PDA

View Full Version : Do YOU intervene?


wickedrider
August 9, 2009, 06:47 PM
We often discuss whether we as legal, carrying (whether open or concealed) firearm owners, have a legal and/or moral obligation to intervene in an obvious criminal situation where the is a BG and a victim. Would it make a difference whether the criminal act is a misdemeanor such as petit larceny or minor assault or a felony such as grand larceny or attempted murder? Tactically is it wise or unwise to do so?



After your thoughts, read this article.

-- A bizarre turn of events Friday afternoon in downtown Boise after a man steals another man's duffle bag.

Two bystanders pulled their guns to stop the crime.

Police say what started this was a case of petit theft.

One man is now accused of stealing a bag from a homeless man near the corner of Americana Boulevard and River Street.

Misunderstanding could lead to assault charges

It was after this occurred that Paul Brookhouse stepped in to make a citizens arrest.

He now faces possible felony charges.

"Somewhat confusing when it all was wrapped up," said Lt. Ron Winegar with the Boise Police Department.

On Friday afternoon just before one, Brookhouse says he witnessed a crime.

"The other guy grabbed a bag, a duffle bag and started running across the street. The one gentleman turned around and started yelling, ‘stop hey, stop that's my stuff’," Brookhouse said.

Brookhouse pulled his car over and intervened.

But in the heat of the moment this concealed weapons permit holder made an erroneous claim.

"I pulled my weapon and I told the gentleman, I made a mistake here, I said, "Boise Police. Stop. You're under arrest." So, he did, I asked him to get on the ground, we did all the hands behind your back thing. I frisked him and then held him at gun point until the police department got here," Brookhouse said.

Police identified the man Brookhouse stopped as 46-year-old John Dickey.

But before police arrived another man driving by saw Brookhouse holding Dickey at gun point.

He too held a concealed weapons permit.

"Saw that taking place and thought there was a crime happening and so he intervened, pulling his handgun and trying to detain the first citizen who had pulled the handgun to try and detain the initial suspect," Winegar said.

When police arrived they had both men put down their guns.

"While this citizen, this subject had good intentions in helping out with the crime, we just want everybody to be careful and realize the consequences of pulling a handgun, even if you have a legal and lawful permit,” Winegar said. ”It's always probably a better idea to be a good witness and call us and let us intervene.”

Brookhouse admitted to police he told the man that he was an officer.

He said it just came out because he wanted to stop him.

Because he said that, Brookhouse could face felony charges of impersonating a police officer.

He and the other man who drew his weapon could also face aggravated assault charges.

That decision will be left to the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

It's important to mention that neither of the men who drew their guns were arrested.

As for the suspected thief, John Dickey, he is charged with misdemeanor petit theft.

Boise Police say they are grateful that citizens jumped in to help stop a crime.

At the same time, they say that the guns didn't need to be involved, especially with this type of crime.

"If a police officer were making an arrest for petty theft or misdemeanor theft and pulled his gun and pointed it at someone with no apparent reason to do so, then we would certainly be under pretty heavy review for doing that," Winegar said.

Here is the link to the story.

http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-jul1709-citizen_arrest.4e0b1fd0.html

Composer_1777
August 9, 2009, 06:58 PM
Great example of self regulation. Citizens stopped a crime, forget all that bureaucratic nonsense and regulation. Crime was stopped, no1 hurt. I doubt they will be prosicuted.

Nnobby45
August 9, 2009, 07:33 PM
Ah Jeez, I thought everyone knew that when you hollered "Police" you were calling them---not saying you were one. Should have left out the Boise part. Flapping his jaw and admitting to the indescretion wasn't a good idea, either.

Don't think a well intentioned citizen should be charged if, in fact, he was trying to stop a crime. I'm betting he won't be.

When do I intervene? When not doing so would create problems looking at myself in the mirror.

Intervening in a duffel bag incident unpossesed of the facts, with no one's life in danger--- or in a matter where some one was holding someone else at gun point, after happening along (unpossessed of the facts) wouldn't qualify. That's what common sense and cell phones are for.:cool:

Dwight55
August 9, 2009, 08:00 PM
On August 6, 1949, . . . one George Berry got into his automobile to drive home. He was too drunk to walk, . . .

The bartender did not intervene.

His drinking buddies did not intervene.

No policeman came along to intervene.

No good citizen intervened.

At approximately 60 miles an hour in a 25 mph residential zone, . . . his car spun my mother's car 180 degrees in the intersection, . . . threw my baby sister out the window, . . . the car rolled on her, . . . and I lost my first best friend. Until that day, . . . Mom had two kids, . . . but she only had to find one, as the two were always together.

Yeah, . . . I believe in intervention, . . . you cannot fix stupid, . . . but sometimes an appropriate dose of intervention can prevent it from getting worse.

May God bless,
Dwight

Wildalaska
August 9, 2009, 08:44 PM
Both of these numbnuts should lose their permits, or if not, should go get some training beyond TV shows or Punisher comic books. I think I counted 10 basic mistakes


WildmoreposterboysforthebradybunchAlaska TM

Kyo
August 9, 2009, 09:08 PM
im gonna actually agree with alaska here. in that situation, it was kinda stupid to pull a gun. The second guy made an honest mistake. I feel for him. the first one, retard.

m&p45acp10+1
August 9, 2009, 09:27 PM
The only time I intervened on a crime in progress my weapon never came out. I was leaving a B-B-Q joint after lunch and saw a guy run up on a lady leaving a computer store across the street and he grabbed her purse and tried to take off running with it. Only problem was she was not letting go of the purse and yelling for help and he punched her in the face. I was already moving towards them and made a scan of the street and all was clear no traffic coming so I moved in closer and he managed to finaly get the purse away and she was still screaming. When he turned to run I close lined him very hard, then I kicked the crap out of him. At this point a bunch of cops were all over the place. They saw most of what happened and when they tried to get the guy up to cuff him he broke free and tried to punch me and out of reflex from 28 years of boxing I caught him on the jaw with a hard overhand punch that leveled him. (Had a 45 in my holster the whole time)
Cops said good job. Took a statement from me. Sent me on my way. The guy was not the sharpest of people. He tried to mug a lady two blocks from the local PD at shift change.

thawntex
August 9, 2009, 09:32 PM
Even if someone snatched my wife's purse in a parking lot and ran away, I wouldn't want some random CHL holder trying to get it back by pulling a gun. If it escalated to the point of shooting, my wife could end up in even greater danger.

I've seen shoplifters handled pretty firmly, but never held at gunpoint. I'm going to assume that nothing in this Boise man's duffle bag was worth a human life.

Finally, anyone who thinks it's acceptable to impersonate a cop ought to have their head examined. What if you were held at gunpoint and frisked by some delusional wannabe?

relee
August 9, 2009, 09:40 PM
+1 WildAlaska....clearly a case of vigilanties gone wild and the road to hell being paved with good intentions. The first thing taught in my CCW class was you are not going to be a policeman or a judge by getting the license.
I don't know about Idaho laws but it definitely woulden't fly in Fla. I hope the D/A dosen't prosecute and that the two guys with the guns learn a lesson.

Bob

Jim March
August 9, 2009, 10:19 PM
The first guy was an idiot. The second might make a decent case for justification.

I'm just damned glad nobody pulled any triggers.

On edit: I *have* intervened, twice now.

I've drawn a knife in anger twice in my life, and put my hand on it still sheathed once. All were legally justifiable as hell, in one instance the cops knew what had happened and had no problem with my actions...and gave me my cutlery back right after I gave a statement. Two out of the three cases involved defending others, once against two large dogs, once against four homicidal lunatics pounding some guy more or less picked at random into the floor with boots and hammers.

The outcome was good in all three cases. The one guy getting beat on passed out after I got him away from his assailants, but made a full recovery and shook my hand later in the DA's pre-trial conference (where I was a witness).

If I'd had a gun and CCW permit in any or all of those cases, I'm quite sure they would have been solved with no shots fired. About the only difference is, less risk to me.

So will I intervene? Yeah. Is it risky? Hell yeah. But I've done stuff almost as risky for kicks many years ago, canyon racing on motorcycles so what the hell...

ranburr
August 9, 2009, 10:36 PM
If I don't know the victim personally, and no one is getting shot at,; I don't get involved. Keep in mind the fact that if you shoot someone, it is going to cost you big $$$$$. The person that you help may be very thankful. But, they are not going to pay your legal bills. In this particular case, I'm certainly not going to risk my well bing for a bum on the street.

javabum
August 9, 2009, 11:16 PM
first off your conceal carry permit it to protect you and your family.
second pulling a gun on someone for taking a duffel bag is irresponsible.

where i live it is illegal to pull a gun or even shoot to protect property,unless they break in to your home,then at that point you have the legal right to protect your self.
what those individuals did was uncalled for.being the best witness will always be the best defense against those types of petty crimes.besides no weapons were seen that i read about except those of the individuals with guns,so that level of aggression was not needed.
its crimes like this that further the antis grip on us law a bidding citizens.
so do me a favor if ever in the same or similar situation,keep your bang box in its holster,call the police and go home knowing you did a job well done,safe and sound.
if your looking for fame go on Americas got talent or star search.

raimius
August 9, 2009, 11:28 PM
Yeah, pulling a gun to stop a bag thief was not a bright idea.
Pulling a gun on a guy holding another at gunpoint is slightly less dumb, but the #2 CCW guy should have figured out the situation before drawing down on #1 CCW.

Good intentions, poor execution.
Glad no one got hurt!

5whiskey
August 10, 2009, 12:08 AM
Once again, I agree with WAs stance on things but with Caveats. Both parties involved did way stupid things. Especially the first intervener. The second guy could have asked what was going on... even with his firearm drawn but at the low ready... before he intervened. This is where common sense prevails though. If I'm driving along in broad daylight and I see another person holding someone at gunpoint in front of God and everyone, I'm going to assume THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. I will probably stay in the area and call the cops, but I'm not going to approach and threaten them with a weapon automatically.

My take home of the day is this... one of the greatest sermons I ever heard had this quote... "the greatest evil is not evil itself, but the indifference of good men". I'm all about intervening, with force if you have ALL the details. If you don't have all the details, you will get your but in trouble via using a gun as force. I had a pretty wise man tell me once... "I believe in the 2nd amendment, and I think every American should carry a firearm, but honestly a gun causes WAY more problems than they solve".

BUT BUT BUT, to express my deep ingrained beliefs, I don't think any good man who is adept should fear evil or let them get away with what they are doing if you can stop it. Up to and including the use of deadly force if warranted (preventing grave harm to other people is the only thing I can think of). In this particular case, the first guy would've really done much better with a couple of elbow blows than with a pistol... IMHO.

scottaschultz
August 10, 2009, 12:53 AM
Someone else posted this on another thread. Even though it is from Florida, I think it applies everywhere:

Originally Posted by Florida Dept of AG website
Summary

1. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument, even if it isn't loaded or you never intend to use it

2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.

3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."

4. Never carry your concealed weapon into any place where the statute prohibits carrying it.

This is not a complete summary of all the statutes and court opinions on the use of deadly force. Because the concealed weapons statute specifies that concealed weapons are to be used for lawful self-defense, we have not attempted to summarize the body of law on lawful defense of property. This information is not intended as legal advice. Every self-defense case has its own unique set of facts, and it is unwise to try to predict how a particular case would be decided. It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.

Scott

Dannyl
August 10, 2009, 02:07 AM
Hi,
I have intervened twice in my life, but never drawn a firearm in these instances. ( althouh the 2nd incident involve my GF, so it is not the same as intervening to help a stranger).
one was when a chap was trying to take a woman's bag, it was in a crowded place and she held onto it long enough for 3 of us bystanders to get hold of him, I did not count the punches we gave him, but in any case the cop who took him away said they were not enough ( he had bee arrested before for the same offence, in the same spot and was out on bail)

In this instance there was no weapon visible and he had both hands on her bag, it is a good thing because the place was way too crowded to even think about drawing or using a firearm.

In the second event, I was in my yard washing my car, then my GF comes running with a vargrant following close behind her, I put my hand on my firearm, and shouted to him that he better stop, I then made him sit on the ground, and wait for the cops (which my GF had called as soon as I had him under control). my gun never left the holster, if he tried to flee I would have let him, but if he decided to press on, it is another story. we reported the shole incident to the cops, and after taking our statements it ended there as far as we are concerned.

My GF (now my wife) was very apologetic about leaving her Browning HP at home in the safe, it was rare for her not to have it on her, my guess it was this chap's lucky day. (She used to work as a part-time instructor in a range, and still is very adept with a handgun and a rifle)

As for the incident described in the opening post, I will not even think about drawing a firearm in a crowded street to aprehend a thief, I may ask a question or two if I see someone behing held at gun-point, but only after taking cover, and ascertaining that my actions will not escalate the events into a shooting in a crowed place.

Once again, carrying a firearm gives us a ton of responsibilities, and not one extra right. It may be drawn and used only when there is no other way to prevent ourselves or another person from being physically hurt or killed.

Our laws here are VERY tough; drawing a firearm can be considered pointing it, and a warning shot can be considered attempted-murder so we are in general very conservative about resorting to a firearm.

This leads me to one last bit of advice, if you have drawn a firearm, or moreoever, if you have had to use it you should think about resisting the urge to tell the cops everything about it ( like in this case, telling them that you said you were a cop). remember that you have no obligation to say anything that may incriminate you, and rather take some time to let the adrenaline wear-off, collect your thoughts and think about the implications of what you are going to say, and if necessary ask your lawyer for advice.

Some cops are so desperate (here at least) to get some crime stopping stats that they will easily restor to turning a good samaritan into a criminal if it helps their month end statistics.

Brgds,
Danny

Jim March
August 10, 2009, 02:44 AM
3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."

