I live in Florida, been here my whole life. I own firearms. I have my CCW. Can you please make more video's on carry concealed and all laws and all rules for the state of Florida?? I know the laws but sometimes I still need to hear it from you guy's. Plus the laws can change randomly or at any time I assume... And all or any scenarios you can think of I'd appreciate it if you guys could collaborate on and tackle more self defense situations living in Florida... Thank you thank you!!!
my biggest disagreement with "shoot to stop the threat" versus "shoot to kill", as far as private citizens go, is that we as private citizens are expected to make a judgement call based on how the outcome will look in court, whereas the police, when "shooting to stop the threat" almost invariable resort to a mag dump into the perpetrator with the excuse "I feared for the life of myself and my partners". So it's ok and accepted for the police to do so, but if I put more than 3 or 4 rounds into an attacker I am presumed to be acting with malice aforethought and that is how the prosecution against me will go. I watch you guys all the time and would really like to see a breakdown of this, and why.
@@1watersthree "The answer is that it really depends on if the prosecutor is a good reasonable person or not." So the remedy to this is getting rid of these people is it not? We have all the data and states to view in each state to see what the prosecutors are doing and how they behave and whom they target and if they disregard the citizen in favor for the criminal. Law and prosecution should not be decided by how these people feel nor even dare I say a state to state basis. Who cares if the prosecutor likes the 2nd amendment or not, they are suppose to abide by it and if they can't they should be charged for crimes for targeting people based on unconstitutional ideals. BUT YET we have no such punishment for these people who are doing this and nobody is banning together to go after them either to have them removed for what they do. Everybody just accepts all this yet complains when THEY become the victim of a lying snake prosecuter or corrupt DA or such. If your Mayor, Senators, Govenors, DA etc are not 100% pro constitution THEY NEED TO GO. People need to start there, not fighting to change the laws while these same people are in power and will resist any law change. These people wrestled the power away from more traditional constitutionalist in law over time by targetting the culture first, changing what is the status quo and then going after the laws; so people have to do the same to reverse that. Change the Culture---->Changes Beliefs----->Changes Laws-->Creates Solution.
When you are in a self-defense situation you don't have time to sit there and wonder how many bullets to put into somebody well will this hold up in court will wait a minute I better take that bullet back the bunch of bulshit man fight for your life and you do anything to stop that threat
Because of "Immunity", civilians do noy have that privilege. Keep in mind that we do not have a "justice system" we have a "legal system", not the same thing. What we must do as civilians is learn as much as we can about how the "legal system " works, so that we can protect ourselves from it.
I think some of this thought is to stop from being liable for someone's health if you hurt them badly. We hear stories about robbers who fall through a skylight and then sue the store for their injuries. So, in a SUPER unfortunate event that we have to shoot someone to "stop the imminent threat" and we don't actually kill them, then we are liable for their injuries in some liberal states if not all or most states
Situation depends. The advantage of modern day is there's so many cameras everywhere. A friend of mine found him self walking into a drive by shooting at work and defended him self with his glock 26. He had video available when the police showed up and they took a statement and that was it.
I have taken two different concealed carry classes in my state. I was told in the first class that a person should suit not just once but two to three times to assure that they hit a major artery. It was not express to stop the individual and in the second class it was pointed out that if you shoot someone and you do not kill them they can take you to court and sue you even if you were in the right. In one of the two classes they suggested that is a person is dead they cannot testify against you. That it was better to have them dead than alive.
They may be dead but they have a family somewhere, and a slick attorney will file a wrongful death suit against you on their behalf. Sick I know, but it happens all the time.
I have noticed a double standard in this discussion. Your told to shoot until the threat no longer exists. However the police routinely unload there clips and from more than one officer. They rarely face charges like this!
This is a great topic to cover. I know someone, who spent many years in jail due to castle doctrine. He shot his abuser that was swinging a knife at him. the abuser attacked him again, so he shot again. the court charged him with attempted murder. Even though he was absolutely defending his life. They determined that shooting his abuser twice was cruel, and left his abuser crippled. dude spent Damm near a decade in prison. got out on parole due to good behavior. the kindest man I've ever met in my life.
Treat the people trying to take your freedom the same as you would the people trying to take your life. I would rather go out shooting than surrender my freedom to a corrupt system.
When you put the laws this way, its almost not worth the risk to have a firearm! The laws need to be changed to support the victims, not the criminals!
Something a number of gun owners seem to have trouble with is the reality that the role of "criminal" and "victim" aren't necessarily static or mutually exclusive. You may have been the "victim" of a home invasion, but the law does NOT shield you if out of ignorance, fear, or adrenaline, you crossed the legal threshold of what is legally self defense. Because then YOU are the "criminal" and the "victim" is the person you shot (and their crimes do not magically make your own justified).
It's definitely important to weigh the pros and cons. I support the right to carry, but the vast majority of people live happy lives and don't carry guns. Statistically you're better off getting some hand to hand combat training since you're a lot more likely to get into a fist fight vs a shoot out.
@@EroticOnion23 Sure. I've lived in both to an extent. I lived in a wealthy white community where people ( next door neighbor who was an optometrist) complain that my yard was 1/2" too tall, then I moved to a neighborhood where I heard gunshots 3-4 times a week helping a buddy of mine fix up an investment property. Not Detroit, but I did once lend my yard furniture to the forensics team to pull bullet fragments out of my nextdoor neighbors house.
This goes back to “ I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 “. These laws are literally stupid. If you break into my house 10 am or 3 am you’re getting shot.
Great information once again but it seems to me we as law-abiding citizens are given the blade of the knife while the bad guy and the prosecutor have the handle.
I think the real problem is leftist prosecutors (like Kyle Rittenhouse's persecuting prosecutors) and jurors who abuse the criminal justice system to pursue their ideological agendas (anti-gun, anti-self defense, anti-capitalism, so-called "anti-racism"). For the Left, everything is political/ideological. Normal people, like conservatives, can't even understand that level of extremism. As for the burdens that law-abiding defenders bear, that's the price of being good, moral citizens.
I believe this is the liberal and democratic way of fighting the 2nd Amendment. Since they cannot remove it, it is necessary to punish and restrict those who support it. That is how they fight the 2A rights. Direct fear and punishment by lawyers and judges as well as various laws against people like us. We need to use the legal system better by not electing and removing these people. Then, change the laws back to protecting us and not the criminals.
That is sadly true. The laws in this country are made to protect the guilty and not the innocent. We can thank decades of bleeding heart liberals for this over protection of the guilty. Our government is not going to change this either, the only way it will change is if the innocent people in this country force the change.
However, a CRIMINAL can shoot you in your home while you and your family are running trying to hide, and BOND OUT within hours or days. If a CRIMINAL shoot at you and miss, would that be deemed a warning shot? I would never ever touch a Dead Body that I caused using Deadly Force. For what?
@@Whiskey5_ the duty to retreat is crap what if the bad guy sends one in and then a second shooter waits to pick you off where you all run out the back door
@@eyesonly1638 If you’re in your home you really don’t have a duty to retreat. I would definitely look at that lol a little more on that. Because I know some states have a duty retreat while you’re out in public but that doesn’t apply when you’re in your own home
@@Whiskey5_ that's good to know I never claimed to be an expert on the law in that area so next time maybe explain it a little less condescending. I was merely pointing out that duty to retreat is kind of crap it does not seem like you would use deadly force unless you were up against deadly force
I absolutely love this channel and completely support your mission. In a defensive situation how should a properly trained individual who has legally defended themselves in a firearms situation address giving first aid to an individual whom they may have shot in a defensive situation? Particularly when the aggressor cannot or refuses to give consent for aid after they are no longer an active threat. I have only started following this channel recently so I may have missed some content, but I would also be curious what emphasis the uscca places and the legal reprecussions of legal defenders performing both self aid and trauma response for 3rd parties. Any concealed carrier knows that they are ultimately the first of the first responders. Firearms training is the sexy and fun thing that we all want to do, but how should we balance our training and legal obligations regarding medical care in a self defense situation? I would love a video addressing this topic.
My 2 cents! you should carrie minumum medic supplies because what if you are hurt or a family member or just a 3rd party that you know is hurt? as a firearm owner just having the firearm is half of just having a firearm! and the main reason is part of the reason you carry in the first place, to save/protect life! I hope this helps.....
Not directly on topic here, but I went into a well-known coffee shop the other day that has a “Weapons Free Zone” sign by the door. To me, this is the same as a “Free Kill Zone”, and I said just that to the manager. Not sure that guy had a brain.
