Government

It Turns Out I Was Wrong

I said yesterday that the AWFLs would drop the attacks on the Lone Standout after discovering he was black. It turns out that I was wrong. They will protect their own even more so than they protect the slaves on their plantation.

They are investigating and attacking the guy. The latest attack includes references to his having a domestic violence restraining order. These DV restraining orders are bullshit that women frequently use as a weapon in divorces or just to get even with a man who has done something they don’t like. I have twice been accused of this by angry ex-girlfriends who were trying to get revenge on me for daring to be their ex:

the law is abused. Here are the disturbing statistics:

25% of all divorces include accusations of domestic violence.
50% of all domestic violence restraining orders are issued without allegations of violence.
70% of domestic violence restraining orders are trivial or false. (PDF warning)
85% of restraining orders are against men

In fact, a New Mexico woman filed a restraining order against David Letterman in 2005, alleging that she was a victim of his domestic abuse. He had never met the woman. She said that he was using secret code words during his television show to threaten her. The judge in the case found her claims to have merit and granted the order, even though it was later overturned.

To me, if there is no accompanying criminal charge for domestic violence, then the entire issue is a woman making things up because she is a mad cow. The way it works, is a woman accuses a man of domestic violence. She is granted an ex parte hearing, where her accusations are all the court hears. If the court agrees that the claim has merit, the DV order is issued. The first hint a man has that one of these has been issued is when the cops show up with the order, which includes suspension of any concealed weapons permits, and an order that he turn his guns into the police within 48 hours.

Then he gets a hearing sometime in the next couple of weeks. He had better bring a lawyer, because she will have one, provided free of charge by the taxpayers. If he loses, the order becomes permanent, and he is now prohibited from owning firearms or ammunition. For life.

Most men don’t fight it because it costs money to hire a lawyer, money they don’t have. They figure they are never going to see her again, so what’s the big deal. Most don’t find out they are prohibited persons until after it is too late.

The law says that women can make an accusation of domestic violence and the court will punish the man by issuing a restraining order without him being allowed to defend himself. He gets a hearing two weeks later, but by that time his guns have been taken and his concealed weapons permit revoked. There is no fee for the woman to do this.

She gets a free lawyer. He does not. When it is discovered that she lied, nothing happens to her. She will not be prosecuted, and cannot be sued or punished in any way.

The Florida State Supreme Court has this to say on the matter:

Unfortunately, the current version of section 784.046 does not seem to permit the trial court to simply dismiss a sworn petition that does not allege facts that fall within the statutory language. Instead, section 784.046(5) requires that “[u]pon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time.” The result is the use of scant judicial resources to conduct unnecessary hearings based on pleadings that could never support the issuance of an injunction. These same hearings often serve only to inflame the parties’ emotions and foster further uncivil behavior. I would encourage the legislature to consider amending the domestic violence and repeat violence statutes to allow judges to dismiss petitions that, on their face, do not contain allegations sufficient to meet the statutory requirements without prejudice to the petitioner refiling a legally sufficient petition if he or she can do so.

Women who lie to use the law as a weapon cannot be punished. From the same decision:

Further, nowhere in section 784.046 is there any provision for an award of sanctions against a petitioner who uses the statutory provisions concerning injunctions as a sword rather than a shield.

The message is loud and clear- you will do what the AWFLs say, as a jury member, you will do whatever they want, or they will destroy your life.

At the end of the day, this is jury tampering. I don’t see how this is any different than a criminal threatening a witness.

Intimidation of a juror in Mass:

Using a juror’s identity or personal information to intimidate, harass, threaten, mislead, or retaliate against the juror (or their family) is a felony under G.L. c. 268, § 13B (intimidation of a juror). This covers both during and after a trial if the intent is to interfere with or punish participation in the proceeding.

Penalty:

  • Up to 10 years in state prison, or
  • Up to 2½ years in a house of correction, and/or
  • Fine of $1,000–$5,000.
  • If the underlying case involved a crime punishable by life imprisonment, the maximum prison term rises to 20 years.

This campaign to dox and harass this guy is nothing short of jury tampering, and is a felony.

By Divemedic, ago

Death Penalty

This case is a prime reason why I oppose the death penalty. Not in theory, but because I don’t trust the government with the power of life and death.

A former state forensic scientist on Tuesday was sentenced to 10 years in state prison after altering more than 1,000 samples in labs that prosecutors say could have disproportionately affected sexual assault victims over many years.