Ummm...the plain fact is, that's not how the law works.

Being a "good Samaritan" *is* legal in many situations. "Free-lance cop", yeah, he's right: the purpose of a cop is to arrange punishment for crimes and he's 100% correct, no CCW holder should EVER go there. That's vigilante justice. This was the mistake made by the first guy in the Idaho situation.

BUT, defending others with the MINIMAL force possible to save the life of somebody being violently assaulted "right there in front of you" is legal in almost all states, and legal in both Florida and Idaho going off of past cases I've read about there. IN A FEW states you can even shoot a fleeing violent felon but I don't recommend it even in extreme cases...say, guy is stabbing a woman repeatedly, you draw, he runs.

IF POSSIBLE, yes, a verbal challenge is a great idea. The parties involved will sort themselves out rapidly. But once a gun is out in the hands of somebody that looks like an assailant...yeah, I'm not ready to condemn the 2nd guy the way some of y'all are. I think he could make a pretty damn good case that his draw was justified under the "defend others under immediate attack" principle. He did great holding fire while the details got sorted out and I think he really should escape punishment and should even keep his CCW permit due to his holding fire, the smartest thing he did that day.

Does anybody else agree?

Dannyl
August 10, 2009, 04:10 AM
Hi Jim,
Good guy No2 responded to what he saw, which was a person beig held at gun-point.

He drew his firearm, but managed the situation in such a way that it did not escalate into a further conflict, so no harm was done.

I just hope that he remembered to take cover before confronting someone who already had a firearm in his hand, if this had been a criminal, he may have put himself in serious danger standing in the open.

Brgds,

Danny

scottaschultz
August 10, 2009, 05:10 AM
Posted by Jim March: Ummm...the plain fact is, that's not how the law works.
This weren't my words Jim. Those are the words of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which is the department that issues CCW permits. So apparently that's the way the law does work in Florida.

Scott

eclipsetactical
August 10, 2009, 07:00 AM
I remember in my CCDW and ones I have sat in on this exact point is brought up. The instructor always advises to stay out of it unless it involves you due to the fact you never know the exact circumstances of the situation. However I would say on things like an armed robery that you were in the bank for yeah you have an obligation to stop it. Ky law actually states that as a citizen you have an obligation to stop a felony if it is possible and to kill a fleeing felon in the process of making a citizens arrest.

Dr Raoul Duke
August 10, 2009, 07:24 AM
When do I intervene? I'm sorry to say this but unless my life, or the lives of my friends or family members are at risk, or at risk of severe injury, I'm not going to pull my CCW pistol. I'm simply not going to put my future, all I have, all I have worked for out on the table trying to protect other people. I've been a Police Officer; ten years before an injury made me hang it up. I know how to face crime, and have absolutely zero interest in being a vigilante at this age. I'll sit quietly in a restaurant and watch it be robbed with my CCW out and under the table, but won't use it unless the robber turns towards us. The two fools in Boise were both seriously out of control. Fool number 1 is looking at Impersonating a Police Officer, which with a gun would be a felony in this State, and Assault with a Deadly Weapon, which also with a gun would be a felony in this State. He will never even be able to think about getting a CCW again. Fool number 2 could fall for the same Assault with a Deadly Weapon charge, and even if he does not go down for that will have his CCW pulled. This is the kind of stupidity that the anti-CCW people use to promote their agenda.:(


Dr. Raoul Duke
Gonzo Forever

cracked91
August 10, 2009, 07:56 AM
Not a bad idea to intervene in any crime with a possible victim, but a very bad idea to intervene with a gun on anything but a forcible felony.

TPD211
August 10, 2009, 07:59 AM
I'm a cop and I wont intervene (off duty) unless its a forceable felony. Simple assualts and such I'll be the expert witness. Remember, you probably do not have the training or experience in dealing with a potentionally violent confrontation, you do not have handcuffs, no taser, your not wearing a bullet proof vest, no direct contact via radio to other units as in backup, no place to secure the bad guy as in a caged unit until help arrives. You do not know if there are other bad guys with the bad guy you are dealing with, etc... A violent physical felony, I'll intervene, a misdemeanor, simple assault, shoplifter, expert witness. Now a days, you will get your *ss sued off by any attorney thats anti-gun, or sympathizes with the criminal element. As was stated above, I've worked to hard to go through a lawsuit at my own expense. When I take police action, on duty, under the color of law, my employer bares the burden of the expense in defending my lawful actions. My 2 cents worth.

Uncle Billy
August 10, 2009, 08:38 AM
Does everyone recognize that this situation is EXACTLY what the anti-gun and anti CC forces use as an argument against people carrying guns legally?

It's only a matter of time until someone gets shot in a circumstance like this, it's inevitable. It seems to me that there are waaaay too many who are eligible for a CCW permit whose attitudes morph into either Rambo, or Deputy Dog, or Captain America or Batman once they get a gun in their pocket. Poor judgement, hubris, excitability, knee-jerk reaction, seeking to be a hero and inept gun handling, when added together create a walking disaster, for the participants and for CCW permit holders who ARE responsible, self-disciplined and under control.

The best arguments against legal CCW carry will be every time armed intervention by licensed civilians results in people being shot and killed, as 2 or more CCW civilians mistake each other for the BG and stage a shootout with innocents nearby, or try to intervene in a situation that's over their head and overreact. And as more and more people go about carrying legal guns, it's only a matter of time. Let's hope that our rights can survive what that will cost us in respect and support.

I wish there could be some sort of filter that protects the rights of all of us who don't go around armed all the time like we were undercover cops from the public-relations disasters the wanna-be heros can create.

Brian Pfleuger
August 10, 2009, 09:10 AM
We often discuss whether we as legal, carrying (whether open or concealed) firearm owners, have a legal and/or moral obligation to intervene in an obvious criminal situation where the is a BG and a victim.

Therein lies the basic problem, exemplified by the story in the OP. Not so obvious.... is it.

Never intervene in the "obvious", intervene in what you KNOW.

TPD211
August 10, 2009, 09:28 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, as a citizen we have no legal duty to intervene in a obvious criminal situation, CCW or not. As a law enforcement officer, on duty, I have a obvious duty to respond, but off duty, unless the situation warrants action, ie. the loss of life, there is no duty to respond unless legally bound to do so. Legally bound means department policy or state/jurisdiction laws.

FireForged
August 10, 2009, 11:16 AM
If I honestly believe that a innocent life will be forfit (right here and right now) if I do not act....I will act. Other than that situation, I mind my own business. I am not going to chase criminals, breakup fights or investigate odd happenings.

Jim March
August 10, 2009, 12:44 PM
This weren't my words Jim. Those are the words of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which is the department that issues CCW permits. So apparently that's the way the law does work in Florida.

Scott

Scott, I know exactly whose words those are: the top cop in Florida dealing with CCW.

At age 17, I learned a very important lesson. At a local shopping mall the various local police agencies were doing a meet'n'greet, each with their own table of whatever they thought was interesting. The confiscated prison weapons display was by far the most interesting :). Anyways...there were about a dozen agencies present.

I walked from table to table asking about California knife laws. NO TWO GAVE THE SAME ANSWERS. I mean seriously, they were all over the map. At least a couple handed out the "width of your palm" line, which is the single biggest piece of crap ever...NO such law has ever been on the books anywhere in the US - and I've looked. That's what eventually led to my California knife law page and had a big impact on getting involved in the RKBA later.

Never, ever trust a cop's word on weapons law unless you like getting an earful of the southbound product of a northbound male bovine. The majority will flat-out lie, the rest are bone-deep ignorant. Maybe 1 out of 100 are halfway competent in weapons laws in states with moderately complex rules.

Capiche?

I'm telling you, half of that statement you quoted is a lie. The part about "we're not cops" is true - we must not ever punish after the fact under any circumstances. The part about "good Samaritanism" at gunpoint being illegal is false. It must be reserved for extreme circumstances ONLY, for damnsure not petty property theft, and yeah it's risky, but it is legal in the right circumstances.

Composer_1777
August 10, 2009, 12:51 PM
How can you expect anyone to know CA laws, hell CA doesn't even know CA laws. That place is a cluster F***. The police department probably recruit all kinds of crazies; I wouldn't even consider Cali police as part of a normal police culture. Maybe it's more comarable to mexico. I don't know of many people who know mexican laws?

I know cops, and they are very familiar with laws, judges, courts, and the judicial system in general.

Wildalaska
August 10, 2009, 01:06 PM
Never, ever trust a cop's word on weapons law

Yeah, so much better to trust guys on the net who have never read a statute, written a charging dpocument, received copistis legal training, or gotten thier butts chewed out by a prosecutor or their Captain for a crap arrest.

Wild:rolleyes:Alaska ™

Vanya
August 10, 2009, 01:14 PM
If I thought I could do so safely, I might intervene with force if I thought it necessary to save a life. Otherwise, no. My intervention will take the form of calling 911, and being a good witness; and the latter only up to a point.

For those who think intervening in a property crime, even in a limited way, is automatically a good idea, I recommend this thread (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=367222), which discusses the recent (ongoing, I'm sure) case in New Mexico in which a "good citizen" followed a pair of suspected burglars while on the phone with the 911 dispatcher... the short version of this is that the suspects stopped and one of them approached his car and broke his window -- he shot one of them and is now charged with murder. Which seems highly unfair, to say the least, but it makes a persuasive argument against doing what he did -- at least in the case of a property crime...

Ky law actually states that as a citizen you have an obligation to stop a felony if it is possible and to kill a fleeing felon in the process of making a citizens arrest.
Aack. :eek:

I don't think so. This conflates a couple of very different things. Someone who's more familiar with KY law than I am can probably speak to this with more authority, but I believe that the first part of this, "the obligation to stop a felony," refers not to the use of force but to the obligation not to "aid and abet," which means, roughly, that if you know about a crime and don't report it, you may be charged as an accessory. The case usually cited in connection with this is Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930).

From www.kentucky-concealed.com:
"Officers are allowed and at times required to use whatever force is necessary to perform their duties while a citizen is never legally required to use force."
(my emphasis)

And it's true that under some circumstances, a Kentucky citizen may shoot a fleeing felon, but it's absurd (at best, careless writing) to imply that there's an obligation to do so. And I was under the impression that the decision in Garner v. Tennessee pretty much ended the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect, absent other compelling reasons to do so. But, again, I hope someone who is more knowledgeable than I will chime in on this.

Mr. James
August 10, 2009, 01:33 PM
Once again, carrying a firearm gives us a ton of responsibilities, and not one extra right.

As for the OP, epic, monumental boneheadicity, dude. No way would I intervene as S1 did in this case; no way would I intervene as S2 did in this case. I'm all for the Good Samaritan gig, but I'm not threatening to shoot and possibly kill a man for stealing a duffle bag, unless it's full of human hearts and livers bound for the pediatric transplant center. And why the third man in just John Wayned it and assumed this was a robbery is beyond me. Thank God above everyone walked away from this goat rope.

Dr Raoul Duke
August 10, 2009, 01:56 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, as a citizen we have no legal duty to intervene in a obvious criminal situation, CCW or not. As a law enforcement officer, on duty, I have a obvious duty to respond, but off duty, unless the situation warrants action, ie. the loss of life, there is no duty to respond unless legally bound to do so. Legally bound means department policy or state/jurisdiction laws.

Hey TPD211, you might have an "obvious duty" as you see it, but even when on duty you may not have ANY legal responsibility to respond. Out of the horrible legal mess that became known as the "Rodney King Incident" came the question of what responsibility, if any, the officers who were standing by their cars, just outside the ring of headlights, had in the case. Despite the future criminal ruling that the officers involved in the beating were not committing a crime, if I had been wearing a badge at that scene, I would have thought so. I would have have been in among those boys, pulling them off the man on the ground. I felt sick watching the tape. When the officers who only watched were sued for negligence in not stopping the beating, the verdict returned was that they had no obligation under law to prevent the crime. So, while you may feel you have an obligation, an "obvious duty", it may not withstand the color of law, especially in civil court, especially in Federal Civil Court. Facing civil court is the ultimate penalty for being a police officer. Like most cops I hated being in court to testify on criminal cases, especially when they were being re-tried, but sitting in civil court seemed to be something right out of Torquemada. I had 5 shootings in 10 years as a cop working the worst sides of a really violent town, and had a nasty civil suit on each occasion. They brought up stuff about me that I had forgotten, fights with bullies on grade schools, my time in Vietnam, tried to paint me as a trigger happy war-warped killer. But, I had the testimonies of my partners, of civilian onlookers, and in one case, the testimony of my supervisor (who was also involved in the shooting, but had hit nothing with his new 9mm semi-automatic). I also had character testimony from my surviving buddies from Vietnam, the most important being that of the River Division Commander who wrote me up for the Silver Star. I try to tell people who feel like they are impervious to the consequences of how they use their firearms that they are only waiting for introduction to what one Saturday Night Live Alumni referred to as the "First Church of the Rude Awakening". Now, as an older medically retired civilian with a CCW, I'm not going to put all I have worked for, all I have, all I will ever have, and the chance I may end up in prison on the line for anything but what Mas Ayoob calls "The Gravest Extreme" (though I have lost my admiration for his perspective after his fanciful portrayal of the Miami Massacre).

I also am not going to play vigilante and try to stop crimes in progress, unless they are against my family and friends and involve lethal force or extreme physical harm. I turned in my badge, and no longer want to play cop. So, my advice to anyone faced with a lethal force situation is not to draw and start shooting as soon as possible. Try and diffuse the situation if possible, un-access they area if there is anyway to do so; practice using the yellow streak down your back. The real winner in a gunfight is the one who manages to find a way out without firing a shot. Take the insults, accept humiliation, because insults and humiliation will not put you at gunpoint with the officers responding to the 911 call, put you in handcuffs, put you in jeopardy of criminal and civil prosecution, and the possibility of being some big guys boyfriend in prison. You may be completely in the right, but you will be suspected as being a BG until proven otherwise. And, as a civilian, even if you are completely in the right criminally, you will have to pay for legal representation in a civil trial that may cause you to hock everything you own, and put yourself in debt that you may never pay off just to survive.

