When Can I Shoot? It Depends.
Simply put, don’t kill someone, even justifiably, and expect to sleep in your own bed that night.
DISCLAIMER: We here at this blog endorse only lawful and safe behavior. Always consult the relevant legal code first before you engage in actions with potentially serious legal ramifications. Take only reasonable risks and ask yourself first if you can live with the consequences.
This past week, I attended a free use-of-force lecture hosted by the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA). It was a free class, but in no way did that diminish its value - it exceeded my best expectations. Titled, “Should I Shoot?”, the class discussed guidelines and parameters citizens ought to abide by when it comes to the employment of violence in self-defense, with a focus on deadly force via the firearm.
Thanks for reading We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Before going any further, I want to say that one of the best ways you can prepare for anything is by taking classes in person. Articles, books, and blogs (especially one in particular!) are great, but there’s something about being physically present in a class with a live instructor in front of you that works much better as a learning experience. It’s also an opportunity to meet people, like-minded people. In a time when the ruling class is working so hard to atomize us, classes like these are a great way to combat the growing isolation and learn something useful in the process.
What sorts of people attend these classes? Don’t believe the media. Obviously, it’s going to be different across the country due to demographic realities, but the class I went to wasn’t all “angry old White men.” Nobody was angry, either. Yes, there was a plurality of older White men, but there were plenty of women and other attendees of all races. I think most leftists and journalists would be surprised at the diversity of the self-defense and prepping community. Yes, we’re like-minded, but we also constitute a cross-section of America. If you’re female or non-White, don’t ever harbor reservations against attending these sorts of classes or joining these sorts of groups out of fear of being a minority. It’s completely irrational and founded on lies.
That said, I will say that I’ve attended a few of these classes in my lifetime and I’ve always noticed there’s a dearth of young people. Maybe I haven’t gone to enough of them, but it’s concerning to me that so few young people are invested in their personal safety. A sense of invincibility does come with youth, but we also saw how worried so many young people were of catching COVID and dying back in 2020. We also see how deathly afraid young people are of gun violence, even as they seem comparatively less concerned about crime more broadly. Whatever the matter is, I’d still like to see more young people in these courses. They may be less vulnerable than older people, but I also feel they have more to lose.
“Should I Shoot?” went over the concepts of reasonable force and deadly force, covered the use-of-force continuum, what to do in the event the use of force becomes unavoidable, and what to do afterwards. None of it constituted legal advice - a point stressed at the very start of class was that every incident involving the use of force is so unique, there’s no instruction set guaranteed to keep citizens in the clear with respect to the law. Right off the bat, whatever desire one may have had to employ any level of force in defense of self and loved ones was snuffed out of the room.
That led to the next point. We can run all the “what-ifs?” through our heads, but the circumstances under which real-life violence finds us are almost never the scenario we dreamed. For one, you’re not likely to have sufficient advance warning and if you do, you ought to be looking to avoid, not find, danger. So if violence does find you, expect to have very little time to think through all the different solutions in your head. This is why preparation is so important. As in war, you need to make choices correctly before the shooting starts. Nobody’s good at making choices in the heat of the moment, it’s just that some people have made up their minds ahead of time and simply pull the trigger, figuratively and literally, when they’re presented with a scenario that meets the criteria for making that choice.
There were a number of truly blackpilling lessons we all learned that evening. Yet if you seek to better protect yourself and your loved ones, you have a duty to learn these lessons. Again, you’ll likely walk away hoping to never need to use deadly force against anyone. It’s really not a movie.
Let’s talk about what I learned in class, along with my own commentary to go along with it.
What’s “Reasonable Force?” What’s “Deadly Force?”
These are legally-defined terms which are both specific and broad at the same time. Reasonable force is violence sufficient enough to stop the threat, nothing more. Put simply, pumping rounds into your attacker after they’ve ceased their assault is unreasonable. But the line where force goes from being reasonable to being unreasonable isn’t always clear; as my instructor put it, it’s less of a straight line and more of a sine wave. There’s no amount of force that’s guaranteed to keep you on the “victim” side versus the “aggressor” side.
