I was lookin ok news9.com a bit ago and saw an artical about how to survive a home invasion.
About halfway dwn the page it states that the experts at the tulsa shooting academy stress that shooting a home invadershould be a last resort. I know what I would do in that situation, what do you fellas think?

I think that I'm not listening to a damn thing that place has to say.


Maybe they think you should sneak up behind the bad guy and give him a wedgie?

Or just let the bad guy have whatever he wants.


With friends like that...........................................

Sounds to me like the "experts" are really morons.

first resort

Ya... I don't think they should be called "experts".

Wedgie huh? Gee... out of all the combat and hand to hand training, not one person suggested that! Maybe we should got get some ka-no-ledge frum ther xperts and to think, for follow on CCW training I actually thought about goin there... but this was back in 2008. This forum not only saved me money, but makes me spend money

Any forcible breech of my domicile will be met with lethal force.  I can only assume they are there to do me or those I love harm.

Eh...it's all part of that "deadly force should be your last option" speak we always say to the media.

He also said this, "but Hill points out that if someone enters your home, you are on your own.  At the time that it matters, the phone cannot help, the police cannot help, Hill said. Only you can help yourself."  While showing video of him shooting a shotgun and handgun at threats in home environment.

Channel 6 news

The image is pretty clear.  If someone breaks into your house, you shoot them.

USSA-1

So why say this




when this is what just about any cognitive person would do anyway?

Okay, talked with Brian.  Here is what he said about the TV interview request and what they wanted to do a piece on.



The part of the interview that was edited out.



The whole interview was geared towards the sheep and as such the whole "last resort" comment was about after you've done all the above things in an attempt to prevent an invasion attempt and they don't work, then you get your firearm and get down to business.  Not invite them inside and tickle them to death.

But these are the dangers of working with the media.  You try to give them good stuff, but you never know how they'll edit it.

USSA-1

they can invade my house just as long as they don't wake me up, they can even have my wallet and the three dollars that's usually contained therein, it sitting right there by the front door; I have nothing else worth their troubles.

Ok, now that this makes more sence................................. I agree ........with the sheeple part. This kind of thing makes me glad I dont have to mess with the media.

As a past PIO for a large retirement group and having had significant exchange with the news media, all I can say is you have to be VERY VANILLA and NON-COMMITTAL to any question or on any issue because you have no idea of what the hell they will do with it.
If asked a question you don't like, simply ask them to clarify it.
Then throw in more questions like "Under what circumstances? Can you be a little more specific?"
It works to diffuse their hidden agenda if they have one.
Most everyone that has listened to the news and that isn't naive can tell it is almost always biased,
overtly or subtly.
Now this whole subject opens a door that is an extreme sore spot with many.
I'm not a criminal nor am I wannabe commando. Any body that starts beating on my door or tries taking it down is not going to like the welcome committee.
Anyone here on this board is likely to get a no-knock warrant served on them if accused of a crime simply because they are known to have an "assault weapon", whether guilty or falsely accused.
So an innocent man can either get killed or go to jail for a long time for defending his loved ones and home if a mistake or false accusation is made.
You ain't gonna hear that on the f**king news.

ETA If someone tries beating down my door I ain't gonna meet them with donuts and coffee.

I watched it as soon as it came out online. As a fellow instructor, I was pretty interested in what he had to say and what the media actually released. Thanks for posting a behind the scenes look. Keep up the good work E.

Well put.
This is the second time in the not so distant past that we end up looking like we are on the wrong side. Truth is, we are in the business of teaching people how to defend themselves with a gun of some sort. If you have any questions about what we practice then watch some of the videos on our website. Our Ethos is "Win the Fight". That means no matter what happens, you have a mindset and skill set to win.  
What do we teach?

Let me ask you three simple questions that relate to the "non meat-eaters" in this country:
1. Do you think everyone is equal in their ability to protect themselves?
2. Do you think it is better for most people to under estimate or over estimate the violence to end a fight?
3. Do you think the CCW laws passed by so many states was made to protect the "meat-eater" or "non meat-eaters"?

IMO once again, you promote the fallacy "Win the Fight" to those who seek training.
If you want to truly win the fight, you will not recognize any legal or moral constraints to put somebody's ass under dirt. Whether you are the aggressor or defending, it will make no difference.

