would you risk your life for someone else's property?

[stagpanther]

I think it's impossible to generalize and arrive at a concise answer--it depends too much on the variables of the situation. In my OPINION it mostly comes down to determining whether or not the intruders are simply intending on a robbery--or at what point that becomes a perceived threat to you personally--and that's were most of the ambiguity lies. Most burglars attempt to plan around nobody being home, but in some situations they MIGHT be fully prepared to subdue, kidnap or even kill anyone if they happen to be at home and confront them. I always assume that's a possibility when there is a deliberate trespass on my properties (which are posted). When someone breaks into a home that escalates the possibility of a bad outcome if someone is at home. Bailing out of the home might make sense in some cases--but if it is dark you are potentially abandoning cover into an unfamiliar situation outside the home.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr::

Truth is most of these type defense shooting cases will be handled in local county courts on behalf of the state, and the "legal experts" on this forum are so far removed from the reality of the attitudes and perspectives of the judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement in Wayne County, Ohio that I have to laugh at the implication that they are more knowledgeable of how cases will be handled than the people who live here. What you might think is a "reasonable" reaction in your domain would be viewed as kooky somewhere else.

No one on any forum or anywhere else can speak about cases involving incidents that have not yet occurred.

However, here are a lot of people who can speak very authoritatively about how use of force cases will be handled. And yes, the are one variations in procedure among jurisdictions.

Varying attitudes among law enforcement can have some influence on how things unfold. Varying attitudes among prosecutors, even between one prosecutor and his or her successor, can certainly make a difference in what an actor may face. Judges? Not so much--everything they do is subject to review.

I would suggets that the appropriate and most effective "tactics" for dealing with conservative, rural and small towns' auto, shed, and garage burglars ...might be different ....

Do you really think that how "liberal" or conservative" an area may be would really be a good gauge of how dangerous unknown people on the property uninvited may turn out to be?

....and how those tactics are viewed in the eyes of the local legal system might be different than the way they are seen and dealt with when the players are in a liberal urban setting, and in the eyes of what the courts in each region view as "reasonable".

A lot of things can influence how a jury will react--demographics among them.

But if it gets that far, things haven't gone well except for the defense attorneys billing their hours.

The laws, relevant appellate decisions, jury instructions reflecting those decisions, rules of evidence, and so forth are all there for the knowledgeable to evaluate.

The jurors will judge on the basis of the evidence that they are shown. Even all of the evidence that might be brought forth to be considered for admissibility will be extremely incomplete. These things do not take place on a sound stage.

If one of the persons is hurt, whether the jury is instructed to rule on self defense will depend upon the evidence.

As has been discussed, if self defense is not at issue, use of deadly force is pretty well ruled out just about everywhere.

Bottom line, where I live, if an able bodied man watched a couple of kids steal or vandalize his property through his window without doing anything, that would be seen as far more unreasonable than going out and confronting them.

If you were to be injured after going outside and confronting them, would that then be seen as "reasonable"?

You become aware of someone outside fooling around with property. You step outside--coming from just where your emergence will have been predicted and can be seen. You approach the perp for the purpose of "confronting" them.

But you are now out in the great outdoors. How many are they? Where are they? Do any of them have firearms? Those are the reasons why most good trainers do not advise going outside to confront anyone in the first place.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by stagpanther:

I think it's impossible to generalize and arrive at a concise answer--it depends too much on the variables of the situation. In my OPINION it mostly comes down to determining whether or not the intruders are simply intending on a robbery--or at what point that becomes a perceived threat to you personally--and that's were most of the ambiguity lies. Most burglars attempt to plan around nobody being home, but in some situations they MIGHT be fully prepared to subdue, kidnap or even kill anyone if they happen to be at home and confront them. I always assume that's a possibility when there is a deliberate trespass on my properties (which are posted). When someone breaks into a home that escalates the possibility of a bad outcome if someone is at home. Bailing out of the home might make sense in some cases--but if it is dark you are potentially abandoning cover into an unfamiliar situation outside the home.

Several important points there.

First, you are correct in point out that robbery is a horse of a different color. It is not a property crime. The laws of self defense apply.

Burglary is extremely serious, and if the house is occupied, the safety of the occupants becomes the issue. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in which one would be expected to leave the home, and to do so may well be fraught with danger.