In this particular case, she made the DNA appear to not match, resulting in people who were guilty being able to walk free, but that isn’t going to be the case with every nutball in government service with the power to alter test results. For example:

  • The FBI Lab underwent massive restructuring in the late 1990s following a whistleblower report by Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who exposed flawed scientific testimonies and contamination within the lab.
  • In 2004, former FBI biologist Jacqueline M. Blake pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge for providing false statements in her laboratory reports.
  • A massive 2015 joint review by the FBI and the Innocence Project revealed an even deeper systemic issue: for over two decades before 2000, microscopic hair comparison examiners from the FBI gave flawed, scientifically invalid testimony in over 95% of the trials reviewed, contributing to numerous wrongful convictions across the United States.

It’s a certainty that at least some people have been sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit. If we execute even one innocent person, we are all collectively murderers. I just cannot support that.

By Divemedic, ago

Stolen Valor

I was at work the other day, and a patient told me he had a history of PTSD because he was in 9/11. He is 71 years old, meaning he was in his mid-40s on that day. Making conversation, I asked him how he was there, thinking he may have been in one of the buildings.

Nope, he replied he was a Navy SEAL and was helping search the pile for several weeks. To the best of my knowledge, there were no SEALs doing that work. So I asked a follow up: “What BUD/S class were you in?”

He replied that he was in class 100 with a SEAL named Jim Weber. Then he went on to tell me he was an Electrician’s mate and attended Nuclear Power School in Orlando in 1971.

For some reason, the people who participate in stolen valor always claim to be SEALS or some other badass occupation. No one ever says “I was a cook.”

There are only about 7,000 former (i.e. non-serving) Navy SEALs scattered among our nation’s population of 313+MILLION. That’s approximately one (1) former Navy SEAL for every 45 THOUSAND citizens
You have far greater chance of meeting a former NFL football player than you have of ever encountering a real Navy SEAL. With that said, the FBI estimates that there are 300 SEAL Imposters for every living Navy SEAL.

His claims are bullshit for the following reasons:

  • BUD/S Class 100 graduated in 1979 (Class 102 graduated in May 1979, and Class 101/103 also took place in 1979). If he was in Nuclear Power School in 1971, there is a massive, unexplained 8-year gap before he graduated from BUD/S. While not strictly impossible if someone cross-rated later in their career, it is highly unusual given the strict age cut-offs for SEAL training (usually 28 and under).
  • He entered the Navy around 1970 and was still active duty on September 11, 2001. He was in the Navy for 30 years, and retired as an E6? Under the military’s strict “Up or Out” high-year tenure (HYT) laws, an enlisted sailor cannot remain on active duty for 30 years without reaching the rank of Master Chief Petty Officer (E-9).
  • Navy Nuclear Power school was not in Orlando until 1976. A person who was in the nuclear power pipeline in 1971 would have attended the school in either Bainbridge, Maryland or Mare Island, California.
  • With him being 71 years old now, he would have been 15 or 16 years old when he attended Power School in 1971.

I run into people who claim to have served all the time. One of the worst was this loser named John who was my boss many years ago. He claimed to everyone that he knew that he had been in Vietnam as the door gunner in a Chinook, his helicopter was shot down, and he spent years (I can’t remember how many) as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton. The story of the chopper being shot down was my first clue- he said the pilot was killed, and described reaching over the pilot’s shoulder from his door gunning position and tried to prevent the crash. It seemed far-fetched.

That just didn’t seem likely to me, so I wrote to the POW/MIA association and inquired if a person by his name was ever a POW in Vietnam. The answer was no, he was not.

Stolen valor is a real issue. There are a lot of losers out there who try to steal military coolness for themselves. When people ask me what I did in the military, I either give them the real story (I was an electrician) or I make a joke and tell them I killed over 200 men. When they say, “Wow! Were you like a SEAL or something?” I reply that I was either an aircraft mechanic or a cook. I recently was working with a Lt. Colonel in the reserves (a Doctor) and he instantly laughed when I said cook, and replied with “No shit.”

By Divemedic, ago

Balls of Fire

This post is late because it’s concerning the Lindsay Clancy trial. I wrote and scheduled it before the mistrial was declared. I decided to postpone it so I could do some edits. This is the result.

