk. Brits are regularly subjected to the idea that we can’t defend ourselves. Patently false but it’s too much like hard work digging deeper than the sensational, exaggerated (often false) headlines in uk media. Any other brits here? Check out “the secret barrister: fake law” book. It’s great and breaks down some famous law based urban myths

[@nicholaskarras2759]

I think its the general publics unfamiliarity with legal prodcredings and what different terms mean. Like if there is a headline "robber sues, home owners for assaulting him while he was treaspassing and stealing", people will get mad because thats fucked up, how are you suppoed to defend yourself if you get sued by the other person. But sue just means, to instigate legal proceedings, 99.999999999% of the time, those cases get thrown out almost immediately. (Unfortunately sometimes you still have to pay for lawyers and shit, but oh well, the legal system is fucked, just less than we think).

[@allanon93]

I have heard this before, but I have pulled out my firearm to descalated a situation in the mall parking lot before. Just a person sadly rummaging through my vehicle and many other vehicles, then charge me with a knife. Pulled it out never pointed it at him, but he saw it ran. Never seen him since then, but I moved out of that town. It's crime rate has sky rocketed since about 2017. Car busted into twice when I lived there.

[@martialartsvocationalschoo3319]

Pretty much similar laws in Germany - even with (a lot) stricter gun control.

[@fireeaglefitnessmartialart935]

I've definitely heard variations of these "rules". Being from Wisconsin, it's common to hear sometimes. Although, I did take criminal justice classes in college and there was talk about such things. But I don't remember much. I do remember that you can't legally shoot people in the back unless they're armed and there's a reasonable possibility that that'd hurt others. And, cops are held to a higher standard than private citizens. A civilian could get away with a slap on the wrist for something a cop would get canned for, because they're supposed to know better. Be a better example and uphold the law. Those classes is also where I learned about the "21ft rule."

[@thejapanarchocommunist]

Yeah, but depending on where you're from cops also have qualified immunity, something civilians absolutely do not have. Plus (and it's been awhile since I lived back there so things may have changed) doesn't Wisconsin's laws basically say you have a duty to retreat in most cases?

[@fireeaglefitnessmartialart935]

@@thejapanarchocommunist I haven't been in a criminal justice class in almost 10yrs. But cops are held to a higher standard. I dont recall hearing of a "duty to retreat."

[@1122-q1e]

I thought the saying was that when you draw any type of weapon you need to be READY to use it, because many people rely on the intimidation factor alone

[@gw1357]

"The ROE is always the same, sir...kill who needs killing, don't kill who don't need killing." Outstanding vid. Common sense, clearly presented.

[@joakimlonnberg9383]

In Sweden the rule is (for real) that if you point a wepon at a person you must have legal reason to shoot or an situation where you have a legal reson to shoot must be imminent. Thats what the legal department in the swedish police has said. We also have a "rule" saiyng can, allowed, should when it comes to all use of force.

[@Tondor50]

I love your videos. I teach a college level class in argumentation. I may use this video as an example of why arguments of authority are very weak. Thank you.

[@rabidpanda612]

ive always heard that saying as "only pull out your weapon if you are prepared to use it. " Which makes a lot more sense to me

[@rabiesbiter5681]

This is some of the best advice I've seen on this channel and frankly this entire platform. Thanks for sharing it! Anyway. My understanding of the "21-foot rule" was that it was really more of a tactical principle for when someone armed with a knife may pose the greatest threat to someone holding a gun. That if you're defending yourself against someone with a gun and all you have is a knife, you'd best hope the assailant is within 21 feet -- and when you have a gun and the aggressor has a knife, your best bet is to try to keep as close to 21 feet of distance as you viably can. Anyone who thinks a tactical guideline is a hard and fast rule or a law probably doesn't have much real-world experience. I also talked to a Karate teacher who seemed to have exactly the same misunderstanding of brandishing laws that you just set straight -- proof that self defense classes should be left to lawyers, not Karate teachers.

[@enoughofyourkoicarp]

Well when your logical fallacies catch up to you I think you're supposed to block your ears and go with the most outrageous version.

[@stevo54838]

I honestly can not think of a single time in my life, where walking away was not a realistic option.

[@SticksNKicks-g8c]

Was hearing my boss and co worker at work talking about somebody pulling a gun and not firing and getting charged. But at the same time im thinking is that just something they heard. Immediately went back to this vid.

[@ajhatti2011]

I was told don’t pull it unless you have every intention of using it. But you don’t have to shoot. It will hopefully keep you from having to shoot.

[@jackkardic5151]

Haven't watched the video yet, but I'm guessing the reason most cops give bad self-defense advice is qualified immunity.

[@DioTzu]

Agreed. Also, just that fact that LE is a thankless, dangerous job, that can result in dehumanizing others. Dealing with the most dangerous and fringe elements of society everyday can wear you thin. I think we ecpect too much from LEs sometimes. A massive disconnect. So when push comes to shoot, its them or me. Have you ever been to an LE start of shift briefing and they announce that one of your good mates just got killed? I have. Everyone should do multiple police ride-a-longs. Its an entirely different world.

[@j_valentin13]

Everything you just said is something I’ve tried to get many people to understand. I’m not LE, not yet at least it’s definitely something I’d love to do in the future. As of right now, I’m an armed guard in one of the most dangerous strip clubs in LA. I cannot keep count on how many times I’ve had to draw and point my firearm at someone, and not pull the trigger. One time I was even left alone in the lot with 7 armed dudes, and I still did not pull the trigger. We all looked at each other and wether it was God, luck, everyone came to their senses, or hell maybe all three; not a single shot was fired. They ran off. Another time my two coworkers decided to approach a guy when he wouldn’t take his hand out of his jacket, and against my advice they continued to approach him. I kept distance and the man pulled a knife but I pulled my gun before he could use it and he dropped the knife soon as he saw the gun and heard commands, just like you said could happen. I’ve got a ton of stories about this place and I really only talk to close friends about them now, because anytime I’ve tried to even bring up a story it’s always followed with “well you should’ve shot them, it’s would’ve been justified” by people who claim they know a guy who knows a thing or two. A lot of what you said was really refreshing, especially because unfortunately so many Security guards don’t understand that we are still just civilians. We’re not law enforcement and we’re not above anyone so we need to know what we’re getting ourselves into and we need avoid using force whenever we can. We gotta think things through, just like anyone else. A lot of times I get coworkers who are like “dude you think about things too much, if someone pulls a gun I’m blasting them” and I try and tell them it’s never that simple. Last little story, I had a guy run to his truck and come running back. I saw a gun in his hand and as he went to rack the slide I drew my gun first and aimed at him. He ran away so fast, but his ego was bruised so he decides to drive by and pop two shots into the air. Again, I didn’t have to shoot. Situations change so fast and it’s something that people don’t take into consideration enough. Every second comes with a decision to make.

[@ColeConte]

I've always taught my son: Do not draw unless you're WILLING to use it; this reinforces two things: 1) we don't aim at things for fun-- it's a weapon and is intended to kill. 2) do not flash your weapon without intention as an exposed weapon isn't just a danger to your target, it's a danger to you as well. Otherwise, I didn't know people were saying if you draw you HAVE to use it, that's not only dumb, it's terrible gun safety.

[@niscent_]

in general terms: "when someone has a very strong opinion about something, it's often because they heard it from someone else." they agreed with it, and never thought enough about it to be able to discuss it. so they dismiss or react disproportionately negatively to criticism about it.

[@marakalos3838]

This is actually all very good and very much important information. When in danger, if I'm not mistaken, you should, and are legally justified, do whatever is necessary in order to protect yourself and others as well as your property or to de-escalate the threat. I'm no legal professional however I do know that is the best way to avoid charges and/or prison time if you do get charged. I am not even a cop, just using common sense.

[@michaelwebster5967]

XD “sorry Mitch…” got me lol

[@TheAngryMarshmallow]

When you said "I'm not ...sure what you're supposed to do when you're logical fallacies catch up with you" dripping with sarcasm I was GAGGED OMfg glorious ! 😂

[@hard2hurt]

I had a much longer segment detailing all the possible responses... but it was a off topic lol. I think they're just supposed to call me names and believe whatever they like the most.

[@Nerotique]

This was a really good video. I think one of the main reasons myths like this get started, is so that people don't get charged with brandishing a weapon. If you have to draw, and don't fire, it's best to call the police before the other guy does.

[@mairghead]

I sat on a jury where a woman was charged with brandishing in a self defense situation. I agree that it may be the origin. Everyone on the jury was deeply irritated.

[@Guardian179]

Our policy is that you can't draw your firearm unless you are already authorized to use DF, or if it may be required. So yeah, you can't just pull your gun for fun. However, as you've said, there's no requirement to shoot once you've pulled it. You still have to comply with the uof continuum, only using the force reasonably necessary to compel compliance. You (or someone else) still have to be in imminent threat of death or serious physical injury for you to have justification to use deadly force to defend yourself or others.

