The Rohrbaugh Forum
Rohrbaugh Products and Accessories => Rohrbaugh R9 (all variations) => Topic started by: epkptp on February 11, 2011, 04:26:25 PM
-
This is the smallest gun I've ever owned. Easily the best carry gun I've ever had as far as comfort/concealability goes. But I'm not sure how I feel about the possibility of having to use it someday in self-defense.
I'm curious if anyone here has actually had to pull their R9 out or has fired it in a self-defense situation. I feel like someone would just laugh if they saw this thing. ;D
-
That would not be a very long laugh.
-
Yep! Have to agree. They may not get a chance to laugh.
-
Yes. No one laughed.
-
Yes. No one laughed.
I wanna hear more about this! 8)
-
Me, too! ;)
-
I wouldn't laugh at an NAA 22 pointed at me.
I had to pull my pup on a renegade squirrel once and he didn't laugh, and he didn't survive either. ;D
-
If my gun ever comes out of its holster in a self defense situation it would only be because I truly fear for my life and safety and see no other choice but to defend myself with lethal force.
I would not be considering visual intimidation as a deterrent - I would only be concerned with stopping the threat; I believe the R9 is a very effective threat stopper. I don't believe there would be much time for my would-be assailant(s) to laugh.
I too would like to hear more Richard ...
-
I wanna hear more about this! 8)
The precise details are not important. Suffice it to say that the occasion justified taking the R9 to hand, and no one laughed -- neither I nor any of the drunken and/or drugged SOBs who professed to have some inappropriate designs regarding the beautiful lady to whom I have the honor to be married and the rather expensive automobile in which we were parked. These clowns muttered a few expletives which impugned my ancestral heritage, apparently remembered that they had other business elsewhere, and careened off down the mountain in their smoke-belching "klunker."
In about seven decades of life, during which I have been in one so-called "cold war" ("cold" like Hell), one "peoples' revolution," one "civil war," and one "military coup," I have learned from both ends of the muzzle that the sight of a 9mm pointed at one's center mass tends to focus one's mind -- perhaps not as acutely as a .45 ACP or a .50 AE would do, but very much focused on the aperture itself and not on the size of the weapon behind the muzzle. When pointed directly at you, the aperture of a 9mm looks very, very large. Anyone who would laugh under those circumstances would either be a fool, or have a death wish . . . or both.
-
I feel better about my little R9S already! ;D
-
No one has that good of a sense of humor. If they laughed I would really be glad I had my R9S!!
-
Richard described the encounter very well, indeed. There is nothing quite like an eloquent voice of experience. This subject came up recently in a CHL class. I asked a question about drawing but not firing on an imminent threat situation. The consensus was to stop the threat, whatever it takes. A predetermined decision to fire when drawing a weapon may not be the wisest choice if the attacker does a 180. The class instructor asked us what course of action we should take if the "perp" cuts and runs--the answer was to call 911, the practical reason being the attacker may also call to report the incident. Depending on the situation, calling 911 may not be necessary.
-
Thanks Tracker!
-
Learn something everyday....thanks!
-
http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/
If you carry your R9 for self defense you might want to belong to this group.
-
The consensus was to stop the threat, whatever it takes. A predetermined decision to fire when drawing a weapon may not be the wisest choice if the attacker does a 180.
Very true. Of course if a would-be attacker does a 180 then the threat has been stopped; they also would not be laughing as they would have taken the sight of a 9mm muzzle very seriously.
-
This is my take on all this. Now mind you I am not answering your question directly and I also talked about this on another forum.
I use my Seecamp or my R-Nine daily, I carry either both or at least one at a time, but never without.
Every day there is potential of you needing to use that pistol.
There are scenarios that I'm sure we can fill this thread up with.
How many times do you do something to piss someone off, I did not that long ago by merely changing lanes and not seeing that wonderful person already occupying that certain part of real estate. He honked, well he really laid on the horn, and it didn't end there, he wanted me to see he was mad and just didn't let up, he now is doing far worse driving that I initiated by an unhealthy lane change. He came along side of me, he yelled and I thanked him for not letting me make car contact with him by honking his horn, and I waved and I smiled.