The Lindsay Clancy case has brought the TikTok Detective bureau out of the shadows. These women, experts in everything from police procedure to medicine, psychology, forensic evidence collection, law, military tactics, and nuclear physics are on the case and have declared Lindsay to be not guilty for reasons ranging from insanity to “her husband did it.”

Of course claims she didn’t do it at all for some reason, including claims that it was her husband are demonstrably false. As evidence, we can take the word of her attorney. No, not the attorney in the current criminal trial, but her attorney from January, where she was the plaintiff in a lawsuit against her doctor. I’m posting a pdf of the notes from the case and the actual complaint filed with the Norfolk, Mass. court (pdf warning).

In that lawsuit, she made the following claim:

and this one, also from her lawsuit:

Keep in mind, she was indicted for killing those children in October 2023, yet waited to file this lawsuit until January of 2026, shortly before her criminal trial. This is part of a claim Lindsay and her attorneys are making, that she was not in control or aware of her actions at the time she killed the children.

For that reason, there is no doubt, zero, that she in fact killed those children.

Killing someone isn’t always illegal, but in those cases, the defense requires admitting to the facts. For example, if I shoot and kill someone who tried to rob me at gunpoint, claiming self defense requires that I admit to shooting and killing the person, but I have an affirmative defense in that self defense is legal. I make the claim of being in reasonable fear for my life. The prosecution then has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting wasn’t in self defense.

The actual controlling Massachusetts rule is the doctrine of criminal responsibility, originating in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case law rather than a statute specifically saying “psychosis.” The foundational case is Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544, 546–547 (1967). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s current 2026 Model Jury Instruction on Criminal Responsibility states:

A person is not criminally responsible for his conduct if he has a mental disease or defect, and, as a result of that mental disease or defect, lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

The evidence never required anyone to believe Lindsay Clancy was well. She clearly was not, as anyone who will kill their children is not mentally well. But being profoundly mentally ill and not being responsible for your actions are not the same thing. The law in this case requires the person making the insanity claim be unaware of the wrongfulness of their actions.

None of the providers who treated Lindsay Clancy diagnosed her with postpartum depression or psychosis. The evidence instead pointed toward a serious mood disorder, with multiple of them diagnosong her as bipolar.

As many who are bipolar do, she resisted that diagnosis, changed providers, often skipping or refusing to take medications. Lindsay was prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications over several months. That does NOT mean she was taking 13 medications simultaneously. The prosecution’s evidence indicated roughly 2–3 at a time. Then there’s the actual pill inventory presented at trial:

  • Zoloft: 30 prescribed — 23 remained
  • Ativan: 30 prescribed — 24 remained
  • Buspirone: 30 prescribed — 28 remained
  • Hydroxyzine: 30 prescribed — 27 remained
  • Buspirone refill: 30 prescribed — ALL 30 remained
  • Trazodone: 30 prescribed — 22½ remained

She hid some of her most disturbing thoughts from the people treating her because she knew it would result in her kids being taken. Above all, people with this condition are well known for resisting treatment, because they “aren’t crazy.”

Lindsay claims through her attorney that she became convinced that her brain was damaged and she would never return to her old self. She was suicidal, but her children were a tether to life, according to her claims.

Then there is the alleged voice. After months of treatment without documented psychosis, Lindsay said she heard a voice telling her to kill the children in the days and minutes before the killings. We are talking about roughly an 18-minute window where a voice commanded she kill her children. She never spoke of this voice before, or mentioned it until after the killings.

Yet during the killings and the hours preceding them, she was capable of purposeful, sequential behavior.

She created the opportunity to be alone with the children. She researched how long her husband’s trip would take and added another errand to extend that time. She killed the children one by one over a 15 minute period. When her husband called during this time, she missed his call and then made the decision to call him back. In the middle of a psychotic break so profound that it compelled her to kill her three children without realizing the gravity of her actions, she still recognized her husband had called, understood that not responding could warrant him returning early, and took affirmative action to call him back. That is difficult to reconcile with the narrative that Lindsay suddenly “snapped” and had no awareness of what she was doing.

Lindsay was profoundly mentally ill and genuinely wanted to die. But she still understood what she was doing when she killed her children. Those things are not mutually exclusive. She took steps to hide her psychosis, this alleged voice compelling her to kill, to get her husband out of the house, and to one by one kill her children.

Mental illness deserves compassion, and postpartum mental health deserves treatment, attention, and resources. However, compassion can’t replace the legal standard for criminal responsibility.