Deadly force is force sufficient to cause death or great bodily harm. Common sense generally does a good job of determining what’s deadly and what’s not, but there’s room for nuance, also. For example, a punch is generally not considered deadly. However, striking someone in the head is. It takes a lot of effort, but people can obviously be punched and kicked to death. Like reasonable force, there’s not always a clear line between what sort of force is deadly and what’s not. The term “non-lethal” is a bit of a misnomer in that sense and some, myself included, prefer “less lethal” as an alternative. Generally speaking, the less lethal the force you utilize, the more you stand on safe legal ground. However, this comes at the cost of diminished effectiveness in terms of stopping the attack.
Don’t Ever Expect To Get Away With Killing Someone, Even In Self-Defense
With very few exceptions, homicide is always illegal. Self-defense is one of those exceptions, but only after an investigation can that determination be made. If there’s a dead body, then there’s inevitably going to be a suspect. That suspect is going to be you.
This means, even in a self-defense situation resulting in the lawful use of deadly force, expected to at least be detained or even arrested. If you ever find yourself in such a predicament, I hope you don’t, but you’re going to end up in handcuffs and you’ll be taken to the police station. Don’t take it personally. You’re not allowed to kill anyone and if you do, it’s incumbent upon you to prove you had a justifiable reason for doing so.
This also means that if you get arrested and booked into jail, unless you want to stay there, you’ll need to post bond. You’re likely looking at a minimum of tens of thousands of dollars. Do you have that amount of money readily accessible at all hours of the day? Remember - many self-defense incidents happen at night, when the banks are closed.
Simply put, don’t kill someone, even justifiably, and expect to sleep in your own bed that night.
Displaying A Weapon Is Always A Bad Idea
“Brandishing” is regarded as displaying a weapon in a threatening manner. Only when someone is reasonably in fear of a threat against yourself or another person can a weapon be drawn. Otherwise, displaying a weapon in threatening fashion makes you an aggressor of sorts and can be used as in a case against you, regardless of how an incident turns out.
A fact which gets lost on many is that exposing a weapon is, in fact, a form of force. You are communicating a willingness to harm or kill in response to a threat against your life and using that fear of death or great bodily harm to ward off someone else. In many ways, the rules governing the displaying of a weapon are similar to when the weapon is actually employed. The threat against you must be credible with respect to ability (can they carry out the threat?), opportunity (are they in a position to carry out the threat?), and imminence (are they acting on the threat now?) before you draw a weapon. Someone shouting angrily at you, no matter how uncomfortable that might make you feel, is not a justification for pulling a gun on them.
The best practice is to simply never expose a weapon unless you’re ready and willing to use it at that moment. In civil society, there are no such things as “warning” shots. If you have to draw your weapon, you better be ready to draw blood with it right then and there. Otherwise, keep it tucked away. It’s far too easy for displaying to be perceived as an escalatory gesture and you can just as easily end up being charged with brandishing or even making “terroristic” threats, believe it or not.
Certainly, there are times you may need to draw your weapon without opening fire immediately. If you’re backed into a corner and an attacker continues to advance on you despite your warnings, at some point, you need to choose between allowing the attacker to close to within a lethal “envelope” or drawing your weapon. The key is that drawing your weapon ought to be the only option you have aside from being attacked. If other options are available, drawing your weapon can be problematic.
Avoid Escalatory Gestures
I often speak of how the concept of “de-escalation” has become weaponized by bad-faith actors and the media, both of whom regard it as some sort of silver bullet (no pun intended) that people don’t utilize sufficiently enough to avoid resorting to violence.
However, it’s true to an extent that one too many of us are bad at de-escalation. The problem is that de-escalation is mutually agreed upon by the conflicting parties. If someone walks away, the other person shouldn’t pursue or call after them. As such, if even one party refuses to de-escalate, it doesn’t really matter what the other party does.
That said, if you want to minimize the risk of being perceived as the aggressor in a situation, de-escalation attempts are a must. If you end up having to use force, your case for doing so will be much stronger if you can demonstrate that you attempted to defuse the situation or that you tried extract yourself from it altogether. Even in states that have “Stand Your Ground” statutes, you still cannot behave in ways that are regarded as escalatory and still expect to be judged as merely defending yourself.
In some cases, escalatory behavior will undermine your case for self-defense, even when you’re responding to a clear and obvious threat to your life. I’ve said this more than once before, but if walking away or signalling to the other party in some fashion that you seek no conflict are options, then violence isn’t an option. Obviously, none of it guarantees that a threat goes away - it may follow you - but you cannot make decisions in anticipation something bad will happen to you.
