Constitutional Law

Bureaucrats' approach to self defense

Via RicketyClick comes this: a Houston defense lawyer has posted the DEA guidelines on use of lethal force. He notes that trainees are given fact patterns and then expected to recite from the standards verbatim. I'm sure that is solid training ... in memory skills.

Only a bureaucracy ... the document is probably 8-10 pages long. A long checklist of factors, which would be of less than no use in a confrontation. With ridiculous standards such as if a knife wielder is aggressive, it may justify use of lethal force IF he is within 21 feet of you. I suppose you are expected to bring a tape measure (and what shooter thinks in terms of feet rather than yards?). Actually, it says use may be justified if he is 21 feet from you, not within 21 feet, so I guess you cannot fire if he is five feet from you. [I don't doubt, as commentors note, that a knife-wielder can close 21 feet in less than your time to draw and fire. But to teach it as some hard and fast rule, as if there is no reason to use force if the guy is 22 feet out, or pretend that with a guy charging you you can estimate the distance, is going a bit far.]

And many criteria are based on probable cause? (p/c). That's for arrests or searches, commonly defined as "strong suspicion." If I were to use lethal force, I'd hope it was based on more than a strong suspicion that the other person posed a threat.

Not to mention instructions such as identify yourself as "DEA". How about "police"? I know what DEA is, and DEA knows what it is, but there are probably a lot of people who have no idea what DEA, ATF, DOJ, etc. stand for.

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on October 26, 2008 (boomark / email).