If the standard becomes, “She was a loving mother, therefore she must have snapped,” we’re no longer applying the law to the evidence. We’re creating our own definition of justice based on emotion and feelings.

In my opinion, this woman knew exactly what she was doing. She took steps to hide her behavior while she was carrying out her plan. All of this suggests cunning and a sense of guilt. You don’t hide your actions if you are unaware of the wrongness of what you are doing. In Massachusetts, the legal term for this is “consciousness of guilt.”

The legal issue to which those facts are relevant is whether the Commonwealth proved that the defendant retained substantial capacity to “appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness” of the conduct and to conform conduct to law. Massachusetts defines “appreciate” as understand, “criminality” as the legal significance of the conduct, and “wrongfulness” as its moral significance.

In this case, taking steps to prevent her plan from being foiled:

  • conceal what they intended to do
  • waited until her husband was gone
  • created a diversion to get her husband away from the scene
  • lied about what she intended to do
  • selected the time or place designed to avoid intervention
  • took steps calculated to ensure nobody discovered or stopped the act.

In my mind, that is what it boils down to: Did this woman know what she was doing was wrong, as evidenced by the fact that she took active, complex actions to ensure no one could discover or prevent her from carrying out her plan.

I think the answer is that she knew full well what she was doing. I tip my hat to the one juror who had the cajones to stand his ground in the face of the other 11 members of the jury, the judge, and the defense attorney. He stood up for those children, despite surely knowing what would happen to him in the aftermath, once his identity is discovered. The left is going to make his life miserable.

Now there are actually dumbasses out there who are calling for the elimination of the jury trial, saying we should use professional tribunals instead.

By Divemedic, ago

Juries

The standard we expect from juries today just isn’t realistic. We expect a jury to enter a courtroom with no preconceived ideas of the case, no knowledge of what happened, and to not personally know anyone involved with the case. I listened to a conversation about the Clancy trial recently while I was at work and marveled at the direction it took.

To be completely honest, I haven’t followed the case much at all. I know the bare basics, but some of the women (yes, I work with a room full of women) have watched the trial from beginning to end.

One of the women, a paramedic, said she is getting her degree in forensics. She claimed that the husband did it, and further stated that, should this case result in a mistrial, they should charge the husband with the children’s deaths. It’s as if she has been watching a television show whodunit and is trying to figure out the plot.

A second woman agreed, saying there is no way that the mother killed her kids.

I chimed in, and admitted to not knowing any of the facts of the case, but I did say that the mother had confessed. The response was “Well, she said she doesn’t remember anything from that day, so how can she confess? I think the husband drugged her, and the only reason she says she did it is because everyone told her she did.”

Then they went on to say that, since this trial has had so much press, there is no way to find a jury who hasn’t heard about the case, therefore the woman can’t get a fair trial.

That isn’t how juries work. Do you think in 1790, when the right to a trial was created, the small towns where people lived could contain a jury of people who didn’t know anything or anyone about a criminal case?

A great example of this is Princeton, New Jersey. James Madison, who wrote the initial proposals for the constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to a jury trial, lived there. It was a small village during the founding era: the Princeton Battlefield Society describes 60–80 families in 1776, and Princeton’s alumni magazine estimates no more than 300 residents living in the town in 1783. Any criminal trials in that town would have had a jury who knew either the case or the persons involved.

That’s fine. In Irvin v. Dowd (1961), the Supreme Court explained that jurors need not be “totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.” They must be able to set aside prior opinions and decide on the evidence presented in court. (The Court nevertheless overturned that conviction because of actual prejudice.)

However, if reports I am hearing are correct, some of the jurors are interacting and participating in online support groups for the defendant. That is not allowed at all. The lawyers in the next trial will have to do some significant scrubbing and scrutiny of prospective juror’s social media presence to ensure there aren’t any activists from either side of the debate who wind up on the jury, then the jury will need to be strictly sequestered for the duration of the trial to ensure no insertion of bias.

By Divemedic, ago

To the Commenter Who Just Tried to Post Stupidity

If you come to this website and urge or ask me to commit an act against the law, I am not going to post it. If you email that same idea to me, I am going to toss it in the trash. As much as I like my readers, I don’t know any of you well enough to entertain or allow such ideas, even if I were wanting to break the law (which I am not).