Be very careful what dealing with trespass. People have served time for confronting trespassers while armed (in "conservative" states, by the way). Laws really do vary from state to state, and by a fair amount if my impression is correct, and it would be a very good idea to speak to a knowledgeable local attorney about yours.

[TimSr]

If you were to be injured after going outside and confronting them, would that then be seen as "reasonable"?

Absolutely.

You become aware of someone outside fooling around with property. You step outside--coming from just where your emergence will have been predicted and can be seen. You approach the perp for the purpose of "confronting" them.

But you are now out in the great outdoors. How many are they? Where are they? Do any of them have firearms? Those are the reasons why most good trainers do not advise going outside to confront anyone in the first place.

Most good trainers don't live in my neighborhood. I understand there is an extreme longshot chance they won't flee. I am prepared for that chance.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr::

Absolutely.

Either I do not understand your answer or I do not understand your perspectives and mindset. I am very confident that no one else here does, either,

Most good trainers don't live in my neighborhood.

What can that have to do with it? Massad Ayoob does not liven my neighborhood, either, and neither do Michael Janich, Rob Pincus, or Mike Seeklander, but I do put a lot of stock in their advice.

I understand there is an extreme longshot chance they won't flee.

Yes, the likelihood is probably less than remote that they will not flee. The probability that a lookout will not attack you may be low, but if you are carrying a shotgun he may not hesitate.

The severity of the potential consequences is very high.

I am prepared for that chance.

So, just how do you prepare for an ambush?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by TimSr

What is funny is that only lawyers can have qualified legal opinions, because their interpretation of the law is final, and yet there are always at least two of them with opposing points of view in every court case....

We see this nonsense a lot. The reason there are two sides (at least) in court is because there's a dispute between our respective clients. The lawyers represent the interests of their clients. One side will win, and one side will lose. But they both get their "day in court", and each side is entitled to the zealous and loyal representation by counsel.

[RJM]

I would absolutely not risk my life for someone's property...and I wouldn't for my own property either. I would use self defense for myself and my wife in my home or someone's home I am "sitting," but not my property.

I know of one guy sitting in jail waiting on a capital murder trial because he decided to use deadly force to protect his own stuff....which is illegal in my state. I also kinda agree with that law and I would hate to be that guy sitting in jail.

I also know that I've been ripped off a few times and have come home to find my house robbed. It does sting...but it still isn't worth taking a life over. Technology also helps to keep things safer. Quality locks/doors, a good loud dog, quality video recording, a charged cell phone ready to call the cops, keeping records of property, keeping insurance up to date and at a good level to cover losses....these things are more important than confronting some thief.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by TimSr

...and the "legal experts" on this forum are so far removed from the reality of the attitudes and perspectives of the judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement in Wayne County, Ohio that I have to laugh at the implication that they are more knowledgeable of how cases will be handled than the people who live here....

On the other hand we have --

• This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
  
  
• Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
  
  
• Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
  
  
• Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
  
  
• James Faison in Dinwiddie County, Virginia: He was charged with first degree murder after shooting, in what he claims was self defense, his known to be violent and abusive father. The prosecutor brought the charges on the basis of the number of rounds Faison fired.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Frank, I've read each and every one of those. It's harrowing to read...

Simply answer to the OP's question: No.

[TimSr]

yeah, and in other news, in MY world of Wayne County, Ohio :

http://www.thepostnewspapers.com/nor...fd9613f1c.html


Sheriff Hunter's words in the last paragraph sum up my point:

“While I certainly don’t recommend handling things like this, I can understand and appreciate his emotions,” Hunter said. “Criminals need to consider that out in the rural areas, many of the people are armed and will protect their lives and their property with whatever means they deem necessary.”

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by TimSr

yeah, and in other news, in MY world of Wayne County, Ohio :

And that sort of thing can happen even in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, Pittsburg [California] Police Say Homeowner Acted in Self Defense:

...Pittsburg Police Officers responded to the 1000 block of Jewett Avenue in response to a shooting call where a homeowner acted in self defense....

The point is that one can not make categorical statements. Outcomes are fact dependent.