I would agree in a scenario where bodily injury or death is paramount, a warning shot is out of the question. I just don't understand how someone breaks into your security and still have leverage to be the victim.
It doesn't help that some large police departments train officers to do magazine dumps if they use a firearm. People can get the idea that if that is what law enforcement trains to do it is what they should do too.
There is a problem with this and it's nobody's fault. But when somebody breaks into your house violently with glass windows crashing, and you have a wife and three kids sleeping in their bedrooms, how is a homeowner supposed to know when to stop shooting? The homeowner's mind is not rational. The "lizard brain" takes over for self-defense purposes. Of course, if the lights come on and the only culprit puts his hands up and states: "I give up don't shoot me", that's a mitigating circumstance for the culprit. But when the glass breaks and it's dark and two or three culprits come barging into and run around your "castle", how does one make a rational decision? As the lawyers always say: "it depends on the circumstances".
If it's dark and windows are breaking open, you shouldn't have to be certain the person even has a weapon before shooting them. You shouldn't have to wait to take two in the chest and one in the head to positively ID the person is a lethal threat. If you can see them, they can see you. And they know you're not inviting them in for tea and crumpets. That's the point of castle doctrine. The presumption is that if they're breaking into your house, they mean you harm. Here's a revolutionary concept: don't want to get shot? Maybe don't go breaking into people's houses? Insane I know. Really they are just describing how left wing prosecutors, police, and judges who want to throw people into jail for defending themselves torture castle doctrine into something other than what castle doctrine definitionally is. Which is disgusting.
@@DefinitelyNotAFed4473 That's the things I think about. If its daytime and the crook does not know you are home and breaks in and sees you then more likely he has to be trying to steal your belongings but could still be a threat but would most likely run off (but still may attack you), but if the crook sees you and your family cars in the driveway and still attempts to break in then I should automatically know that he is not just trying to steal my PS5 and he is a deadly threat 100%. I feel like if the burglars know you are home and still proceed to make entry that they have signed their death certificate.
The criminal shouldn't be in your house so the fault of what occurs next should mostly fall on them. The law has been formulated in a way to protect the criminal to an extent. People don't ask the question, why is it that laws should even differ state to state regarding self-defense and other rights? people will say blah blah blah states have to be allowed to be different but look at the results of that? One state you can open and conceal carry, another state you can't do either which results in countless citizens being victimized (mostly women and the elderly) when it's a basic right to be able to have a fire arm meanwhile the criminals follow no law no matter what state they are in and people just shrug and accept that like "that's how it is" just like the guy said in this video about the castle doctrine and so on. That's a foolish attitude and the fact we do nothing about that and just bicker back and fourth about it like there's some good argument to be made is the problem. All states should have at the minimum concreal carry period and nobody should be accepting of anything else even if you don't live in that state. That's just an example of one issue with law. Nobody is asking the question WHY these people like DA's etc care if criminals get harmed when committing crime. All this is the results of so called "big brain" "I know better than you" people in government and law putting their own agendas forward at the expense of the citizens. Laws should be real basic and don't need to be complex. Criminal in your home at night, you can smoke'em no prejudice, night time is usually when the most violence occurs and the most evil people are out. In the day time, the only issue should be, you tell them to leave, and they don't leave or surrender, that's it. There should be no such thing as duty to retreat. The only issue should be if you shot someone running without being a deadly threat, that's it. They've made the laws complex on purpose to work angles based on how they feel and who has wha agenda; they want it this way and it's sick how they can ban together and just deny rights, twist things, disregard the constitution and the citizens just take it and citizens in neighboring states just look at those citizens and go "Hahaha you get what you voted for" and don't even support their fellow man as if everyone voted for bad policy and laws and decided it's ok, state leadership isn't corrupt, and all this isn't wrong from the jump due to propaganda that impacts the culture which impacts what people accept in the country.
If you ever argue that you were using your gun without rational thinking you're sentencing yourself. Like someone said, you always have to accurately identify threats. If you were drinking before bed you're going to prison. If it was a family member who broke the window and you shoot them you're both hated AND going to prison. When you're not rational is when you dont need your gun.
The laws are out of touch with the reality of the fear a typical home owner, with little training has, under extreme stress, in a fight of flight situation would experience. Shoot and assess?? A single mom with small kids can’t be expected to have that type of judgement and split second decision making. And a 90 lb, 75 year old woman can’t shoot a 300 lb, 6’ 5”” intruder coming at her because he doesn’t have a weapon, JUST because she lives in a state without a castle doctrine??? These laws are completely out of touch with reality.
Lack of castle doctrine doesn't mean lack of defense. It just means you can presume the guy who broke in at 2 am is bad guy. If a clearly deadly threat is coming at you, it doesn't matter whether there's castle doctrine or not. If you can't run away because your kids would be in harm's way, it doesn't matter if there's stand your ground or not.
Were I, a 70 yo live-a-lone guy, to find myself in such a situation my thought would be “Kill and let the devil take the hindmost”. I’d rather die in jail tomorrow than alone in my bed tonight.
@@johncox2865 I hear you. And I think that is a natural reaction. I am just so tired of the laws constantly making things more and more “legal” for criminals and law abiding citizens constantly fighting laws against us protecting ourselves. If someone comes in your house and comes at you, you should have every right to use deadly force, especially if you have kids in the house. It’s not like people want to shoot someone, or clean up that mess, or make it harder to sell their house because someone died in it, or deal with the court battle afterwards. There are already plenty of ugly things about shorting an intruder, we don’t need laws to also protect them when they come into our home and come at us!
Very good video with valuable perspective on different scenarios..... sometimes I get mad when an honest citizen has a hard time with the "Law=D.A." in a defense shooting but the criminal has it easy....
N.C. Here! I was approved for a NC purchase permit, however, I was denied a concealed carry permit. Could an attorney help me appeal and overturn this decision?
I'm reading through all these comments and I feel the same way I thought it was just me!! better off reversing rolls!!!Tell the police I was the bad guy,and he pulled out the weapon.makes me want to stop carrying anything
Excellent info fellas, once of your best videos. Even if we know this stuff, highlighting it and explaining it, reinforces it. If someone doesn't know this is invaluable. Loaded video! Thanks for all of them... Im always here!
Great info. The only thing I would say is that if someone does break in and end up running away the chances of them coming back with a better game plan is pretty high.
I've actually had cops tell me to pull them back inside & make it look like that's where it happened. That's a huge problem too is cops telling people wrong information & we are supposed to be able to trust their word as officers
No, no we aren't supposed to "trust cops". They can legally lie to you too get info or get you to incriminate yourself. If you lie to them and get found out it's a crime. Never talk to cops
@@amp2193 that's because times have changed & people with it. There was a time when police upheld the law honestly & the people respected & trusted the police. That's sadly not the case anymore
I stopped worrying about the caliber debate when I realized a 9mm hollowpoint could put someone down in one shot or they don’t go down after 7 center mass hits. Shotguns aside….. an attacker isn’t going down in one shot unless they a) give up after being hit or b) get hit in a couple VERY SPECIFIC PLACE.
"Caliber" still matters in the edge cases. A really fat guy might stop a round with flab when a hotter round would have stopped him (this has happened). A guy wearing some kind of armor is more likely to go down with the hotter round. You're more likely to penetrate cover with a hotter round. Etc. Of course, it's not just caliber. A 10mm is better than a .40 cal, for example. But if you can afford to fire 1000 rounds of .40 cal and only 500 rounds of 10mm, the range time is generally the better indicator of success, since both rounds will aerate the guy in almost all cases. Likewise, the round you aren't terrified to shoot is generally better than the biggest magnum that pops right out of your hands. But I would still generally opt for the hottest thing you can afford that fits in your carry space and has decent mag sizes.
I don't own an AR-15, but i know the 223 cartridge well enough to know I would not use it for home defense. At that close range it will blast right through with hardly slowing down. (exageration yes, but only by a little bit). I had a TC Contender in .223 with a 14 inch barrel, and shooting at a target set up at 45 yards on a 13 inch thick oak stump had every round blasting right through the stump. And it was a fresh cut oak stump. I can't imagine shooting it inside a house.
@@randykelso4079 Some states do not allow HPs. And for some of us, self defense is far more likely to be against a bear (or some idiots pitbull on the loose) and animals require a totally different approach. But I agree that the 223 should be a soft or hollow point if used for defense. But even then, not inside the walls of a house. Not for me anyway. A 20 gauge is my choice for inside the home defense. 38 spcl for handgun.
@@janmale7767 A shotgun blast at home defense distances is not much larger a spread than a rifle shot, even with open choke and short barrel. People think you don't have to aim a shotgun because of the shot spread, but that is total ignorance. Besides a rifle (or pistol) actually does more damage to furniture (or art) than if a stray pellet does somehow happen.
