djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 22, 2014 21:39:19 GMT -5
nope. we didn't. there is no legal basis for this in California, although it might be in Indiana, and there is no FEDERAL law which permits it. you have a duty to retreat here, and in any other state that does not have SYG. lethal force can ONLY be used in self defense when there is no ability to retreat. if you undertake any such activity in a state such as CA, you will be considered a vigilante, since you have no legal authority to act with deadly force on behalf of others. edit: it looks like you are indeed in one of those nutty SYG states. so what works for you won't work for me. Are you sure about that? i don't understand this passage, but NO, based on what you posted, i am NOT sure.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 22, 2014 22:03:15 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 22:11:03 GMT -5
i don't understand this passage, but NO, based on what you posted, i am NOT sure. It means you are not limited to just defending yourself.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 22, 2014 22:59:46 GMT -5
i don't understand this passage, but NO, based on what you posted, i am NOT sure. It means you are not limited to just defending yourself. ah. thanks. yeah, i guess this really does boil down to imminent danger then. i am not a legal expert, and i have a lot to do, so i am going to abandon this discussion. thanks. it was interesting. edit: Virgil, this is an example of a poster bringing FACTS to bear in a discussion (not opinion) which altered what i believed about US and California law. i was forced to CONFRONT the facts as i understood them, and, finding that they were not as black and white as i believed previously, i have GREYED my position on this. i am still not completely convinced that the OP is justifiable homicide, but i can see how one could entertain that position going strictly by the book, and not just their opinion.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 23, 2014 4:04:15 GMT -5
Depends on the situation. The store clerk is pretty much screwed. By the time you know you're being robbed the guy is already standing there at point blank range with a gun in your face. If you reach for a weapon there's a pretty good chance you wind up dead. However, while the robber is interacting with the store clerk a bystander off to the side can probably draw a weapon and shoot the robber with very little threat to themselves. Keep in mind what a robbery actually is. It's a guy coming in with a gun and saying give me the money or I'll kill you. In some cases, although probably a minority, you can replace or with and in the previous sentence. The very nature of the act is a credible death threat against the person standing at the register. If they go out in public and threaten to kill people while brandishing a weapon they deserve to get put down. Cops will shoot under those circumstances. Or they could draw the weapon, shoot and miss, shoot and fail to incapacitate and maybe get themselves and the clerk killed. Too many risks for me.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,724
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 23, 2014 9:04:56 GMT -5
i don't understand this passage, but NO, based on what you posted, i am NOT sure. It means you are not limited to just defending yourself. Right, but without knowing how it is usually interpreted in court I think one still risks jail time depending on how you defend this other person. Police get more leeway I think because of their standard training but civilian versus civilian could be messy.
I think, but do not know, that a cop for example shooting a armed robber in the back who won't drop his gun after being asked to would be dealt with differently than a civilian doing so without any warning.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 23, 2014 11:18:04 GMT -5
Just out of a sense of morbid curiosity... how do you know, for a fact, that it's one of the Majority ones (I'm taking your word for that) that doesn't end up with dead/wounded people... while it's happening? If you resist it probably you will die If you do not resist it probably you will not die How dumb somebody gotta be to pick probably you will die. Its not hard to figure out. Its dumb as people who say Oh if I wear a seat belt maybe I'm gonna get trapped and burn! Based on this logic, a police officer at the scene should try and blend in with the crowd and let the robber go about his business. An armed robber who succeeds in his crimes is going to repeat them until he doesn't. "Doesn't" either means he runs into an armed citizen at some point, he runs into police at some point, or he's taken down C.O.P.S.-style in an apartment raid. Regardless, there's going to be a confrontation at some point. The person (be it a police officer or an armed citizen) who shoots a robber is taking action to prevent the current robbery, all future robberies, and the future confrontation that brings the robber down. An armed citizen in the store has to make a split-second decision: Is my opportunity to take him down now rather than a police officer or citizen taking him down later good enough to justify the risk? You're basically claiming that the answer is 'no' under all circumstances, and this is a plainly wrong assessment. A shooter may in fact be as competent in handling a weapon as any law officer and presented with a unique opportunity to bring the robber down. In this particular case, that risk paid off--to a degree. Ideally the robber wouldn't have died. Even so, the robbery was thwarted, his reign of terror has ended, and there will be no future police shootout or SWAT team raid required to bring him down. There's a fine line between bravery and recklessness, but not all vigilantism is reckless as you and others presuppose.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 23, 2014 12:34:14 GMT -5
... Based on this logic, a police officer at the scene should try and blend in with the crowd and let the robber go about his business. ... This does not take into account training to deal with this type of situation. Think Emerson.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 12:47:18 GMT -5
