Re post chuck on the whats in your trunk thread.
"My eldest daughter lives in New Zealand, and has been burgled twice, mugged once, had tresspassers in her home three times. All in two years. The police haven't found any of her property, nor the perps, and have advised her not to resist if a tresspasser comes into her home, but call them. She was also advised she would be arrested if she attempted to expel the tresspassers armed with her pocket knife.
Does this seem odd to you?
She recently moved into an apartment with her boyfriend for safety. It was sad, as she truly enjoyed living in a house two miles from the Prime Minister."
I move around a lot, but mostly call Oregon my home. I have witnessed a variety of unreasonable reactions from law enforcement and the courts in response to home invasion and guns in general. My own experience led me to beleave im safer dealing with badguys hand to hand, than I am local authority having used a gun.
For example, this story stuck in my head. I remember living in Chico in northern Cali and reading in the paper about a man who had been shot breaking in to a 19 year old woman’s apartment, with the clearly expressed interest of rape, she shot him. He lived minor wounds and was arrested. She went to court before he got out of the hospital and was sentenced to 6 years suspended sentence for discharging a fire arm in side city limits attempted manslaughter and like four other B.S. charges I can’t remember off the top of my head. Three days after the trial she got pulled over while driving her car and was arrested again, this time for carrying a concealed weapon with a suspended license… in her inter view she said no one had told her that her concealed carry license had been suspended. She also said she had not been speeding or any thing els, nor at any time was she told Why she was pulled over in the first place, it was clear to her the cops didn’t like the idea of a girl with a gun, and knowing she carried pulled her over so they could arrest her for that alone.
Her suspended sentence was no longer suspended and she went to prison for 6 years… don’t know about parole or what not. And this is in a town where its not uncommon to see a gun rack or three in the back of a pick up. Or at least it wasn’t then, been a while since I was there. i never found out if the guy even did jail time, but i know he was only charged with B&E.
Any one els?
"My eldest daughter lives in New Zealand, and has been burgled twice, mugged once, had tresspassers in her home three times. All in two years. The police haven't found any of her property, nor the perps, and have advised her not to resist if a tresspasser comes into her home, but call them. She was also advised she would be arrested if she attempted to expel the tresspassers armed with her pocket knife.
Does this seem odd to you?
She recently moved into an apartment with her boyfriend for safety. It was sad, as she truly enjoyed living in a house two miles from the Prime Minister."
I move around a lot, but mostly call Oregon my home. I have witnessed a variety of unreasonable reactions from law enforcement and the courts in response to home invasion and guns in general. My own experience led me to beleave im safer dealing with badguys hand to hand, than I am local authority having used a gun.
For example, this story stuck in my head. I remember living in Chico in northern Cali and reading in the paper about a man who had been shot breaking in to a 19 year old woman’s apartment, with the clearly expressed interest of rape, she shot him. He lived minor wounds and was arrested. She went to court before he got out of the hospital and was sentenced to 6 years suspended sentence for discharging a fire arm in side city limits attempted manslaughter and like four other B.S. charges I can’t remember off the top of my head. Three days after the trial she got pulled over while driving her car and was arrested again, this time for carrying a concealed weapon with a suspended license… in her inter view she said no one had told her that her concealed carry license had been suspended. She also said she had not been speeding or any thing els, nor at any time was she told Why she was pulled over in the first place, it was clear to her the cops didn’t like the idea of a girl with a gun, and knowing she carried pulled her over so they could arrest her for that alone.
Her suspended sentence was no longer suspended and she went to prison for 6 years… don’t know about parole or what not. And this is in a town where its not uncommon to see a gun rack or three in the back of a pick up. Or at least it wasn’t then, been a while since I was there. i never found out if the guy even did jail time, but i know he was only charged with B&E.
Any one els?
