Again, review the chart. The question is shooting bad guys in the back. Many in the gun community, indoctrinated by the fear-mongers and liability-centric trainers are totally averse to back shooting. And it shows. We recall the Minnesota Mal event where tha bad guy terrorist is actually advancing on the good guy back first. And the good guy is shown back pedaling, apparently hesitating to shoot him in the back, and actually falls down. Fortunately, it worked out well for the good guy. A recent question at warriortalk on the legality of back shooting created the need for this article. So lets get to it. I have shot bad guys in the back twice. One was an active shooter and the other a home invader/rapist. Both were justified. In the tactical scheme of things, the back shot will present itself, usually in one of two ways. One the bad guy will be attempting to move from one point to another, either in an attempt to flee after his crime, or gain a tactical advantage. The other is that at the... Read more →

This came up as a discussion in the Interview and Investigation Management Class and deserves a blog post for discussion. I will use Zimmerman as the "famous anecdotal example". Zimmerman as we recall, did not go into a deadly force event, he found himself there unexpectedly. We pick Zimm up when the question comes up, "are you the focus of the violence?" And in the end...true to the flow of events and the chart, Zimm was not convicted. But let's add a point of consideration that is not, nor should it be, in the chart. Good Sense. This fits between legal standing (you have a right to be there and are not committing a crime) to preclusion (you are the focus of the attack). There is a great deal of ground between the two. Where the ambiguity came in with Zimm is that while he was in the right, legally speaking, he created that event himself...maybe unintentionally, but nonetheless. So the point for discussion is this - every contact you make under unusual circumstances has the potential to become a... Read more →