If you resist it probably you will die If you do not resist it probably you will not die How dumb somebody gotta be to pick probably you will die. Its not hard to figure out. Its dumb as people who say Oh if I wear a seat belt maybe I'm gonna get trapped and burn! Based on this logic, a police officer at the scene should try and blend in with the crowd and let the robber go about his business. An armed robber who succeeds in his crimes is going to repeat them until he doesn't. "Doesn't" either means he runs into an armed citizen at some point, he runs into police at some point, or he's taken down C.O.P.S.-style in an apartment raid. Regardless, there's going to be a confrontation at some point. The person (be it a police officer or an armed citizen) who shoots a robber is taking action to prevent the current robbery, all future robberies, and the future confrontation that brings the robber down. An armed citizen in the store has to make a split-second decision: Is my opportunity to take him down now rather than a police officer or citizen taking him down later good enough to justify the risk? You're basically claiming that the answer is 'no' under all circumstances, and this is a plainly wrong assessment. A shooter may in fact be as competent in handling a weapon as any law officer and presented with a unique opportunity to bring the robber down. In this particular case, that risk paid off--to a degree. Ideally the robber wouldn't have died. Even so, the robbery was thwarted, his reign of terror has ended, and there will be no future police shootout or SWAT team raid required to bring him down. There's a fine line between bravery and recklessness, but not all vigilantism is reckless as you and others presuppose. Uh except it is the polices JOB to do something. Its why they TRAIN them to do it its why they pay them to do it its why they give them a gun and a badge and its why they are the POLICE. Else they are street cleaners and not police. I didn't EVER say its what you better do every time please do not make up my words. ETA at my school they teach active shooter. If somebody will start to shoot people then it is 100% DIFFERENT SITUATION from a clerk getting robbed and the chance is changed from probably you will not die if you don't try to resist it to probably you WILL die if you don't try to resist it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 23, 2014 14:06:56 GMT -5
... Based on this logic, a police officer at the scene should try and blend in with the crowd and let the robber go about his business. ... This does not take into account training to deal with this type of situation. Think Emerson. Training is a factor. That said, it's not the only factor, and many citizens have extensive firearms training. Paul of own board apparently racked up enough to pass "self-defense certification". It's folly to think that only police officers are qualified to fire weapons and judge whether to fire them. If EVT's news article about the police opening fire on that 70-year-old guy who got out of his car is accurate, the cops shot 17 times from a distance of a few feet as the poor guy basically stood still, and they still only hit him once. You may be putting a bit too much faith in the impact of police training.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 23, 2014 14:37:21 GMT -5
..., the cops shot 17 times from a distance of a few feet as the poor guy basically stood still, and they still only hit him once. You may be putting a bit too much faith in the impact of police training. So maybe the cops should just stay out of it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 14:46:15 GMT -5
..., the cops shot 17 times from a distance of a few feet as the poor guy basically stood still, and they still only hit him once. You may be putting a bit too much faith in the impact of police training. So maybe the cops should just stay out of it. Ya no need to have the police Bubba is gonna protect you after he drank some beer to get brave. Already he had training to shoot the squirrels.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 23, 2014 19:30:33 GMT -5
..., the cops shot 17 times from a distance of a few feet as the poor guy basically stood still, and they still only hit him once. You may be putting a bit too much faith in the impact of police training. So maybe the cops should just stay out of it. I think regardless of whether it's the cops or Bubba, there's inherently going to be a lot of risk when somebody finally stands up to Joe Armed Robber. My argument in a nutshell is that we should take this on a situation-by-situation, shooter-by-shooter basis, not in the sweeping "vigilantism is good"/"vigilantism is bad" terms this discussion is predicated on. I realize this is shocking coming from ol' everything-is-black-and-white Virgil, but vigilantism is one of those grey areas.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 19:38:50 GMT -5
So maybe the cops should just stay out of it. I think regardless of whether it's the cops or Bubba, there's inherently going to be a lot of risk when somebody finally stands up to Joe Armed Robber. My argument in a nutshell is that we should take this on a situation-by-situation, shooter-by-shooter basis, not in the sweeping "vigilantism is good"/"vigilantism is bad" terms this discussion is predicated on. I realize this is shocking coming from ol' everything-is-black-and-white Virgil, but vigilantism is one of those grey areas.Especially in situations like this, where it actually ISN'T vigilantism.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 23, 2014 19:51:36 GMT -5
I think regardless of whether it's the cops or Bubba, there's inherently going to be a lot of risk when somebody finally stands up to Joe Armed Robber. My argument in a nutshell is that we should take this on a situation-by-situation, shooter-by-shooter basis, not in the sweeping "vigilantism is good"/"vigilantism is bad" terms this discussion is predicated on. I realize this is shocking coming from ol' everything-is-black-and-white Virgil, but vigilantism is one of those grey areas.Especially in situations like this, where it actually ISN'T vigilantism. "Citizens taking action." Whatever you want to call it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 23, 2014 21:51:51 GMT -5
Especially in situations like this, where it actually ISN'T vigilantism. "Citizens taking action." Whatever you want to call it. taking action doesn't bother me in the slightest. USING LETHAL FORCE is where i have an issue.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 23, 2014 22:12:02 GMT -5
"Citizens taking action." Whatever you want to call it. taking action doesn't bother me in the slightest. USING LETHAL FORCE is where i have an issue. If it's any consolation to you, as more and more Americans arm themselves with lethal weapons, more and more Americans are also arming themselves with less-than-lethal weapons.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 23, 2014 22:39:20 GMT -5
... as more and more Americans arm themselves with lethal weapons, ... The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.
