You are not the law, do not draw unless you are ready to pay with your life (savings) - Page 4

You are not the law, do not draw unless you are ready to pay with your life (savings)

This is a discussion on You are not the law, do not draw unless you are ready to pay with your life (savings) within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by M2 It might be the 25 years of military service I have, or the Texas attitude that we should help others when ...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 80

Thread: You are not the law, do not draw unless you are ready to pay with your life (savings)

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,323
    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    It might be the 25 years of military service I have, or the Texas attitude that we should help others when we can; but I don't see how anyone could live with a clear conscience ...
    Part of it is absolutely the relative willingness of one's own state to ruin your life and take everything you've got, including the remainder of your natural life's time from you, all for doing the right thing and simply being the one left standing. I am certain that, if all states would simply empower the people to act in such situations via removal of authority of anyone to prosecute you or sue you for situations "No Billed" by the Grand Jury, then we'd have millions more people stepping up to the bar.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.


  2. #47
    Member Array rkhal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by rottkeeper View Post
    I only ask you to share with us you legal credentials to practice law as you are giving a legal opinion?
    What legal opinion?
    -------------------------------------------
    "Lots of bullets means lots of chances to make use of expert marksmanship skills" --- Gecko45

    "Some people ask: shoot to maim, or shoot to kill? I say, empty the chamber and let the good Lord decide." - Deputy Garcia (Reno 911)

  3. #48
    Member Array cl00bie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Broome County, New York (USA)
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by NCHornet View Post
    I couldn't find the little dude beating a dead horse so I will have to use these!!











    Get the picture??
    No. What does it all mean?
    -Tony

    "Those who beat their guns into plowshares will plow for those who didn't." -- Thomas Jefferson

  4. #49
    Member Array PepsiDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Jefferson, Oregon
    Posts
    15
    There is one particular situation this thread has reminded me of: I seem to recall earlier this year a man with a concealed weapons permit was standing in line at a bank when the customer ahead of him approached the teller with the intent to rob the bank. I do not recall if the BG drew a weapon or was completely verbal about his intentions. Regardless, the permit holder observed a robbery was in progress, drew his gun and told the BG, "you are not robbing this bank." (I now recall the BG claimed he had a bomb and the permit holder stated, "I don't care.")

    This is a interesting situation that I've questioned to myself in the past. Had the BG produced a weapon or a bomb, I mostly likely would not have gotten involved. Knowing full well no amount of money is worth anyone's life, I would be more apt to follow the BG's instructions and merely observe. Only *IF* it became apparent that the BG was extremely aggitated and seconds away from taking someone's life would I then act. However, if the robbery went smooth and the threat to life was minimal (i.e.: no weapon drawn, or calm BG with weapon drawn), my stance would be to let it commence without my involvement and let law enforcement do their jobs.

    Of course, all bank robberies have many variables that come into play. Is there only one BG or more? Has the BG already taken a life during the robbery? Are the police already on the scene? The list goes on. Most robberies are not of the Hollywood variety (i.e. "Heat"). The BG usually wants to get in and get out without any fuss or even attention from the other patrons.

    Back to the incident I recalled from early last year... no, I don't think I would have drawn my weapon like the permit holder did. I would have let the robbery commence and let the LEO's do their job. In that particular situation, my action of drawing my weapon may have far worse consequences than just leaving it alone.

  5. #50
    New Member Array chiliverde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    I didn't mean to imply that his thoughts were without merit...only to imply they had been expressed many times before and it always ends up in a heated argument with one person saying they wouldn't be able to look themselves in the mirror if they watched somebody die and another saying he wouldn't be able to look at himself in the mirror if he lost the house due to legal battles.

    There is no single, correct choice for every(or any two) circumstance(s). That's why this argument goes around in circles.

    There are certain clear circumstances in which I believe everybody would interfere. The woman who was throwing her kids off the bridge for instance.

    Most other situations are shades of gray and there just isn't any one right answer. It will vary by circumstance, the person, his training, his experience, his upbringing, state law, and maybe even what he had for breakfast or if he has a cold.

    ETA: For my answer, I would hope that I would be able to help. If I did not think I had a high probability of succeeding, I would be a good witness, and possibly hope I could get into a better position if things degenerated. That doesn't even necessarily mean I would draw. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

    When I was around 16, a friend and I detained a guy who was beating his ex in the parking lot. The sheriff got there about 2 minutes later and the guy was taken away. Neither of us were armed, but we grew up in the country in Texas, and that's not something we stand around and watch. I guess things are different now, but I doubt they are that much different.

    The only two types of people in this situation I feel bad for(and apprehensive about) are the ones that have already made up their mind that they would never help under any circumstances and the ones that have made up their mind that they would.
    Well put, I couldn't agree more.

  6. #51
    New Member Array chiliverde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by threefeathers View Post
    Solid Gun. You are wrong in this and I would also like to hear your legal credentials. Personally I work with the Cochise County attorney and I graduated from LFI farily recently and share my information with all of Ayoob's students.
    Caution in an encounter is of course common sense. You should make a determination as to what is going on. But in Arizona at least you do have an obligation to save the life of an innocent. Personally I would never allow a thug to get away with something that would hurt anyone I can protect.
    Of course courage is easy to find on the internet, but I doubt you could stand by and watch someone die or be hurt and not step in.