Except for de-escalating and walking away, of course. As our instructor said, you can’t get in trouble for trying to leave.
Don’t Talk To Police
Really? Yes, really. This doesn’t mean “be uncooperative.” It means don’t tell police your side of the story without having first consulted an attorney. Respect law enforcement all you’d like, but they ultimately serve the state’s interest, not yours. They’re not there to exonerate you. They’re there to find out if you did something bad.
That’s not to say you shouldn’t communicate with law enforcement. After all, one of the first things you should do when the opportunity presents itself during or after a use-of-force incident is to dial 911 and request a police response. So you’ll need to speak with police at some point, but the key is to say just enough so that they have a broad outline of what happened, without getting deep into the details.
The USCCA instructs to say these two phrases to the authorities immediately following a use-of-force incident:
I was attacked, feared for my life and had to defend myself.
I will cooperate 100 percent, but first I need my attorney.
Say no more. Obviously, if the cops ask you something like, “Is there someone else inside the home?” or “Where’s your gun?”, answer and do so honestly - lying is absolutely not an option! However, when they ask you about the incident itself, repeat the above two phrases, to the point of sounding like a broken record, if needed. Policing is a sophisticated profession and skilled cops know how to get you to talk. Stressful as the situation may be, listen carefully to what’s being asked and think about what you’re going to say before you answer. If you don’t have any confidence in your ability to discern what the cop may be trying to get you to say, just keep your mouth shut. Nobody, not even the government, can force you to speak.
A concern most law-abiding citizens have is that refusing to talk to police is an indication of guilt. But claiming self-defense is, in effect, an admission of culpability, if not guilt. You are basically confessing that you took someone’s life because the alternative would’ve been to be killed instead. If there’s a mystery to be solved, it’s not whether you were the killer. You’ve already admitted to that.
Since you’ve already admitted to a potential crime, you have nothing more to explain to police, whose job it now becomes to either clear you or press charges. If they’re going to press charges anyway, why make it easy for them? It’s terrifying to think you’re going to get charged with a crime, but you no longer have control of the situation. The best way to cope is to accept what happened - you’re not going put that bullet back in the chamber - and focus on next steps: defending yourself in court. Don’t think about trying to get out of police detention; there’s nothing you can do or say at that point to change anyone’s mind. Get your lawyer involved and follow their lead.
Don’t consent to searches, either. Again, it’s not indicative of guilt. As I’ve also previously explained, the cops are in control of the situation - if they want to conduct a search, they will, no matter what you tell them. The problem for them is that unless you expressly consented to a search, the evidence they uncover will be rendered inadmissible in a potential case against you. This is another fight your lawyer will be happy to wage on your behalf. Remember that no matter what you did, when you’re in the legal arena, you’re innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Don’t voluntarily relinquish your presumption of innocence in hopes that it might save you from arrest or criminal charges. It won’t.
Also, avoid saying “no” in response to such questions. Depending on how a question is asked, “no” can be misinterpreted, whereas “I do not give my consent” is explicit and contains no ambiguity. If you say “I do not give my consent to a search” and the cops search your premises anyway, the cops cannot convincingly argue in court that they misunderstood what you were saying. It’d call into question their own competency or even their suitability for the job, thereby undermining their case against you in the process!
Lastly, a word about the Miranda warning: Miranda rights are read to you only after you’ve actually been arrested. That means anything you tell police prior to arrest can be held against you. It also means that it’s very possible to self-incriminate yourself before the handcuffs ever get slapped on. How do you think criminals get caught, anyway?
By the time you’ve been arrested, it’s really too late to choose to remain silent. You always have a right to stay quiet, so don’t rely on the police to tell you when you’re permitted to keep your mouth shut. Your rights, your responsibility.
Don’t Chase The Threat
Our instructor posited a scenario where you’re sleeping in the dead of night and you awake to the sound of someone breaking in. While someone else calls 911, you remove your gun from your nightstand drawer, chamber a round, and open the door, moving in the direction of the noise. Eventually, you stumble upon the invader. Despite your warnings, they attack, leaving you with no choice but to shoot and kill your attacker.
Justifiable homicide, right? Right?
As always, it depends. Our instructor explained that in some jurisdictions, you leaving the relative safety of your bedroom to seek out the threat can be regarded as an escalatory act in the sense you unnecessarily placed yourself in a dangerous situation necessitating the use of a firearm. The logic being, the invader didn’t pose a direct threat to you until you decided to walk up to them, gun in hand. As a result, you can end up being charged with a crime, despite the intruder being unlawfully in your residence.