[OldMarksman]

TimSr:

Sheriff Hunter's words in the last paragraph sum up my point:

Actually, they do not sum up the point you have been making at all. First, the sheriff does recommend against it. And all he said was that people sometimes do it. Didn't say it was right.

But in this case it did turn out okay.

The man grabbed a gun and pursued. Most of us recommend against it, but he did it.

Leasure said they raced out of his driveway. He grabbed his shotgun, called 911 and raced after them.

So far, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Best of all, Leasure did not get shot. We have seen instances in which things turned out for the worse. Do not delude yourself into thinking people cannot get shot "in [YOUR] world of Wayne County, Ohio".

Then things got a little hotter:

"They reached a location on Ruff Road and the two suspects stopped and got out to unhook the trailer,” Hunter said. “The owner also stopped and there was a verbal altercation and the suspects threatened the victim.”

“They pulled into this lady’s yard and I saw another guy get out and duck behind the trailer,” Leasure said. “He had something shiny. I thought it might be a gun.

Testimony on those points would, of course, be very important.

"I leveled my gun and told them no one was going anywhere.”

But that did not work. One would certainly hope that Leasure knew full well that he could not lawfully use deadly force to enforce his command.

But something else happened:

Leasure said the one he thought had a gun darted behind a tree.

Still in the realm, conceivably, of a self defense situation.

But then:

“I shot the front tire and I tapped two in the rear on the driver’s side,” Leasure said.

What was the immediate need for that? That would have become the important question.

Leasure pursued the truck up County Road 70 to Creston, where a Creston officer was waiting and apprehended the suspects without incident.
“They just pulled up, got out and threw up their hands,” Leasure said.
Brandon Friedlein, 21, of Barberton and Justin Adler, 23, of Smithville, were arrested. They were released with charges pending review by the prosecutor.

(Emphasis added.)

Everyone is very fortunate that no shooting occurred. That Leasure had pursued the thieves with a gun could have made any defense of justification quite difficult indeed.

Now, whether Leasure's actions were lawful has not been determined:

While it is up to the prosecutor whether the victim will be charged for his shotgun wielding, he was released at the scene.

Nothing has been released yet. The charging authority will weigh, or has weighed, the costs of prosecution, the likelihood of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and how the objectives of justice would best be met. They do not have to decide now, and no decision would be binding anyway. The have until the statute of limitations runs out.

The outcome as it stands is much more attributable to good luck than to good thinking.

[TimSr]

Actually, they do not sum up the point you have been making at all. First, the sheriff does recommend against it. And all he said was that people sometimes do it. Didn't say it was right.

He said he didn't recommend it. He did not recommend against it. He didn't say it was right, nor did he say it was wrong. The way he was grinning when he said it on camera left a different impression than the text. We know our sheriff. He said what he was supposed to say. the man was not charged by our elected sheriff or our elected prosecutor, and never had to appear before one of our elected judges.

The point I have been making is that what is considered "reasonable" in Wayne Co. may not be considered reasonable by you, but you're not sitting on our municipal court bench. The sheriff mentioned what thieves could expect who target rural folk in Wayne Co.

The point is that one can not make categorical statements. Outcomes are fact dependent.

I agree. I wish people would stop making categorical statements that presume that what the Gods of self defense proclaim equally applies to all situations, all regions, all cultures, and all court systems.

I know my lawful limits. I prefer that the local thieves NOT know that I know my lawful limits.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by TimSr

...I know my lawful limits. I prefer that the local thieves NOT know that I know my lawful limits.

I'm glad you think you know, but I'm also quite sure, based on what I've read of your posts, that your understanding of the law and legal matters is superficial and questionable at best.

You're of course free to act in your life based on what you think you know. But our concern is that others who are reading your posts, insofar as you are purporting to be addressing legal issues, understand the limitations of your knowledge and that your opinions should not be accepted as reliable guidance in their own lives.

[OldMarksman]

The question was about risking one's life for someone else's property.

I would expand it to risking one's life for property, period.

It just doesn't seem like a very well considered risk at all.

The first and most obvious concern is one of physical danger.

The legal aspects have been more than touched upon here. We can summarize by saying that except in one or two places, and under very few circumstances in those, deadly force may not be lawfully used to protect moveable, tangible property.

We have discussed the fact that defending against robbery would not be considered defending property.

