-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Laser Sight
- Thread starter snake020
- Start date
thanksforthecas
Member
Visible Laser is all but gone from Mil use.
All testable data concluded that Vis Lzr slowed shooters down.
The human eye. I dont know the science behind it, just the result.
All testable data concluded that Vis Lzr slowed shooters down.
The human eye. I dont know the science behind it, just the result.
Absolutely useless. At ranges futher then 25-30 feet you cant see it especially during high lighting situations. At ranges closer then that you waste time looking for a light on your target instead of focusing on sight picture or using the point and shoot method.
The only time Ive ever seen or heard of a laser being effective at anything is as a deturant factor in that a bad guy with a laser bouncing around in his eyes knows where the bullet it going. But you arent exactly negotiating stand off hostage situations are you? In reality if you as a Non-LEO need to use a weapon it shouldnt be coming out and up at the ready till you have sufficent reason to believe you should use it at that moment. In a scenario like that if having the gun doesnt stop the guy, dont put your faith in a laser doing it.
Lasers are for cheesy action movies with guys in black SWAT gear and gas masks. Now weapon lights.... that is a whole differnt story.
thanksforthecas
Member
I don't think deterrence was his intention.
And a laser for deterrence would be a horrible idea, the example cited is anecdotal. If it got that far? He's alive only on that officer's willingness to risk his own life.
Morality not legality should be behind any shoot scenario.
The legal part is argued in court and dependent on many factors, few of which will make sense. The laws very from state to state and with the right representation anything can go either way.
In fact studying the legality of self-defense shooting has been used against a man in NY for conviction. So stay off google.
Never hesitate to save your life or that of innocent people.
And a laser for deterrence would be a horrible idea, the example cited is anecdotal. If it got that far? He's alive only on that officer's willingness to risk his own life.
Morality not legality should be behind any shoot scenario.
The legal part is argued in court and dependent on many factors, few of which will make sense. The laws very from state to state and with the right representation anything can go either way.
In fact studying the legality of self-defense shooting has been used against a man in NY for conviction. So stay off google.
Never hesitate to save your life or that of innocent people.
As I said in that situation it was a stand off involving bystanders and a weapon other then a firearm.
As I said, if your not a LEO your not using a weapon in the same capacity. Even the military mindset is totally differnt involving use of force. Think about how many times you hear people say "Why didnt the officer just _____." Being a LEO brings a responcibility level to use of force that a regular person just doesnt have the background, training, or experiance to really grasp and thats why I would totally advice against this whole train of thought.
That being said I have heard people actually use that exact reason when either trying to sell or talking about buying a laser, and it scares the hell out of when that train of logic is allowed to continue. So just incase anybody was entertaining that theory in your mind, forget it. If you have a reason to use force you go ahead and use the force, come out alive, we can sort out morality and total legality after the fact. Cause neither of those two factors will mean much to you if your dead.
thanksforthecas
Member
You're correct.
My partner, who freelances as expert witness in defense of LEO's and good citizens throughout the USA, says frequently that documented training is the best gift a defendant can ever give himself.
Similar to GMT in the Navy.
The weapon is always used in the same capacity, by anyone. It kills.
But I agree with the implication. People who dont have training, are likely to make poor decisions.
Federaly cited precedent lends to no variance in accepted use of deadly force for LEO's and the citizen.
LEO's are far easier to defend in court and far more likely to have used potentially deadly force justifiably.
But again, this is lawyertalk and a waste of our time.
Youre last paragraph bought you a beer from me.
Morals and ethical citizenship.
My partner, who freelances as expert witness in defense of LEO's and good citizens throughout the USA, says frequently that documented training is the best gift a defendant can ever give himself.
Similar to GMT in the Navy.
The weapon is always used in the same capacity, by anyone. It kills.
But I agree with the implication. People who dont have training, are likely to make poor decisions.
Federaly cited precedent lends to no variance in accepted use of deadly force for LEO's and the citizen.
LEO's are far easier to defend in court and far more likely to have used potentially deadly force justifiably.
But again, this is lawyertalk and a waste of our time.
Youre last paragraph bought you a beer from me.
Morals and ethical citizenship.
Maybe I misunderstood you .... but for clarification: I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that one disregard the legal requirements for a "good" shooting in whatever jurisdiction you may find yourself. Or the "study" thereof .... how are you gonna' learn them if not by study?? Osmosis ???
To do otherwise --- i.e., not be up on the "law" --- would be irresponsible .... and if that is the case, you should not be carrying.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
I think what he was getting at was that having studied up on what would be a legal good shot was used against him in court..
DA with an agenda, making it look like he was looking for a reason to shoot.
DA with an agenda, making it look like he was looking for a reason to shoot.
DA's ALL have an agenda. Usually themselves and their career progression ....
