It has been said many times that the only way to guarantee surviving a violent encounter is to not get in it in the first place. This perspective is focused on personal survival. It is, and will continue to be, not only correct but should a driving force when we are facing a potential threat.
 
Using deadly force is always the absolute last resort when all else fails. If you have received quality training, you should have this principle internalized. When we are faced with the use of deadly force to stop a threat our goal is just that, stop the threat. We should never have the intent to kill a threat, only stop it. Unfortunately, the threat will most likely not survive, especially if you have trained to the point of proficiency.
 
I am sure there are some who believe the legal aftermath is much simpler if there is only your side of the story. This is a dangerous line of thinking. As law abiding citizens, we don’t think like criminals who do everything they can (at least the craftiest ones) to avoid leaving evidence. In a self-defense encounter we do not have the pre-meditated planning the criminal has done. This lack of premeditated planning will have us leaving a significant trail of evidence.
 
This is a very good tool for your defense attorney. As the innocent victim you didn’t try to cover up the evidence. I heard one student of mine tell a story about a lawyer that told him that if he shot and killed a home invader that fell on the porch, drag the invader inside. I really hope that was not a true story, and if it was, I would be looking for a different lawyer.
 
I am way off my intended subject: the realization that pressing the trigger on a firearm pointed at a human may result in taking a life.
 
I had a recent conversation with a friend about this very subject. He is a hunter and has used a firearm to harvest wild game and taught his family the same skills. Hunting is a very different event than defending yourself from a human with intent to do you grave bodily harm. While anyone who enters the living room of apex predators knows that we are viewed as food to them as much as we view deer and elk as food for us. It is entirely possible that while we are looking for game (or just hiking trails,) an apex predator is stalking us with the intent to eat us.
 
Most of us in that situation will have little hesitation to point a firearm at that predator and press the trigger to stop an attack. Like a self-defense event with a human, the use of deadly force is only applied to an apex predator when other deterring techniques have failed.
 
I have asked the question before; can you point a firearm at a human and press the trigger? If you are honest (and haven’t faced the situation) your answer will most likely be “I don’t know.” As a retired military member, we were trained in the mindset that our job was to break things and kill people. In the Air Force we were much more detached from this “in your face” violence that our sister branches, the Army, and Marines. Their conditioning was much more intense than we got since their environment had them face to face with the threat.
 
In his book On Killing, The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society he addresses the military’s problem with getting drafted soldiers to point their weapons at the enemy and shoot to kill. The military studied (See Men Against Fire: The problem of Battle Command, Marshal, S.L.A., William Morrow & Company, New York 1947) the fire rates and looked for ways to turn off the safety switch. This safety switch prevents us from killing another human being.
 
There are plenty of examples of those who have this switch off, such as serial killers. For the rest of the non-psychopathic population, the switch is on. In World War II it is estimated that only 25% of soldiers fired directly at the enemy. At the time, training the new troops involved shooting at bulls-eye targets. These were trained soldiers and included seasoned troops.
 
By the Viet Nam war the rate was closer to 90%. What made the difference? Training, plain and simple. To be more specific, operant conditioning. The military started with using silhouette targets. Then they progressed to pop-up targets. The soldiers were graded on how quickly they hit the target after it popped up. This training moved the fire decision to neural pathways (sometimes known as muscle memory) so the soldiers didn’t think, they just shot the target.
 
When we do training, we (well, most of us) don’t use the popup targets. There are some advanced shooting courses that do. When I was certified, yhe NRA forbade us instructors from using even animal silhouette targets. Their program was strictly marksmanship focused. This is true to the roots of the NRA.
 
If we only shoot at a bulls-eye there is no assurance that we will be able to engage a human threat. That is why law enforcement training uses various human shaped targets and even some with human features.
 
The reality is, regardless of the training there is no guarantee that the average person will shoot at another person. We must train ourselves to engage a human shape. Remember, even with the advanced training, the Viet Nam era soldiers still had 10% who did not shoot the enemy.
 
Today, we have some operant conditioning that is teaching our population to engage human targets. We have first-person-shooter video games, LASER tag, and to really drive the point home paintball wars. There are many who deny the conditioning. However, in Columbine, the shooters stood flat-footed and shot at the students using the same techniques they used in video games. Paintball has us hunting each other. We are being conditioned to turn that switch off.
 
With all that being considered, the only way we can be 100% sure we can press the trigger is to face the choice. While I never want to be in that situation, I realize that situation is only presented when a threat has engaged me with intent to do great/grave bodily harm. We train so that in that event we can react and survive. The training we do must include a human analog to at least condition us to shooting a human target. Will that flip the switch enough that we can press the trigger? I hope none of us find out…

Every action taken during a violent encounter will be judged through the lens of a fictitious “reasonable person.” This lens is held up by the prosecutor at every opportunity as the defender’s actions against the threat are questioned.
 
            “Wouldn’t a reasonable person have run away?”
            “Would a reasonable person use a gun when they also had pepper spray?”
            “Would a reasonable person use more deadly hollow point ammunition?”
 
Reasonableness will be applied to each of the use of force criteria. Not only do defenders have to make sure they do not breach any of the legal bounds but also the bounds of a reasonable person.
 
This fictitious reasonable person is based upon the perceptions of the jury. These perceptions are the result of their life experiences and the picture painted by the prosecutor’s line of questioning.
 
For example, if a search of the defender’s home exposes multiple boxes of ammunition, the prosecutor can paint the picture that the defender had enough ammunition in his home to start a war. A juror who is not an experienced shooter may be disturbed by someone having that much ammunition. An experienced shooter may look at the claim for what it is, an attempt to scare people into believing the defender is dangerous and a threat to the public.
 
