Question about protecting others.
This is a discussion on Question about protecting others. within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; We all carry a very huge responsibility when we decide to carry a gun. First and foremost we must remember that we are not law ...
June 26th, 2011 11:08 PM
We all carry a very huge responsibility when we decide to carry a gun. First and foremost we must remember that we are not law enforcement officers.
In Florida, you are authorized to use your gun if you are in fear for your life or could receive great bodily harm. If someone was harming my mother, who happens to be 89 years old, there is no question that whatever force they apply towards her could indeed cause great bodily harm to her frail body. I would be completely justified and have no hesitation to stop the assault. If I could do so without shooting, I would of course try that first. If I see that the attacker(s) are about to attempt to kill me or cause me great bodily harm, then I must meet that force with equal or great force i.e., my gun.
Sometimes I feel that people are too quick to go to the gun. It should be a last resort measure. With that being said, if the attacker himself had a gun and was going after my mother, than the playing field has changed and force must be met with equal (or greater) force.
Every situation is different. And, whether we like it or not, slimeballs have rights and we must be able to defend our actions. It is not my intention to preach to the choir but rather to say that we do not want to make the bad guy the victim and put ourselves in a situation that could cost us lots of bucks and maybe even jail time.
NRA Certified Instructor
Gold Seal CFI
1st Air Cav Vietnam Veteran
June 27th, 2011 06:17 AM
You see, I didn't say in my area I couldn't defend the lives of others - anyone can. You need no CCW to do that - but of course under the conditions of the law.
Originally Posted by Harryball
Yes, Castle Doctrine - slightly limited but practically the same also - but again for anyone - not a special privilege of CCW. And that was my point.
So regardless of the State, SD Law is about the same, as it's based in old English common law from many centuries past - as well as many other historical precedents. And just like New York and Florida, none limit rights to SD only to those who have CCWs - and no rights with respect to Defense of Yourself (and the Others clause) exist for a CCW beyond those that everyone has. We're just like everyone else, see? As you yourself indicate, that is a universal fact: CCW has no more privileges than those all citizens have in SD.
June 27th, 2011 06:21 AM
Let's skip it.
Originally Posted by 9MMare
June 27th, 2011 02:01 PM
My statement was implying that the average law enforcement officer goes to the range twice a year for qualification and thats it. Sure the state requires in-service training which i just found out I also have to do to maintain my pre-basic powers, but there is no mandated training more than twice a year in most locations. The average person on here has more firearms training than a cop. Thats the point I was making
"The value you put on the lost will be determined by the sacrifice you are willing to make to seek them until they are found."
June 27th, 2011 03:21 PM
"The average person on here has more firearms training than a cop. Thats the point I was making".......(QUOTE)
And your assumption based on your personal thoughts is that law enforcement officers do not do any other firearms training outside their mandated state standards and training requirements. No force on force, active shooter, high risk traffic stops,low light-no light, shotgun or patrol carbine, weapon retention, ect.
Also you assume that law enforcement officers do not do any shooting on their own time and are not members of private shooting clubs and shooting ranges.
If this is your honest belief then you sir are very poorly informed.
June 27th, 2011 03:41 PM
Now you know why I like to train with the local PD.
Originally Posted by Old School
The Officers that are gun guys are the ones with the memberships to private ranges and shoot on their own time. Many of them just shoot twice a year as mandated. Its about 50/50 here in my area. I know this first hand. We have about 55 officers and to be honest, most of them do not shoot much. Im not saying thats a national thing, just a local thing.
Doing the force on force, active shooter course and all of the rest, is some of the best training I have had. 8 hours a day for a week. The only thing I wasnt allowed to do was repel out of the helicopter.
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
Hobbit lives matter....
Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......
June 27th, 2011 06:11 PM
I see an awful lot of off-duty cops from all local agencies at my range - fact, they were a great help to me when I first learned shooting with a handgun. And they still are. Homeland Security has a range and other space at the same range - and I know one of them. They are schooled at some location for a number of months before they even are allowed on the job, course that's Feds...
Originally Posted by Old School
June 29th, 2011 01:48 PM
Originally Posted by TSiWRX
OK, funny but that's just wrong! how could you possible justify shooting both people?
"Kill em all and let God sort them out?"
Not to hijack the thread for to long, but we had a Styx concert here last Saturday. Right after we left, there was a road rage incident where a guy grabbed a baseball bat and critically injured the other guy.
I have no idea which guy instigated the argument. For all I know the guy with the bat may have been legitimetly defending himself.
So in such a scenario, would you automatically assume the guy that's armed is the aggressor/bad guy, or did the bad guy just make a bad victum selection by chosing someone packing (a bat in this case).
Coming to the aid of another is a risky proposal.
June 29th, 2011 05:37 PM
It would be on
June 29th, 2011 07:43 PM
^ For the life of me, I can't remember what exactly he said, but it was along those lines - he also got "stuck" on that target, just like I did - but his sense of humor was darker than mine (and he knew the instructor better), so that's what he chose to do, to demonstrate his dislike of that particular "surprise scenario."
Originally Posted by TedBeau
June 29th, 2011 08:58 PM
The state of Alabama law says specifically you can use a firearm to stop a forceable rape, robbery, or other felony in progress. In other words, if I see someone robbing a 7-11 (which we don't even have down here) I can shoot to kill and be within my rights. But hey, that's my state. We love guns almost as much as football and the last 2 NCAA National Championships (Bama will make it 3 in a row again this year, ROLL TIDE!!!).
June 29th, 2011 09:06 PM
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21
Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1
No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense
A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force.
June 30th, 2011 10:08 AM
You're looking for something that doesn't exist. In most states, you can come to the aid of another person based on the same standards regarding use of force and use of deadly force that would apply if you were the person being attacked. But every one of those cases is different, and so my best advice is to avoid getting involved with a firearm unless you know what's going on for sure.
Originally Posted by Florida
For example: A woman in a suit is fighting with a grubby-looking man in a back alley. Maybe she's fighting off a mugger or rapist. Or maybe he's an undercover police officer attempting to arrest a resisting suspect. Do you know for sure who you should be holding at gunpoint? No. So hang back and dial 911.
In the case that you specify, you would probably be justified in protecting your mom. As long as you could articulate in court that a reasonable person would have been in fear of her dying or receiving great bodily harm, especially in self-defense friendly Florida, you'd probably be fine.
But there are no cut and dried answers in case law.
Last edited by Madcap_Magician; June 30th, 2011 at 10:09 AM.
Reason: Fixed quote tags.
Note to self: The only way to win is not to play.
Search tags for this page
concealed carry protect others
concealed carry protecting others
concealed carry stories of protecting others
concealed carry, protecting others
concealed carry- protecting others
conceiled carry protrcting others
fear for your life in florida
is it legal two guys beating one guy
is revolver good for protecting vip
is two people beating one person up a life or death situation
man beaten styx concert
protecting others to protect me
Click on a term to search for related topics.