Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 3, 1997 - Art Bell

02:46:41

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Crime Scene Investigation - Alexander Jason

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to Art Bell Somewhere In Time.
	Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast AM, from February 3rd, 1997.
	From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, good morning, as the case may be across all these many time zones, from the Hawaiian and Tahitian island chains, eastward across this great land, flyover country, to the Caribbean and the U.S.
	Virgin Islands, south in South America, North all the way to the Poland worldwide on the Internet.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	I'm Mart Bell.
	And tonight, Alex Jason is going to be here.
	In fact, shortly.
	And if you have ever wondered about the use of guns, he's going to be your guy.
	I'll tell you all about him.
	If you've ever wondered What you're able to do to protect yourself, and perhaps as importantly, what you're not able to do.
	He's your guy.
	If you've ever wondered what a crime scene analyst does, and a lot of Americans did until the OJ trial.
	As a matter of fact, he covered some of that for CBS.
	Forensic animations, shooting incident reconstructions, that kind of thing.
	That's Mr. Jason's territory, and we're going to be talking to him shortly.
	Late in the program, Steve Forbes.
	The presidential candidate, Steve Forbes.
	That'll be late this morning.
	Or early East Coast time, depending on how you look at it.
	So all of that coming up this morning.
	All right.
	Who is Alex Jason?
	Alexander Jason from here forth, known to us as Alex.
	He says the focus of his professional work is crime scene analysis and shooting incident reconstruction.
	He says his area of specialty is the science of wound ballistics, which relates to the use of firearms against humans, and specifically To the interaction of projectiles in the human body.
	In other words, getting shot.
	He says his interests are in the performance of firearms and ammunition and the human dynamics of shooting, which include both the person shooting and the person being shot.
	He performs ballistic consulting and shooting incident reconstruction for both defense and prosecution.
	Aha!
	Plays both sides of the court.
	He's got a long, long, very long resume, very impressive.
	He's a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the Association of Crime Scene Reconstruction, International Wound Ballistics Association, International Homicide Investigators Association, International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts, International Association for Identification, Association of Firearm and Toolmake, uh, Toolmark, make that, examiners, Technical Advisor, American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers.
	He is an ex-cop.
	He is the President-Elect of the Association of Crime Scene Reconstruction and on and on and on and on.
	This fellow has testified in front of Congress.
	In other words, folks, he is definitely in this area an expert.
	Worked for the San Francisco Police Department from 1970 through 74.
	As a detective investigator, uh, worked with Second Chance Body Armor.
	Second, that's good, good, that's a very good name for a body armor company, Second Chance.
	I like that.
	Alex, welcome to the program.
	Oh, thank you very much, Art.
	So you do kind of work both sides, defense and prosecution.
	You are an expert for hire.
	I'm an expert for hiring.
	That is, I'm available for hiring.
	My opinion cannot be hired other than I will give you my opinion.
	You know, I always wondered about that.
	In other words, the guy who signs the check, no influence whatsoever?
	Not in terms of my analysis or my conclusions.
	Now, what will happen is often they'll come to me with a case and say, we think Generally they won't be this blatant about it, but they'll say, we want to get this guy off.
	And we think that there could be a case here for self-defense that he was shot at first.
	I say, well, let me look at the physical evidence, whatever is available, and I'll give you my opinion.
	So they'll send me generally a big box full of stuff, and I'll go through it.
	And I'll call up and I'll say, I don't see anything here that's consistent with his version of the event, that it was self-defense.
	There's nothing in here.
	And they'll say something like, well, are you sure?
	No, there's nothing in here to substantiate what he says.
	And they'll say, well, thank you very much.
	And that's the end of it.
	And they don't hire you?
	Well, they hire me just for that time.
	I see.
	But I don't testify.
	They may find somebody else who will do what they want.
	I try to act as a scientist, as a forensic scientist, in terms of, let's put it on a basic level.
	If I were a serology lab, and you came to me with a blood sample, and you wanted to know the alcohol content.
	Now, it may hurt your client, it may help your client, but I just tell you what the results are.
	I don't try to help you or hurt you.
	I just say this is what it is.
	Yeah, but your science is not quite as clear as, say, DNA work or blood work, is it?
	In other words, there's a little bit more wiggle room in trying to present a case for self-defense, or at least many times you would think there would be not quite as Well, I'm surprised to hear you say that, Art, but you're quite right.
	You're very perceptive.
	Most people don't understand it to that level, but yes, you are right.
	There is more, as you say, wiggle room.
	There's more room for adjustment, you might say, for presenting things in different ways.
	And it's very difficult and it's a constant struggle to remain objective.
	I don't want to be someone for hire.
	I really try to maintain my integrity and sometimes it's very difficult.
	And sometimes you get clients who say, I don't want you to say that when we're into trial.
	And they might ask you, what if the other side asks you this or that?
	I'll say, well, I'll say this or this.
	So I don't want you to say that.
	I say, well, then you better hope he doesn't ask me the question.
	He doesn't ask me the question because I'm going to have to answer it that way.
	It's very difficult, but that's how I approach it.
	So, a constant ethical fight.
	And I'm sure you're fighting constantly to take the high ground as best you can.
	I am.
	In the long run, people don't hire whores, is what they're called.
	And even someone who is mad at me or resents my opinion or not cooperating fully, as he might think of it, will also, I hope, respect me for being truthful.
	All right.
	You've done an awful lot of work.
	You're an ex-cop.
	You worked as a detective in San Francisco.
	Yes.
	A lot of guns in America.
	Boy, there's a lot of guns in America.
	Oh, there's a lot of guns.
	I've got my own share.
	And I think people do not have very much of an understanding of when they may and when they may not use A gun.
	State to state now, in a lot of the western states, some eastern, even in Florida, you can take a short course and carry a concealed weapon.
	But even that aside, millions of guns.
	How many guns are in America?
	Oh, I think there's more than 100 million.
	I don't know.
	No one really knows, but there's at least 100 million guns.
	Sitting in homes.
	And we have a lot of shootings in America.
	I guess that keeps people like you very busy.
	But for the listeners of this program, I would like them to know when they can and when they can't use deadly force.
	Well, that's a very good question.
	This is something that police officers are given intense training, continual training, updated training on making those decisions.
	Whereas the average citizen is not.
	And when you talk about people being required to go to classes before they can get a concealed
	weapons permit or buy a gun in some states, this is true.
	But generally the classes are just on safety, about don't clean the gun while it's loaded,
	keep it away from children, and that's fine.
	But here in California we have a class now, a basic firearm safety course.
	But safety never tells you when you can and when you cannot shoot someone in self-defense,
	because people are afraid to come out and say it.
	And the problem is if the average citizen calls up the police department and says, excuse
	me, I want to know if a guy is coming in my window, am I allowed to shoot him if this
	or that happens?
	Well, they don't want to tell you.
	They don't want to answer your question, because they don't know who you are.
	They don't want you going and shooting somebody that night and saying, well, Officer Bill Johnson over here at Central Station said it was okay.
	Right.
	So they're going to have him in a hall.
	And I've found that people, I've done a lot of cases where responsible citizens, good people, have used guns.
	In an inappropriate, legally inappropriate manner, and have caused themselves all kinds of trouble, gone to prison, just because they didn't really understand when they can and when they can't use it.
	Well, when I talked to you earlier today, you said, look, and a lot of it depends on what you say when the police arrive.
	In other words, if there's been a shooting, your attitude, your demeanor, what you say, bears on where that case is going to go.
	That's right.
	Well, first I'd like to say, To the people out there, rethink what you know.
	Many people think they know what to do and what not to do.
	But most of that knowledge, if they really examine it, has come from Hollywood, from TV and movies, and from a guy at the gun store, and a guy over at the shooting range, and another guy you met in the army who told you some stuff.
	And most of that is absolute crap.
	I tell you, the fountain of misinformation, the central fountain of misinformation in this subject are gun stores.
	Everyone thinks that the guys who work at the gun store know this stuff.
	They don't.
	But they never tell you they don't know.
	They just give you opinions, and it's terrible.
	So, having said that, I don't want to encourage anybody to shoot somebody unless they have to.
	And I'm not trying to give anybody a reason to explain why they shot someone to get away with committing murder.
	Well, let's take a case down in Texas.
	Do you remember that recent case in which there was a foreign student, and there was a party going on or something, and he went to a wrong house.
	Do you remember that?
	Yes, I do.
	uh... the fellow who answered the door thought he was a threat
	told him to freeze a word he did not understand in english
	naturally he didn't freeze uh... the shot was fired
	and uh... the uh...
	the student died uh... now as far as i know that fellow walked
	yeah i i i didn't I wasn't involved in the case.
	I'm not sure.
	I think there were two trials or something, and I think he walked in initially, then he was found civilly liable or something like that.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	Well, this is another thing you have to realize, that even though you may know the law, and you think, well, I know I can shoot somebody if they put stuff in my house, whatever, you're going to get sued.
	This happens almost all the time.
	I deal with police departments very often.
	I represent or help police departments in defending their shootings, and you'll get the most egregious criminals Who have been shot and their relatives will sue on their behalf for clearly criminal acts that these guys are perpetrating.
	It doesn't matter anymore.
	There's money in it.
	So there are lawyers out there who encourage people to sue and if you sue somebody, if he's not the worst criminal in the world with no relatives around, you're going to get sued.
	So you may be right.
	You may be totally justified.
	But you're going to go to court and you're going to pay big money to defend yourself.
	Like O.J.
	Simpson.
	You did some work on that case for, what, CBS as a consultant?
	Well, I was a consultant for CBS News on that case.
	I did a lot of computer animation for their news broadcast and their coverage of that.
	Care to comment on the outcome of the criminal trial, egregious miscarriage of justice, or do you think it came out the way it should have?
	No, I think it was...
	It was a miscarriage of justice.
	I think it was a racial vote.
	It became a racial issue, not a political issue, a racial issue, not one of guilt or innocence.
	We all talked about this.
	Interestingly, the civil trial is becoming racial as well, but the other way around, it's really strange.
	Well, I'll tell you, Art, if you or I had stabbed our wife, slashed our wife like that, and, friend, we'd be in prison now.
	Uh, were you a cop when that occurred?
	No.
	Sorry, I didn't look at the dates here.
	No, that's okay.
	No, I wasn't.
	No, the kind of thing I see is that people... So many people have guns in their house for self-defense.
	Right.
	And they're not really clear about when they can shoot them.
	Like, for example, one of the things you hear about is, well, if you shoot them outside, drag them back inside.
	Now, if anybody out there listening thinks that that is a viable tactic to use, you're going to get in big, big, big trouble.
	That is an absolutely fallacious argument, fallacious concept.
	Do not drag the body.
	Well, don't shoot anybody outside, to begin with.
	Don't shoot them outside.
	Right.
	I mean, there's no reason to shoot them.
	Here's the thing.
	Every state has their law about this, when you can use deadly force.
	But if you follow the basic guidelines, this is valid in all 50 states, and that is you cannot use deadly force unless your life is threatened or the life of someone else is threatened.
	That's the basics of it.
	If you're involved in a shooting, when the police arrive, they want to make a quick decision as to who's the good guy and who's the bad guy.
	So they're looking real quick to figure out, okay, what happened here?
	And they're going to look at you and they're going to listen to you.
	And what you say is going to place you either in a category of a suspect or a victim who had to shoot.
	And one of the most important things is the concept that you have to understand if you're using a gun for self-defense.
	You have to be in the situation where you can demonstrate that it was a last resort.
	That you didn't want to shoot the person but you had to.
	In other words, you should not be joyful at taking one more punk off the streets.
	That's right.
	And perhaps that's your feeling, and perhaps I would agree with you, but you cannot communicate that.
	If it looks like you did this, you were eager to shoot somebody, you're going to be in trouble.
	Well, the classic case, somebody's breaking into your house.
	All right?
	You've got a gun.
	It's dark.
	You don't know what they've got.
	You're not a trained person with a firearm, but they're breaking into your house.
	You shoot them, they fall down on your rug, you call the police, then what?
	Well, the police are going to arrive.
	They're going to take a quick look.
	They're going to do a real quick summation here.
	They're going to look at you in your bathrobe, look at your wife and your crying kids, and your nice house, and then this guy, hopefully some real scummy looking guy who's, when I get his idea, he's got a record a mile long.
	You're in pretty good shape there.
	Now, they're going to say, what happened?
	Now, some people will tell you, the lawyer that you know at the Kiwanis Club there who does wills and things is going to say, oh, don't make any statement.
	You don't have to talk.
	Well, no, you don't have to.
	He's right.
	But then you're probably going to get arrested.
	Because they're going to figure you're hiding something.
	There's something going on here.
	Because an honest homeowner is probably going to tell what happened.
	So are you better off appearing to be conversational, willing to explain what occurred, or shutting your mouth and saying, I want my lawyer here?
	Well, I'm not a lawyer.
	I should be clear about that.
	I'm not a lawyer.
	I'm giving you the real-life situation.
	I hear you.
	The real-life situation is, if it was justified, then you can explain what happened.
	You say, I was just sleeping.
	I heard a noise.
	My wife woke me up.
	I knew there was somebody out in the other room.
	I got my gun from the stand.
	I went out there.
	I said, who's there?
	Who's there?
	And I saw this guy, and he came at me.
	He said, I'm going to kill you.
	And I just pulled my gun up and I shot him.
	Oh, he said, I'm going to kill you.
	Well, that's very clear.
	Well, OK, I'm just giving you a clear example.
	Alex, if he's dead, and he didn't say, I'm going to kill you, but he was coming at you, would you in that situation say, he said he was going to kill me?
	I'm not encouraging anybody to lie.
	I'm just trying to make it clear that If you have a situation in which your life was threatened, you had a reasonable fear for your life or the life of someone else, you can use deadly force.
	In that situation, there's no doubt.
	If that's what happened, he said, I'm going to kill you, and he kept coming at you, well, you have a reason to believe that.
	In many states, it's even more on your side than that.
	It's just the fact that someone came in your house, an intruder who doesn't belong there, Um, so it gives you the right to shoot him.
	You have to check your local law, but I'm giving you the basic foundational thing.
	Well, dead men don't give contrary testimony.
	But wounded men do, and witnesses do.
	That's right, that's right.
	The guy next door, or the cab driver out front, or whatever, he said... Nope, no problem.
	I heard someone say, oh, please don't shoot me.
	And I heard someone else say, man, you have no business here.
	You're gonna get it.
	I'm gonna get him with you.
	Bang.
	Now we have something else happening.
	So what's gonna happen?
	The officers are gonna come in and they're gonna say to you, what happened?
	And they're going to be listening real careful to what you say.
	And they may even get more specific.
	Tell me, you were standing where?
	Here?
	Where were you standing?
	Show me where you were standing.
	And where was he standing?
	And then you went from what room to what room?
	Because they're going to lock you down into a scenario, into a statement.
	And then they're going to take you and put you down on the couch or something.
	And they're going to look around and see if there's anything inconsistent with what you said.
	You said the guy came in the window?
	Well, they go over to the window, it's got a screen on it.
	It's locked.
	And things like that.
	Then, now you're in trouble.
	I went through a concealed course.
	Let me tell you what my instructor told me.
	He said, even if a guy comes in the house, your best bet is to back yourself into a room somewhere in the house, as far away from him as you can get, crouch down, and wait.
	In other words, let it be the absolute last resort, even if the jerk is in your house.
	Now, that's good advice.
	Now, I'm not saying... I know people out there, their stomachs are turning, saying, I'm not going to let anybody come into my house and that sort of thing.
	You can do what you want, but what you were told is good advice for staying out of trouble.
	Believe me.
	I've seen what happens to people, not only in criminal courts, but in civil courts when you're sued.
	So if you can avoid it, believe me, you are better off.
	Shooting someone is not going to make you a hero.
	Not likely.
	You're probably going to have more trouble from the fallout from that than from not shooting it.
	Now, I'm not saying you should hesitate in protecting your life, but you should not be eager to shoot somebody nowadays.
	From a legal and civil point of view?
	Yes, and even when you're justified.
	Don't ever feel eager and don't ever communicate that you're eager.
	All right.
	All right.
	Hold on.
	We're at the bottom of the hour.
	Rest.
	We'll be right back to you.
	Alex Jason is my guest.
	He is a certified senior crime scene analyst.
	We're talking about guns and shooting.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from February 3, 1997.
	This is a presentation of the Coast to Coast AM concert.
	Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired February 3rd, 1997.
	Top of the morning, everybody!
	How'd you like to make more money this year?
	Sure you would.
	Everybody would.
	When you think about the future, do you see the economy getting better or worse?
	We'll ask Steve Forbes about that later this morning.
	Now back to Alex Jason in the Bay Area.
