|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 18, 2009, 05:25 PM | #76 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
||
February 18, 2009, 10:28 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
Why yes... if someone refuses a command to hold, perhaps the idea is to shoot them **speaking hypothetically**. What benefit is it to remove tactical superiority and resort to hand-to-hand action, that's just plain stupid. Don't assume that they'll just up and saunter out. For all you know, they'll make a run at you once you've shown no willingness to actually USE the defensive weapon you are holding. The LESS you think you could do without your gun versus a determined intruder of unknown ability and intent, the greater the reason you should maintain control. I'm no expert, but I'm certain I read somewhere that you need to at least project a willingness to actually use your weapon in order for it to be an effective defense.
Interestingly enough, all the (admittedly biased) positive outcome situations in the American Rifleman and similar mags often involve a homeowner shooting an intruder FIRST and not trying to offer them krumpets before they depart to find their next potential victim. Would your willingness to hold and/or shoot change if you caught the BG assaulting your wife or kids upon returning home? Would you be just as happy to let them run away then? The point is you DON'T KNOW what the BG was going to do, what they're willing to do, if the cops will ever find them, if they'll simply find another house to break into, or whether or not they'd come back. At the time you do have some modicum of control over the situation (i.e. have them at gunpoint), it would seem the worst thing you could do is to once more loose them unto the world. Last edited by jg0001; February 20, 2009 at 12:55 AM. |
February 19, 2009, 03:33 AM | #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
a) The gun just did its job by preventing an attack on you. b) Dudley poses no immediate threat, but c) He is still a known danger and within range d) Keep your front sight on him and wait for him to leave the area. If Dudley has broken into your home and simply walks out the front door, ignoring your commands, then legally there isn't much you can do. Let him go, but keep your guard up until the police arrive. If you arrive and find Dudley already in your home assaulting a family member his first indication of your presence may be a loud noise just before his lights go out. However, if challenged after assaulting others and he starts to walk away, I would not trust him worth beans. Especially if he made some "furtive movement" for his waistband or headed towards rooms occupied by others.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
|
February 19, 2009, 06:18 AM | #79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
If you walk into you house and find him unplugging your stereo, you point your gun at him and he merely raises his hands and starts walking to the door, you gonna shoot him? In the State of Florida, a sworn officer can use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon, even one unarmed under certain conditions. I'm not sure that also applies to civilians. Main point is that you use your gun to stop an immediate threat. If the guy is running away, he is no longer an immediate threat and you have no legal right to shoot him. An attempt on your part to detain him may result in your arrest for armed kidnapping. Don't try to be a hero. Be a good witness for the police and go home alive. Do exactly what BILLCA recommended above. If you want to detain BGs at gunpoint, join the police force.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
|
February 19, 2009, 09:08 AM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
Interestingly enough, in all the "armed citizen" style letters in American Rifleman and the like, it would seem that in many burglary/home invasion scenarios, the homeowner seems likely to shoot first and ask questions later, rather than provide any moment of hesitation for thought on WWJD and the like. Somehow I imagine that that would be the likely outcome for many on here... adrenaline & emotion take over and the first reaction is to neutralize the threat. I don't recall reading any such reports where there was any kind of time out period... either the BG fled immediately at the brandishing of the defensive gun or was shot immediately (and then ran or died). **granted the stories printed are selected and not a random sampling**
Let's just hope none of us are put in that situation. |
February 19, 2009, 09:09 AM | #81 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Would that distinction embolden you to "new heights of criminality?" Quote:
Police officers (plural) will use force-physical force--to get the perps in cuffs and into their cars. Do you think they would shoot? Not likely! Read Garner v. Tennessee. The old "fleeing felon" rule is no longer operative. Quote:
Plus civil suits and large settlements against you for wrongful death or injury. Don't even think about it. Quote:
Heed the good advice of Hkmp5sd: Quote:
|
|||||
February 19, 2009, 09:36 AM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
**later posts express my sentiments with greater clarity**
Last edited by jg0001; February 20, 2009 at 01:02 AM. |
February 19, 2009, 11:03 AM | #83 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Did I just read that a forum member does not intend to abide by the law?
|
February 19, 2009, 11:18 AM | #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Saying on the internet, which will be found, that you will ignore legality is a very good plan for your trial. If you study police cases - you find they are sued over and over for the level of force to be used. Assume it will happen to you.
