A Misanthropic Gadfly Making Major Depression, Crippling Disabilities , Chronic Pain and the belief that Mankind is an Evolutionary Mistake Entertaining Since 2011.....

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Questions?

One of the blogs I read recently posted about a potential situation they encountered that could have resulted in pulling out the old concealed carry to conduct some business. I know about castle law and stand your ground law but I wanted to know what everyone thinks about a "good Samaritan law for gun play". To my knowledge the only time you are authorized to use deadly force is if you are under direct threat of harm. Self defense requires an assailant. The person with the gun must feel their life is in jeopardy in order to fire their weapon.

That means you can't interfere in a robbery or car jacking or purse snatching by shooting the low life just because your gun is handy. That is vigilante justice and it is illegal as all hell. If I am wrong about this please post a comment and correct me. The second amendment guarantees your right to bear arms. There is however no mention made of shooting them. Is the right to use them part of the amendment. NO. The law of the land prevails in such circumstances. The 2nd amendment does not make you a policeman. You are still a civilian, a private citizen.

Has there been any cases like the theater shooting or the school shooting where a person with a concealed weapon took action and prevented a crime from taking place who was exonerated of all wrong doing. If you accidently shoot an innocent bystander are you held accountable or are you exempt from prosecution because your heart was in the right place and you were just trying to help. ( theater shooting for example) I think you know the answer to that.

I am under the impression that concealed carry is for personal self defense. Until the nut bag or criminal or whatever points his weapon at you, you have no legal reason to shoot him. If I am wrong about this please write and explain it to me. I am sure all this is covered during the extensive 8 hour course you must complete to get your permit but I doubt the subtle nuances of the law are  covered to any great extent. This leaves the permit owner open to all manner of liability if he uses his weapon without just cause.

With all the firearms enthusiasts out there surely someone can answer my questions. For example, it is not enough to be holding a gun, the assailant has to point it at you. At that point he has already committed a felony which is called " displaying a weapon in a threatening manner". Since you are not to point your weapon at anyone you do not intend to shoot, at what point does your weapon come into play?

I realize that some of these questions answers will vary from state to state but there should be some guidelines that are universally accepted. Here is your chance to talk about GUNS! I live in an open carry state and there are pretty cut and dried rules on what you can and cannot do. Of course, I live in a state where all the ranchers have gun racks and there are rattlesnakes, coyotes etc. Tell me what your views are and if you can cite your sources. thanks,

the rat

2 comments:

  1. There is a concept called disparity of force.

    2 men reasonably of the same size in a shoving contest is NOT disparity of force. Using you gun in this situation, especially if you can be accused of initiating it, may land you in prison.

    1 man beating the holy crap out of a woman is disparity of force. There is no way that fighting skills can be equal and "depending on the exact circumstances" she will most likely be viewed as being justified in shooting her assailant even though he didn't have a gun on him, or having one on him but not having it pulled.

    2 or 3 men without guns jumping 1 man with a gun MAY be construed as disparity of force. But the 1 man should make sure he has done all he can to avoid this situation.

    1 man jumping another from behind and now is on top of him beating his head on the sidewalk "may" depending on the circumstances, be considered disparity of force.

    so on and so forth.

    Using your gun on someone that is pointing it at another person in the act of committing a crime or in fact shooting another would in most situations be allowed, even if he isn't pointing it at you. The principle in the MS school is a good example. The criminal doesn't have to be shooting at you personally.

    The gun owner is still subject to liability issues even if he isn't subject to criminal prosecution. Responsible gun owners that carry will already have liability insurance.

    Most (not all unfortunately) CCW people will do everything possible to avoid a situation where they have to use their weapon.

    All situations will be different and it's up to the gun owner to know how the law applies in that situation.

    I am not an attorney nor have I slept at a Holiday Inn recently. Each person is responsible for their own use of their weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. thank you anon for that response. This is the kind of information I am looking for, not all that macho nonsense. Since I am totally disabled (service connected) I would assume this disparity of force issue would play an important role if I needed a defense. thanks.

    ReplyDelete

This blog is for Adults. I don't Have the patience for playground behavior.