Stay out of high risk environments. Try and develop "situational awareness" so can become aware of threats before they become critical, and be ready to exit quickly. Exit the area before anything develops that puts you in a corner where you have to fight. Know your weapons, train hard and practice regularly, and pray to whatever Higher Power that you can spend the rest of your days without shooting anyone, because shooting someone is easy, but living with it is the hardest thing you will ever do. After coming home from the Mekong, I had a drinking and drug problem that was going to kill me in short order, but I found AA in '73 and have stayed sober since. I had to shoot a man who broke a armed man who broke into our home, and afterward I had sleepless nights and constant fear of living in my home. I had to seek professional counseling to become able to resume my normal life without living in constant fear. This is ABC information about defensive firearms use, but it is almost never heard in most shooting boards. Go out to the range and shoot, play gun games, go and hunt, be prepared to defend you home and family; but pray to God you never have to do so. :):)


Dr. Raoul Duke
Gonzo Forever

BillCA
August 10, 2009, 02:14 PM
As the OP said... it has to be obvious what is going on is an illegal act.

With that said, if I didn't see the fracas start, how do I know who is the aggressor and who is the defender? That guy punching out the woman in the parking lot -- is this a violent domestic? Or did she just threaten him with a weapon? That woman on the ground screaming and the guy ripping her pants off -- rape? Or a snake in her pants? (Happened at a camp-out once). Sometimes you just can't tell what's going on.

Intervention doesn't always require a weapon. A loud shout or command may defuse it - or cause the perp to run off.

TPD211
August 10, 2009, 02:24 PM
Hey TPD211, you might have an "obvious duty" as you see it, but even when on duty you may not have ANY legal responsibility to respond.
I was thinking along the lines of vicarious liability reference to the "obvious duty" to respond in a obvious criminal situation. A civilian has no duty to respond that I am aware of.
You have a good response with good advise to those who do have a CCW.

As per Mr. March I do take some offense to his comment The majority will flat-out lie, the rest are bone-deep ignorant
That is a pretty blanket statement. Yes, I know some cops who are dumber than a rock, I know a lot with BS & MS degrees. A lot of cops will spout out what they think is the truth about a point of law only to have it partially right. Eventually, they do learn the proper points of law and go on their way. I'm sure I've given wrong information on some point of law in my career, but it was never intentionally meant as a lie. Sometimes a local court will have judicial notice as to a point of law, such as what constitutes a concealed knife, 3" or 5" blade, folder or bali type of opening, etc. Believe me, most officers do not know these decisions from their local courts unless they were involved in the case where the decision was made or they have a top notch training / legal department that stays on top of decisions.
Ignorant, sometimes, Intentionally lie, I hope not. :barf:

Stevie-Ray
August 10, 2009, 05:59 PM
I'd probably have to be directly involved to intervene. Something petty like this would tend to lead me away from my wife, the main reason I carry a weapon to begin with. I am always hopeful that I can be a good witness, though.

Tuckahoe
August 10, 2009, 06:42 PM
The first guy was acting like a police officer. Stops his car, announces himself as a police officer, takes the guy down.
I believe a reasonable person who saw this would believe this person was in fact a police officer. Being that he was not a police officer he just gave a jury enough rope to hang him with. He involved himself in a situation with a firearm that #1 was NOT a threat to life or safety of himself or a third party.
In the public's eye he feels his CCW permit makes him a crime fighter and that is not what a CCW permit is intended to do. Had he not been armed he would have not likely chased this person or gotten involved.
Man #2 I see nothing wrong with what he did. He thought someone was about to be killed and stepped in. In this case there was a precieved threat to life and he acted in good faith.
The lesson of this story is if you want to be a cop go be a cop and you can fight crime on a daily basis.

Mr. Davis
August 10, 2009, 07:12 PM
Ky law actually states that as a citizen you have an obligation to stop a felony if it is possible and to kill a fleeing felon in the process of making a citizens arrest.

Bull...Crap. Quote the statute, and please turn in your ninja garb, because holy crap, you've been hanging out at the gun shop too much.

Tom Servo
August 10, 2009, 08:41 PM
So, this guy presented a lethal weapon and impersonated an officer to affect a citizen's arrest over a minor property crime?

I have no sympathy. What if the bad guy had resisted and it came to deadly force?

Jim March
August 10, 2009, 10:03 PM
I base my thoughts on personal experiences. I have seen some of the stupidest stuff you can imagine...arrests over and over and over for weapons ranging from knives to rifles that simply aren't illegal.

You want to check for yourselves? Start with California. Ask ANY cop if double-edge knives are illegal if carried on the street, open or concealed. 99% will tell you they're illegal. Some are lying, some are ignorant, all are wrong.

Dr. Strangelove
August 10, 2009, 10:16 PM
I'm still laughing, even after reading this whole thread. Is this Boise IDAHO? TWO concealed carry permit holders drive down the same street and end up being total and complete idiots? Is this a Pink Panther movie?

Does anyone realize how bad this looks for concealed permit holders? The policeman in the news video was obviously trying to hold back guffaws while being interviewed.

If this display of idiocy isn't a wake up call to those who think strapping on a pistol suddenly turns them into some white-hat wearing cowboy, nothing will be, I suppose.

Dr Raoul Duke:
1st: Excellent screen name and yes, Gonzo Forever!
2nd: Great post, should be required reading.

I posted what scottaschultz quoted in the "parking lot incident thread", I hope many who posted in that thread read this one. The current thread illustrates the consequences of not knowing the law and being quick to draw your weapon. The site I quoted from is here:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

This page doesn't pretend to explain the laws involved, nor do I, but it is a good read for those who may think that their CCW suddenly gives them White-Hat super powers.

Jumping out of your car with pistol at the ready because you saw something "going down" where you have no involvement and no idea what is going on is a good way to a quick trip out of the gene pool, folks.

MLeake
August 10, 2009, 10:34 PM
... haven't seen that one, BillCA, but did once see something similar involving a jellyfish in a swimsuit.

It's always good to be sure of what you are observing, because the consequences of misinterpreting what you see can be really, really horrible.

csmsss
August 10, 2009, 10:35 PM
Just a point of clarification. Possession of a CHL permit does not also comprise authority to make an arrest; simply being a citizen under common law is what provides one with the authority to make an arrest. That said, you have to actually witness the crime (and be able to effectively identify the law(s) broken). The authority to make a citizen's arrest is completely independent of (and frequently contradictory to) the right to draw one's concealed firearm and point it at another human being. By that standard, CHL #1 is very possibly toast for three reasons - first, he didn't see the duffel bag actually being stolen, so he didn't observe any crime he could legally make a citizen's arrest for. Next, he fraudulently claimed to be a law enforcement officer. That's a big no no anywhere you step in these fifty states. Third, and independently of the first set of circumstances, he drew on someone who doesn't appear to have been of any imminent physical threat to himself or to anyone else. CHL #2, while one can argue with his judgement (I won't, as I wasn't there), doesn't appear to have committed any chargeable offense. What happens to CHL #1 will be strictly up to the DA and how merciful he feels like being.

csmsss
August 10, 2009, 10:41 PM
Oh, and one other thing. The ability of LEO's to comprehend, articulate, and fairly enforce weapons laws is definitely a mixed bag. They are not lawyers, they are not statutory nor constitutional scholars, and at the end of the day you can count on one thing and one thing only - the overwhelming majority of them will interpret and enforce the law in the manner which they believe best helps them get home safely that night. If that means overreaching in the determination of what is a legal vs. illegal weapon, so be it.

Wildalaska
August 10, 2009, 10:55 PM
The ability of LEO's to comprehend, articulate, and fairly enforce weapons laws is definitely a mixed bag.

Really? Got any stats from the criminal justice system to back that up? Specifically, the percentage of weapons offenses dismissed by the Courts or dismissed by prosecutors or aquittals vis a vis the number of arrests?

WildiknowwhatoyuranswerisAlaska TM

csmsss
August 10, 2009, 11:09 PM
Really? Got any stats from the criminal justice system to back that up? Specifically, the percentage of weapons offenses dismissed by the Courts or dismissed by prosecutors or aquittals vis a vis the number of arrests?Do you? I do happen to know plenty of cops who will echo what I said above - in the absence of absolute and unequivocal knowledge of what can be very arcane weapons statutes, they will do whatever they feel will keep them and everyone else most safe. It's not an unreasonable perspective - in fact, what's UNREASONABLE is your implied assumption that cops always have a scholarly and encyclopedic knowledge of state statutes and interpretations, as well as the relevant constitutional precedents, when making these sorts of decisions on the street. Your position is, in all honesty, quite laughable.

Wildalaska
August 10, 2009, 11:18 PM
I do happen to know plenty of cops who will echo what I said above

And I know plenty of cops who will dispute it:p

in fact, what's UNREASONABLE is your implied assumption that cops always have a scholarly and encyclopedic knowledge of state statutes and interpretations, as well as the relevant constitutional precedents, when making these sorts of decisions on the street. Your position is, in all honesty, quite laughable.

tell it to the judge:rolleyes:

Most weapons statutes are pretty clear cut. Most weapons violations are pretty clear cut.

But hey, its a "weapon", so looks like some oxen get gored:rolleyes:

WildimnotsayingcopsareperfectbuttheyprobablynomorethantheaveragemessageboardexpertAlaska TM

PS check your local conviction rates

Dannyl
August 11, 2009, 12:48 AM
Hi Mr James,

You quoted part of my post calling it a gem. It could be that you considered my words to be wise, or that you were being sarcastic.

If I misunderstood your comment, and there was no sarcasm from your side please don't take offense, but I feel that I need to clarify what I meant to say.

What I meant tto say is:
IMO carrying a firearm makes it imperative that we act in a very responsible manner at all times. not that it is our responsibility to fight crime wherever we see it.

carrying a firearm gives us a means to defend ourselves and our loved ones (or the occassional by-stander) but does not give us any rights other than the laws state for everyone else.

Therefore what I meant in my post is that while I believe that a good person (aren't we all?) will be inclined to help others in need or act to prevent crime, a firearm needs to be the last thing we resort to, and only in circumstances that otherwise will result in injury or death to an innocent person.

let us not forget that in most circumstances there will be people around, and they be put at great risk if firearms are to be used. so drawing a firearm is something that you really want to do only as a last resort.

Brgds,

Danny

onthejon55
August 11, 2009, 12:58 AM
Bottom line: Would you want someone to intervene if you were the one in trouble?

MLeake
August 11, 2009, 01:11 AM
Bottom line: Would I want somebody to pull a gun on somebody, and impersonate a police officer, in order to retrieve my duffel bag?

Of course not! Some people should not carry....

Dr Raoul Duke
August 11, 2009, 02:25 AM
simply being a citizen under common law is what provides one with the authority to make an arrest

That may be the way it works in Texas, but it may not be so in other States. One problem with your comment for people in California is that in this State there is no "common" law. Example: no "common" law marriages. We invented a new legal term over that. A woman could not request alimony from her long time mate because there was no marriage, but she won it anyway in a landmark legal case that created "palimony".:)

I may be wrong (that has happened) but my Department training was to never accept a citizens arrest. In ten years on the PD I never saw or heard of a citizens arrest being made. I repeatedly had people want me to take someone into custody that they had "arrested". My response was always, "Tell me what happened, and I will investigate. If there is probable cause I will arrest the person". I did arrest people for assault because they had gone vigilante looney, and either physically assaulted, or assaulted with a weapon, people that they thought committed a crime. It's a pretty good rule to not get involved when a man runs by and a pursuer calls out, "Stop that guy!".

In the classroom a rookie cop would be asked questions like this: Is the guy who just ran by a criminal? Is he a jogger? Is he someone who just didn't want to be around a bad scene, and decided to take it on the shoes? Is the pursuer a credible witness? What do you actually know about the situation? Has there actually been a crime committed? If there has been a crime committed, is it serious enough that YOU want to take responsibility for the outcome? Are you willing to take the confrontation to the next level, possibly to lethal violence for you or the suspect, based on what you know? If you pull your pistol and call for the suspect to halt, and he keeps on running, are you going to shoot him? If the suspect stops, how are you going to hold him until the police arrive? Have the police been notified? Are you alone, holding a suspect at gunpoint, with no back up in route? Once he stops, if he takes off running again, what will you do? How far are you willing to go? This is Cop 101 stuff, but I think anyone who has a weapon and is out among the public should be able to give pretty good answers to those questions.

Someone once said that in any crime there is a criminal and a victim, and the thing to do was be neither. I would re-write it to include the possibility of a fool with a gun. :)

And, thanks Dr. Strangelove.:cool:

Dr. Raoul Duke
Gonzo Forever

Jim March
August 11, 2009, 02:31 AM
NOBODY in this thread is supporting dude #1 that I know of. I think he was an idiot and could very well be charged. And likely should. A felony bust appears possible, esp. if an "impersonating a cop" charge sticks.

It's guy #2 who at worst wasn't very smart should in my opinion and that of several others go uncharged.

Mr. James
August 11, 2009, 08:56 AM
You quoted part of my post calling it a gem. It could be that you considered my words to be wise, or that you were being sarcastic.

If I misunderstood your comment, and there was no sarcasm from your side please don't take offense, but I feel that I need to clarify what I meant to say.

Definitely wisdom - there was no sarcasm at all. I meant it's a gem worth keeping. That is as pithy a rendering of what it means to carry a firearm (or any weapon, really) as I've seen. A ton of responsibility and not one additional right. I wish the two yahoos in Boise, Idaho had read your post before "John Wayne-ing" it in the street. I hope some of the good and well-intentioned folks here take it to heart.

Bob James,
who is still trying to figure this all out!

csmsss
August 11, 2009, 09:07 AM
Well, Dr. Duke, if you had actually refused to accept a valid citizen's arrest, you would have been poorly serving the public, if not in outright dereliction of your official duty, as California statute specifically provides for citizens' arrests:

A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

Uncle Billy
August 11, 2009, 09:14 AM
Every time an everyday "civilian" waves his gun and maybe tosses some lead in some self-assigned duty as an ersatz wanna-be police officer, and gets it wrong, we all face the loss of CCW rights as the public accumulates evidence that CCW rights might bring more danger than good to them as bystanders or innocents who were misjudged by someone with a legal gun. What "getting it wrong" is made of isn't at all clear, its definition varies with each situation and with each witness to each situation which means there's no simple recipe that can be followed that evades a criminal charge every time, except leaving the gun at home. It's my contention that without the legal grounds and the training and experience expected of police officers, too many of the times a civilian inserts himself and his gun into a situation will be a mistake, which is at least bad for his legal situation and the reputation of CCW's, and at worst the unjustified injury or death of someone.

I don't think the two dummies in Idaho are unique or uncommon among CCW permit holders. There are too many of us who think they can help and be heros with their gun, even that they are obligated to do so, but lack everything but the gun to do that legally and correctly.

It appears to me that fully understanding the magnitude of what one takes on when carrying a gun is too often missing. When gun enthusiasts carry a weapon, it might mostly be about their interest in guns, and the legal pitfalls and the mountain of reasons to at least leave it in their pocket, or better on the dresser at home, are dismissed as impediments to enjoying their hobby. Carrying the gun is, to them, more about their hobby and less about their real need for a weapon, and that predisposes them to pull it out at inappropriate times, times when they rush into doing a "gun thing". Not everyone, not all the time, just probably more often unless those that CC pay attention to more than just to the hardware, and realize that any mistake they make in those issues beyond selecting the hardware will bite them hard, because laws against illegal use of firearms have real teeth in them.

Jim March
August 11, 2009, 09:50 AM
csmsss: THANK YOU, you just showed a classic example of cops not knowing the law.

Maybe it's especially rampant in California, I dunno.

markj
August 11, 2009, 03:49 PM
So now I gotta ask the dude holding the weapon if he has a concealed permit and is doing a "citizens arrest"? Just another reason to stay the heck out of town, folks in the city are plumb crazy. Heck I bet if he gave the homeless guy 20.00 he would have forgotten all about that duffel.......


2 guns pulled over a duffle bag? Now that is crazy.

OldMarksman
August 11, 2009, 03:51 PM
Several of the above posts by knowledgeable people have articulated very well the position that intervention to protect a third party can expose one to the very real risks of losing virtually everything. My idea of what to do and when mirrors that of Dr. Raoul Duke as set forth in a couple of posts above.

For those who might choose to be less risk averse, they should at least not proceed in ignorance. State laws vary a great deal.

This subject as come up from time to time, and during one of its earlier orbits, Marty Hayes, president of The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, LLC. offered the following comment:

For all of you pontificating on this subject, answer this question please.

Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?

If you cannot answer this question, then I submit you had better spend some time researching this topic, because to get the answer wrong, means perhaps a long time in prison.


http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3471396&postcount=94

Here's more on the network.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/

As an illustration of the intricate but crucially important complexities involved, I noted with interest something in the link on Kentucky law posted above by Vanya in Post #31: In Kentucky, as in most places, the use of deadly force for self defense is justified if there is a reasonable belief that the danger of death or serious bodily harm is imminent and that the immediate use of deadly force is necessary to prevent it. However, when it comes to the defense of a third person, a reasonable belief will not suffice--the imminent danger must actually exist. Wow.

Laws and case law in other states vary, but I think it likely that one thing is the same all over: the citizen is not indemnified against civil liability.

For those who might be traveling in Kentucky, and that includes me, this might prove worth your careful perusal:

http://www.kentucky-concealed.com:/Information/Kentucky%20Concealed%20Carry%20Justifiable%20Homicide.pdf

The whole paper is worth reading, but the following excerpt applies to this thread:

Justifiable Homicide is a legal defense as long as the belief that the Defendant’s life is in danger is reasonable. Deadly force can be used to defend a third person. However if deadly force is used to defend the life of another the threat must be actual not just believed under KRS 503.070.

Although 503.100 says that the Defendant must believe that the threat existed it does not remove the requirement that the threat actually existed when deadly force is used to protect another.


I am confident that the above is not the case where I live. As Marty Hayes advises, it is a good idea to find out just what does apply.

Jim March
August 11, 2009, 03:58 PM
The time I came the closest to using a weapon in defense of another, he was being actively stomped into the ground by four lunatics with heavy boots, while lying flat on his stomach trying to cover up and bleeding from the scalp. A few seconds later I learned that two of the assailants had standard household claw hammers out, one visibly dripping with the victim's blood.

I believe he had only moments more to live.

That's the level of problem it would take to get me to draw, point and fire a gun to defend another.

Daugherty16
August 11, 2009, 04:10 PM
I imagine that Actor # 1 had just received his CCW; the card may still have been warm from the lamination. He certainly didn't spend much time here at TFL, otherwise he'd know that he should have shot the duffel bag multiple times, then arrested its contents. Those damn things are always at the center of major crime outbreaks and need to be rubbed out.

Then Actor #2 could have shot him for unlawful discharge of a weapon, and given his gun to the homeless guy to protect himself against further efforts by the duffel bag to bring order and respectability back into his life.

Sorry, i couldn't help myself. Actually, saying anything more about the grossly dumb and potentially dangerous intervention where, as a driver going by, neither of these men could possibly have ascertained enough facts to understand what was going on, would be redundant, repetitive, unnecessary and duplicative, and in addition i would just be parroting what everyone else said.

Vanya
August 11, 2009, 07:36 PM
Actually, saying anything more ... would be redundant, repetitive, unnecessary and duplicative, and in addition i would just be parroting what everyone else said.
:D:D

Goes for others in this thread too... undisirregardless. ;)

onthejon55
August 11, 2009, 10:11 PM
Bottom line: Would I want somebody to pull a gun on somebody, and impersonate a police officer, in order to retrieve my duffel bag?

Of course not! Some people should not carry....

Depends on whats in the duffel bag....

SAIGAFISH
August 11, 2009, 10:23 PM
you can step in without the gun being the first option,elbow,punch,head butt
knife then gun.then trigger .in many times only if its needed.

MLeake
August 11, 2009, 10:25 PM
Sorry, sometimes stuff is just stuff. And if it's that important, I'll pursue, myself. Strangers shouldn't pull guns over stuff, it's unwise, and in most cases illegal. And it's never a good idea to impersonate LEO's; the real LEO's take that very, very badly.

Jim March
August 11, 2009, 10:52 PM
Saigafish: NO, the last thing you want to do is start a fistfight over property while armed. It can escalate to gunfire and if so, it's your fault because you started the violence.

No, you only get involved if it's DIRE.

tommyb
August 11, 2009, 11:04 PM
I don't have a CWP because I live in Illinois, but if I had one, I would NOT have intervened.

A concealed weapons permit gives you the right to carry, and defend yourself against life threatening situations. It does NOT give you the authority to be a LEO, and stop a petty crime like this.

Had this BG been beating the homeless man with a pipe, then thats a different story. But watching somebody stealing somebody else's bag does NOT give you the right, as a normal citizen, to draw your weapon...period. However, I do not wish this man to be convicted.

BillCA
August 11, 2009, 11:44 PM
Yeah, so much better to trust guys on the net who have never read a statute, written a charging dpocument, received copistis legal training, or gotten thier butts chewed out by a prosecutor or their Captain for a crap arrest.

I'd trust some folks on a few forums over some of the California cops when it comes to firearms law. I'm sure Alaskan laws are pretty straightforward compared to California, MA, or NJ. You might be able to trust that your LEOs will know the law -- or at least read ALL of the statute -- before arresting someone. Not always the case here.

Apparently the cops in a large central California town never heard of People v. Clark which defined what constitutes a loaded firearm. I just read where the PD claimed someone's gun was "loaded" because he had ammo inside the locked gunbox.

A couple of bay area residents have been arrested for "assault weapon" violations. One because the officer ignored the "centerfire rifle" element of the crime and seized his .22LR AR rifle as an "assault weapon".

Another was arrested because the magazine appeared to be detachable -- yet the officer, evidence-room officer and the PD's armorer couldn't figure out how to remove the magazine, so they pounded it out with a mallet. (Sound like a fixed magazine to you?). It cost him almost $10k to defend himself.

An officer at a central coast range arrested a patron for possesing an "assault pistol" - despite his Broomhandle Mauser being a C&R firearm and thus exempt from the laws. This was pointed out prior to his being transported to jail. Took him 37 days to get his pistol back.

Most cops in California couldn't tell an assault weapon from a frackin' BB gun.

Sportdog
August 12, 2009, 12:04 AM
After reading all, well, almost all of the posts on this thread no truer words have ever been spoken as the comment made to me during a break of my CCW class. The young man said: "It sounds like this CCW can get you in more trouble than it can get you out of!" I think that I'm starting to agree with him.;)

FireForged
August 12, 2009, 12:06 AM
I am very pro Police but I think there is a huge difference between knowing enough about codified elements to effectively get your job done and actually understanding legal construction of a statute. I honestly do not think that the majority of Police in this Country would tell you to get your legal advice from them.. I think they would tell you to speak to a lawyer.

onthejon55
August 12, 2009, 12:25 AM
Sorry, sometimes stuff is just stuff. And if it's that important, I'll pursue, myself. Strangers shouldn't pull guns over stuff, it's unwise, and in most cases illegal.

Ive heard plenty of stories and know of one personally in which a bag was stolen that contained medicine which the victim was dependent on such as an inhaler. In one case the victim died as a result of not getting her severe asthma under control in time.

And it's never a good idea to impersonate LEO's; the real LEO's take that very, very badly.

No one thinks so. We've all made that clear.

MLeake
August 12, 2009, 07:26 AM
... is to call 911, or drive the asthmatic to the ER.

Pulling a gun to retrieve a duffel bag is STUPID.

Jofaba
August 12, 2009, 07:48 AM
I don't think that I would intervene with strangers until the gunman fired his first shot, be it at an inanimate object or a human being (he can shoot as many animals as he wants).

In my eyes he has to show intent, and just brandishing his gun is not intent enough for me to get involved.

If I happened across a guy holding a gun to another guy, I would hide and call the cops and keep an eye on him. I'd figure he's either a plainclothes cop or a mugger, and muggers don't usually shoot their victim, especially if there are people around.

Brian Pfleuger
August 12, 2009, 08:45 AM
Ive heard plenty of stories and know of one personally in which a bag was stolen that contained medicine which the victim was dependent on such as an inhaler. In one case the victim died as a result of not getting her severe asthma under control in time.


Yep, and I know people who survived car accidents because they weren't wearing their seatbelt.... But I still wear mine. Why? Well, because there are 10,000 who died because they weren't wearing a seatbelt for every one who survived because they weren't.

In other words, I'm not involving myself and my gun in a stolen purse situation just because somebody somewhere died because they lost their allergy medicine.

The odds of things going very badly for all of us are a whole lot higher than the odds of someone needing the medicine in the bag.

flyguyskt
August 12, 2009, 10:11 AM
WOW...im going to go out on a limb here... and let everyone flamne me>>>

BUT: guy #1 was trying to do the right thing...and stopped the crime...NO one was injured

i think the old school western law should be in effect here... its bull stuff that you are all bashing him saying hes an idiot...whgat makes you better than him.

how many of you have ACTUALLY ever unholstered your firearm? other than to polish it or plink at targets? yes i know some of you are experienced.

I have unholstered a pistol and pointed it right at a dirtbag! he was beating the stuffing out of a girl in our hotel parking lot and i felt pretty confident in the fact that he would have raped her....so did i do the wrong thing? YOU might think so but i can bet you SHE doesnt think i did!

the ones you should be criticizing here are the ones who arrested these 2 GOOD citizens AND the DA for not immediately letting the free and rewarding them with medals!

IF more good people got involved and didnt hide out of fear from the "LAW", (OUR law) this would be a better country and even world. 50 years ago they would have slapped the snot out of the guy stealing the bag and shook the hands of the 2 who stopped the crime!

Go back and read some of the stuff you guys wrote down...shocking

Brian Pfleuger
August 12, 2009, 10:19 AM
how many of you have ACTUALLY ever unholstered your firearm? other than to polish it or plink at targets? yes i know some of you are experienced.

I have unholstered a pistol and pointed it right at a dirtbag! he was beating the stuffing out of a girl in our hotel parking lot and i felt pretty confident in the fact that he would have raped her....so did i do the wrong thing? YOU might think so but i can bet you SHE doesnt think i did!


1)Never have, hope never to, having done so doesn't make you better or smarter.

2)A girl getting beat in a parking lot is decidedly different than a stolen duffel bag.

OldMarksman
August 12, 2009, 11:08 AM
I think the old school western law should be in effect here... .

It probably is.

50 years ago they would have slapped the snot out of the guy stealing the bag and shook the hands of the 2 who stopped the crime!

Think so?

Anyone know whether the laws have changed in this regard in Idaho since 1959? 1909?

Was it OK to impersonate a peace officer then?

M1911
August 12, 2009, 11:12 AM
Drawing a gun on someone suspected of stealing a duffel bag, with no weapons showing? Great example of a responsible CCW holder. :rolleyes:

As the holder of a CCW permit, there is no legal duty to intervene. In fact, intervening exposes you to far greater legal jeopardy, as shown in the OP.

