Shoot Him to the Ground - and Yourself in the Foot

Matthew Temkin has a video out he calls "Shoot Him to the Ground." I think that this is neither good shooting technique nor smart tactics, as Jason points out. Worse yet, it could help get you prosecuted. Here's the YouTube of the promo:



The tactical implications of charging one-handed at your assailant are bad enough. Guns are effective missile weapons because they take you out of melee distance. If you have to shoot someone at arm's length, so be it. Many self-defense encounters happen at spitting distance, but that's no excuse to put yourself there if you don't have to. It's worse with multiple assailants, where retreating to cover while firing, or sidestepping to "get off the x," may be the best course of action. Distance is your friend.

The legal implications, depending on the state, could be terrible. Some states, in spite of a strong "Castle Doctrine" statute, maintain a generalized duty to retreat (if possible) outside the home. I'm looking at you, North Carolina, California of the South. If you have a duty to retreat when possible, then charging your assailant and firing your last round while standing over him is a pretty bad idea. Witnesses may provide a less-than-flattering account of your actions. "Joe was just talkin' to this guy and reached in his pocket, when the defendant whipped out his gun, ran at Joe and blazed away, puttin' the last round in his eyeball!"

That defensive shootings outside the home that occur in North Carolina (and other states with a duty to retreat) where sumdood's intended victim didn't retreat is a testament to prosecutorial discretion, or at least prosecutors' recognition that the upstanding citizen defended herself against a violent assailant, and that no jury will convict on those facts. Like in this case.

Bottom line: I don't plan to buy Temkin's video, nor use his tactics.