You are not the law, do not draw unless you are ready to pay with your life (savings) - Page 5

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; Well INHO .....depending on the situation you can open yourself for a long list of problems specially getting sue from family or the person that ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 80
  1. #61
    Senior Member Array aimhigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    635
    Well INHO .....depending on the situation you can open yourself for a long list of problems specially getting sue from family or the person that you might try to help....
    "You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or use any other word you think will work but I've found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much the universal language."

    NRA Member
    GeorgiaCarry.org


  2. #62
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  3. #63
    Member Array cl00bie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Broome County, New York (USA)
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    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.
    Well, I hope I'm not "flaring". This is an interesting topic, even if only to outline how diverse the planned reactions to any one situation might be. It might behoove us to remember this if we're ever in this sort of situation (God forbid).

    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    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.
    And I am interested in those perceptions of responsibility. It helps me hone my attitudes more sharply and more clearly delineate when (and what) action should be taken. This might help me in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    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.
    I'm not going to judge anyone here. It will most likely be 12 other people from all walks of life who will be doing that. Even if you are acquitted, it could be that a hungry lawyer will pick up a dirtbag's case pro-bono to try and make a buck at your expense. There will be repercussions to whatever action you do (or don't) take. I'd hate to have someone naively get themselves into a situation thinking that they won't suffer for a righteous shoot. They might. Even if you don't get sued, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a family or gang feud. You may have to quit your job, move to another state and set up a new life.

    I can't fault anyone who doesn't want to take the risk for someone who is not a family member or friend. I applaud those who do, but caution them to remember that helping a stranger may negatively impact innocent members of their own family. Just something to think about.

    Just taking a couple more whacks on the deceased equine.
    -Tony

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

  4. #64
    Member Array user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Va. & Middle of Nowhere, W.Va.
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    ... 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.
    I usually put it a little differently. The job of law enforcement is to detect crimes, crimes in progress, and crimes imminently about to be committed, to identify the perpetrators, conspirators, and accessories, to arrest those persons, and to assist in their prosecution. That's it; there is no other legal duty. And keep in mind that a "crime" is an offense against the dignity of the sovereign, thus only the state is a "victim" of a "crime"; the person injured in the crime is the "victim" of a "tort" (a civil wrong other than a breach of contract) for which he or she may file suit. But if the dignity of the sovereign is not offended, the state (and the state's officers) have no interest in protecting lives and property. "To protect and to serve" does not refer to people, but to the state. It is thus not only the citizen's right, but the citizen's duty to the state and his fellow citizens, to defend himself and his family.

    Quote Originally Posted by usmc3169 View Post
    ...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. ...
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    ...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. ...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.....
    Well said: there is a difference between policy which governs actions as a matter of employment of police officers, and a legal duty for which other people might file suit if there were a breach of that duty. The question is, to whom does the duty run? If to the employer, then no one else may file suit for a negligent breach of the duty but the employer.

    =====

    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    ...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....USSC rulings overide state law....
    Quote Originally Posted by rdbradish View Post
    ...First off, Federal law...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.
    It's true that as to some things, state law pre-empts federal law, notably in the areas of law enforcement (since, under the U.S. Constitution, the United States has no authority for law enforcement), public health, education, and public welfare. But as to what constitutes "due process of law" under the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Sup. Ct. has the final word. So, for example, a number of states have laws requiring or permitting police officers to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon. The U.S. Sup.Ct. recently decided that they can't do that, because it's a violation of the felon's right to due process of law.

    =====

    Quote Originally Posted by rdbradish View Post
    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.
    ...
    That only applies as to differences in authority, powers, and immunities that are specifically stated in state statutes. Otherwise, police officers operate on exactly the same footing and with the same restrictions as every one else. And vice-versa. A police officer cannot kill to defend personal property; neither may a non-LEO. In Virginia, killing to stop a property crime in progress, however, is manslaughter, not murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    ...A private citizen who uses deadly force against anyone, for any reason, is not immune from prosecution or litigation.....
    There's a difference between being hauled into court and being convicted of a crime or being found civilly liable for damages. Anyone can file suit against anyone at anytime for any reason. I could go file suit against you, today, where I live, regardless of where you live, for the offence of having negligently whistled "Blue Moon" badly. But even if I got a judgment, it would be void for lack of jurisdiction and unenforceable against you. And if you showed up to defend yourself, the case would be tossed out because it fails to state a cause of action cognizable in court. And you might assert the defense that you've never whistled at all and don't know how to whistle, and therefore cannot be found liable of having whistled badly. And even if you didn't show up, and I asked for a default judgment, it's very unlikely that a court in Virginia would grant it. But I could file the suit.

