Had to use mine Wednesday Night

[armedandsafe]

Moose, been there, done that. Take the counseling, lad, It wasn't available when I had my occasions and I'm still working my way through and around it. 45 years now, from the first one.

I was thinking to everyone here who does CC - would you guys be interested in pooling resources to do a CC defense fund? To help our fellow CC carriers who (involved in a legit self-defense shoot) get sued by relatives of the BG?

If we are talking a generic pool for THL members, I'm in. If we are talking a specific donation to help this one, I'm in.

Pops

[MoW]

OK, I'll be the first---glad to hear you're ok----but-----from my understanding(at least in Fla) there is virtually no circumstance that you can fire your weapon from a vehicle. It's a good thing he didn't get killed(for your sake)or you could be in serious trouble. From what you described he had no weapon. Did you pull the gun and shoot right away or give him the opportunity to retreat? The way they described it to us, shooting someone in exchange for something(truck)that can be replaced is not justified---get a good desription and call the police. If someone had been in the car near you and was shot would mean serious trouble and lead to civil action. I'm not saying I agree with the law---just simply stating how it is interpreted. Hope everything turns out ok for you---good luck and stay safe.

[Para Bellum]

You refused to be a victim, and prevailed. Respect!
What ammo did you use?

I am a lawer (business and European, but still), they are right. Don't talk about this to anyone until it's over and at least the criminal part is done. In my jurisdiction no civil suit endangeres you if the criminal investigations are stopped or you were acquitted. Do talk to good lawyers. The NRA or similar associations might recommend good and experienced legal advice.

Stay safe and sound.

[mill hunky]

glad your ok. i see now the center storage area is better than the glove box. didn`t read all the threads, how`s your head? take care , you didn`t get robbed and the robber got what he deserved. rich

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by MoW

OK, I'll be the first---glad to hear you're ok----but-----from my understanding(at least in Fla) there is virtually no circumstance that you can fire your weapon from a vehicle. It's a good thing he didn't get killed(for your sake)or you could be in serious trouble. From what you described he had no weapon. Did you pull the gun and shoot right away or give him the opportunity to retreat? The way they described it to us, shooting someone in exchange for something(truck)that can be replaced is not justified---get a good desription and call the police. If someone had been in the car near you and was shot would mean serious trouble and lead to civil action. I'm not saying I agree with the law---just simply stating how it is interpreted. Hope everything turns out ok for you---good luck and stay safe.

MoW,

Please talk about things you know instead of passing along your opinions as facts. Where in the law books does it state you can not fire a gun from you vehicle?

Please click here if you want to find out the facts http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html

trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping

You were probably thinking of this part when you made your post

What if I am in my car?

A. The courts have not extended the castle doctrine to cars. You have to retreat before using deadly force if you can retreat without further endangering yourself.

The attacker came from behind him blocking his path of escape. He feared for his life and thought that the attacker had a weapon.

The new law that was recently passed gives the right for a person to defend themselves whereever they are legally allowed to be.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/1112804516

[Capt. Charlie]

I couldn't agree more. In this case, I think we can do without Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

[MoW]

This whole forum is about opinion's. My CCW instructor specifically went over this very scenario as well as others. Firing from a vehicle is a no no for the fact of endangering other innocents. The vehicle would/could be replaced by insurance. Killing someone over an item that could be replaced is looked down on by the law. Again suppose there were someone in the next vehicle that was shot or killed by his fire. It happened here at an ATM where the man was being robbrd(at knife)in his car after visiting an ATM. The man then shot at the suspect---1 shot missed an killed an 8 year old girl laying in the back of a nearby car. He is now serving 7+ years. As I noted, the man(apparently in this case) had no weapon and his life was not endangered. Pulling the gun should have been sufficient IMO to end this situation. Firing his gun wasn't needed and indeed(his missed shot) could have resulted in tradgedy. The law is tolerant for domain(home and job) but not so in public areas where others could be hurt---as I said you would need to show direct threat to your life for justifying shooting an unarmed man for stealing something that could be replaced.

[MoW]

You also need to stick to what you know---the new law that was passed doesn't go into effect until Oct. 2005---in the mean time you are under the old law!

[MoW]

He feared for his life and thought that the attacker had a weapon




Good luck explaining that 1 as well, especially if killed---"yeah your honor, I THOUGHT he had a weapon so I shot"----jail time for sure.

[Wraith]

Sounds like you handled the situation very well. I'm glad to hear you came out alright.

Hopefully that bastard has learned 2 life-long lessons.

[univtxattorney]

Good luck explaining that 1 as well, especially if killed---"yeah your honor, I THOUGHT he had a weapon so I shot"----jail time for sure.

