You are responsible for your actions and damage.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The coroner’s office has identified the 14-year-old girl who was fatally shot by Los Angeles police Thursday when officers fired on an assault suspect and a bullet went through the wall and struck the girl as she was in a clothing store dressing room.

Police also fatally shot the suspect Thursday morning at a Burlington store in the North Hollywood area of the San Fernando Valley, police said.

The Los Angeles County coroner identified the girl as Valentina Orellana-Peralta. The suspect’s name has not yet been released.

Witnesses told KCBS-TV that a man began acting erratically, threatening to throw items from the upper floor, and attacked a woman with a bicycle lock shortly before noon as the store was crowded with holiday shoppers.

Officers answered a report of an assault and others of shots being fired, police said. Investigators have not found a gun at the scene.

Providing protection

When you are being threatened, your first action is to dial 911 and leave the line open. Yell to others to dial 911.

Keep the phone open say everything out loud. Your phone will be tract by 911 services but give your location and situation.

Tell the attacker you will protect yourself and others around you by any means available.

Describe the attacker and the threat. Tell the attacker to back off, stay away. Try to confuse them but do not show fear.

If you must draw and shoot, remember you and you alone are responsible for where your rounds land. Remember they may go through the attacker so be aware of what is infront, around and behind your attacker.

If you shoot, shoot to stop the attacker. This may take one or many rounds. Shoot until the threat is done.

At that time reconfirm with 911 law enforcement is on the way and give your name and describe yourself. Know that when the police arrive. All they will hear is that there was a use of force, shooting or hot area.

When the police arrive, make sure you do not have a gun in your hand. Tell them you called 911. They will probably place you in cuffs until the situation is sorted out.

Do not argue. Comply and if there is anyone around you, get their names and numbers before law arrives. If you can.

Be aware your fire maybe confiscated and in some places you may never get it back.

Some people say,” Do not say a word.” Remember You are not the victim. Never shoot out of hatred or animosity. Shoot to defend. You can always shoot but once that round is out, you did it to protect lives and stop a violent threat.

Practice everyday dry firing. Take classes. Listen to professionals. Keep a log of your practices and training. Your tool is to protect life. Protect the weak from those that are determined to commit violence.

Remember you were the one to call 911 and leave you line open. You are in the right.

Reason for firearms

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal
footing with a carload of drunken guys with
baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

God created everyone equal, Sam colt made everyone equal

21ft rule too close?

 question is the core issue in a case of alleged excessive force brought before the US Court of Appeals in the nation’s largest judicial circuit.

The court’s recent split decision carries important implications for police training, policy and street practice.


Undisputed in this matter is that the assailant, a 23-year-old former high school football standout, wanted to die. But, in the words of his roommate, “He just couldn’t do it himself.” So, one winter evening in 2015, in a mood of “suicidal despair,” he called the police to “handle it.”

In what was later revealed to be a “swatting” call, he anonymously told a 911 operator in a Northern California city that “a crazy guy with a knife” was “threatening to kill my family” in a residence in a known gang area. The caller claimed he was desperately hiding with his children behind a locked door. “Please come fast!” he pleaded, before abruptly hanging up.

Anticipating a possible home invasion, two gang suppression officers patrolling nearby responded within two minutes. Upon their arrival, a young man standing outside the residence (later determined to be the fake complainant) began walking in their direction, brandishing a folding knife in his outstretched right hand.

The officers ordered him to stop and to drop the knife. Instead, according to a district attorney’s investigative report, he “began to run full stride” toward them.

Both officers opened fire. The attacker, struck 10 times, fell to the ground fatally wounded.

The DA declared the shooting justified. Likewise, a district judge, weighing a federal civil rights action alleging excessive force brought by the dead man’s survivors, ruled that the officers’ actions had been reasonable under the circumstances. She granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant officers and their municipality and dismissed the lawsuit.

After the plaintiffs appealed, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a divided opinion. Two of these jurists concurred with the district judge and sustained her dismissal of the case. The third, however, dissented – and made the “21-foot rule” a central discussion point in the court’s recent decision.


Quick refresher: What’s commonly called the 21-foot rule has been “widely explored, discussed, elucidated – and often misunderstood – for decades,” according to the prominent police attorney and use-of-force expert Michael Brave.

In reality, it’s not an absolute rule at all, but a rough guideline based on a firearms training exercise conducted over 36 years ago by well-known trainer Dennis Tueller. Tueller found that “the average healthy adult male,” running with a knife or other contact weapon in hand, can cover a distance of seven yards in about 1.5 seconds – the time it takes the “average” officer to draw a sidearm and place two hits center-mass on a man-size target 21 feet away.

Thus, the exercise suggested, within a 21-foot radius an officer might not have time to draw and successfully defend himself against a charging subject with lethal intent and deadly means before the attacker is on him.

Tueller cautioned awareness of this “Danger Zone,” but he did not characterize his finding as a “rule,” nor as some extreme misinterpretations have claimed did he assert that any knife-wielder within 21 feet can justifiably be shot, all subtleties aside.

In the case at hand, the appellate justices, without providing this background, merely state that: “The 21-foot rule provides that a person at a distance of 21 feet or less from an officer may pose a threat to the officer’s safety.”