You see, I used my CCW to diffuse the situation, I knew I had an advantage over him, and I was wrong right up until he came after me.
So that is one example how I used my CCW to save my butt.
-
An iron fist in a velvet glove is a good perspective on an encounter situation but how do you know for certain he didn't have a bigger CCW?
-
An iron fist in a velvet glove is a good perspective on an encounter situation but how do you know for certain he didn't have a bigger CCW?
He was mad, real mad, you see you and I can't get that mad, can't afford to. We have to maintain coolness in any situation.
If he were like me, he would have honked to let me know he was there and I would have waved and case settled, then I would have thought maybe he was armed because a little thing like that didn't bother him.He kept his cool. I could have easily called 911 on the cell, said there is a lunatic wanting to kill me on the highway with his car, he won't back off and I'm afraid he may have a GUN! What if he did have a gun, he'd be arrested for sure, because I felt threatened.
We have to stay cool.
-
These clowns muttered a few expletives which impugned my ancestral heritage,
Who is your ancestor?
-
Richard described the encounter very well, indeed. There is nothing quite like an eloquent voice of experience. This subject came up recently in a CHL class. I asked a question about drawing but not firing on an imminent threat situation. The consensus was to stop the threat, whatever it takes. A predetermined decision to fire when drawing a weapon may not be the wisest choice if the attacker does a 180. The class instructor asked us what course of action we should take if the "perp" cuts and runs--the answer was to call 911, the practical reason being the attacker may also call to report the incident. Depending on the situation, calling 911 may not be necessary.
Thanks very much for the solid advice, Tracker. I agree, despite what a lot of people say. If someone turns and runs the other way, because you were armed, serious, and ready, then shooting them in the back will probably get you serious jail time, not to mention a huge legal bill, and the scare of your life when it goes before a jury. So even if you're found innocent - you are out of pocket many thousands in legal defense. I agree completely with the 911 call, however you need to be clear that you felt your life was in imminent danger, hence the gun came out, because merely pointing and threatening someone with a gun is a mandatory 3 years in Florida, unless it's justified. Another point to consider: Let's say, you shoot someone and it is justified. You may still incur the wrath (and expense) of a huge civil case brought by the "victim's" family, even if you're found innocent in a justifiable homicide situation. My bottom line here is this: Merely by carrying a gun, and taking it out (even if justified) exposes you to potential risks, such as jail, counter-attack, potential lawsuits, BUT, and here is the crucial BUT - if you are really in a situation where someone is literally threatening you or your loved one's life - you will so glad people like Karl Rohrbaugh exist. I do agree with someone else's motto: "It is better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6".
-
I'd rather walk away, drive away or talk my way out of any situation. If I pull a gun, ( my R9S which goes with me where ever I go) I'll use it. End of story. Then everything changes.
-
This is excellent food for thought and thanks to Richard for sharing his experience. Below are some comments on an urban road rage incident. The lawyer who defended himself was no billed. I think most concealed carry holders would not have any problem knowing when to shoot and when to walk away, especially members of this forum.
http://www.fark.com/comments/246826/Road-rage-guy-punches-through-car-window-of-armed-Texas-lawyer-Guess-whos-dead-who-got-off?startid=1668169
-
I'd rather walk away, drive away or talk my way out of any situation. If I pull a gun, ( my R9S which goes with me where ever I go) I'll use it. End of story. Then everything changes.
That's a very profound point to make because each situation and each person is going to have a personally declared point of no return.
We all want to believe that we will make the most bestest decision for what that point is, but the reality is that under a state of rising duress and stress, most of us will either pull a weapon prematurely (as judged retrospectively) or too late (also as judged retrospectively, sometimes by your survivors).
The responsibility of carrying for defense is deep and far reaching, and all we can hope for is that whatever situation confronts us will be "clear", "evident", and "obvious".
The problem is that I'll bet that some confusion and doubt is often brought into the situation (by the potential perp), so everything comes down to our personal judgement, and I have met too many people who's judgement may be clouded during difficult times.