It's all the more reason why you NEED to be up on the legalities and have 1st class, professional training. And lots of it ... bring $$$$$$$
thanksforthecas
Member
Im sorry for the confusion.
The notorious NYC subway shooter had studied recent cases and rulings on shootings. In fact he'd prepared his Mother in case he'd shot someone. She called an attorney with a good rep that he'd found through research.
His studying case law was successfully used by the State as evidence of premeditation. Its abnormal, the State argued, for a rational person to read up on how to legally shoot another person. You can find the whole argument and precedents cited through Google.
I brief ROE, all the time.
I train Mil, LEO, Fed, and civs.
Excluding combat operations, the articulated facts of justifiable homicide are near impossible to debate. When teaching FonF or Shoot/NoShoot courses I never allow my instructors to say "youde be wrong", "thats illegal" etc. Scenario driven training is effective for developing decision making skills, but it isnt the court of law.
If you read the applicable laws, you will find NO SCENARIOS.
Just Law.
Provided you're a moral and reasonable person, if you find yourself forced to apply deadly force, it is very likely that you're case, if prosecuted, will turn out favorably.
Your being knowledgeable on the applicable laws may give you the false confidence to make a statement to a LEO after a shooting. Making a statement is the worst thing you could ever do, no matter what the circumstances.
If anyone disagrees with my last sentence please contact a reputable criminal defense attorney who has time on the other side. For fifty bucks he will adamantly agree with my last statement. And that could save your fantail someday.
I certainly don't endorse disregarding the law, but urbanlegend lawyers should be hung.
I keep saying moral, I don't train or work with normal people. I don't think anyone here falls into that category and felt safe using that language. Im sorry if that didnt translate well.
Here is my opinion, OPINION, on guns:
I believe in the Second Amendment. Period.
Its your right to own a gun, your responsibility to know how to use it safely, and I hope you seek out and support like minded individuals.
My best friend requires an NRA card before he allows you in his home.
Im not nearly as polarized, but I do walk the same path.
The notorious NYC subway shooter had studied recent cases and rulings on shootings. In fact he'd prepared his Mother in case he'd shot someone. She called an attorney with a good rep that he'd found through research.
His studying case law was successfully used by the State as evidence of premeditation. Its abnormal, the State argued, for a rational person to read up on how to legally shoot another person. You can find the whole argument and precedents cited through Google.
I brief ROE, all the time.
I train Mil, LEO, Fed, and civs.
Excluding combat operations, the articulated facts of justifiable homicide are near impossible to debate. When teaching FonF or Shoot/NoShoot courses I never allow my instructors to say "youde be wrong", "thats illegal" etc. Scenario driven training is effective for developing decision making skills, but it isnt the court of law.
If you read the applicable laws, you will find NO SCENARIOS.
Just Law.
Provided you're a moral and reasonable person, if you find yourself forced to apply deadly force, it is very likely that you're case, if prosecuted, will turn out favorably.
Your being knowledgeable on the applicable laws may give you the false confidence to make a statement to a LEO after a shooting. Making a statement is the worst thing you could ever do, no matter what the circumstances.
If anyone disagrees with my last sentence please contact a reputable criminal defense attorney who has time on the other side. For fifty bucks he will adamantly agree with my last statement. And that could save your fantail someday.
I certainly don't endorse disregarding the law, but urbanlegend lawyers should be hung.
I keep saying moral, I don't train or work with normal people. I don't think anyone here falls into that category and felt safe using that language. Im sorry if that didnt translate well.
Here is my opinion, OPINION, on guns:
I believe in the Second Amendment. Period.
Its your right to own a gun, your responsibility to know how to use it safely, and I hope you seek out and support like minded individuals.
My best friend requires an NRA card before he allows you in his home.
Im not nearly as polarized, but I do walk the same path.
thanksforthecas
Member
Our adversarial system of law requires the state to prosecute any case with every measure of their capability. The defense counsel is compelled to act in every effort to combat all evidence and provide for the jury any reasonable doubt.
Yes, court victories are professional victories but if their ethics are contested enough through the state bar. They will be destroyed. Attorney's power and influence live and die on their reputation.
A few notable exceptions aside.
A good attorney's reputation for knowing the law and never having allowed false or illegal evidence can cause the State to drop its case upon hearing his name, IF the evidence looked tough to defend from the outset.
Sadly the opposite is true. A cheap, dirt ball attorney makes good practice for junior prosecutors.
Law is like an onion, you can peel it layer by layer and be amazed at its depth but you'll always find yourself crying in the end.
thanksforthecas
Member
Roger Im tracking.
"study"
If you shoot regularly, document it. Document all training. Dont say,write on the net, or in any emails anything that could paint you as "looking for it".
)
Agreed.
That's why I am even "reluctant" to post any pix of my personal "survival TO&E" or go into too much detail about certain things ..... it IS the web, after all .... and what you post herein is accessible to ANYONE.