This discussion is a good ad for well run FOF classes. Do a simulated burglary or street incident where the BG just turns and walks out of your house or someone is peeing your gas tank. Hold 'em at gun point - so they don't comply. Now what? It is fun to be a role player for someone in that situation. I just did that in a simulated convenience store incident. The GG had the drop on me and I didn't comply - just stood there and raved - So, shoot me, tough guy. Gonna shoot a disabled vet hard on his luck!!! In front of a bunch of witnesses. BTW, I had a rubber knife but I didn't approach the GG, just ranted. Without approach, the Tueller case would be hard to prove and cop cases show that the Tueller story isn't universally accepted by the DA or civil courts.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 19, 2009, 01:11 PM | #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
I'd have to understand the law before I could defy it, correct? I posted on here a question regarding hollowpoints in NJ and still am not clear what the answer is. My wife is a lawyer (though not specializing in criminal offenses or firearams) and she can't make much sense of it either. Hence my blanket suggestion to treat everyone you encounter during and after an incident very carefully, including the police. Don't take it from me, this is straight from Ayoob. Last I checked, the FIFTH amendment was still in place. EVERYONE should assume, regardless of how well they know the law, that the prosecutor may be out to get them, and not be so quick to bear witness against themselves. For all you know, something was passed a week before your incident and now what you thought was okay is now illegal. It's been known to happen. Anyone that would trade in their morals & ethics for laws written by politicians may as well hand over their very souls while they're at it. If our founding fathers thought like this, we'd still be a colony of the United Kingdom. Last edited by jg0001; February 20, 2009 at 01:05 AM. |
|
February 19, 2009, 02:23 PM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
Can you shoot someone who got up from raping your daughter or your son or you? Maybe it would be good to know that. How can that knowledge hurt? But rape is emotional and clouding the issue for the discussion. How about the guy holding your prized possession and runs towards the door? Might it be good to understand if you could shoot him in the back? Anyway - make your own path - be aware of the consequences of choosing the emotional over the rational.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
February 19, 2009, 02:47 PM | #87 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
It is true that our laws are written by legislators, who are politicians. It is also true, however, that most of our laws that pertain to self defense and related subjects (with the exception of those that limit gun ownership) have been carefully thought out and have evolved over centuries, and are based on ethical standards that most of us believe in. The English Common Law held that murder was wrong. It also recognized that homicide committed in an act of proper self preservation was justifiable. But the question was how to distinguish between wrongful or reckless homicide and lawful self-defense, and to prevent the defendant from wrongly using that justification. Hence, the duty to retreat was specified. That did not apply within the home ("a man's castle"). And while it was permissible to use force to protect property, that meant reasonable force--deadly force was not permitted. For the most part all of our state laws on this subject today are primarily rooted in those long-standing legal and ethical principles, though some detailed changes have been made over time, and the castle doctrine has not been codified in all states. The only area that I know of (perhaps a legal scholar might help here) in which our current laws are more favorable to the suspect than the original common law in states with strong Castle laws is in the area of the use of deadly force by the police to stop fleeing suspects. I don't think that (the effects of Garner v. Tennessee) is a bad change, but an attorney friend disagrees. These foundational laws were established, tested, and modified over an extended period by judges, on the basis of ethics, common sense, and prior judicial decisions. So, the legal considerations that prevent an American citizen today from avoiding punishment, should he decide to shoot someone to prevent the potential commission of future crimes, are not the result of "laws written by politicians", nor are most of the other concepts in our criminal codes. Rather, they are rooted in long and well-tested legal and ethical traditions. My moral compass would never lead me to fire a gun at someone simply because I thought he needed to be taken into custody. I learned a long time ago that there is such a thing as due process, and that that process does not include my deciding guilt or innocence, passing sentence, or executing that sentence. I hope you find this worth while. |
|
February 19, 2009, 02:52 PM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
Think about it. Are you going to shoot someone because the law says you can? Are you not going to shoot someone who you think NEEDS shooting because the law says you cannot? I would hope that anyone who shoots someone would find it important enough to do so whether or not it was legal or not -- taking a life should be that big of a deal. At the end of the day, a human pulls the trigger. Don't you want that person to be responsible for their actions and not say 'the law said I could, so I did'? |
|
February 19, 2009, 03:09 PM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
Two examples come to mind: (1) the Delaware drug store shooting versus a clearly armed BG (thread on here recently locked, so let's be careful here); here the BG had the tactical advantage of having the weapon trained on an innocent and was prepared to do harm, though it's questionable if he would have (2) example from current American Rifleman: woman with kids sees BG enter her house, she grabs a handgun and shoots him (he escapes wounded); it's not clear that the BG had any weapon or intent to do harm In either case above, it could be argued that shots should not have been fired. It could (and probably will) be a legal hassle for #1; for #2, it's doubtful (even people on this board can't agree about #1, to the extent the other thread was locked). I don't see how either person acted with respect to the law rather than with respect to what they felt they needed to do at that point in time. I don't know what state #2 took place in, but I doubt her response would have differed based on state law. |
|
February 19, 2009, 03:30 PM | #90 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
The moment they make a run at you you would have a valid argument for the use of deadly force. If they are walking away they are not a threat. No one is saying to let your guard down and relax while he is walking away. |
|
February 19, 2009, 03:55 PM | #91 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
||
February 19, 2009, 04:04 PM | #92 |
Member
Join Date: September 9, 2007
Posts: 68
|
In general Joe Horn here in Texas had it right. "Move! You're Dead!" Followed by shotgun blasts when the thieves moved.
