The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 29, 2009, 11:28 PM   #51
omkhan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2008
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
Posts: 117
Just my two cents that being robbed/ mugged by armed men/man (whether byGun/Knife/Club etc) is not a property crime. OP is a different case though. However, if the owner truly believed that the burglar had a weapon then I have no hesitation to claim it as a self defense and a good shot.
omkhan is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 12:38 AM   #52
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
If everything in the news story is the truth, what choice did he have? He thought the BG was aiming a shotgun at him. He could have waited a moment to see for sure or he could have fired.

I am saying this based on the idea that all parties involved are telling the full truth.

I have seen footage of two police officers opening fire on a guy with a cell phone aimed at them. I have also seen footage of police officers not firing on a female aiming a wallet at them.

If you choose to pretend you have a gun to someone who really does, you might wind up getting shot. Sorry but stupid never came with a guarantee of not getting hurt. Nor did it come with guaranteed sympathy if you did.

Last edited by cloud8a; June 30, 2009 at 01:02 AM. Reason: point clarity
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 01:01 AM   #53
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
COWERING is not something in my state you are required to do. When it comes to the Castle Doctrines, personally I would not shoot someone who is, say for instance, burglarizing my car.

But the suggestion of cowering when someone is burglarizing you and then points what you believe to be a shotgun in your direction means you might be putting your life in the hands of the bad guy.

Tell the victims at the Luby's in Killeen Texas they should have Cowered (the reason Texans have CCW law today), Tell the victims at Virginia Tech they should have Cowered, Tell the victims of Columbine they should have cowered, tell a million people in a million different situations that they should have cowered. You know what they will tell you? That they did and now they are dead.

Sometimes the realities of life and nature require that you must FIGHT to survive. that is why CCW laws and Castle Doctrines are law. To help us legally when we choose to fight and not COWER.

Last edited by cloud8a; June 30, 2009 at 02:46 AM.
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 02:56 AM   #54
Sixer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2008
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Shooting someone = suck city.
Getting shot by someone = suck city x 100000!

I pray I never have to use deadly force on another person... BUT if the situation should occur where my life, or the lives of loved ones were in danger... well I guess I'd be in "suck city" for a bit. It's better than the alternative.

In my state you can no longer be taken to court by the BG's family. I could live with my actions if they were justified. I could NOT, however, live with doing nothing and have it result in others being harmed or killed.
__________________
Hopp Custom Leather <------ click for HOLSTER awesomeness!!

-There is no theory of evolution... Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
Sixer is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 07:11 AM   #55
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,921
Quote:
In my state you can no longer be taken to court by the BG's family.
Missouri? Think again.

If you have been tried in criminal court and it has been found that your use of deadly force was justified, you are protected against civil liability for any damages to the perpetrator. If there is a civil suit that for some reason goes to trial, and that would be extremely unlikely in the event of an acquittal in criminal court, the criminal court finding will serve as your defense in civil court, and according to the law, you will pay no legal expenses or court costs. Lay opinion.

If you are taken to court by the plaintiff and there has been no criminal court trial, a finding in that court that you were justified under the criminal law would serve as your defense against a civil judgment, and your legal fees would be reimbursed. Lay opinion. That's how it reads to this layman. I don't know of any actual cases.

I think you would find that the burden of proof would differ---reasonable doubt in the criminal court, vs. preponderance of the evidence in a civil case.

As I understand it, these provisions were enacted into law to correct a bad situation. People who had lawfully defended themselves had reportedly ended up with huge civil liabilities.

By the way, had this Virginia shooting occurred in MO, it would remain to be seen just who would end up wearing the "BG" hat. Maybe the shooter would not be charged, maybe he would be charged but not indicted, and maybe he would end up on trial--and then what?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 08:27 AM   #56
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
OldMarksman - As I can understand it you are exactly correct. You can still be sued no matter what but the likelyhood in a case where you were not charged or found not-guilty by a jury is extremely low. It would have to be an unusual case for any lawyer to take it knowing that if they lost they would have to pay your legal fees. But all that may not keep someome from trying it and you could lose with some sympathetic, pathetic jury.
PT111 is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 08:57 AM   #57
Aqeous
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Posts: 646
Quote:
But I hate it when folks here actually advise others to "cower" before the criminal element.
It's pathetic.
Quote:
To help us legally when we choose to fight and not COWER.


Quote:
I think people on TFL are harping to strongly on the cower (Coward ) part, maybe wildalaska needs to rephrase that a bit for the sake of everyones macho bravado


Maybe:

Deescalate, cover, cellphone . . .

...
__________________
"Tell them the law is coming to Tombstone . . . and hell is coming with me." --Kurt Russel as Wyatt Earp.

http://www.alljohnwayne.com/cowboys7.mp3
Aqeous is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 09:10 AM   #58
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
Deescalate, cover, cellphone . . .
Better yet....