...
The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.
The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times. Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 24, 2014 3:59:55 GMT -5
... as more and more Americans arm themselves with lethal weapons, ... The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.
...
The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.
The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times. Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline
Hence you should be doubly happy. x2 Also, I regret having to point out that 35% of the US's current ~310 million people is still several million more armed people than 50% of 1970's ~210 million people.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 24, 2014 9:33:25 GMT -5
The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.
...
The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.
The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times. Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline
Hence you should be doubly happy. x2 Also, I regret having to point out that 35% of the US's current ~310 million people is still several million more armed people than 50% of 1970's ~210 million people.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 24, 2014 9:41:25 GMT -5
If I had ANY so called poll call me asking if I had any guns, Do you really think I would tell them how many guns I had? Here one that I would tell the truth on, Poll Question, Do you keep large sums of money in your home. Oh yes lots and lots.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 24, 2014 9:43:43 GMT -5
If I had ANY so called poll call me asking if I had any guns, Do you really think I would tell them how many guns I had? Here one that I would tell the truth on, Poll Question, Do you keep large sums of money in your home. Oh yes lots and lots. How many lie and say they do have a gun when they don't? I say it would even out.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 24, 2014 13:00:57 GMT -5
If I had ANY so called poll call me asking if I had any guns, Do you really think I would tell them how many guns I had? Here one that I would tell the truth on, Poll Question, Do you keep large sums of money in your home. Oh yes lots and lots. Why would you want to indicate you keep "lots and lots" of money in your home? That doesn't quite make sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 18:34:47 GMT -5
Especially in situations like this, where it actually ISN'T vigilantism. "Citizens taking action." Whatever you want to call it. That works! ("Citizens taking lawful action" would be better though )
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 18:37:21 GMT -5
If I had ANY so called poll call me asking if I had any guns, Do you really think I would tell them how many guns I had? Here one that I would tell the truth on, Poll Question, Do you keep large sums of money in your home. Oh yes lots and lots. Why would you want to indicate you keep "lots and lots" of money in your home? That doesn't quite make sense to me. For the same reason some people would want to advertise on a poll that they had guns in the house. I think it was basically sarcasm. But that could just be the way I read it.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 24, 2014 19:04:16 GMT -5
you want to know why i really have a problem with this? let's say i am in a room with (7) people with CWP's. i am minding my own business, pushing my infant niece around in a stroller. suddenly, a guy pulls a gun on a clerk and tells him to put the money in a bag. in the next instant, all seven of the folks with guns are firing on him. bullets are flying everywhere, and my niece is caught in the crossfire and killed. i dislike cops. anyone who knows my posting knows it. i have a thing about authority. but i will be damned if i want half a dozen people with conflicting motivations coming to my rescue or the rescue of anyone else. if i am under threat, i can handle myself, and anyone else who is under threat can handle themselves. when someone ELSE is under threat, it is not my job to handle them. that is how i define a vigiliante: someone who can't mind his own go--amn business and is all up in mine WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SO. might i thank such a person later for "saving my life"? sure. if i was under threat. and i might want him drawn and quartered for it too, if he accidentally shot an innocent bystander because he was inadequately trained, and in way over his head. Here's the problem with your scenario..... In my gun classes, one of the first rules of thumb before shooting is to know your area and what's beyond it. This happened at the shooting at the Oregon mall, where there was someone there with a CWP. He got his family to a safe area and got himself into position to attempt to shoot. However, he saw someone in the background and knew that he could have potentially hit her if he missed, so he backed down. My instructor was in a similar position, other than it was with a dog that was attacking both her and her dog. She was down on the ground with the dog on top of her, biting her and she drew her weapon. Even then, she was cognizant of there being too many people around to shoot, so didn't. So at least 2 instances that I know of of people who have been carrying, have been in a position to shoot and did not because they were well trained. I think that you are making some assumptions that the store would turn into a shoot out at OK Corral. If 7 are carrying, then most have probably had adequate training. Oh, and BTW......the shooter who was caught in downtown NYC after he shot up his place of employment was surrounded by several law enforcement officers. There were 9 people injured, and all were injured by the cops shooting this guy. 3 directly shot, 6 with bullet fragments. www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 24, 2014 19:15:16 GMT -5
