This is a discussion on Real situation tonight - Weapons cleared holsters!! within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Tally XD You guys should have called 911 and gave a good description of them and their vehicle and plates. I rather be a good ...
You guys should have called 911 and gave a good description of them and their vehicle and plates. I rather be a good witness than a hero.
bonis nocet quisqus malis perpercit
An armed populace are called citizens.
An unarmed populace are called subjects.
even thou my signature says no 3rd party disputes, this one is to blurry for me to see, but glad it ended up ok.
you should of posted the scenario then posted what happened, since we know the outcome I think we are a little bias commenting.
as for me honestly I don't know what I would of done, maybe something along of what you did? who knows. live and learn is all I have to add.
NO 3rd party disputes
The power of imagination is the key to life.
It helps you think ahead, consider the possibilities,and prepare you for the future.
If you lack that ability, you're no different from livestock trapped behind a fence.
Arizona Revised Statutes: 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of...kidnapping under section 13 1304, manslaughter under section 13 1103, second or first degree murder under section 13 1104 or 13 1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13 1405, sexual assault under section 13 1406, child molestation under section 13 1410, armed robbery under section 13 1904 or aggravated assault under section 13 1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
D. This section is not limited to the use or threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be. (Emphasis added for obvious reasons.)
Most states have similar laws, including my home state of Kansas:
Kansas Statutes Title 21-3211. Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
Note that, as in most states, the standard is the "reasonable belief" of the person in the situation--they do not need absolute confirmation, undeniable evidence, proof beyond doubt; in the situation as described by the OP, it was completely proper for him to "reasaonably believe" that a violent crime against another was being committed. So we can debate whether the OP's actions were smart, or wise, or well-executed; but your assertion that they were illegal is just as wrong as most of your legal ponderings.
You really need to stick to engineering, SD; you have to be better at that than you are about legal opining...
State laws do vary and in Arizona we have a great deal of leeway in stopping certain felonies with deadly force but from the OPs description it is very clear that threshold was not even close to being met. People should be very careful believing that because the OP has not been charged that this type of behavior is not felonious behavior.
People should be even more wary of bad legal advice from internet lawyers. If posters have questions concerning this scenario in their own state they should confer with a lawyer familiar with this type of law.
From the original post: " She also continually said "Its ok, no need to call the police". I told her Jason, the owner, has made the call already. Jason, as soon as we had reached our positions, pulled his cell phone and called 911. He also continually instructed the man to step away from the van. Both driver and passenger doors were still open and the man would not comply with the command to step away from the vehicle. ...."
Based on the AZ code XDFender posted it might well be that force was justified initially because there reasonably appeared to be a kidnapping, but once the woman was separated from the man, once she stated that there was no need to call the police, there was no justification for a display of lethal force.
A better move might have been to take the woman into the store, or into one of the vehicles.
HAD the guy then become aggressive, threatening, presented a weapon, the display by the OP might have been justifiable--but none of that happened.
Why draw on someone who is not an imminent threat? That is acting on fear alone, and fear by itself is not justification for the use of lethal force; at least not here. Hence, charges of intentional display would appear to be the minimum available, and a case for aggravated assault could be made.
Again, OP is lucky these folks had a history with the police. It could have turned out really bad. He is also lucky that the guy in the van wasn't a genuine thug, armed to the teeth and without conscience or concern about wiping out two good citizens who got in his way.
I think perhaps one of you should also carry a AR style carbine or defensive shotgun in addition to your sidearm. Using a sling would allow you load the guns but transition quickly if needed. Since you guys are probably doing this the same time every night, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out a good way to ambush you in the parking lot. Heavier firepower might be the difference in the fight. Just my .02.
Personally, in the situation you described, I would have called 911 and been a good witness.
Why Ike, whatever do you mean? Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!
Man, I think it is twice this week SD and Hopyard are in agreement. Have the poles switched alignment? I don't know how much more I can take.
"Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."
Who is John Galt?
In particular, so the readers aren't misled by very bad advice, here is statute 13-1304.As others have posted, just because a situation appears like a criminal felony to a bystander does not mean it meets the requirements of criminal law. Onviously, there was not even a hint of a kidnapping (as defined in Arizona.)13-1304. Kidnapping; classification; consecutive sentence
A. A person commits kidnapping by knowingly restraining another person with the intent to:
1. Hold the victim for ransom, as a shield or hostage; or
2. Hold the victim for involuntary servitude; or
3. Inflict death, physical injury or a sexual offense on the victim, or to otherwise aid in the commission of a felony; or
4. Place the victim or a third person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury to the victim or the third person; or
5. Interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function; or
6. Seize or exercise control over any airplane, train, bus, ship or other vehicle.
Sometimes it is a mystery that some are passed through law school so easily without regard to merit.True. In Arizona, being scared of future actions is not justification (as the OP related) for drawing a firearm.HAD the guy then become aggressive, threatening, presented a weapon, the display by the OP might have been justifiable--but none of that happened.In Arizona, there is no difference. This is one reason why recently proposed legislation was defeated. That is, a proposal to allow drawing a weapon as a response to mere physical force, such as someone pushing you in line in a grocery store. You can only defend yourself as a result of deadly force.Why draw on someone who is not an imminent threat? That is acting on fear alone, and fear by itself is not justification for the use of lethal force; at least not here. Hence, charges of intentional display would appear to be the minimum available, and a case for aggravated assault could be made.
And to the OP, yes that means we are behind the curve. By design.
Thats it folks. This thread is taking a downturn so I will temporarily lock it until the Mods discuss it. It may be reopened, it may not.
Universal Background Checks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...