Real situation tonight - Weapons cleared holsters!! - Page 6

Real situation tonight - Weapons cleared holsters!!

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 ...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 88 of 88

Thread: Real situation tonight - Weapons cleared holsters!!

  1. #76
    Member Array rcruz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    34
    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 witness than a hero.
    bonis nocet quisqus malis perpercit


  2. #77
    Senior Member Array KenInColo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    I would of observed ,called 911,and been prepared to follow the vehicle if it left while being on the line with 911
    Again, not to 2nd guess you; this would have been an excellent approach.

    Like I said before, I hope, that if my wife was ever in the kind of situation you described, that someone would have done something like what you did.
    An armed populace are called citizens.
    An unarmed populace are called subjects.

  3. #78
    Member Array Glock30SF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    S. FL
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by Tally XD View Post
    I understand your point, but, I kind of like your signature . . . .


    Do you really mean what your signature says?

    (1) Glad you see. (2) Yes IF I am certain of what is taking place.
    “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”.... Albert Einstein

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

  4. #79
    Member Array hybrid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Home of little boy, NM
    Posts
    223
    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.

  5. #80
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I agree with the many that have opined the OP was very much out of line. We are not LE. We cannot command citizens to do our bidding at gunpoint. In Arizona, that action would rightly be considered aggravated assault, irrespective of whether the gun was pointed a the citizen.

    This is exactly the type of behavior that is used as evidence by the antis to demonstrate their point. We ridicule the antis, but this action should not be condoned by responsible gun owners.
    Whoa boy... Always with the completely bass-ackwards, wrong legal answers...

    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...

  6. #81
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    It is not the command, it is the drawing of your weapon and giving commands based on a lethal threat. That is aggravated assault.
    Bull. Addressed explicitly above. Quit making up the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The one thing that disturbs me most is not this particular incident, but rather your idea that the gun allows you to assume the powers we provide to law enforcement. You make many references to using the tactics of LE to conduct yourself in certain situations.
    It isn't about being LE, it's about exercising the legal authority, and moral imperative, of defending another person from apparent unlawful violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    You can't draw your weapon and order people around because of what might happen.
    Again, complete bull. Addressed above--in most states, if you "reasonably believe" that a violent assault, kidnapping, murder, etc. is about to happen--i.e., "might happen" in your parlance--you are legally authorized to threaten or use deadly force to prevent it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I know you posted this scenario to solicit opinions. Sometimes the responses are not exactly what you might have had in mind. Still, this is a valuable thread so people can assess the various responses and make wise decisions in times of great stress.
    Yeah--if they are actually given accurate information, and not a crock full from people who haven't any qualification or knowledge sufficient to actually address the question...

  7. #82
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Jang, as usual hit, the nail on the head.

    The actual use or the threat of use of lethal force has requirements which were not met. Moreover, as Jang points out, they probably (state law varies) were not met in a way that would justify an LE to draw.
    +1

    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.

  8. #83
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,721
    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.

  9. #84
    Distinguished Member Array Doc Holliday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,675
    Quote Originally Posted by elkhunter View Post
    Okay, from the comfort of my computer chair with coffee in hand, I have a different perspective.
    As I read your account, I saw a situation that looked like these two at the van were drawing you away from a truckload of guns and keeping you distracted while the "other accomplices" would try to get to the guns.
    You could have found yourselves out in the open between armed people at the van, and armed people at your truckload of guns, and in one heap of trouble.
    The store had been robbed recently?
    And now you have packaged the guns up nicely for transportation and are drawn away and surrounded.

    They could have been a Mexican Drug Cell (I don't know how to spell "narco-terrorist") looking for new "tools" for their trade.

    I could be off, but when handling a large number of guns, I'd be thinking of how there are a few elements in this world that would do just about anything to get those guns from you.

    My 2 cents.
    +1

    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!

  10. #85
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    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?

  11. #86
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    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.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  12. #87
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    Actually, the poster to whom you refer is completely ignorant of Arizona law. He did not even properly quote the statute, typical of a dishonest person. Not unexpectefly, he was also unable to perform basic research as to the statutes pertaining to the use of this particular statute.

    In particular, so the readers aren't misled by very bad advice, here is statute 13-1304.

    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.
    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.)

    Sometimes it is a mystery that some are passed through law school so easily without regard to merit.

    HAD the guy then become aggressive, threatening, presented a weapon, the display by the OP might have been justifiable--but none of that happened.
    True. In Arizona, being scared of future actions is not justification (as the OP related) for drawing a firearm.

    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.
    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.

    And to the OP, yes that means we are behind the curve. By design.

  13. #88
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,980
    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.

    HotGuns
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Interesting situation tonight.
    By Jackle1886 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: December 24th, 2009, 01:30 AM
  2. In reference to closed thread - Situation tonight! Weapons Cleared Holster
    By Tally XD in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: March 31st, 2009, 07:38 PM
  3. Cleared my house tonight !
    By jfl in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: January 13th, 2009, 04:24 PM
  4. My Fiances SHTF Situation Tonight
    By rangerman2003 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: October 1st, 2008, 02:17 PM
  5. Weapon cleared holster tonight
    By VtCO in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 21st, 2008, 02:55 PM

Search tags for this page

weapons in holsters

Click on a term to search for related topics.