Based on this logic, a police officer at the scene should try and blend in with the crowd and let the robber go about his business. An armed robber who succeeds in his crimes is going to repeat them until he doesn't. "Doesn't" either means he runs into an armed citizen at some point, he runs into police at some point, or he's taken down C.O.P.S.-style in an apartment raid. Regardless, there's going to be a confrontation at some point. The person (be it a police officer or an armed citizen) who shoots a robber is taking action to prevent the current robbery, all future robberies, and the future confrontation that brings the robber down. An armed citizen in the store has to make a split-second decision: Is my opportunity to take him down now rather than a police officer or citizen taking him down later good enough to justify the risk? You're basically claiming that the answer is 'no' under all circumstances, and this is a plainly wrong assessment. A shooter may in fact be as competent in handling a weapon as any law officer and presented with a unique opportunity to bring the robber down. In this particular case, that risk paid off--to a degree. Ideally the robber wouldn't have died. Even so, the robbery was thwarted, his reign of terror has ended, and there will be no future police shootout or SWAT team raid required to bring him down. There's a fine line between bravery and recklessness, but not all vigilantism is reckless as you and others presuppose. Uh except it is the polices JOB to do something. Its why they TRAIN them to do it its why they pay them to do it its why they give them a gun and a badge and its why they are the POLICE. Else they are street cleaners and not police. I didn't EVER say its what you better do every time please do not make up my words. ETA at my school they teach active shooter. If somebody will start to shoot people then it is 100% DIFFERENT SITUATION from a clerk getting robbed and the chance is changed from probably you will not die if you don't try to resist it to probably you WILL die if you don't try to resist it. You do realize that many people carrying have more training than most cops, right? In WA state, my shooting instructor regularly trains state police who take their own time and money to pay for additional help. My instructor says that most of the people he trains in his classes shoot better than most cops. He said that most have a lot of bad habits that they pick up and don't bother to try to avoid. Not only that, they do not periodically go out and shoot unless they have to for testing....so they may go out and practice shooting once/year before their proficiency exams. Normally, TD and I are out at the range every 4-6 weeks shooting for practice. Even after 4 weeks, it takes several magazines before we are shooting on target again. Can you imagine how well a cop is going to shoot after not shooting for 8 months?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 10:52:42 GMT -5
I really can't use that statement from a purveyor of fiction books as a philosophy to follow. I'm more of a be prepared for anything and judge the situation as it presents. I wouldn't want to be thinking about that statement too much as it could muddy the assessment of a situation that often doesn't give you much time to react. More than likely I would end the life of someone pointing/waving a gun in a store with little regret. Please don't be mistaken that I would like it. i don't care if Tolkien is a DOGCATCHER. a quote is a quote, and can be weighed and measured on it's own merits. in this case, it weighs like a battleship, imo. IYO indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 10:58:35 GMT -5
It's a great quote, and if one of the most influential fantasy fiction authors of the last 100 years isn't quotable enough, the character who says it is a near demigod that's thousands of years old. Gandalf is definitely quotable and kick ass enough to listen to. Fantasy fiction author? Demi-god character from a fiction book? I don't base my self defense strategy along those parameters.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 6:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 11:20:32 GMT -5
I know, right? You'd think DJ might want to prevent the deaths of everyone he knows and loves, and more than 200 other people besides, but... no... I guess he can't bring himself to do it. There is a sheep ranch I pass on the way to Branson, Missouri. They are bleating all the time. Doesn't seem to affect me as I pass by well armed and willing to defend myself and family. Other people drive by and "like" those sheep. This also has no effect on my decision to keep being able to defend myself. If the world only contained sheep, they would be fine as they are.
|
|