Training in Couples tactics

[Diamondback]

This discussion makes me wish I could afford carry insurance.

And that up here that waste-of-spooge rumored kiddie-diddler who infests the Insurance Commissioner's office as a lifetime fiefdom hadn't banned it. Or better yet that one of his victims would come forward with evidence...

 

[bbbass]

And that up here that waste-of-spooge rumored kiddie-diddler who infests the Insurance Commissioner's office as a lifetime fiefdom hadn't banned it. Or better yet that one of his victims would come forward with evidence...

Sounds like Washington. The insu commish there prohibited Air Life of Oregon from selling memberships to it's medevac service, ruling it to be unlicensed/unregulated insurance. Pretty sure he deprived the entire state citizenry of low cost medical air transport. At an avg cost of $30k for a flight now, Medicare patients that don't have secondary are out 20% of that bill.

 

[Diamondback]

Sounds like Washington. The insu commish there prohibited Air Life of Oregon from selling memberships to it's medevac service, ruling it to be unlicensed/unregulated insurance. Pretty sure he deprived the entire state citizenry of low cost medical air transport. At an avg cost of $30k for a flight now, Medicare patients that don't have secondary are out 20% of that bill.

Yup, that's Kreidler... the only two things that motivate him are getting his kickbacks (in money, underage poon or rumor has it preferably both) and destroying industries he dislikes.

And he's been Commish for as long as I can recall of my 40 years... poster pervert for Term Limits.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Quite true. I had forgotten - we're seldom out after 10P or before 8A.

But Marc MacYoung also notes 'shift change' behavior - one example was a fair or something, where families with children were enjoying the place, and then around dinner time they all left, being replaced by groups of younger people. Parents saw it, and recognized it. After 'shift change' became a stupid time, even though place/people/things to do had been fine, up to that point.

Make sure you lock your doors or you might get a stolen from the dojo sword upside the head in swanky Lake Oswego.

Lake Oswego machete murder trial centers on if mental illness led to killing

Erik Meiser, 42, is accused of aggravated murder, robbery and burglary charges related to the September 2012 killing of Frederick "Fritz" Hayes Jr.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[WillametteWill]

Regarding the taser, in what theoretical scenario as a civilian would he be justified in using the projector type taser that he wouldn't also be justified in using his firearm? Considering the failure rate of tasers and how often a taser is used with backup ready to use lethal force just in case if necessary.

What the MSM does not explain, ever, is that when officer are using Taser, less lethal and less than lethal and you see another officer with a firearm as deadly force "cover" it means that the threat level is general deadly force (knife, baseball bat, manchette) and they are risking their lives by trying to not use deadly force even though it is justified. The "rule" (which is broken likely hundreds of time each day by officers trying not to shoot people who could be lawfully and justifiably shot) is never counter lethal force with non-lethal force.

Unfortunately many criminals are alive today because officer choose to do this at the expense of dead officers, who chose to not shoot at people they could have. Your question is a great one BTW, just providing my non PC opinion.

This discussion makes me wish I could afford carry insurance.

So good news for you and at a cost savings. Was having a discussion with an attorney I respect who works on use of force type cases. He said that the type of people who generally purchase self defense plans are the least likely to need them because of how seriously they look at the situations. Sounds like you are in this group...and get to save money!!! (And from seeing your posts for years now this appears to be true IMHO.)

 

[localbrew]

One of my instructors once said; and I quote: "I lock my doors for the protection of those who wish to break in." Reinforcing your door hinges, deadbolt, and deadbolt receptacle frame, are all very inexpensive ways to add an additional layer of protection. 3M make a security film for windows that helps if someone tries to break your glass door to get in your home. That's a horrible story about that homeowner; that's why you should always carry even if out for a walk in your neighborhood.

 

[American123]

What the MSM does not explain, ever, is that when officer are using Taser, less lethal and less than lethal and you see another officer with a firearm as deadly force "cover" it means that the threat level is general deadly force (knife, baseball bat, manchette) and they are risking their lives by trying to not use deadly force even though it is justified. The "rule" (which is broken likely hundreds of time each day by officers trying not to shoot people who could be lawfully and justifiably shot) is never counter lethal force with non-lethal force.

Unfortunately many criminals are alive today because officer choose to do this at the expense of dead officers, who chose to not shoot at people they could have. Your question is a great one BTW, just providing my non PC opinion.

