I made the post about the rifle stand that is 600 yards from Trump’s aircraft, pointing out that a 600 yard shot on a moving person is MUCH more difficult to achieve than the 150 yard shot made against Charlie Kirk. I immediately got people coming on here talking about how a 600 yard shot is easy. I stand behind what I said, and I can show evidence as to why I think I am correct. As usual for this blog, I show my work.
Let’s say that our would be assassin is armed with a 300 Win-Mag. Production rifles with a Sub-MOA guarantee are fairly few. Let’s use a Weatherby in the sub $1000 price range. We can use a 180 grain bullet, leaving the barrel at 3,000 fps. With that ammo, our shooter is good enough to make hits in the neighborhood of 1 MOA. That translates to 6 inch groups at 600 yards. We will assume that the shooter and the glass is good enough to perfectly get the best performance from this rifle and ammo combination. We will also assume that his standard deviation in muzzle velocity is +/- 40 fps.
The target is 2.1 MOA, or about 13″, wide (the size of a large man’s A-zone).
Weather at the Palm Beach airport is pretty standard: 83 degF, humidity is 74%, and winds are blowing at 4 mph from over the the shooter’s 2 o’clock. Barometer is 30.02 inches of mercury and steady. There is a slight 0.3 mph and 8 degree random variation in wind.
Let’s type all of that into the calculator, and see what we get. In all, I pushed that button 40 times. Out of 40 pushes, 16 of them hit the target. So a 40% hit rate. I think that we can agree that this is pretty good conditions for a shot like this, good rifle, ammo, weather, shooter, and in this calculator, the target isn’t moving.
Our shooter is going to have to make his hit with the first shot. Assume that the SS detail that Trump has now is the best that the SS has to offer, unlike the Pennsylvania shooting, when he was assigned DHS employees who were working overtime. Counter sniper and counter assault teams are going to do their best to ensure that a second shot doesn’t happen. So he will have to make a first shot count.
That’s a tough shot. Yeah, I know. Some guy is going to come on here and tell me how he is hitting a 2 inch circle at 600 yards while wearing a blindfold, using iron sights and factory ammo. Just like Lee Harvey Oswald made a head shot on a target in a moving limo from 85 yards with a ragged out Carcano (known for its 2 MOA accuracy). Now tell me that your average leftist can do the same.
So who was this evil person that has had their inspirational quote banned? Charlie Kirk.
Why was this done? The Orange County administration has turned a memo from the state Department of Education on its head as their reasoning. The memo speaks about educators not saying hateful things that would make children feel uncomfortable. It was specifically targeted at the pro-murder teachers who were gleefully celebrating Kirk’s murder, and demanding that they conduct themselves in a professional manner. The school district has turned it around, using typical leftist loony logic, and is claiming “since Kirk was a hateful racist, some people are uncomfortable with what he had to say, therefore we can ban anything he ever said.” I will let you read the memo from the state yourself:
It wasn’t enough that the left had to murder Kirk to silence him- they also have to cancel him in death. Need I remind all of you that Orange County is one of Florida’s blue counties?
The left is the party of hate. They hate so many things and work so hard to eliminate them. It’s always the left that loves so much that they have to eliminate.
There are 67 counties in Florida, and 61 of them voted for Trump. The blue counties areGadsen and Leon (Tallahassee) counties in the north, Alachua county (location of University of Florida) in north central Florida, Orange County (Orlando) in central Florida, and Palm Beach and Broward in south Florida.
I think it would be fun to propose and pass a law which states that transgenders, gays, and blacks are not permitted to own guns. The left will fight this tooth and nail. Then we can sit back and watch as the left argues in favor of the Second Amendment.
Within a year, the left will be pushing for a government program that issues guns to people.
Until I looked at satellite pictures of the area, that is. Here is the satellite picture of the area in question. Trump’s plane is circled in blue, the area where the tree stand was found is circled in red:
There isn’t anywhere to hunt in the area. The stand is next to an Army Reserve center and the Palm Beach County jail, and right behind the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Forensics center.
The distance from the tree to Trump’s plane is just under 600 yards. I can’t tell what the exact sight line is, but that’s a fairly long shot. Doable, yes, but the number of people who can make that is much smaller than anything we’ve seen yet. They missed Trump at 100 yards and hit Kirk at 150 yards, but 600 yards is much, much more difficult.
