In defense of life only? or....

[Ronny]

I probably should have asked this to my instructor when I was taking the CHL class. We were taught that the only time it is lawful to draw your weapon and shoot a perp was in defense of life only (IDOL), and even then only after taking steps to prevent, de-escalate, or avoid the confrontation. That's all well and good if you have your CHL...

What if though, given the circumstance that a person does not have a CHL yet carries concealed comes to such a confrontation and is forced to use his weapon given that his life was clearly in danger and he did everything in his power to try and avoid/de-escalate the situation.

For argument's sake, here's a sample scenario -- assume no witnesses, and that this occurs in Florida under present law: A man and his wife are walking home from the movies one night. The woman is illegally carrying a concealed weapon. They are confronted by an armed perp who demands their money --the perp has a firearm. Both comply without resistance. The perp then demands the woman to follow him at gunpoint to his car down the alley. She and her husband ask if there isn't something else the perp would rather have, offering car keys and such. The perp responds by shooting her husband and forcefully grabbing her. In fear of her life and her husbands, the woman draws her weapon and makes it clear that she will shoot the perpatrator if he moves and instructs him to lower his weapon. The perp promptly attempts to shoot her, but she beats him to it and fires three rounds into him center mass, killing him (her hubby taught her well). The perp's family, grieving his loss, files suit against the woman.

Given the situation above, I hope my fellow forum readers will take the time to answer my foremost questions:

1. Will the law crucify this woman for carrying a concealed weapon which resulted in the death of the perpatrator?
2. What is the best course of action for this woman? Should she have drawn her weapon, or obliged the perp to his demands knowing that she shouldn't even have a gun in the first place?

[somethingmustdie]

I would rund for Governer, then as Governer, first thing I would do is award medals to the woman and pardon her for whatever bull**** law she broke. Has it really come to this that someone can be in trouble for keeping themselves from getting raped or whatever? I guess you have to wonder if you want to die in a dark alley or if you want to take your chances with fines and prison?

Goodness, I never really thought about it that way...

[Ronny]

Or we all could just move to Alaska where no such nonsense exists as of yet... Really though, would the law chew this woman up?

[Capt. Charlie]

I can't tell you for sure about Florida, but here in Ohio, and in most other states, offenses are considered seperately and according to the elements of each offense. In other words, illegal CCW and the shooting of a person are apples and oranges. She would most likely be charged with CCW, but under the conditions you stated, and if the evidence concurs, the shooting would have been deemed self defense/justifiable homicide and no charges would have been filed. There are no easy, cut-and-dried answers to facing someone pointing a gun at you, especially when yours is still concealed and not in hand. Whether or not he intends only to rob you and leave you be, or kill you is known only to him, and to you, it can only be 20/20 hindsight. Never the less, you have to assume that a person pointing a gun at you intends to use it, and responding in kind is fully justifiable. Second by second judgement of the opportunity to use it is the tough part. The moment the man pointed the gun at her, she should be looking for that opportunity, whether by speed, distraction, or any way she can and still survive.

[leadcounsel]

Don't know about Florida, but in most states the District Attorney is an elected position, or is appointed by someone who is an elected official.

Given the circumstances, the woman was breaking the law. But there is a general defense of necessity that comes into play. For instance, it is illegal to speed, but if you MUST speed to save someone's life that is dying from, say a stab wound, to get them to the hospital, necessity may be a defense to other legal violations.

Because they are elected, I seriously doubt that any District Attorney would prosecute a woman who successfully defended herself from the felonious assault with a weapon by a BG. That DA would become VERY unpopular.

[jcoiii]

I could be wrong about this, but I believe the woman would be ok. Sometihng like if a person who is illegally carrying but has to use the gun in a justifiable situation, that person cannot be prosecuted for illegal carry. Just sometihng in the back of my brain saying that.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would have to search back but there are DAs that might prosecute on the weapons charge. I can come close without more research. In Dallas a guy sees a man shoot a woman in the parking lot of a mall. The dude was a stalker ex type. The hero retrieves his gun from his car and shoots the dude as he flees. The DA tries but the grand jury goes No-bill on him.

In any case, the tactics were silly. When the BG started to fire, you don't start making it clear you will shoot him. Blah, blah - shoot him into the ground.