Responding to someone who punched you in the face with a ball bat not only violates the proportionality aspect of the use of force it can be deemed unreasonable. Likewise, using a firearm when you had pepper spray may be deemed unreasonable.
 
Your defense team will offer counter arguments to move the jury’s perceptions of your actions from unreasonable to reasonable and necessary.
 
There are other, less obvious. Considerations. If the attacker has a known tendency for violent behavior or threatening the defender, actions that might have been considered unreasonable otherwise can be justifiable.
 
Your knowledge at the time of the event can lead to reactions that someone without that knowledge may think is unreasonable. Following the 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri there was a frenzy of police criticism. When officers shot and killed a mentally deranged man with a knife the criticism went up exponentially. After all, the man was mentally ill, only had a knife and was 15 feet from the officers. What the public and media didn’t know was the Tueller drill. The officers knew that the man with the knife could closed the distance quicker than they could react if he started moving towards them, which he did. Prior knowledge of the Tueller drill kept them from being injured or killed.
 
In Andrew Branca’s The Law of Self Defense Principles he shares some training he got from Massad Ayoob. The students in the class were instructed to put a copy of their notes in an envelope mail it to themselves. This documented the time and training they received. If they were in an incident and had to defend what they knew at the time, the sealed envelope could be opened in court. This would prove they acted based upon what they knew prior to the event.
 
It can also be considered reasonable to react based upon what was believed to be true at the time of the event. An example of this is the many times police have shot someone who had a toy firearm or something in their hands that looked like a firearm. It is reasonable for them to react based upon them believing they were being threatened with an actual firearm.
 
Likewise, not being aware of an escape route because it was hidden behind a large vehicle does not mean a defender violated the no means of escape principle. The prosecutor will show images that clearly show the escape route to prove the defender had means to escape but chose to shoot and kill the attacker. The defense will present the reality of what was happening at the time by showing an image of the large vehicle blocking the view of the escape route proving that the defender was acting reasonably.

You have purchased daily carry tools such as a firearm, OC or OC/CS spray, a reliable knife, maybe even a tactical pen. You have trained with all these tools. You have the mental attitude and confidence to deploy these tools.
 
In this training you should have been taught that the use of force is the absolute last resort. In Michael Martin’s Concealed Carry and Home Defense he states: “The only guaranteed method of surviving a violent encounter is to avoid it in the first place.”
 
If that is the case, why do we do all the training? Why do we spend so much money on gear? The answer is a simple one, we can’t always avoid the actions of a bad actor who intends to do us harm. Avoiding an encounter is always the best answer and the surest way of going home that day.
 
When avoidance is not possible, we need to be very knowledgeable about the laws in the jurisdiction of the encounter. There is a myriad of possible traps. Each jurisdiction will have laws that govern your responsibilities. They could be termed “Stand Your Ground,” “Duty to Retreat,” “Castle Doctrine” to name a few.
 
Duty to Retreat/Stand Your Ground
 
If your state, such as mine, has a law that states you do not have a duty to retreat, you do not have to retreat if you are lawfully where you are. You are protected from the prosecutor using your failure to retreat to deny you a self-defense determination.
 
However, if you are in a “Duty to Retreat” state things are different. If you have an opportunity to safely retreat, you must or lose the ability to claim self-defense. Note the ‘safely retreat’ in that statement. You are not expected to put yourself in a more hazardous situation to avoid defending yourself. A simple example is if the threat is advancing towards you and your only retreat would be into a street with heavy traffic, you do not have to enter the traffic and can defend yourself and claim self-defense.
 
There are other factors that may allow self-defense in lieu of a retreat. One obvious example is the protection of another innocent party. If I were out in public with my wife and someone is attacking her, I am certainly not going to just leave her and retreat. I will defend her and the justice system should allow me that option without using it against me.
 
Each state has their own nuances to duty to retreat. Your state may have laws that allow less than deadly force without a duty to retreat but require a retreat if deadly force is being used. Get to know your areas laws and the laws of any travel destinations.
 
Castle Doctrine
 
Castle Doctrine comes from Sir Edward Coke who said: “An Englishman’s home is his castle.” The first aspect of this is that you do not have a duty to retreat if you are in your home. That does not mean you can use deadly force to defend your home. In all states except one, deadly force cannot be used to defend property. If you are in Texas, don’t mess with a man’s truck or his dog. He can lawfully use deadly force to defend property.
 
Castle Doctrine has been extended to include place of employment and occupied vehicles. In all cases, for the Castle Doctrine to apply the occupation of the space must be legal. Legal status may be affected by impending divorce or other domestic issues. Someone who purchased a home with a spouse is the legal co-owner of the home, until. Until the marriage starts to fall apart. If one spouse moves out of the property, the legal status of being in that property relies upon an invitation of the one that has continued occupation.
 
As stated in the beginning, avoiding a violent encounter should always be the primary goal. Possessing the ability to exert deadly force against another elevates our responsibility in the eyes of the law. Even a verbal altercation’s prosecution can be elevated to a felony by the mere presence of deadly force, even if it was not used or even disclosed. Using deadly force is an absolute last resort after all other methods have been exhausted.
 
While there are many jurisdictions that have laws that support not retreating, these laws are not so clear-cut that a lay person cannot say they were legally within the bounds of that law without legal advice. That is why we need to do two things, evoke our right to remain silent (also derived from the Castle Doctrine) and get a lawyer.