[@phicks7963]

Analyze critically is my favorite option

[@bmafirebirdstudios]

I think some have misinterpreted the felony brandishing of a firearm precedent, but it's always best to leave jurisprudence to those versed in law and legal precedence. Good video sir🙏❤

[@ShadowScoutSwede]

Thank you for sharing this information and what you said can be put to debate. And buy the way i have hit the red button for you and i rang the bell for you too. Great channel.

[@christopherroan8728]

Hey Mike. I’ve been loving your channel. I had a topic that I’d like to know your opinion on. Its similar to what you’ve talked about in how to store weapons in your car. What are the worst places to conceal self defense tools/weapons on your person? The one that always comes to my mind are ankle holsters for pistols

[@HeavyHardDrive]

A cop once told me "if i don't use it, I'll lose it" I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about guns. Maybe relationship or money advice.

[@nucklechutz9933]

"I'm gonna assume that 'analyze critically' is not gonna be your favorite option."

[@ryanoneill6481]

If I’m not mistaken, self defence in the U.K. (and also Ireland) isn’t illegal. But put simply use of atypical self defence tools bought for the intent of self defence is illegal, pepper spray and tasers I’m pretty sure are entirely illegal without a license. And at that it’s only legal so long as the harm you inflict on your attacker does not exceed what would be considered “reasonable” based on the situation; which essentially means, you can hit your attacker with a cricket bat, as long as you can provide evidence you didn’t buy it to defend yourself and you don’t continue to defend yourself after the attack has been sufficiently deterred.

[@josephmayfield945]

They say it in the classic horror film Phantasm. The guy saying it; is saying it to his 14 year old brother. Lol. I recall hearing it the first time, and thinking “what?? That’s stupid.”

[@ClipsFromMaine]

Growing up I was just taught never to draw a weapon unless you’re ready and willing to use it. And of course only point it at something if you’re willing to see a big hole appear in. I was never told that if I did point my weapon I had to pull the trigger… 🤷‍♂️

[@thorfinthorfin3010]

Our local Sheriffs Office gives free firearms training for CWPs. I don't know where your at but I have never heard any cop say this.

[@BrokenBarBox]

Not all states view this subject in the same manner. Maryland is one that comes to mind. And yes, the laws regarding use of force are different than civilians in many states. In the future, I would avoid absolute statements and focus on the laws of your particular state. I would also encourage you to contact an attorney who specializes in this field.

[@undamaged1813]

self-defense is LEGAL in the UK as long as you act with "reasonable" force, the problem in the UK is "reasonable" is subjective and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) states "You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon. As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence." It is ILLEGAL to use "disproportionate" force when using force against an intruder, whilst "disproportionate" force can be used in extreme self-defence or defence of others where in the heat of the moment it seemed reasonable but in hindsight could be seen as disproportionate, this does not apply to defence of property where disproportionate force is not given the benefit of the doubt The way this was explained to me was: if you are in your home and there is an intruder and you feel you or someone else is in danger, you are allowed to defend and use the force you feel is required to stop the threat, as soon as that situation changes you HAVE to change your level of force (i.e. if the intruder then flees you have to reduce the amount of force, whereas if the intruder escalates you are able to increase the amount of force as required) - if an intruder dies and you have acted reasonably this is still lawful (there will be a police investigation as it is standard practice is for the police to investigate deaths and injuries) If your car is being stolen you are allowed to stop the crime by using reasonable force (for example you could use BJJ to restrain) but you are not allowed to cause bodily harm as that could fall under disproportionate force It also becomes a lot less clear when it comes to self-defence or defence of others when in public areas but the same applies as with the car example above This is where a lot of people that I know think self-defence is illegal in the UK as they don't know what the different between reasonable and disproportionate force and the CPS is very unclear about the difference and is a bit "no but yes" when it comes to defining what is reasonable and leaves it open to interpretation

[@mattis8205]

I've never actually hear the expression "You should never point a gun at someone unless you are going to use it", but I have heard the expression "you should never point a gun at someone unless you are prepared to use it". The difference isn't trivial. It's the same as saying "If you're going to carry a gun you should learn how to use it and be prepared to do so and deal with the consequences of doing so should the situation arise".

[@Ashbringer85]

I can only think that they have been told "Don't pull it unless your prepared to use it" because pulling a gun and not being prepared to use it has the chance they will take it from you....and people misunderstood the meaning.