There was also the famous case in Austin, whose name I forgot, where the GG and girl friend see a guy stealing their car and challenge him. The guy goes away and the pair follow him. Gunfight ensues. What saved the day for the shooter is that the dispatcher told him to follow the guy. The DA wanted him.

Both scenarios would be unpopular to the general TX public. We are law and order crowd but the DAs went for the shooters.

Thus, you never know.

[leadcounsel]

To clarify my posting...

The woman IS entirely justified in the shooting and would have an absolute defense of prosecution due to her self defense.

The only charge the DA could bring would be unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon. However, two things. First, the DA would have to want to lose his job as this would be extremely unpopular based on the facts you cited. Secondly, the DA would have to prove that she was carrying the weapon concealed -- in many jurisdictions it is perfectly legal to openly carry a gun and she "may" have been doing so the entire time...

In general, it would probably be career suicide to prosecute such a crime based on these facts. At worst if she was prosecuted it would probably be a misdemeanor pled down to something less.

[Ronny]

It's a strange world we live in. BG's typically don't spend the time or the money to get a CHL -- likewise, but for totally different reasons, many decent law-abiding citizens don't have CHLs either (probably in part because of the fear of the legal implications associated with shooting someone even in self-defense, hence the thread).

[Jkwas]

If the woman wants to carry a concealed weapon, she needs to get a permit. Until then, stay out of bad areas and get a good pair of running shoes.

[MidKnight]

Ronny,

I've seen two threads started by you concerning illegal carry, or ways to circumvent carry laws. Please, just get your carry license.

Yes, I know the addage "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" but my advice would be to just get your license and forget all of this nonsense. Do you have any reason to directly fear for your life? If not, then wait for wait for the license and carry legally and don't worry about all of this.

We all want to be law abiding gun owners. This only furthers our cause. If we make ourselves, the responsible owners, criminals we only detriment ourselves and our cause.

my 02

[tsavo]

You will get charged with carrying a concealed weapon(in Ohio) which is a felony. Just happened here in cleveland a few months ago. You won't be charged for the homicide because you did defend yourself legally. Anyways, it's not a great idea to draw a weapon on someone who has one already pointed at you. Action will always beat re-action, every single time. In one of my tatical courses we did an experiment where 1 person has a gun in their hand at their side and the other has the gun pointed at that person. The person with the gun in their hand but at their side has to try and shoot the other person first(paintball pistols). Every single time the person with the gun at their side wins. Action will always beat reaction. Whoever decies to fire first will get the first shot off.

[Ronny]

Midknight,

Is there something wrong with the one I have? Do I need to get another one????

And I'm not circumventing anything. I'm just exploring all the options outside of getting CHL for a tired aging man, my father, who isn't too excited about the whole idea. (read the other thread more carefully instead of skimming and jumping to conclusions)

Surely some of you have had the experience of dragging an elderly person to the firing range, only to drive home and listen to a cacaphony of complaints ranging from arthritis to headaches and suggestions on how to better spend quality time at quieter places

[blackmind]

At worst if she was prosecuted it would probably be a misdemeanor pled down to something less.

I'd carry all day every day if the only thing at risk was a misdemeanor.

In Florida, carrying a gun is legal if you have a concealed weapon license.

If you are caught with a concealed weapon without a license, you're looking at five years, if I'm not mistaken.

Originally Posted by tsavo

Action will always beat re-action, every single time. In one of my tatical courses we did an experiment where 1 person has a gun in their hand at their side and the other has the gun pointed at that person. The person with the gun in their hand but at their side has to try and shoot the other person first(paintball pistols). Every single time the person with the gun at their side wins. Action will always beat reaction. Whoever decies to fire first will get the first shot off.

tsavo -- I don't understand. You seem to be saying that it is quicker -- every time -- for a person to lift a gun from the side of the body to shoot someone, than it is to simply pull the trigger of a gun that is already trained on the person who has the gun at his side...

That is at odds with what you said about it being unwise to try to draw on someone who already has a gun pointed at you. Your later statement indicates that your experiment found that a person could draw and win the race.

