Defensive Response: Justification vs. Necessity

Duration: 7:08

Just because you can use lethal force in defensive response doesn’t always mean you should. Ken Murray, author of Training at the Speed of Life, discusses how in his reality-based training, he addresses the aftermath of employing lethal force, and how his attitude toward justification versus necessity has evolved over the years. Do you need both justification and necessity in order to shoot?

  • (will not be published)

3 Responses to “Defensive Response: Justification vs. Necessity”
  1. JOHN

    Even with the justifiable use of so-called lethal force, we can and should distinguish between shoot to kill and shoot to stop/disable. Perhaps not always possible under certain circumstances, but I think more likely possible.

  2. Dave Wolf
    Dave Wolf

    Twice ive had to pull a gun in a dangerous situation. Neither time did I brandish it, just had it at the ready because I did not know the intentions of the attackers or if they were armed. I survived both instances, one was against 4 men in the desert. They say if you pull it out you better use it that’s bs. Not every time. Three times i was justified in using lethal force (pulled weapon twice) and i never fired a shot and im glad I didn’t. Just the sight of my weapon caused the aggressors to calm down quickly. The third instance I talked the guy down without pulling the weapon. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should in all instances. I am professionally trained, however, and am skilled in the use of my firearms. I am glad I have not had to injure anyone and I hope i never have to in the future.

  3. Peter E. Schultz
    Peter E. Schultz

    Excellent job in raising the educational bar! There is no way our 2A rights will survive many more years of neanderthal “Grab gun, go boom!” self-defense mentality. Defenders need to be very skilled and very smart. Thanks for sharing this one.