First of all, he wouldn't be explaining it to a judge. He would be explaining it to a jury (unless he opted for a trial by the bench, which is VERY unlikely in this situation).

Second of all, the standard is what an objectively reasonable person would believe in this situation. He justifiedly felt that his life was in danger. He was hit in the back of the head and assaulted in a dark and vacant area. Further, you have to presume that anyone who would take your property would take your life. Finally, the fact that he used his gun (rather than simply just pull it) is in his favor. It shows that he actually thought his life was in immediate danger.

It's a good thing he didn't get killed(for your sake)or you could be in serious trouble.

And if someone is unjustifiably shot, what happens? You don't think you can get in serious trouble for attemtping to kill someone? You don't think you can get in serious trouble for wounding someone? From the way the police are treating this thing, it looks like they are leaning toward the justified shooting route. A justified shooting is a justified shooting. Whether the guy dies or whether he is only maimed, if you shoot without justification, there are going to be serious consequences.

The way they described it to us, shooting someone in exchange for something(truck)that can be replaced is not justified

The guy didn't assault Moose's truck. He hit Moose in the back of the head. I don't know about you, but I am assuming if somebody hits me in the back of the head, they have a weapon of some sort in case I decide to fight back. I think that's a pretty good assumption, and I am sure that's what Moose was thinking.

The law is tolerant for domain(home and job) but not so in public areas where others could be hurt

This is wrong. The only area where you have heightened protection is in the home. This is known as the castle doctrine, and many states have special rules applying to the home (usually providing that you have no duty to retreat in your home). There is no such protection for workplaces, unless you happen to work from home. It is true that you have to be careful in public places when discharging a weapon, but if you live in an apartment a weapon could penetrate walls and injure someone in the next apartment or outside. You have to be careful wherever you discharge a weapon.

Killing someone over an item that could be replaced is looked down on by the law.

Wrong again. In some states, you can use DEADLY force to protect your property, in certain situations. I am not saying that I would shoot someone over property. However, it is the law. Also, killing someone to protect yourself from imminent death is justified in all states. Your life cannot be replaced.

You did the right thing Moose. The fact that this guy is second-guessing you aside, you are here and with us. There will always be those that look to turn the bad guy into the victim--those that look to a situation where an innocent defends himself and tries to make the innocent the bad guy. Don't let it bother you. You are really unlikely to get 12 of these guys on one jury anyway, especially if your lawyer is worth anything. Lawyers can smell these guys. PHEEEWWW!

[MoW]

Wow, are you off for an attorney. First off, I'm not making the perpetrator the victim. He should get what he deserves, but we are talking law. Why do you think everyone is telling Moose not to say anything more---if it was so clear cut then there would be no concern. You have heard what Moose said but not what the defendant's attorney will state or claim. Sorry, but a punch to the head only to then continue to the truck is not life threating. Did he see a weapon or ASSUME?
You will either have a judege(instead of jury) hear your case or at worst have to explain at sentencing. Who's to say it was a dark vacant area(matter of fact he hit a car next to him). The fact he used his gun is in no way his favor. He will be asked why he shot at that point---he saw no weapon was not in a life threatening situation and could have stopped the situation by simply holding the weapon on the suspect. What would you be saying IF someone did get shot in the car next to him? If someone had been shot you can bet they would want to know why he used his weapon. Just because there didn't happen to be someone there doesn't change the situation of NOT discharging a weapon in public without DEADLY force.
As was stated, the man apparently was going to take his truck, thus property that can be replaced. Nobody assaults a truck. If you are carjacked by an armed man you have NO right(by law) to shoot the man as he drives away---you went from a life endangering situation to shooting from anger. You have NO right whatsoever to shoot someone over property(money, car etc...) that can be replaced unless in your home or work domain.

[Bruce_G]

Sounds like a totally clean shoot to me, I hope it all works out that way.

In SC, you can't brandish your weapon to make someone back down. You are either justified to draw and fire or you are not. Brandishing is illegal. I doubt a mugger would file charges(edit, well, only after he got caught), but that's what I was taught about 8 years ago when I took my CCW class. If it's changed since then, I'd like to know about it.

The issue about his vehicle is also being interpreted incorrectly also. He was not driving around firing his weapon, he was cornered and was being forced to retreive money from his vehicle, he was in no way in control of the vehicle and in a position to retreat. He had already been assulted and had every reason to believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Even if the perp was unarmed, there are situations where it would not matter. A young, strong aggressive perp could certainly pose enough of a threat that a reasonable person would fear for their life or serious bodily harm. In my class I was taught that women, the elderly or the disabled have a much lower standard to meet that than a younger more able bodied male.

[univtxattorney]

Wow, are you off for an attorney.

That's not saying much. Is that supposed to be an insult?

First off, I'm not making the perpetrator the victim.