-blackmind

[tsavo]

Conduct an experiment, you will win everytime. I can fire my gun before you get a shot off even though your pointing your gun at me already because you have to react to my action. Try it and see for yourself.

[MidKnight]

Ronny,

Sorry if it seemed that I jumped to conclusions. In this thread you say you took the chl class, but that's it. You have to admit: to start two threads near the same time talking about the legal ramifications of deadly force w/o license, and a 'how would one carry w/o license', it seems like you're going heeled sans license. I stopped reading the other after a post because I hate to think of people circumventing the carry laws, which was the main thrust of the first post of the other thread. Plus you have a low post count. Some people come in here to just ask one question of questionable morality then leave and I don't know you from Adam. However, I'm sure you're a fine upstanding guy.

Now that I have gone back and read the other thread, I'm happy to hear that your old man is going to take the class. It's good that he thinks the positives out weighed the negatives and he's going to put the time in! Hope all goes well.

[nug_38]

I have read/heard of cases from NY and NJ where someone legally shot a BG but was arrested for illegal gun possesion. So, one may get in legal trouble for a justified shooting depending on their location. Since there is not much that can be recommended in terms of carrying, all I can say is that situational awaress should be developed. It might be possible to avoid trouble if you can see it coming. Also, pepper spray of some sort would be recommended. It may not be as effective as a firearm, but it may help a tad bit to get away from the situation. Since the objective is survival, any little bit of deterance helps.

tsavo has a point. But if the weapon is concealed vise open, it becomes more difficult to draw. Not to mention the clothes that can get in the way. Any additional time in drawing gives the perp with gun already drawn more time to recognize that you are drawing and to react to it. There are some people who are extremely quick at drawing from concealment, so this does not apply to everybody. Oh, and adrenaline and nerves have a lot to do with being able to effectively draw and shoot accurately.

[Capt. Charlie]

Tsavo's right; we were also taught this. The idea is that the BG's brain takes time to process the information, then add the time of physical action. Your brain, however, has already processed, and your only time involved is action. Still, we're talking milliseconds here, and I don't think I'd try it unless I was pretty sure I was going to die anyway.

[kennybs plbg]

Ask Bernhard Goetz.

kenny b

[tripytrucker]

http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs....73221660850410
So far he has been charged with CCW

[MidKnight]

Kenny, please explain this post with relation to the current discussion:

Race is always an issue, ask Bernhard Goetz.

I just research this incident and it's a white guy shooting 4 black kids. Race wasn't a factor in that. They threatened him with a shiv and he shot them.

Perhaps I'm new to the story and don't know the whole deal. I was 3 when it happened.

[kennybs plbg]

I corrected my post above, sorry for the mistake. I had it confused with another post.

kenny b

[SAXD9]

She's not guilty of CCW, unless the cops catch her with it concealed, or if she (stupidly) admits that it was concealed.
Heck, she COULD say her husband (now dead, and un-prosecutable) was carrying it, and she took it off him.
She could even say that hubby and the perp traded shots and killed each other.

As a LEO I wouldn't care where the gun came from if an otherwise law abiding citizen capped a scumbag that had just murdered someone.

[tsavo]

I should have clarified, when I said gun at your side I meant in your hand, not holstered. Granted if the gun was in the holster then the person aiming their gun at you would get a shot off first. With my gun in hand, at my side, I would get the first shot off. Now it may not be very accurate, but I could get lucky.

[Zak Smith]

The legal justification required to use lethal force in most places is:

the B.G. has the ability, opportunity, and intent to cause death or great bodily harm

This is NOT "IDOL" or whatever your CCW instructor said.

The perp responds by shooting her husband and forcefully grabbing her. In fear of her life and her husbands, the woman draws her weapon and makes it clear that she will shoot the perpatrator if he moves and instructs him to lower his weapon.

She has made a (- another -) mistake. At this point, she needs to move, draw, and make hits ASAP until he is down and incapacitated. Then get aid for her husband.

Talking to a person who ALREADY has demonstrated the ability, opportunity, and intent to kill or cause great bodily harm is a good way to get dead. In this situation, you have in effect TOLD THE BG WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO, which allows him to react to it.

She needs to worry about living for the next 60 seconds, not avoiding a lawsuit or possible criminal charges for the illegal CCW.

-z