    Do you really want to use a gun for self defense in Ed Rheinheimer's jurisdiction? He'll have Grant Woods on you in a second, spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars prosecuting you.

  7. #52
    New Member Array chiliverde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    I agree almost totally..... the ONLY exception... is if I KNOW for a FACT.... that 1) someone had shot an LEO who was down and BG was ready to finish him off , 2) they were undoubtedly a BG in the act of trying to or actually shooting an innocent. ( I would stress that I know this for a FACT).

    I stress that, because it could be someone shooting someone because they had just tried to kill them. How would I know ??? walking into that situation. I think many people don't think about that.

    I hear the "looked like a gang banger" so .... so, they just assumed they were the BG. How do you know they are not an under cover police officer, DEA agent, etc. ? I know some, you wouldn't believe they weren't a 100% gang banger if you saw them.

    I would add.... not pulling your gun because someone makes you jittery... or uncomfortable, or you think they may be..... I don't pull anything unless I know my life is in danger. I have never pulled a gun, that my next action wasn't shooting it (I may have my hand on it, but it isn't out until the point I'm sure I need it).

    You don't pull out a hammer & think about whether to put in the nail. You pull out the hammer when you're ready to drive in the nail.
    I would classify the scenarios you describe as the, "ABSOLUTELY necessary" clause, and yes I work with guys that are completely tatted with shaved heads wearing biker type clothes.

    What happens if they have a bad guy at gunpoint with their backup almost on scene, and some "good samaritan" stops and gets involved?

    My coworker may have to shoot the good samaritan and live with that for the rest of his life, or the "good samaritan" shoots my coworker and has to live with that for the rest of his life, either in prison or not.

  8. #53
    New Member Array Chesphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    10
    I don't want to lose my life savings because I decided to protect myself or my family. I just wrote the following letter to my state senator. If we want to, we can get laws enacted to protect us from civil litigation.

    Dear Senator,

    I just completed the CCW course (great class) and was appalled when I learned that even if I was justified in using my gun to protect my life or my family's life, that the bad guy or their family could (and probably will) sue me.

    Some dirt bag breaks into my house in the middle of the night and I am in fear of my life and shoot to stop them and I just opened myself up to a huge civil lawsuit even if the police and county district attorney deemed it to be a justifiable shooting. This is wrong and we need a law enacted to protect us from civil liabilities. I believe that two other states have a law that protect their citizens from civil litigation in the event of a justified shooting.

    Is the Arizona Senate or House of Representatives proposing legislation to address this? Are there any State Senators or State Representatives that are pro-gun rights that I can write to that might be will to help good law abiding citizen who defend themselves? We need laws to protect us. Even if we have to get a proposition on the ballot, we as gun owners need to get this done. I am willing to bet that even most anti-gun people still believe in the right to defend ones life and would not want a home invasion victim to be sued by their attackers, because they were just trying to protect their life.

    Please let me know if there is anything that you can do and how I can help.

    Thank you,

    Tom

  9. #54
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,528
    Quote Originally Posted by cl00bie View Post
    No. What does it all mean?
    I believe he was indicating that this particular subject has been brought up, discussed, debated, hashed over, and flared some tempers in just about every way imaginable.

    It is a sensitive topic in our community.

    Of the 4300 odd active members of this forum, there are 4300 different people that are going to predictably react differently to any given scenario. Some of those people are very passionate in their beliefs and their perception of the responsibility in having a CC permit.

    Regrettably, some of those people regard others that do not share their belief as not being worthy, regardless if they feel they are sheepdogs for the Shepard, or the herd needs culling.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  10. #55
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,168
    By decision(s) of the United States Supreme Court, in many instances (don't ask me to quote them: Google them) : A Police Officer has no responsibility to protect the life or property of any individual citizen. He doesn't have a responsibility to stop a crime. His responsibility is to arrest, interrogate and incarcerate those supected or caught in the commission of a crime so that the courts may try them.

    Most will do try their best to protect you, but they are not required to do it. A private citizen who uses deadly force against anyone, for any reason, is not immune from prosecution or litigation. This is regardless of State laws to the contrary. Where did I get this? Sitting on two civil court juries, and listening to the arguments of counsel. USSC rulings overide state law. Tennessee does have:(a) castle doctrine,(b) an immunity for using force against a felon, and a (c) Good Samaritan law. This didn't help either case I sat through, one a house break-in and the other involved stepping into a dispute between husband and wife neighbors. In both cases I was sure the shooter did the right thing, but he had violated the law when the arguments were considered. Juries have to decide by the letter of the law and the USSC prevails.

    Remember the Heller decision only gave you the right to have a gun in your home, it didn't change any of the rules in the use of the gun.

    Is it right? H--- no! Do I agree with it? No, but I am not going to jail to prove my point either. I 'll clear leather when I am sure my wife or I are about to die. Short of that, it stays concealed and my wife's and my little secret.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  11. #56
    New Member Array rdbradish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    8
    Thanks for an interesting topic- even if it may be a dead horse!