Every now and then someone suggests setting out with a weapon to "confront" a thief. That brings up a couple of things:

1. Unless that thief is clearly a harmless child, such a course of action would involve just what the quesion was about in the first plase--risking life to protect property.
2. The idea that the use of deadly force, should it then become necessary for self preservation as the situation unfolds, is a poor one.

That's because the use of force situation could have been avoided in the first place.

Self defense laws do vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I think that with one exception, these salient points from the law in Ohio, which was brought up in one post, are rather well representative of the way things are around the country:

The accused who used deadly force must show: (1) that he was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) that he had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that his only means of escape from such danger was the use of such force; and (3) he did not violate any duty to retreat to avoid the danger.

Ohio Supreme Court, State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St. 2d 15 (1978)

Many states no longer impose a duty to retreat.

[pax]

When you pull and use a gun, you are gambling literally everything you have on getting it right during the event and being legally justified afterward. You are gambling your physical life. You are betting your job, your home, and every penny you have in the bank. At risk is your marriage, your ability to share a bed with the person you love, and your ability to watch your children grow up in person instead of from jail. You place on the table every friendship you’ve ever made, every dollar you’ve ever earned or will earn, and your family’s future happiness. You are risking sleep disturbances, flashbacks, nightmares, impotence, anorexia, alcoholism, drug reliance, and a long and bitter lifetime of regret if you get it wrong. That is the gamble you take when you use a firearm against another human being.

To take a gamble that big, it’s a good idea to be overwhelmingly certain there’s no other way out.

The point I have been making is that what is considered "reasonable" in Wayne Co. may not be considered reasonable by you, but you're not sitting on our municipal court bench. The sheriff mentioned what thieves could expect who target rural folk in Wayne Co.

Let us turn our eyes to the conservative, gun-friendly area of Lewis County, WA, where the elected sheriff always says the right things about guns and self-defense. The following incident happened just outside the non-existent and very rural town of Onalaska.

(By the way, I'm not being snarky about Onalaska not really being a town; it's actually a population cluster of around 300 people, and its existence is defined by the US Postal Service rather than by any formal articles of incorporation. There's no mayor, no town council, and no city government. This is as rural as it gets.)

In April

Homeowner Kills Intruder in Onalaska -- A homeowner who interrupted a possible burglary late Monday fatally shot the intruder, officials said. ... The homeowner told investigators that he heard a noise, opened the garage and fired at a person who was shining a flashlight in his eyes.

In July

Detectives: Fatal Onalaska shooting was self-defense -- An Onalaska homeowner who interrupted a burglary and fatally shot an intruder in April will not be arrested, Lewis County Sheriff's deputies said Monday, adding they believe the shooting was justified under self-defense statutes.... Detectives say their investigation determined the McKenzie's were in the process of burglarizing the place, and that the homeowner was rightfully defending himself in firing the shots.... The Sheriff's office says it will still forward its findings to the Lewis County prosecutor's office for review, but deputies would not be taking the homeowner into custody.

Sheriff's Office Says Onalaska Shooter Acted in Self-Defense -- "People have a right to protect themselves, their families, and property in a lawful manner as defined by the laws of this state. If you create or put yourself in a situation where someone has a legal right to use deadly force against you that is a risk you take." -- Sheriff Steve Mansfield

In September

Onalaska Homeowner Charged with Manslaughter -- The Onalaska property owner who shot at two people he believed to be intruders has been charged with first-degree manslaughter in the April shooting death of Thomas McKenzie, as well as first-degree assault in the attempted shooting of McKenzie's wife Joanna, according to papers filed Wednesday by the Lewis County Prosecutor's Office....
The charges state that Brady "recklessly caused the death of" Thomas McKenzie and assaulted Joanna McKenzie "with intent to inflict great bodily harm." Brady shot at both after encountering them on his property at night.

In November

Onalaska homeowner who shot intruder now faces first-degree murder -- An Onalaska man is now charged with first-degree murder rather than manslaughter after shooting to death a man who attempted to burglarize his home April 19... Brady, 60, is also charged with first-degree assault for shooting at the dead man’s wife. Prosecutors say Brady’s late-September manslaughter charge was actually “conservative,” considering facts in the case.

