so another slight twist on the backwoods discussion when it comes to four legged predators is are there liability or other legal considerations. IE I shot an animal I don't have a license, proper tag, or it is out of season. I think of this especially in your long-range shot, at that distance did you really "retreat" if it was a two legged predator and you cocked the revolver like you did because you needed a precise shot, you just (according to recent pro arms podcast) greatly increased your exposure to a liability lawsuit. Now a mountain lion doesn't have a family to come after you but you could have a state or an environmentalist group come after you. I mean this is a far fetched scenario but do you know if there has ever been a negative ramification when someone took action to protect themselves?
Actually Meta it's a darn good question.
I don't think so, because I don't think it really matters in the context of the choice to act. Self defense comes down to perception of need. Any responsible discussion should keep that in the forefront. Legal considerations
are an issue, but they should never be a significant factor in the moment that you PERCEIVE A NEED to defend yourself.
I can't outrun a mountain lion. There is "retreat" if I'm not a LOT closer to a car/building than the cat is to me.
Cocking the revolver was about the need for precision not premeditated action. Realistic training reveals when you need or don't need to cock any handgun (if it is an option). In most self-defense situations it isn't a factor and isn't recommended... the situation shown was an exception.
Now, when these issues might matter is in the aftermath of the shooting. Deciding what to do afterwards is going to be a factor of personal judgement and local regulations.... which, if you are carrying a firearm in the backcountry, you should be aware of.
If anyone has factual information in regard to these types of incidents, please post...
-RJP