Springfield, MO: "Case highlights concealed carry weapons issues"

[SCALPHUNTER]

In the state where I live, the LEO's are governed by the same rules as anyone carrying a CCW permit. They may only use deadly force to protect themselves or another individual if their life is threatened. And as I said before, fleeing suspects cannot be fired on, and if you have a suspect "covered" at gunpoint, and they decide to try to escape, you still can not shoot them. LEO's at that point will attempt to take them down manually. I hope this answered your question.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[rickmn50]

It truly makes me sad for my children and grand children that our country provides more rights for those who would break the law than those who choose to live by it. :(

[AZ Hawk]

So where was deadly force used in this incident that the article kept referring to? I didn't read that there were any shots fired nor was anyone injured or killed...

[SCALPHUNTER]

It truly makes me sad for my children and grand children that our country provides more rights for those who would break the law than those who choose to live by it. :(

You said it!!!

[SCALPHUNTER]

So where was deadly force used in this incident that the article kept referring to? I didn't read that there were any shots fired nor was anyone injured or killed...

There was no deadly force used, and no one was actually shot. The question was raised as to whether or not it would have been justified to shoot someone who was robbing the place rather than actually attacking the owner.

[mlr1m]

I'm not sure about the details of this case. I do know that if I were being robbed I would consider my life to be in danger.

Michael

[WvHiker]

I wouldn't have any problem pulling a gun on someone robbing my house. I wouldn't shoot them for stealing my junk; I have homeowner's insurance. But you never know what a burglar is going to do. They may panic and stab you. They might have a gun. You just can't know the mindset of someone who has already manifestly decided not to care about obeying the law or common sense. And while I wouldn't shoot them for stealing things, I certainly would want to be in as ready a position as possible should they flip out and decide to get physical. Better safe than sorry.

[SCALPHUNTER]

I'm not sure about the details of this case. I do know that if I were being robbed I would consider my life to be in danger.

Michael

I wouldn't have any problem pulling a gun on someone robbing my house. I wouldn't shoot them for stealing my junk; I have homeowner's insurance. But you never know what a burglar is going to do. They may panic and stab you. They might have a gun. You just can't know the mindset of someone who has already manifestly decided not to care about obeying the law or common sense. And while I wouldn't shoot them for stealing things, I certainly would want to be in as ready a position as possible should they flip out and decide to get physical. Better safe than sorry.

If your state has instituted a "Castle Law," and if I remember correctly, 31 states have, you have the right to use deadly force if anyone breaks the threshold of you residence, vehicle, or any building owned by you and used as a place of business. Under the Castle Law, you do not have warn an intruder, you do not have to"wait and see" if he is going to threaten you in any way, and you do not have to stand there and allow him to steal your valuables without shooting him just because he wasn't threatening you personally! If the bad guy comes into your home, personally owned business, or tries to take your vehicle while you are in it, he's "toast."