The castle doctrine, a major tenet of common law for centuries, is now under attack in this country.
Even with states passing specific castle doctrine laws like Oklahoma did a few years ago people are no longer feeling secure in their own homes.
Both from the criminals and the law.
Many of us find no man, whether guilty of a crime or not, wrong in responding in the most violent manner possible to protect his family and home.
Any slam on that INALIENABLE RIGHT, whether intended or not intended, is not going to be welcomed by many of us who believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment.
And it's obvious there are those who want to do away with the 2A.
Like one reporter from a major Oklahoma newspaper told me, the media honchos sit in their country clubs and exclusive cloistered neighborhoods and decide what is best for the common man and yet have no idea of what it is to walk in the common man's shoes.
Either get a better spokesman or limit your responses to the news media.
You don't speak for all of the gun toters in this state, no matter if the media wants to portray your organization as the face of that group.
Keep that in mind if you want to quit defending your statements that appear in the news media.

When it comes to SD, there are three words that I learned in the Marine corps. Speed, Intensity and Violence of action. This is how Marines are taught to win a fight. Swift, over powering force and deadly. If this costs a cdiminal his life for attackong me or my loved ones, oh damn well, that's his problem. I know the meaning of the words my NCOs taught me, so all I gotta say is Speed.... Intensity.... and Violence of action. Overwhelm the badguy.

I learned some of that from a bunch of drunk gunny sergeants and Navy chiefs at a very young age (5-6) in the boxing ring.  But that was within the rules of boxing.
The rest I learned in a race riot at Taft Stadium at the tender age of 15 in 1968. Watching a school mate hanging onto a locked fence with blood from an ice pick streaming from his gut and a cop refusing to open the gate woke me up to the realities of WTF can happen if you're on the losing end.

But let's keep this discussion within some boundaries of the original thread to get somewhere.

Let me take the liberty to outline those parameters less my opinions.
1. The castle doctrine - what most of us feel is sacrosanct. I believe most of us feel our homes are our castles and won't tolerate someone threatening our home and families in any fashion.
2. The news media on two different occasions in the recent past has used USSA to advance their agenda which is obviously not pro-gun.

Now for my opinions:
USSA doesn't speak for the majority of the gun toters and shooters in this state even though the news media is using them for that purpose. If they do or don't realize that (I think they do), they are  doing a very poor job of dealing with the news media as far as promoting the 2A.
I think they should either quit dealing with the media or get a professional to deal with them.
I know the current first chair ADA, Scott R., in Oklahoma City was the previous PIO for the OBN, then their General Counsel after he got his shingle and had worked in the DA's office.
When that OCPD police sergeant killed himself by wrapping his squad car around a tree trying to get involved in a motorcycle chase, people were outraged by the DA's office piling on a 50 year sentence to the motorcycle thief for 2nd degree murder.
He ducked the issue with the public by telling the media the DA's office didn't like it either but it was the law. Totally diffused the bad public relations for the DA's office. Of course he never mentioned the prosecutor's office having the discretion to not do it.
They need someone like that.
If they don't realize by now dealing with the news media is like traipsing through a mine field, they are definitely out of their league.
Again, my opinion and worth what you paid for it.

I think everyone has the right to defend themselves. Due to age, weight, and other physical disabilities not everyone is equal in the ability to defend themselves. They may be able to kick, punch, bite, and shoot, but to what degree of success is the question.

Under estimate a fight and you could get killed, over estimate a fight and you might go too far and spend life in prison. If I had to pick one? I would rather live than die.

CCW laws should only restrict those who have broken the law. It should not restrict how I carry or where I carry. Why restrict those who just try to protect themselves? Its my right to carry and protect myself and my family. When you commit a felony you loose the right to do that with a gun. IMO thats what the law should be doing. Just making sure we havnt lost the right due to crimes or mental illness (schizo, bi polar ect).

How again is "Win the Fight" a fallacy? If you or your families lives are in danger then we do not "...recognize any legal or moral constraints to put somebody's ass under dirt.". I dont care what you use to defend yourself and stop/kill an attacker. Gun, great. Knife, great. Weedeater, outstanding.  We dont have a wounding course in our class line up. But dont take my word for it. I work for them. Ask any of our students what we teach. Try not to take the media at face value, do your own research. Thats the only way to find the truth out. It doesnt matter who our spokesperson is. The media makes the NRA look like a bunch of gun crazy people at times. If the media has to lie, distort, add to or take something out of context to prove a point they will. We both know that.