The prosecutor in your town and state really helps when it comes to the defensive use of firearms. I have had to use a firearm in a defensive encounter twice once in public and once in my home.. I've had my weapon taken both times but returned fairly quickly. I actually had to move out of that county because the meth heads were privy to my job at the time which consisted of going around to pawn shops in Central and Eastern parts of the states and buying up scrap gold and picking up some of the scrap material that the shop owners wanted melted down and refined and I would bring it back to them for a small portion of the money. A good friend of mine in the state of Kentucky was murdered by a shop owner doing exactly this.
Fact of the matter is that even if you shoot someone in self defense you are still going to go through hell. The police are going to do everything they can to get something to stick, and even if you evade criminal charges, if the guy you shot because he was threatening your life survives, he is going to file a lawsuit against you. If he does not survive, his family is going to file a lawsuit against you. I guess going through all that is better than dying, but if you shoot someone even in self defense your life is going to be hell for a few years with court appearances, and it's going to cost you a lot of money in attorney fees. Not fair, but that's the way it is.
What can you say about squatter? A friend in FL recently had to deal with squatters and despite having the police there just about everyday and them stealing the police wouldnt/couldn't remove them. They had to get a restraining order to ever start getting them removed.
Yes you need to verify they have a gun knife or club of some sort and are actually coming towards you before shooting, announce that you are armed and they need to leave and if they come towards you then engage only after that
An old episode of CSI will always stick in my mind. 2 guys in an argument/scuffle and a woman tries to break it up and falls to the ground, fatally shot. Across town a guy is shooting targets in his yard and his neighbor comes out and yells at him, causing him to jerk his arms when looking back and fire high. The bullet traveled until it hit the woman trying to break up the scuffle. Man shooting targets is charged. That episode will never be forgotten because that kind of stupidity can really happen.
I live in an environment where I'm the weird one for saying "I'm interested in self defense, not defense of property". My phrase that sums up my states law reasonably well is "I'm never going to be the person to make a situation life-threatening". If they want to rummage in my car while I'm in the house, I'll call the cops and let them handle it. I honestly thought that mindset made me a bit more "hesitant" to use my firearm than the average person. After watching this video I realize that I'm not out of my mind or alone. In fact that's how things should be done. You wouldn't believe the things I've heard that people think the castle doctrine allows them to do.
Personally I train "double tap". I never shoot a target only once, the first shot is always followed with a second in as rapid a succession as target can be acquired and on occasion a third as well.
I think it comes down to our legal system is a damn joke designed to make judges and lawyers richer It’s sad that we have to play so many games to be able to protect ourselves, our family and the things we have worked so hard for ! You guys both seem like very good guys and I really do appreciate you giving us the info that you do to try and help the public to navigate around all of the legal booby traps
A woman here in Minneapolis recently fired warning shots at somebody who broke into her detached garage. She then went back in the house, got a different gun, and shot the garage intruder dead. No charges.
Here's a good one, what if someone is trying to use their car as deadly force against you, do you have the right to shoot and stop the threat. Love to see that as a next topic
I had a guy coming up to me and my girl while we were on porch with his hand in bag. I drew my weapon turned light on yelled stop theres s gun pointing at you I I will shoot. He stopped. But then he kept digging in his bag and he took few more steps and I shot 5 ft away from him to the side in the ground. I was elevated being on porch. He left. He was 10 to 12 ft away when I shot into ground.. my wife on porch daughter in her room window looks out to where it was happening.
@@anthonys2895 lol true that homie, personally I’m thinking of a beretta tomcat for this scenario since it has the pop up barrel feature to manually load the one in the chamber, so you’d know with 100% certainty that the first round is actually the blank
Don’t you think you maybe need to draw on someone and shoot fast. I want one ready in the chamber. No need for warning shots if I need to defend my life. Warning shots are grounds for negligent discharge….
@@DB-bk9tr practice ur speed. Thats why I say a blank. Should still work the slide or rotate the chamber but give the impression of a "warning shot". If needed a followup live round is only a split second away.
The system is broken. The deck is stacked against the victim and the rules need to change. Anyone that watched the two creep prosecutors in the Rittenhouse trail and saw the sleazy tricks that they pulled, the fact that they are not asking if you want fries with your order rights now, proves the point.
It is really sad that a prosecutor would go after an otherwise law abiding citizen that even with due diligence uses a firearm to defend themselves. I'm sure there are some that just to pad their resume will destroy a person. Common sense doesn't necessarily come into play in court.
First let me say I just stumbled across your channel recently and haven't had a chance to check out most or all your videos, but what I have watched is very informative and I appreciate it much so thank you. My question is concerning home defence and at home use of alcohol. I am a concealed carrier and understand that in public if I am carrying, it is illegal to even drink a drop of alcohol, and many get this rule confused with the legal driving limit, thinking legal to drive, legal to carry, and can find themselves in a legal mess so to say. I also enjoy a drink or sometimes a few when I am home. Let's say a person had a few but was at home and had to defend themselves and used a firearm to do so, and not considering the alcohol, they did everything correct and were in the right, I guess you could say... How would it affect a court case when it was brought to attention that the person defending their home/family with a firearm had been drinking?
Im in Oregon... single female live alone, bigger house, and yes there isnt a moment my 9mm isnt within an arms reach. But with all the new laws and even when i read them i still have no idea. I pray ill never need to use deadly force, im 100% sure if i did, i would without question. Is it legal to shoot someone that has broken into my home?
Hi Tara! You can see that information on the Reciprocity Map from the link below. Just below "Summary of Oregon Gun Laws" under the "Self-Defense" heading. www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/or-gun-laws/
I’m about to be a new firearm owner (looking to pick up a Canik tp9 elite sc this week). And I’m trying to learn as much as i can from this channel because it seems like i have to walk a legal tightrope just to make sure i can keep my family safe tbh
You know what I keep listening to you guys anymore. I listen to you the more I don't think I want to carry. Not to mention wake up in the middle of the night and find somewhere in my house
I just went over some of this recently on a different forum. many states have lots of laws on how you have to retreat, and how you are not justified in shooting if you can just let them take stuff and leave. So you have to stand in fear hoping they just take something and leave. I ran across an interesting question about going to Canada with guns. Maybe you can do a video on that. I was reading the other day that Canada bans bringing in any .25 or .32 handguns. Nothing was said about other calibers. Why is that and what is the reasoning? Also, how long have those been banned?
I believe proper and constant education and practice for a responsible citizen is the way to go. Thank you USCCA and all educators! If you are not going to be responsible, don't carry. The question I have, what if you could be responsible when needed but decided that it wasn't necessary? All it takes is a trip to the store, mall, watching a parade, or any public place to suddenly be in a bad situation. What about all the break-ins while at home going on right now? Police are so short staffed, nevermind about yourself, is there any person that you would protect with your life? What if you could have but decided nah... The only thing that will stop Bad people with guns, are Good Responsible Prepared people with guns. A responsible citizen can make a difference till help from responsible police arrive. So yeah, if you are not comfortable with all aspects of being a responsible citizen, please don't carry or own. 🙏
Adding on to what Ron said, if you are carrying your firearm or have it staged for home defense, it is to meet a deadly threat with force to defend your life. If you have blanks loaded in your firearm and you have to use force to defend yourself, you now have a firearm that may not be able to stop that threat. It is best to have your firearm setup to properly defend your life.
A few years ago, here in Detroit, neighbors dispute over a Puppy Chihuahua trespassing in his property. Well, the irate neighbor one day had enough, and shot and killed the dog in front of his neighbor's daughter. DPD filed to chrages, no reskless endangerment, no nothing. So laws are enforced at the people in power's leisure.
This is important information for home defense. The courts often disagree with the ways defenders protect themselves and/or the innocent and punish the guilty, but the courts should be more concerned about protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty rather than vice-versa. Too many, the courts are like learning a foreign language that they never learned to speak and are suddenly forced to.
I’m intrigued by the segment about firing warning shots. The Dutch police do it all the time and we’ve never heard of anyone getting struck anywhere between where they were fired and 1.6 km (1 mile) away, and the Netherlands because of it’s small size, is WAY more densely populated than they US. Having said that though, I do agree it’s something you must consider.
I live in NYC. Gove. Coumo was able to pass legislation eliminating insurance companies such as USCCA from doing business in the state. Is there a way we can challenge this act?
When I took my CCW class, we were advised to do anything possible to get the invader to turn around. Once they turn around and face you, you can use lethal force. They also said if the person lives, then you - as the defender - have failed and need more practice.