I carry a gun to protect me and mine from death or grave bodily injury. Not to prevent someone from stealing a homeless guy's duffel bag.

MLeake
August 12, 2009, 11:34 AM
... wow... just wow.

FYI, I've intervened in beatdowns before, when I wasn't carrying. I've defended women on sidewalks and in a hotel bar from assaults in progress.

I'm also getting ready to retire as a naval aviator in the near future, and will be heading to Afghanistan in the fall as a defense contractor.

Please lecture me some more about timidity, why don't you?

If you can't see the difference between intervening when a man is getting stomped or a woman is being beaten, and a guy running away with a duffel that may have been stolen from a third party, then I think you are in for an interesting and potentially unpleasant life.

To all the guys who seem so eager to use a weapon: if you can pass the psych exams (which isn't necessarily a given) then there are plenty of open positions in the Army and Marines, or Border Patrol, or any number of PD's and SD's. My guess is that most of the chest beaters here would either fail the psych or the physical, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Sportdog
August 12, 2009, 12:10 PM
What harm did it cause when CCW #1 told the thief that he was a police officer? The question is not whether or not, and I know that it is, a crime to do so. The question is what harm did it cause. No what if's, what may have happened, or any other projection. In this case and having nothing to do with the use of his CCW, what was the harm in it? I will not respond to any posts that go outside the framework of my post, or any of the nut cases on the forum!

Brian Pfleuger
August 12, 2009, 12:18 PM
What harm did it cause when CCW #1 told the thief that he was a police officer? The question is not whether or not, and I know that it is not, a crime to do so.


It most certainly is a crime to tell someone that you are a cop, especially and specifically when you are ACTING like a cop.

The "harm" is that it is a crime. There doesn't need to be more than that. It shows poor judgement and a willingness to commit illegal acts when it benefits self. Neither of those things should be combined with carrying a gun.

SAIGAFISH
August 12, 2009, 12:32 PM
I did,nt mean over stuff.just the big stuff like kid being taken,women
abused.mother being assaulted.person casting into my fishing spot
you know.

hogdogs
August 12, 2009, 12:38 PM
person casting into my fishing spot
That is a capital offense in the "Ye' Ol' HogDogs supreme court"....
you can kidnap all the little tykes or duffel bags you want but yer boat, bait and hook better stay well clear of my honey holes...;):D
Brent

Sportdog
August 12, 2009, 12:39 PM
:D:D:D:D:D Casting into your fishing spot is a great reason!!!!

SAIGAFISH
August 12, 2009, 12:48 PM
thats what the club is for not hitting the fish.

A_McDougal
August 12, 2009, 02:22 PM
I've seen several instances of adults carrying a screaming, off-the-charts upset child out of a store/mall. The child is fighting with 100% of the violence and rage it has. "No! No! Don't touch me! Help, help!" Adult is moving will all due speed toward a car, where the child will be forcibly strapped in.

Could be a kidnapping. Is probably the kid's Dad. Any kidnapper is likely to be able to act embarrassed/upset/nurturing, just like a real parent. Beyond a quick racial profile (that could be his daughter), what do you do?

If you tried to stop a parent, they'd appreciate the intent (on an abstract level), but be offended and annoyed (on a practical level). Their patience would already be thin, before they had to deal with some stranger. They probably won't stop unless you attack or threaten force. Few people carry ID for the toddlers. But they probably have photos on their cell phone/in their wallet.

flyguyskt
August 12, 2009, 02:34 PM
just for arguement sake...lets say it was a young lady carrying the deposit from her store that she just opened and some thug had grabbed that and run off? she cant replace it and now she has to go out of business because of it? any less harmful if she cant feed her kids??

or what if it was the homeless persons medication? nitro pills and the stress caused a heart attck and he died...oh hes just a homeless guy right?!

just saying i still believe in old school punishment.

the law of the land so to speak. i dont need a cop to fight my battles and i sure aint gunna wait for or depend on one when it all hits the fan...oh please dont stab me until i call the polce and wait 10 minutes for them to show up!

we NEED more citizens with the balls to stand up and so NOPE NOT ON MY WATCH DIRTBAG!

NO THANKS NOT ME...better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

Brian Pfleuger
August 12, 2009, 02:41 PM
just for arguement sake...

Just for arguments sake, 99% of the time you'd be better off to just replace the deposit. It's likely to be a HELL of a lot less than your legal fees.


There are an unlimited number of "just for argument" or "what-if" scenarios. They are unlimited in number and exceedingly unlikely, not to mention most loses are insured. So, gym bag? Night deposit? Purse? Sneakers? No.

Stabbing, rapes, beating, etc, MIGHT be different but, once again, if you don't see the whole thing then you don't REALLY know what is happening. Even if you guess right the "victim" can easily turn on you, immediately or in court, because you ended up shooting her husband/lover/boyfriend/whatever.


How about this "what-if"? You end up shooting a man who is attacking a women.... it turns out to be her husband.... now she's after YOU.... "You didn't have to kill him! Why!? Why did you do that!?!?"... now she comes after you with pepper spray.... "I'll kill you! I'm going to spray you and kill you with your own gun!!!"..... now what? Shoot her too?

Unlikely? Yepper, sure is.

Almost as unlikely as someone dying because their asthma medicine got stolen.

Vanya
August 12, 2009, 03:11 PM
Could be a kidnapping. Is probably the kid's Dad.
Or, it could be both. It happens somewhat regularly when parents divorce and there's a custody dispute. According to FBI statistics kidnappings by relatives account for about half the total number each year, and most of those involve a parent.

The kidnapping example is popular with "interventionists" here, and not without reason. But you don't know what the situation is... If I saw something like this taking place, it's one of the few cases when I might try to intervene, but not with deadly force -- I'd hate to make a kid a half-orphan, when it may be a situation that could be resolved in a way that still lets the kid grow up with two living parents...

Skans
August 12, 2009, 03:22 PM
I guess if I witnessed a situation where it was plain and obvious that someone was about to become a victim of a violent and life threatening crime, I'd intervene with a weapon.

1. It would have to be an obvious, blatent life threatening situation - like a guy pointing a gun at the head of a store clerk; and

2. I would have to be confident that I have better than a 60% chance of taking the BG out without doing others harm.

MLeake
August 12, 2009, 03:31 PM
... night deposit? That's what insurance is for.

Medications? Again, call 911 or take the homeless guy to the ER. If he's already in cardiac, he probably can't explain to you that he has nitro in the bag, and I doubt that's the first place you'd look.

Some situations might justify intervention, but not use of deadly force. If you only know how to intervene by pulling a weapon, then you should stay out of those.

There are people who will also argue that if you are carrying a weapon, you should not intervene using non-deadly force, because the situation could escalate to where you might have to use deadly force to prevent the other guy from taking your weapon from you. This makes a certain degree of sense, but to me it's still situationally dependent. (I also have the advantage of a lot of years of hand to hand training, and a decent sized frame to back it up) In general, though, it's safer to intervene by noting details and calling 911.

If and only if I think somebody is going to come to some immediate harm am I going to get physically involved (with regard to confrontations).

Note: While we're talking about civic duty and all, I have pulled over and assisted victims of auto wrecks, and helped get both people and a dog out of burning buildings. (Prior to arrival of EMS and fire; once they are on scene, stay out of their way.) I've helped bring back a swimmer who went too far for her capabilities out into a lake, which wasn't fun because I'd seen gators in that lake the week prior. I've helped a stranded elderly couple with a broken down vehicle on an interstate. My parents raised me to behave in that manner, by behaving in that manner, themselves. That is more their idea of civic responsibility than pulling guns on possible bad guys would be.

If you really want to go out and be a do-gooder, try doing those sorts of things instead of looking for reasons to justify pulling a gun.

flyguyskt
August 12, 2009, 03:46 PM
i agree with you that maybe he was excessive but he did what he did and the point is no one was hurt...did he shoot anyone.NO did he detain a dirtball YES.

i guess i look around and see far to many things happening because others are AFRAID of what might happen...

peetza im not saying he should have pulled the gun but again what bad came?

insurance is not going to cover a cash deposit... just like if someone comes into my house and steals cash...no good to the insurance company.

so let me ask you this...you are at home and someone comes in and says hey im going to steal your tv set but i wont hurt you or your family...you going to let them do it if you have a gun in your night stand?! A BIG FAT NO!

Ok a dirtball approached YOUR WIFE and CHILD and grabbed their stuff? gunna sit back and watch it? what if I watched it happen to your wife and some guy stabbed her and i said wow i saw the entire thing and did nothing...sorry dude about your wife dying? HECK NO you be very mad if that happened and somoeone had the ability to stop it and did nothing.

i'm simply tired of everyone being afraid to help for fear of being sued or arrested its FRIGGIN STUPID.

MLeake
August 12, 2009, 03:50 PM
Well, yes, but he detained a guy who had committed petit theft (misdemeanor) by using the threat of deadly force (brandishing - misdemeanor or assault - felony depending on the DA's mood) and by impersonating an officer (potential felony count).

Life isn't the NFL. Penalties don't offset. Samaritan #1 in this example arguably committed more serious crimes than did the guy he detained.

flyguyskt
August 12, 2009, 03:56 PM
MLEAKE. i too am a vet...i was EOD...that has nothing to do with it...except you should understand fighting for our rights!!!ly

i would not have pulled the gun out in that situation but i would probably have gotten involved.

i have also had nearly 30 years of hand to hand training so i feel that i have a respnsibility to help those whom can't help themselves. i dont have the FRAME to back it up as im only 5'7 and 170 pounds...but get ahold of me and find out about my frame!

my dad was a cop in the old days was a naval UDT team leader in korea and maybe i have a bit of his spice in me:rolleyes:

oh and i DO pull over to help with flats and go out of my way to help others in need on a regular basis...i have no fear of answering questions at the pearly gates for my actions or lack there of

OLD MARKSMAN: just how "old" are you.?..im not that old but even i can remember the days when you helped someone you were thanked not sued!!!

LAW makers and LAWYERS have caused more problems than they have solved

OldMarksman
August 12, 2009, 04:00 PM
just saying i still believe in old school punishment.

the law of the land so to speak.

Well, the law of the land established three branches of government. one to make the laws, one to enforce them, and one to interpret them. The law of the land also established which powers were vested in the Federal government and which were vested in the states. And each of the states followed suit.

Somewhere in the Utah state code there is apparently something that defines theft of the duffel bag as a rather minor misdemeanor and describes the possible range of punishments. There are also laws against assault, pointing or shooting a gun without justification as defined in the law, making someone lie on the ground....

And in Utah law it is specified how miscreants are to be charged and tried and by whom. The responsibility for determining guilt, passing sentence, and executing the sentence is assigned to elements of the judicial branch, not the police department or citizens not seated on a jury.

From what we have read, the two guys with the guns are entering into that process and may in fact be subject to "old school punishment". So will the duffel bag thief.

i dont need a cop to fight my battles and i sure aint gunna wait for or depend on one when it all hits the fan...oh please dont stab me until i call the polce and wait 10 minutes for them to show up!

Well, yeah, the courts have ruled that you are responsible for your own protection.

NO THANKS NOT ME...better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

These guys will most probably be judged, but since they didn't actually shoot anyone, it may be by a jury of eight people.

What will happen remains to be seen. Possibilities include permanent loss of gun rights, imprisonment...and it seems likely that their expenses are already starting to mount up big time.

Is that wrong? The Utah legislature has defined what constitutes a crime. There is apparently probable cause to charge these fellows with criminal conduct. Now the wheels of justice will grind, with whatever outcome yet to be determined.

These guys exercised incredibly poor judgment, and they may have committed crimes--that's up to the court system that has been operating in Utah for a little over a century.

But they may well have been lucky. They might have murdered the guy by using deadly force to protect property; they might have shot each other; they could haver been gunned down by police officers trying to protect an unarmed man on the ground against a couple of gunmen in a most unfortunate turn of events.

flyguyskt
August 12, 2009, 04:07 PM
i think we should all turn in our guns and live our lives in fear of the LAWS that we put in place...just because the LAW says its so doesnt make it right by human right standard...

WE all should have a RIGHT to not live in FEAR.

Common sense law needs to be in place not what some politician wrote down because he was too scared to fight for himself.

LAWS against pointing a gun at someone...hmmm seems to me the protectors and servers of our cities and states do this all the time for petty crimes...need to have a gun out to stop someone for drunk driving? oh thats right they are above our LAWS.


i will continue to live my life by the leave me alone and all will be fine for you philosofy. mess with me or mine and you will be gravely dissapointed.

done here. to all that want to stand up and say enough is enough...cheers

markj
August 12, 2009, 04:16 PM
insurance is not going to cover a cash deposit... .

Yes it will, she was what the law calls "robbed" a felony, her insurance company will surely pay it. A business has reciepts they can go off to tell how much was taken.

Helping out a person is one thing, to draw a weapon and claim to be a cop, well that is against the law in every state I ever been in.

OldMarksman
August 12, 2009, 04:22 PM
OLD MARKSMAN: just how "old" are you.?..im not that old but even i can remember the days when you helped someone you were thanked not sued!!!


As old as the Gun Digest itself.

I agree that our society has gotten far, far too litigious, but regarding civil ilability in a case of third party intervention, I think it is not very likely that someone you help will sue you unless you cause harm to him or her.

Sportdog
August 12, 2009, 04:26 PM
Well spoken posts that I'm sure reflect the feelings of most Americans. Thanks for having the stones to say it on this forum when you knew that the attack dogs would be all over you. I salute you and no doubt most others do as well. Guys like you are what made this country great!:)

MLeake
August 12, 2009, 04:33 PM
You mean those of us who point out that:

1) Impersonating a cop is a criminal offense?