It’s a perverse logic, to be expected under the Regime’s reign of anarcho-tyranny. At the same time, it does make tactical sense - exposing yourself to a threat is never a good idea. While nobody likes having their backs against a wall or to cower in fear, if your safety is the point, then there may be no better position to be in. Often times, a prepared defender has the advantage over an attacker, since the attacker needs to navigate an environment they aren’t in control of and would have to expose themselves to danger in the process of attacking.
Staying put as opposed to going after the threat is tactically advantageous, but also legally so. It’s much easier to make the case for employing deadly force if you can say you sought refuge and didn’t expose yourself to danger. This leaves little to no doubt you took pains to avoid killing anyone and were first and foremost preoccupied with keeping yourself and your loved ones alive. Again, it’s unfortunate you need to basically imprison yourself inside your own home to lawfully protect yourself, but some jurisdictions take the concept of “imminence” to logical extremes. If someone breaks into your home, your life isn’t in immediate danger as long as they’re not in the same room as you.
As always, there are exceptions. If you have a family member in another part of the house, would you not be willing to risk your life to get to them in order to protect them? If there’s anything worth risking prosecution over, it’s in defense of a loved one. There are no guarantees, but you’re likely to have an easier time justifying abandoning relative safety to protect family than you would justify going after the intruder. I can also imagine that in some cases, attempting to escape your residence may be the ideal course of action. I’ve spent most of this post speaking in the context of having a firearm, but if you don’t, staying put could actually be more dangerous, since your ability to defend yourself may be more limited. Either way, removing yourself from danger or limiting your exposure to it is what you ought to be focused on, not dealing with the threat.
Expect To Be Sued
Some states protect you from civil liability if you’re cleared of criminal liability. Others don’t. Depending on where you live, it’s a virtual certainty that the family of your attacker will attempt to get even by filing a lawsuit against you.
Civil law is a whole different beast, so I don’t want to get too deep into it. My point here is to stress the importance of avoidance and doing everything possible given the circumstances to avoid having to pull the trigger on anyone. Even if you’re cleared of criminal charges, you can still be found liable for damages. It’s frustrating, but again, we live under anarcho-tyranny.
Your only hope of defeating both criminal and civil charges is to be able to demonstrate that the only alternative to killing your attacker was to be killed or maimed yourself. It sounds simple enough, but again, the scenario you think up in your head isn’t likely to be the scenario you’re faced with when real-world violence strikes.
There’s not going to be any time to come up with a plan in your mind when it happens; you need to rely on your preparations and simply act on the decisions you made ahead of time as far as when to shoot and when to hold fire. As always, avoidance is the most critical element. As long as you demonstrate you did absolutely everything as the circumstances allowed to evade danger, you’ll be on solid footing when defending yourself in both criminal and civil court, even if you ended up killing your attacker.
It’s an unfortunate fact of life that we are responsible for the welfare of those who prey upon us, but in case you missed it the first time, we live in anarcho-tyranny.
You Are Not Responsible For The Safety Of Others
This was the toughest pill for me to swallow. I’ve spent lots of time in these spaces lamenting the breakdown of the social fabric, leaving us all entirely on our own to look after our well-being. It’s another thing for it to be literally codified in law, however.
According to our instructor, if you are at a store and a robber holds a gun to the clerk, you can end up in trouble if you draw your own gun on them or use any kind of force against them. Again, the logic of imminence is being taken to its extreme: since they weren’t pointing the gun at you directly, you have no legal sanction to draw your gun on them.
It’s unbelievable. That said, it depends on where you live - in some parts of the country, citizens coming to the aid of others isn’t regarded as some horrific atrocity. Still, you just never know. The law isn’t rooted in morality, so doing the right thing is never enough to clear you. It’s utterly heartbreaking to think that abandoning an innocent victim might be your best play, but ask yourself - are you willing to go to jail to save a stranger’s life?
Personally, I’d have a hard time walking away. If, for example, the robber ended up killing the clerk, I’d never forgive myself for running off. There are fates worse than death and living your life as a coward is one of them. As an able-bodied man, the idea that I can’t do something about a clear and present danger when I’m in a position to do so is an abomination and violates every value I hold. You can’t disobey the law, no, but obeying the law in itself isn’t any kind of virtue. Observing laws that demand we act immorally eventually destroy us.