	A certified senior crime scene analyst, uh, Alex Alex, if some guy comes in and takes my TV and he's got it in his hands and he's on the way out of my house, what should I do?
	Well, you shouldn't shoot him or shoot at him.
	All you can do is perhaps follow him at a distance, get a license plate number, call
	the police as soon as you can, or have your wife or someone there do that while you watch
	him get a good description.
	And that's what to do to be safe.
	Now if you are a real he-man and you want to go up and grab the TV back from the guy
	and knock him on the head with your fist, perhaps you want to do that.
	I'm not advising that.
	But to use deadly force against him, you are going to be in trouble.
	not allowed to shoot at people as they're running away from you.
	Bye.
	Unless they're clearly, like, a guy just stabbed a bunch of people and walked down in front of you and he's running and stabbing, chasing a lot of people with a knife.
	That would be different.
	But if he's running away to disengage, to get away from you or the crime, you're not allowed to shoot at them.
	And the police are not allowed to either.
	Are the, yeah, that's where I was going.
	Are the rules any different regarding use of deadly force for the police or for me?
	No, they're not really any different.
	They're really the same.
	The police are just better trained and better equipped.
	The police can go after somebody and grab them, and if they hit the police officer with their fist, they can take out their club, and then if the guy continues on, they can take out their tear gas, and then at some point, you can take out his gun.
	You don't have those options.
	You either probably have a gun or your hands, and that's about it.
	And you're not really clear when you can use either one.
	Exactly.
	So, I'm telling you, the advice I'm giving you is not necessarily what a real man might do, by your definition or someone's definition, but it is what will keep you out of trouble.
	Out of trouble.
	Alright.
	There are a lot of people wandering about with concealed permits.
	Suppose you see some guy backing out of a bank.
	He's just robbed a bank.
	And, by happenstance, you're there.
	What are your options?
	Can you try and stop this man?
	Can you use any sort of force?
	Let's clearly define that.
	Let's say you hear the bank alarm, the big bell going off, and he's running out with a money bag.
	Right.
	And someone's running after him.
	The people in the bank are coming to say, stop thief!
	Thief!
	Rob the bank!
	Right.
	And you're there.
	You're the hero of the day.
	You've got your gun and your permit.
	What do you do?
	Well, it's up to you what to do.
	You're not compelled to do anything.
	You don't have to do anything.
	You're not required to do anything.
	Can you shoot this guy?
	No, you cannot.
	He is not threatening your life or anybody else's life.
	I assume from the way we created this event.
	And I advise that you don't.
	Now, let me give you an example of what can happen when you pull a gun on somebody.
	Here's a case where there was a purse snatching.
	A good honest citizen at a gas station saw Some guy run up to a woman, push her, grab the purse, and run away.
	Being a good guy, he had a permit and a gun, and he ran after the purse snatcher.
	And he ran, and he ran about three or four blocks, and the purse snatcher, as most of these criminals are, is not in good shape.
	And he gets winded, so the citizen runs up to him, pulls his gun out, and says, drop the purse.
	Well, the criminal is a pretty wise guy.
	And he knows that he can't be shot, legally, and apparently he thinks this guy knows it too.
	Which the guy did, the citizen did.
	So they stand there looking at each other.
	So the citizen grabs him and tries to grab the gun, tries to grab the purse from him.
	Now they have a fight going on.
	But look at the fight.
	The citizen has a gun which he can't use.
	What does it do is by carrying a five pound weight in your right hand, and now you have to fight with one hand.
	That's right.
	And at any time, that guy could take the gun from you and he probably wouldn't mind shooting you.
	Right.
	So it's a big liability.
	So if you're going to attack this bank robber or some other criminal like that, what are you going to do when you catch him?
	When you grab him?
	Or if he says, hey, go ahead and shoot me.
	What are you going to do?
	Shoot me?
	And he walks over to you.
	Are you going to shoot me?
	I haven't done anything.
	These are very difficult situations and you don't want to get into them.
	The only time You might take your gun out if you think the guy's coming towards you or threatening someone if you have a gun in his hand.
	But another thing to consider, you don't always know what's happening.
	You may think you know what's happening, but you may not know who the bad guy is or who the good guy is.
	It happens to the police all the time.
	And when the police arrive because of the bank holdup alarm, they don't know who you are, buddy, and you're a citizen with a gun.
	That's true.
	And they're going to think you're part of it.
	So it's best just to Get a good description, try to remember things, watch them, follow them if you're adventurous, but don't pull your gun out.
	And the police in that situation?
	Now let's put the police there instead of the citizen.
	The guy's backing out of the bank with a money bag, the alarms are going off.
	What options do the police have?
	Would have a, let's say, just a hold-up alarm with no further information.
	Hold-up alarm that this bank has had.
	If they drive up there, they see the guy coming out with money bags.
	The first thing the police do, whenever they arrive anywhere, as I did, you look at the guy's hands.
	Is he armed?
	That's the key thing.
	Does he have a weapon?
	Let's say no.
	He doesn't have a clear weapon.
	The police will probably draw their guns and say, please freeze.
	And point at him.
	And if he runs?
	If he runs, they're not going to shoot at him.
	They're not allowed to shoot at a fleeing robber.
	Unless they have reason to believe that he's going now to get his gun to shoot back at them or get more ammunition or something like that.
	But just because he's running away, you cannot shoot at him.
	It's frustrating as it can be.
	So they've got to run after him?
	They have to run after him.
	And that's what they do.
	And then try to grab him.
	Try to hit him with a club.
	And they'll get sued for that too.
	And so will you.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	Speaking of being beaten, way back to Rodney King, I'm sure you looked at that one.
	Yes, I did.
	How did you see it?
	I didn't see anything wrong with what the police did.
	This may be controversial, but what you saw was sausage being made, police work.
	If Rodney King had at any time obeyed the police instructions to lay down and spread his arms out, he would not have been hit one time.
	So he is at fault, not the police.
	Now, did the police hit him too hard?
	Well, maybe.
	But at any time, he could have just said, OK, OK, and put his arms down.
	But he kept trying to get up, which they interpreted as a threat to them, which I, so would I. So it just became another big political issue.
	And I'm amazed at the furor that came out about it.
	He was being chased by police, failure to stop, speeding.
	He was trying to get away.
	They finally get him.
	He does not cooperate with them.
	Well, Yep.
	Because that's his problem.
	And I'll tell you, as a former policeman, now I'm out of the game, the police business, but a lot of times people will run away from policemen and not stop, especially in cars.
	And I'll tell you, the most scary things that I ever did as a policeman was not being shot at, was not going to dark buildings, don't have the armed guy inside, and so on.
	Traffic stops.
	Well, before that, riding in a speeding police car, chasing somebody, because that is where you get killed.
	And that's where you kill innocent people.
	And especially when you're not driving.
	It's really frightening.
	I bet it is.
	As a matter of fact, earlier tonight, I think it ran Sunday night, I saw the scariest police chases, and boy oh boy, they are scary.
	Man, your heart is really pounding.
	These guys who don't stop endanger more lives and cause more fatalities than any trigger-happy gunman going shooting down a main street.
	What are the odds of somebody getting away?
	If you've got a fast car and you put the pedal to the metal and all that, What percentage of the time do they catch fleeing people?
	Well, I don't know the statistics on it, but I'd say most of the time, because you may be able to outrun the police car, but you cannot run the radio.
	Right.
	And with the helicopters and this sort of thing, they're going to track you.
	But now, because of the terrible fatalities that have occurred from these type of police chases, the police are required to break off a chase, not to engage in these high-speed chases sometimes, and they have to break away.
	And so the criminals know this now, and even people just go to a stop sign and say, well, I'll just try to get away.
	So that's causing more people are running these days than ever before?
	Yes.
	Sure.
	Why not?
	It's like a free chance to get away.
	Yeah, the helicopter can't be everywhere at once, I guess.
	And if you get caught, you say, okay, okay, now I get caught.
	Well, it used to be on the written rule way back in the days that anybody that did that, you beat the hell out of them.
	As a lesson.
	Because maybe the fine they get from failure to heed a siren and that sort of thing is not going to really motivate them not to do that again.
	If they get their rear end kicked real hard, they may remember that.
	That was the old school, way back.
	That's not the way it is now.
	But there was a reason for that.
	Otherwise, it encourages people to do that.
	To try to get away.
	What do you feel about the Second Amendment, basically?
	In other words, there are a lot of guns out there.
	A lot of people have guns.
	Should they be able to?
	A lot of police chiefs say, Well, police chiefs are mostly bureaucrats.
	I believe that every responsible person should be allowed to have a gun and to be able to carry a gun unless there's a reason why you shouldn't be allowed to.
	I do believe that.
	I think that would be a better country.
	This whole subject of use of deadly force and what you can do and what you can't for citizens was so important to me that I made a video on this thing, which was sold all around the country, and it explains this whole situation.
	And go through different scenarios that this happens or that happens, and we interview policemen as far as describing what they do when they arrive at the scene, how they evaluate whether it's justified or not, the district attorney who's tried thousands of cases, and we actually interviewed criminals in the prison.
	And I got criminals who had been involved in firearm-related incidents, and especially a bunch of burglars, and it was really interesting to hear their interviews.
	And I said, what do you fear most when you go into a house?
	And they would say, well, someone has a gun in there.
	Sure.
	And I even asked, I think I asked all of them that are on tape, I said, did you, what do you think?
	Do you think guns should be outlawed for the average citizen?
	I said, oh, well, that'd be crazy, man.
	You know, the criminals would be taken over.
	I'd like to have one.
	And there's some cases where guys, one guy describes, a couple of guys described an incident where they were in a house, they were right in the house, and somebody came home.
	And they didn't hear them.
	And the guy had a gun.
	and the one guy said uh... that i thought i got i just turned and i just
	went to a quick left window at the grass and just kept going
	and i said well then we're more careful next time you go right to make sure no
	one came home so i never did it again under the right all again i just do
	businesses from there
	who they are really afraid of armed or homework
	there's some evidence that in states where concealed permits are being
	issued a crime rates in fact have gone down Do you know much about that?
	I know this.
	I know when Florida passed this concealed carry permit law, it was about eight, ten years ago now, that if we didn't hear anything about it in the subsequent years, uh... there was really working
	the the anti-gun establishment were rapidly watching that they could find
	the slightest variation in anything negative they would be to be on headlines and the
	newspapers would be eager to report it as with the most of the uh... t.v. news
	media so the fact that we haven't heard any dylan grome reports
	in there shows that the house is working and crime has gone down and i think it's
	a good reason Well, I remember when it was being argued, it was suggested it'll be like the old west.
	Bodies lying in the streets, gunfights in the streets, that sort of thing.
	Didn't happen.
	Didn't happen, and that's a myth anyway.
	There weren't that many gunfights in the old west anyway.
	Whenever I have a gun, people get more polite.
	And if you think people have a gun, then you don't want to start anything.
	That's true.
	Alright, let's take another case.
	Recently there, I don't know whose report it was, it was all over the news, there was advice to the American people.
	When you're on the highway, when you're driving down the street, when you're on the freeway, don't look at the person next to you.
	Because looking at them might start something.
	In other words, don't even glance at them.
	Now, let's take a case, more and more frequent these days, I'm sorry to say, where you're on the road, Somebody next to you, for whatever reason, flips you the finger.
	You flip back, and it deteriorates from there.
	Both cars stop.
	The guy in the other car starts coming at you with a tire iron, or a piece of pipe, or something or another.
	You've got a gun.
	What then?
	Now, bear in mind, this is an interesting example.
	when you're on the street in your car walking down the street and you have a gun
	either legally or illegally carry the gun
	there's a whole different set of criteria that will be used to judge
	whether you're what you've done is justified
	and you have to be really careful on the street in your house
	the police and the whole legal system is generally very sympathetic to you
	no matter what happens if you're in your home and someone who doesn't belong there comes there
	you're in pretty good shape generally. But on the street you're going to have to
	really show first of all why you were carrying a gun
	were you out looking for trouble? That's one of the questions. Were you looking for trouble?
	Did you think you were a tough guy because you were carrying a gun? So you started something with a guy and let
	him come up to you with a crowbar and then shot him in self-defense supposedly?
	That's going to be a real issue. Well my answer would be these are mean streets and I carry a gun
	because I went and got a permit.
	That's one answer, one situation.
	So let's say you got caught by that hurdle.
	Then they're going to say, well, what happened?
	And they're going to look for key words, key signals, your description of what happened.
	If you say, essentially, that guy cut me off way back down to Portland Freeway, and I followed him off here, and he flipped me the bird, and then when we pulled up at the light, he essentially did this or that, which made me so mad that this guy deserved to be taught a lesson.
	And you say something like that, You're going downtown.
	You're in trouble.
	If what you did was out of anger or revenge, there's no legal justification for anger, using anger as a defense or revenge.
	It has to be that whatever happened on the freeway and I tried to take the next exit, he followed me off at the red light.
	He came out of his car and I couldn't get through because there was a car ahead of me.
	I rolled my window up.
	He came over and he had a crowbar and he started smashing my window.
	And then I pulled my gun out and I warned him, and then I shot him.
	Now that would be a much easier case to defend.
	But on the street, it's a whole different world.
	Suppose somebody tries to carjack you.
	You stop at a light.
	A lot of that going on these days.
	You know, somebody sticks a gun or a knife towards you and tells you to get out of the car.
	Well, you said some very important words.
	If the suspect had a gun or a knife, Now, something's different here.
	You are, by definition, being threatened, but with deadly force.
	If someone sticks a gun in your face, points a gun at you, you can generally use a gun in self-defense, and there won't be any question about it.
	If the guy has a gun, or he's found there with a gun.
	Now, bear in mind also, sometimes people will pull a gun, and this is one thing that the anti-gun people never understand, they try to equate the number Murders or a number of homicides committed with guns and divide that by a number of guns and the number of accidents and say you're at risk for even having a gun.
	More at risk for having an accidental shooting than a self-defense shooting.
	I know.
	But guns can be used very effectively in our everyday without a shot being fired.
	You just say, hey, you come any closer and I want to shoot you.
	Yeah, you never hear about that.
	No, you don't hear about that and many times it's not even reported.
	You go out of your way, the guy goes out of his way, and that's the end of it.
	Listen, you were a cop, and I may have watched too much Hill Street Blues, but I want to ask a question and try to get an honest answer.
	How many cops carry throwdowns?
	Well, we call them drop guns.
	Listen, everything's changed.
	In the old days, there were things like that.
	These days, it's just very uncommon.
	And with all the forensic science work that's been done, For example, if you try to shoot somebody outside and drag them back inside, the physical evidence component available to the police is so great that it's very, very difficult to do things like that.
	There was a case just a few years ago where a policeman apparently did drop a gun.
	He shot somebody the guy had not been on.
	He had a gun, an extra gun with him.
	Dropped it.
	He just dropped a gun.
	That's the gun the guy had.
	Well, they looked at it and they found it had fibers on it.
	And when they looked at his clothing, the fibers matched his clothing, which matched the rug in his house and that sort of thing.
	I mean, you better be a super-duper master criminal if you're going to tell a post-op like that nowadays.
	And yet, the greatest public example standing is the O.J.
	Simpson case, where there were blood drops leaking all the way right back up into his bedroom and so forth and so on, and still he walked.
	Well, yes, well, that became a political issue, not one of the forensic science or the facts.
	Not normal.
	Let me give you an example of a case that some of you listeners might be interested in.
	Here's a guy who owns a convenience store.
	This is a wonderful man.
	I worked on his defense, on his trial.
	Wonderful guy.
	Worked as a cab driver, saved his money, worked nice in a warehouse, and he and his wife saved their money.
	They bought a franchise for a convenience store in an inner-city area.
	He's a black guy.
	He's working in a black district, and he's a really hard-working, good American guy.
	And he's being robbed very often.
	Robbed technically means with force or fear, generally a stick-up.
	And being shoplifted all the time.
	And his store is really having a hard time because of all this activity.
	So one day there's a young guy in there, and he watches him.
	The guy shoplifts a bunch of stuff, puts it in his map sack, and tries to leave.
	So the store owner goes and grabs him.
	And they have a wrestling puzzle there, and the shoplifter breaks away and runs outside.
	Well, the shop owner, doing what most people would feel like doing, gets his gun from under the counter, gets in his car and goes out looking for him.
	Sure.
	And he finds him.
	So he gets out of his car and pulls a guy over and says, get in my car.
	Now you've got to take him back to the store.
	Call the police.
	All right, I'll tell you what.
	We're going to have to finish this after the top of the hour.
	So sit tight.
	We'll be right back to you.
	My guest is Alex Jason.
	Interesting stuff, huh?
	More of it coming up next hour.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from February 3, 1997.
