The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 15, 2012, 12:04 AM   #126
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Okay, we disagree on principle and philosophy, then.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old June 15, 2012, 01:31 AM   #127
TexasJustice7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2011
Posts: 213
Quote:
Bartholmew Roberts: 1. In a place where you have a legal right to be;
2. Have not provoked the fight; and
3. Are not engaged in a crime

then you do not have to retreat in order to claim self-defense... however you still have to show all the elements required for self defense (Something a hypotehtical reasonable person would see as an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury).
I agree with the jury's verdict. And I do not see any problem with the SYG law in Texas. I am disabled myself, and I would never have approached the homeowners regarding the noise. That was a job for the police.

But I oppose any change in the Texas SYG law. A person like me that is disabled, if assaulted even by someone unarmed with their fists is life threatening. I don't think this law will be changed in Texas and I oppose any change in that Texas Law.

I recently heard the NRA president defedning the SYG law on TV, and while I am not a member of the NRA I agree with what I heard him say about it.
TexasJustice7 is offline  
Old June 16, 2012, 08:39 AM   #128
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
I have no problem with the guy taking a gun to another person's house to complain. That actually would be the prudent thing to do. Turning the situation around quite a bit, had Rodriguez been killed by a bunch of drunk guys when he went to a party and complained about the noise and it was noted that he had a CHL but did not bring his gun, no doubt we would have thought him stupid for not letting the cops handle it and stupid for leaving the gun at home as he should have known that complaining to the neighbors likely would not be taken very well by the neighbors.
He was stupid to go at all. Thinking that you can reason with a bunch of drunks that are already causing problems is very poor judgment. Thinking that you can brandish a weapon to impose your will upon a bunch of drunks is beyond the pale. He was stupid for not letting the cops handle it, even if he did not like the way they were handling it or making the problem go away fast enough to suit him.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old June 17, 2012, 05:36 AM   #129
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
mleake,

how about 'make my day'. I believe that is a name used sometimes
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old June 17, 2012, 06:04 AM   #130
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 969
I agree with those that said that they didn't have a problem with people bringing a gun when they go to talk to their neighbors. I have a gun pretty much every time I leave the house. Bringing the gun wasn't the problem.
The problem was that he went looking for a fight. If he'd found the people that owned the house, politely asked them if they could try to keep the volume down and then left nobody would have even known that he had a gun.
__________________
si vis pacem para bellum
dayman is offline  
Old June 17, 2012, 08:48 PM   #131
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I really dislike "make my day."

Great movie line, but very poor politics.
MLeake is offline  
Old June 17, 2012, 10:52 PM   #132
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
mleake I hear you well not sure about the politics part but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_My_Day_Law

3rd paragraph down....passed into law 1.5yrs after the line was used on the big screen
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 12:20 AM   #133
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
younggunz4life, the "politics" part goes along these lines:

Imagine yourself defending SYG type laws to your theoretical sister, who is an associate VP at a theoretical liberal university. Would you rather defend "No duty to retreat" or "Make my day!" if you had to debate the merits of those laws?

IMO, "Make my day!" sounds like gun owners looking for an excuse to play vigilante - and I'm a life NRA member, CCW holding, martial arts practicing, retired Navy, current defense contractor type. If I think "Make my day!" sounds belligerent, how do you think it sounds to my sister, or to others who might be not only in the other camp, but even on the fence?

It's bad politics, in that "Make my day!" only appeals to people who are already on the pro-side - and it doesn't even appeal to all of them.
MLeake is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 06:07 AM   #134
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
I can understand where you are coming from. I do not think there is an exclamation point in the name, but point taken. My thing is this political correctness and trying to please everyone syndrome...I just don't believe in it. In all honesty I am not buying into the stand your ground arguments going on now either. I hope as well as don't see them being repealed, but it is obvious certain cases(or one case) at the moment have the law in the spotlight. The law makes sense to me. period. judge judy said something one time and it made sense int he 90's just like it does now...if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, that means it is a duck. I personally don't see anything wrong with the 'make my day' law and books shouldn't be judged by their covers anyways. the law made sense in 1985 and seemingly was more acceptable(at least in certain states like CO), and the law still makes total sense just as stand your ground does...it is just under the microscope so to speak. months before the "case" in recent news it was gaining traction. again, I just don't see it stopping as stand your ground isn't really the issue in that case.