Here is an example of how ludicrous Firearms Laws are in South Australia. In order to protect Myself, My Firearms Licence and My Firearms, I have to go to ridiculous lengths to insure that nobody discovers that I Shoot, have a Licence or own Firearms. However; If I attend a Party or a Public Gathering, I have to ask if anyone present has been Served with a Firearms Prohibition Notice and if someone responds in the Affirmative, I must Immediately leave the Venue, because being in the presence of a person so Served can cost Me My Firearms, My Licence and a lot of Money. The really stupid part about this, is that in order to protect Myself from Association with a Served Person, I have to disclose that I’m an individual with an Association to Firearms,(simply asking the question, informs people of My status). And if a Served Person is not Present, I’ve just told a room full of strangers that I likely have Firearms at My Home. Forty plus years ago virtually everyone in My immediate Neighbourhood knew I was a Shooter. Today absolutely nobody within 25 Kilometres of My Home knows of My Hobby.
Would really like to hear a legal discussion specifically about the unfortunate scenario where it's a robbery, but the robber entered through an unlocked door or window with no signs of forced entry in the aftermath.
@@hardinmichael1981 Yes, thank you for the astute observation. It's easy to forget one if you live in a house with many exterior doors, and your security system only recognizes if they are open or closed. Or someone forgets to lock a window shut.
0:46 - war king shots gets u criminally charged. 1:51 - 2:32 - bullet comes down somewhere that's y. 2:57 - can shoot anyone in home. Don't! Latr talks about castle doctrine law.
Basically what they’re saying is that the criminal break in your house and wait until the very last moment before you think you’re going to die before you defend yourself.
I have myself personally fired a warning shot. It did in fact allow me to not have to shoot the bad guy. Now...I did fire mine into the grass at a 70 degree downward angle (roughly). I was not charged or arrested...but I also had 6 witnesses that said he was approaching me with a knife and I couldn't retreat. With that said...I am not recommending a warning shot I am just saying if you shoot it down (especially into the dirt/grass) at least you dont have to worry about where the bullet goes.
Modern training teaches that when an officer uses deadly force the intent is not to kill but to stop the suspect’s threatening behavior as fast as possible. I would assume the same is expected of John and Jane Q Public in self defense scenarios. So, when the risk of failure is death, a person in a life or death scenario needs the highest percentage chance of success they can get. Is that practical/possible when people are being asked to give up tactical advantage in a life/death scenario? During a home invasion, which may be during low light visibility, a gun battle with an armed assailant may happen within a few yards/feet from you. Are the courts/justice system really expecting people who are in fear of their lives to be able to think rationally while they are in fear of their lives while they're minds are in fight or flight mode. Adrenaline can do some crazy things to people. Adrenaline dump can keep people fighting even though they may be mortally wounded. We have seen videos of trained officers who have magdumped into suspects and they still managed to stay in the fight. Even wounding officers before they are effectively stopped. Now, we are asking/expecting civilians who may have never even been in a fist fight much less a gun battle in thier lives to be able to not only manage the effects of adrenaline on their body but to also effectively "assess" the effect of each round they place in the assailant to ensure they don't go past "stoping the threat"?? Interesting. Maybe I'm wrong here but I feel the judicial system is expecting way to much from the common citizen. In closing, call me a cynic if you want. We're all entitled to our opinions. Besides, you wouldn't be wrong.😉I have certain life experiences that have influenced my opinions/demeanor. That said, I feel people who make these type of self defense or gun laws are people who are well protected by a wall of people with firearms. With few exceptions, are these legislators/lawmakers, politicians etc...rarely exposed to the type of direct threat/danger we face from criminals/predators in our society. These people have the luxury of speaking from a position of protection/safety where they may never have to defend themselves/family. Someone will more than likely be there to make that life/death choice for them. Can the common hard working, law abiding citizen say the same? Must be nice!
& what if the criminal is fleeing with your property with something very valuable they stole that they refuse to drop (like solid gold bars) even tho they’re no longer an “imminent threat” can you still shoot since they’re stealing your property?
No you can don't shoot someone for stealing your property only time you can use deadly force is if your life is at risk of serious injury or death just because someone pounces you in the face isn't serious bodily harm so deadly force can't be used against the person who pounced you
@David Santa Maria Like they almost always say in these videos (absolutely correct), know the laws in your state. In Texas only as an example, there are limited circumstances to use deadly force to recover property. I wouldn’t suggest it as property might not be worth the legal hassle however, no matter the final outcome. What can be completely lawful in one state might be life in prison 10 miles away in another state.
Okay if a police officer is in a shooting he's not just going to shoot the suspect three or four times he's going to keep shooting until the suspect drops. Should be the same for private citizens
I live in Florida, been here my whole life. I own firearms. I have my CCW. Can you please make more video's on carry concealed and all laws and all rules for the state of Florida?? I know the laws but sometimes I still need to hear it from you guy's. Plus the laws can change randomly or at any time I assume... And all or any scenarios you can think of I'd appreciate it if you guys could collaborate on and tackle more self defense situations living in Florida... Thank you thank you!!!
Want more Tom Grieve videos? Check out his channel here: ua-cam.com/channels/4M5RxIcp5H9lRiVC33TwFA.html
I live in Florida, been here my whole life. I own firearms. I have my CCW. Can you please make more video's on carry concealed and all laws and all rules for the state of Florida?? I know the laws but sometimes I still need to hear it from you guy's. Plus the laws can change randomly or at any time I assume...
And all or any scenarios you can think of I'd appreciate it if you guys could collaborate on and tackle more self defense situations living in Florida...
Thank you thank you!!!
my biggest disagreement with "shoot to stop the threat" versus "shoot to kill", as far as private citizens go, is that we as private citizens are expected to make a judgement call based on how the outcome will look in court, whereas the police, when "shooting to stop the threat" almost invariable resort to a mag dump into the perpetrator with the excuse "I feared for the life of myself and my partners". So it's ok and accepted for the police to do so, but if I put more than 3 or 4 rounds into an attacker I am presumed to be acting with malice aforethought and that is how the prosecution against me will go.
I watch you guys all the time and would really like to see a breakdown of this, and why.
@@1watersthree "The answer is that it really depends on if the prosecutor is a good reasonable person or not." So the remedy to this is getting rid of these people is it not? We have all the data and states to view in each state to see what the prosecutors are doing and how they behave and whom they target and if they disregard the citizen in favor for the criminal. Law and prosecution should not be decided by how these people feel nor even dare I say a state to state basis. Who cares if the prosecutor likes the 2nd amendment or not, they are suppose to abide by it and if they can't they should be charged for crimes for targeting people based on unconstitutional ideals.
BUT YET we have no such punishment for these people who are doing this and nobody is banning together to go after them either to have them removed for what they do. Everybody just accepts all this yet complains when THEY become the victim of a lying snake prosecuter or corrupt DA or such. If your Mayor, Senators, Govenors, DA etc are not 100% pro constitution THEY NEED TO GO. People need to start there, not fighting to change the laws while these same people are in power and will resist any law change.
These people wrestled the power away from more traditional constitutionalist in law over time by targetting the culture first, changing what is the status quo and then going after the laws; so people have to do the same to reverse that.
Change the Culture---->Changes Beliefs----->Changes Laws-->Creates Solution.
When you are in a self-defense situation you don't have time to sit there and wonder how many bullets to put into somebody well will this hold up in court will wait a minute I better take that bullet back the bunch of bulshit man fight for your life and you do anything to stop that threat
Because of "Immunity", civilians do noy have that privilege. Keep in mind that we do not have a "justice system" we have a "legal system", not the same thing. What we must do as civilians is learn as much as we can about how the "legal system " works, so that we can protect ourselves from it.
I think some of this thought is to stop from being liable for someone's health if you hurt them badly. We hear stories about robbers who fall through a skylight and then sue the store for their injuries. So, in a SUPER unfortunate event that we have to shoot someone to "stop the imminent threat" and we don't actually kill them, then we are liable for their injuries in some liberal states if not all or most states
And they assumed trained and I’m not
It suck that you can't protect yourself and your loved ones with out worrying about going to jail for doing so. What a messed up world.
welcome to gun control
Situation depends. The advantage of modern day is there's so many cameras everywhere. A friend of mine found him self walking into a drive by shooting at work and defended him self with his glock 26. He had video available when the police showed up and they took a statement and that was it.
That s for sure
More the DEA and detectives that's gonna let ya go or charge you in the end.
I think a vigilante(like Red Hood [Jason Todd]) should do something about that.