	This is a presentation of Coast to Coast AM from February 3, 1997.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight, featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from February 3rd, 1997.
	Life and death issues, Alexander Jason is my guest.
	He's a certified senior crime scene analyst, shooting incident reconstructions, forensic animations.
	He's got a long, long history of work in law enforcement.
	Was a cop in San Francisco.
	Consulted with CBS on the O.J.
	Simpson case.
	He's a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Association of Crime Scene Reconstruction, International Wound Ballistics Association, the International Homicide Investigators Association, and on and on and on and on.
	A very long resume.
	And we're talking about when you can and when you cannot use a gun or deadly force.
	We'll get back to him in a moment.
	♪♪♪ Back now to Alex.
	We will call him Jason by his permission.
	And Alex, you were telling us about a friend who had a convenience store.
	Well, this was a client, really.
	Yeah, he had a convenience store in the inner city and he had a lot of problems with the criminals shoplifting and robbing the stores.
	One shoplifter got away with some stuff and he tried to stop him and ended up... The guy got away, so the store owner went and got a .38 from under the counter, got into his car and went looking for him.
	He found the shoplifter a few blocks away.
	He pulled the gun, ordered him to get in the car, The shoplifter did, and the store owner was trying to take him back to the store, where he was going to call the police.
	So he's now driving with the gun in his right hand, the criminal seated on his right in the passenger seat.
	He's driving the knapsack where the stolen goods were, in between the seats.
	He comes to an intersection where he's trying to look to his left to clear the traffic, and the shoplifter realizes it's a good time to get away, so he pops the door open, grabs his bag, and starts to leave the car.
	The store owner tries to grab for him with his right hand, which the gun is, and he grabs part of the bag, and they cussle back and forth, and it's a long story, but one shot's fired, the shoplifter runs away, The store owner says, God, should I shoot myself, my hand, or my car, or the ceiling, or something?
	No, he can't find any damage.
	He knows the guy hasn't been hit because he just ran away like a deer.
	So he drives back to his store.
	Well, it turns out the shoplifter ran around the corner and died.
	He had been shot.
	Oh.
	And so now he's arrested for murder and kidnapping.
	For forcing someone into his car.
	Murder and kidnapping.
	Kidnapping and murder.
	What should he have done?
	He went out, he found the guy.
	What should he have done instead of what he did?
	He should not have taken his gun with him to confront the shoplifter because there's no legal justification for using it.
	It could only get him into trouble.
	You might want to take the gun with him and go drive around looking for the guy just in case the fellow attacked him or something, but to confront him with a gun and force him into the car, he's now guilty of kidnapping.
	So he was tried for kidnapping and murder, and he was found guilty of a manslaughter charge.
	I forget what type, but he lost everything, and now he's being sued civilly by the family.
	Oh, brother.
	Alright, here's another case.
	A very interesting case.
	Shop owner's getting hit again, and again, and again, and again, and he's getting real sick of it as they do.
	So, he's constantly got these little thugs coming through a skylight into his shop.
	So he erects a little cage below the skylight where the bad guy jumps in.
	Sure enough, Bad guy comes through the skylight, jumps down into the cage, and is promptly electrocuted.
	Trap.
	Traps.
	Are they legal?
	Um, no.
	If you design a trap that is designed to kill someone or inflict serious injury, that, in many states, is a felony in and of itself.
	The fact that you constructed one, whether or not it's used.
	You cannot do that.
	Now, if you If someone climbs in, as many criminals do, they'll climb down a chimney or one of these ducts in a restaurant, for example, where the hot air comes out over the grill, and they get stuck in there and they die, that's a different thing.
	But if you design something intentionally to kill someone, it's a very bad idea.
	Not only because of the liability that you face, but also because firemen have to get in sometimes, or policemen, or other things can happen.
	So, it's a very bad idea, and it'll get you into big trouble.
	Now, there's been cases where people have got away with it and so on, and you may get lucky if you do something like that, and someone will be sympathetic, but I wouldn't count on it.
	Alright, here is a fax.
	I'm getting many of them.
	You're creating a lot of interest.
	It's from a lawyer.
	Art, I'm a lawyer, intensively involved in firearms issues and self-defense, and I've got to disagree with your guest regarding talking to the police.
	Besides, quote, I want to talk to my lawyer, end quote, in the excitement of the moment, with the adrenaline pumping, it is very easy to say something you will no doubt regret later in either civil or criminal court, unless you need to say something to preserve evidence.
	In other words, the shooting is at a truck stop, and a truck with your or your assailant's bullets is about to drive off.
	It's better to spend the night arrested in jail You know, what he says is very accurate.
	He knows what he's talking about.
	What I was saying is, I'm giving you the general advice, that if you don't talk, you might start something, you may spend an overnight in jail, but he's right, you may regret it if you're going to say a bunch of things.
	I would say, my advice for what I would do, is that I would give the minimum.
	I would say I was asleep, I heard the guy come in, whatever, blah blah blah, and I shot him and that's it.
	And try to keep it to a minimum.
	Now I know how this stuff works, so I feel comfortable doing that.
	If you're not, he's probably giving you good advice.
	But sometimes that can hurt you.
	You have to make your own decisions as to what happened and what you're going to do about it.
	But I would listen to the attorney.
	That's good advice.
	But what you're suggesting is if you clam your mouth shut The police are then naturally going to look at you as a suspect and they're going to begin, in their minds, building a case against you.
	There is that possibility.
	There are sort of mini-trials that happen along the way.
	You know what the trial is, the main trial where you're charged with murder.
	But there's a little trial when the police get there.
	They're going to vote on whether you're guilty or not guilty.
	When the report is sent in to the detectives, they're going to vote on whether this takes further action or not, against you.
	And they're just going to go up to the district attorney's office, perhaps, and they're going to make a little mini-trial.
	Should we prosecute this guy or not?
	Or should we prosecute him off?
	So, you would like to avoid it at the bottom level.
	And I'm saying, if what you did is clear, there's no problem with it, I think you should talk.
	If you know what to say.
	Well, if you know what to say, and the attorney is absolutely right.
	You can get yourself in big trouble by, and most people are trained at this sort of thing, they can't rehearse this thing, they're upset, this is a very traumatic event, and they may say things that will be against their interest.
	So, it's a very difficult subject, because we're talking about individuals, and I can give you advice, Art, if I know you well enough, that might suit you, but it may not suit Your brother or my brother or somebody else.
	So it's a very difficult thing.
	So when in doubt, you might want to do that.
	Is there advice that you would give privately, Alex, that would differ from what you're able to say here publicly?
	I assume there is some.
	Well, to be frank, there might be.
	But in general, I would not encourage anybody to falsify things because it's so easy to It's so difficult to maintain the lie.
	When you're not trained at doing that, and you don't know what the police know, or what they're going to look at, or what kind of physical evidence is going to be left behind, or what kind of witnesses there are.
	For example, that store owner who had that incident where he shot the shoplifter, he made no statement.
	So the police didn't know whether he just grabbed this guy in the street and killed him.
	They didn't know anything about anything.
	They didn't know he'd been in the store, even.
	Because he didn't make any statement.
	Now, I don't know if that would have helped him or hurt him at the time, but the police had no other really alternative than to say, well, we have witnesses that say he pulled a gun on this guy, he put him in the car, and then the guy tried to get away, and he shot him.
	So that's kidnapping and murder.
	So he had really no chance to get a lesser charges filed to begin with.
	Whether or not he should have talked and said something is a very difficult, complicated legal strategy, and it could go Any of many ways.
	All right, while we're on the subject, here's another one.
	Same thing, really.
	This is Pat from Minneapolis, St.
	Paul, Minnesota.
	As a police officer at the scene of a shooting, I will take down every word you say, quote, and hope I get it all right, end quote, use it against you.
	In any shooting situation that you're involved in, shut your mouth, wait for your attorney before you say a word.
	The police department is there for A prosecution, not for the defense.
	Quote, just wait for your lawyer, end quote, and then there will be no chance your statement can be used against you.
	Well, that's probably good advice.
	I guess I would amend my initial recommendation to say, if you are comfortable, and you really understand the subject, that's why I made this videotape called Deadly Force Firearms Self-Defense and the Law, to educate people on this.
	If you're really knowledgeable about it, you're comfortable, you know what happened, it was a clear case, Then you might want to talk.
	If there's any doubt in your mind, just say, look, I'm sorry.
	I'm just so upset.
	I just think I better talk to my attorney first.
	No, not the thing.
	I know my rights, and you can't make me talk.
	Just be cooperative.
	I'm just so upset.
	I just think I should talk to my attorney.
	That's the advice I was given.
	I just think I should do it.
	Something like that is probably the best approach.
	All right.
	Here's my thinking.
	Now, I may not be representative of Uh, the majority of the audience, but some of them at least.
	I live way out the country.
	If somebody were to be coming after me, uh, or, uh, the intent on doing me harm, uh, and I were to call the police, uh, I'm afraid that if I didn't own a gun and I was not able to protect myself, they would be able to get there in time to draw a nice chalk line around my body on the floor.
	That's my attitude.
	So that's why I own guns.
	Right.
	Uh, is that a reasonable attitude?
	Is it a reasonable conclusion?
	Uh, I, the police do all they can, but uh, you know, 20, 25 minutes, a half hour to respond, whatever.
	Uh, they're going to do the best they can, but as I said, they're going to get there in time to draw the chalk line around my body and matter to me.
	Right.
	Your, your protection, your, your defense of your family and yourself is up to you.
	The police are not, Required to defend you.
	You can call them like people did in the L.A.
	riots and say, there's people out here trying to beat down my door, and they say, well, do the best you can, sorry.
	And you can't even sue them for that.
	They've had court cases where they've been held that they're not individually responsible to anyone.
	Do the best you can.
	In other words, in a riot or in civil unrest, they're liable to tell you that.
	They're busy.
	Do the best you can.
	See you later.
	That's what they told people in L.A.
	who called and said, look, they're beating down the door.
	They're trying to get in.
	They said, well, we can't send anybody out there.
	We're sorry.
	Do the best you can.
	Good luck.
	Oh, my God.
	That's what happened many times.
	And then the L.A.
	riots, which was caused by, if you'd like to go off on a little tangent here, my opinion, by the police inaction, by the police failure to respond to the initial event.
	They could have quelled that thing and had a much less reaction, but pulling out that idiotic in pain pacifistic approach to stop
	these people and it is not going to go here you have nothing to do it rodney king a little bit
	but if you tell anybody but i need to be a state will be no police
	from twelve o'clock to six o'clock and you see what happens no matter what
	political situation is going on anything like are there areas in our major cities los angeles
	san francisco chicago
	uh... and you're being heard all of these and many more where the police
	for all practical purposes will not go Go.
	No, not really.
	Most police are very dedicated, conscientious people.
	And you hear about that, oh, police won't even go in there.
	Well, they will, but sometimes they won't go in without a backup.
	A guy by himself won't go in, and that's just a being prudent.
	But I don't think there's any place that police will definitely not go in.
	If it's that bad, then they'll get 40 guys together and go in there and straighten it out, so it isn't that bad.
	But that's generally a myth.
	Where gangs control turf?
	Absolutely, in neighborhoods, that sort of thing.
	Well, most police, if you have an area where the gangs are really heavy like that, and they're starting to build up that kind of strength, they'll get together and have a task force and bring in the state police and whatever the other authorities, and they'll go in there and really go after them.
	I mean, you had a case like that, was it Idaho or Montana, with those freemen?
	Yes.
	And those guys kind of ran on their own for quite a while.
	It was a one or two man department.
	He couldn't handle against them, but they finally put together enough power, and then they went and did it.
	Alright, again, this will bear on my situation, not necessarily everybody's, but I'm in the country.
	I'm fenced, and I'm posted, and the local police department tells us out here, you must post your property with no trespassing signs.
	What sort of protection does that afford or legal precedent does that establish when you post?
	You're going to talk to a lawyer.
	I can just talk about use of deadly force in terms of what I know, what has happened, how it really works as a policeman and as a... Right, but what I'm asking is if somebody, say, breaches that well-posted fence saying no trespassing, is there any legal... You're not going to be able to answer that, are you?
	I don't know.
	That's a technical issue, and I don't know.
	Okay.
	But what I want people to know is when they have a gun for self-defense, the other issue, aside from when to use it legally, is to keep it... You have a responsibility.
	If you have a gun in your home, you have a responsibility to keep it safe.
	Not only from children, but from criminals.
	Because that's a great source of weapons for criminals is the weapons they steal from home.
	Sure.
	So if you have a gun, you should have a safe.
	I mean, a good safe.
	There's some new technology on the market.
	I wonder how you feel about it.
	i mean under your socks under the pillow i mean really good i'd like
	the other part of the keep that gun out of the hands of criminals and if it's
	taken in a in a burglary
	that who's got a good look at you if you know i'm a criminal
	and i can't go to circulation so i encourage people to be responsible
	gunowners uh... there's some new technology on the market i wonder
	how you feel about it uh... on i'm hearing about this new
	electronic something or another that knows what finger is on the trigger and
	if it's not the owner of the guns finger it won't fire
	I'd be a little edgy about that, and I'd want to really know that sucker would fire every time it felt my finger.
	How do you feel about that?
	Well, this has been around for quite a while.
	There's something new I know, but initially there was one called, I think it was called MagnaSafe, or something like that, where this fellow near here, I live near the San Francisco area, and there's a fellow down here who invented this thing.
	And it works.
	You wear a special ring.
	And you might think of it as a magnet.
	And you have a ring that's a magnet.
	And if that magnet is not sensed by the grip of the gun, you cannot fire it.
	And I tried it and it works.
	So he thought, well, I have this invention.
	He got the patent of the year from a bunch of associations.
	He got awards from chiefs of police associations.
	But nobody bought the darn thing.
	Because when you need a gun, you need it.
	And you need it because it's got to work.
	And you have enough problems with guns malfunctioning even though their great expensive guns are well maintained for various reasons.
	Right.
	And to put another unknown factor in there is people are just really afraid of doing that.
	Now eventually we'll have a sort of bio-sensing system where it'll know you by your smell or by some other, by an embedded chip in your hand or whatever.
	And I suppose it'll work flawlessly.
	But until you get something that's really reliable, you're going to have a hard time selling that.
	But I think it's a good idea, if it would work.
	All right.
	Mr. Bell, I am a police officer very much interested in shooting recreation and ballistics.
	Could you ask Alex what courses or materials for research he would recommend for me to study?
	Also, is your guest familiar with Dr. Martin Fackler's studies?
	Yeah.
	Martin Fackler, Dr. Fackler and I founded We're co-founders of the International Wound Ballistics Association.
	I've worked with him for several years in the Army Research Lab at Letterman Institute doing wound ballistics research.
	He's changed wound ballistics.
	He brought wound ballistics into the modern age.
	If any of your listeners are familiar with his works, you should regard him highly because he does know what he's talking about.
	I'm familiar with him, of course.
	If the officer was asking about shooting reconstruction, I don't know if he was asking about learning about shooting reconstruction in general.
	Well, no.
	He wants to know what courses or materials for research he would recommend, and here's an opportunity to give out a phone number for your videotapes.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you.
	Well, I have actually three videos.
	One called Deadly Weapons, Firearms, and Firepower.
	One called Deadly Effects, Wound Ballistics, What Bullets Do to Bodies.
	Right.
	And the third one is called Deadly Force.
	Firearms, self-defense, and the law.
	And each of them, they're $29.95.
	And they're all over an hour.
	I think they average about 90 minutes.
	And they're available from, I'll give you the phone numbers, 800-762-7233.
	Is that a 24-hour number?
	seven six two seven two three three.
	Is that a 24 hour number?
	Yeah, that's 800-762-7233.
	And these are used by police departments around the world.
	Oh, they are?
	Oh, yeah, the FBI uses them, the CIA bought four of each of these things, except for the deadly force one, but the technical ones they did.
	All the police districts in England have them, Hong Kong, I can't even think of them all.
	Alright, hold tight, we're at the bottom of the hour.
	We'll be right back.
	Alex, Jason is my guest.
	He is an expert.
	A certified senior crime scene analyst, and he'll be right back.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from February 3rd, 1997.
	Why don't you ask him what's going on?
	Why don't you ask him when things don't seem right?
	Don't say that you love me!
	Why don't you ask him when things don't seem right?
	Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired February 3rd, 1997.
	Alex Jason is my guest.
	Top of the morning, everybody.
	we will go to the uh... line shortly so if you have a question and i think a lot
	of you do feel free to begin coming now
	all right back now to alex jason in the san francisco area Alex, a gazillion people here want to talk to you.
	And I have more questions, but let's quickly go to the phones and see what we've got.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Hi, I'm a police officer from Wisconsin.