So good news for you and at a cost savings. Was having a discussion with an attorney I respect who works on use of force type cases. He said that the type of people who generally purchase self defense plans are the least likely to need them because of how seriously they look at the situations. Sounds like you are in this group...and get to save money!!! (And from seeing your posts for years now this appears to be true IMHO.)

Your points were the purpose for my questions. From my point of view there is hardly a legitimate purpose for a civilian to try and employ a projectile type taser. If the person is such a sufficient threat that they can be tased, they can probably be justifiably shot.

There isn't a requirement for the attacker to be equally armed before deadly force can be justified, from my understanding, only a "reasonable belief that their life was in jeopardy or that a felonious assault was about to take place" is required to make it a good shoot. So for example, 3 teenagers threatening to bash a guys head in with their skateboards could still be justifiably shot if they in fact tried to go through with that attack. The first and closest attacker, most definitely, depending on hoe far away the other two are at the time of the first shot, and what they do after the first shot, would determine if shooting the others could be justified or not.

 

[SKN]

Your points were the purpose for my questions. From my point of view there is hardly a legitimate purpose for a civilian to try and employ a projectile type taser. If the person is such a sufficient threat that they can be tased, they can probably be justifiably shot.

There isn't a requirement for the attacker to be equally armed before deadly force can be justified, from my understanding, only a "reasonable belief that their life was in jeopardy or that a felonious assault was about to take place" is required to make it a good shoot. So for example, 3 teenagers threatening to bash a guys head in with their skateboards could still be justifiably shot if they in fact tried to go through with that attack. The first and closest attacker, most definitely, depending on hoe far away the other two are at the time of the first shot, and what they do after the first shot, would determine if shooting the others could be justified or not.

So given the circumstances I described previously: a 15yr old HS skinny who may look to you to be 25 doesn't like the way you look at him, approaches you in a combatives stance with empty hands raised shouting that he's going to "kick your @$$!" and shoves you, is a threat under WA statute law that justifies using deadly physical force (drawing, pointing, firing) and you're confident that a grand jury or prosecuting authority in Seattle would call your action good? Not a criticism, just asking.

 

[Longwalkhome]

I guess the thread on the wife killed and the husband wounded should inspire couples to get with training but the notion it can't happen to them usually wins the day.

 

[Librarian]

So given the circumstances I described previously: a 15yr old HS skinny who may look to you to be 25 doesn't like the way you look at him, approaches you in a combatives stance with empty hands raised shouting that he's going to "kick your @$$!" and shoves you, is a threat under WA statute law that justifies using deadly physical force (drawing, pointing, firing) and you're confident that a grand jury or prosecuting authority in Seattle would call your action good? Not a criticism, just asking.

Can't speak to WA, but "approach, shout and push" should be enough to convince a jury such a victim might be in fear of grave injury, particularly when the victim is much older.

Oregon says https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_161.219

Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1)

Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2)

Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3)

Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

However, one sure as heck needs a lawyer - see CHL Law And 'assault' is even stranger - see This site.

Looks like one would have to establish an attacker was making an attempt to commit assault - 'assault' as written seems to require actual injury.

---

 

[titsonritz]

So given the circumstances I described previously: a 15yr old HS skinny who may look to you to be 25 doesn't like the way you look at him, approaches you in a combatives stance with empty hands raised shouting that he's going to "kick your @$$!" and shoves you, is a threat under WA statute law that justifies using deadly physical force (drawing, pointing, firing) and you're confident that a grand jury or prosecuting authority in Seattle would call your action good? Not a criticism, just asking.

Free lesson in Jujutsu time.

 

[SKN]

Can't speak to WA, but "approach, shout and push" should be enough to convince a jury such a victim might be in fear of grave injury.

Oregon says https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_161.219

particularly when the victim is much older.

However, one sure as heck needs a lawyer - see CHL Law And 'assault' is even stranger - see This site.

Looks like one would have to establish an attacker was making an attempt to commit assault - 'assault' as written seems to require actual injury.

---

Statutory law specifies the parameters justifying actions but in the end interpretation of those words will rest with the prosecuting authority and their presentation to a grand jury. I would posit that unless you or I were clearly and unequivically disabled (assisted by a walker or cane) prohibiting a quick withdrawal, that "approach, shout and push" by a 15yr old HS skinny who's empty handed and into whom rounds are delivered until they're on the ground or have fled, may not be easily seen as justified. But, as a prior respondent pointed out I don't live in Cottage Grove so perhaps you would be insulated from criminal prosecution or civil sanction.