In times like these, one thing to remember is the concept of reasonable force - force sufficient enough to stop the attack. Reasonable force and deadly force overlap, but they’re also separate concepts. It’s just that deadly force happens to be the most effective in stopping an attack. If you feel that a fellow citizen needs your assistance and abandoning them to their fate would be unforgivable, remember that there are other ways of stopping a threat without using deadly force. Yes, it’s dangerous and you’ll likely expose yourself to risk of harm or even death if you intervene.
But if you can manage to stop a threat without killing nor gravely injuring the attacker, you’re far more likely to stand on safe legal ground than if you simply drew your gun and shot them. The government is more worried about you killing someone than anything else; the less lethal the force you use, the easier of a time you’ll have arguing that you used only the most necessary amount of violence to stop a threat.
There’s no guarantees, of course. The rules governing the use of less-lethal force are generally the same as those governing the use of deadly force. Whatever level of force you apply, it must be sufficient with respect to ending the immediate threat, nothing more. If you disarm the attacker, that’s it - threat over. Don’t pick up the gun and point it at them. If they run away, let them - again, the threat is over. Stay ready to respond to any additional threats, but don’t get carried away in thinking that you have a responsibility to “finish” the fight.
Finally, do only as the circumstances allow you to do. If you have family present, intervening on behalf of a stranger may not be a good idea, since doing so may come at the cost of putting your loved ones at risk. I also brought up the term “able-bodied man” - if you’re not able-bodied or a woman, intervention may not only pose an unnecessary risk, but it may also be ineffective. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and it’s up to us to honestly assess them prior to taking action. As usual, do so before that moment comes.
Get Legal Coverage
Hopefully, none of you ever find yourself in a situation where you need to use force of any kind to protect yourself or your loved ones. But if you intend to do so when the need arises, don’t expect the good graces of the law to uphold your right to do so. It won’t.
If you’ve made it this far, you should have concluded that having ready access to a lawyer is an absolute must. No, you don’t need to have one on retainer (though that would be nice). But you need to know who to call in the event a violent incident occurs. The situation will be so stressful, you’ll be in a panic trying to think all this up in the moment.
I mentioned the class I took was hosted by USCCA. I don’t want to sound like I’m selling their services, so I’ll just say USCCA provides legal insurance - coverage of legal fees, a wide range of self-defense attorneys to choose from, assistance with bail, and even liability insurance in the event of a lawsuit. If you do end up getting charged, USCCA also has access to expert witnesses who can testify on your behalf. Without legal insurance, the only way you’re going to have access to such resources is if you’re a wealthy individual, in which case, you’d probably have a lawyer on retainer, anyway.
To assure you I’m not shilling for USCCA, there are other services out there providing legal coverage in the event of a use-of-force incident, with US LawShield being the other which comes to mind. Carefully weigh the benefits offered by each one and understand you really do get what you pay for. Also consider which services are more popular and what’s not as popular. There’s a reason people frequent certain products and services over others.
There are people out there who possess dozens (yes, dozens) of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition, but no legal coverage. These people are doing it wrong. My suggestion: spend less money on guns and ammo, more on legal coverage. I don’t know how many times I need to say it, but all the guns in the world won’t matter unless the state upholds your right to defend yourself and loved ones with violence. You only need to shoot one person with only one bullet to end up in a world of trouble.
In closing, I want to stress that these are guidelines and not necessarily hard-and-fast rules. There’s no way anyone can tell you for sure ahead of time if you’re allowed to use violence in defense of self or others in a given scenario. The fact is, if you see a potentially lethal confrontation brewing, you have a responsibility to break contact and retreat to safety. If you don’t and you end up in a violent encounter, one of the questions that’ll be raised during the investigation will be if you had an opportunity to evade and if so, why didn’t you? You better have a good explanation.
I hope everyone walks away from this with more of an avoidance-oriented, defensive mindset and far less enthusiasm about using any kind of violence against someone. If you ever need to justifiably employ any level of force against another human, you’re going to need to hurt them in order to make them cease their attack. Never use force against another person and think you won’t at least leave bruises and scratches on them. You may need to really hurt them for your defensive actions to be effective and, in some cases, you may need to apply life-threatening levels of force. Be both mentally and physically prepared to do so. Take classes, train, get legal coverage, and have a strong understanding of what the law says you can and cannot do to protect yourself and your loved ones.
What Are Your Thoughts?
Did you learn anything from this? Have you attended a similar class like the one I did? What’s your understanding of self-defense and use-of-force laws where you live? Is there anything I’ve written that’s legally disputable? If you own guns, do you possess legal coverage?
Let’s discuss in the comments section below.
UPDATE #1: Reader “Shawn Eng” shared some lessons he learned while obtaining his New York City carry permit, but it’s his third point, the one accompanied by the video, I want to highlight:
Just completed the 16 hour class for a NYC carry permit. Some interesting points:
- When calling 911, tell the operator the description of the suspect and a description of yourself (the complainant) to mitigate risk of mistaken identity. No doubt a conscious suspect will be yelling at the police that you attacked him first.
- The legal case begins at the point of the encounter - if de-escalation doesn't stop the attack, be sure all witnesses and neighbors hear you repeatedly yell: "STAY BACK! or GET OUT OF MY HOUSE! or STOP THREATENING ME!"
- Some recent drama involving USCCA denial of coverage:
Well. It’s a good thing I didn’t explicitly promote USCCA’s services, huh? If you didn’t watch the video (you should, it’s less than 10 minutes long), it turns out that USCCA has a shady reputation. They could very well provide all the services they advertise - when they actually provide it. The fine print, however, has a tremendous amount of exceptions that amount to a litany of excuses for denying coverage!
For example, the contract says coverage can be denied if a member ends up charged with a crime. Huh? The whole point of legal coverage is for when you’re charged with a crime! USCCA, however, apparently renders its own verdict, towards the aim of what many suspect is to avoid having to actually spend its own money. The contract also states that even if they end up representing you in court and providing services, USCCA can rescind coverage and force you to pay back legal fees if you end up with a conviction on any charges. Again, what use is this legal coverage if you end up having to pay back the people who were supposed to defend you in court? None of it makes any sense.
Self-defense attorney Andrew Branca provided analysis of a USCCA member who was denied coverage after she shot and killed her ex-husband in what she claimed was self-defense:
Whether she was actually guilty or not is besides the point. The problem is that USCCA rendered its own judgment on a case which was still in litigation and refused to fulfill their end of the agreement. Branca points out the contract didn’t say (at least at the time) that USCCA reserves the right to deny coverage based on their own assessment of the case. But even if that had been in the contract, what’s the use of legal coverage if they won’t stand by you from start to finish?
This reveals a serious problem with legal “coverage” versus legal “representation.” Companies like USCCA, US LawShield, and Firearms Legal Protection are effectively middlemen - they’re not law firms themselves. Since they control most of the pursestrings, it’s entirely up to them to decide whether your case qualifies or not. Law firms, on the other hand, directly represent you (for a price, of course) and are committed to defending you, even if you may have committed a serious crime. Their job is to find any argument to defend your actions. Who would you trust more with your life?
This is where I’m beginning to think an attorney on retainer may be the better option. I don’t know how much it costs, though I’d imagine it’s quite a bit more than legal insurance. But it’s beginning to look like legal insurance is a dead end and not worth the expense. I still maintain that having legal protection is an absolute must when it comes to gun ownership. Again, spend less on guns and ammo and think about spending some of that money retaining a lawyer. In any self-defense scenario, your guns will only save your life once. Your guns won’t save your life in court.
UPDATE #2: Reader “Reckoning” shared a story out of Canada from this past summer. Canada’s legal system differs from the U.S., but a lot of the same principles apply. A man was cleared of second-degree murder charges after he shot and killed a home invader, which is good news. However, the story proves my point about how getting arrested and charged with a crime is a virtual certainty, even in a case where you’re inside your own home, protecting yourself from intrusion.
“His intention was not to kill the intruder, he only shot at him once. We are all saddened that the intruder passed away as a result of being shot.”
What was I saying about you needing to shoot only one person, only once, to end up in a world of trouble?
This incident also underscores how the ambient political environment is often the decisive factor in how the aftermath unfolds. Canada is a country with gun control and a strong left-wing bent. You’re not going to get away with shooting and killing anyone, even if that means you’re ultimately cleared of charges.
Under anarcho-tyranny, the process is the punishment. Remember that.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
Thanks for reading We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.