	My first name is Chris.
	Yes, Chris.
	I just, I don't really have a question, I have a comment.
	And I wanted to say, I think we should illustrate to the listeners that phoning a gun is a response to the police, and that we have to take into effect that police officers are trained Yes.
	i had a look on yes and then that and it's a bit of a week to use a gun
	portrayed in that and people should just go out of my car and
	by the video and we've failed a disguise but i don't uh... i should have gone because people are not used on
	and i hope themselves or their family members uh...
	it was just a safety factor all right i think you're not an advocate then of the
	general public holding guns I am, but I think they should be trained.
	My kids, for example, I've taken them out.
	I've shown them how to use a gun.
	I've shown them how to respect a gun.
	It's a tool that police officers use, but many people don't realize the magnitude of power they're holding.
	Well, I absolutely agree with you, officer.
	Alex, I did the same thing.
	When my son was about eight years old, nine maybe, I took him out because I've got guns in the house.
	And I let him shoot at some targets.
	As a matter of fact, you know, water bottles, that kind of thing, plastic water bottles.
	And he was so impressed with what a gun was that never, ever was he tempted to ever touch one in the home.
	In other words, he knew from that moment on exactly what a gun really was.
	Good advice?
	Well, it sounds like you did the right thing.
	You handled it correctly.
	I agree with the officer.
	It's a responsibility.
	I don't encourage everyone to have a firearm.
	I don't.
	If you have doubts about whether you can use it, how to use it, whether you're going to be able to safeguard it, you shouldn't have a gun.
	Don't.
	Just let someone else have a gun.
	But don't do it if you're not sure about it.
	All right, let's move away from the gun for a second.
	One other thing, Art, if I may.
	Yeah?
	When people talk about training, they always say, oh, you need training.
	You know, you can hurt yourself.
	Well, yeah, training in how to handle the gun, how to shoot it, and how to safeguard it is important.
	But the thing I've never mentioned is when you can use it and when you cannot use it.
	That's just a strangely taboo subject.
	But that's what I'm really interested in.
	But I think the other side is important, as you also said.
	No, I think it's a very good point.
	Art, please ask your guest.
	About using a baseball bat on an intruder in your home.
	Also, I once heard an expert on self-defense recommend using an oven cleaner spray on an intruder's face.
	In other words, I guess a baseball bat can be, if it kills, a deadly weapon, as can a gun.
	But is there a distinction?
	Well, the distinction in terms of legal use...
	You really shouldn't count on things like that if you're serious about defending yourself.
	If someone breaks in, that's all handy, fine.
	But you have to understand, I could face someone with a baseball bat, but all you do is rush the person.
	To use a baseball bat, you have to get within three feet, your arm's length from the tip of the bat.
	So you're placing yourself in quite a danger.
	In a house, you can't swing it very well.
	You may get one swing.
	Which may hit the guy's shoulder and he's on top of you and he's got the baseball bat.
	So I don't think that's a really great effective tool.
	You'd rather have the gun?
	I would rather have the gun.
	I'd rather have my grandmother, who can't swing a baseball bat, for her to have a gun.
	It is a great equalizer.
	She can just sit there and she has the power to pull the trigger.
	She can order the guy out.
	Alright, here's a very interesting use of gun question.
	Please ask your guest, I see a crime in progress.
	Am I justified in using a .357 Smith & Wesson To stop the car by shooting the engine to limit their means of flight.
	You are not.
	Don't ever do that.
	Really?
	Don't even think about it.
	Really?
	You're using deadly force, and all that's going to be considered is you shot the guy and you missed.
	Well, what if you do hit his engine?
	Well, what if you do and it stops?
	Okay, fine.
	But now, you may be a hero, the way things may turn out, but what if you miss that?
	What if it ricochets off the hood and hits something that's a bystander?
	You're getting into a real big territory here.
	You're exposing yourself to great personal liability.
	For what?
	To prevent a criminal from getting away?
	If he's a threat, if he's a maniac guy with a machine gun mowing down people, we're okay.
	I don't recommend that.
	And besides, a .357 Magnum is not going to penetrate an engine block, in spite of what you hear and see.
	And that's one of the things I did in my deadly weapons tape.
	Oh, really?
	I take an engine block, and I say, here's an engine, here's a .357 Magnum with armor-piercing bullets, and I fire at the engine block.
	And then I show a little mark on the side of the cast iron, and I wipe it away, and it's just, it's just absolute nonsense.
	There's so much misinformation about guns and ballistics and wound ballistics, so that's one of the reasons I made this deadly weapons tape.
	To show how, what guns will penetrate, how a bullet will penetrate glass, or car doors, or tires, and gas tanks.
	One of the things we did, we took a gas tank half filled with fuel and shot it with all kinds of weapons.
	Does it explode into flames?
	No!
	Because it's a Hollywood thing.
	Why were black talon bullets pulled off the market?
	For political reasons.
	What is a black talon?
	The black talons are hollow.
	Particularly good design of a hollow point bullet, that's all.
	And it's a method that they found that would retain the jacket and the bullet cord together.
	Very often a hollow point will come apart when it hits a target, a person, or something else.
	And then because it now has less mass, because it's broken up, or separated the jacket and the cord, it won't penetrate as far, reducing the effectiveness.
	So it's just a way of manufacturing the bullet.
	But because it became a Yeah, but I just don't understand the psychology here.
	In other words, if you have a gun, and you have bullets in it, and you have to use it to defend yourself with deadly force, then you want it to be as deadly as possible, and I don't see how you get kinder, more gentle bullets.
	Well, you're absolutely right.
	Isn't that silly?
	I said, well, these bullets are very damaging, or they're very hurtful.
	Well, yes, that's what they're supposed to do.
	Yes, that's kind of the general idea.
	We had Clinton, who said something like, wow, we shouldn't have bullets like this around.
	Well, okay, what kind of bullets do I have?
	Blanks?
	Well, what's the alternative?
	Well, it's just the silliness that the press jumps on, and on average, the public that don't understand these issues read the headlines.
	And agree with it.
	It's very silly, as you pointed out.
	Yes, all right.
	Good.
	Wildcard line, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hi.
	Hi, from Columbia, South Carolina, with a wildcard question.
	All right.
	Mr. Bell, you live out on the sticks.
	You're about, what, a half an hour response time from a deputy sheriff?
	Well, I guess it would depend on where the patrol car is, but that's a good guess if they had come all the way up.
	And your home has posted no trespassers?
	Absolutely.
	I'm there, I'm knocking on your door, you refuse to answer the door, you don't want to open the door to me, you tell me to go away and I refuse.
	And then you pull your gun on me.
	And I want to know what Mr. Jason thinks my rights are to self-defense if you're pulling your gun on me.
	Alright, that's a good question.
	There he is at my door.
	Well, he's outside the house.
	Yes, outside the house, not attempting to enter, and there is a second part to this question, and I just want you to bring this point up, because I do carry a gun.
	I carry a .357 Magnum revolver with black talent, and I go to people's houses uninvited, unasked, and unwelcome for a living.
	Are you a burglar?
	Are you a burglar or a salesman?
	Oh, no, I'm a process server.
	I'm an agent of the court.
	I'm a law enforcement officer.
	pretty well if someone inside, now you're in our category because you have this special
	authority which I never quite understand, I mean I'm all for it but...
	I don't understand you, what authority does he have?
	I'm an agent of the court.
	That's right.
	I'm a law enforcement officer, I cannot arrest you but I am there serving a subpoena, a rule
	to show cause, a summons or a...
	Alright, I've got you.
	So there you are at my door.
	I pull a gun on you.
	Now, this is a situation where it gets very technical, because he's a process server.
	If he's just a guy, an assailant, let's take away your status as a process server, because that's a different situation.
	I really can't comment on it.
	It's a very unusual one.
	Very specific.
	But let's say you're an assailant.
	I think I would be in trouble.
	That's a bad idea.
	so i want to bring these people talk about but i like that i plan to the screen door
	i'd like to get out of here yeah i think i would be in trouble but if you better check local
	laws but i want to mention some to
	to your listeners of the poor you know welcome back to it but how they can find out about this the
	kind of a lot of things
	but that that's a bad idea
	you don't bring it up with your life is threatened with some of my people gave
	but his question was what are his rights to self-defense once i have pointed a
	Okay, now the question is going to be, as he's a salesman or whatever, what were you doing there while I was trying to sell something?
	And the guy told you to go away, and you didn't go away, and he pulled his gun out.
	Now, if you legitimately felt, and you can prove, and you're prepared to demonstrate that you had a reasonable fear that your life was in danger, then You may be able to claim that self-defense where you shot this guy before he shot you, but if he's just pointing a gun and saying, hey, if you don't get out of here, I'll shoot you, I don't think you can shoot him.
	Because you're not being threatened.
	Your life is in imminent danger.
	It comes down to the same thing.
	If your life is in imminent danger... That's right.
	Okay, second part of your question, caller.
	Well, the second part had to do with, just please tell your guests that just because I am an unwelcome visitor, you don't have the right to shoot me.
	If you present a gun, I will run.
	But instead of just getting a subpoena to appear as a witness in court, which you don't want, you're going to wind up having me come back with the deputy sheriff, and you're going to wind up going to jail for threatening me.
	Well, I agree with you.
	Anybody, a salesman or a process server, you don't pull a gun unless your life is threatened.
	And a process server, I would just, I guess you're going to have to let them in, because you have more powers than the police in some aspects.
	Well, I'm not going to come in.
	I'm just going to...
	I'm just not going to leave until you... Okay, well, I would counsel people not to point the gun to call the police.
	If you're in doubt about who this guy is, you want him off there, call the police.
	I'm curious, Culler, do you like your job?
	I like it, yes, because those deadbeat dads out there, that's quite satisfying, catching up with somebody that hasn't paid child support for three years and finally Handing them the court order where they're going to have to do it.
	Well, I was confusing you with a bounty hunter.
	Oh, no, no.
	You're a processor.
	Right.
	Okay, a processor.
	No, good grief.
	People will get real mad at them when they come in.
	No, do not point a gun at them to scare them or anything else.
	I never have.
	If they point one at me, I will run.
	All right.
	All right.
	Good enough.
	I appreciate that.
	Now, I want to ask you, and you stumbled or we stumbled into this one.
	What are the laws regarding bounty hunting?
	I don't know.
	I mean, I know that they have the right to, they can break down your door and all sorts of things, but I'm not an expert.
	I don't really know.
	Where does the legal support for such a thing come from?
	You might talk to someone who's more qualified than I, but my understanding is that you sign it away.
	When you get a bail bond from that agency, you sign it away saying, I'm letting these people come into my home anytime, day or night, unannounced.
	They can search through my stuff if I don't show up.
	So, you've already agreed to this, and then they're serving a warrant from the court, arrest warrant, for a failure to appear.
	So, they have a lot of powers, but it's a very unique situation.
	That's what I was describing, the process of misidentification.
	I see, that's very interesting.
	So, as a police officer, have you ever run into a bounty hunter doing his job?
	I think, yeah, I did.
	There wasn't a real...
	Unusual character, like you see these guys look like bikers.
	It was just some guy in a suit, casually dressed, sport coat and tie, and he looked like a cop, actually, and he just wanted some backup.
	But they're serving warrants, which are issued by the court, and the policeman has to essentially assist them, really, when they have a valid warrant for arrest.
	Fascinating.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hi.
	Yes, sir.
	I'm a guard from Kentucky.
	Yes, sir.
	And no one's touching bases on equal force here.
	Before you can use deadly force, you better think of equal force.
	Well, not really.
	In terms of if your life is in danger, if a guy has a knife and he's threatening you
	with a knife and he's advancing towards you, you can take out a 12 gauge shotgun.
	That's not equal, but you can use that if that's the situation.
	If you have a protection trained German Shepherd, I know not everybody does, but you could use
	that instead of taking somebody's life.
	Well, yes.
	If you had another alternative method, that's what I mean.
	The central point of what I'm trying to convey to all your listeners is that you can only use deadly force if there's no other alternative.
	That's the way to keep safe.
	If you can say, look, I tried to get away, I tried to move over here, I tried to block him from coming in.
	Whatever, and this is my last resort.
	If you can convey that effect, that I didn't want to shoot him, and my dog wouldn't attack him when I told him to, or whatever, and you try everything else, then you're going to be generally in very safe ground.
	Well, yeah, you get down to the point where, you know, that fellow seemed to be saying, if somebody's coming at you with a knife, use a knife.
	You can't use a gun.
	That's silly.
	In a knife fight, I'd much rather have a gun.
	And, you know, I think that's reasonable.
	I mean, the old thing about... No one requires you to go out on yourself with a knife to be equal first, and then defeat him there, and then he picks up something else and you have to match him with that.
	That's... Yeah, horrible as a potential court case or civil case may be, it sure beats being under the ground.
	Yes, so you make your own decisions, but you have to... I want everyone to realize the consequences of what they do, that there are terrible penalties, and I'm talking about Criminal and civil.
	You could go to civil court and be sued.
	It's a horrible thing.
	Even if you're totally right, it's going to cost you a bundle.
	It's a terrible situation, but that's the way it is.
	All right.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	This is Renee from Spokane, Washington.
	Hello, Renee.
	Hi, Renee.
	Hi.
	I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry a Glock 9mm.
	If I'm driving through town at night and I come up to a red light and someone gets in my car, Good question.
	Good question.
	Now generally, as I mentioned, the police, let's say you shoot this fellow.
	The police in a situation like this are generally very sympathetic to you.
	They see that you're out of business, you're coming home from work, and this is a guy who had no business getting in your car.
	You don't know him.
	Now let's say you shot and killed him.
	So it's your story versus the physical evidence.
	If the physical evidence is consistent with what you said, Then there's no witnesses, or witnesses who agree with what you say, then that's pretty much it.
	You can generally use deadly force to protect yourself in that situation, where you're in a car alone and a guy gets in.
	And then depending on what he says, generally.
	But, well, I'd say generally you can use a gun.
	But you might first, if this was possible, that you had the gun out and you said, get out of the car.
	And then he didn't.
	and he moved towards you, then you shot him.
	That would be generally justifiable.
	I can't talk about the laws of your state and what will happen in your particular aspect,
	but if a woman is driving alone and someone gets into the car and threatens rape, you
	can generally use a gun as self-defense.
	Yeah, and another thing I would be worried about there is if I didn't pull the gun and
	he found it later, if I let him move me from one area to another.
	Well, you should not let him do that.
	I tell my child, if you're walking down the street and someone pulls up in a car and pulls a gun on you and says, get in the car, don't get in the car, run, he probably will not shoot you because he doesn't want to attract attention and you're gone now.
	He might, but if you get in the car, you can figure your chances of dying are very high.
	So just run.
	Scream like Buddy Burger and run in zig-zag as you're running away.
	And that probably will be much better than getting in the car.
	So you're right about that.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you very much.
	And it brings up another question.
	And that is, the way the law will look at an incident of that sort in a car with a woman versus a man.
	A difference?
	Yeah, there's a difference.
	There always is.
	Even in the situation at home, for example.
	Somebody's breaking into the home.
	but to them to make things uh... extreme uh... she can go a lot more than you can look at it you
	when you're aware why didn't you punch him or whatever you could have done
	but some of his clearly uh...
	and disadvantage will be much more sympathetic to uh... even in the situation at home for example
	somebody's breaking into the home a woman is home alone
	they're gonna look at her shooting uh... somebody in a different way than they
	are uh... a man or a cat Yes, not legally, but not in terms of the statutes, but in terms of human nature, yes, they are.
	But never at home, a man or a woman, anybody, if you're in your home, you are a sacred person.
	And generally the law respects that.
	So if you're at home, and someone's breaking in, You're on very good grounds for using W-4s.
	You can show that your life is threatened.
	You felt that your life was threatened.
	A person in your situation would have a reasonable fear.
	And once again, on your videotapes, you interview criminals who break into homes and they say their greatest fear is somebody inside having a gun.
	That's right.
	They describe what happens.
	So, what do you tell people about stickers like that?
	I've seen those.
	This house protected by Smith & Wesson.
	one guy said uh... what is happening at all sticker on the door of the book
	that house protected by smith and wesson that's what i thought first uh... it might be guns in there
	but i thought uh...
	but i'm not going to go down there probably should be so you want to the
	house next door so
	what do you tell people about stickers like that i've seen those is house
	protected by smith was a good idea uh... i don't know
	I don't know.
	I don't put them on my door.
	I just, I don't know.
	I'd rather keep a low profile, have a good steel door with a good lock on it and a good door frame instead of putting stuff up like that.
	But I've also suggested to other people who don't like guns and don't think anybody else should have guns to put a sign on their door that there are no guns in this house.
	You might as well also paint a big target there.