Use cellphone if possible without compromising the situation,
Seek cover and concealment when possible while engaging the threat,
STOP THE CRIMINAL if possible,
Use cellphone now if you were unable to use it before stopping the criminal.
easyG is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 09:14 AM   #59
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,921
Quote:
You can still be sued no matter what but the likelyhood in a case where you were not charged or found not-guilty by a jury is extremely low.
I think the likelihood would be less than remote in the case of a criminal trial and acquittal.

On the other hand, in the event of a decision to not charge (which can be reversed at any time during the rest of your life, for any or for no reason), I think it's reasonably possible that, depending on the facts of the case, a plaintiff's attorney may believe that the decision was a bad one and choose to proceed, and once the evidence is placed before a civil jury, that jury may not have to be excessively "sympathetic, much less "pathetic,"to find that a preponderance of the evidence indicated that your use of force was excessive.

That eventuality is something that concerns me, not so much in the event of a forced entry into my home, but if something happens in a parking lot or sidewalk.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 09:41 AM   #60
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
Excellent point. I was just trying to emphasize that even in states where there is both Castle Doctrine and Stand-your-ground laws if the DA says it was a good shoot it does not mean it is necessarily over. I hear too many people say that if you are not charged due to the Castle Doctrine that you can't be sued which is not the case at all.

I heard a talk by a policeman once that said that in a shooting you want it to go to a jury and be found not-guilty. That way it cannot come back on you later in a criminal court and gives additional leverage in any civil trial.

One also has to remember that a jury finds a person either guilty or not-guilty. A jury never finds a person innocent. There is a big difference between not-guilty and innocent. OJ was found not-guilty, the civil jury said different. In the Duke LAX case the State DA made a bing statement when he said that the players were not just not-guilty but also innocent.
PT111 is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 10:05 AM   #61
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
But I hate it when folks here actually advise others to "cower" before the criminal element.
It's pathetic.
But I hate it when folks here actually cheer others to assault the alleged criminal element like a play army video game.

It's pathetic.

Quote:
I think people on TFL are harping to strongly on the cower (Coward ) part, maybe wildalaska needs to rephrase that a bit for the sake of everyones macho bravado
Not everyones. Its a good word to separate them out though

WildichosethemcarefullyAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 10:06 AM   #62
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,400
Of course, if the storeowner in the OP had done what made sense in this situation, which was not go to the store until he was sure the police had already arrived then he wouldn't and COULDN'T have been charged with anything at all. No one would have been in any danger except the people who are paid (and choose) to put themselves in danger. There would be no discussion of why he shot anybody for any reason and I dare say his life would be a hell of a lot better right now.

Isn't that really the point? Does anybody think the storeowner is glad he did what he did? I doubt he's thinking "I taught that SOB a lesson. This will make our society better! We can't let that criminal scum just have their way, we need brave people to act! That's what makes America great!"

No, he's not. He thinking "Oh crap, I could go to jail for a very long time. Why, oh why! I should have just waited for the police. Why am I so stupid! Even if I don't go to jail I'll still be ruined! No more business. The dead guys family is going to take away everything I've worked for all my life."

Ironic, isn't it? He shot a guy who was trying to take a tiny little piece of what he worked for, a guy who wasn't even a threat, regardless of what the storeowner "thought" at the time. So, now, having shot the guy, he will give up most or all of what he was trying to "protect".
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; June 30, 2009 at 10:12 AM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 10:20 AM   #63
sakeneko
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peetzakilla
Ironic, isn't it? He shot a guy who was trying to take a tiny little piece of what he worked for, a guy who wasn't even a threat, regardless of what the storeowner "thought" at the time. So, now, having shot the guy, he will give up most or all of what he was trying to "protect".
Bingo.
sakeneko is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 12:21 PM   #64
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,921
Post #62

Very well put, Peetzakilla, on all points.

Anyone who has not thought through the potential consequences of shooting someone when it is not absolutely necessary can learn some lessons from this poor guy.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 01:30 PM   #65
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
But I hate it when folks here actually cheer others to assault the alleged criminal element like a play army video game.

It's pathetic.
I don't know where you're getting the "play army video game" stuff...
Nothing said in this thread, by anyone, would suggest shooting another person is anything like a game.

It might not be your intention, but you really come across as extremely soft on criminals....even to the point where you seem to actually side with them over law abiding citizens.
easyG is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 01:33 PM   #66
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
Isn't that really the point? Does anybody think the storeowner is glad he did what he did? I doubt he's thinking "I taught that SOB a lesson. This will make our society better! We can't let that criminal scum just have their way, we need brave people to act! That's what makes America great!"

No, he's not. He thinking "Oh crap, I could go to jail for a very long time. Why, oh why! I should have just waited for the police. Why am I so stupid! Even if I don't go to jail I'll still be ruined! No more business. The dead guys family is going to take away everything I've worked for all my life."
Actually, we have no way of knowing what the storeowner is thinking.
You're just projecting what YOU would be thinking.