-
because merely pointing and threatening someone with a gun is a mandatory 3 years in Florida, unless it's justified.
Then you need to depend about the cop's ability, and whose side he will take. South Fl is very cultural conscious .... pull a gun on Abraham and it's jail, but pull a gun on Jose and you get scolded. Pull a gun on Leroy Brown and leroy gets arrested
-
That would be southeast Florida, I think. It might be a different protocol in Ft. Myers.
-
Carter has really made a good point, once you pull your gun, you have "declared a point of no return".
So true, especially in this age of cell phones, cameras and videos.
-
Carter has really made a good point, once you pull your gun, you have "declared a point of no return".
So true, especially in this age of cell phones, cameras and videos.
That's pretty much it, but I was mostly getting at the idea that each of us may have a different "point of no return".
(I know, scenarios get silly), but imagine yourself at a gas station in a rough part of town at night and a guy is walking toward you speaking unintelligably and carrying a satchel with his hand in it.
Without breaking it down any further, I can imagine this exact situation ending up with one concealed carry person pulling a weapon, while another concealed carry person might decide to just talk to the guy to see if he's just selling CD's (or whatever) and tell him to buzz off.
This is the "unclear" situation that I could imagine 20 different people acting in 20 different ways, all the way to ignoring the guy who turns out to be a predator and getting killed and robbed yourself, to shooting a guy who is just selling CD's... and everything in between.
Just an interesting and provocative kind of thing to think about...
-
The scenario you describe is exactly why I don't buy gas at conventional stations when possible. A filling station is one of the most vulnerable locations and not just in rough parts of town; I can remember many occasions when I have been approached by shady characters while filling my tank.
-
I am definitely always looking around as to who's around and alert to anyone approaching. Hand is on the firearm; so far, no scary situations.
-
The scenario you describe is exactly why I don't buy gas at conventional stations when possible. A filling station is one of the most vulnerable locations and not just in rough parts of town; I can remember many occasions when I have been approached by shady characters while filling my tank.
Exactly. My scenario was chosen only because it showed how different people might react and have different thresholds of "action".
The scenario itself is really pretty stupid because I doubt if ANYONE who carries and understands first that awareness is paramount would ever put themselves into that situation in the first place.
But there are plenty of legitimate situations where we could come up against something a bit vague, and that's the time that I am most concerned about.
I'm sure it's already been mentioned in this forum at some point, but I'll toss out a reminder that the book "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin DeBecker should be required reading for anyone who carries defensively.
Simply understanding what that book is about will almost guarantee that you will never allow yourself to be put in a situation where you have to use deadly force.
My (concealed carrier) wife thought that it was the most important thing that she, as a woman, had ever read about protecting yourself from predator harm (and I agree with her).
-
Since this topic seems to have generated some significant and insightful participation, the following excerpt from the Conclusion of a article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz entitled, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, may be of interest:
[size=10]* * * While all the [reported] incidents involved a crime, and usually a fairly serious one, only 8% of the alleged gun defenders claimed to have shot their adversaries, and only 24% claim to have fired their gun. * * * [/size]
The entire article, for those with the time and inclination to read it, can be found at this link:
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html
-
There are a lot of good thoughts in the article. This is one at the end that is particularly significant:
Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year,[101] representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs. Therefore, the number of justifiable homicides cannot serve as even a rough index of life-saving gun uses. Since this comparison does not involve any measured benefit, it can shed no light on the benefits and costs of keeping guns in the home for protection.
-
Here is a situation at a gas station that started my thought process. I was sitting at home and heard a loud, distant shot. A woman and retired 65 year old school teacher, Helen Orman, was vacuuming her car at a station at Kirby and Bissonnet in Houston, a very busy corner in an upscale neighborhood. A man approached her as she was kneeling down and shot her point blank in the head at 1 p.m. or so. He was later caught and arrested as the result of an alert citizen who recognized his vehicle and recorded his plate number. He was buying ammo in a sporting goods store and recorded on camera.
http://www.lindale-tx.net/lamar56/classdir/hbeltonnewsclips.htm
-
That is truly a tragic story!