I was just getting ready to reply but I don't believe I could have said it any better than Saryan. I give this response a big +1.

Dan "USSA doesn't speak for the majority of the gun toters and shooters in this state even though the news media is using them for that purpose. If they do or don't realize that (I think they do), they are  doing a very poor job of dealing with the news media as far as promoting the 2A.
I think they should either quit dealing with the media or get a professional to deal with them."

I'm with Dan on this. You guys at USSA may be the greatest guys ever, but you suck at media stuff.

Personally, I don't care for reporters. I choose not to deal with them as they tend to let bias interfere with a story. BTDT. However, you cannot make a statement like " We disagree with open carry because it gives away your secret". Why do I say that? Because what comes out is that you are against open carry, then they run you saying "we are against open carry". Which is what you said.

Or "The greatest gun fighters in the world at USSA say that you should not resort to shooting a home invader" The media picks and chooses people, stories, and quotes to support whatever their agenda happens to be.

If you guys are going to try to speak for gun owners, you need to get better at it.

A saying I used on the wife the other day comes to mind "If you're not going to help me, don't hinder me"

That's  not what was said. Can't be mad at the media for twisting things if we do it ourselves. Here is the link to refresh your memory LINK

The news media has made hay with you guys to help stop gains for the 2A here in Oklahoma and I don't like it. Your TV link was to a Tulsa station (it didn't work), not the one that aired here in OKC and through the rest of the state.
Regardless of how you want to spin it, your "spokesperson" stated your organization was against  open carry in this state because it let the bad guy know you have a gun.
It helped stop one of the biggest gains this state has seen as far as the 2A since the SDA bill was passed.
The news media didn't hold a gun to the spokesman to say that.

The point................................................................................................................................................................................................................You


I was simply making an example of whats going on with your excellent handling of the media

I think the article should have included recipies of the intruders,and what to do with the leftovers, longpig sandwitch anyone...
 

Thats not true. Here is what was said. "Certainly I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment"  "from a training perspective we are wary....". Thats not a debatable point. Its a fact. Is it our right to carry open? I believe so. I dont see myself doing it but I think that should be my decision. Not the Gov.
LINK

Deadly force is always the last resort.  Example of how thats done in a home scenario: 1st resort. Shut my doors. 2nd resort. Lock my doors. Last resort. Shoot the guy that breaks in.. Is shooting the guy your first resort?

Past felons do have a right to defend themselves. All people do. They may lose the right to own a gun though. We will have to agree to disagree on that.

I am not sure what you have against people who stay in shape. Its not easy to do. Takes hard work. Regardless of that you have obviously NEVER been or even seen our classes. Look at the videos. Just in the past month I can think of one old man that brought his oxygen tank to the range to take one of our classes. I can also think of dozen woman over 45, and I dont know how many men that are just not in shape that take our classes. So you are assuming without ever taken or even been to one of our classes that you know whats going on. You dont have a clue, but you like to take cheap shots at people trying to learn to defend themselves. They have the right to learn to defend themselves and to get more proficient with weapons. I dont know why you have a problem with that.

Did your 80+ year old in-laws miss this part of the story? "At the time that it matters, the phone cannot help, the police cannot help," Hill said. "Only you can help yourself." I know you like to spin things but this seems like something you would agree with.

I do not have time to waste arguing on an internet forum. I have no doubt it my mind that what we are doing here is a good thing. Teaching people how to shoot, defend themselves, and compete. You like to post on AR15.com. You do your thing and I will do mine.

I feel that this is spot on correct and unfortunately for you Dan, I  think Saryan is right. I don't know Saryan, no idea who he is, but I feel he speaks the truth.

For what it's worth, I plan on heading up to USSA this week and seeing what it's all about from both a customer standpoint and from an instructor standpoint.

Dan, you are good for some laughs when it comes to the old Rat, Patricia, Truck Stop saga but when it comes to some of these other discussions, well.......

Your friggin' perspective is from teaching young men in the prime of their life. I have nothing against anyone in shape. WTF did you come up with that?
The way I look at it the law is intended for those who need to defend themselves and can't PHYSICALLY FIGHT because of age or disability or inexperienced.
The SDA was intended to help the WEAK PROTECT THEMSELVES from the trash in this state. If you weren't there when the legislation was passed, then you you really have no idea
I've said this before over the friggin' ridiculous BS of using a cane. There is no way an 80 yo man or a 60 yo grandma can use a cane to defend herself successfully against a 16 yo gangbanger putting in work robbing an elderly person.
I don't give a damn if they are in good shape or not. What friggin' difference would it make with that disparity?
Your whole marketing strategy is aimed at the younger shooters who want to emulate the high speed low drag kill-all-da-bad-guys dudes i.e. your "in shape" comment.
That's your perspective and IS NOT the majority of the SDA holders in this state.

Actually, about 70% of the people in the NRA Basic Pistol class I taught last month were grandma and grandpa age. Most of the people in the class planned on taking their SDA class in the near future.

So I have to sign off on several dozen grandparents (oh yeah, and some must be wheelchair bound) to know where you're coming from?

If someone hesitates too long before shooting a home invader, it's not on me either. To even imply that says a lot about your mindset though.

Deadly force is always a last resort. That applies to law enforcement, military, and civilian. I stand by that statement. If knowing that causes someone to hesitate in a life threatening situation then that is on THAT PERSON and no one else.

What else ya got?

USSA is "selling a product". Being a capitalist, I have no problem with that That product would appear to be "training". Its up to the consumer to choose if they want to buy that product.

The issue I have with them comes up when they market themselves as "experts" on that product, and in their fervor to promote their business, they get on TV and say things that are taken out of context, misquoted, or are just plain foolish. Or even to say something that directly and negatively affects those that are supporters of the same "product" they are selling.

Realistically and honestly I will never buy their "product". Not intentionally singling them out, I'd not buy that "product" from anyone now. I feel that over 23 years in the Army has gotten me quite enough of that "product" Then again, I really don't think every Tom, Dick, and Harry need to know how to clear a room or a building, how to fire and maneuver a squad, or how to call in a close air support strike. Yes, I can and have done all that. I don't think that I'd pay for that knowledge. I also hope that I never have to do any of that again(being old and broken down) I said need, if you'd like to pay for that knowledge, go right ahead.

Military, law enforcement types, and civilians should not be training the same. NO ONE will be able to conviince me otherwise. They generally function by different rules and regulations. Also have different standards to meet.

Also, I find it insulting to make a statement like "deadly force is the last resort" when you say that step 1 is to close your door, step 2 is to lock that door. and the last resort is deadly force When an intruder is in your home, are you going to be thinking "have I gone through all the steps before I can shoot the SOB?"

Obviously you don't know WTF I'm talking about.
I got to know and shoot with many of my students. I insured (as much as I could)  it wasn't just take a class, get your license and never shoot again.
I didn't charge them for the pleasure of my company if and when they went shooting with me after the class.
One of them (upper 70s) shot a car jacker on 6th and Classen shortly after getting his SDA license. Two to the chest from inside his Mercedes 550 SEL. I can tell you what his emotions and responses were (as he related to me) during and after the shooting.
You done that yet son?
Let me explain how deeply ingrained an instructor's teachings are on the student.
My big thing was avoidance. I told my students to avoid if at all possible, but don't let it get far enough they or their loved ones got hurt.
One grandma in her late 50s had a home invader. She retreated to her bathroom (per my suggestion) with gun and phone in hand. The asshole tried getting in the locked door. She took my avoidance lecture to heart and went out through bathroom window (with gun) instead of shooting through the door. She broke her ankle from the fall. The police showed up and immediately hooked her up face down on the ground at gun point because of the gun in her hand. The asshole invader escaped through the front door.
When she called me, I went over to visit with her. One of the big things she told me was she survived and didn't have to clean up blood and guts from the carpet in her house (my graphic description of a murder aftermath). She felt by surviving she was a winner and not a loser by having to kill the SOB.
I pleaded with her to never let it get that close again, that her life was far more valuable than the dirt bag that had the evil intent.
She promised me if a similar situation happened, she'd shoot.
I can tell you several more incidents out of several hundred students that were related to me, both before and after they got their licenses.
So respectfully, MB, if you can't match that, then STFU about "mindset".
Screw that BS. "Mindset", "Win the Fight", might apply to those aggressors seeking a fight.
I'll take the stance SURVIVE FIRST with my students, then sweat that other bull shit later  ACCORDING TO EACH INDIVIDUAL.