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, September 7, 2007 - 8:41 AMits my opinion that if you find your self in a place like newzeland or cali... and you shoot some one... if you call the cops well things could go south in a hurry....
on the other hand a bath tub...a sharp knife and some time on your hands will reduce a body to meat in a few hours... pack it stack it and feed it to the dogs... bones can be baked in a oven untill brittle and then demolished in to fragments and eather used in a garden or discaded elswhere with out haveing to look like your leaveing your house with body in a bag.... the whole mess could also be slowly fed down a garbage disposal if your lucky enough to have one... takes a few hours i would imagin. oh and for god sake dont start till your sure the neighbors have not heard the gun shot and called the cops. dont want to explane to them the guy your sliceing in to steaks was a burgler. -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, September 7, 2007 - 10:17 AMOn the other hand, if you don't have enough time to fire up the wood-chipper for post-mortem disposal.... one of your own large kitchen knives in the hand of a dead perp can improve your legal situation considerably.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, September 7, 2007 - 8:47 AMCalifornia might have the "duty-to-retreat" clause. See my post in the trunk thread for more details.
Anyway, if things get to the point where you need to shoot someone, shoot to kill. None of this shooting out a knee or shoulder crap... aim for center mass and fire. Letting intruders live will only come back to screw you. -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, January 25, 2008 - 10:01 PMand if u shoot them in the knee, shoulder, non fatal wounds then u have to apply aid. so yeah shoot to kill -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, January 25, 2008 - 10:52 PMCalifornia hasn't had a duty to retreat law in about twenty years. You can still defend your home with deadly force. I know.
-
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Sun, January 27, 2008 - 12:08 AMGreat advice...from somebody who isn't a criminal defence attorney and who had never been involved in a shooting.
-
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, September 7, 2007 - 8:51 AMYou need to try and get your State to pass a law similar to the Castle Doctrine in Texas, Here you no longer have to retreat,you can use deadly force if someone is treatening you or your property. -
-
Unsu...
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, September 7, 2007 - 8:53 AMTo be specific, it is Castle Doctrine with the stand-your-ground clause. Castle Doctrine with "duty-to-retreat" is crap. -
-
Unsu...
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, September 7, 2007 - 8:55 AMHere's the wikipedia article: it has a list of states (albeit, incomplete) and their Castle Doctrine laws: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, September 7, 2007 - 9:41 AMMassad Ayoob wrote a book about the legal role of gun use in self defense. ''In the gravest extreme: the role of the handgun in self defense''... I'm sure there are other books too. But if you haven't kept up on your reading, and understanding of local gun laws, all the shooting practice, mental preparation, and gun safety in the world is only going to strip you from your life and family and land you in jail with rapists and murderers the second you come into a situation where you have to pull that trigger. You'd be better served by selling the gun and buying body armor instead.
I think in today's world it's JUST as important to know how to maneuver the legal system aftermath of a gunfight, as it is to know how to pull the trigger. In both cases, your very life may depend on that knowledge. Saying the wrong thing, or NOT saying the right thing, can be very very life-changing even if the circumstances are exactly the same as another guy saying and doing and knowing all the right things, and getting off the hook as he very well should after defending himself. -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Mon, September 10, 2007 - 7:15 PMOf Masaad's writing, I liked his risk management stuff better than his tactical writing (I was often dubious of his tactical recommendations.) His courtroom experiences were very enlightening. -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Mon, September 10, 2007 - 7:24 PMI agree. there are better, more experienced gunfighters to learn from out there. But Mr. Ayoob definitely has racked up the hours in the 2nd survival situation almost every gunfight involves...... the court room. -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Wed, September 12, 2007 - 5:46 PMI remember when he started talking about using reloads for defensive ammo and the ramifications. I realized I had a house full of guns filled with reloads--some pretty insane. I switched almost all of them back over to factory ammo so some POS couldn;t shoot me for violating the Hague convention.
-
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Wed, September 12, 2007 - 5:48 PMNot to pitch my own website, but I do a pretty good article on use of force on Gunversation. The online magazine is free.
www.geocities.com/gunversation/ -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Wed, September 12, 2007 - 9:27 PMDarn fine site! Thanks for sharing.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Sun, January 27, 2008 - 1:23 AMGood site, Adam, and great article.
I've been through this a time or... Twice in Cali.
To echo Adam's article, in most states that permit lethal force you are only legally justified as long as there is an imminent threat. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to neutralise. Once the assailant is no longer a threat, you are no longer legally justified in shooting/stabbing/bludgeoning him or her. I have a good friend who's doing a quarter because he delivered a security shot. Be careful about how you train.