	Um, Jules inside with a big arrow flashing or something.
	All right, Jason, hold on.
	We're at the top of the hour.
	We'll be right back.
	Alex Jason, actually, my guest.
	We'll be right back.
	Welcome to the show.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM, from February 3rd, 1997.
	And I know some of you are joining us at this hour.
	Good morning.
	You've missed two very, very good hours.
	My guest is Alex Jason.
	Alexander Jason, actually.
	A very, very long resume.
	A complete resume.
	He is a professional.
	In every sense of the word.
	A certified senior crime scene analyst, a qualified expert witness in crime scene reconstruction, shooting incident reconstruction, wound ballistics, and forensic animation in federal and state courts.
	California, Washington, Colorado, West Virginia, Alaska, and Maryland.
	His professional memberships include the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, The Association of Crime Scene Reconstruction.
	International Wound Ballistics Association.
	The International Homicide Investigators Association.
	He was a San Francisco investigator, policeman.
	The International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts.
	International Association for Identification.
	Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners.
	A technical advisor.
	And the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers.
	And I could go on reading for pages.
	And we've been talking about generally when you can and when you cannot use deadly force.
	I think you'll find it absolutely fascinating.
	Stay right where you are.
	he'll be right back all right before anybody else
	asks it since the focus of
	uh... alex's professional work
	His crime scene analysis and shooting incident reconstruction.
	His area of specialty is the science of wound ballistics, which relates to the use of firearms against humans, and specifically to the interaction of projectiles in the human body.
	The following question I will ask before one of you asks it, and it is inevitable, Alex, the assassination of President Kennedy.
	This has got to be right smack dab in the middle of your area of expertise.
	Though you may not have worked on the case, maybe you did, what is your opinion?
	Well, I did work on a case in recent years with the NOVA program and for the American Bar Association.
	We actually shot cadavers.
	Oh, you know, I saw that NOVA show, by the way.
	And I really sort of hesitate getting into this because I find it's more like a religion now than a question of what happened.
	I know, but we've got to ask.
	Yeah, well, to tell you the truth, Oswald did it, and there's nothing in the evidence that's inconsistent with the 6.5mm Carcano bullet, which is a very unusual bullet in itself.
	And, uh, there's so much nonsense written.
	So a lot of people say, well, that couldn't have happened because this happened, because I read this and I read that.
	Well, what you read is probably not true.
	There's just so many things that aren't true in that, uh, that it was, it was fired.
	Uh, it was Oswald from the school book depository and that's it.
	All right.
	Uh, good answer.
	Uh, first time caller line, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hi.
	Yes, hello Mr. Jason and hello Mr. Bell.
	Hi, where are you, sir?
	My name is Ethan and I live in Van Nuys, California.
	Alright.
	My question isn't exciting as yours, Mr. Bell, but I just have a question for Mr. Jason.
	This is just a curious question.
	Is there any laws regarding blowing out an attacker's kneecap?
	Well, what you're saying is, can I shoot to wound?
	Yeah.
	Essentially.
	There's no legal difference in shooting to wound or shooting to kill.
	Using deadly force is using deadly force.
	Whether you shot him in the kneecap, or you shot him in the head, or you shot him in the hand, it makes a difference legally as far as whether you're allowed to use the gun.
	So it's not a situation where you say, well, I know I wasn't allowed to use deadly force because my wife wasn't threatened, so I just shot him in the knee.
	That will not work.
	Well, here's the problem with what you're saying.
	There's a lot of talk like that at the gun range and people are always coming up with strategies like that.
	But the problem is, first of all, if you do that and the police arrive and you say, well, you know, I shot him in the kneecap because I knew I would stop him and I wouldn't kill him.
	If you have that presence of mind to think about what you're doing and to carefully aim and hit a narrow thing like a kneecap, then they're going to question whether or not you really need to shoot this guy.
	Was it such an extreme, sudden event with your life in imminent danger?
	And you said, I think I'll shoot him in the kneecap.
	It's not going to look good.
	Yeah, alright.
	Here, let me ask you this, and hopefully you'll give a good honest answer, and that is, if you're in a situation where you've got to use deadly force, got to use a gun, are you better off killing them?
	I know that's a really hard question, but frankly, aren't you more likely to end up in court Paying out to this person for the rest of their life, if you just wound them.
	Is there anything to that?
	Well, first of all, let me ask you a question backwards.
	Assuming it's a good shoot.
	Yes.
	Whether or not the person is killed or not.
	If you kill them, you're probably going to have more suits because all the relatives are going to get involved.
	Oh boy, this is our chance to make some big money here.
	So, just from what I've seen, that's the way it goes.
	Remember this, you are not You're not trying to kill anybody.
	You are trying to prevent a crime from occurring.
	You're trying to protect your life.
	That's what you're doing.
	You're not trying to kill people.
	You're trying to protect a life.
	Your own or someone else's.
	Well, yes, but the presumption of that question is that is what you're doing.
	Now it goes back to what this caller said about the kneecap shot.
	In other words, if you're a good enough shot that you could disable him by taking out his knee.
	Should you do that, or should you shoot to kill?
	Well, you really shouldn't define it that way, because in a real emergency event where you're going to use deadly force, you're lucky to hit the guy at all, and you should aim for the center of mass, not because that's the most deadly spot.
	That gives you the best hit probability, because you're going to be very nervous, things are moving quickly, he's maybe moving, you're moving.
	You just want to get some shots there to stop him from attacking you, or stop him from doing what he's doing, to prevent him from shooting you, or stabbing you, or whatever he's trying to do.
	And that is, you just shoot.
	You don't think about, when I wound him, I'm going to kill him.
	And if you do, if you have that presence of mind, don't say that.
	When the police get there, you say, I shot him.
	I don't know where I hit him, his knee, whatever.
	You don't say, I thought I just hit him in the knee, because I know that I can kill him.
	So I thought, that sounds like you're some kind of nut.
	This is kind of weird, where you're picking your shot.
	Just the guy threatened my life and I shot him.
	What about the great, remember the great case, I can't remember the guy's name just off hand right now, it'll come back to me, the subway in New York.
	Yeah, Bernie Goetz.
	Thank you, the Goetz case.
	How did you look at that one?
	I mean, he claims he was threatened with whatever it was, a screwdriver, something or another, a knife, whatever.
	Yes.
	Now, here's a guy who really got himself into trouble by talking.
	Instead of just saying, they threatened me, they came around me, they were surrounding me, they pulled a screwdriver, and I knew they were going to stab me, and I shot them, he said, he told the whole story.
	He was a man, he was sped up, he'd been beaten up before, he'd been threatened, he was sped up, and he told the police on videotape, and I saw some of this work.
	I hate these guys, and after I shot the one guy, I said, oh, you need another one, buddy.
	And how about you?
	You don't look hurt that bad.
	Yeah.
	That's what really hurt him.
	Sunk his case.
	So that's the kind of thing you want to avoid.
	And if you shoot somebody in a situation where you had to, you don't discuss the stuff about the... You know, there was a guy last week at a bar, and he said he'd get me, and I said, if you were doing it to me, I'd get him.
	I knew where he lived, and I thought it was him.
	You get all these involved stories and you start thinking, oh, this is some kind of a feud going on.
	And if the guy laying on your kitchen floor is a criminal, who's going to be a criminal, or just not known to anybody, that's one thing.
	If he's your brother-in-law, or he's a next-door neighbor, or he's your wife's ex-boyfriend, there's a whole different story here going on.
	Whole different criteria are going to be used.
	So what you say when the police arrive really is of prime importance.
	Just keep it to the minimum.
	Don't tell them what kind of ammunition you have.
	Oh, I only use black talons, because I know they're the best.
	I only use this, and I have my super-duper night sights here.
	I saw him when he was coming out of the window.
	I waited just until I got a good shot at him.
	You tell the truth, which is, if you're going to shoot somebody, it's because your life is threatened.
	All right.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hi.
	All right.
	This is Don in Campbell, California.
	Yes, sir.
	And I was interested to hear him talk about the black talon, which is a particularly nasty bullet that as it opens up it produces several very sharp points.
	It basically goes through the person cutting, or animal or whatever it is, cutting things up.
	And I think the worst part of the bullet was its name.
	If you use that in a self-defense situation, You're going to have very serious civil liability problems.
	Yeah, if they'd called it a pink challenge, it probably would have been fine.
	That's exactly right.
	But you know, on the subject of bullets, like choice of ammunition, I'm wondering if the guest has a recommendation, for example, like the Corbin hollow points or something else, as he would choose.
	Sure, we really have not talked about guns specifically.
	Alex, do you have any suggestions for the average homeowner?
	Well, I can just say this.
	Look, all the stuff about bullets, and this bullet and that bullet, and you get into all this munition, you read gun magazines, you're really going down the wrong path.
	The difference between bullets, a basic bullet design is very little, and with a black panel it's going to do more than a silver tip, or so on.
	There's a very little difference.
	What you want is a bullet that penetrates deeply, and that is a bullet that has a lot of mass to it.
	It's not that important.
	Should you pick the best thing available?
	I'm not selling anything or promoting anything, but don't get caught up in this stuff.
	Your brain doesn't know the difference between a black talent and a gray talent.
	A bullet that covers your spinal cord is going to be a bullet that covers your spinal cord
	and you're going to fall down and that's it.
	It doesn't matter what kind of bullet it is or anything else.
	So it's not that important.
	I mean, should you pick the best thing available?
	Yes, but it's not like this bullet won't hurt someone and this one will.
	There's very little difference once you have a basic functioning bullet.
	The bullet that covers your spinal cord is going to be a bullet that covers your spinal
	Well, I think there's two things you consider, right?
	Mass and velocity.
	Okay, velocity is not important in wounding.
	With handgun bullets, it is one of the greatest myths that velocity is anything to do with it.
	You want low velocity, not high velocity.
	High velocity causes bullets to come apart.
	And if you get a high enough velocity, there have been tests with bullets like 8,000 feet per second.
	These are in special laboratory situations.
	What happens when a bullet hits tissue is it just breaks up into little It blows up, essentially.
	So it makes a very nasty surface fluid, but it won't do anything to the vital organs, which are deep inside.
	So the more velocity you get, the more distortion of the bullet you're going to get, flattening out and break up of the bullet, and it won't penetrate as far.
	Because you get too much frontal area, and it increases the drag.
	So you want a bullet, actually, a .38 is better than a .357.
	A lot of people out there, right now, are jumping out of their chairs thinking I'm crazy.
	You want a nice, low velocity, Like a 38-158 grain red hollow point.
	Something that'll go thump.
	Something that goes in.
	Into the body.
	Goes through an arm and into the body.
	For self-defense purposes.
	Not something that's going to break up like these real fast bullets.
	You don't want fast bullets.
	You don't want the fastest bullet.
	They're counterproductive.
	What about the difference between a handgun, say a 38, and a 12-gauge shotgun?
	Oh, well, there's a whole different story there.
	Alright, but we're talking about home protection here, so... Well, home protection...
	I mean, you can use either one, it's just the shotgun's more difficult to walk around with.
	It could be grabbed when you go in a corner, that sort of thing.
	That's true.
	But it's an individual choice, but the 12-gauge shotgun is a very devastating weapon.
	Yes, it is.
	I'm surprised the gun grabbers haven't gone after the shotgun yet.
	They've gone after semi-automatics, depicting them in the media, of course, as automatic weapons.
	God, that makes me mad to see that.
	But the shotgun is really so effective, I'm surprised they haven't figured out a way to go after them.
	Oh, you think they will?
	Oh, sure.
	Alright, here's a question from a listener.
	Facts.
	Another, Jason.
	And he asks, if I'm in a situation in which I'm being pinned down by my assailant, and I'm in possession of a firearm, would it be legal for me to shoot him?
	And if so, where?
	Well, it doesn't matter where you shoot him.
	I mean, if you're allowed to use deadly force, you're allowed to use deadly force.
	Alright, he's pinned down.
	Now, the question is, where are you?
	In your bedroom?
	Yes.
	Now there's a scene that we have in this Deadly Force tape where a woman's in her bedroom and a guy comes in, sneaks in the house.
	And then she hears him and she gets her gun and the guy comes back in the bedroom.
	There she is trying to call the police but he walks over to her.
	Now he says to her, she points to the guy and says, get out.
	What are you doing here?
	He says, I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong house.
	And she says, well, get out.
	He says, well, wait a minute, wait a minute, don't get carried away.
	She says, get out, get out.
	She's pointing the gun, and he says, look, you can't shoot me.
	I haven't done anything.
	What are you going to shoot me for?
	I'm not threatening you.
	And we have a whole discussion of this kind of a case.
	Well, if he advances, continues to advance, then she can make the assumption that he is
	now in the commission of a robbery, that he intends to take the gun away from her.
	You don't have to wait until the person comes and takes the gun from you and aims it at you for your life to be threatened.
	So a situation like that where you're at home, if you're pinned down, yes, you can certainly shoot somebody or even before that, but this is in your house.
	I'm not talking about a street bar fight or something.
	It's a different situation out in the street.
	You can only show if your life is in danger.
	I have another scenario in the Deadly Force tape where a guy's in the alley walking along.
	We have various scenarios of these two slimeballs who harass him and do different things.
	And there's one case in there where his life is threatened and other ones where it isn't.
	But I'll mention one thing.
	There's one scenario we have where the guy's hassled by these slimeballs and he pulls the guy and says, get back.
	And they say, hey man, don't shoot, don't shoot.
	Okay, man, okay.
	And they back up.
	So he gets back in his car and he leaves.
	Well, what do the slimeballs do?
	They say, hey man, he has no right to be pointing a gun at us.
	What's he doing carrying a gun?
	Let's call the police.
	And they get his license number and they call the police and this happens.
	And then what'll happen is he's gonna get, there's gonna be a big felony car stop on this poor citizen who just tried to keep the slimeballs away from him.
	So in a situation like that, what you do, if you had to pull your gun, which I don't recommend unless you really needed to, then you go and you call the police first.
	Don't let them call the police on you.
	Uh-huh.
	And make a whole big difference.
	If you call, because otherwise they're going to be making a stony car stop for you on the freeway.
	Pretty sad.
	I mean, in a way, then, the criminals, because they have been through the justice system, might know how to better manipulate it in their favor than you would as a just honest citizen who's never encountered anything before.
	That's right.
	That's sick.
	In fact, it leads to this question.
	In most cases in states, if you're in your car, it's treated just as if you're in your house.
	Is that true or not?
	I don't know what most states do.
	I just get the general guideline that your life is in danger.
	But let me point out something that's really interesting.
	If anybody out there is really interested in learning the specifics, which you can only learn in your state, The way to do it is to get the jury instructions.
	The criminal jury instructions are available in any law library.
	There's a set of them.
	And let me just read, I have some here from California.
	Well, we're hitting the bottom of the hour, but what you're saying is that learn what judges tell juries in cases.
	Specifically about different scenarios to show you this is what the jury's going to be ruling on.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	uh... jury uh...
	this uh... verdict alright get get that out and and after the bottom of the
	hour we will give you an example so stand by that uh... for that everybody my
	guest is alex jason and he'll be right back
	you're listening to art bell somewhere in time featuring a replay of coast to coast a m from february
	third nineteen ninety seven
	the the
	the And this club of mine keeps growing on.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight, featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from February 3rd, 1997.
	Tell you something, folks.
	Great radio ain't made.
	listening to art bill somewhere in time featuring a replay of coast to coast a m from
	nineteen ninety seven tell you something folks great radio a made
	just happen all right back down to my guest alex jason
	And Alex, a lot of Canadians are listening right now.
	We're heard all over Canada, and they have a very, very different attitude about guns in Canada.
	And a lot of Canadians look down at the U.S., and they think of us as the wild, wild west, and they think we're out of our minds.
	People there don't have a lot of guns.
	And they think we should not have guns.
	And frankly, around the world, it's closing in gun confiscation in Australia.
	A lot of countries are moving away from ownership of guns.
	Is it going to be a battle that eventually is going to be lost for the gun owner, citizen?
	Oh gosh, Art, that's a big question.
	I don't know.
	I'm just like you.
	I'm sort of an observer hoping for the best and believing that we should have the right to defend ourselves and to have weapons for responsible citizens should be.
	So I don't know.
	I just hope we can continue.
	Well, I guess I was asking for just sort of a more of a prediction or an opinion.
	Is it going the wrong way?
	Well, one thing is encouraging.
	It's going the wrong way in some ways, but one thing is encouraging is that 23 states now have concealed carry laws.
	That's right, that's right.
	And you wouldn't predict that happening, but it's happening and seem to be successful.
	So I know that there's a lot of laws against assault weapons and these silly things that they define as assault weapons.