Think what you want Chuck. Look at the backgrounds of the instructors at places like Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, USSA, TDSA, etc. Very few are strictly "civilian" instructors with no military or law enforcement background. Someone told you in another thread just the other day that most of the instructors out there have a background of either .mil or LEO.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. That's the way things are. Who certifies Oklahoma SDA instructors? CLEET....which stands for what? Council on...what...LAW ENFORCEMENT education and training right? Who approves SDA instructors? OSBI, a state law enforcement entity. The state won't let a civilian (NRA) instructor just train people on SDA material without their approval. An instructor teaches the curriculum as it's laid out by CLEET. Instructors have to teach that "deadly force is a last resort" so I really don't know what to tell ya man.

Anytime, ANYONE is faced with a situation involving the use of deadly force they better make sure it is justified or they have to face the consequences.

Wow....it's around here folks.

Just how many hard core  wannabe killers do you know that never shot a gun until they went through a SDA licensing procedure then only shot their handguns to kill some body for grins and giggles?

I'm not going to explain the demographics (types and classes) of SDA students in this state for you but I can say I only ran into one Wyatt Earp wannabe out of several hundred and for a firing line safety violation, he didn't get his SDA sign off from me.

You can talk all you want about last resort, but most of the SDA instructors I've associated with over the years weed out the "blood seekers" (for lack of a better term) and know the majority of inexperienced shooters are loathe to shoot under any circumstances.

One more tale of one of my students (and coworker) who was a little slow to pull the trigger. He was too late to stop the scumbag who plunged a large butcher knife into his teen age son's chest on his very own front porch.
He got his SDA and went CCW legally after that happened.
And he was a grunt in Viet Nam and NOT your average inexperienced shooter seeking an SDA.
I know for a fact lots of SDA holders in Oklahoma will not shoot no matter what.
How many wrongful killings do you know of by SDA holders in Oklahoma?
One, or two, or maybe three out of almost 100K licensed gun toters?
Whose beating on a dead horse?

And the SDA in this thread has NOTHING to do with home invasions. If someone comes into my home uninvited in a violent manner, I can assume by law he is not there to borrow my rest room facilities and I can kill the jerk.
People don't need to be told killing is a "last resort" in a home invasion. They know it already and are loathe to do it.
I'm not saying encourage them to kill, but don't give them pause to think about it too long when it happens by having the news media repeat a "last resort" statement from an "expert".

I think we've run this one into the ground and hit rock bottom. Things got off track and went all sorts of crazy directions. If you think of a new thread topic for a new discussion, fire away Dan. This one will get locked up (oh yeah, I forgot to thank you for getting my less lethal thread locked. ) pretty soon anyhow.

I really don't care if this thread gets locked, I just wanted to know what y'all thought about this, not get into a pissin contest over who's right, who teaches best and correctly. I was just lookin for opinions. I will say that me being prior military, someone breaks in, ill shoot em.  On the street, ill attempt to defuse first, but the situation will dictate. If I can defuse, I will, if not... I still find myself following the ROEs that were drilled into me before each convoy in iraq and try to size up the situation quickly to make the right desision. If wingman feels a need to lock this, so be it. Like I said, I was lookin for opinions, not start a pissin contest. My $00.02

There was more than one person at this dance and that other dance.
So you want me to take all the responsibility for paying the band?
Sorry, but I ain't takin' that bill.

You didn't address the issue I brought up - that most SDA holders and most home owners are loathe to use a gun to take a life in self defense. Even to the point of causing more needless endangerment for themselves and their families.
I gave a damn good example of it. I can give others.
So beating that "last resort" drum you rely on and USSA in that interview/news article is wasted breath and may even cause more reluctance to use their firearm in righteous self defense.
Repeating the castle doctrine and Oklahoma law is the right thing to do instead of causing even more fear.
If enough home invaders had their shit blown out the front door as they come charging in, it damn sure wouldn't be a good occupation for the scumbags to take up.

I'm quite aware that most of the instructors at those places have a .mil background. I just don't see a need to teach your garden variety "civilian" how to shoot, move, and communicate.

At the same time I have no problems with someone who is interested in paying for that knowledge to go right ahead and do that.

I've said before that I'm chock full of contradictions

Something we are taught in the .mil is, and I'll quote our resident jarhead on this, is "violence of action". Is that really how we want to teach someone how to deal with a home invader? Thats one of many reasons that I say that the training should be different.

As for CLEET, don't get me started. I equate them with the mafia.