    There's an additional barrier to prosecutions for crimes that does not apply to civil suits. Someone, either a cop or prosecutor or other citizen would have to first convince a magistrate and/or a grand jury that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and that you were the person who committed the crime. But there's an old saying, that the district attorney could get a grand jury to indict a cinnamon roll for aggravated mopery if he wanted to. (That's the offense of "moping around", for those unfamiliar.) That's more a comment on how stupid or ignorant (or both) your fellow citizens and grand jurors are than a slur on prosecutors, by the way.

    =====

    Quote Originally Posted by Chesphoto View Post
    ... 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.....
    In Virginia, there is a standard jury instruction that begins, "You are the conscience of the community..."; the jury's job is to determine the facts, and then, having determined the facts, to apply the law as given. But each juror has a higher duty to do what he thinks is right in fairness to a citizen. However a juror may not disregard the law in order to find a person guilty of a crime, because that would be the result of bias or prejudice. Neither may the juror disregard the legitimate interests of the state and society because of bias or prejudice.



    =====


    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    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.
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by rdbradish View Post
    ...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.
    ...
    RDBRadish is correct. The Second Amendment is a restriction on Congress, not the states. It has never been incorporated into the due process clause of the Fourteenth (which does apply to the states), as has a "right to privacy", freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. So Heller applies in D.C., on nonmilitary federal installations (such as National Parks), Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, etc. It does not apply in Kansas, unless Kansas has by constitution or law, incorporated the same provisions. So the Pro-Crime states that unreasonably limit the right of a person to defend himself, Illinois, New Jersey, California, Maryland, etc., are perfectly within their rights if their own constitutions and laws permit those pro-crime policies. If the people of a state wish to be subjected to constant fear of attack by criminals, it is within their right under the U.S. Constitution, to enact laws and policies which protect their right to be ravaged by crime. I think that's pretty dumb, myself, but I am exercising my choice not to live in such uncivilized districts.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    Nothing I say as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Legal questions should be presented to a competent attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  5. #65
    VIP Member
    Array Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    5,050
    This is really quite simple. You can do anything you are physically and mentally capable of doing, at any time and in any place. There are consequences for doing certain things. For example, I am physically able to jump off a 10 story building. The consequence being the sudden stop when I meet the ground. In this example the consequences are enough to keep me from jumping off a 10 story building. Sort of the point of our punishment system. Provide a consequence to an action deemed unacceptable in society, by society. If someone wants to risk the consequences or feels the consequences are not a deterrent, well there you go.

    Life has consequences. You have to live with the ones you get based on what you do. You take your chances with the situations you encounter every day.

    This debate is like debating abortion and religion. They are called core belief debates. People don't change their core beliefs, but they will defend them to the end. This particular topic hits the core belief of right and wrong for most people. Hence it tends to circle around, and this one has circled to the do police have an obligation to protect you. Quite off the original topic.
    Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.

  6. #66
    New Member Array rdbradish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by rdbradish
    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.

    That only applies as to differences in authority, powers, and immunities that are specifically stated in state statutes. Otherwise, police officers operate on exactly the same footing and with the same restrictions as every one else. And vice-versa. A police officer cannot kill to defend personal property; neither may a non-LEO. In Virginia, killing to stop a property crime in progress, however, is manslaughter, not murder.
    Ok, Help me out here. I know you are making a point, but, differences in "authority, powers, and immunities" would seem to be pretty important, especially during the decision making process. I understand the law on when to take action is the same, but the differences you mention should likely affect a reasonable, non-LEO's, ability to determine whether it is prudent for them to take an action in the first place, correct?

    Is that the best benefit of society at large?

  7. #67
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott View Post
    ...Sort of the point of our punishment system. Provide a consequence to an action deemed unacceptable in society, by society. If someone wants to risk the consequences or feels the consequences are not a deterrent, well there you go...
    Ouch, bad example Scott. That clearly does not work anymore except in Texas, and then only in the most heinous of actions (express lane on death Row). The consequences for actions are more often than not, 3 hots and a cot, recreation and entertainment facilities, and career development, if and only if it is not a slap on the wrist.