[@jnew535]

If a police officer legitimately tells you that you HAVE to shoot someone if you draw your weapon, then they have either shot someone at least 3 times that past week or they don't do real cop work. I don't even consider myself a "real cop", but I'm a trainee police officer in field training and I've already searched for dozens of suspects possibly hiding in garages or houses, as well as responded to calls where the reporting party gives a description of a guy menacing people with a weapon, and nearly everytime we have our weapons drawn and at low ready. Not because we intend to shoot whatever pops out or any person we encounter, but because we need to respond quickly with deadly force if a dangerous, articulable threat arises. It doesn't make any sense to wait until you're already being attacked before you start preparing your defenses (drawing your weapon). I was taught in the academy that in many scenarios where there is an elevated risk of someone having a weapon easily accessible, which is somewhat of a low standard to meet, your weapon should be at the low ready that way you're not any more behind the 8 ball than you need to be if shit hits the fan. I was also taught that even with your weapon drawn, you must possess articulable facts that you believed there was an imminent or immediate threat posing serious bodily injury to you or someone else before you're justified in pulling the trigger. A suspect merely holding a weapon doesn't normally meet this standard until they start making movements that they're going to attack someone with it. Low standard to meet for having your gun drawn, insanely high standard to meet for justifiably firing your gun.

[@urbaniv]

I guess objectively reasonable applies almost everywhere on the world. And the myths evolve because people lie and/or don't think. Here in Austria we had those ... "You're not allowed to defend yourself anymore". Yes because you kept hitting the guy after he went already went down and wasn't a threat anymore.🤦

[@Fearsattention]

How I always interpreted it was don't pull out your firearm if you're not "willing" to use it and not "going" to use it

[@angrybob3594]

In the UK it is a use of reasonable force as self-defence. So using a weapon is problematic so a frying pan is fine generally fine but a kitchen knife is not. This channel is fairly good as a point of guidance "black belt barrister" for UK law.

[@jennoscura2381]

One of the advantages of a firearm is intimidation. Sometimes pulling a gun is enough to make people think twice. If pulling a gun is enough to get an attacker to back off; why in the hell world you shoot them? Here in Nevada open carry without a permit is legal. So I have been thinking about saving up my pennies for a pistol. I am a wheelchair user; which puts me at a disadvantage. If having a gun in a shoulder holser or chest rig is enough to get people to leave me alone; that's a good thing. If I have to draw and that causes the person to back off; that's good too. I recently started using an Ordro head cam. So in a situation I would have video evidence to back me up. But ya; doesn't take legal advice from cops.

[@advancingsecurity]

Very powerful my Guy.

[@PhycoKrusk]

It's been my understanding for a while that if someone is engaging in behavior - such as trying to mug me - that makes me reasonably fear for my safety, then the whole objective of drawing my sidearm is to make them cease that behavior. If going so far as moving in such a way that merely implies I'm armed is enough to make them cease that behavior, good! I remain unmugged, and with any luck, the other guy is off to rethink his life choices. Or at the very least will develop the common courtesy to be working for the IRS the next time he tries to rob me. The whole point of being able to escalate to deadly force is to be able to if it becomes necessary, not because it's some kind of protocol. (It's also my understanding that if moving in such a way that implies I will deploy a sidearm is enough to deter an attack, that I should still contact emergency services promptly to inform them that a robbery of my person was attempted so that I can get the narrative on my side first if the other guy decides to call and claim that I threatened him first. But hey, that's just what I heard)

[@redacted3732]

You should talk to the KZbinr; Law of Self Defense about these subjects. He's a lawyer who specializes in use of force and self defense cases and i think you two could give us insight on the legal and practical stuff around protecting yourself using force. Also, 🚫🍞.

[@GlitchyRijndael]

Commenting solely based on title before I watch. Will edit afterwards. This sounds like a corruption of the more reasonable concept that “you shouldn’t draw your firearm if lethal force isn’t justified”. I can see how someone might hear that and think “oh so I have to shoot if I draw” even though that’s like… the reverse of what the original statement is. Edit: 5 minutes in and whew you’re spitting fire on the people who use appeal to authority 😂 although as a comment, you mentioned that the standard for use of force in self defense is the same for civilians and police, and that’s mostly right from what I understand but technically juries are instructed to review police use of force from the standard of “a reasonable officer” which entails assuming higher levels of training, responsibilities and knowledge than a “reasonable person”. I remember learning a bit about that from when I was learning about the Clapham omnibus Edit: 8 minutes, lol at the simpleton line. Made me chuckle. Edit: end of video. Yeah this checks out. I’m glad I wasn’t too far off your intended point. Honestly in terms of “plain English explanation of use of force”, Massad Ayoob’s Judicious Use of Lethal Force lecture here on KZbin has been one of the most enlightening ones.

[@josephgillilan3548]

The thing I was taught, was never draw your gun unless you have too use it. Because it might be brandishing and if the person might decide too de escalate the situation and get his buddies to attack again. But my counter is if you have too draw your gun in a location.. dont stay in that location then.

[@bendillard5946]

I'm enjoying your channel I like the research you put in I have never been officially trained but I have been around alot of veterans and Police and they told me work on your accuracy and your timing draw etc and everything else is a new day you will know when its time for the showdown they also told me after you kill for the first time regardless right or wrong you will not be the same war street fight home invasions kidnapping what ever you are not going to be the same so I stay on point and I work on my carry draw and accuracy

[@Kadranos]

The closest I've heard to this is prosecution with an apparent agenda against firearms or against self defense bringing charges of brandishing a weapon or assault with a deadly weapon in these cases. Allegedly, the argument made in court was that regardless of the objective circumstances, if someone believed lethal force was necessary then they would have used it instead of just threatening to do so. In this way, presenting the weapon without using it was argued as evidence that the defendant did not actually believe their life was in danger. As I recall, my hearsay came from a friend whose lawyer told him about multiple cases with that local DA doing just that. Can't really vouch for authenticity. I never bothered to fact check it as I know it's not relevant in the jurisdiction where I live. I think my locale stops just shy of issuing medals to individuals who eliminate threats under castle doctrine. On lawyers... yes, they are simply consultants with specialized education and certain privileges and obligations, and if you have carefully read every relevant statute word for word recently, you probably know something they don't about it, and should consult with them about anything they may have missed. Not only are there lots of laws, but they change pretty often. Also, wording of offense statutes and of defenses to them can be wormy things, so there are angles and interpretations easily missed or misunderstood, and court precedent or common judicial practice are super valuable, but the clever discerning eye can also poke through those things effectively.

[@TreyaTheKobold]

"You have to shoot if you draw" sounds like a law that would exist in the dystopia from Death Race 2000

[@bullfrogboss8008]

I always thought that rule is about that you shouldn't pull your gun with the intention of JUST scaring the opponent while you're not mentally ready to pull the trigger in case the attacker keeps pushing. In this situation, pointing your gun and hesitating to pull the trigger might get you in serious trouble. Not in terms of law, but in terms of getting physically fucked up and even having your gun taken away from you

[@dsinor9159]

LOL I'm a cop and 100% agree with all of this. It's worth pointing out that cops shouldn't be giving legal advice anyway, but the idea that you HAVE to shoot someone is idiotic. Appreciate what you're doing Brother. Stay safe.

[@micahblakeslee]

I work at a sheriff's office (PR - civilian) in the Deep South and have never heard once "you have to shoot if you draw your gun."

[@paleamigo8575]

I'm not referring to any "law" when suggesting that pulling a gun on someone without using it is a terrible habit for personal safety reasons. It depends on what part of the country you are in, but most people will not soon forget having their life in your hands for a few seconds and then deciding not to shoot and most likely will take steps to ensure there isn't a second time.

[@GHOSTofYOSHIMITSU]

yea man being able to talk someone down i have found effective in stopping things from getting out of hand... i was in a pool hall and these guys were playing poker and all of sudden i see a commotion and i start walking over there to help break it up cause it's like come on man we are all here to have a good time let's vibe and kick back... this dude starts coming out the kitchen with his firearm drawn and his friend is holding him back and the other guy who is getting into it with the guy holding the firearm is like" let him shoot " i go to the guy holding the firearm and scream no bro don't do it don't listen to him man let him go. " and he decided to leave and me and the dude that was holding the friend back look at each other like "phew" im reminded of something i was told by an old friend... " the tongue is the gun, conversation runs the nation."

[@electronsmove]

Some of the confusion could be the charge of brandishing a firearm. "to draw or exhibit the weapon in a threatening manner, or to use it in a fight, other than in self-defense." My argument in class was that if I can stop the event by showing the bad guy I have a gun and we both walk away, then that's better than waiting for them to stab me then shooting them. But then I have committed a felony by brandishing? I'm not waiting for a bad guy to be in arms length with a weapon to try to respond. The 21 foot rule comes from an old court case where a cop shot a guy from about 20 feet away and claimed self defense. The defense brought in Chuck Norris...and demonstrated that a trained martial artist can hit you from 20 feet away before you can draw a gun. (I never saw the court video) I always thought it was ludicrous. But that's the most likely origin of the 20 foot rule.

[@hard2hurt]

That is not the origin of the 21 foot rule... because there is no origin to the 21 foot rule... because it does not exist. As for your first point, the "other than in self-defense" bit clears it up.

[@nickarnold1622]

Hope no one hates on mike for doing an ad for a mobile game. Get that money