Beyond statutory language justifying the use of deadly physical force has 4 components: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion. The element of jeopardy describes the state of mind of the intended victim but also encompasses the issue of disparity of force; the threat is the opposite gender, or bigger, stronger, younger, or the potential victim is outnumbered. Preclusion addresses what other means besides using deadly physical force could have been used to manage, mitigate, or escape a threat. It's these last 2 components that may be a hard sell made more difficult in these "woke" times if the 15yr old is a POC. But may be not so much in Cottage Grove?

 

[SKN]

Free lesson in Jujutsu time.

So drawing, pointing, firing under the circumstances I described is not your first choice? Hands on wouldn't be mine because I'm 70 and as I said earlier have no inclination or motivation to do that. If I may ask, what's your age?

 

[titsonritz]

So drawing, pointing, firing under the circumstances I described is not your first choice? Hands on wouldn't be mine because I'm 70 and as I said earlier have no inclination or motivation to do that. If I may ask, what's your age?

Reaching for a gun at contact distances would not be my first choice, it is too easy to become a wrestling match over it. I am 55. I'd say walk with a solid cane and learn how to it. Can take care of a lot with a cane plus give you a buffer to draw your gun.

 

[Diamondback]

Reaching for a gun at contact distances would not be my first choice, it is too easy to become a wrestling match over it. I am 55. I'd say walk with a solid cane and learn how to it. Can take care of a lot with a cane plus give you a buffer to draw your gun.

Hell, I'm only 40 and I carry a cane regularly. Granted, people look at you less funny for it at my age when you walk with a limp, or are clearly grimacing with pain on a Bad Hip Day...

 

[Librarian]

I'm pleased to report that there are no recent, on-point events that might indicate how things are here in Southern Lane County.

I do agree that prosecutorial decisions always have a great influence, and predicting those decisions is probably best left to defense lawyers. And, of course, as the thread began, my goal is to avoid problems.

Civil proceedings are a crap-shoot.

I find it tacky that OR does not seem to publish a full document of its jury instructions; I have found those from other states to be educational.

Shouting and posturing is Monkey Dance; if it stops there, I just leave, if I can.

Taking it down to personal, my balance is lousy and a push is likely to take me to the ground. The fall might injure me, and being on the ground exposes me to further injury. The push is evidence of intent and capability to use unlawfull force against me. Being on the ground also precludes me from withdrawing.

 

[American123]

So given the circumstances I described previously: a 15yr old HS skinny who may look to you to be 25 doesn't like the way you look at him, approaches you in a combatives stance with empty hands raised shouting that he's going to "kick your @$$!" and shoves you, is a threat under WA statute law that justifies using deadly physical force (drawing, pointing, firing) and you're confident that a grand jury or prosecuting authority in Seattle would call your action good? Not a criticism, just asking.

I thought the Zimmerman trial already thoroughly explained this. Justified use of deadly force doesn't matter if the attacker is 15 or 50.

 

[SKN]

I thought the Zimmerman trial already thoroughly explained this. Justified use of deadly force doesn't matter if the attacker is 15 or 50.

In FL perhaps, unless you're aware of a 9th District or SCOTUS case that made whatever happened there binding to similar circumstances in OR.

 

[EPS]

I appreciate the recommendations.

A couple of books come to mind...Left of Bang by Horne and Riley, and Violence of Mind by Varg Freeborn.

Team tactics can be as simple or as complicated as one wants. If one doesn't stay working on it, then the former is the way to go...also easier on the brain when it's in action finding training files to execute.

Although I don't have anything on the schedule that addresses such a request, I have a few groups that train regularly here, with each time having specific things to work on.

The best advice I can give is once you decide on a training facility, practice those items presented so it becomes part of your daily operations.

I'm available anytime to help out and give guidance...no charge.

I was going to say @Cerberus Group

 

[American123]

In FL perhaps, unless you're aware of a 9th District or SCOTUS case that made whatever happened there binding to similar circumstances in OR.

I'm not a lawyer, and I do understand that various states have various expectations for self defense with firearms. There is no law that I am aware of in any state that says the attacker must be equally armed, only that the defender must have a reasonable belief that serious imminent harm will come to them in order to use that gun in self defense.

Personally, I view a 70 year old getting shoved (likely to the ground) and that attacker try to continue the assault after that, easily warrants a defensive shooting.