|
February 19, 2009, 04:20 PM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
OldMarksman ~
Excellent post, very well said. pax |
February 19, 2009, 04:20 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2005
Location: Mississippi/Texas
Posts: 2,505
|
Judgement call according to the situation. there's a big difference in my mind between stopping a rape or kidnapping and stopping some redneck from beating me w/baseball bat b/c I looked at his girlfriend. the first two are going to be held, baseball bat dude just learned a valuable lesson and may leave.
__________________
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress, but I repeat myself." Mark Twain |
February 19, 2009, 05:50 PM | #95 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
And of course, there would be the most serious issue of severe civil liability. Here are some things that are worthy of your most careful study: http://www.useofforce.us/ http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1...ocument&Click= http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm These are rather lengthy but anyone with a gun should read them and study them. I also recommend The Ayoob Files and In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob. Finally, it might be well worth the investment to invest in an hour or two of consultation with knowledgeable criminal attorney in your state. The return could be incalculable. I do hope you find these discussions helpful. Be aware, however, that posts that would seem to indicate a lack of respect for the law or for human life may, as Glenn Meyer pointed out (and so, by the way, has Mas), prove most unhelpful to the poster later on, and they can be used against us by those who do not favor private gun ownership or carry. Last edited by OldMarksman; February 19, 2009 at 07:38 PM. Reason: Spelling |
||
February 19, 2009, 11:18 PM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
You're oversimplifying my commentary. I've never said that what I would do was directly opposite what the law said I could do. What I did say is that what I would do is not determined by what the law says I could do. There is a difference. 99% of the time, my own personal morals & ethics would probably line up with the law. That last 1%, however, will depend on what is right, regardless if the arbitrary law at the time matches up with it or not. I'm a human with a soul first, and a citizen second.
If you were in the same situation in two different states, one where shooting is legal and one where it is not, would you truly act differently? Perhaps you just wouldn't shoot in either case, and that's fine. But that isn't the question. Anyone on here can say they'd only do what is legal, but that's truly B.S. when the situation turns dire in a heartbeat. They'd do what they think is right, and if they're lucky, their choice will be one that is also legal. The law isn't exactly perfect, you know... if it was, it wouldn't be different across the 50 states. Would you rather have a person of high moral conviction (whose convictions you agreed with) or someone knowledgeable in the law as your neighbor? |
February 19, 2009, 11:27 PM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
OldMarks, I'd really like your take on the 2 scenarios I listed in a prior post up on this page. |
|
February 19, 2009, 11:29 PM | #98 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
|
|
February 19, 2009, 11:38 PM | #99 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
From one of the links provided by OldMarksman: Quote:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/28...d-cop-agr.html Best part from the first video in the above: "everything you tell the police can and will be used against you -- it cannot be used to help you - ever" (around 9:15 into it) Bottom line -- if you've exercised your 2nd Amendment to protect yourself during an alteraction, be prepared to use the 5th Amendment to protect yourself thereafter. Last edited by jg0001; February 20, 2009 at 12:43 AM. |
||
February 20, 2009, 01:09 AM | #100 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
|
I'm still waiting for OldMarksman to tell me exactly what he would do if someone broke into his home. If they surrendered immediately on seeing you had a gun, then what? Do you not keep your gun out while you wait for the cops? Or, do you insist that the BG leave your premises immediately and just hope that the police can find him?
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|