    We are dangerously close to the UKs practice with criminals. "Guilty until proven innocent, and give you more rights than your victim, unless you are the victim, then we are gonna' nail your hide to the wall"

    My bad, whole 'nother topic.

    How about we refresh this thread with the original post;

    Quote Originally Posted by Solidgun View Post
    From a number of posts I read from various sites, I notice that people believe that they are ready to jump into any situation because they are legally carrying. While talking to a co-worker about this, he was confused about the fact as well and believed that he should help bystanders in dangerous situations if he has a weapon.

    This could not be further from the fact and people should understand that you are carrying to protect yourself and your family. It is your choice to help others, but unless you know the situation thoroughly, then there may not be any issues, but otherwise, be prepared to pay for all legal issues you may face.

    I only want to share this so people understand that it does cost your life to draw that weapon regardless of whether you survive or not. Don't make the mistake and lose everything you have for something that is not important to you....like your family and yourself.
    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

  8. #68
    VIP Member
    Array Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    5,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    Ouch, bad example Scott. That clearly does not work anymore except in Texas, and then only in the most heinous of actions (express lane on death Row). The consequences for actions are more often than not, 3 hots and a cot, recreation and entertainment facilities, and career development, if and only if it is not a slap on the wrist.

    We are dangerously close to the UKs practice with criminals. "Guilty until proven innocent, and give you more rights than your victim, unless you are the victim, then we are gonna' nail your hide to the wall"

    My bad, whole 'nother topic.

    How about we refresh this thread with the original post;
    Well I did say that they may not think that the deterrent provided is a significant enough consequence to not do something. However, for the majority of people it seems to work.

    There are those who will be criminals and no amount of potential punishment will deter them. Evidence that murders still occur in states that have the death penalty where the crime is punishable by death. If the DP was truly a consequence with enough deterrent, death row would be empty.
    Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott View Post
    Well I did say that they may not think that the deterrent provided is a significant enough consequence to not do something. However, for the majority of people it seems to work.

    There are those who will be criminals and no amount of potential punishment will deter them. Evidence that murders still occur in states that have the death penalty where the crime is punishable by death. If the DP was truly a consequence with enough deterrent, death row would be empty.
    Many laugh at the DP anyway and some know it would be years before appeals ran out and they are actually put to death. I don't think many of the hardened criminals would care if the judge stood up and shot them through the head after imposing the death sentence. They do not have the capacity to reason as we do IMO. To me the thought of losing my freedom of movement (arrest) is more than enough.
    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

  10. #70
    Member Array user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Va. & Middle of Nowhere, W.Va.
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by rdbradish View Post
    Ok, Help me out here. I know you are making a point, but, differences in "authority, powers, and immunities" would seem to be pretty important, especially during the decision making process. I understand the law on when to take action is the same, but the differences you mention should likely affect a reasonable, non-LEO's, ability to determine whether it is prudent for them to take an action in the first place, correct?

    Is that the best benefit of society at large?
    In some states, there are statutes that place restrictions on a person's ability to act in a way that would otherwise be lawful; here's a trivial example: in Virginia, directing traffic unless one is a uniformed police officer is illegal, and can be prosecuted as impersonating a police officer. At common law, anyone could direct traffic as an assistance to the community, but after cars were invented, things got more complicated so they passed a law to prevent confusion caused by idiots who wanted to "help" as well as to make those who disobeyed directions subject to prosecution.

    In some states, there are statutes that provide that police officers may do things that others cannot; another example: in Virginia, a uniformed police officer may make an arrest without a warrant in the case of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. At common law, anyone could arrest a person believed to be guilty of a felony, but no one could arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in his presence. The statute gives police officers special powers.

    My opinion is that (1) the fewer and less complicated the laws, the better, because that leads to voluntary compliance; (2) the law should not criminalize conduct unnecessarily, because that leads to a general disrespect for law; and (3) the average person should take pains to know the law as it applies to himself where he lives, and the failure to make this information available in the "government" or "civics" classes in high school is a travesty. But as to whether or not it is good for society to make distinctions between the police and everyone else, I go with the traditional conservative approach: we are a nation of laws and not of men; the law should apply to everyone regardless of his status, rank, or position. That said, I also feel that it is up to the people of each state to decide for themselves through their legislatures whether to allow their police special powers over them. But they'd better be careful what they wish for.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    Nothing I say as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Legal questions should be presented to a competent attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  11. #71
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post