Three masked men are trying to enter your home. They announce through your Ring Doorbell that they are going to enter your home and kill everyone inside. When you don’t open the front door, they kick in the gate to enter the back yard before slashing your screen to enter your porch and pound on the sliding glass door to your lanai. Watch the video, then ask yourself what you would do in this situation:
In Florida, you can use deadly force in your home if you reasonably believe you or another are facing imminent death or serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony is about to happen, and you are lawfully present in your home. Because the statute provides a presumption of reasonableness when an intruder is unlawfully and forcibly entering your home (or attempting to), the law strongly favors the occupant in that scenario.
So the questions that must be answered are:
Is the person attempting to enter your home?
Are you lawfully in your home? (that is, are you breaking any laws, say by dealing drugs?)
Have they threatened to cause serious harm or death, and would a reasonable person believe them?
Is deadly force reasonably necessary to stop them?
Is the threat imminent?
I would say that the answers to 1, 2, and 3 are a definite yes. Question 4 and 5 are a no. After all, jiggling the doorhandle isn’t enough to say the threat was imminent. After all, they are being stopped by a locked door, so deadly force likely won’t be viewed as necessary. Right up until they entered the curtilage of your home Let me take a moment to explain:
Curtilage refers to the immediate area surrounding and associated with your home — the space that is considered part of the home for purposes of privacy and legal protection. Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have described it as the area that harbors the “intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a person’s home and the privacies of life.” That typically includes:
The front porch, back porch, and deck
Driveway and walkways immediately adjoining the home
Fenced yard areas directly around the home
Attached garage or carport
It does not usually include open fields, detached outbuildings far from the house, or unfenced areas that are visible and accessible to the public. Under both Florida criminal law and the Fourth Amendment, curtilage is defined as:
“The area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, which is considered part of the home itself for many legal purposes.” — Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)
Florida courts have consistently held that curtilage is an extension of the home for purposes of:
Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure
Self-defense laws (e.g., the “Castle Doctrine” under § 776.013, Fla. Stat.)
Courts look at several factors to decide whether an area is part of the home’s curtilage:
Proximity — how close the area is to the actual dwelling
Enclosure — whether the area is within a fence, wall, or natural boundary that encloses the home
Use — whether the area is used for domestic purposes (e.g., sitting area, grill, kids’ play space, parking)
Visibility and steps taken to protect privacy — whether the resident has taken measures to shield the area from public view (such as fences or hedges)
(See: United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987); State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995).)
Under Florida Statute § 776.013(1), the “dwelling” includes the building and its curtilage. Florida courts treat screened porches, lanais, or enclosed patios attached to the home as part of the dwelling. (See State v. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). This means:
The castle doctrine protections — the legal presumption that you are in reasonable fear of imminent harm — extend to the immediate area surrounding your home.
If someone unlawfully and forcibly enters your porch, attached garage, or fenced yard, you may be justified in using defensive force, including deadly force, under certain circumstances.
This means you can’t shoot someone for trying to open your door, standing on your porch, or walking up the driveway. Postal workers and Amazon delivery drivers are happy about this. However, if they kick in a fence or forcibly enter through a locked portal, such as slashing a screen, they have crossed over into breaking and entering.
At that moment, under § 776.013(2), Florida law presumes you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, because:
The person has unlawfully and forcibly entered your dwelling’s curtilage.
You are lawfully present.
You are not engaged in criminal activity.
That presumption legally justifies deadly force, unless one of the exceptions in § 776.013(3) applies (for example, if the intruder is a lawful resident, or if you provoked the incident, etc.).
So back to this situation: I don’t breach my perimeter for idiots. I sit safely inside and call the cops. I would be wearing electronic hearing protection and body armor. I would be armed with a long gun that has lots of ammo. Why? Because we carry a handgun if we think we might be in a gunfight. If we think we WILL be in a gunfight, bring a long gun, and bring friends with long guns. My wife would be safely in the closet, also with hearing protection, body armor, and armed.
Once the critters breach my perimeter to enter my rear yard, then enter my second perimeter to enter my back porch, this threat becomes imminent, making both my fear of harm and my use of deadly force reasonable. In a case like this, there would be at least one dead body and perhaps some blood trails for the police to follow when they eventually arrived ten minutes after I called for them.