I guess it doesn't hurt to have the law on your side in that "Case" being probed in FL, but I just don't see how it helps in this particular matter. I think some people seem to think it is bad because it is a free pass? huh? I think much of the anti gun sentiment comes from colliding and differing state laws on CCW which pretty much just leads to confusion even by law enforcement. I believe these confusions such as the stand your ground law which is being heavily misinterpreted would be better understand with national CCW. CCW anywhere in america...sortof like LEOSA allows for law enforcement...would still have all these state laws that differ but People would understand whether for CCW, against CCW, scared of CCW, etc, etc that it is allowed and it makes sense. I mean its getting ridiculous when people think a neighborhood association booklet might start determining if stand your ground is allowed. there is too much confusion. I appreciate where you are coming from, but why should 'make my day' or "fill in the blanks" have to apologize or change names for something that makes sense. it just makes things sugarcoated and can make things worse in some instances
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 06:24 AM   #135
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
To you, the name doesn't matter because you like the law.

To Joe Public, who may very well be opposed to the law, or on the fence about the law, a name can make a great deal of difference.

We live in a world of sound bites. We live in a world where people skim headlines, instead of reading articles. Most readers will gloss over what the law actually says, but take note of what it is called.

I am not worried about "political correctness," as you put it. I am worried about alienating voters whose votes we need, because somebody decided to use a snappy name for a serious law.

That isn't political correctness, it's pragmatism.
MLeake is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 10:11 AM   #136
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,107
I would like to comment about strapping on your gun.

It's a touch complex. Many of us carry a gun whenever we go out and the location we are going to is legal. It is just a part of everyday equipment, like your wallet.

The nuance is when you strap on your gun to go to a potential confrontation with a specific human. Why a human, because I go hike where there may be critters and thus I have gun. It's a generic risk, like a generic mugger.

But if I think I'm going to a place where I have a higher than normal everyday risk of confronting a particular person and need a gun - maybe I shouldn't go to that particular place to engage that particular person.

Does this make a difference? In a case report in the American Rifleman, an individual went over to a place to argue about owed money. He OC'ed over there as was his right. He also competed with firearms. He ended up shooting the person and claimed SD.

The prosecution claimed that OC'ing over to the person was premeditation.
That he competed was premeditation.
He fired a string of shots, paused and fired another. The prosecution claimed that last shot was a 'kill' shot and premeditated.

Currently being appealed. First lawyer seemed not so competent.

So being seen as strapping on your gun, which is your right - could look bad.

All this clearly indicates, the 'if it is a good shoot cliche' isn't worth spit.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 03:20 PM   #137
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,134
Quote:
I have no problem with the guy taking a gun to another person's house to complain. That actually would be the prudent thing to do.
No. Actually that would be a stupid thing to do on many levels.

1. You are going into a situation that is on someone else s property, this puts you instantly at odds with the law concerning self defense, you have no right to be there, carrying or not.

2. While you could simply phone the neighbor and ask him to tone it down, or call LE and complain, you have taken it upon yourself to become an "uninvited guest" This puts you at a disadvantage, and you have put yourself at unnecessary risk.

Quote:
had Rodriguez been killed by a bunch of drunk guys when he went to a party and complained about the noise and it was noted that he had a CHL but did not bring his gun, no doubt we would have thought him stupid for not letting the cops handle it
I submit that had he: A. "let the cops handle it" or B. "not brought his gun" we would likely not be discussing this at all.

I see no problem with phoning a neighbor, or even knocking on his door and politely asking he crank it down a notch, and that failing, calling LE to complain, but if you feel the need to arm yourself to do so, common sense should tell you that you probably should not go.


Quote:
he should have known that complaining to the neighbors likely would not be taken very well by the neighbors.
Again, simple common sense dictates that if ya think it's not gonna go well, maybe you should not be there, carrying or not.

Quote:
But if I think I'm going to a place where I have a higher than normal everyday risk of confronting a particular person and need a gun - maybe I shouldn't go to that particular place to engage that particular person.
I absolutely agree Glenn.

Just my .2
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 07:15 PM   #138
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
1. You are going into a situation that is on someone else s property, this puts you instantly at odds with the law concerning self defense, you have no right to be there, carrying or not.
That is not even true. Although I agree with most of the rest of your post.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 08:29 PM   #139
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,228
Quote:
No. Actually that would be a stupid thing to do on many levels.

1. You are going into a situation that is on someone else s property, this puts you instantly at odds with the law concerning self defense, you have no right to be there, carrying or not.
Not true. Just because I am not on my own property does not mean that I don't have rights to self defense. However, if you know of a particular Texas law that states this, please share it as it would seem to be a rather key law lacking from CHL instruction courses.

Quote:
2. While you could simply phone the neighbor and ask him to tone it down, or call LE and complain, you have taken it upon yourself to become an "uninvited guest" This puts you at a disadvantage, and you have put yourself at unnecessary risk.
Generally speaking, I don't consider any of my neighbors to be a risk to me and I have no more concern about confronting them than they would confronting me. I am not going to disarm just because I want to ask my neighbor to turn down his stereo.