There are altogether too many cowardly predator types out there just looking for victims of opportunity. I hope Texas justice placed that murderer on the "fast track" at the Walls Unit in Huntsville.
-
If you do need to use a gun ..... then it better go "bang, bang, bang," ......when a gun goes "bang, click, click," then you know you are screwed.
I hear all day long about weight, caliber, recoil, hollow points vs FMJ, etc etc ... But, get the gun out fast, don't shoot yourself, and don't buy a cheap jam-a-matic
-
I hope I never have to use my carry piece to defuse a social situation, but I will if necessary. I do know that if one does pull one's piece, they'd better be prepared to use it, and their life in immenent danger. Like someone said earlier, shoot a felon in the back and you'll be going to jail.
I'm always amused by threads I read on various firearm forums. Choosing a carry firearm is always about caliber (okay) and long range threats (no so okay). You shoot an attacker from a range not deemed to threatening to you or your family's person, you'd better hire a good attorney.
Massad Ayoob has interesting thoughts on the matter, and he confirms that simply presenting the weapon is enough to defuse most confrontations.
-
Call 911 and your attorney. I cannot stress enough the importance of your attorney. Find one now that believes in the right to defend yourself.
I had two attackers call 911 and to the cops, there lies where better than my truth. Many months of stress, court hearings, and 20k in fees the case was dismissed. (courts where pushing for 5 years for me)
Attackers never showed up for the court hearings, and both had previous warrants for arrest. Even with this, because a fire arm was involved, the court wanted to continue.
I feel this was do to rookie officers, a lazy investigator, and prejudice prosecutor, therefore the importance of the attorney to protect your rights.
-
Call 911 and your attorney. I cannot stress enough the importance of your attorney. Find one now that believes in the right to defend yourself.
I had two attackers call 911 and to the cops, there lies where better than my truth. Many months of stress, court hearings, and 20k in fees the case was dismissed. (courts where pushing for 5 years for me)
Attackers never showed up for the court hearings, and both had previous warrants for arrest. Even with this, because a fire arm was involved, the court wanted to continue.
I feel this was do to rookie officers, a lazy investigator, and prejudice prosecutor, therefore the importance of the attorney to protect your rights.
Sadly, one never knows what you will get, when you or someone else calls the police. Often, being right and doing everything just as you have been trained or taught to do it won't be sufficient to avoid the tangled legal system or the aftermath which could be years of civil action. I knew people in my department who were scared to death they would be in a lawsuit over every small thing. Others just blow it off. But when it finally comes around everyone takes notice and it does have the effect of making some think when involved in a situation where they would be better off just to react. In other words thinking at the wrong time can get you hurt badly or worse.
Several things have been brought up in this very good discussion that people should check on in their respective jurisdictions. First, displaying or reaching for a handgun that can be seen, can be considered to be "brandishing a firearm" is some but not all, states. Second, pointing a firearm without sufficient cause, can be considered to be "Felony Menacing" in some but not all, states. And third, you must be able to articulate verbally, what and why you perceived that your "life" or "the life of another" was in jeopardy when you presented the threat of deadly force. You must be able to do that, not only to the satisfaction of the responding officer but also to those who review the case and the DA's representative who will ultimately decide whether legal action is appropriate. The responding officer is not the last word on the subject whether he agrees or disagrees with you, "if" he does a full report. "If" he doesn't do a full report because he agrees with you then the incident will be concluded unless the alledged victim seeks civil damages as a result of distress caused by the threat. Do not for a minute think that there aren't people who won't resort to that kind of thing or attorneys who wouldn't encourage it. Both exist.
With regard to using deadly force on a fleeing felon or threat that is running from the sight of your weapon...keep this in mind. Law Enforcement Officers are trained almost universally, though in some states the laws may differ, that they may not shoot a fleeing felon with one major exception.
That is that the officer reasonably believes that the danger to the public at large would be so great in terms of threat to life that they must prevent the escape in order to prevent further loss of life. The verbal articulation that would go along with that would have to be exceptional and also supported by some facts in criminal history etc, that civilians wouldn't know or have access to in most cases.