Yes, you really are. If you want to do monday-morning quarterbacking, you ought to go to the scenarios that are posted on here. This really happened, and the guy is coming here for support.

Why do you think everyone is telling Moose not to say anything more---if it was so clear cut then there would be no concern.

Never say ANYTHING. If you are 100% in the right, NEVER SAY ANYTHING. If you just shot Hannibal Lecter, who had you sitting in a big pot with parsley, NEVER SAY ANYTHING. Get the picture? ANY lawyer worth ANYTHING will tell you that.

You will either have a judege(instead of jury) [sic.] hear your case or at worst have to explain at sentencing.

If you have gotten to sentencing, you are in big trouble. A judge will not be hearing this case. Any lawyer that tries this case before a judge should be sued for malpractice. Second, in many states sentencing is done by the jury. In most, the jury at least makes a recommendation which the judge often follows.

What would you be saying IF someone did get shot in the car next to him?

I would be saying that the attacker caused this person's death. I wouldn't be blaming the person who tried to save his own life.

As was stated, the man apparently was going to take his truck, thus property that can be replaced.

First of all, this is wrong. Moose said:

I told him I dont have any cash on me and that it was in my truck. He said to get it.

He wanted the cash. Second of all, even if the guy said all he wanted was the truck, are you going to believe him? Are you going to bet your life on it?

If you are carjacked by an armed man you have NO right(by law) to shoot the man as he drives away---you went from a life endangering situation to shooting from anger.

So what? The guy wasn't away. He was there. The danger was imminent. You should be supportive of the true VICTIM in this case--Moose. The next time you are assaulted by someone who puts your life in imminent danger, by all means bend over. Don't go criticizing those of us who would defend ourselves.

[MoW]

That's pretty narrow minded. On 1 hand you talk about law and how to use it(say nothing) on the other you say even if someone was killed then the unarmed robber would be to blame. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you can shoot it---you have to take other innocents into account. The situation was 100% caused by the robber, how the victim handles the situation from that point is becomes a matter of criminal and civil law. I did not read anywhere where his LIFE was in danger but we haven't heard everything either. I would need to know why he felt the need to fire his weapon instead of just pulling it at that point. He is not/did not go tothe hospital for injuries from what I read so where is the life endangerment? I'm replying to his statement as it pertains to the law, not as a fellow carrier. Another thing that will come into question is did he panic---3 shots vs an unarmed person? How close was the perpetrator that he missed on 1 shot and only got him from the waist down? Did the man come at him at this point or after the first shot? How big was this guy who assaulted him? If you think none of these things matter in a court then I would never want you anywhere near a courtroom. Again, you can look at this from a fellow gun owner or by the law. As a gun owner I'm glad everything worked out ok and he is fine---as for the law I see some possible problems ahead. Which way are you looking at it?

[univtxattorney]

He is not/did not go tothe hospital for injuries from what I read so where is the life endangerment?

It an objective standard--what would an objectively reasonable person believe. You don't have to wait until you are shot or wounded to believe that your life is in imminent danger.

If you think none of these things matter in a court then I would never want you anywhere near a courtroom.

Don't worry--you couldn't afford me.

As a gun owner I'm glad everything worked out ok and he is fine---as for the law I see some possible problems ahead.

You don't sound glad.

I'm replying to his statement as it pertains to the law,

Where did you get your legal training?

Anyway, this topic isn't about our interpretations of the law. I think Moose came here looking for support. He has mine. You ought to think about whether he has yours.

[MoW]

In my class I was taught that women, the elderly or the disabled have a much lower standard to meet that than a younger more able bodied male.



Exactly, and someone named Moose might have a harder time explaing having to use a firearm vs an unarmed person. Could he have handled the man without a gun. What would he have done in not CCW? I don't know how big Moose is but I haven't known many who were small---another factor for a jury.

[ahenry]

There is not a thing wrong with seeking counseling, but I would recommend searching your own soul before automatically assuming that you need counseling. Everybody is different and the emotional needs of one don’t necessarily equate the emotional needs of another. I am not belittling counseling or those that utilize counseling, but take stock of yourself and decide if you need it.

On the issue of speaking about your self-defense situation, I would caution you to think carefully, but that is certainly not to mean that you shouldn’t talk about it, publicly or privately. You were in the right. You haven’t done anything wrong. You shouldn’t necessarily feel as if you should keep quiet about a difficult situation in which you prevailed.

[MoW]

As far as affording you, that wouldn't be a problem but based on your approach to the law you couldn't pay me enough for you to represent. As for the law I have 2 sister's that are lawyer's(Nova) but alas I being the smartest of the family went for General Contractor and retired at the ripe old age of 38-----and never had to lie and cheat in my proffession!