Florida appellate courts have repeatedly found deadly force justified when:
An intruder broke through a fence or gate and approached the home aggressively. (State v. Giles, 579 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991))
A homeowner shot someone who forced entry onto a porch or patio. (Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))
In such cases, the courts held that fenced yards, porches, and patios are part of the dwelling — the “castle” — so the presumption of reasonable fear applies.
Then my homeowners’ insurance would have to replace the glass in my back door, and pay to clean the gizzards from by rear porch furniture. I might even sue the estates of the decedents for the damages to include mental anguish, if they had any assets I could take.
It’s a great reason to have a fenced yard and a screened in porch with a locked door, even if the lock is flimsy like the ones found on a screen door.
Relevant Cases
State v. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) Martinez shot an intruder who broke through a screened porch attached to his home late at night. The state argued the porch was not part of the “dwelling,” so deadly force was not justified. The court held that the attached, screened porch was part of the dwelling’s curtilage. The homeowner was protected under the castle doctrine. The court reasoned that a porch “integrated with the home’s living space” and enclosed by screens “serves the same privacy and security functions as the interior.”
State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995) A man was shot in a fenced backyard after threatening and attempting to enter the home. The issue was whether the fenced yard counted as the home’s “curtilage.” The Florida Supreme Court held that a fenced backyard was part of the dwelling’s curtilage for self-defense and burglary statutes. The fence “manifested an intent to exclude the public and protect the area as part of the home.”
State v. Giles, 579 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) A homeowner shot a man trying to break into the house after entering the yard aggressively and ignoring commands to leave. The court found that deadly force was justified because the intruder’s actions created a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The “no duty to retreat” principle applied — the homeowner was lawfully in his dwelling.
Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999) A woman shot her abusive husband inside their shared home and was prosecuted for murder. The case helped establish Florida’s “no duty to retreat” inside one’s home rule (before Stand Your Ground). The Florida Supreme Court recognized the castle doctrine as firmly established: you are not required to retreat in your home before using deadly force against an aggressor posing imminent danger.
State v. Hill, 95 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) A man shot someone outside his home during a violent confrontation. The court examined whether the shooter could claim immunity under § 776.032 (the Stand Your Ground immunity statute). The court reaffirmed that § 776.012(2) justifies deadly force when a person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm — even outside the home, if the shooter has a right to be there and is not engaged in a crime.
If the intruder crossed into your yard and made explicit death threats, the standard of “reasonable fear” would almost certainly be satisfied — even if the intruder had not yet crossed the threshold.
The recent court decision striking down Florida’s open carry ban prompted Publix to issue a statement stating that it would not ban individuals who openly carry firearms from its stores. Even though other stores like Aldi issued statements saying that anyone seen open carrying in their stores would be asked to leave, Publix realized that such policies don’t reduce the number of firearms in their establishment, but only cause them to be concealed. Being that the left is all about emotion and not logic, this really pissed off the left.
Publix follows all federal, state and local laws. In any instance where a customer creates a threatening, erratic or dangerous shopping experience — whether they are openly carrying a firearm or not — we will engage local law enforcement to protect our customers and associates.
But that isn’t good enough for the communists at the Times. So they immediately launched an imaginary Q&A, comparing various items against open carry. They compare bringing pets into the store (which is prohibited by health regulations), policies limiting the number of coupons you can redeem each day, and the Publix policy against cakes with any flag that isn’t the US Flag against cakes with the Mexican, Canadian, or the flag they really want- the Fag Flag against the policy of not prohibiting open carry.
They claim that the sight of guns bother some Publix customers, so Publix should ban open carry. Do you know what else bothers some Publix customers? Seeing men wearing dresses pulling their dicks out in the women’s restroom. I would bet that the Times wouldn’t like it if a business banned that.
I can’t wait for newspapers to eventually go the way of the telegram. They are nothing more than leftie propaganda. To quote Thomas Jefferson:
The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth
However, as he rightly points out, newspapers are preferable to tyrannical government:
The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.
However, newspapers have indeed become the propaganda arm of the communists. It is Social Media, and to a lesser extent, blogs that are informing the American public. The days of newspaper editors telling us what to think is long past. That’s why the media’s influence has faded to nearly zero- most people know that it is nothing more than slanted propaganda.