If you are involved in a lethal force encounter--especially a shooting--you are going to be sued, period. It doesn't matter if an assailant lives or dies. It doesn't matter how much you were in compliance with the law, or how much you tried to avoid/deescalate the situation. It doesn't even matter if you're an Eagle Scout, it was in your own living room, and you were completely cleared by the D.A., you are going to court because you are getting sued. You are going to be sued by the assailant, or his surviving spouse. You are going to be sued by his girlfriend. By his parents. By his children. By his ex who's collecting alimony. You are going to be sued by people who weren't even involved, but just happen to live on the same floor or street where it happened. Sometimes, people who weren't even in the same building will sue you. Civil court and criminal court are two different things, and one has got nothing to do with the other. If you have valuables, hide them back in the woods in an unmarked cache or structure their ownership in such a way that they cannot be attached to you. I'm not kidding.
You are going to lose many, if not most, of your friends. Most people don't like being around somebody who has shot/killed another human being. Even if some of your friends are understanding, or even think what you did was "cool" (and there will be those), their friends (usually wives/girlfriends) will influence your friends into avoiding you as much as possible until you are nothing but a distant memory. If you are socially inept and don't have many friends to begin with, you might not even notice the difference in your everyday life. If you are a very social person, are prominent in your community, and/or have a job where you interact with a lot of people, you're going to end up a pariah. You will probably lose your job, too, especially if you shoot a minority...unless you live in Brent's neighbourhood.
If you are involved in a lethal force encounter, do not administer first aid to the assailant. Unless you have already had physical contact with him/her in the course of defending yourself (or whoever), don't touch your assailant. Don't even go near him. You are going to be sued, anyway. When the assailant's lawyer finds out that you touched his client (and he will find out), he will spin the whole thing for the jury. All of a sudden, you were trying to tamper with evidence, or you were trying to save his client because you knew it was a bad shoot and wanted a jury to go easier on you, or you knew it was a bad shoot and you were really trying quietly finish off his client before the police arrived, or some other shit like that... Don't touch him. Don't unload your firearm. Don't clean anything up. Don't move anything. For the love of god, don't try to dispose of the body. Even if it's a good shoot, altering the scene will ruin your defence in civil court, and you will also wind up in criminal court, no matter how justifiable your actions were.
Don't say anything to the police except, "I feared for my life." and "I wish to speak to an attorney immediately." That's all. Keep your mouth shut, and don't say anything else until you've conferred with an attorney. -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Sun, January 27, 2008 - 6:07 AMIf you are involved in a lethal force encounter, do not administer first aid to the assailant.
in some states u must render first aid, and not will only get u in deeper shit, so yeah check the laws -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Tue, January 29, 2008 - 2:03 AMHere is an example of a "duty to render aid" law.
609.662, Minnesota Statutes 2007
Copyright © 2007 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
609.662 SHOOTING VICTIM; DUTY TO RENDER AID.
Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, "reasonable assistance" means aid
appropriate to the circumstances, and includes obtaining or attempting to obtain assistance from a
conservation or law enforcement officer, or from medical personnel.
Subd. 2. Duty to render aid. (a) A person who discharges a firearm and knows or has reason
to know that the discharge has caused bodily harm to another person, shall:
(1) immediately investigate the extent of the person's injuries; and
(2) render immediate reasonable assistance to the injured person.
(b) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced
as follows:
(1) if the injured person suffered death or great bodily harm as a result of the discharge, to
imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $4,000, or both;
(2) if the injured person suffered substantial bodily harm as a result of the discharge, to
imprisonment for not more than one year and one day or to payment of a fine of not more than
$3,000, or both;
(3) otherwise, to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not
more than $3,000, or both.
(c) Notwithstanding section 609.035 or 609.04, a prosecution for or conviction under this
subdivision is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the
defendant as part of the same conduct.
Subd. 3. Duty of witness. (a) A person who witnesses the discharge of a firearm and knows
or has reason to know that the discharge caused bodily harm to a person shall:
(1) immediately investigate the extent of the injuries; and
(2) render immediate reasonable assistance to the injured person.