I’ve had a few of them through the years. A guy offered to sell me a full auto M2 carbine for $1500. Swore up and down he wasn’t a cop. Yeah. Another guy actually came to my house and asked me to build him an AR with some unlawful features. That’s what happened at Ruby Ridge, I am not dumb.

In 2022, someone came on this blog and suggested we form a group and take some kinetic action against some lefty targets. They were specific about details. They were dumb enough to post that comment from an IP that traces back to a Federal Law enforcement office in the DC area. For Christ’s sake, the Feds in that case were too stupid to even spoof an IP?

All of this happened in the same time frame that the ATF was looking for people to sick their informants on. Like this poor guy who got busted for having an SBR when he took a friend to the range, but the friend was being forced to inform on other shooters. In this case, the informant was an illegal immigrant who was cutting a deal:

In her complaint, Shaw never says why she targeted Mejia, or why the informant was sent to his home.

The informant, or CHS, wasn’t paid for setting up Mejia. Instead, they were cooperating with the FBI to avoid prosecution by ICE.

No one here is going to tell you about how they are plotting violence, or how they are flouting the law. This blog is being run in the public eye. I am not stupid enough to be locked up in a cell without bail, getting beaten every day while I await a trial that isn’t going to happen. This blog gets a couple of million hits a year, and I am certain some of them are law enforcement. I will not break the law on this blog or anywhere else, and I will not join in with your militia group or your little club. If there are ten of you in the club, I would bet at least six of you are informing on the others, but likely don’t even know the others are informants as well.

Like this case, where 13 people in Orlando had their charges dropped after an informant was paid $40,000 to set them up. For that kind of cash, there are informants out there who routinely trick people into breaking the law. Those informants make a living at it. Two or three of those cases a year, and a person can make a pretty good living for almost no effort.

Anyone who has been paying attention to the J6 case know that the Feds operate by getting you to say inflammatory, illegal things and then framing you for it.

I recently read the book about the OKC bombing and how McVeigh was actually a Federal informant. In fact, there were several informants located in the circles McVeigh was traveling.

Then there is this:

There is an old saying I repeat on this blog from time to time: How do you spot the Fed or the police informant? He is the one urging you to break the law.

Nice try, though.

EDITED TO ADD:

And if you AREN’T a Fed or an informant, I would apologize for that, but you are stupid. This blog is read by the PUBLIC. Why would you advertise in my comments about your future illegal adventures? So even if you aren’t a Fed, and I was in the mood to break the law, I would not want to have anything to do with you or your activities because you are too stupid to remain uncaught.

By Divemedic, ago

Test

Anyone who bleats about law and order when someone destroys a Flock camera would have turned in colonists for dumping tea in the harbor

and they will turn you in if your guns are illegal.

pussies.

By Divemedic, ago

Illegal Alien Gonna Arrest You

Stop me if you’ve heard this one. ICE agents arrested a New Orleans police recruit back in January. He was set to graduate and become a police officer. He had already been issued a gun despite the fact that he could not legally carry a weapon as an illegal alien under Federal law. Larry Temah originally entered the United States legally in 2015 on a visitor visa from Cameroon.

In 2016, he was granted conditional residency after marrying a U.S. citizen. However, in 2022, his application for permanent residency was denied due to fraud. Temah was ordered to appear in immigration court three times but continued to disregard U.S. law by not showing up, resulting in the immigration judge ordering him removed in absentia. He did not have valid work authorization.

It’s a felony for a person who is an illegal alien to possess a firearm or ammunition. Think about that- the cop who is arresting you may just in fact be a felon.

It should come as no surprise- the police chief of New Orleans is a DEI hire herself- she was the police chief of Oakland until 2020, when she got fired. She ran over two people with her car back in 2024. Did I mention she gets paid $340k a year?

This opens a bigger can of worms: When an illegal immigrant cop comes to confiscate your guns and arrest you while themselves committing the felony of unlawful firearms possession, is it legal to resist with force? What about their fellow cops? How many of THEM will side with their illegal immigrant police brethren? Isn’t that an accessory?

Sworn to uphold the law, my ass. However, I am betting when shit does go sideways, these illegal immigrant cops will be loyal to whoever is writing their paychecks.

By Divemedic, ago

Likely Not the Cops

I know I give cops a lot of shit on here when they screw up. This case out of El Paso is not one of those times. Let’s watch the video, then we can discuss it.