Uninvited guest? I don't recall seeing that stipulated in the trespass laws, but going up and knocking on the front door to address the homeowner is not considered being an uninvited guest anymore than a cop or door-to-door salesman would be an uninvited guests. It is the point of contact, a standard point of contact commonly used. If I have not previously been told not to enter the property and the property is not posted against trespass, then there is no problem with being there so long as not being told to leave.

Quote:
But if I think I'm going to a place where I have a higher than normal everyday risk of confronting a particular person and need a gun - maybe I shouldn't go to that particular place to engage that particular person.
I also have no problem with this statement, but I won't disarm just because I am going to knock on the neighbor's door and ask him to crank it down. Just because I don't think there will be a problem doesn't mean a problem won't occur...and it may not even be with the neighbor having the party.

Quote:
I submit that had he: A. "let the cops handle it" or B. "not brought his gun" we would likely not be discussing this at all.
Based on my own experience, big parties don't quiet down even after a visit from the neighbor. The party in question was a big party, so the cops should have handled it but Rodriguez was impatient and had issues apparently. And had he not brought his gun (as if the gun is the problem???), you are right, we likely would not be discussing the indicent here, but not because something didn't happen. Instead, it would be discussed on one of the unarmed combat or non-firearm combat forums discussing how it was that Rodriguez got beat to a pulp.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 10:16 PM   #140
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Except that for many minutes of recording, without the gun having been shown, Rodriguez was not beaten to a pulp. So, there's "theoretical" could, and then there's what actually happened - which is at odds with the theoretical.

Rodriguez was not threatened until he produced the weapon. Jeered, yes; told to leave, yes. No physical move, nor reasonable threat was conveyed until he showed that he was carrying.
MLeake is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 01:18 PM   #141
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
Just because I am not on my own property does not mean that I don't have rights to self defense.
You do not have the right to bring a firearm onto someone else's property without their consent.

If you refuse to leave you are trespassing.
brickeyee is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 01:43 PM   #142
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,134
Posted by MTT TL
Quote:
That is not even true.

Posted by Double Naught Spy
Quote:
Not true.
Please show me what gives you the right to be on my private property ?
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 01:56 PM   #143
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,020
The guy was a confrontational and delusional moron. He will reside at Huntsville, TX for an extended period of time: As it should be.
thallub is online now  
Old June 19, 2012, 03:52 PM   #144
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
You do not have the right to bring a firearm onto someone else's property without their consent.
If by that you mean that the consent of a property owner is required for concealed carry, that is not correct in many states, but is true that some states require the consent of a homeowner to carry inside the home. Property owners can order you off their premises for virtually any reason, but requiring informed consent of a property owner is an uncommon provision in firearm law, to the best of my knowledge.
TailGator is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 03:52 PM   #145
Jammer Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 827
Turn it around.

You come onto my lawn. You tell me to turn my porch light off, because my porch light bothers you. I tell you no. You pull out a gun, turn on your camera, announce that you're standing your ground and dial 911.

I blow you away.

Who was defending himself?

Who has castle doctrine behind him?

Who started it?

He belongs in prison.
__________________
"Huh?" --Jammer Six, 1998
Jammer Six is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 04:15 PM   #146
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
If by that you mean that the consent of a property owner is required for concealed carry, that is not correct in many states
Name a state that allows you to carry without the owner's consent.

That is a basic property right in all 50 states.

You do not have ANY right to enter private property and do ANYTHING.

PERIOD.


Your presence on private property is at the whim of the owner.

If they do not like you hair color they can tell you to leave, and then have you charged with trespassing of you refuse.

It is NOT the same as a business that is open to the public.
They have a few more restrictions, but you can still be told to leave and charged with trespassing if you refuse.
brickeyee is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 05:31 PM   #147
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,134
Quote:
It is NOT the same as a business that is open to the public.
Exactly, brickeyee.

When you enter private property (IE: my yard) You are not in a place you have a right to be.

I may, or may not grant you the privilege to be there, but that is vastly different than a "Right"
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 06:25 PM   #148
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,473
Actually, virtually all states allow you to carry on private property without the owners consent. If they find out, ask you to leave and you refuse, it's trespassing but very few places require permission of any kind, prior.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
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 19, 2012, 06:46 PM   #149
a7mmnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: NC Foothills
Posts: 1,150
TWO years ago???Why do they keep insisting he is a "retired fire fighter"? Another dunce trying to get our rights removed. Thanks--not.

-7-
a7mmnut is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 09:51 PM   #150
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,134
Quote:
Actually, virtually all states allow you to carry on private property without the owners consent.
OK, but you still have no right to be on my property.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT 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 08:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15666 seconds with 7 queries