(b) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced
as follows:
(1) if the defendant was a companion of the person who discharged the firearm at the time
of the discharge, to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not
more than $3,000, or both;
(2) otherwise, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not
more than $1,000, or both.
Subd. 4. Defense. It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section if the defendant
proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant failed to investigate or render
assistance as required under this section because the defendant reasonably perceived that these
actions could not be taken without a significant risk of bodily harm to the defendant or others.
Subd. 5.[Repealed, 1994 c 623 art 5 s 3]
History: 1991 c 243 s 2; 2004 c 228 art 1 s 72
Note the definition of "reasonable assistance".
This is the kind of statement that you should make to the police ONLY AFTER conferring with your lawyer, and ONLY AFTER your lawyer approves:
After using Deadly Force to protect myself from imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, I was unable to provide medical aid for the following reasons:
1. I was in possession of a weapon, which I had just used to protect myself. Approaching the subject with said weapon would place me in danger of having the weapon taken from me and used against me in the furtherance of his criminal acts. Approaching the subject without said weapon would be unsafe...because the subject had already acted in a manner which criminally threatened my life, causing me to have already been forced to use the weapon to protect myself.
2. From my vantage point, I could not determine whether or not the subject was completely incapacitated, or if he still posed a threat to my safety. I was unable to ascertain whether or not he could still hurt me, and therefore chose not to approach him.
Rather than place myself in further danger, I chose to remain where I was and call for Emergency Medical Services and the Police Department.
-
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Sun, January 27, 2008 - 4:53 PMMy neighborhood? HA HA I hope nobody shoot's my black horse!!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Sat, January 26, 2008 - 5:56 AMAs I understand it Fla. has a similar law . A man in Freeport Fla recently had a home invasion by 2 men who were beating him , he managed to reach a gun he had placed on a shelf . He shot one and they both fled . I heard a 20 yr old had been seen in a local hosp. for a gunshot wound but have yet to hear of any arrest . -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Sat, January 26, 2008 - 11:45 AMalot of times if you just wound them, they come back and sue you. -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Mon, January 28, 2008 - 5:23 PMThe universal mantra to remember and chant frequently is this:
1)You may use deadly force if you believe your life, or the life of another is in jeopardy.
2) You may use only that amount of force necessary to stop the threat
3) You do not shoot to kill, shoot to wound, or fire warning shots. You shoot to STOP.
Most UoF courses teach the AOJ mind set: A person must have Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy (Immediate Jeopardy) must exist. Shooting a bad man at 7 paces is easier to explain than 60 paces. If AOJ does not exist then you may be in trouble.
PS: Most states include rape, sexual assault of a minor, and arson of an occupied structure in #1 above.
-
-
-
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, February 1, 2008 - 3:37 PMIt also seem's some people that pack a gun are likely to pop off at the mouth alot making another person angry enough to want to cause harm to them. They escalate the situation, daring the other person to cause harm to them, till they get to use their gun, then they want to call it a justified shooting. I think the law look's at the situation of the self defense before they start passing out charges. -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, February 1, 2008 - 4:24 PMthat and im sure that they look at past training. -
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, February 1, 2008 - 7:25 PMthat's something I've wondered... past training. For example, if it is brought to light after a justifiable shooting, that you are an avid gun person, involved in those 'real scenario' pistol competitions etc... Can't that backfire as making you look like one who fantasizes about a chance to use the gun in a real-life situation? maybe a little too eager on the trigger? -
-
Unsu...
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, February 1, 2008 - 7:42 PMSure, if you let the other guy live to hire some shyster lawyer.
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Sat, February 2, 2008 - 3:22 AMIt's the other way around. In court, the more bona fide training and experience you have with a firearm, the better for you. The guy who bought his gun, took a CCW class, and went to the range a couple of times, is going to get reamed because he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
-
-
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Sat, February 2, 2008 - 2:57 AMOf the people who legally carry a handgun in the U.S., the overwhelming majority do so without provoking or inciting a confrontation. Were it not so, you can bet your ass that CCW laws would have been repealed long ago.
-
-
Re: do you know your gun laws?
Fri, February 1, 2008 - 8:04 PMFirearms Refresher Course
"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not."
~ Thomas Jefferson
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.< /SPAN>
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.