I was thinkin keystone cops but that works to

They had some input on the SDA bill when it was being formulated. They wanted the MMPI administered, but it got dropped.
But they did get somethings like no CCW at sporting games - no high testosterone level driven shootings - and in bars. They did help prevent a higher level of crimes of passion to some extent.
They have some good influence, some bad influence, and some downright stupidity when it comes to the Oklahoma SDA.
It's a gov't agency. What do you expect?

I'm sure it's not just SDA holders and home owners that are loathe to use a gun to take a life in self defense. I'd expand that to most human beings in the planet. However, if it causes needless endangerment, etc, etc then that's on the individual. Only they can make the ultimate decision, and YES they need to think it though and be darn sure of what they are doing. Obviously the person would need to have a plan, think about scenarios ahead of time, and stuff like that. Common sense stuff....which, especially around here, is not so common.

I think you and Chuck are reading too much into the "last resort" statement that was made.

You can make whatever statements you want Dan about blowing away charging home invaders and stuff like that in your...ahem, classes, that you don't teach any longer. That's not exactly how I teach mine but hey, like LAR said, that's not what this thread is about. I hope I addressed the issue you brought up to your satisfaction.  

No, you didn't.
Please expound on the issue.

There is a know it all and a heckler in every class. I promise to call them all amateurs and send them to you for remedial instruction.

I'm sure it's not just SDA holders and home owners that are loathe to use a gun to take a life in self defense. I'd expand that to most human beings in the planet. However, if it causes needless endangerment, etc, etc then that's on the individual. Only they can make the ultimate decision, and YES they need to think it though and be darn sure of what they are doing. Obviously the person would need to have a plan, think about scenarios ahead of time, and stuff like that. Common sense stuff....which, especially around here, is not so common.

I think you and Chuck are reading too much into the "last resort" statement that was made.

You can make whatever statements you want Dan about blowing away charging home invaders and stuff like that in your...ahem, classes, that you don't teach any longer. That's not exactly how I teach mine but hey, like LAR said, that's not what this thread is about. I hope I addressed the issue you brought up to your satisfaction.  

[/quote]

Can't believe I missed that part. I'd disagree with your supposition there. Personal experience tells me differently.

I am old school remember

It is simple if someone breaks into you home  You
hit them the chest two times and shoot them in the head on the way down.

I trained at tiger valley thank you

http://www.tigervalley.com/

Did you just tell me you aren't very good at teaching??????
If you don't know how to handle hecklers and know-it-alls in your classes, I'd suggest you find another part time occupation and leave it to those more proficient at the job.

I can assure you thats not their genuine opinion.  That was a political way of saying "Blow the bad guy's head off."  I know some of the folks at TDSA and have attended the school as well.  Trust me, they are 100% hard core pro-gun and self defense.

Umm... I'm no political scholar or anything like that, but when you say something is a last resort... your not telling them to start with it. If I was Citizen, Joe Average, and someone tells me shooting a home invader is a last resort, I'm not gonna shot a home invader until he is on top of me, most likely at gunpoint. By then its to late and probably won't matter. Sorry but I fail to see how "last resort" equals "do this either way".

You're wrong about TDSA, lol, trust me on this.

We don't doubt that.
Or I don't anyway.
What I do doubt is there adeptness at handling the news media.
The news media are snakes - they will bite you when you aren't looking.
On the open carry issue, the news media made it look like the "pros" were against open carry.
They clearly stated they were against it because it told the bad guys you had a gun.
Open carry is to openly discourage "bad guys", much like LE do with their open carry handguns.
The reasoning USSA repeated to the news media pretty much fits the same reasoning that many people were against the SDA - gun fights were going to happen because concealed guns were present.
Well, it didn't.
And bad guys wouldn't be hunting down those who are openly carrying either regardless of what USSA said.
They don't speak for the majority of gun toters in this state even when they want to play the cream of the crop, the top dogs, for the news media.
The "last resort" comment wasn't informative, it  will probably discourage those already reluctant to take a life  from shooting a home invader even more, maybe with an even worse result than necessary.
I once linked a USSA video for USSA1 showing two guys fighting over a snub nose. One gained control of the gun then held the other at bay. I kept my opinion quiet trying to be polite.
But pardon me all to hell, if I have to fight over a gun with someone intent on hurting me, as soon as I gain control, I'm going to shoot the SOB, simply because that is what the opponent would do.
That video wasn't realistic, it was politically correct.
Somehow, politically correct and the vast majority of the shooting culture in America just doesn't seem to mix to me.

They need a public relations specialist to deal with the media.