	So in one sense it's growing that way, but we're also getting ready to carry a gun.
	So I don't know, I'm confused.
	We can go either way.
	That's one of the reasons it's important to vote for the right people.
	OK, I agree.
	First time caller on the line, you are on the air with Alex.
	Jason, hi.
	Hi, this is Kevin in Nashville.
	Hi, Kevin.
	Well, I'm really enjoying the show tonight.
	Your guest has given us a lot of really good advice.
	Yes, he has.
	And I agree with just about everything you said tonight, excluding the issue of velocity.
	All right.
	And this would come up.
	Of course.
	Well, I own a couple handguns, and I'm in the security business, and I typically carry a Korban 135 grain hollow point in my Glock 23.
	And if I happen to be carrying my .357, I carry 125 grains in my jacket at hollow points by either Remington or Federal.
	And I'm sure you're familiar with both of these rounds.
	That's all hype.
	That's not true.
	This record of stops, look, if you shoot somebody Let me give you an example.
	Here in San Francisco, some guy came out right at noon on Market Street with a gun and was waving it around and screaming.
	So the police were called, and they surrounded him and told him to drop the weapon, and he didn't, and they fired one shot.
	And the guy just flew backwards.
	The gun went flying all over.
	So some fools in the gun business or the ammunition business would say, Hey, what kind of gun was that?
	What kind of bullet was that?
	I want to get that kind of bullet.
	So you write down, that was a super-duper bullet, or whatever did that.
	Well, the fact is, the bullet just grazed the person's skin.
	It didn't even penetrate.
	It just grazed and gave him a little scratch, or like a little abrasion.
	He just reacted that way.
	If I fired a blank at you, you'd probably jump over backwards.
	It's just not the force of the bullet.
	I'm sure you're familiar with Evan Marshall and the fraud at U. These are actual shootings.
	No, they're not.
	No, I'm very familiar.
	Evan Marshall is a fraud.
	It's a complete hoax.
	He doesn't have any data on this stuff.
	So what I'm saying is, if you shoot somebody, if I could give you a couple of cases, and with this bullet, this guy fell over immediately.
	With this bullet, this guy continued for 10 minutes.
	The important thing is, where did it hit him?
	It's not a homogenous situation.
	If you hit a guy in the spine, it's one thing.
	If you shoot through his lung, that's a whole different story.
	I understand that totally.
	It's not the bullet.
	It's placement.
	It's what the bullet does.
	That's the important thing.
	That's correct.
	And earlier you were talking about separation of the jacket and the core of the bullet, and Corban has the, uh, it's the first time I've ever heard anybody say that Evan Marshall is a hoax.
	I've known him for 20 years or something like that.
	You've known Evan Marshall for 20 years?
	Yes, I think so.
	20, maybe longer.
	And you're saying he's a hoax.
	His data supposedly is a hoax.
	It's a joke.
	He says it's all secret.
	He can't reveal sources.
	I challenged him publicly.
	I said, look, if you think you have data like this, You don't want to show it to me because I'm going to steal your information or whatever.
	Let's agree upon a neutral party, publicly challenging a neutral scientist to review your data.
	See if it's true.
	What is the controversy here?
	Is it velocity versus the argument we're having right now?
	Well, the gentleman is totally correct in stating that velocity is not the only factor.
	But, uh, I mean, there have been years and years and years.
	The 125 grand to my jacket is a hell of a point.
	No, no, no, no.
	Excuse me.
	What I'm asking is, what is the controversy between these two gentlemen mentioned?
	Between you, Jason, and the other gentleman?
	Well, the other marshal is, well, there really isn't a controversy.
	I don't know.
	I guess there's still people who believe in that stuff.
	But he says that he went around and wrote down and collected data on shootings and situations where someone fell over immediately.
	After being shot and other times when I didn't.
	The most effective bullets are the ones that make people fall over.
	People fall over for all sorts of reasons.
	People faint when a gun is pointed at them.
	They faint when they're shot at and missed.
	There's a wide variety of reactions to being shot.
	It depends on all sorts of things.
	Attributing it to the bullet and the velocity of the bullet is complete nonsense.
	So not only is it nonsense to begin with, His supposed data is completely fraudulent.
	It's all made up.
	I don't have time to really explain it to you, but that's my opinion.
	In your judgment about a specific handgun load and its ability to deliver the wanted effect, of course, stopping power, what do you base your data on?
	Or what's the data that you base your statement on?
	Oh, I have a lot of data.
	First of all, it's common sense.
	There are no magic effects with bullets.
	What a bullet does is destroys tissue.
	It makes a hole in the body.
	And this is all explained in my tape, Deadly Effects, Wound Ballistics.
	It makes a hole, and when it hits, it destroys that tissue.
	If the tissue is not vital to the body's operational functioning, it doesn't do much in terms of stopping a person immediately.
	If it hits them in the spine or the central nervous system, the person will generally go down immediately.
	That's the important thing.
	Now, there are people who where you shoot at them, you hit them in the pinky or skin
	them like I described, and they'll fly over backwards. But that doesn't mean that
	the bullet had any particular effect.
	It's the reaction to it. And you can't attribute that to velocity. Velocity,
	the only velocity you need a bullet is the minimum amount to penetrate deeply,
	and beyond that it's counterproductive. It gives you more recoil, it does more harm to the gun,
	and it causes the bullet to over distort and come apart, which is not a good idea.
	So your argument is you want mass on target?
	You want bullet placement is the most important thing.
	Placement and penetration.
	The bullet is placed in a vital area and it can penetrate deeply enough to hit like the aorta or the central, the spine, the front, that sort of thing.
	Alright, makes sense.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hi.
	Hello Art.
	Thanks for another great program.
	Sir.
	And Mr. Jason, it's a privilege to talk to you.
	Oh, thank you.
	I've been a firearms instructor for security in Las Vegas for about 14 years.
	I've got a burning question for you.
	I need to preface it real quick.
	We teach our officers that to have a justifiable homicide, you have to have four elements.
	That would be ability, opportunity, manifest intent, and then preclusion.
	I'm sure you're familiar with all those terms.
	We teach our officers that a primary objective in using deadly force is to incapacitate an opponent.
	And my question is, we also train them to use a two-round incapacitation tap.
	What's your take on that?
	The second shot is for insurance.
	Well, first of all, to say, police and your people, you're not trying to kill people.
	If you talk to the police in a shooting, they weren't trying to kill somebody, they were trying to stop him.
	Take away his capacity to do you great bodily injuries.
	Yes, or to a hostage or whatever else.
	So, let's put that aside.
	Now, the reason why you shoot someone is to stop them from doing whatever they're doing or about to do.
	And you should continue to shoot until the person is clearly not able to do what he's trying to do
	and that takes two shots or three shots or five shots or fourteen shots
	that's what you do and that that's the current
	doctrine that's been adopted by i don't know most police departments many of them the fbi
	uh... i don't know lately they used to have that policy
	it used to be that you fire one shot and you wait and see what happens or you fire two shots
	Now, you continue to fire until the person is clearly no longer a threat.
	And that's justified.
	And I've testified in cases where the police have shot people and they say, well, we've shot them five times.
	Isn't that excessive force?
	I don't think so.
	I always have a student ask me, what's that second shot for?
	And what we tell them is that in the heat of combat, if you're going to have to draw and fire quickly, The second shot is to ensure that you get one in where it's supposed to go because the first one may not go where it's supposed to go.
	Sure, but I think you should continue to shoot.
	I'll give you an example.
	A policewoman responded to a dispute at a house and she drove up there and a guy came on the porch and shot her in the chest.
	She had a vest on and the vest stopped the bullet.
	She shot back.
	and waited. She fired twice and waited because she didn't think twice and waited.
	And the guy took the time while she was waiting to raise his gun up and shoot her again.
	We tell them two rounds center mass, then the pelvic girdle, and the last shot.
	Some people are going around saying if you shoot someone in the pelvic girdle,
	the whole body will collapse. If you've ever seen a bone, you shoot through a bone and you're
	hunting an animal, the bone is very resilient, sort of like plasticized.
	It does not fracture and crumble apart like a piece of glass.
	That's complete nonsense.
	You just keep shooting at somebody until they're no longer a threat.
	Generally, that means when they've fallen over.
	And two shots may not be enough.
	I just say you continue to shoot until the person is not doing... We teach them that, but initially the two round tap and then... Alright, so no hard and fast rule.
	Keep shooting until they're down.
	Until they're not doing what they've threatened to do.
	Alright, that certainly makes sense.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Alex.
	Jason, good morning.
	Hi, I'm Paul from Wisconsin.
	Hi, Paul.
	I'm a law enforcement officer here and have been listening to your show.
	I agree with everything you're talking about, Alex.
	Thank you.
	I guess just a comment and maybe a question.
	Two years ago, almost to the day, we were involved in a fatal shooting of a suspect.
	And I guess I just want to say something to the callers as far as the responsibility of owning a weapon.
	We're trained law enforcement and the state of Wisconsin, I think, is thought after as one of the leaders In training.
	And what we've gone through in the last two years, and our civil suit is coming up in March, and this is just the start of it.
	What we as law enforcement officers have gone through in the last two years, and we're trained for this, I think people should prepare themselves for, they're going to be in a confrontation if they do take somebody's life, what they're going to go through after that.
	They're going to be responsible for, even if it's justified, what's going to happen to them.
	That's right.
	You make a good point.
	I see you're very somber about this thing.
	You really know how it works.
	That's what I'm trying to educate people about.
	You're not going to shoot somebody and get carried away on a parade as a hero of the day.
	You may, but you may not.
	Those days are over.
	Right.
	I think the John Wayne mentality.
	I think people think, well, I have a gun.
	Somebody does something to me, I'm going to take them.
	Well, when it's all said and done, you don't feel fantastic about it.
	You go through a lot of mental stress.
	It's not the happy thing.
	Okay, that's a good point.
	Alright, thank you very much.
	I also wanted to mention, if I could mention my phone number again.
	Of course you can.
	Describe your videotapes, if you would, one more time.
	Okay, I've got three basic tapes.
	Firearms and firepower, which shows machine guns and silencers and shooting through engine blocks and windows and all sorts of things is a basic training to show what guns will do and what they won't do.
	One thing I do in there is I let someone shoot me with a .308 rifle while I'm wearing a bulletproof vest and standing on one leg.
	Really?
	To dispel the myth that a bullet will knock you down.
	Bullets do not knock people down.
	Really?
	It's complete nonsense.
	You had a lot of confidence, I take it, in that Well, I knew the best to work.
	I was worried the guy was going to shoot me in the leg or something.
	Anyway, the number to call is 800-762-7233.
	the other, I'll tell you about the other case, but the number of calls is 800-762-7233.
	800-762-7233.
	And that's the deadly weapons case I described.
	I made it about 10 years ago.
	It's still being used all over the world.
	Then, Deadly Effects Wound Ballistics, subtitle is, What Boats Do to Bodies.
	This is a very technical, dry exposition and explanation of what boats do.
	There's a lot of gory or graphic footage for people.
	If you don't like that sort of thing, you shouldn't look at it.
	These are used in medical schools and for police training.
	is done from a scientific point of view and with a lot of anatomical drawings.
	There is a surgeon in there who is the world's expert on this.
	And then they have deadly force, firearms, self-defense and the law, which is what you
	should know if you are going to have a gun for self-defense about when you can use it
	and when you can't.
	And then I have another tape I'll just mention because you have so many law enforcement listeners.
	We have another tape that we don't generally market, but it's called Forensic Firearms
	Evidence.
	and that is for police departments.
	It's a whole training course.
	The tapes I mentioned cost $29.95.
	The other one, Forensic Firearms Evidence, costs $295.00.
	It's a training course with two tapes and a book and an exam.
	A lot of police departments use that for training in terms of how to utilize evidence from shooting incidents for forensic use, what to look for.
	Good.
	Here's somebody who is a martial arts teacher and he asks what he has to do before he gets involved physically with somebody.
	popular is very important thing what i do it using this type of evidence
	so i think we're available to tell you can you call a time eight hundred
	seven six two seven two three three
	good uh... here's somebody who uh... is a marshal arts teacher
	and he asked about what he has to do before he gets involved
	physically with somebody in other words is it true we've always heard that uh...
	your your hands are deadly weapons when you're trained as a martial artist
	No, generally that's just a bunch of bull, really.
	It just matters if your life is threatened.
	Now, if you're fighting, or about to fight, somebody of your own size, and he's unarmed, and you pull a gun out and shoot him, you're going to have to demonstrate to the police, and maybe to a jury, why you felt your life was threatened and try to convince them that they
	would feel the same way if they were in that situation.
	So whether or not you're a karate expert makes you a little bit more difficult to define
	yourself as a helpless victim, but slightly.
	But now let's say you're being attacked by a guy who's a karate expert.
	Well how do you know that he's a karate expert?
	He told you that?
	If you've seen him twist the heads of three other people on his way towards you, you know
	Yes, you could probably get away with that.
	He's threatening my life.
	I really felt the fear of my life.
	Yes.
	If he's just a guy who's gone to a karate stance, no, you can't shoot him.
	All right.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hello.
	Hello there.
	Yeah, hi Art.
	Hello.
	Hi Dave.
	In Sacramento, we're a crime scene clean-up company and advisor to the SID Lab, Piper Tech, Massacre in L.A.
	Question I have concerns the skeletal and skull cap that's often left behind by transport companies at the crime sites itself.
	Some of the coroners are asking us to save this and I wanted to know if there's any kind of sizing that we could determine whether or not we could handle it a different way.
	Boy, I wish I knew what you just said.
	I wish I did too.
	After a transport company takes a body away, and we're cleaning up the site, often behind because of explosion of large, you know, the shotguns or a variety of weapons, there'll be pieces of a head.
	Oh, skull, yeah.
	Yeah, the skull cap.
	The cranium, pieces of the cranium.
	Exactly.
	And we're being told that this can be used in the reconstruction of evidence.
	Oh, absolutely.
	They shouldn't leave that behind, and if you do go across it when you're cleaning up, you should notify the people to come back and pick it up.
	Exactly what we're being told.
	And what I wanted to ask, though, is there a minimum or millimeter type of size that would, you know, exclude things?
	Because sometimes we're finding just pieces of bone and jaws, pieces of jaws.
	But we're not necessarily finding large pieces.
	Yeah, but they can be put together like a jigsaw puzzle.
	Okay, so basically we should keep all that.
	Absolutely.
	Okay, good.
	We'll put that in.
	Now, the other question I have for you is, are they still using Luminol to find previously washed away blood in the back bathroom?
	Well, not just the back bathrooms, but anywhere.
	Luminol is a very effective chemical reagent that you can spray on an area.
	If someone killed somebody and say there was blood on the floor, You can clean that thing up.
	I mean, you can clean it up and use everything on there and mops and rags and everything.
	It'll look completely clean.
	It'll smell clean.
	But if you spray aluminum on there, it will It will glow in the dark if blood has been there.
	We've been warned by the DOJ to wear nitrile gloves when we're cleaning up on the crime sites because of the use of Luminol.
	Well, not because we use Luminol.
	Luminol's not the big problem, but just because of biohazards.
	Well, we use the biohazard material on the gloves, but what I'm trying to get at, too, is that they're telling us that there's a reaction, and any kind of reaction from even fingerprint powder Well, everything is carcinogenic now, and the state of California got sued about it, so they're really crazy about it, but you better talk to somebody who knows more about that than I do as far as the health hazards.
	All right, Alex, you said you're frequently up until three, so how about one more hour?
	Okay.
	All right, one more hour it is.
	My guest is Alex Jason.
	He's in the Bay Area, and he'll be back.
	One more hour of this expert I guess that's what you'd call it.
	I don't know about that last call.
	Yeah, call him back.
	Come back here and get this head.
	This part of this head.
	Yuck.
	Not my kind of work.
	Ladies and gentlemen, stay right where you are.
	It keeps coming from the high desert.
	I'm Mark Bell.
	I'm a lawyer.
	Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired February 3rd, 1997.
	It absolutely is good morning.
	A riveting program.
	Alexander Jason is my guest and he is an expert, a certified senior crime scene analyst, was
	an investigator, police officer in San Francisco, qualified expert witness, has a background
	that would take me the next ten minutes to read.
	And we're talking about the use of deadly force, when you can, when you can't, and attendant
	issues.
	Well alright, um...
	Alex, here I've got a couple of faxes I want to read.
	Alright.
	Alright, Alex stated that using deadly force against your wife's ex-boyfriend was a different matter.
	My question is as follows.
	My wife-to-be's ex came to the house and just walked in.
	I didn't know him at the time.
	She was asleep on the couch.
	Now, if I would have had a gun and I had shot him, would I have gone to jail for murder?
	I don't know to give you a specific answer to that specific question.