Along the investigative and judicial trail of this case, various estimates had been given regarding the distance between the subject and the officers when they fired on him. The panel majority settled on these figures, offered by the plaintiffs:

The subject was “more than 130 feet” away when the officers first encountered him. “At the time [they] opened fire, [he] was approximately 55 feet from them.” (The defendants had estimated the distance somewhat shorter, at 46 feet.) “When [the subject] fell, he was approximately 18 feet” from the officers.

The dissenting appellate judge challenged his colleagues’ conclusion that the attacker posed an “immediate” threat warranting deadly force at a distance of 55 feet. By its written policy at that time, he pointed out, the officers’ department “provides that a person armed with a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or bat, constitutes a danger to the safety of [an] officer when that person is at a distance of 21 feet or less from the officer.

“Thus, under the Department’s own 21-foot rule,” the subject “at a distance of 55 feet presumptively did not pose an immediate threat” when he was shot, the dissenter argued. “The point of the rule is surely to guide officers’ conduct as to whether and when a suspect poses a threat…. [O]fficers are trained based on the policy, and the reasonable inference is that this training should affect our assessment of what a reasonable officer would believe and how he should react.”

To find that the shooting was deserving of a summary judgment, the judge insisted, was an error.


Defending its position, the majority pointed out that there was “no evidence, direct or circumstantial,” that the subject was standing still at a distance of 55 feet. The “undisputed evidence” was that he was “advancing toward the officers at a fast pace (at least 12.3 feet per second), all while armed with a knife and ignoring the officers’ repeated commands to stop….

“Had the officers waited 1 to 1.5 seconds more before firing when they did, [he] would have reached them with the knife before falling to the ground.”

As to the 21-foot “rule,” the majority stated, it provides that a person at that distance or less “may pose a threat to the safety of an officer. It does not follow from this rule, or any other, that armed suspects never pose [an immediate] threat beyond 21 feet. Notably, the dissent does not cite any case holding that an officer must wait until an armed suspect is within 21 feet, or capable of actually inflicting death or serious harm, before being justified in using deadly force….

“The officers’ use of force in response to [the subject’s] conduct was reasonable under the circumstances,” permitting the district judge’s dismissal of the case to stand.

You can access the court’s decision in full, free of charge by clicking here.


“The key take-away from this decision for policy and training,” says Atty. Brave, “is to avoid stating and practicing hard-line, so-called ‘rules’ that are not specifically mandated by controlling legal precedent or clearly and reliably established by sufficient scientific proof. To do otherwise only invites unnecessary trouble.

“Rely instead on the ‘objective reasonableness standard’ that requires weighing the totality of circumstances as reasonably perceived by the involved officer. This standard fosters consideration of all factors that could be included in reasonably determining whether a subject is an immediate threat of significant bodily harm, whatever the distance involved.”

Brave notes that the department involved in the case above has apparently changed its policy statement that the court said was in place when the fatal shooting occurred. “In checking the department’s current online-published policy manual,” he says, “the ‘21-foot rule’ is not mentioned.”

For more on this and other critical officer safety issues, attend a Calibre Press Street Survival Seminar near you.

Why dry fire

Dry fire allows you to practice a wide variety of skills.  Most importantly it allows you to build a foundation of basic skills.
Brilliance in the basics will lead to success in advanced manipulation.  With dry fire, you can practice proper grip, stance, trigger control, sight picture, and sight alignment.
A little dry fire every day can help establish good habits and build muscle memory.   the biggest benefit is reducing flinch.

 one must dry fired so much when the time came to do live fire my muscle memory was of a firearm that did not recoil.  Flinch became nonexistent.  I was able to train it out of me.

Michigan protection

A 29 yo Adrian Mich. Man stabbed and killed an 85-year- . old man in the automotive section of.a local Meijer grocery store on Sept. 16.,
before being stopped by a wom
concealed-carry firearm license. According
to surveillance footage and witnesses, th,e
suspect and the victim entered separately
and the younger man stabbed the older
man multiple times in the head and neck,
killing him. During the altercation, a woman
noticed what was happening, drew her
firearm and ordered the suspect to the
ground, where he was held until police
arrived. The attacker was arrested and
faces charges including murder. (
Detroit, Mich., 9/16/20)

Don’t shoot police

Polk County Florida Sheriff – “You kill a policeman it means no arrest…no Miranda rights…no negotiations…nothing but as many bullets as we can shoot into you…PERIOD.”
An illegal alien, in Polk County, Florida , who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop, ended up “executing” the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state-wide manhunt ensued.

The murderer was found hiding in a wooded area. As soon as he took a shot at the SWAT team, officers opened fire on him. They hit the guy 68 times.

Naturally, the liberal media went nuts and asked why they had to shoot the poor, undocumented immigrant 68 times.

Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel: “Because that’s all the ammunition we had.” Now, is that just about the all-time greatest answer or what!

The Coroner also reported that the illegal alien died of natural causes. When asked by a reporter how that could be, since there were 68 bullet wounds in his body, he simply replied: (BEST QUOTE ever) ….”When you are shot 68 times you are naturally gonna die.”