Watching the video, it appears like this man is on some sort of drugs. This isn’t a mental health breakdown in my opinion. The cop uses his TASER.

There are some in comments to the above post, claiming the TASER was used too many times and stopped the man’s heart. That’s not the case. A TASER delivers 3 joules of energy. A defibrillator delivers 200-360 joules to an adult heart. There simply isn’t enough energy in a TASER to stop a person’s heart. In the cases of in-custody death that occurred after TASER deployment, it turns out the decedent had cocaine on board nearly every time.

One thing that may have contributed to the death was something called positional asphyxia. When a person is handcuffed with his hands behind his back and is placed in a prone position, the chest can’t fully expand and the person can die as a result. In that case, the cops would have been at fault to at least some extent. A person whose hands are cuffed behind him MUST NOT be placed in a prone position, especially if they are already exerting themselves in an attempt to breathe, such as immediately following an extended wrestling match with arresting officers, as per guidelines from the US Department of Justice.

The cause of most explained in-custody deaths is a little-known phenomenon called positional asphyxia, in which body position interferes with the ability to breathe. Several pre-existing factors are identified that increase an individual’s susceptibility to positional asphyxia, including cocaine-induced frenzied behavior, other drugs and/or alcohol intoxication, violent struggle resulting in restraint of subject, and unresponsiveness during or immediately after struggle. A subject’s pre-existing risk, coupled with their body position when subdued or in transit, can combine to substantially increase their risk of sudden death from positional asphyxia. 

This is why I recommend to all paramedics and nurses that they not transport or treat anyone whose hands are cuffed behind their back, especially not in a supine or even prone position. The patient should be sitting up, or can have both hands cuffed to a bed or stretcher. The Joint Commission (TJC) standards outline strict rules and requirements for managing patients in restraints or seclusion, emphasizing that these measures are high-risk emergency interventions.

Hospitals must have explicit written protocols detailing continuous or frequent observation:

  • Patients must be monitored continuously or at frequent intervals determined by hospital policy (often documented every 15 minutes)
  • Restraining a patient in a prone (face-down) position is highly restricted due to the severe risk of positional asphyxia; patients should typically be kept in a supine position with the head of the bed elevated if aspiration is a risk
  • Staff must regularly assess and document the patient’s physical status, including vital signs, skin integrity, circulation in restrained limbs, hygiene, and the offering of nutrition, hydration, and toileting

Still, I think (looking at this video) the base cause here was whatever drugs were in this man’s system.

By Divemedic, ago

Military Experts

I get so sick of people claiming to be experts with firearms because they earned a ribbon in the military. Let be give you a great example of that:

To support his supposed opinion, he makes the appeal to authority, claiming, well…

The Coast Guard pistol qualifier consisted of 30 shots taken from 3 yards out to 15 yards, with every shot worth up to five points. Expert requires the shooter to score 143 points or more, or about 96% of the scored shots earning the maximum of 5 points. So how hard is that? Here is a picture of the Coast Guard target.

The colored zones are worth from 1 to 5 points. The target is 25 inches by 40 inches. The 5 point zone is 8 inches by 14 inches, making the maximum 5 point area much larger than the IDPA 8 inch -0 zone. Here is where the course gets easy. A total of 48 shots are fired, and the best 30 of those shots are the ones that are scored. The rest of them are considered “practice shots” and are essentially scored as mulligans.

DistanceTotal rounds in published sequence
3 yards12
7 yards12
15 yards24
Total48

So to REALLY take a look at what it takes to be a Coast Guard pistol expert, the shooter fires 48 shots. Of those, only 60 percent of them have to hit the center of the target. The shots have to be fired in a certain about of time:

DistanceStringTime
3 yardsDraw and fire 24 sec
3 yardsDraw and fire 24 sec
3 yardsFire 2, reload, fire 210 sec
3 yardsDraw and fire 4, including a hand transition8 sec
7 yardsSame four strings4, 4, 10 and 8 sec
15 yardsDraw and fire 24 sec
15 yardsDraw and fire 24 sec
15 yardsDraw and fire 48 sec
15 yardsFire 4, reload, fire 420 sec
15 yardsKneel and fire 820 sec

I want you to note that not one of those stages says, “Draw, rack the slide, fire two.” Instead, he uses as an example, a Coastie shooting himself in the leg as his reasoning for not carrying one in the chamber. I pray this one is satire.

By Divemedic, ago