In June

Jury Convicts Onalaska Homeowner of 2nd Degree Manslaughter -- A Lewis County jury Friday night acquitted Ronald Brady of murder charges but found him guilty of second-degree manslaughter in the April 19, 2010, shooting death of Thomas McKenzie at Brady's Onalaska area home. Brady, who contended he shot at McKenzie and his wife in self defense, will remain free until sentencing...

In July

Onalaska man gets more than 5 years for 2010 shooting at his home -- Ronald A. Brady was sentenced to 63 months in prison Wednesday for second-degree manslaughter in the April 2010 shooting death of an intruder at his Onalaska-area home. Prosecutors had requested the full sentencing range of 63 months, which includes three mandatory years of prison time for a firearm enhancement.

All of the above really underscores some important points. One of them is that we should not rely upon being in a gun-friendly jurisdiction, or trust the initial statements from a popular, elected sheriff, when we consider what risks we are personally willing to take. Instead, we should have a firm understanding of the law, and we should firmly reject any attempts to flirt with the boundary line between "defending self" and "defending property."

As for me? I am willing to use my firearms to protect innocent human life -- and that's it. Nothing else justifies the use of deadly force, neither in my jurisdiction's law nor in my own sense of personal ethics.

pax

[TimSr]

But our concern is that others who are reading your posts, insofar as you are purporting to be addressing legal issues, understand the limitations of your knowledge and that your opinions should not be accepted as reliable guidance in their own lives.

I would sincerely hope that no one would ever make critical life decisions based on internet posts made by either of us. That would be pretty stupid. I think that anyone who would represent their internet posts as sound legal advice to people and details they do not know, would be acting irresponsibly, and that anyone who would follow internet advice to be quite foolish. That you continuously state how much more brilliant you are while attempting to be demeaning to wards me and others does not necessarily make it so.


So go ahead and tell me one last time that I am a moron, and lock the thread.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr:

the man was not charged by our elected sheriff or our elected prosecutor, ...

Correction: the man has not been charged.

He can be charged up to the day he dies or is pardoned or the statute of limitation expires.

He will not be free from the risk of criminal penalties until one of those events occurs or (1) he is tried and acquitted in court, or (2) his case is dismissed with prejudice.

Had he killed someone, the statute of limitations would never run out.

And had he killed someone, the likelihood of charges would be much higher.

EDIT--see post 91 for a real world example

Chasing someone is very unwise indeed, and is physically dangerous. Shooting a shotgun at his truck is downright foolhardy, and is unlawful, absent justification based on immediate necessity.

For shooting someone after having gone after him, there is probably no defense that would likely prevail.

The point I have been making is that what is considered "reasonable" in Wayne Co. may not be considered reasonable by you, but you're not sitting on our municipal court bench.

What is reasonable to me does not matter.

What matters is the case law established by the Ohio Supreme Court.

I'm sure you intended to refer to the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas.

The point you have been making is not well founded.

The sheriff mentioned what thieves could expect who target rural folk in Wayne Co.

That's something that thieves should hear, but it is completely irrelevant to what would happen to people who break the law in dealing with thieves.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr:

I would sincerely hope that no one would ever make critical life decisions based on internet posts made by either of us.

We read and assess a lot of things on the internet, and we have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I think that anyone who would represent their internet posts as sound legal advice to people and details they do not know, would be acting irresponsibly,...

That's why no one does that here.

...and that anyone who would follow internet advice to be quite foolish.

I follow "internet advice" from time to time, if I understand it and know the source.

That you continuously state how much more brilliant you are while attempting to be demeaning to wards me and others does not necessarily make it so.

I have not heard Frank say that, but he does know what he is talking about. Please do not take this personally, but it is becoming increasingly clear that a umber of you posts on this subject do not reflect sound knowledge.

So go ahead and tell me one last time that I am a moron, ...

No one has made any personal attacks on you. We do not allow it.

What Frank said was "based on what I've read of your posts, that your understanding of the law and legal matters is superficial and questionable at best".

He went on to say "our concern is that others who are reading your posts, insofar as you are purporting to be addressing legal issues, understand the limitations of your knowledge and that your opinions should not be accepted as reliable guidance in their own lives."

