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 ...
"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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hit my limit for speculation, the sky is falling, and gun owners fighting amongst themselves.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL!
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.
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
The jury has incredible powers, they can end unjust laws, unfortunately, they don't often know how powerful a citizen can be.
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."
"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.