	It depends on your state laws about that sort of thing.
	But what I was saying was, if an intruder comes into your house, who's perceived to be a criminal, and has criminal intent to burglarize your house or rob you or kill you, that's one thing.
	If it's your ex-wife, ex-boyfriend, whoever it was.
	It's going to look like they're going to look to make sure this is not some kind of a jealousy dispute or a three-way triangle kind of thing.
	So it's going to be looked at very differently.
	So that's what I meant.
	If it's a clean situation in terms of you're minding your own business, you're at home, someone breaks into your house, has no right to be there for criminal intent, that will be much easier to explain to the police and have them accept than if it's someone who's related to you.
	So if you shot that person, there'd be...
	You'd be going downtown for a discussion.
	Alright, well, what about the classic?
	You come home, you walk in the house, and there's your wife with another man in bed.
	And you pull out a gun and shoot him.
	No, you can't do that.
	You can't do that?
	Because the reason, if someone asked you, well, why did you shoot him?
	You say, well, I'm not going to let anybody do that to my wife.
	Well, that's not a legal justification.
	You have to have someone's life in danger.
	Suppose you were saying, suppose you said, well, I thought she was being raped.
	Well, you know, good luck.
	Good luck.
	I mean, if you can convince the police of that, and then perhaps the DA, and perhaps a jury, then, you know, fine.
	It probably happened.
	That would be certainly a better line than, I was jealous and angry.
	Yeah, I'm just mad at that guy.
	All right, here's another one.
	Besides the Kennedy assassination, and you're right, it's religion, we'll leave it alone, and this one comes close to being religion as well, but it's forensics, and it's interesting, and it's Vince Foster.
	Oh, I don't really know, to tell you the truth.
	People ask me about that, but I've never got into it, because, see, when I have to give an answer to these kind of questions, I have to really research it.
	And, like, I found an old Army buddy of mine, I think years ago, and he's a jfk not to give me a couple of dollars questions because i
	don't have time i just can't give you the answer i could do a whole research
	project to to answer these questions specifically so
	a very cautious about what i will comment upon what i really know the
	case of the foster i don't know i just i haven't dealt with the right that not
	work to do i need to do that
	involved but my parents and just in case but i don't know uh... art every time a gun is fired
	we evolved less as a culture Guns are reactive measures against something.
	In other words, revolution even with only faith, not in a religious sense, as my only measure against evil in society.
	So, he's against guns, sort of as a religion, saying that we evolve or devolve every time a gun is fired.
	How do you react to that kind of argument?
	That's a real philosophical... It is, yes, it is.
	I would just say I respect your right to feel that way, but I hope you'll respect my right to feel the way that I do, that I would like to have protection at certain times to use a gun or other instruments to protect myself if I don't threaten other innocent people.
	Okay, here's another good one.
	We've been talking about guns, but suppose you've got a really mean junkyard kind of dog out in your fenced yard.
	Somebody jumps your fence, and your big mean dog Uh, rips out his juggler vein, and he's dead in your yard.
	Now what?
	Well, the question is, did you order the dog to kill him?
	No.
	He just did it?
	Yeah.
	There's not a question there.
	If you're not involved, then it might be a question of whether you have a hazardous dog or not, but you're getting into real specific legal things that I'm not really qualified to answer these kind of questions.
	A lawyer should answer them, but I'll just tell you my general opinion is that if someone jumps into your yard where the dog is, then that's You're not going to have a problem with it.
	Generally tough luck, huh?
	If the dog is running around the street and does that, then I think you'd have a harder time.
	All right.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hi.
	Yes, good evening.
	My name is John.
	I'm calling from Montana.
	Yes, sir.
	I have a couple of comments and a couple of questions regarding the gentleman that put the bulletproof vest on.
	Yep.
	How do you feel about my shooter .264 Magnum?
	Do you think a bulletproof vest would stop that round?
	Well, sure, if it was the right vest.
	I mean, shooting 110 grain bullets at my muzzle velocity?
	Well, I'm saying that you can make a vest that will stop anything.
	It might be a 200 pound vest for a certain amount of weight.
	It would be impractical.
	So there are vests and there are vests.
	Now, the vests that stop rifle bullets have to have, by current technology, steel or ceramic in them.
	They can't be the Kevlar polyamide type fibers alone.
	They have to have something more than that.
	But for handgun bullets, you can generally stop almost all handgun bullets, the normal handgun bullets, with fabric.
	Being a big game hunter, a lot of people say, you need the big bullet.
	My Magnum, in that little bullet, I kill elk regular.
	I have no problem.
	My other common is with handguns and the shotgun.
	I think Art is kind of partial to the shotgun, and I am as well.
	I have no use for handguns, and that probably upsets a lot of people.
	I think they hurt people.
	I mean, myself, for my home security, I'll take my 10-gauge double-barrel, we'll call it short-barrel and not sawed-off, because sawed-off is not legal, four-and-a-quarter-inch buckshot.
	I mean, you don't have to aim it.
	All you have to do is point.
	It shoots through walls.
	Well, that could be Azure, too, Kenneth, if you're shooting through walls.
	Could be somebody, a good person on the other side, one of your family members or something?
	I'm not against witches, I'm fine, but if you like that gun, that's a hell of a gun, but I hope you don't deny me the right to have a .22 if that's what I want.
	So, the fact of the matter is, I believe the .22 is the weapon of choice for professional assassins.
	Is that true or a myth?
	It's generally a myth, in that There are very few professional assassins, so it's really hard to say what they get trained on in school, or their equipment load, because there are so few.
	The .22 was effective for that sort of thing, because you could make it subsonic.
	A silencer is not really effective on a weapon unless it's a subsonic round.
	The bullet itself goes less, the velocity is less than the speed of sound, otherwise it makes a sonic crack.
	So for that reason you could take a .22, and a .22 would also be very small.
	And for an assassin, you could get it by close to somebody, so you don't really need a big bullet if you're going to have proper placement right in the head.
	So it can work, but it's not really like anybody shot in the head with a .22 has to have been assassinated.
	All right.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Alex Jason in San Francisco.
	Hi, where are you?
	Yes, good morning.
	I'm Pat from L.A.
	Yes, sir.
	Two quick comments and a question.
	In Texas, I understand that if you kill a man in discommitting adultery with your wife, You're allowed to kill him?
	And that's a law?
	Well, I don't know.
	That's a Texas law.
	I doubt if it is.
	If it is now, maybe it was.
	But I don't know.
	I've heard of people actually getting off within recent years on that.
	That's just my comment.
	Another comment.
	Kennedy's destination.
	I saw a film that showed the driver with his left hand have a gun over his right shoulder.
	Oh, here we go.
	I didn't know.
	Yeah, I know.
	I've seen it.
	Everybody's seen it.
	Oh, okay.
	The glint.
	They say it's a weapon.
	I saw nothing more than a glint.
	Yeah, I didn't see the weapon.
	Okay, now, I saw the weapon.
	I admit it's the part that I saw, but that's okay.
	I didn't know you guys had seen that.
	My main question is, I'm too afraid to have a gun in my vehicle, and I carry a BB gun, CO2, 60 shot.
	What kind of trouble am I letting myself in with the police?
	Misunderstandings and things like that.
	Well, the problem is, what do you carry it for?
	For what purpose?
	Oh, I'm sorry, he's gone.
	Well, if he carries it to use to hold up to, like if someone's coming at him, he could just scare him with the BB gun because it looks like a real gun.
	Yeah.
	That has some good points and some bad points.
	What it does is if someone sees that and perceives it as a real gun, which could easily be done, Then they're justifying using deadly force against that person with a BB gun because they think it's a real gun.
	Then you can't defend yourself, so it's kind of a bad idea.
	So if you're going to have a gun, you ought to have a real gun?
	Well, maybe, or no gun.
	I don't know.
	If the police don't like this stuff, and often, I know in San Francisco, for example, it's illegal to have a BB gun.
	It is?
	It's illegal to have a BB gun to possess one.
	Not shoot one, but to possess one.
	It's illegal to possess a BB gun?
	In the city of San Francisco, it's illegal to, unless they change the law, which I doubt, it's illegal to own Possessed, or having your drawer, or anywhere else, a BB gun.
	Oh, my.
	Why have you chosen San Francisco, I'm curious, as a place to live?
	You get down to the nitty-gritty, don't you?
	I'm trying to save it.
	You're trying to save San Francisco?
	Yes, sir.
	You really do like big projects, don't you?
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hello.
	Yes, sir.
	Enjoying your show as usual.
	This is Rick from Plattsburgh.
	Glassberg, New York?
	Yes, I am.
	All right.
	I have, first, a favor, a couple quick comments, and then a question.
	The favor is, I lost your feed at 5 o'clock, so if you could keep me on so I could hear his answer.
	All right.
	The comment I wanted to make is, you had a lot of law enforcement people call and, you know, telling about their experience, that they're all trained and everything.
	The reality of this situation is this.
	I live in a very small community.
	Four years ago, I was burglarized.
	House was trashed.
	Possessions stolen.
	I don't care about possessions.
	They can be replaced.
	Luckily, we were not home.
	Two years ago, there was a very brutal rape and murder two miles from my home.
	It was so vicious, the guy actually tortured this young mother for hours before he finally murdered her.
	I have a petite wife and a young daughter at home.
	I own a handgun.
	It's right next to my bed.
	I have gone over the scenario of what I would do in a situation if someone were to break into my house and threaten us.
	This is the reality of the situation for all those people out there that don't think that we should own handguns.
	I'm in my home, and the scenario is this.
	Someone comes in my house.
	They turn at the bottom of my stairs, and I'm up in time enough to see them turn at the bottom of my stairs.
	That's about 20 feet.
	I can say to them, Halt, I have a gun.
	Don't come any further or I can shoot.
	I would have enough time to do that.
	If, on the other hand, I'm at the top of my stairs, and the guy is halfway up the stairs, the reality of it is, I'm thinking of my young daughter, and I'm thinking of my wife, and I'm thinking if he gets by me, They can't.
	They're helpless.
	He's going down.
	That's a reasonable expectation, generally, and you should check your local laws, but I want to tell you how in a minute, but you generally don't have to wait until the guy's on top of you or anything like that, in your house, but you might check your local, I don't know what New York State laws are, but if you're in your home and someone's coming in there with criminal intent, either to burglarize a home or to kill somebody, you don't have a problem with that.
	The reality is, is that I'm not going to be thinking, gee, does he have a weapon in his hand?
	Does he mean to hurt us?
	Is he bigger than I am?
	Is he going to kick my butt?
	No, you don't have to worry about that.
	I'm thinking, he's not getting to my wife and daughter.
	No, you're right.
	In your home, you don't have to go through all that stuff.
	Anybody in your home, I would suggest that you do as you said, challenge the person first.
	If there's a guy next door looking for his baseball or something, challenge him.
	And then, if these guys are coming at you, I wouldn't hesitate, but this is my opinion,
	not a lot of water.
	Well, I think, you know, all these law enforcement agents are saying, you know, well, we're trained,
	you know, to make sure they've got a way.
	I just want people to realize, you're not thinking about that.
	That's the last thing in your mind.
	I'm not going to ask the guy, gee, are you just here to steal the family jewels?
	Or do you mean to hurt us?
	In your home, it's a different story.
	You're justified, generally, in doing something like that.
	Let me explain something.
	There's jury instructions, and every state has them.
	If you find them in the library, you can look this kind of stuff up.
	They're very specific.
	Yeah, you were going to read one, as a matter of fact.
	Here's one.
	This is just one.
	They're written in human English terms.
	You don't have to be a lawyer to understand this stuff.
	The judge would read to the jury.
	It is titled, resisting an intruder upon one's property.
	That's the title.
	Now this is California.
	This is only California.
	It says, a person may defend his home or habitation against anyone who manifestly intends or endeavors in a violent or riotous manner to enter that home or habitation and who appears to intend violence to any person in the house.
	The amount of force which the person may use in resisting such trespass is limited by what would appear to a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances necessary to resist the violent or unlawful entry.
	He is not bound to retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made.
	he may resist force with force increasing in proportion to the intruders
	persistence and violence is the circumstances which are apparent to the
	homeowner are such as would
	excite similar fears and a similar belief in a reasonable person
	and that means that if you are afraid you have that fear
	whether it's true or not but if somebody else in that position would have also
	perceived the situation the way you have
	that's what the jury has to decide. Now you can find these jury instructions in the
	law library. You look them up. The tape discusses this.
	And that will give you specifics about this stuff. It is very difficult to get
	If you call the police department, they're not going to tell you this stuff, because they think you're maybe some kind of nut that's going to kill your wife and then say that Officer Jones said it was okay.
	If you ask a lawyer friend of yours, he probably doesn't know about this stuff.
	He's probably doing wills and business law and other things.
	It's a very specific area.
	And if you ask the guy at the gun store, he's going to give you wrong information.
	So the best thing you can do is to get the jury instructions for your state, or if I might say, get my tape.
	By the way, they called me, the people who take the orders, and they said, please don't ask the people who answer the phone.
	They just take the orders.
	They don't know anything about the guns or the law or anything.
	If you want to buy the papers, there are 800-762-7233.
	My bio tape is 800-762-7233.
	800-762-7233.
	You can call or give the address if you want to send in for a check or if you want more
	information or something, they'll help you there.
	Yeah, they're probably asking the poor operators about specific situations, and they're probably going, I'm sorry, I couldn't begin to advise you.
	That's right.
	They'll say, well, I have a 22 or something.
	They just take orders.
	They don't know anything.
	All right.
	Wes of the Rockies, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Good morning.
	Spoke Ron in Spokane?
	Yes, sir.
	Yeah, actually, I was going to plug his tape.
	I actually saw it ten years ago, and nobody's called, and I know you're They're kind of pushing this tape.
	I've seen this tape.
	The Dudley Weapons tape.
	Right.
	And it was beautiful.
	It was excellent.
	I loved it.
	In fact, I was about 18.
	No, I was 20 years old when I saw it.
	I'm 30 now.
	And I have reflected back on it many times.
	Is this the tape where at the end you actually do shoot the engine block with a 60 caliber Well, we shoot a car with a 50-caliber machine gun.
	50-caliber machine gun, it does go through the block, actually.
	It's a 50-caliber power-piercing incendiary bullet.
	Right, it shot through the seat.
	Okay, that was an excellent tape.
	You actually shot through some clay blocks, through some brush, and showed tumbling of bullets, right?
	Yes, yes.
	Excellent tape.
	Thank you very much.
	Any listeners, buy this tape.
	I've got to say, I'm getting similar messages.
	People saying, gosh, you know, I just realized who this guy is.
	And I've seen the tape, and it really is incredible, so I'm getting a lot of comments like that.
	Yeah, it's a great day, but I have actually a few questions.
	Okay.
	I've been in a few precarious situations here recently as of Christmas time in Seattle.
	I live in Spokane, and I had a gentleman jump in the front seat of my car at a gas station.
	I'll tell you what, hold that thought.
	Okay.
	Let us finish after the break.
	stay right where you are both of you you're listening to art bells somewhere in time
	featuring a replay of coast to coast a m from february third nineteen ninety
	seven the
	the the
	the the
	And I'm trying to come Here but now they're gone
	Seasons don't feel the reaper Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain
	We could meet like they are Come on baby
	Don't feel the reaper Baby take my hand
	Don't feel the reaper We'll be able to fly
	Don't feel the reaper Baby I'm your man
	La la la la la La la la la la
	La la la la la La la la la la
	La la la la la you
	you You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight, featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from February 3rd, 1997.
	It is indeed.
	In a moment, we will randomly dip into the awaiting gene pool and see what's out there.
	From the high desert, talk radio all the evening long.
	stay right there alright uh... back we go to alex jason my guest and uh...
	Koller, I'm sorry to hold you over, but, you know, the clock and all that, so go ahead.
	Sorry, there?
	Yes.
	There we are.
	Well, what we had going on, I had this gentleman get in the front seat of my car, uninvited, and a good lesson to be learned here, always lock your doors, but nevertheless, he had jumped in and he wouldn't get out.
	He wanted to ride, but actually he wanted more than that.
	He wanted some money.
	After I told him to get out of the car, he wouldn't.
	It came down to give him some money and he'd leave.
	Basically, I just couldn't get him out of the car.
	What I did was I just drove right to a police officer, hopped out, walked up to him and told him the situation and they arrested him.
	They couldn't hold him.
	It was a real funny thing because he didn't pull a weapon out on me or anything.
	He gave me three choices.
	He told me either give me some money or you call somebody who can get some money.
	and he didn't give me the third choice and i'm thinking well it was obviously to me bodily
	harm and what i'm getting at is is there
	critical use of it is people's perception of their life being in danger
	different to different people i mean i'm working on that
	no no that's a very good point I can imagine he would perceive his life was in danger if he didn't comply in one way or the other.