"Reliable guidance" is not the something as legal advice.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by pax

When you pull and use a gun, you are gambling literally everything you have on getting it right during the event and being legally justified afterward. You are gambling your physical life. You are betting your job, your home, and every penny you have in the bank. At risk is your marriage, your ability to share a bed with the person you love, and your ability to watch your children grow up in person instead of from jail. You place on the table every friendship you’ve ever made, every dollar you’ve ever earned or will earn, and your family’s future happiness. You are risking sleep disturbances, flashbacks, nightmares, impotence, anorexia, alcoholism, drug reliance, and a long and bitter lifetime of regret if you get it wrong. That is the gamble you take when you use a firearm against another human being....

Very well put, Kathy. Also, one might think he is legally justified, but he doesn't have the final say. The decision will be made by others after the fact. And the decision the actor was forced to make in an instant will be second guessed and dissected by those others, who have all the time in the world.

Even though Hickey, Abshire and Fish were ultimately exonerated, the cost to them was enormous. But in their cases they might well have had no choice but to have paid the price since they might not have otherwise survived their incidents.

Originally Posted by pax

...Let us turn our eyes to the conservative, gun-friendly area of Lewis County, WA, where the elected sheriff always says the right things about guns and self-defense. The following incident happened just outside the non-existent and very rural town of Onalaska....

And thank you for that excellent illustration that things don't always work out the way one might expect.

Originally Posted by pax

...we should not rely upon being in a gun-friendly jurisdiction, or trust the initial statements from a popular, elected sheriff, when we consider what risks we are personally willing to take. Instead, we should have a firm understanding of the law, and we should firmly reject any attempts to flirt with the boundary line between "defending self" and "defending property."...

An excellent summation.

I'd also like to add on a personally note that while I have some experience successfully teaching beginners the rudiments of shooting, Kathy has far more knowledge and experience than I, especially when it comes to providing self defense oriented training. I'm happy to defer to her expertise on such matters.

[stagpanther]

All of this is true--but the flip side is, if you have have a weapon and are NOT prepared to use it if necessary--then you're better off not having one.

The "if necessary" is why we have the 2nd amendment to begin with IMO.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

...if you have have a weapon and are NOT prepared to use it if necessary....

No, it should be, "if necessary and legally justified." And if you're unlucky, it will be the jury at your trial who will decide if your use of your gun was necessary and justified. You don't get the final say.

And that said, as far a us on this board are concerned you can use your gun whenever you want. We're just not going to sit back and let you lead others astray.

[pax]

All of this is true--but the flip side is, if you have have a weapon and are NOT prepared to use it if necessary--then you're better off not having one.

Amen and amen.

A person interested in armed self-defense often finds himself walking a narrow ridge between two equally unpleasant alternatives.

On one side, there is the risk of responding too soon, with too much force, or with unwarranted violence. Erring in that direction sends him stumbling over the rocky cliffs of the American legal system, where even the smallest action can have huge consequences that affect the entire life. "Better to be tried by twelve ..." as the saying goes, but anyone with an ounce of sense knows that an 8x12 cell isn't much of a life.

On the other side of the ridge lies the stony valley of death or severe injury caused by responding too slowly—or by not responding at all—to a life-threatening attack.

Of the two dangers, most people rightly fear death more than they fear the tender ministrations of the legal system. And that's as it should be, but it doesn't mean you should be uninformed about or unwilling to consider the laws that affect an armed citizen. Quite the contrary!

The only true victory in a dangerous encounter is to walk away with all of your life intact: your ability to breathe, your good health, your family's safety, and your own freedom.

Anything else is a loss.

pax

[OldMarksman]

...expresses extremely clearly, and as well as I have ever seen, all of the really important thoughts I have had on this subject since I started carrying a firearm seven years ago.

I have started many times over the years to compose that post, and have never been able to complete it.

[stagpanther]

No, it should be, "if necessary and legally justified." And if you're unlucky, it will be the jury at your trial who will decide if your use of your gun was necessary and justified. You don't get the final say.

I absolutely agree that understanding the potential legal consequences of brandishing/using a deadly weapon is a very serious thing--one which many people don't understand. Justice is a tricky thing and doesn't always go the way of "what's right."

Taken to the extreme--you can be advocating gun control.