    I am not in Law Enforcement, although my occupation keeps me engaged with them frequently. I do have a CCW, and only recently obtained it, after taking the course nearly 8 weeks ago. I reside in the state of North Carolina.

    I state these facts because much of this thread deals with, what in North Carolina would be, three seperate issues.

    First off, Federal law, referenced in a couple of places, does not always supersede state law. Further, to my knowledge, although the Right to Bear Arms is protected by the Bill of Rights, it is, to my knowledge, governed in nearly all cases on a state by state basis. Those laws, however, must act, within the confines and restrictions of federal law.

    We also have a case of two different classifications of permitees described within this thread, those that are sworn as Law Enforcement persons and those that are not.

    Why is this important? Because, with a discussion such as this, the actions one takes in response to a criminal act can clearly vary depending on the state you are in and your role within the society.

    In North Carolina, for example, a civilian CCW holder is permitted to act on behalf of another, but he better be sure of his actions before using deadly force. If, after the action, the originally threatened party states, for example, that he or she did not feel their life was in immediate danger, the intervening CCW holder could be charged with manslaughter and subject to civil action as well.

    Net-net is, if in North Carolina, you feel the need to intervene with the use of deadly force, you best be prepared for a criminal investigation and possible (probable?) charges as well.
    Last edited by rdbradish; January 1st, 2009 at 08:49 PM. Reason: clarification

  12. #57
    New Member Array Chesphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    Juries have to decide by the letter of the law and the USSC prevails.
    While I agree with most of your post, this one part is not true. While the court (judge and lawyers) may try to convince you that you must follow the letter of the law, as a juror, you can do what ever you want. If you do believe the law is unfair, you have every right to rule in favor of the accused. In this case, rule for the homeowner defending his life.

    The jury has incredible powers, they can end unjust laws, unfortunately, they don't often know how powerful a citizen can be.

  13. #58
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesphoto View Post

    The jury has incredible powers, they can end unjust laws, unfortunately, they don't often know how powerful a citizen can be.
    It's called jury nullification.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  14. #59
    Senior Member Array usmc3169's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    866
    WJH - in this quote I believe you are mistaken

    "A Police Officer has no responsibility to protect the life or property of any individual citizen. He doesn't have a responsibility to stop a crime. His responsibility is to arrest, interrogate and incarcerate those supected or caught in the commission of a crime so that the courts may try them."

    In my community LEO are REQUIRED to protect the lives and property of citizens if they can do so without causing more harm, this is department policy. I find it hard to believe that any LE organization in the country does not have some sort of mandate to preserve life.

    Any how the crime has already been commited once a signifigant step towards the commision of that crime has been achieved - this allows LE to act prior to the damaging act happening.

    Any how be very careful when inserting yourself into a dynamic situation, if you have time first call 911, give a location and nature of the incident. if you get a chance ask if LE is already involved... if you dont have time use your best judgement based on the circumstances. I for one would NOT use my CW unless I had no other options... but I would probably shift it from my ITW holster to a hand in a pocket.

    Last comment - action beats reactions every time, even if the BG has a weapon drawn already, if he has not made the decision to shoot and you have - you win the first shot, but remember "Shot isn't dead"
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

  15. #60
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,168
    "In my community LEO are REQUIRED to protect the lives and property of citizens if they can do so without causing more harm, this is department policy. I find it hard to believe that any LE organization in the country does not have some sort of mandate to preserve life."

    It was not my suggestion that police are wandering around not protecting lives. They may very well have a department policy to protect lives but the sad fact is that they do not have a legal requirement to do so. I stated this only to show that in a court showdown, as a private citizen, you may find you do not have a legal requirement to use deadly force to protect another. No legal requirement to use force, SD out the window, just a gunfight with everybody guilty.

    I am sure any Sheriff or Chief of Police would not tolerate an officer in his department that failed to protect a citizen when he could have. But you cannot sue a police department for not protecting you, because again they have no legal requirement to do so.

    The decisions came down as a result of lawsuits against NYPD and the Washington D.C. PD in matters of less than quick response (Traffic, too few officers ,etc) leading to deaths of citizens. The USSC ruled that PDs do not have the responsiblity to protect private citizens and therefore suits were moot.

    Do I agree with it? It all depends on how the mission of the PD is legally stated. If there is no requirement to protect, I will be grateful for the Officer who does, but I am not expecting it. I CCW.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Sponsored 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. Replies: 26
    Last Post: January 1st, 2011, 08:38 PM
  2. Reloading Savings
    By zeppelin03 in forum Reloading
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 29th, 2010, 12:31 PM
  3. Savings with reloading
    By Laxer in forum Reloading
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2009, 01:18 AM
  4. One example of cost savings.
    By Tubby45 in forum Reloading
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 12th, 2008, 12:58 PM

Search tags for this page

deterrent

,
sample concealed carry letter to judge broome county
,
the various legal factors assiciated with sentencing
Click on a term to search for related topics.