One thing is for sure....we have one less criminal on the streets to prey upon law abiding citizens.

And I highly doubt that the dead guy's family is going to get a penny of the storeowner's money.
If they do then it's because the justice system has failed the law abiding citizens of this nation, and certainly not due to the actions of the storeowner.

And I seriously doubt that the storeowner's business will suffer in the least.
easyG is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 01:39 PM   #67
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,400
Quote:
And I highly doubt that the dead guy's family is going to get a penny of the storeowner's money.
Really? Even if they don't personally, individually, get a single penny, they will certainly "get" many thousands of his dollars and many hundreds of his hours in the form of legal fees, court appearances and sleepless nights wondering if he will lose everything.

Quote:
One thing is for sure....we have one less criminal on the streets to prey upon law abiding citizens.
Dang straight! Where do I sign the petition to have burglary made a capital offense?:barf:


Quote:
You're just projecting what YOU would be thinking.
Nope, I'd be thinking "Darn glad I didn't go down there and do something stupid. I'm glad I let the police handle it. That's why I have an alarm and security cameras and insurance."
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 01:41 PM   #68
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
WA believes you should only defend your self when the BG has you on the ground and has his knife to your throat, Or has you pinned in a closet where you ran to with the barrel of the BG's gun in your mouth. To Wildalaska it is only then that you should defend your self.

If you defend before that you are a bloodthirsty murderer. Seriously, look at his posts from the past. It does not even matter what the law is in your state. That is how he wants it.
cloud8a is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 01:52 PM   #69
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
Dang straight! Where do I sign the petition to have burglary made a capital offense?
In my opinion, it should be a capital offense.
Then you wouldn't have "repeat offenders".

I would love to see a "three strikes and you're dead" policy when it comes to felonies.
easyG is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 01:57 PM   #70
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
It might not be your intention, but you really come across as extremely soft on criminals....even to the point where you seem to actually side with them over law abiding citizens.
Yeah...it's tough to disregard years of studying jurisprudence with concepts suchlike innocent till proven guilty and proportionate punishment and all the other legal stuff that gets tossed away when the alleged criminal is someone other than a gun owner picked on by the Feds

Quote:
WA believes you should only defend your self when the BG has you on the ground and has his knife to your throat, Or has you pinned in a closet where you ran to with the barrel of the BG's gun in your mouth. To Wildalaska it is only then that you should defend your self. If you defend before that you are a bloodthirsty murderer. Seriously, look at his posts from the past. It does not even matter what the law is in your state. That is how he wants it.
WAs posts speak for themselves, but thanks for trying.

WildletusknowhenyouwanttodiscusstheissuecriticallyAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 02:04 PM   #71
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
Yeah...it's tough to disregard years of studying jurisprudence with concepts suchlike innocent till proven guilty....
Wait a minute, a guy is in my home uninvited and I should restrain myself because he might be "innocent" of being in my home uninvited???

You can't be serious!:barf:

Perhaps you have "studied" so much that you are hopelessly tangled in the legalese and have forgotten the spirit of the law and the meaning of justice.
Or you're just way too soft on criminals for my taste.
easyG is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 02:07 PM   #72
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,400
Quote:
I should restrain myself because he might be "innocent" of being in my home uninvited???
No, you should restrain yourself because:

1)Shooting someone is years of headaches, $10s of thousands of dollars of your money and countless hours/days/weeks of your time, no matter how justified.

2)Trespassing is not a capital offense.

3)You want to do what is best for YOU and your family, which is almost never putting a bullet in another human being. (See #1)
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 02:09 PM   #73
smee78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2008
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 973
Looks like a criminal got what he deserved. I'm tired of these revolving criminals getting away with there 4th 5th 12th arrest only to be sent back out to do it again. I feel sorry for the store owner that he was in the position but the thief was stealing his life support. If it was cattle (back in the days of old)he would of been hung. I dont feel sorrow for thiefs or liers. Its just a matter of time before they will hurt someone with there words or weapons.
__________________
We know exactly where one cow with Mad-cow-disease is located, among the millions and millions of cows in America, but we haven't got a clue where thousands of illegal immigrants and terrorists are
smee78 is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 02:11 PM   #74
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
peetzakilla, have you ever actually shot anyone as a civilian while you were not carrying out your duty as a military or law enforcement?
easyG is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 02:13 PM   #75
cloud8a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 341
Wildalaska has not studied anything that gives those cower philosophies real ground.

check my previous post about the customers of Luby's in Killeen Texas COWERING. The reason we have CCW laws in Texas, so we do not have to cower while getting our brains blown out. It gives up the ability to stand up and fight the BG. Check my prev. post.
cloud8a is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14639 seconds with 7 queries