Ohio is not just castle doctrine but also a stand your ground state as of April fourth.
I was just getting ready to comment this. Glad to see I wasn't the only one that caught it.
How so? I haven’t heard of Stand Your Ground
@@alvaradoalberto7 that type of stuff doesn’t make news, did you know Ohio passed constitutional carry ? As of June 13th it’ll be in affect
@@Carv97 June 13th
@@HackMasterBlaster today baby!!!!
I have taken two different concealed carry classes in my state. I was told in the first class that a person should suit not just once but two to three times to assure that they hit a major artery. It was not express to stop the individual and in the second class it was pointed out that if you shoot someone and you do not kill them they can take you to court and sue you even if you were in the right. In one of the two classes they suggested that is a person is dead they cannot testify against you. That it was better to have them dead than alive.
Ive had one of my instructors say the same thing.
They may be dead but they have a family somewhere, and a slick attorney will file a wrongful death suit against you on their behalf. Sick I know, but it happens all the time.
I believe the correct "answer" is shoot to kill. Just never admit it. 😁
My instruction and training has always been "2 to the body, 1 to the head".
I have noticed a double standard in this discussion. Your told to shoot until the threat no longer exists. However the police routinely unload there clips and from more than one officer. They rarely face charges like this!
This is a great topic to cover. I know someone, who spent many years in jail due to castle doctrine. He shot his abuser that was swinging a knife at him. the abuser attacked him again, so he shot again. the court charged him with attempted murder. Even though he was absolutely defending his life. They determined that shooting his abuser twice was cruel, and left his abuser crippled. dude spent Damm near a decade in prison. got out on parole due to good behavior. the kindest man I've ever met in my life.
Change states!
@@jerrynewberry2823 eh this state has changed laws since then. but that's not really the topic.
If just one shot is fine by the law, I'll go for a head shot in such a situation then.
Treat the people trying to take your freedom the same as you would the people trying to take your life. I would rather go out shooting than surrender my freedom to a corrupt system.
How in the figgidy fuск??
When you put the laws this way, its almost not worth the risk to have a firearm! The laws need to be changed to support the victims, not the criminals!
I I agree it's bull crap they remade the law stack against us I'm tired of this f****** government I'm tired of all of them
Exactly my thoughts...
Something a number of gun owners seem to have trouble with is the reality that the role of "criminal" and "victim" aren't necessarily static or mutually exclusive. You may have been the "victim" of a home invasion, but the law does NOT shield you if out of ignorance, fear, or adrenaline, you crossed the legal threshold of what is legally self defense. Because then YOU are the "criminal" and the "victim" is the person you shot (and their crimes do not magically make your own justified).
It's definitely important to weigh the pros and cons. I support the right to carry, but the vast majority of people live happy lives and don't carry guns.
Statistically you're better off getting some hand to hand combat training since you're a lot more likely to get into a fist fight vs a shoot out.
@@EroticOnion23 Sure. I've lived in both to an extent. I lived in a wealthy white community where people ( next door neighbor who was an optometrist) complain that my yard was 1/2" too tall, then I moved to a neighborhood where I heard gunshots 3-4 times a week helping a buddy of mine fix up an investment property. Not Detroit, but I did once lend my yard furniture to the forensics team to pull bullet fragments out of my nextdoor neighbors house.
This goes back to “ I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 “. These laws are literally stupid. If you break into my house 10 am or 3 am you’re getting shot.
Great information once again but it seems to me we as law-abiding citizens are given the blade of the knife while the bad guy and the prosecutor have the handle.
Thanks for supporting our page, Orville. We're glad that you are enjoying all we have to offer!
I think the real problem is leftist prosecutors (like Kyle Rittenhouse's persecuting prosecutors) and jurors who abuse the criminal justice system to pursue their ideological agendas (anti-gun, anti-self defense, anti-capitalism, so-called "anti-racism"). For the Left, everything is political/ideological. Normal people, like conservatives, can't even understand that level of extremism.
As for the burdens that law-abiding defenders bear, that's the price of being good, moral citizens.
I believe this is the liberal and democratic way of fighting the 2nd Amendment. Since they cannot remove it, it is necessary to punish and restrict those who support it. That is how they fight the 2A rights. Direct fear and punishment by lawyers and judges as well as various laws against people like us. We need to use the legal system better by not electing and removing these people. Then, change the laws back to protecting us and not the criminals.
That is sadly true. The laws in this country are made to protect the guilty and not the innocent. We can thank decades of bleeding heart liberals for this over protection of the guilty. Our government is not going to change this either, the only way it will change is if the innocent people in this country force the change.
However, a CRIMINAL can shoot you in your home while you and your family are running trying to hide, and BOND OUT within hours or days.
If a CRIMINAL shoot at you and miss, would that be deemed a warning shot?
I would never ever touch a Dead Body that I caused using Deadly Force. For what?
Because the law isn't designed to protect the law-biding citizens.. its all in favor of the criminal.
Depends on the state, if that’s what it is for in your state, if you can get out as soon as possible.
@@Whiskey5_ the duty to retreat is crap what if the bad guy sends one in and then a second shooter waits to pick you off where you all run out the back door
@@eyesonly1638 If you’re in your home you really don’t have a duty to retreat. I would definitely look at that lol a little more on that. Because I know some states have a duty retreat while you’re out in public but that doesn’t apply when you’re in your own home
@@Whiskey5_ that's good to know I never claimed to be an expert on the law in that area so next time maybe explain it a little less condescending.
I was merely pointing out that duty to retreat is kind of crap it does not seem like you would use deadly force unless you were up against deadly force
I absolutely love this channel and completely support your mission. In a defensive situation how should a properly trained individual who has legally defended themselves in a firearms situation address giving first aid to an individual whom they may have shot in a defensive situation? Particularly when the aggressor cannot or refuses to give consent for aid after they are no longer an active threat. I have only started following this channel recently so I may have missed some content, but I would also be curious what emphasis the uscca places and the legal reprecussions of legal defenders performing both self aid and trauma response for 3rd parties. Any concealed carrier knows that they are ultimately the first of the first responders. Firearms training is the sexy and fun thing that we all want to do, but how should we balance our training and legal obligations regarding medical care in a self defense situation? I would love a video addressing this topic.
My 2 cents! you should carrie minumum medic supplies because what if you are hurt or a family member or just a 3rd party that you know is hurt? as a firearm owner just having the firearm is half of just having a firearm! and the main reason is part of the reason you carry in the first place, to save/protect life! I hope this helps.....
Not directly on topic here, but I went into a well-known coffee shop the other day that has a “Weapons Free Zone” sign by the door. To me, this is the same as a “Free Kill Zone”, and I said just that to the manager. Not sure that guy had a brain.
I just had a convo with someone about warning shots. It’s a nice sentiment but it’s bad practice.
Happy to hear you're having those conversations with others in the 2A community!
I would agree in a scenario where bodily injury or death is paramount, a warning shot is out of the question. I just don't understand how someone breaks into your security and still have leverage to be the victim.
It doesn't help that some large police departments train officers to do magazine dumps if they use a firearm. People can get the idea that if that is what law enforcement trains to do it is what they should do too.
There is a problem with this and it's nobody's fault. But when somebody breaks into your house violently with glass windows crashing, and you have a wife and three kids sleeping in their bedrooms, how is a homeowner supposed to know when to stop shooting? The homeowner's mind is not rational. The "lizard brain" takes over for self-defense purposes. Of course, if the lights come on and the only culprit puts his hands up and states: "I give up don't shoot me", that's a mitigating circumstance for the culprit. But when the glass breaks and it's dark and two or three culprits come barging into and run around your "castle", how does one make a rational decision? As the lawyers always say: "it depends on the circumstances".
If it's dark and windows are breaking open, you shouldn't have to be certain the person even has a weapon before shooting them. You shouldn't have to wait to take two in the chest and one in the head to positively ID the person is a lethal threat. If you can see them, they can see you. And they know you're not inviting them in for tea and crumpets. That's the point of castle doctrine. The presumption is that if they're breaking into your house, they mean you harm. Here's a revolutionary concept: don't want to get shot? Maybe don't go breaking into people's houses? Insane I know.
Really they are just describing how left wing prosecutors, police, and judges who want to throw people into jail for defending themselves torture castle doctrine into something other than what castle doctrine definitionally is. Which is disgusting.
@@DefinitelyNotAFed4473 That's the things I think about. If its daytime and the crook does not know you are home and breaks in and sees you then more likely he has to be trying to steal your belongings but could still be a threat but would most likely run off (but still may attack you), but if the crook sees you and your family cars in the driveway and still attempts to break in then I should automatically know that he is not just trying to steal my PS5 and he is a deadly threat 100%. I feel like if the burglars know you are home and still proceed to make entry that they have signed their death certificate.
The criminal shouldn't be in your house so the fault of what occurs next should mostly fall on them. The law has been formulated in a way to protect the criminal to an extent. People don't ask the question, why is it that laws should even differ state to state regarding self-defense and other rights? people will say blah blah blah states have to be allowed to be different but look at the results of that? One state you can open and conceal carry, another state you can't do either which results in countless citizens being victimized (mostly women and the elderly) when it's a basic right to be able to have a fire arm meanwhile the criminals follow no law no matter what state they are in and people just shrug and accept that like "that's how it is" just like the guy said in this video about the castle doctrine and so on. That's a foolish attitude and the fact we do nothing about that and just bicker back and fourth about it like there's some good argument to be made is the problem. All states should have at the minimum concreal carry period and nobody should be accepting of anything else even if you don't live in that state. That's just an example of one issue with law.
Nobody is asking the question WHY these people like DA's etc care if criminals get harmed when committing crime. All this is the results of so called "big brain" "I know better than you" people in government and law putting their own agendas forward at the expense of the citizens. Laws should be real basic and don't need to be complex. Criminal in your home at night, you can smoke'em no prejudice, night time is usually when the most violence occurs and the most evil people are out. In the day time, the only issue should be, you tell them to leave, and they don't leave or surrender, that's it.
There should be no such thing as duty to retreat. The only issue should be if you shot someone running without being a deadly threat, that's it. They've made the laws complex on purpose to work angles based on how they feel and who has wha agenda; they want it this way and it's sick how they can ban together and just deny rights, twist things, disregard the constitution and the citizens just take it and citizens in neighboring states just look at those citizens and go "Hahaha you get what you voted for" and don't even support their fellow man as if everyone voted for bad policy and laws and decided it's ok, state leadership isn't corrupt, and all this isn't wrong from the jump due to propaganda that impacts the culture which impacts what people accept in the country.
He did knock somebody breaks in your house you can blow them f****** away it's your right to do so if anybody tells you different they're full of s***
If you ever argue that you were using your gun without rational thinking you're sentencing yourself. Like someone said, you always have to accurately identify threats. If you were drinking before bed you're going to prison. If it was a family member who broke the window and you shoot them you're both hated AND going to prison. When you're not rational is when you dont need your gun.
Shoutout thank you for putting out this Valuable Information. Owning a firearm comes with great responsibility.
The laws are out of touch with the reality of the fear a typical home owner, with little training has, under extreme stress, in a fight of flight situation would experience.
Shoot and assess?? A single
mom with small kids can’t be expected to have that type of judgement and split second decision making.
And a 90 lb, 75 year old woman can’t shoot a 300 lb, 6’ 5”” intruder coming at her because he doesn’t have a weapon, JUST because she lives in a state without a castle doctrine???
These laws are completely out of touch with reality.
It's a crock of b******* that's why I'm a member of US law Shield this guys freaking mentality is bulshit
Lack of castle doctrine doesn't mean lack of defense. It just means you can presume the guy who broke in at 2 am is bad guy. If a clearly deadly threat is coming at you, it doesn't matter whether there's castle doctrine or not. If you can't run away because your kids would be in harm's way, it doesn't matter if there's stand your ground or not.
Were I, a 70 yo live-a-lone guy, to find myself in such a situation my thought would be “Kill and let the devil take the hindmost”. I’d rather die in jail tomorrow than alone in my bed tonight.
@@johncox2865 I hear you.
And I think that is a natural reaction.
I am just so tired of the laws constantly making things more and more “legal” for criminals and law abiding citizens constantly fighting laws against us protecting ourselves.
If someone comes in your house and comes at you, you should have every right to use deadly force, especially if you have kids in the house.
It’s not like people want to shoot someone, or clean up that mess, or make it harder to sell their house because someone died in it, or deal with the court battle afterwards.
There are already plenty of ugly things about shorting an intruder, we don’t need laws to also protect them when they come into our home and come at us!
It is my genuine belief that you shouldn't own a firearm if you are not going to train extensively with it
Well, this was gold, and more than worth the price of admission. Seems lots of people get self defense law from Gunsmoke.
Fax
Or they view The Punisher as a role model. He was actually written as a cautionary tale.
Very good video with valuable perspective on different scenarios..... sometimes I get mad when an honest citizen has a hard time with the "Law=D.A." in a defense shooting but the criminal has it easy....
COMMENT: What question do you want Tom the Attorney to answer next?
Shooting a round in the ground; is it considered to be a warning shot?
@[ HAL9000 ] ZIGZAG [ Ground ZERO ] Good ol Paul Harrell
N.C. Here! I was approved for a NC purchase permit, however, I was denied a concealed carry permit. Could an attorney help me appeal and overturn this decision?
If threat stops once they see you have pulled your gun, can you hold them at gun point till the police arrive?
I'm reading through all these comments and I feel the same way I thought it was just me!! better off reversing rolls!!!Tell the police I was the bad guy,and he pulled out the weapon.makes me want to stop carrying anything
Thats what they want John. They want us disarmed
That’s the goal
Warning shot? Heck I just have bad aim…
Then I'd learn to shoot better
I've heard Cops mention that "Dead Men can't Testify."
Not My Motto, Jus Sayin.
An Investigation and Forensics CAN "Testify."
Excellent info fellas, once of your best videos. Even if we know this stuff, highlighting it and explaining it, reinforces it. If someone doesn't know this is invaluable. Loaded video! Thanks for all of them... Im always here!
Great info. The only thing I would say is that if someone does break in and end up running away the chances of them coming back with a better game plan is pretty high.
I've actually had cops tell me to pull them back inside & make it look like that's where it happened. That's a huge problem too is cops telling people wrong information & we are supposed to be able to trust their word as officers
No, no we aren't supposed to "trust cops".
They can legally lie to you too get info or get you to incriminate yourself.
If you lie to them and get found out it's a crime.
Never talk to cops
@@amp2193 that's because times have changed & people with it. There was a time when police upheld the law honestly & the people respected & trusted the police. That's sadly not the case anymore
I stopped worrying about the caliber debate when I realized a 9mm hollowpoint could put someone down in one shot or they don’t go down after 7 center mass hits. Shotguns aside….. an attacker isn’t going down in one shot unless they a) give up after being hit or b) get hit in a couple VERY SPECIFIC PLACE.
"Caliber" still matters in the edge cases. A really fat guy might stop a round with flab when a hotter round would have stopped him (this has happened). A guy wearing some kind of armor is more likely to go down with the hotter round. You're more likely to penetrate cover with a hotter round. Etc.
Of course, it's not just caliber. A 10mm is better than a .40 cal, for example. But if you can afford to fire 1000 rounds of .40 cal and only 500 rounds of 10mm, the range time is generally the better indicator of success, since both rounds will aerate the guy in almost all cases. Likewise, the round you aren't terrified to shoot is generally better than the biggest magnum that pops right out of your hands.
But I would still generally opt for the hottest thing you can afford that fits in your carry space and has decent mag sizes.
I learned from South Park all you have to do is shout "He's coming right at us!". Trey and Scott wouldn't lead us wrong, would they?
I don't own an AR-15, but i know the 223 cartridge well enough to know I would not use it for home defense. At that close range it will blast right through with hardly slowing down. (exageration yes, but only by a little bit). I had a TC Contender in .223 with a 14 inch barrel, and shooting at a target set up at 45 yards on a 13 inch thick oak stump had every round blasting right through the stump. And it was a fresh cut oak stump. I can't imagine shooting it inside a house.
Hollow point ammo for self defense use, whatever the caliber.
@@randykelso4079 Some states do not allow HPs. And for some of us, self defense is far more likely to be against a bear (or some idiots pitbull on the loose) and animals require a totally different approach. But I agree that the 223 should be a soft or hollow point if used for defense. But even then, not inside the walls of a house. Not for me anyway. A 20 gauge is my choice for inside the home defense. 38 spcl for handgun.
@@nathanlambshead4778 Nathan, we are in total agreement.
A shotgun is a great home defence gun..just hope you have insurance on your furnishings and art collection!
@@janmale7767 A shotgun blast at home defense distances is not much larger a spread than a rifle shot, even with open choke and short barrel. People think you don't have to aim a shotgun because of the shot spread, but that is total ignorance. Besides a rifle (or pistol) actually does more damage to furniture (or art) than if a stray pellet does somehow happen.
My wife and I are 'elite' members: USCCA: best coverage, best training, best legal advise! Thanks you all you do for us! RnMT
I really appreciate the Kevin and Tom sessions. I find them to be very eye-opening and informative. Keep up the good work guys!!
The prosecutor in your town and state really helps when it comes to the defensive use of firearms. I have had to use a firearm in a defensive encounter twice once in public and once in my home.. I've had my weapon taken both times but returned fairly quickly. I actually had to move out of that county because the meth heads were privy to my job at the time which consisted of going around to pawn shops in Central and Eastern parts of the states and buying up scrap gold and picking up some of the scrap material that the shop owners wanted melted down and refined and I would bring it back to them for a small portion of the money. A good friend of mine in the state of Kentucky was murdered by a shop owner doing exactly this.
Fact of the matter is that even if you shoot someone in self defense you are still going to go through hell. The police are going to do everything they can to get something to stick, and even if you evade criminal charges, if the guy you shot because he was threatening your life survives, he is going to file a lawsuit against you. If he does not survive, his family is going to file a lawsuit against you. I guess going through all that is better than dying, but if you shoot someone even in self defense your life is going to be hell for a few years with court appearances, and it's going to cost you a lot of money in attorney fees. Not fair, but that's the way it is.
What can you say about squatter? A friend in FL recently had to deal with squatters and despite having the police there just about everyday and them stealing the police wouldnt/couldn't remove them. They had to get a restraining order to ever start getting them removed.
I have a question for you I am a CCW living in Miami somebody breaks into my house do I have to wait to see a weapon before shooting them
By that time it's too late you're either dead or your family members dead
Yes you need to verify they have a gun knife or club of some sort and are actually coming towards you before shooting, announce that you are armed and they need to leave and if they come towards you then engage only after that
An old episode of CSI will always stick in my mind.
2 guys in an argument/scuffle and a woman tries to break it up and falls to the ground, fatally shot.
Across town a guy is shooting targets in his yard and his neighbor comes out and yells at him, causing him to jerk his arms when looking back and fire high. The bullet traveled until it hit the woman trying to break up the scuffle.
Man shooting targets is charged.
That episode will never be forgotten because that kind of stupidity can really happen.
I live in an environment where I'm the weird one for saying "I'm interested in self defense, not defense of property". My phrase that sums up my states law reasonably well is "I'm never going to be the person to make a situation life-threatening". If they want to rummage in my car while I'm in the house, I'll call the cops and let them handle it. I honestly thought that mindset made me a bit more "hesitant" to use my firearm than the average person. After watching this video I realize that I'm not out of my mind or alone. In fact that's how things should be done. You wouldn't believe the things I've heard that people think the castle doctrine allows them to do.
Thats good ole boy doctrine and doesnt hold up in court
Personally I train "double tap". I never shoot a target only once, the first shot is always followed with a second in as rapid a succession as target can be acquired and on occasion a third as well.
Just found your channel - LOVE IT - Keep it up !!!
.
I think it comes down to our legal system is a damn joke designed to make judges and lawyers richer
It’s sad that we have to play so many games to be able to protect ourselves, our family and the things we have worked so hard for !
You guys both seem like very good guys and I really do appreciate you giving us the info that you do to try and help the public to navigate around all of the legal booby traps
A woman here in Minneapolis recently fired warning shots at somebody who broke into her detached garage. She then went back in the house, got a different gun, and shot the garage intruder dead. No charges.
If she's white she probably got a pass
@@theonlyEYEBROWKING I think it was the other way around
@@theonlyEYEBROWKING OK, racist.
You can't shoot a fleeing criminal but my dog can get'em!
Here's a good one, what if someone is trying to use their car as deadly force against you, do you have the right to shoot and stop the threat. Love to see that as a next topic
Guns are dangerous & should be banned from all citizens
This was extremely informative. Thanks for explaining the little nuances to be mindful of
I had a guy coming up to me and my girl while we were on porch with his hand in bag. I drew my weapon turned light on yelled stop theres s gun pointing at you I I will shoot. He stopped. But then he kept digging in his bag and he took few more steps and I shot 5 ft away from him to the side in the ground. I was elevated being on porch. He left. He was 10 to 12 ft away when I shot into ground.. my wife on porch daughter in her room window looks out to where it was happening.
This is a great example of what a warning shot should be. It isn't 100% safe, but its better than outright shooting someone in front of your family.
SOMETIMES IF YOU DONT SHOOT FIRST THEY WILL
Ive always been told that if you have to use deadly force, double tap, then assess. Is that wrong or a bad idea?
Aye what if you keep like a blank in the chamber & use that as a warning shot before switching to live ammo, would that change anything?
For that matter, what about blanks. Better be DAMN sure you load it right though.
@@anthonys2895 lol true that homie, personally I’m thinking of a beretta tomcat for this scenario since it has the pop up barrel feature to manually load the one in the chamber, so you’d know with 100% certainty that the first round is actually the blank
Don’t you think you maybe need to draw on someone and shoot fast. I want one ready in the chamber. No need for warning shots if I need to defend my life.
Warning shots are grounds for negligent discharge….
@@DB-bk9tr practice ur speed. Thats why I say a blank. Should still work the slide or rotate the chamber but give the impression of a "warning shot". If needed a followup live round is only a split second away.
As an aside, I hope everyone understand that blanks are dangerous at point-blank ranges
The system is broken. The deck is stacked against the victim and the rules need to change. Anyone that watched the two creep prosecutors in the Rittenhouse trail and saw the sleazy tricks that they pulled, the fact that they are not asking if you want fries with your order rights now, proves the point.
It is really sad that a prosecutor would go after an otherwise law abiding citizen that even with due diligence uses a firearm to defend themselves.
I'm sure there are some that just to pad their resume will destroy a person.
Common sense doesn't necessarily come into play in court.
First let me say I just stumbled across your channel recently and haven't had a chance to check out most or all your videos, but what I have watched is very informative and I appreciate it much so thank you. My question is concerning home defence and at home use of alcohol. I am a concealed carrier and understand that in public if I am carrying, it is illegal to even drink a drop of alcohol, and many get this rule confused with the legal driving limit, thinking legal to drive, legal to carry, and can find themselves in a legal mess so to say. I also enjoy a drink or sometimes a few when I am home. Let's say a person had a few but was at home and had to defend themselves and used a firearm to do so, and not considering the alcohol, they did everything correct and were in the right, I guess you could say... How would it affect a court case when it was brought to attention that the person defending their home/family with a firearm had been drinking?
In Oregon you get a scolding from the Sheriffs deputy that responds.
Im in Oregon... single female live alone, bigger house, and yes there isnt a moment my 9mm isnt within an arms reach. But with all the new laws and even when i read them i still have no idea. I pray ill never need to use deadly force, im 100% sure if i did, i would without question. Is it legal to shoot someone that has broken into my home?
Hi Tara! You can see that information on the Reciprocity Map from the link below. Just below "Summary of Oregon Gun Laws" under the "Self-Defense" heading.
www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/or-gun-laws/
I'm 81 years old with failing eyesight. I have recently put a Laser sight on my 9mm EDC and it really improves targeting.
Hey just a thought, can a private citizen cal or whatever carry or use handcuffs
I’m about to be a new firearm owner (looking to pick up a Canik tp9 elite sc this week). And I’m trying to learn as much as i can from this channel because it seems like i have to walk a legal tightrope just to make sure i can keep my family safe tbh
Excellent advice! 😁 Thank you.
No warning shots. I live in the country. I have a shovel.
You know what I keep listening to you guys anymore. I listen to you the more I don't think I want to carry. Not to mention wake up in the middle of the night and find somewhere in my house
Thank you for the education. As always, another great content!
I just went over some of this recently on a different forum. many states have lots of laws on how you have to retreat, and how you are not justified in shooting if you can just let them take stuff and leave. So you have to stand in fear hoping they just take something and leave.
I ran across an interesting question about going to Canada with guns. Maybe you can do a video on that. I was reading the other day that Canada bans bringing in any .25 or .32 handguns. Nothing was said about other calibers. Why is that and what is the reasoning?
Also, how long have those been banned?
"Throw down some justice" that's got me cracking up.
Thank you gentlemen
Thanks for the support!
I believe proper and constant education and practice for a responsible citizen is the way to go. Thank you USCCA and all educators! If you are not going to be responsible, don't carry.
The question I have, what if you could be responsible when needed but decided that it wasn't necessary?
All it takes is a trip to the store, mall, watching a parade, or any public place to suddenly be in a bad situation.