-
Call 911 and your attorney.
I know of at least one attorney well versed in firearms related cases and laws who advises reversing that order.
His rationale is that anything you say on a 911 call is admissible evidence that can and will be used against you if you make the call. He argues that there's a lot of reasons that can be used in your defense for not making that call - you might be afraid of other threats in the immediate area and decide that retreat - actually leaving the area - is the safest course of action to protect yourself and family. Once a 911 call has been made you've given up at least some portion of your 5th amendment rights and he would rather argue why you didn't make the call than argue against possibly incriminating evidence given up as a result of a call.
One LEO who conducted a training class I attended suggested a 911 call that might go something like:
"This is [my name] and I'd like to report an attempted armed robbery. Shots were fired and an ambulance is needed at [my location]" and nothing more. Of course the scenario being discussed was one in which you - the caller - were defending yourself against the attempted armed robbery and you were the one who fired the shots and the ambulance was for your attacker - but none of this was part of the 911 call so while still admissible, you've not implicated yourself in anything more than making a call.
That same LEO also advised having a discussion with an attorney ahead of time so that you have advice and a plan in case the unthinkable happens. Even if that attorney wasn't one who might actually defend you on specific charges he could advise you on how best to avoid making any statement that ends up incriminating you and requiring you to refute that statement.
-
Flintsghost: very well written and informative.
JR: I stand corrected, great advise.
-
I know of at least one attorney well versed in firearms related cases and laws who advises reversing that order.
His rationale is that anything you say on a 911 call is admissible evidence that can and will be used against you if you make the call. He argues that there's a lot of reasons that can be used in your defense for not making that call - you might be afraid of other threats in the immediate area and decide that retreat - actually leaving the area - is the safest course of action to protect yourself and family. Once a 911 call has been made you've given up at least some portion of your 5th amendment rights and he would rather argue why you didn't make the call than argue against possibly incriminating evidence given up as a result of a call.
One LEO who conducted a training class I attended suggested a 911 call that might go something like:
"This is [my name] and I'd like to report an attempted armed robbery. Shots were fired and an ambulance is needed at [my location]" and nothing more. Of course the scenario being discussed was one in which you - the caller - were defending yourself against the attempted armed robbery and you were the one who fired the shots and the ambulance was for your attacker - but none of this was part of the 911 call so while still admissible, you've not implicated yourself in anything more than making a call.
That same LEO also advised having a discussion with an attorney ahead of time so that you have advise and a plan in case the unthinkable happens. Even if that attorney wasn't one who might actually defend you on specific charges he could advise you on how best to avoid making any statement that ends up incriminating you and requiring you to refute that statement.
I would refer everyone to two cases which illustrate the points about having and not having council. One is the famous case of Mr Fish, who cooperated fully with the authorities at the scene and despite having NRA sponsored council at trial is now doing a long term incarceration for homicide. The other is the Jon Benet Ramsey Homicide. The Ramsey's attorney refused to allow them to answer any questions unless they were presented in writing prior to any interviews. They didn't cooperate verbally in any manner other than basic information. Regardless of guilt or innocence of the parties involved or judgements about same...the fact is the Ramsey's did not one minute of time in a facility and Fish is doing a long stretch.
Possibly, justice was done in both cases. Maybe not. Lots of people have opinions on either side. But the initial thoughts at each scene were that Fish was defending himself with a handgun and based on the history of in family childrens deaths that the Ramseys were probably complicit in their daughters death. In both cases the investigations and subsequent actions were based on what was learned through interviews or in the latter case not learned.
-
Fish case was reversed:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/07/harold_fish_con.php
-
Fish case was reversed:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/07/harold_fish_con.php
Thanks for the info. I did not follow the case after the original conviction. Last I knew he was actually behind the wall doing hard time.
-
After reading the case details, and the original circumstances of the shooting, i am kind of undecided on where i stand on the case. i believe he should have least tried to run away first and put some distance between himself and the unarmed attacker. maybe even another warning shot, into the ground. then if you get cornered and the guy keeps coming, you might seem more justified. I dont know, i'm just glad it is not me.
