October 3rd, 2006 07:40 AM
October 3rd, 2006 08:17 AM
I like this makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. However, a pellet wound could be fatal, and I'd hate to break my window by accident.
Originally Posted by artz
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
October 3rd, 2006 09:35 AM
Obviously, two schools of thought about this issue!
Mississippi's law, which went into effect 07/01/2006 removes the previous requirement of "retreat" before having to use deadly force.
Listed below is a subsection of the new law. It clearly states deadly force can only be used when the defender's life or those around him are in imminent danger of death or bodily harm. As far as automobles are concerned, the defender must be INSIDE the vehicle and of course, feel that his life is in imminent danger.
As far as the vehicle is concerned, the keyword is "occupied".
In my neck of the woods, law enforcement is top notch, a benefit of all the gaming revenue. However, they can't be everywhere at once.
I'd expect someone with a LE background would show a little more restraint and judgement before using deadly force.
If the belief of taking a human life or losing yours over a broken window and a stereo is what drives you, then, that my friend, is a fantasy I'd rather not think about.
I carry to protect my life and those of the people I cherish. And, when the time comes, I have no hesitation to draw and fire to end the threat.
For the rest of you John Waynes...go get 'em! And good luck!
MS Bill 2426: (3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;
October 3rd, 2006 10:03 AM
I can definitely see Jimmyhat's point of view here. Maybe it's because I'm still young or something, but it just seems wrong to let people destroy your stuff. I'm not saying go out shooting, but I'm not sure I'd just wait in the house for the police to show up. Then again, maybe it's just because I haven't been super impressed with police response in Lexington. 50 years ago, no one would have waited inside and let something like this occur, why is it so different now?
I suspect I'd have to make that decision when/if the situation ever happens.
October 3rd, 2006 10:45 AM
I'll lighten up my rhetoric, because in the end ccw9mm is absolutely correct. Those of you who choose to maintain a safe distance and contact the proper authorities are absolutely correct. I'll not argue against that decision because it is wise, and certainly the right thing to do.
BUT.............That isn't how I choose to react. Right here, right now, the tables get turned. In this very spot where I sit, nobody but me gets to decide what happens to my things. Nobody enters my property without being confronted, and they better have a darn good reason for being here.
Making assumptions, ccw9mm, is inappropriate and I apologize for that. I will not, however, apologize for making the decisions I make and speaking upon those decisions in these forums, which I will probably do more of since this debate has sparked a new fire in me.
Stay safe, call the police. One person will say that, and the next person will say the same thing, and someone after that will probably say the same thing and may even type the same response exactly the same way as three people before them. That's all peachy. But it's damn boring.
October 3rd, 2006 10:54 AM
I'll accept that advice, because it is hard won with experience. I have read, and will consider what you've said because it gives me the benefit of learning a lesson without spilling blood and sweat which you may have done.
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
I appreciate your wisdom, but I'll have to file it away for a rainy day. I have to do that because the ground-situation right here calls for a different response. That's just the way it is.
October 3rd, 2006 11:13 AM
No worries. Agreed, that this isn't for everyone, and certainly isn't for all situations.
Originally Posted by JimmyHat
JimmyHat: From your profile, it looks like you've got the type of experience that would fully warrant 2:30am actions against property invaders, including: being an anti-terrorism & defensive tactics instructor, having been trained in the U.S. Army and being well-trained in the use of combat arms. Perps at 2 o'clock at 2 o'clock in the morning? No problem. You've got knowledge and skills to which most are never exposed. Kudos on the background. ("That's not a knife. This is a knife ..." -- Crocodile Dundee, ca 1986)
For the record: I'm "just" a citizen. Haven't been in the military and haven't served as an LEO. Have been through a number of security/safety training courses including LFI's Judicious Use of Deadly Force. Like many, I've seen street situations blow out of control right in front of me, including me a few times ... with some damage to innocents (me included). Thus, I train, I go armed, and I keep my eyes wide open. It works, for me. Just not at 2:30am when other options exist. I've also got physical damage to my leg that precludes a lot of overtly physical confrontation, so I've got to keep on-guard against overtly wussy responses to threats.
Got to love combatcarry.com. The different perspectives is where we all get to open our minds. My eyes are opened wider every day I scan these boards. Nice to see such experience and viewpoints.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
October 3rd, 2006 11:42 AM
In Texas, deadly force is legal to prevent imminent loss of property. I would not wait and watch while individuals robbed my vehicle or my home. Having once prevented the theft of my car by threat of deadly force, I'd not hesitate to use the appropriate level of force to halt a robbery in progress. Police should be called also, but I choose to take personal responsibility for the protection of my domicile.
I don't necessarily advocate that for everyone. It's essential to understand the laws of your state and city of residence and act in accordance with them. It's equally essential to understand your own capabilities and limitations, and to evaluate them in light of the nature of the threat.
All of that said, if you're capable and it's legal, I consider the path of personal direct action to be both prudent and socially responsible.
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters
October 5th, 2006 12:53 AM
The funny thing about the new mississippi law is that it can be used as fit. If you look at it, it says that deadly force is acceptible if a felonly is taken place. This includes your home, family, property, and place of buisness. The law is designed to be used by whoever has the best lawer, vague to say the least. I personaly will use whatever force nessesary to prevent me from being a victim of ENYTHING.
October 5th, 2006 03:15 AM
Well here in Washington we can only use deadly force if Our lives or the lives of others are in danger, we cannot use it to protect property when our lives are not threatened.
If it is light enough to see what is going on then it is light enough for my video camera to catch the action, so I would call the police and film the action untill it is over. Then I have a verbal and a visual testimony for the police.
October 5th, 2006 10:15 AM
If they are outside and I'm inside. I would not be happy about it, but would stay in the house with the lights out, get my daughter and put her in the bedroom with my wife and a .357 and lock the bedroom door. She knows what to do from there. I would be in the living room with the gauge watching and talking to SD on the ph..
I wouldn't go out. Too many variables. They could have an armed lookout waiting for me to step out the door. My little girl needs her daddy, and I aint riskin' her not having one over a stupid car stereo, (that's why I have insurance) when there's a very high chance that I'm safe in the house. If I did step out and engage, I place my family in a situation of unneeded higher risk.
Also, I had aquaintences who did stupid stuff like this when they were kids. They turned out ok as adults and while it's illegal and stupid to do it, I wouldn't want to kill a person for this type of crime. It's a lot different than direct armed robbery, assault or rape, and it aint worth killing over. Something sort of like this did happen once at my house. If anyone cares to hear about it, ask and I'll post.
Last edited by sgtD; October 5th, 2006 at 10:25 AM.
Reason: Additional info.
When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.
October 5th, 2006 11:41 PM
I have a really good camera...might consider taking a few shots with that (from a discreet viewpoint well behind the window, that is...)
Fast ISO and an f/2.8 aperture mean that I might actually get useful pics of their faces.
No way I'm getting in a gunfight over a car or anything I'd leave in it.
October 6th, 2006 12:42 AM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors