March 16, 2016, 08:50 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
I've seen stories like this shift from armed civilian to off duty cop before.
No disrespect and I sincerely am not disparaging any officers, but to me they are one in the same.
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
March 18, 2016, 05:32 PM | #27 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
60yr old private citizen. CCW permit. Declines to speak to the press (smart private citizen)
Used deadly force to prevent assault with deadly weapon, if not outright murder. Clerk slightly injured, attacker dead on the scene. THIS is the kind of event that should be thrown in the face of the antigun crowd EVERY time they start spouting off about how a CCW is "useless" and a "danger" to everyone. Not a case of an officer/security guard who happened to be there, armed and trained. While I want to protect the shooter's privacy, (which he certainly deserves) I would love to know ALL the actual details of the shooting. What gun, what ammo, how many rounds fired (all I know right now is "multiple" shots fired), and the other details that apply. My understanding is that while the law allows the use of deadly force in cases like this, because the defender is not police, there is no legal requirement for a civilian to identify himself or announce his intent to shoot, prior to stopping the attack. He could, legally shoot the attacker in the back, without warning, I'm curious if he did, or what actually did happen. I would love to be able to use this case as an argument FOR responsible CCW use, which, with the details we have so far, it could well be. Right now, this case seems to be something that the other side can't twist to fit their arguments in any way. I hope it stays that way when we know more details.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
March 18, 2016, 06:08 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
Let's presume the citizen fired without warning, from the rear or side, and multiple times, just for argument. How does this change the event from justifiable self-defense?
|
March 18, 2016, 11:36 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
Quote:
I was just wondering about the tactics used. Police are expected by the TV watching public to shout commands like "freeze" or drop the weapon" and then shoot if necessary. I know of no requirement in law for a citizen to do that.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
March 19, 2016, 08:06 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Realizing this can vary between jurisdictions, are LEO's required to
Quote:
Has TV/Movies got it wrong? Yea, I know they're in their own world, but it seemed like a good question at the time.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
March 19, 2016, 07:32 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Cowtowner: Yes and no.
Officers are not required to yell commands before using deadly force, however they are trained to do so. Under Supreme Court guidelines, police are required to give verbal warning prior to using deadly force if feasible.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
March 20, 2016, 11:29 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Thank you, Gary.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
April 15, 2016, 09:47 PM | #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
Quote:
BTW a situation which I believe should allow the use of physical force, maybe not necessarily deadly force but physical force of some sort, should be any sort of sexual assault crime done by a male assailant. |
||
April 15, 2016, 10:03 PM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
We've outlined what the law is and how if works with regard to intentional violence against another human. If circumstances are such that under the law as it exists one can justify an intentional act of violence, that's one thing. But your belief one way or the other isn't material.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
April 15, 2016, 10:05 PM | #35 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
Much like its against the law to run red lights but that there are exceptions to that. For instance an emergency vehicle that's running its lights and sirens. Quote:
|
||
April 16, 2016, 12:03 AM | #36 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
So your question assumed you were on trial. I can guarantee that if you used unarmed force against another person and wind up in court over it, by the time you got to court your background will have been pretty thoroughly investigated, and the prosecution know all about your martial arts background.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
April 16, 2016, 06:11 AM | #37 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
April 16, 2016, 08:55 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 2012
Location: Braham, Minnesota
Posts: 1,314
|
I find these discussions some what interesting as a time filler on the weekend.
Usually take a scenario or two. And run them through all the possible options and what if's. The Lawyers chime in and over complicate the simple. Then the Layman pops on and over simplifies the complex. Interesting no doubt.Useful in a real world context???? Not really sure. We take one example of maybe the possible 100,000 ways you could find your self at risk. Them run 15 pages on it. It would not be possible when faced with a threat, perceived or actual. That you would be able to run through all the possible out comes in advance and then make a decision in the 2 seconds allotted for that decision. Even the people who are trained in scenario actions ( the Police) make mistakes. But it does not stop them from acting. For my self, I find it more useful to work on trying to control my risk. By limiting my exposure. ( if I am not involved. That's the best scenario of all) Then make the best decisions possible in a broad sense. Because in that second or two that I have to decide what to do. I have to live with that decision. Lives may hang in the balance. If I decide not to engage the person it appears is holding a gun on a store clerk and they get killed as a result. I have to live with that. If I decide to act and shoot what turns out to be a kid pointing a pellet gun at the clerk who is a friend and they are just playing a joke on them. Well I would have to live with that too. Truth is.. Its much easier to just be a victim. Your never responsible for any thing that happens. Its much much harder not being the victim. Do the best you can, Make the best decisions you can. Just know going in. No matter what, you will be held to account for those decisions. One way or the other.
__________________
NRA life member. US Army veteran, 11 Bravo. Last edited by A pause for the COZ; April 16, 2016 at 09:36 AM. |
April 16, 2016, 05:53 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
|
|
April 16, 2016, 05:57 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
|
|
April 16, 2016, 06:23 PM | #41 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Do you want to understand how the world actually works? Do you want to understand reality and learn how to deal with it? Do you want to learn? Or do you just want to sit around the fire and jabber about your fantasies of how you wish the world was. Wishing things doesn't get you anywhere. "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." Quote:
So if in fact your real goal is learn about the law of self defense, your opinions about how you think things should be are irrelevant. Your opinions have nothing to do with how things actually are. All opinions aren't equal, and some opinions aren't worth much, or any, attention. Opinions on a subject, when they are the opinions of people who are educated, knowledgeable and experienced in that subject warrant much more attention than the opinions of those who are not. The opinions of my doctor on medical matters are worth more consideration than the opinions of my mechanic of those matters. Now if you want to change things, that's something else. Become politically active. Support well thought out litigation. But people who are effective at change start by understanding very deeply how things actually are.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
April 17, 2016, 02:41 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Alright than I will put it like this, can physical force, not necessarily deadly force but physical force be used against a male assailant who is committing a sexual crime?
|
April 17, 2016, 06:56 AM | #43 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
By "sexual crime," I'm going to assume that you mean a sexual assault, as opposed to something like exposing oneself, also a sexual crime.
As a general proposition, you can use physical force in defense of yourself or others in instances where it is used to prevent death or serious bodily injury. Beyond that, it's going to be a matter of state law, and we'd need to know which state we're talking about.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 17, 2016, 10:37 AM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Such a question can be easily handled as Spats said by referring to appropriate state laws. Rather than speculation, it behooves you to look it up. Google your state laws and be done with it.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 17, 2016, 02:12 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2015
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
And I spend most of my time in NJ, one of the least self defense friendly states. |
|
April 17, 2016, 02:24 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
As I said, this is easily found with a touch of research. It behooves a poster to do the due diligence once so informed so as we can have an educated discussion.
Thus closed.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
|