-
Here is the applicable statute in Tennessee:
[size=10]39-11-611. Self-defense.
(a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Business” means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;
(2) “Curtilage” means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;
(3) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;
(4) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and
(5) “Vehicle” means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:
(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.
(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
(d) The presumption established in subsection (c) shall not apply, if:
(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;
(2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;
(3) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:
(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;
(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and
(B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or
(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:
(A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and
(B) The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
[/size]
-
After reading the case details, and the original circumstances of the shooting, i am kind of undecided on where i stand on the case. i believe he should have least tried to run away first and put some distance between himself and the unarmed attacker. maybe even another warning shot, into the ground. then if you get cornered and the guy keeps coming, you might seem more justified. I dont know, i'm just glad it is not me.
It is an interesting case and has lots of unusual details that struck me. I read everything there was on line about it and even had the opportunity at one point to read the original court transcript online. Several things struck me as salient points that were never really emphasized at the time. My memory could be a little faulty but these are some of the things that stuck out in my mind...
1. The incident was on a dirt trail and one would initially be led to believe it was way out in the middle of nowhere when in actuality Fish, dogs and victim were a little over 100 yards from a rest area on a major highway, the trails end. There were people there who heard the shots but not the ensuing commotion. The shot timing as recalled by witnesses was entered at the trial.
2. Fish was carrying a commercial walking stick, one of the ski pole types and had it in his hand when it started. Is there some reason he didn't try to use it to keep the dogs at bay or was he someone who is afraid of animals just because they are agressive. All cops have walked up on cars and pickup trucks that have the hound of the baskervilles in it and acts like they will eat you. I never was afraid of a dog and usually mere voice commands will cause them to back off from me. And I'm not the "dog whisperer" but have had several and still do and have a firm voice. The only ones I ever had to shoot, I did because they were so badly injured from encounters with vehicles that my ranch experience with cattle and horses led me to believe they were a lost cause for the best vet in the world.
3. There are lots of intermediate methods of dealing with hostile people before one gets to a firearm. To a cop it's called the escalation of force continuum. Did Fish use anything like that? He was a high school teacher and used to dealing with teenagers. Surely he must undertand handling problems. He had a walking stick and voice that he never by his own admission attempted on the dogs and then with pistol in hand claims he told the victim to halt. Then fired. The victim was far enough away that there was not any trace of powder residue on the victim (at least not noted at trial). Fish was carrying a 10mm S&W with (as I recall, and maybe wrong, 200 grain HP ammo). The hollow points were a big issue at trial, way overblown. How far away does one have to be before powder residue is no longer deposited on their person or clothing by a 10mm? That was never brought up at trial. When I go off trail I usually carry a S&W 58, .41 mag with full house factory 210 Jacketed SP's. So I can't fault the cannon he was carrying. I think it was a good choice. But my .41 will leave traces on a paper target out to 15 feet or so. It's a bigger cartridge but has the same shorter barrel as Fish's 10mm so he would have unburned powder exiting the muzzle also.
4. Forensic evidence at the scene was poorly explored. As I recall a cartridge case from Fish's pistol was found subsequent to the investigation by some long period of time. As I recall it was when the judge and jury were transported ot the scene to see where it happened. How good does that look? The local authorities did not do anyone any good with their casual approach to investigation.
We'll never know exactly what happened. But those things were points I noticed and left unanswered questions in my mind that I would have wanted to know. Some of those things such as his walking stick were not even points that were asked in his interviews as near as I could tell. He needed good legal council while he was being questioned and the investigation needed to be more comprehensive. If I was a juror I'm not sure if I could have reached a verdict based on what I read.
-
Here is the applicable statute in Tennessee:
[size=10]39-11-611. Self-defense.
[/size]
Richard, that is good stuff and something that everyone should know for their state. In addition everyone who carries should know what their county and municipality has passed that is an addendum to the state statutes or differs from them. In some states that can happen while in others it can't.