2) Using a deadly weapon to stop a non-violent misdemeanor is a criminal offense?

3) Jumping into a situation when you don't know who the players are may not be a very bright idea, because you earn whatever liabilities the party you choose to help may have brought into the situation?

4) Way too many posters seem to think that any crime at all is adequate reason to respond with violence?

You mean attack dogs like me, then.

And if you are saluting the attitude that says all those things are ok, as log as we show 'em, darn it!!! Sorry, I can't and don't salute that attitude. The people I work with don't salute that attitude. The people I work out with don't salute that attitude.

hogdogs
August 12, 2009, 04:45 PM
MLeake, You mean those of us who point out that:

1) Impersonating a cop is a criminal offense?

2) Using a deadly weapon to stop a non-violent misdemeanor is a criminal offense?

3) Jumping into a situation when you don't know who the players are may not be a very bright idea, because you earn whatever liabilities the party you choose to help may have brought into the situation?

4) Way too many posters seem to think that any crime at all is adequate reason to respond with violence?

You mean attack dogs like me, then.
You left out the all important "mission statement" of TFL...
According to Bud Helms...
TFL is a firearms bulletin board and exists primarily to promote responsible firearms ownership and use, and our Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA).
I like to add "legal use" when I am pointing out these transgressions...

Cptn. Charlie also says...
If you're thinking of posting "screw the law, do it anyway" posts, don't bother, because you probably won't be around TFL long enough to read any replies.
with that... I too am one of the dogs...
Brent

pax
August 12, 2009, 05:04 PM
This bears repeating: If you're thinking of posting "screw the law, do it anyway" posts, don't bother, because you probably won't be around TFL long enough to read any replies.

Just a word to the wise from your friendly forum moderator. ;)

I'm tempted to close the thread at this point, because really, what remains to be said that hasn't been said already? But we'll leave it open a bit longer. Please re-read hogdogs' excellent post #100 -- and carefully consider what it means -- before you post.

pax

RAHatto
August 12, 2009, 06:00 PM
When I was 17 yrs 185 lbs a friend and I were working at a pizza joint and we saw some numb nuts "hiding" behind a paper box until all the customers walked out of the gas station.
He walked in with the gun out and pointed. We had the store call 911 and hid by the door behind a car till he ran out with a small bag of cash.
We chased him quietly behind the store and group tackled him when he stopped to take of the mask and store his gun in his belt. He didn't see us coming and did not even know who we were until my boy took off his belt and hog tied him (he was 5'10 and 250lbs). The store owner came out the back door with the phone and stood on the BG's gun till the cops came. He was a 14 yr old little brother of a friend of ours.
If that happened now I would call the cops and stay the hell in the pizza place, or at most I would go out our back door and hide in a spot around the building to get another/better description and direction of travel.
A CCW wont make me a crime fighter, and age has burned the worlds cruel truth that I will probably never get another dumb luck day again.
If someone comes into a store I'm in and shows intent, capability and opportunity I will put them down the first chance I have the tactical high ground but until then it will stay in the holster.

OldMarksman
August 12, 2009, 06:57 PM
I've been referring to Utah.

This happened in Idaho.

flyguyskt
August 12, 2009, 07:21 PM
just for clarification AGAIN...im not saying he was right in brandishing a firearm...i would not have chosen this method...Personally i would have apprehended him using other means and probably would be facing assault charges instead! cuzz hey thats what america is about right guilty until PROVEN innocent, or wait i mean ahhh ya!

not saying it was legal what he did...
What i AM saying is that its sad that you are all blaming the guy who was TRYING to do the right thing and no one here has spoken up and said good for that slimy dirtbag for stealing a bag from a defenseless homeless person!

OUR United States of America once was founded and based upon doing THE RIGHT THING...not anymore because of turn the other cheakers and tree huggers who would soil themselves at first sight of a "bad situation".

MLEAKE: again i appreciate your contribution to this fine yet confused country but how can you say trying to do the right thing should be punishable by laws? how many bombs have you dropped on bad people for breaking OUR laws in their own countries? ALL in the name of what is MORALLY right...not legally right.

AGAIN: never would i suggest breaking gun laws because THAT my friends is what has gotten us where we are today. but do what you feel is right in your HEART and you should not be punished when your life comes to an end. Im not religious but somehow we will all answer somewhere.

LOVE you all and hope none of us ever have to be in a situation where WE feel the need to unconceal our weapon.

MLeake
August 12, 2009, 07:58 PM
... is not that people should just watch bad things happen.

However, in many if not most cases the best thing to do is call 911. Unless imminent harm to an innocent will occur if immediate action isn't taken, there is no pressing need for physical engagement in an event where we may not know all pertinent facts.

How do I know the homeless guy isn't yelling that some guy took his bag because he's mad the guy wouldn't give him some change?

How do I know the guy who's shoving the woman didn't just get attacked by her? (Note: buddy of mine was a bouncer in Daytona; he ko'ed a woman once, because she came at him with a folding knife. It would have been easy for bystanders to fail to notice her attack with that knife; imagine if Samaritan #1 had seen THIS from the wrong angle...)

Now, if I see a guy knock a little old lady off her walker and take her purse, then I'm probably chasing him down unless she's obviously injured and in need of immediate attention. Then again, depending on her age and health, it might be wiser to assume she's hurt, and stay with her until help arrives.

As far as your bomb-dropping analogy goes, that dropped bomb had BETTER be legally right, or the pilot is screwed. That's why we have laws of war, and rules of engagement - both to help us determine what targets are lawful, and to defend our actions after the fact if necessary. Intentionally attack a protected target, without legal justification, and now you're talking war crimes.

Note: If combatants are storing munitions at a hospital or mosque, or actively engaging friendlies from same, that "protected target" may well be declared a legal target. Status changes with changing conditions, not unlike in regular life.

BTW, three subjects I have had a LOT of training in are Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC), CJCS Standing (and theater-specific) Rules of Engagement (ROE), and target identification.

Note: in addition to flying planes, I was also a Ship's Weapons Coordinator and a Tactical Action Officer (the Navy makes pilots do disassociated tours as ship's company, to round us out or make us appreciate the surface navy.) From that perspective, there would be few feelings worse than realizing the aircraft one had thought to be an enemy fighter inbound for an anti-ship cruise missile attack, and had ordered shot down by SAM's, was actually an airliner. Target identification is crucial; see "Vincennes."

To put it into EOD perspective: Would you find it prudent to go straight at a device without first setting a perimeter, looking for a second device, identifying persons in area and watching for a possible remote detonation setup? Would you use a rifle to blow a small device without first making sure there weren't larger, secondary devices likely to be tripped by the induced detonation? I'm guessing your answer would be no, you'd want to know the situation first...

To go back to street scenarios:

I would put it to you that I would feel more endangered by a guy who draws a weapon without full possession of facts than by a purse (or duffel) snatcher. I might (and probably would) find the snatcher to be slimier, but the guy with the gun is by far the more dangerous.

Samaritan #1 got very lucky. He didn't have to shoot a petty thief, so he's not facing truly serious charges. He also didn't get shot by Samaritan #2, which was also very lucky - for both Samaritans. Potential worst cases here were really, really bad.

If Samaritan #1 had not drawn a gun, worst case would have been that a dude would have run away with a stolen duffel.

These are not remotely comparable. Drawing his weapon without need and without a full picture was not the right thing to do, it was reckless. It also happened to be illegal.

flyguyskt
August 12, 2009, 08:18 PM
just for the record i support our troops...ive been one

my question about the bombs and war were from the position that: do you think the IRAQI government thought it was LEGAL for us to bomb them?

we as a USA people are biased to the belief that WE ARE MORALLY correct and justified in helping those who cant help themselves...you are dropping bombs for what reason? because people of Iraq could not fight back against tyrannical leadership. period? so why not just go and call the police(NATO) and then supply them with a description of the bad guys?

WHY NOT> because WE are a NATION of strong people with....wait for it....wait for it....MORALS and we help those whom can't help themselves.

I already said he went to far but you fail to understand he was doing a MORALLY correct thing.

MLeake
August 12, 2009, 08:29 PM
... to pull a firearm over petty theft. So no, he wasn't morally correct. Nor was he legally correct.

A father who uses corporal punishment (IE a spanking) to correct unacceptable behavior by a child may be morally correct. If his paddle of choice is an axe handle, he isn't morally correct and he's legally in serious trouble.

With regard to Iraq, a UN resolution authorized the use of force. So did an act of Congress. Current operations are done with the approval of the present Iraqi government.

Legality isn't a problem. Morality depends on your perspective. Whether it will all turn out to have been worthwhile is something to be determined down the road.

BillCA
August 12, 2009, 11:38 PM
Flyguy,

You claimed that the USA was founded on doing the right thing™. This isn't true, it was founded on the idea of the rule of law -- that laws are supposed to apply equally to all and not exempt the rich, the well-connected and the "King's family". Doing the right thing (whatever that may be) was and is based on morality and ethical conduct.

In this case, the "right thing" to do would have been to stop and apprehend a petty thief from getting away with another person's property.¹ But using a firearm in a "threatening manner" risks turning the situation into a homicide. The constitution says no cruel or unusual punishments for crimes - so if CCW #1 had actually used his gun the courts would have deemed it excessive force and unlawful homicide.²

Of course, if CCW #1 had given chase and then been confronted with the thief pulling out a knife, then the situation changes somewhat.³

You ask "what harm was done" by CCW #1's actions. In this case, fortunately, no harm was done. But he displayed a woeful lack of good judgement and also ignorance of the laws under which he should be operating. THIS incident resulted in no harm, but what about the next time? Giving him an "attaboy" medal just reinforces the bad behavior. If the next incident involves a less compliant thief, what then? The gun goes off in a struggle and someone gets hurt needlessly (a bystander perhaps). That's the essential HARM -- CCW#1 failed to adhere to the law regarding apprehending petty criminals.

The law would be equally harsh if a couple of citizens wielding baseball bats confronted him and "prodded" him with the bats (a.k.a. deadly weapons). And while we all might like to "slap the snot out of" a common thief, beating him when he stops resisting is illegal.

Mind you, I'm just as disgusted with laws that prevent citizens from being able to defend themselves. I'm also disgusted with lawyers who argue that his client received "excessive force" because he was bruised up trying to resist apprehension. Then there are court and legal rules that prevent juries from hearing all the evidence or deciding on anything but what the law says, instead of judging whether the law was appropriately applied.†

But I still think CCW #1 was wrong and should face some kind of punishment. And I've previously indicated one possible solution. Others suggest harsher penalties. In any event, the man has no one to blame but himself.

¹ Apprehending by physically grabbing a fleeing thief is typically legal. Most state laws permit using only that force which is necessary to restrain him if he resists.
² And rightfully so. The state is not allowed to use capital punishment for misdemeanors, even after exhaustive legal reviews and arguments. Nor should anyone be executed for a minor crime. That makes the presence of the firearm wholly inappropriate.
³ And only somewhat. Unlike a LEO, a citizen has no legal duty to catch the thief. If said thief turns with a knife while still backing away or saying "don't come after me", the citizen can end his pursuit. Only if the thief tries to attack could the citizen resort to deadly force.
† Don't even get me started on the apparent average IQ of a lot of juries.

eclipsetactical
August 12, 2009, 11:39 PM
Here are my exact sources. The Gill case pertains to the stopping a felony part only there is a completely different KY criminal code that allows you to shoot and kill a fleeing felon in the state of KY.

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Sources Stated.....Not much arguing you can do with that. Gotta understand we are a Commonwealth and alot of things are different here with law than in non-commonwealth states.

pax
August 12, 2009, 11:58 PM
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Kentucky citizens -- along with all other US citizens -- are legally bound to follow the rules set forth in TN v. Garner (1985), a much stricter standard than the state law. Garner does allow the use of deadly force against fleeing felons in some very narrow circumstances.

pax

OldMarksman
August 13, 2009, 06:54 AM
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Shows up here and there complete with "indeed." The cited references do not lead anywhere today.

Here are the relevant sections of current Kentucky statutes:

431.005 Arrest by peace officers -- By private persons.

(6) A private person may make an arrest when a felony has been committed in fact and he has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed it.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/krs/431-00/005.PDF


503.090 Use of physical force in law enforcement.

The use of physical force, including deadly physical force, by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant is preventing the escape of an arrested person and when the force could justifiably have been used to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard or other person authorized to act as a peace officer is justified in using any force, including deadly force, which he believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of a person from jail, prison, or other institution for the detention of persons charged with or convicted of a crime.

The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when: (a) The defendant, in effecting the arrest, is authorized to act as a peace officer; and (b) The arrest is for a felony involving the use or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or serious physical injury; and (c) The defendant believes that the person to be arrested is likely to endanger human life unless apprehended without delay.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/503-00/090.PDF


No apparent justification for a civilian using deadly force, but I do no know what constitutes being "authorized to act as a peace officer."

This appears cosistent with Garner (lay opinion), which was argued more than five decades after Gill v. Commonwealth.

Uncle Billy
August 13, 2009, 08:17 AM
All of this consternation seems to come from those who are now armed as they go about their daily lives when they hadn't been previously, most of the time simply because it's now legal for them to do so, and being gun enthusiasts they seize the opportunity.

But adding a firearm into how one relates to the events and circumstances around them on the mundane daily routine of their lives complicates the issues and adds risks both legal and physical, because carrying a gun has a lot more gravity than many realize at first. If this thread has any value it's probably in revealing just how vague and situational the rules are, and just how uncertain and unpredictable the effects of inserting a gun into situations otherwise avoided would be- the possibility of serious criminal charges and the potential to really harm someone are amplified 100 times with the presence of a gun that's brought forth; the gamble made 100 more times more expensive if the possession of a gun acted as an incentive to get involved in the first place, and none of those effects are predictable. Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot.

I don't think it's prudent for average civilians to CC unless there's a specific threat or probable specific threat they're going to encounter; otherwise a CCW permit shouldn't change how one goes about their daily routines or how they would act in an unforeseen situation.

Erik
August 13, 2009, 09:40 AM
This particular incident illustrated two points as I see it:

1. To intervene or not

2. How to intervene

---

I'm pro intervention, most of the time. In all times were intervention occurs, it should be done in a reasonable and prudent manner. In this instance, there's plenty of unreasonable and imprudent behavior to go around.

---

Never, ever pass yourself off as the police when you are not. It can, will and should trigger legal troubles in many locals; even in conservative Idaho, as it turns out.

OldMarksman
August 13, 2009, 10:03 AM
Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot.


Not too good an analogy, because you have some control over the situation--unlike rolling the dice. The key is to know what you are doing, something that the birds in this story did not.

And if you need one and do not have it, you have rolled snake eyes.

I don't think it's prudent for average civilians to CC unless there's a specific threat or probable specific threat they're going to encounter;


Cannot agree. If there's a "specific threat or probable specific threat" that one is "going to encounter" (and I cannot fathom just how one might know that), the proper strategy is avoidance. Otherwise one is looking for trouble. Not wise at all.

I live adjacent to a city that has the second highest murder rate in the country; police are dispatched to crime scenes are prioritized, with calls regarding gunshots sometimes being answered four hours after the fact. Parole officers calling 911 are put on hold, and not infrequently.

We are surrounded on two sides by meth country. Meth addicts and producers are bad people--I'd trade them for radical jihadists.

And the two most heavily trafficked drug arteries in these United States converge here.

I think that not carrying is imprudent.

The likelihood that I will ever have to produce a weapon is remote, and the likelihood that I would ever have to fire it is less than remote. But the potential consequences of needing one and not having it are extremely severe.

... otherwise a CCW permit shouldn't change how one goes about their daily routines or how they would act in an unforeseen situation.

Agree, if you drop the word "otherwise."

The best way to survive a violent encounter is nonattendance. Some time ago, a licensed carrier was asked by another, a retired LEO, whether he carried all the time; the answer was "yes". The other follow said he only carried when he was going somewhere where he though he might need the gun. The retired LEO said he never goes anywhere he thinks he might need it.

And frankly, there is nowhere that one can be assured of being safe. The perps have wheels, and will go where the money and the victims are.

Vanya
August 13, 2009, 10:25 AM
Here are my exact sources. The Gill case pertains to the stopping a felony part only there is a completely different KY criminal code that allows you to shoot and kill a fleeing felon in the state of KY.

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Sources Stated.....Not much arguing you can do with that.
Sigh. The technical term for the passage above is "an unreferenced quotation," not a "source."

The passage above is all over the internet, quoted (mostly) by others who want to interpret it as you do. None of them cite the source, either.

Doing your homework for you... It's from a very short 1994 article, "Citizens' Arrest," by David C. Grossack.

So... how valid is an opinion from a 15-year-old article, based on a nearly 80-year-old court case, which, as Pax and Oldmarksman point out (and as I did in my post above), is well and truly superseded by Tenn. v. Garner (1985).

Umm... not very valid, IMO.

And as I wrote in my earlier post, Gill v. Commonwealth speaks more to the issue of aiding and abetting than to that of citizens' arrest: in this case, "taking affirmative steps" to prevent a felony comes under the heading of not "aiding and abetting," which would make one an accessory, rather than imposing some sort of obligation to intervene directly -- the point being that if you have knowledge of an impending crime, you're obliged to report it. Not reporting it makes you an accessory before the fact.

Gotta understand we are a Commonwealth and alot of things are different here with law than in non-commonwealth states.

Would you care to elaborate?

:rolleyes:

OldMarksman
August 13, 2009, 10:55 AM
Gotta understand we are a Commonwealth and alot of things are different here with law than in non-commonwealth states.
Would you care to elaborate?

Here's something on it:

In 1785, district residents of Kentucky County began petitioning the Virginia legislature for statehood. They wished the County to be recognized as a "free and independent state, to be known by the name of the 'Commonwealth' of Kentucky." On June 4th, 1792, Kentucky County, Virginia became officially the "Commonwealth of Kentucky."

When Kentucky joined the Union, the terms "commonwealth" and "state" were recognized by the U.S. government as being synonymous. There are four states in the United States that are titled commonwealths: Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The designation is an elected title deemed by the states' legislatures. To be a commonwealth rather than a state grants no differences legally or economically.

http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/kycommonwealth.htm

Back to the point: one more time, everyone who carries a gun in Kentucky, and everyone who anticipates doing so, should read and study The Tactical Kentucky Concealed Carry Manual by Nick C. Thompson, as his or her bible, chapter and verse.

The question of shooting fleeing felons is addressed in it.

Here's the link again:


http://www.kentucky-concealed.com:/Information/Kentucky%20Concealed%20Carry%20Justifiable%20Homicide.pdf

Vanya
August 13, 2009, 10:57 AM
Thanks, OldMarksman.
:D

M1911
August 13, 2009, 03:15 PM
What i AM saying is that its sad that you are all blaming the guy who was TRYING to do the right thing and no one here has spoken up and said good for that slimy dirtbag for stealing a bag from a defenseless homeless person!
The problem is that in most such situations you simply don't know what the right thing is, as has been shown in this situation. And your good intentions won't necessarily keep you out of prison if you mistakenly violate the law.

Suppose you are parking your car in the strip mall when the door to one of the shop bangs open. Out runs a man, running as hard as he can. A couple seconds later, another man comes running out after the first, with a gun in his hand.

What have you just seen? Two robbers leaving the store? A robber being chased by the store owner? A jealous husband chasing his wife's boyfriend? An undercover officer chasing a wanted felon? You simply don't know. And if you don't know what is going on, you don't know what the right thing to do is.

Whether or not you feel our laws are just, the reality is that you place yourself in serious legal jeopardy by intervening.

You also place yourself in serious physical jeopardy as well. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you will prevail. Just because you are the good guy doesn't mean you will prevail. Just because you are the good guy doesn't mean that the responding officer won't think you are the assailant and fire on you before you realize he is screaming at you to put down your gun.

I'm not saying that you should never intervene. But you darn sure better understand the true risks going in. Lots of folks on the net seem to bang their chest and think they are John Wayne.

There is no way in heck I'm going to draw a gun to prevent some punk from stealing a homeless guy's duffel bag. That is both illegal and unwise.

OldMarksman
August 13, 2009, 03:45 PM
Very well put!

m&p45acp10+1
August 13, 2009, 03:58 PM
I posted about how I intervened in subduing a mugger.
I also have a memory from my teens that makes me think twice about getting involved if I do not fully know what has happened.
When I was 12 I was with my cousin and my uncle at a Taco Bell going through the drive thru. We saw 2 men slam a woman onto the hood of a car and it appeared that they were tring to force her into the car. She was screaming, kicking, and fighting. She was screaming for help. My uncle grabbed the shotgun from the rack in the truck and stepped out and chambered a round and yelled at the guys to let her go. Next thing we knew there were cops everywhere. We had a lot of guns trained on us.
Turns out the two guys were undercover cops making a drug buy. They were arresting the woman for selling meth, and the other cops were closing in. My aunt picked up me and my cousin from the jail. They booked my uncle on a charge of asauting a police officer. The charge was later dropped in court. It cost him a lot of money for bail, and an attorney.
Sometimes things are not what they appear to be. Make sure you know what is going on. It can save you a lot of grief, money, and possibly your life.

Uncle Billy
August 13, 2009, 07:23 PM
OldMarksman:

I wrote: "Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot."

You wrote: "Not too good an analogy, because you have some control over the situation--unlike rolling the dice. The key is to know what you are doing, something that the birds in this story did not."

Almost all of the discourse in this thread is an argument about what civil or criminal laws might jump up and bite the butt of someone who inserts himself and his gun into a situation, and there's no consensus- the laws are different everywhere and interpreted differently in the same jurisdiction. Unless you can get a DA to stand there while you plan your moves and okay them, you're depending on him or her to see it as you do after it's done which is a gamble regardless of how clearly you think you understand the law and if you don't see that it is, you're naive. Pulling your gun is a gamble that you'll get away with it, and if you lose, you lose big, and if you hurt someone and it's made to look like you were wrong (and there will be people who will pursue that outcome because they hate it that "civilians" can carry), then buhbye, I hope there's an early release where you're going. In short, it's a perfect analogy.

OldMarksman: "I live adjacent to a city that has the second highest murder rate in the country; police are dispatched to crime scenes are prioritized, with calls regarding gunshots sometimes being answered four hours after the fact. Parole officers calling 911 are put on hold, and not infrequently.

We are surrounded on two sides by meth country. Meth addicts and producers are bad people--I'd trade them for radical jihadists.

And the two most heavily trafficked drug arteries in these United States converge here."

... then you wrote this:

"The best way to survive a violent encounter is nonattendance"

How does living where you do fit with "non-attendance"? And if "... there is nowhere that one can be assured of being safe", then how is it you go anywhere, if avoidance is your scheme?

If you think that "... never goes anywhere he thinks he might need it" is a workable rule and follow it, then why is it you carry a gun at all, since you'll never go anywhere you'll need one?

Tell ya what- you carry your gun when and wherever you want, following whatever rationalizations you have pro or con; and I'll do the same. That could be said to everyone who has posted here. Some of us won't get into a situation like the OP described, and some of us will. Some of us will enter a situation with guns blazing and come out heros, some of us will enter with guns blazing and come out indicted. Some of us won't get involved with anything other than a direct attack on themselves, or on those they love while they're standing next to them, others will intrude on any situation because they are convinced they can make it come out in favor their sense of what are truth, justice and the American way. Some of us will feel enabled, entitled, enfranchised to act like cops, and some of us don't think a gun in their pocket is the same as a badge in their pocket with agreement on that point being prevalent in the DA's office. My point is that before anyone resorts to ccw, they ought to, for their own good, objectively consider what the potential outcomes might be. That's all. If one of the Rambos out there puts a hole in anything precious to me, I'll do everything I am able to do to get them incarcerated, no matter how hard they plead that "they were only trying to help".

Holman
August 13, 2009, 07:37 PM
MYOB (Mind Your Own Business) call 911 let the Police handle it.

Brian Pfleuger
August 13, 2009, 08:07 PM
If you think that "... never goes anywhere he thinks he might need it" is a workable rule and follow it, then why is it you carry a gun at all, since you'll never go anywhere you'll need one?

I prefer to phrase it as "Never go anywhere WITH a gun that you would not be willing to go WITHOUT a gun".

A gun is for freak, random, unpredictable, unavoidable, inescapable events. It is not a safety blanket to allow me passage through otherwise impassible places.

OldMarksman
August 13, 2009, 08:49 PM
Pulling your gun is a gamble that you'll get away with it, and if you lose, you lose big, and if you hurt someone and it's made to look like you were wrong (and there will be people who will pursue that outcome because they hate it that "civilians" can carry), then buhbye, I hope there's an early release where you're going. In short, it's a perfect analogy.


That's focusing on whether the production of the weapon is justifiable. I think it's highly likely that if I pull a gun, the act will be lawful. So a better way to put it is probably "pulling a gun is an immediately necessary act to counter imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm." Or if you prefer, if I do not pull the gun, I'll lose big.

I have a friend who is a former policeman. His attitude is that his gun will come out only if and when he is "about to die." That expresses my attitude fairly closely.

Some of us won't get involved with anything other than a direct attack on themselves, or on those they love while they're standing next to them, others will intrude on any situation because they are convinced they can make it come out in favor their sense of what are truth, justice and the American way.

I stand with the former.

Some of us will feel enabled, entitled, enfranchised to act like cops, and some of us don't think a gun in their pocket is the same as a badge in their pocket with agreement on that point being prevalent in the DA's office.

I stand with the latter.

And I choose to not go somewhere with a gun if I would not go there without one.

But I carry one, and not only if "there's a specific threat or probable specific threat [that I am]... going to encounter."

Prudent, I think. Yes, there are risks involved in carrying one. I think they are outweighed by the risks that would be involved in not having one available.

It's a simple matter of managing risk. The first step is to identify the risks. The second is to analyze them-- assess the likelihood and potential consequences. The third is to evaluate alternative methods of handling the risks (accept them, mitigate them by various means). The last is to decide among the risk management alternatives.

For me, the decision is not to not carry. However, carrying will not change the way I act.

If there's a place I would not go otherwise, I won't go there. If there's "a specific threat or probable specific threat" that I might encounter I'll avoid it. And if I come upon an incident of violence involving someone else I'll use the telephone and nothing else, except under the most extenuating circumstances.

Uncle Billy
August 14, 2009, 08:48 AM
What worries me are those CCW-licensed folks who have taken their CC permit as a license to expand their role to include the functions of an armed police officer on behalf of others. The first post in this thread, for example. It's a blessing no shots were fired; were there to have been, and that's going to happen sometime, it could be immeasurably worse- if someone, directly involved or a bystander, gets hurt or killed wrongly by a CC licensed but inept and uninformed civilian "trying to help" it will be a huge tragedy on a number of levels, including the non-gun folks' attitudes about legal CC.

We don't need any more bad publicity, especially if it comes from "law-abiding gun owners", which now includes those licensed for CC. That phrase has always been the dividing line between us and the BG's; too many illegal incidents from our side of that line weakens that divide in the public's perception of us.

BillCA
August 15, 2009, 04:27 AM
What worries me are those CCW-licensed folks who have taken their CC permit as a license to expand their role to include the functions of an armed police officer on behalf of others.