    My opinion is that (1) the fewer and less complicated the laws, the better, because that leads to voluntary compliance; (2) the law should not criminalize conduct unnecessarily, because that leads to a general disrespect for law; and (3) the average person should take pains to know the law as it applies to himself where he lives, and the failure to make this information available in the "government" or "civics" classes in high school is a travesty. But as to whether or not it is good for society to make distinctions between the police and everyone else, I go with the traditional conservative approach: we are a nation of laws and not of men; the law should apply to everyone regardless of his status, rank, or position. That said, I also feel that it is up to the people of each state to decide for themselves through their legislatures whether to allow their police special powers over them. But they'd better be careful what they wish for.
    +1 Well stated opinion...
    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

  12. #72
    Senior Member Array Devone6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South of North, North of South
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by TX-JB View Post
    It depends where you live. Many states have Good Samaritan Laws. etc... to limit civil liability. I understand your point, especially living in CA.
    Good Samaritan Laws have been mentioned several times in this thread, and I just wanted to make sure every one knows that Good Samaritan Laws would not apply in any way to a use of lethal force to protect someone.

    Good Samaritan Laws are for treatment of the injured and or ill and assiciated issues, such as unable to give consent, parental rights and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity. These laws offer limited protection, in that the person giving care must stay within their training level and must not do any thing blatantly wrong.

    These laws are actually intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury to the person(s) recieving aid. Various state's GSL's clearly define they are intended for emergency medical care.

    Do not confuse these laws with "duty to act" or "duty to rescue", as this is not the case.

    In short, if you use lethal force during any situation to asist another and are mistaken in who is the agressor, or accidently injure a bystander, etc....... Good Samaritan Laws will not apply/help your case in any way.
    My heroes are Veterans and My Father (who was a veteran).

    I believe prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance should have REMAINED in schools, and the Ten Commandments should have REMAINED in schools, courthouses, and everywhere else it was before the ACLU got involved.

  13. #73
    Ex Member Array Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    2,782
    As someone who has been involved in legal proceedings and the financial burden that goes along I understand what the OP was getting at. Perhaps his opinion/suggestion could have been worded a little differently. On the other hand we are not all vigilantes on this forum nor cowards. Each of us has to find our own level of comfort based on the facts at the time the incident occurs.

    It is true that your life will change if you must draw and fire your weapon, whether it be financially, psychologically or socially.

  14. #74
    Distinguished Member Array Gideon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,782
    We should also be aware that there's a case pending right now where a "good samaritan" is being sued for pulling her co-worker from a car. The california supreme court ruled that such a suit could proceed.

    Guys and Gals, if you step in on behalf of anyone else, there is a GREAT risk and potentially more liability than you're worth.

    If you assess the situation right then you saved a life and I think that's good, even if other's persecute you for it or sue you. However, if you assess the situation wrong, you're in big trouble regardless of intent.

    It will be that decision we make in the blink of an eye without any real opportunity to think about it! We can only hope and pray we make the right decision if we're ever thrust into such a situation!

  15. #75
    VIP Member Array jonconsiglio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by bigiceman View Post
    There is an important distinction between can not be sued and can be used as a defense against prosecution. Texas law, and Texas castle doctrine, gives you the right to use justified circumstances as defense against prosecution. This is not the same as immunity to prosecution. There is a difference. You can still end up in court.

    No one ever needed an attorney to do the right thing. Unfortunately sometimes in our society you need one after doing the right thing. That doesn't make it any less right. Do you want to do the right thing, or the convenient thing?
    Good point.. When I speak of these things I assume we are in the right. So yea, I agree with that.

    I also understand that as of September 2007, we are less likely to be prosecuted and we can only be sued if there is sufficient evidence.

    Before, even if we were right, we could be sued and easily defend ourselves. Now, it can't go to court unless there's enough evidence that something was done that was wrong.

    Now, I have this from our instructor who is retired DPS and my father who went to criminal defense after 15 years in the DA's office.

    Jonathan

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

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, 07:38 PM
  2. Reloading Savings
    By zeppelin03 in forum Reloading
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 29th, 2010, 11:31 AM
  3. Savings with reloading
    By Laxer in forum Reloading
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2009, 12:18 AM
  4. One example of cost savings.
    By Tubby45 in forum Reloading
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 12th, 2008, 11:58 AM

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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors