re: #79 Daniel Ballard

For what it’s worth every gun/defense trainer I have talked to is basically realizing GZ is a screaming example of what not to do. Top to bottom. You know what I think of SYG in this instance.

The larger issues beyond GZ loom.
One story I am trying to track down (call it unconfirmed) is that of a woman in California that was attacked in her sleep and was being raped. She grabbed gun from under the bed and shot the attacker. He took a hit, and was fleeing the house when she shot him again. The police did not arrest her, but later the DA filed charges.

This sparks a larger defensive question-Is it reasonable to expect a violently raped woman to stay so clear headed as to hold her fire the instant the attacker turns his back? It’s what the law requires. IMO that’s asking too much of the victim.

I understand your point, and I’d say that her first shot was defensible. It’s the second shot that cannot be defended. The attacker had terminated the attack and was fleeing. At that point, if you are a civilian you must cease fire. Even in Florida, which also has a ‘shoot-the-carjacker’ law, I know of at least one person who was charged with murder and ultimately pled guilty to manslaughter for having shot a would-be carjacker in the back after the criminal was running away. The self-defense expert who wrote about the case defended the SA’s decision to file charges, as the threat had ended when the killing shot was fired. Sometimes that part of the law does end up nailing otherwise decent people whose blood was up, but that is the way it has to be. To fire on or pursue a fleeing criminal is solely a matter for the police.