While that concerns me too, I think the appropriate avenue is education and more education. Whenever someone talks of "jumping in" I always caution them to make damn sure of the facts before even reaching for the carry gun.

In a case here in California not long ago, a man exercising in his garage heard a commotion. When he heard screams of "Kill him!" he grabbed his .45 Auto, exited the garage and assessed the situation. A neighboring family was holding a family gathering. A younger nephew had gone off his meds and then argued with his uncle, stabbing him several times. The family was trying to get the blood-soaked uncle away and the nephew was slashing around with the knife. The citizen ordered the nephew to drop the knife twice, even after the family urged him "Shoot! Shoot!" and "Kill him, quick!" The man fired when the nephew lunged, killing him. Police did not file any charges and the Chief said it appeared the man acted legally, in self-defense and defending others.

Of course, not everything will be clear cut. No one advocates shooting before trying to ascertain what the facts are. Your number one weapon is your brain. And you should spend time on making sure your brain functions as well as your sidearm.

Like Old Marksman, I won't go places with a gun that I won't go without one. I won't go looking for trouble, I might find it. If believe there is a high probability there will be trouble I can't avoid, I'm likely to bring a long gun. And friends with long guns.

Intervention can be done with your voice - Hey you! Stop! Show me your hands!, by making your presence obvious (those 100w driving lights at night for example) and other things - without resorting to your firearm - like calling 911.

A_McDougal
August 15, 2009, 05:44 AM
If you have strong opinions about the law, please take every opportunity to serve on juries. When you do, please remember threads like these - reasonable people can have widely different opinions about how the law should be interpreted. Before you vote to convict, ask "would there be folks on TFL defending this guy?" Look beyond your own experience, knowledge, training, and wisdom, and try to look through the eyes of somebody dumber than yourself when deciding what 'reasonable' is.

Dr Raoul Duke
August 15, 2009, 09:16 AM
But adding a firearm into how one relates to the events and circumstances around them on the mundane daily routine of their lives complicates the issues and adds risks both legal and physical, because carrying a gun has a lot more gravity than many realize at first. If this thread has any value it's probably in revealing just how vague and situational the rules are, and just how uncertain and unpredictable the effects of inserting a gun into situations otherwise avoided would be- the possibility of serious criminal charges and the potential to really harm someone are amplified 100 times with the presence of a gun that's brought forth; the gamble made 100 more times more expensive if the possession of a gun acted as an incentive to get involved in the first place, and none of those effects are predictable. Pull a gun = roll the dice, with lives and futures in the pot.

You know Uncle Billy; I had an Uncle Bill (my Mother's eldest brother), and aside from teaching me how to shoot, chase anything after Walker hounds, work wood, make a farm pay, treat people decently, read the Good Book, keep gasoline and diesel engines running, make and drink whiskey in moderation, and be an all around rational and decent man; most people would not have noticed him. I've been reading your posts for some time and find that I have this thing about agreeing with you on almost all of the things you say. In the current context, I've made my position quite clear. I'd just like to say that I find your mature and reasonable position to be a breath of fresh air among the folks who have never bothered to read the law concerning lethal force, or even question why they they have a CCW in the first place.

Good for you.

Dr. Raoul Duke
Gonzo Forever

scottaschultz
August 15, 2009, 09:39 AM
Posted by A_McDougal: Before you vote to convict, ask "would there be folks on TFL defending this guy?"With all due respect, if I am on a jury, the absolute very last thing I would do is think about what a bunch of people on an Internet forum would do! The only other person's opinion about how I should vote died 2009 years ago!!

Scott

Uncle Billy
August 15, 2009, 10:40 AM
... I appreciate your comments. I often wonder if anyone reads what I post, and whether there's much agreement with what I have to say here. I've had a NY CCW permit for about 45 years and have parsed these issues again and again as the environment regarding guns changed in the society and my nature evolved. I had always thought that there would come a time in the stream of my life where I would finally reach an end point, where I could stop and be what I had become from then on unchanged. I now see that's not only impossible for me, that's undesirable, and when that happens to people or societies, a lot is lost.

You are very fortunate to have had a mentor of the sort of man your Uncle Bill was for you. I think it's every old man's desire to have been able to pass on to young folks what they've learned about things, from diesel engines to moral values, as your uncle did.

OldMarksman
August 15, 2009, 04:05 PM
What worries me are those CCW-licensed folks who have taken their CC permit as a license to expand their role to include the functions of an armed police officer on behalf of others.

I couldn't agree more. BillCA's comment that the appropriate avenue is education and more education is on point.

If I were designing the educational curriculum for this, I would start with two things that were tought in my state CCW class:


The concealed carry endorsement does not confer any police powers upon a citizen.
While our state law does provide for the use of deadly force to protect a third person under certain circumstances, there are great risks involved (this would have to be tailored to specific states).


I would add the following:

Sworn officers have an obligation to engage miscreants for the purpose of enforcing the law; civilians have no such duty.
When they are actually involved in the performance of their duties, sworn officers may display lethal weapons without legal ramifications; civilians may not be able to do so without risking criminal charges, in the absence of immediate necessity and imminent danger.
Sworn officers are are schooled in the classification of criminal offenses according to severity, and they are trained in the law as it applies to arrest and detainment, the appropriate level of force to be applied, and what to do under varying circumstances in the event that a suspect attempts to flee; civilians are not.
Sworn officers have been trained in following approved procedures that thave been appropriately reviewed and approved for legal compliance and tactical soundness; civilians have not.
Sworn officers can call for backup via radio, and it is likely that they will not attempt to capture a criminal without backup except in a dire emergency.
Sworn officers are indemnified by their jurisdictions against civil liability, which may prove involve very severe exposure; civilians are not.


Examples of situations that may appear to indicate the need for intervention, but that are not what they seem, should be provided, along with a discussion of the severity of the civil and criminal liability that a citizen may assume by intervening inappropriately. I would advise people to consider intervention only when they know the apparent victims or when it is abundantly clear that not intervening is very likely to result in death or great bodily harm.

The fact that most LEOs will not intervene when off duty should be pointed out and discussed.

I would hope that similar education regarding when the use of deadly force is justified in other kinds of encounters, indoors and out, and when it is not, will be provided also.

It is essential that anyone who carries a gun fully appreciate the fact that "adding a firearm into how one relates to the events and circumstances around them on the mundane daily routine of their lives complicates the issues and adds risks both legal and physical, because carrying a gun has a lot more gravity than many realize at first" and that it involves "the possibility of serious criminal charges and the potential to really harm someone are amplified 100 times with the presence of a gun that's brought forth".

I hate to put it quite this way, but people have done some pretty bone-headed things and gotten themselves into lot of trouble from time to time. That does not help anyone at all. Let's work to inform and educate.

onthejon55
August 15, 2009, 10:21 PM
Yep, and I know people who survived car accidents because they weren't wearing their seatbelt.... But I still wear mine. Why? Well, because there are 10,000 who died because they weren't wearing a seatbelt for every one who survived because they weren't.

In other words, I'm not involving myself and my gun in a stolen purse situation just because somebody somewhere died because they lost their allergy medicine.

The odds of things going very badly for all of us are a whole lot higher than the odds of someone needing the medicine in the bag.
__________________

If you dnt want to stand up for someone who is being robbed then dont. If you see someone choking and do not feel like doing the Heimlich maneuver then dnt. If you see a kid trapped in a burning building and do not feel like risking you life then dnt.

But do not tell other people who feel the need to stand up for others in society that they shouldnt do whats right.

MLeake
August 15, 2009, 10:29 PM
... just make you sure you know what you are doing first.

It would really suck to intervene, only to find out you took the wrong side based on misinterpreting what you were seeing.

It would also really suck to intervene and cause harm to innocent third parties.

It would also really, really suck to find that you had caused an escalation in the situation, and had effectively voided any right to claim self-defense.

OldMarksman has NEVER said don't stand up for an obvious innocent victim; neither have I, or Uncle Billy, or anybody else. What we have all said is that you had better really understand your state's laws, both as they are written and as they have actually been executed in court; you had better make sure you have a complete grasp of the situation you choose to enter; and, you had better realize that life isn't TV, and that your intervention has a chance of making things worse even if you do understand what is happening.

And OnTheJon55, you still come across as way too eager to draw a gun.

onthejon55
August 15, 2009, 10:36 PM
... just make you sure you know what you are doing first.

Exactly!! In the event that you KNOW someone needs help then I do not understand why some people on here seem so reluctant to help.

OldMarksman has NEVER said don't stand up for an obvious innocent victim; neither have I, or Uncle Billy, or anybody else.

I never said they did.

And OnTheJon55, you still come across as way too eager to draw a gun.

And if I ever need help i hope i have someone more eager to help than you around.

MLeake
August 15, 2009, 10:38 PM
... but on the bright side, I won't first tell them to F off and flip them the bird. Please grow up.

onthejon55
August 15, 2009, 10:43 PM
... but on the bright side, I won't first tell them to F off and flip them the bird.

Good i wouldn't recommend doing that as stated much earlier.

Please grow up.

Im not the one digging up old posts and past mistakes and throwing them in the face of someone trying to have a discussion about the ramifications of carrying a weapon.

MLeake
August 15, 2009, 10:48 PM
Let me put this to you another way:

Two of my best friends are plainclothes narcotics detectives. An overly assertive reaction to a fight or attempted "kidnapping" or "assault at gunpoint" by a CCW, during an attempt at an arrest of a BG by either of my friends could result in serious tragedy.

So, for me, this discussion is not nearly so theoretical as it may be for you.

Please note also that I already have intervened in more than one situation, when I was sure what was happening, and in those instances I wasn't armed.

And in the example that you don't like me digging up, I probably wouldn't have helped you if I'd seen the whole thing, because I'd know that you had stirred up trouble and created a major legal problem for me. However, I would have stepped in to protect your sister, who was the innocent bystander.

I generally try not to single people out, but you really should not be accusing people of timidity or bad judgment, especially after having so many others tell you the same thing.

onthejon55
August 15, 2009, 11:06 PM
Two of my best friends are plainclothes narcotics detectives. An overly assertive reaction to a fight or attempted "kidnapping" or "assault at gunpoint" by a CCW, during an attempt at an arrest of a BG by either of my friends could result in serious tragedy.


Being a plain clothes officer is very risky, thats why they usually "POLICE" when they are making the arrest.

And in the example that you don't like me digging up, I probably wouldn't have helped you if I'd seen the whole thing, because I'd know that you had stirred up trouble and created a major legal problem for me. However, I would have stepped in to protect your sister, who was the innocent bystander.


If you want to discuss this situation please feel free to start a new thread.

I generally try not to single people out, but you really should not be accusing people of timidity or bad judgment, especially after having so many others tell you the same thing.

since when was i not entitled to my own opinion?


EDIT: well this is getting horribly off topic i believe im done here...

Brian Pfleuger
August 15, 2009, 11:30 PM
But do not tell other people who feel the need to stand up for others in society that they shouldnt do whats right.

"Right" as defined by YOU. There are a good many of is in the world that believe that killing someone over a duffel bag would be WRONG.
On top of that, there are a good many of us who feel that taking the chance of leaving our families fatherless and husbandless because of a stolen duffel bag is equally wrong.

Your attempt to associate killing over a duffel bag with failing to assist a choking victim is assinine at best.

since when was i not entitled to my own opinion?

Since you started telling others to keep their opinions to themselves, which I quoted above. No fun when it's a two way street, is it?

onthejon55
August 16, 2009, 03:06 AM
Your attempt to associate killing over a duffel bag with failing to assist a choking victim is assinine at best.

How? either way if you mess up theres a chance you could be sued for everything you own which is almost the equivalent to going to prison.

Since you started telling others to keep their opinions to themselves, which I quoted above. No fun when it's a two way street, is it?

I give my own opinion. I dnt pretend to be a legal expert or cast doubt on everything anyone says.

Uncle Billy
August 16, 2009, 08:34 AM
You are entitled to your own opinion, everyone is.

When you make it public in a forum you put it up for comment and criticism.

If you don't consider what others have said about your opinion with objectivity and using reasoning, you miss a lot of opportunities to learn and possibly better your understanding.

Taking benefit from the criticism others offer requires that you be able to see past how it's stated- even if they've put what they think into sharp language, or say it in a demeaning way, the seed ideas they've stated are still worth considering.

If your intent is only to be heard but not to listen, then start a one-way blog.

MLeake
August 16, 2009, 08:37 AM
OntheJon55, on why his comparison of potentially killing somebody over a possibly stolen duffel bag was akin to failing to assist a choking victim made sense to him: How? either way if you mess up theres a chance you could be sued for everything you own which is almost the equivalent to going to prison.

Sure, a homicide charge with potential life imprisonment is similar to a lawsuit that would be very hard to file (Good Samaritan laws generally protect you from lawsuit if you try to help, they don't provide grounds for a suit against you except in very limited circumstances). Look up the Good Samaritan laws in your state, and try to find any case history of uninvolved third parties being successfully sued for failure to render assistance to unknown parties.

Not only that, but an awful lot of people who would not shoot a stranger over a duffel bag, would assist choking or accident victims without a second thought.

OntheJon55 also said:
I give my own opinion. I dnt pretend to be a legal expert or cast doubt on everything anyone says.

I think you'll see that most of us, if not all of us, who have talked about laws have not claimed to be legal experts. What we have all said is you should 1) look up the laws and case history in your area; and 2) possibly consult an attorney, because some of those laws can be hard to interpret.

If you don't want to understand the laws of your state, and if you really think that being charged with homicide is anything like a civil suit, you really should stop carrying that .22 of yours. With your attitude, you are a walking liability to yourself and others.

pax
August 16, 2009, 10:08 AM
Looks like this one is done.

Do I need to elaborate as to why?

pax