What about all the break-ins while at home going on right now? Police are so short staffed, nevermind about yourself, is there any person that you would protect with your life? What if you could have but decided nah...
The only thing that will stop Bad people with guns, are Good Responsible Prepared people with guns. A responsible citizen can make a difference till help from responsible police arrive. So yeah, if you are not comfortable with all aspects of being a responsible citizen, please don't carry or own. 🙏
I still have the question about blanks for warning shots. Is this still considered negligent discharge?
Adding on to what Ron said, if you are carrying your firearm or have it staged for home defense, it is to meet a deadly threat with force to defend your life. If you have blanks loaded in your firearm and you have to use force to defend yourself, you now have a firearm that may not be able to stop that threat.
It is best to have your firearm setup to properly defend your life.
With todays ammo prices, no warning shots will be fired.
I like these videos because I pause them before Tom answers and give my own answer. Then I play the video again to see if I’m right
Good call. I might start doing that too. 👍
You will win every time if your answer is "it depends" lol😂
@@jpjp3873 I try to start with that and then provide an explanation to see if I understand it 😂😂😂
All you have to do is say, "it depends". Then you'll always be right! 😀
A few years ago, here in Detroit, neighbors dispute over a Puppy Chihuahua trespassing in his property. Well, the irate neighbor one day had enough, and shot and killed the dog in front of his neighbor's daughter. DPD filed to chrages, no reskless endangerment, no nothing. So laws are enforced at the people in power's leisure.
I'm new to guns and recently purchased a Bryna launcher. Can you guys go over Bryna launchers? Thank you for the informative content.
The phrase used @ 4:30 is genius, and I thank you!!!
This is important information for home defense. The courts often disagree with the ways defenders protect themselves and/or the innocent and punish the guilty, but the courts should be more concerned about protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty rather than vice-versa. Too many, the courts are like learning a foreign language that they never learned to speak and are suddenly forced to.
I’m intrigued by the segment about firing warning shots. The Dutch police do it all the time and we’ve never heard of anyone getting struck anywhere between where they were fired and 1.6 km (1 mile) away, and the Netherlands because of it’s small size, is WAY more densely populated than they US. Having said that though, I do agree it’s something you must consider.
I live in NYC. Gove. Coumo was able to pass legislation eliminating insurance companies such as USCCA from doing business in the state. Is there a way we can challenge this act?
Right now the best way is to contact your representatives and encourage others to about the topic as well.
When I took my CCW class, we were advised to do anything possible to get the invader to turn around. Once they turn around and face you, you can use lethal force. They also said if the person lives, then you - as the defender - have failed and need more practice.
Thats a tragic truth!
Say what state and city you are living in
Very good info.
Warning shot are a bad idea.
As far as an AR15. Bullet selection is important. A polymer tip PD round is excellent. FMJ not so much.
Here is an example of how ludicrous Firearms Laws are in South Australia.
In order to protect Myself, My Firearms Licence and My Firearms, I have to go to ridiculous lengths to insure that nobody discovers that I Shoot, have a Licence or own Firearms.
However;
If I attend a Party or a Public Gathering, I have to ask if anyone present has been Served with a Firearms Prohibition Notice and if someone responds in the Affirmative, I must Immediately leave the Venue, because being in the presence of a person so Served can cost Me My Firearms, My Licence and a lot of Money.
The really stupid part about this, is that in order to protect Myself from Association with a Served Person, I have to disclose that I’m an individual with an Association to Firearms,(simply asking the question, informs people of My status).
And if a Served Person is not Present, I’ve just told a room full of strangers that I likely have Firearms at My Home.
Forty plus years ago virtually everyone in My immediate Neighbourhood knew I was a Shooter.
Today absolutely nobody within 25 Kilometres of My Home knows of My Hobby.
The old addage goes "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by 6."
Use the same procedures as federal officers and use that in court to shut down federal prosecutors.
GREAT VIDEO VERY INFORMATIVE!
Great Video Sir. Thank you
Love the idea and info refresh
I just signed up for USCCA yesterday.
Welcome to the club! 😁
Yeah, those free welcome gifts are awesome. Wait until you see the top quality stuff they send you.
Would really like to hear a legal discussion specifically about the unfortunate scenario where it's a robbery, but the robber entered through an unlocked door or window with no signs of forced entry in the aftermath.
Or you could just lock your doors
@@hardinmichael1981 Yes, thank you for the astute observation. It's easy to forget one if you live in a house with many exterior doors, and your security system only recognizes if they are open or closed. Or someone forgets to lock a window shut.
I’m so glad that Florida has stand your ground law
0:46 - war king shots gets u criminally charged.
1:51 -
2:32 - bullet comes down somewhere that's y.
2:57 - can shoot anyone in home. Don't! Latr talks about castle doctrine law.
Thank you both
Extremely informative
Thank you for watching! We're so happy to hear you found value in our video!
Basically what they’re saying is that the criminal break in your house and wait until the very last moment before you think you’re going to die before you defend yourself.
What about Missouri with the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Law?
I have myself personally fired a warning shot. It did in fact allow me to not have to shoot the bad guy. Now...I did fire mine into the grass at a 70 degree downward angle (roughly). I was not charged or arrested...but I also had 6 witnesses that said he was approaching me with a knife and I couldn't retreat. With that said...I am not recommending a warning shot I am just saying if you shoot it down (especially into the dirt/grass) at least you dont have to worry about where the bullet goes.
Thanks for these education videos.
Modern training teaches that when an officer uses deadly force the intent is not to kill but to stop the suspect’s threatening behavior as fast as possible. I would assume the same is expected of John and Jane Q Public in self defense scenarios. So, when the risk of failure is death, a person in a life or death scenario needs the highest percentage chance of success they can get. Is that practical/possible when people are being asked to give up tactical advantage in a life/death scenario?
During a home invasion, which may be during low light visibility, a gun battle with an armed assailant may happen within a few yards/feet from you. Are the courts/justice system really expecting people who are in fear of their lives to be able to think rationally while they are in fear of their lives while they're minds are in fight or flight mode. Adrenaline can do some crazy things to people. Adrenaline dump can keep people fighting even though they may be mortally wounded.
We have seen videos of trained officers who have magdumped into suspects and they still managed to stay in the fight. Even wounding officers before they are effectively stopped. Now, we are asking/expecting civilians who may have never even been in a fist fight much less a gun battle in thier lives to be able to not only manage the effects of adrenaline on their body but to also effectively "assess" the effect of each round they place in the assailant to ensure they don't go past "stoping the threat"?? Interesting. Maybe I'm wrong here but I feel the judicial system is expecting way to much from the common citizen.
In closing, call me a cynic if you want. We're all entitled to our opinions. Besides, you wouldn't be wrong.😉I have certain life experiences that have influenced my opinions/demeanor. That said, I feel people who make these type of self defense or gun laws are people who are well protected by a wall of people with firearms. With few exceptions, are these legislators/lawmakers, politicians etc...rarely exposed to the type of direct threat/danger we face from criminals/predators in our society. These people have the luxury of speaking from a position of protection/safety where they may never have to defend themselves/family. Someone will more than likely be there to make that life/death choice for them. Can the common hard working, law abiding citizen say the same? Must be nice!
& what if the criminal is fleeing with your property with something very valuable they stole that they refuse to drop (like solid gold bars) even tho they’re no longer an “imminent threat” can you still shoot since they’re stealing your property?
No you can don't shoot someone for stealing your property only time you can use deadly force is if your life is at risk of serious injury or death just because someone pounces you in the face isn't serious bodily harm so deadly force can't be used against the person who pounced you
@David Santa Maria
Like they almost always say in these videos (absolutely correct), know the laws in your state.
In Texas only as an example, there are limited circumstances to use deadly force to recover property. I wouldn’t suggest it as property might not be worth the legal hassle however, no matter the final outcome. What can be completely lawful in one state might be life in prison 10 miles away in another state.
No you can’t, your gold should be insured
Thank you
I appreciate this information very much.
thank you.
Thank you for this video.
Cool. Great advice guys!
always good to know. thanks.
I appreciate the great information you keep giving us thanks a lot
Okay if a police officer is in a shooting he's not just going to shoot the suspect three or four times he's going to keep shooting until the suspect drops. Should be the same for private citizens
I live in Florida, been here my whole life. I own firearms. I have my CCW. Can you please make more video's on carry concealed and all laws and all rules for the state of Florida?? I know the laws but sometimes I still need to hear it from you guy's. Plus the laws can change randomly or at any time I assume...
And all or any scenarios you can think of I'd appreciate it if you guys could collaborate on and tackle more self defense situations living in Florida...
Thank you thank you!!!