	But here's the bottom line on it now.
	How the police would look at it is this.
	Let's say, so you went through this whole thing and then you, meanwhile, got the gun up under your seat and just shot him.
	And they would say, well, wait a minute, the guy who didn't threaten you, he may have said the choice number three, but there was no imminent threat.
	Now, if he just jumped in the car and you pulled your gun and shot him, you still have a better case than if you had this chat with him about what he wants and so on.
	Because then the assumption would be he's jumping in the car, he's going to rob you, he's going to get you.
	What the police are looking for is an understanding that there was a threat to bodily harm or a crime that's being committed, a serious crime, one of those serious crimes.
	Rape, robbery, murder, that sort of thing.
	He was intending to do that.
	So, it's an odd situation.
	So if you said, well the guy told me this, and he told me that, and then he said I had three choices, and he didn't name the third one, so I figured that was a bodily harm, so I just took my gun and I shot him.
	I don't know.
	You know, the people who take a close look at that.
	Now, if they don't look up, they're like, what's the press saying about this?
	Poor, innocent hitchhiker killed by a savage, white racist?
	How is this portrayed?
	And that would make a big difference.
	So, in that situation, you did the right thing.
	Alright, a question for you.
	General question.
	Alex, do we have a fair justice system?
	In your opinion, I know it's a very general question, but is it fair?
	I mean, the perception is, if you've got money, if you're accused of a crime, you can get the right experts, maybe people like you, the right attorneys, dream teams, that sort of thing, your chances of walking are much better.
	Is that fair, or just the way it is?
	Well, that's a good question, Art.
	You know, I'm a forensic guy.
	This is a philosophical thing, or political.
	I see a lot of things that aren't fair, I'll tell you that.
	But if you say, okay, how are you going to fix this?
	What do you want to do?
	You're in charge.
	I'm not sure.
	I know one thing I do is in civil matters, make the loser pay.
	That would help things quite a bit.
	But in the criminal things where you say, if you have a dream team, you're much better off than the guy who's got the public defender.
	It's true.
	It's true.
	But I don't know what to do about it.
	I'm not saying that nothing should be done.
	I'm just not the guy to ask.
	I don't have all the answers.
	I've got you and I appreciate that too.
	First time color line, you are on the air with Alex Jason Heintz.
	Hi, this is Roger in Clear Lake, California.
	Yes, sir.
	I wanted to know if you could give me a little more information about both the BBs being illegal, BB guns, and also what about the guard dogs and attack dogs on your property and how they would be used in the situations he's talking about.
	Alright, well we just covered that one.
	Well, one thing about guard dogs, I know there was a case where somebody, I think they murdered Well, he was convicted of murdering his wife by ordering his dog to attack the wife, and he killed her.
	Pit bull, I think.
	And he was convicted of murder.
	So any instrument you use, you know, if you tell a two-year-old, if you could train a two-year-old or a three-year-old, go over there and stick this into mommy or whatever, I mean, you can commit murder, not the child.
	It wouldn't be convicted of murder, but you would.
	So by any instrument, by any method, that's illegal.
	Now, if someone's attacking you and you order a dog to attack them, yeah, that's okay.
	A dog is not generally considered deadly force, but I don't think it's really been defined.
	I know I had a case once where we had to use some dogs, and I got this guy I knew at the San Francisco Police Department who was a dog expert.
	I said, you know, if I take the dog out of somebody, am I shooting somebody, or what is it?
	We had a big discussion about it.
	Alright, here's a question I'd like to ask you, which you're free not to answer, Alex, but somebody with your depth of knowledge of crime scenes, Ballistics, all the rest of it.
	If you wanted to commit a murder and not be caught, could you?
	You have to be able to control all the variables, and that's very difficult.
	To say that I'm going to control everything, that no one will see what I do, no one will know what I do.
	It is possible, and it probably happens more often than we know.
	I've got a lot of cases, a lot of cases I'm given that they want to know if it's a suicide or a murder.
	It's very difficult to tell.
	A lot of times I tell them, look you can't tell.
	It's consistent with either one.
	Especially where you have the husband says that he came in and the wife is going to commit suicide.
	She had the gun to her head and he reached over and he grabbed the gun and tried to pull it away from her and she fired it.
	So you have both hands in close proximity to the gun.
	You have gunshot residue perhaps on both hands.
	You just can't tell.
	So sometimes that happens.
	I'm sure it does.
	Could I plan one?
	Oh, gosh, I have to wear a decontamination suit.
	I mean, you wouldn't believe it.
	Boy, you saw some of the stuff from the OJ trials.
	Sure.
	The depth of forensic science now, when they really go to town and collect everything properly and analyze it properly, you have a hard time getting away with something.
	Awful lot of difference then.
	Awful lot of difference between now and 100 years ago.
	Or even 15 years ago, 10 years ago.
	I mean, good grief.
	Look at this.
	Amazing.
	It is amazing.
	You're right.
	What's for the Rockies?
	You're on the air with Alex Jason in San Francisco.
	Hello.
	Hi, um, Art, um, you've had a lot of questions and things about, um, guns and things.
	What about, um, okay, using the pepper spray stuff, um, is that considered, uh, um, a weapon, or what is it?
	Well, it's not deadly force, but what, what is it, Alex?
	Well, each state, I think, defines it, and, um, I think in California, just talking about making it a felony to, um, To use it inappropriately.
	I forget how they define that, but you have to check on your own state.
	It's not deadly force, and you can use that even if you're not in fear of your life.
	But you have to check your local laws about that.
	Okay, and I have one more question.
	Okay.
	What do you know about UFOs?
	I don't know anything about them.
	Don't shoot at them.
	Ease to the Rockies.
	You're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello, how are you tonight?
	Oh, fine.
	This is Tim in Orlando.
	Yes, hi Tim.
	I'm losing in Charlotte, and I can't quite pick you up in Chicago anymore, but I'd sure like to hear the answer.
	Earlier tonight he was talking about velocities, or somebody was calling and talking about velocity ballistics and such, and as a former medic and also as a former Army officer, I know a little bit about that.
	It seems that if you look back at the Army, there was a change in philosophy in warfare just before the Vietnam War, and early on they used to use You know, 45s, 30-06, those type of rounds, and generally the idea was to kill people.
	And then, with Vietnam, you came out with high-velocity, low-mass ballistics, and generally they maimed.
	And that was the idea, because then it takes that guy out, plus somebody else to carry him away.
	Exactly.
	Massive resources to put him in the hospital and treat him.
	Really, a .45 generally, when it hits, it penetrates and knocks the person down.
	Well, it doesn't knock them down, that's a myth, but it does penetrate very deeply.
	Yeah, indeed it does.
	Indeed it does.
	In fact, working in emergency rooms, we see wounds from .22s, and .22s are really an odd weapon, ballistic.
	I've seen them hit the skin and hit a rib and travel all the way around to the other side and come back out without doing much damage.
	I've seen another variance in .22s that makes them so odd.
	Yeah, you get a little more spin on the bullet with a rifle and it tends to penetrate a little better.
	Another thing too is if it hits the chest it gets inside there and bounces all around and tears things up pretty good too.
	You get a little more spin on the bullet with a rifle and it tends to penetrate a little
	better.
	Another thing too is if it hits the chest it gets inside there and bounces all around
	and tears things up pretty good too.
	So it just all depends on the velocity and the amount of mass of the bullet.
	Well not only the velocity, it's what the bullet hits.
	If it hits something important you've got problems.
	If it doesn't, you don't as much.
	So that's really the key thing.
	But it's not velocity alone, I have a picture I use in my talks where I show a foot.
	A naked foot of someone who's been shot through the foot along the plane of the sole of the
	foot.
	Under the heel, just about the sole of the foot, came out just before the toe.
	So it just went under the skin and came out.
	And I show it to people and say, what, what, what, what, what do you think that did this?
	What kind of a weapon?
	What kind of bullet?
	And you're all kind of asking this, but it's an M16.
	Because an M16 does no more damage than a .22 caliber bullet, slightly more.
	But nothing significant.
	If it doesn't yaw.
	But this is, I guess, a time maybe for another program or something about how bullets work and what they do.
	Uh, the velocity of an M-16 is much higher than the 22.
	The velocity of an M-16 is like 3,200, 3,100 feet per second, and a 22 is like typically 1,100, maybe 1,200, 1,300 feet per second.
	But the effect is not very different if the bullet doesn't yaw.
	I'm sorry, I'm getting too technical here, but anyway.
	Alright.
	Velocity is not the thing.
	Placement.
	What the bullet hits is important.
	Alright.
	Uh, wildcard line, you're on the air with Alex.
	Jason, good morning.
	Good morning.
	Where are you, sir?
	Excellent.
	Roseburg.
	Excellent Roseburg.
	Alright.
	There's one thing that Alex hasn't mentioned.
	Alright.
	And this I feel is fundamental.
	By the way, he's been excellent all night.
	He's got a great guest on tonight.
	But here's the one thing he hasn't mentioned.
	As he has stated, the one thing in self-defense that you don't want to have to do is shoot anyone.
	And the best way to avoid that is to use guns with a large hole.
	In other words, if you're using a pistol to defend yourself, use a .45.
	Because when someone sees that big hole, they know that you mean what you're gonna say.
	And when you're using, above all else, a shotgun, anytime a woman points a 12-gauge shotgun at someone, he's gonna jump out the window, down the stairs.
	Oh yeah.
	He is not gonna face it.
	And if he does, You better shoot him immediately, because he's got to be crazy!
	Well, that's a good point, Eric.
	That's another small thing in your favor, but yeah, sure, you could make sense.
	Big holes are good.
	Big holes are better than small holes, as you generally know.
	West of the Rockies.
	No, you would have been on there.
	East of the Rockies.
	Nope.
	Wild card line.
	First time caller line.
	Cut, I'll get it straight.
	You're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hello.
	Yes, this is Eric in Phoenix, Arizona.
	Hi there.
	Just a couple of quick points to make, and then I'll let you take over.
	The first is, if you do have to use deadly force, whether it be in the home or out in the street, the person's down on the ground, should you continue to cover the person with your weapon?
	And if so, what do you do when the police arrive?
	Yeah, that is a very good point.
	If you, let's say someone is armed, has a gun, and you shoot him, and now he's down on the ground, you have to consider him still a threat.
	You don't know if he's dead, or if he just ducked down, or he's laying on the ground, or he's actually shot.
	Not like in the movies, where you see someone shot in the movies, and their blood flies out in front, where the entry wound is.
	It's not like that at all.
	Most wounds are not visible.
	When you shoot somebody, the skin will contract around the wound, and it's much smaller than the diameter of the bullet.
	And if you have clothing on, especially dark clothing, you don't even know if you shot the guy.
	And they're not going to fall over backwards.
	That's all a myth.
	They might, but that's a reaction to being shot out of fear, but the bullet doesn't do that.
	So you generally don't know if you shot someone.
	If they fall down, look at what they're doing with their hands.
	If the gun is now disconnected and the gun's falling away from the body, Keep your gun on him.
	And if he starts to move towards the gun, you can shoot him again.
	Probably.
	So when we, in a movie, when we see somebody shot, and they literally fly across the room, that's generally baloney?
	Well, it's not generally baloney.
	It's always baloney.
	And even with a 12-day shotgun, if you think about the very fundamental physics, that the recoil cannot be greater than the impact of the bullet.
	Or the impact of the bullet cannot be greater than the recoil, which means The opposite.
	If the bullet would knock a man down, it would knock down the man firing the gun.
	Do you know how many movies you're going to ruin for me now?
	I mean, I have seen people blown from one side of the room through a window and then fall about a hundred stories.
	I know, and that's why I've made that tape where I stand on one leg and get shot with a bulletproof vest to show that a bullet doesn't do that.
	It's just that if someone comes up behind you and sticks you in the rear with a pin, you might jump two feet in the air.
	That's not the force of the pin or the metal or the angle, the velocity of it, it's just your reaction.
	I bet you have not had a lot of consultant jobs in Hollywood, have you?
	Well, actually they do.
	They call me once in a while, but they don't really want accuracy.
	They want, you know, other things.
	They want fun stuff.
	They're not interested in doing things.
	You know, if you saw someone shot in a movie the way it really is, where a guy stands there and he gets shot and he goes, ugh, ugh, and there's no dramatic impact.
	No, you're absolutely right.
	But you've still ruined the movies.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Alex Jason.
	Hi.
	Hi, this is Tina at North Pole.
	At North Pole, Alaska?
	Yes, sir.
	All right.
	I'd like to say that the situation for women is a little bit different in some of the scenarios that you've mentioned.
	In other words, a man jumping into my car and I'm alone with my children, I would be more justified in shooting him.
	Well, you would.
	You're absolutely right.
	But just bear in mind, the law makes no distinction.
	It doesn't say, well, women, however, can do this and men, however, can only do that.
	Legally, we have equality.
	It doesn't mention any difference in gender.
	The law technically is the same.
	However, when police get there, they're going to evaluate the situation and see you as a little baby in a baby seat.
	They're going to be much more sympathetic.
	It's just common sense.
	They're going to give you a lot more latitude.
	You're right.
	But I'm just trying to tell people the basics to keep them out of trouble.
	Then you can go from there.
	I have a question.
	If I'm walking out of a grocery store and I'm heading to my car.
	A man is charging at me and I don't see a weapon but I feel that he's going to attack me.
	Am I justified in shooting him?
	Oh yeah, I'm good.
	You know what happens is...
	If my husband is 5'9 and weighs 195 pounds, and this man is, let's say, 5'8 and weighs
	150 pounds, he may not be justified, but I may be.
	He may be, but here's the question that they want answered.
	Why did you shoot the guy?
	That's the key thing.
	How you respond to that question is going to make a difference whether you're justified or not.
	What happens is, if you find out who this guy is, if he's the mayor's son, or if he's the guy who was chasing a basketball and you misinterpreted what he was doing, or if he's a crazed maniac from a mental institution who just got out and he's got a big machete, then that's something else.
	They're going to take a hard look at what happened here.
	Why did you shoot him?
	Why did you think you had to?
	Maybe you did have to, but they want to know that, so you have to be able to discuss that.
	Okay.
	Alright, well, she's going to say, I thought he was going to grab me, jump me, whatever.
	Okay, then they're going to look at him, and let's say if he's still alive, they're going to say, what were you doing?
	He said, well, I went to help with the groceries.
	And then you're going to be in big trouble.
	And if he has a record of being a rapist and stuff, that's something else.
	But let's say he's dead.
	They're going to have a real hard look at this.
	A guy in broad daylight comes out and she shoots him.
	And if you say, he didn't say anything to me, you say he was going to kill you, he wanted to rob you or something, you say no, he just came after me.
	They're going to say, why don't you just back up and scream?
	So that's a real touchy area.
	If you can justify it, if you can explain it in terms of another person in a similar situation would feel the way you did.
	Then generally that's justifiable, but that would be a hard one to justify.
	Just on that basis, if it's at night, you're all alone, that sort of thing, that would be more in your favor.
	So it's different at night?
	There's no computer involved.
	This is what humans understand.
	You know that you're more at risk, you're coming out of work, it's at night, you're alone in a dark parking lot and some guy attacks you.
	That would be much different than broad daylight in a shopping center and you're coming out of a supermarket.
	Yeah.
	Alright, well it comes down, Alex, doesn't it, to that reasonable man thing.
	There were all kinds of people that could have helped you, but you shot him?
	Yeah.
	Just because he was coming at you?
	Maybe he tripped and was falling.
	You're going to have to explain that.
	All right.
	Well, it comes down, Alex, doesn't it, to that reasonable man thing, reasonable person.
	That's it.
	The reasonable test.
	The test of reasonableness.
	Would another person, a reasonable person, in the same situation that you found yourself
	in, feel the same way you did?
	That's what they're going to ask the jury.
	That's what the police are going to be thinking.
	That's what the district attorney is going to be thinking.
	Alright, listen, my friend.
	We are out of time.
	You have videotapes.
	They're, I guess, world-renowned, because I'm hearing so much about them.
	If people want them, they can call 800-762-8000.
	7-2-3-3.
	800-762-7233.
	And I'll send you information about it when you can buy it with a credit card or whatever.
	Well, it has been a very illuminating night, to say the least.
	And I appreciate you being here, Alex.
	Well, thank you for the invitation.
	I appreciated your callers.
	Take care, my friend.
	Bye-bye.
	So, thank you all.
	It was another great program.
	And from the high desert, I'm Art Bell.
	Good night, America.
	Good night, Canada.
	Good night, Cosmos.
	All of you out there, wherever you are,

▲