[Capt. Charlie]

And... whether or not he was actually in possession of a deadly weapon is a moot point. If you walk into a gas station and rob the place with your finger pointing in your pocket as if you had a gun, it's still considered aggravated (armed) robbery. In the "self defense" defense, you have to articulate a "reasonable fear for your life". Don't think there's any question he had that, and rightfully so. Case law is full of court decisions exhonorating both civilians and peace officers who used deadly force when an apparent weapon turned out to be something innocuous, like a toy gun.

Again, I don't think Monday morning quarterbacking is appropriate here. What we have is a fellow board member that is, and will be trying to deal with, the aftermath of a shooting. There are a few here that know what I'm talking about... and a whole bunch that don't have a clue. That wasn't meant to be a slam folks, just truth. In one case, I had to ORDER an officer into counseling that was involved in a justified shooting. He was completely in the right, but it damned near destroyed his life. He had nightmares, mood swings, missed work, started drinking heavily, domestics, and even later told me he had considered suicide. He was too macho to admit it was bothering him, but later thanked me for forcing him to get help. It is now dept. SOP that counseling is mandatory if one of ours uses deadly force. Now to those of you that haven't been there, but still want to pass judgement, please... shut the f*** up. In spite of all the macho posturing and strutting, and in spite of your "training", you have no idea what you'll actually do in the face of a deadly situation, or how you'll react afterwards. And when you do strut and posture, you're just showing those who have been there that you haven't.

[Bruce_G]

Exactly, and someone named Moose might have a harder time explaing having to use a firearm vs an unarmed person. Could he have handled the man without a gun. What would he have done in not CCW? I don't know how big Moose is but I haven't known many who were small---another factor for a jury.

Now you are just being silly. You assume based his screen name on an internet message forum that Moose is a big guy? You think that will hold up in court?

[MoW]

And... whether or not he was actually in possession of a deadly weapon is a moot point. If you walk into a gas station and rob the place with your finger pointing in your pocket as if you had a gun, it's still considered aggravated (armed) robbery

Not here in Fla. They have the 10, 20 life law in effect. There is a big difference(according to law) if you have a gun or not in a robbery attempt.


Bruce G.
Unfortunately, juries can be swayed by the smallest detail. If the defense raises the issue of a person being called Moose and the man is indeed of considerable stature then it only takes 1. I don't know for sure what size he is but I'm guessing large--if not no problem. Point is more needs to be heard before stating unequivicably that he did the right thing(or wrong). I'm not hindsighting the situation--he did what he did---legally is what I'm addressing. Do I as a fellow carrier feel(from what I know) that he did nothing wrong----yes. Legally, are there serious questions(from what I know) on how he handled the situation---yes.

[ahenry]

MoW,

Many states allow you to use force to protect your property; I believe SC is one of them. Most places are more than accepting of a persons desire to keep their property and allow for the use of force to do so. The fact that one has insurance or anything else does not eliminate that ability. Often when the situation has occurred at night, the amount of force one is allowed to use is increased. The fact that Moose was already assaulted, robbed, and ordered to retrieve additional property for the robber certainly gives him justification to use force. The assault alone should be more than enough justification for lethal force.

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by MoW

Why do you think everyone is telling Moose not to say anything more

I'm one of those people, and I told him to say nothing more because it's REALLY good advice to keep your mouth shut after a self-defense shooting. Other than saying you felt you were in mortal danger or something similar, it's best NOT to say anything. That's regardless of how clear cut or muddled the situation seems at first glance.

Ok, I'm going to say this, and it's going to sound bad, but I don't know any other way to say it. Your grasp of the basics of using deadly force and also your interpretation of Moose's situation are hopelessly confused. It's hard to find a place to start straightening things out. A lot of what you're saying is BASED in fact, but badly misinterpreted or misconstrued. Before continuing this discussion, I'd recommend that you carefully re-read your state's statutes on the use of deadly force, and then re-read the story of Moose's encounter.

Based on my study of deadly force statutes and general principles, univtxattorney is 100% correct and you are 100% wrong. Both in your interpretation of Moose's specific situation and in your application of deadly force statutes to this situation.

I consider this to be an important and valuable piece of information to impart to you--this isn't about trying to win a gun forum argument. As a gun owner and a permit holder, you are responsible to know and understand how deadly force statutes apply. As far as I can see, you are falling badly short in this regard. I hope you have not given others advice.

Best regards,

John

[ahenry]

MoW,

If the defense raises the issue of a person being called Moose and the man is indeed of considerable stature then it only takes 1. I don't know for sure what size he is but I'm guessing large--if not no problem.

This is a pure-dee asinine statement. If you’ve ever been in any sort of a fight with another adult then you should know that size doesn’t always matter and that even the bigger or stronger guy can be in a world of hurt in a fight.