Castle Doctrine against someone open carrying?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Beretta686

New member
Let's say I live somewhere that has a Castle Doctrine/"Stand Your Ground" law and allows for open carry of long-guns.

As I'm going about my day, I see someone open carrying an AR-15 at the low ready in public. I personally view that as a very threatening gesture and would feel legitimately threatened by it. Would that be enough to legally shoot?

I'd say yes, as I can reasonably fear for my life. I don't know if it's some open carry campaigner or a mass shooter about to start cranking off rounds.
 
In another thread somewhere on here, it was suggested that if you have to ask this type of question, the answer most likely is "No".

While the OC's position is stupid and will raise alertness among most folks, that alone does not seem to meet the threshold of imminent danger.
 
You'd have to be able to articulate to a jury why you feared for your life at that point and hoped that they agreed a reasonable person would.

I think the presence of a firearm alone would not be reasonable fear for your life.

What might be could include sweeping people with it, placing a magazine in/working the bolt/taking the safety off, intimidating people with it, etc.
 
I would probably consider carrying a long gun at low ready in public to be a fairly threatening posture, but it depends on the totality of the circumstances. I mean, if I'm eating at a restaurant and somebody comes through the door with a long gun held at low ready, they better have a uniform, badge or the most pleasant demeanor I've ever seen.
 
You'd have to be able to articulate to a jury why you feared for your life at that point and hoped that they agreed a reasonable person would.
Click to expand...
With all the public shootings these days that might not be hard to do....

I have to admit, as much as I support open carry I think the low ready position is one of the dumbest things you can do and one reason why its going to have an opposite effect on the cause.
 
Eeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwww!

Ahhhhhhhh, geeee.
NO!
Reread your post & think about that.
Why are you in fear of YOUR life by merely SEEING something you THINK is a threat?
Reread dgerwinsII post again also.
 
He has the Ability and Opportunity, but you are not in Jeopardy as far as I'm concerned. He has not addressed you or even threatened you, so you better have a really good lawyer and hope I'm not on the jury. SYG or not you can easily leave and should or find cover and watch.

If he's just open carrying and being an idiot then I suppose you could join MDA if he scares you that much.

There are a lot of books on the legalities of self defense. After reading a couple I think you'd realize that you want to avoid having to shoot someone. You can spend your life savings to defend yourself successfully only to be sued and lose anything you have left.
 
Shoot someone just because they are OC a long gun?

It's comments like this that make the rest of us look bad. Pulling the trigger on another person is a last resort.

I don't agree with a lot of the OC nonesense going on. But I'm not about to view them as a threat, just for doing it, either. You seem too excited to go there.
 
Why are you in fear of YOUR life by merely SEEING something you THINK is a threat?
Click to expand...

How else is one supposed to determine threats? Smell?

Low ready isn't a casual carry position. It basically screams, "I'm ready to shoot someone at any moment." I can't see how any could think that, absent mitigating circumstances, carrying a firearm at low ready in a public place would be anything but threatening.
 
Ability, opportunity AND intent.

Think totality of the circumstances. Is this a plain clothes police officer responding to some incident?

The sight of someone with a long gun at a ready position is not enough to justify your engaging them. If this person starts shooting into a crowd... Sure. Just standing there with it...no.
 
The only person thats answered my question is ATW525.


So am I supposed to wait until they aim their rifle at me?
 
I think getting ready to draw and fire is fine, but the OC idiot has to do more than walk near you. Hopefully he's not a prankster as well, that could be enough.
 
Another question: whats the difference between a mall shooter walking towards the food court and an open carrier carrying his rifle in the low ready position walking towards the food court?
 
Beretta686 said:
...I see someone open carrying an AR-15 at the low ready in public. I personally view that as a very threatening gesture and would feel legitimately threatened by it...
Click to expand...
Here's your first, and a major, problem. Your subjective, personal view doesn't matter. Justification is based on an objective, reasonable person standard. You will need to be able to articulate why a reasonable person would have concluded that lethal force was required to prevent an otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent.

The Castle Doctrine is not a license to kill or a get out of jail free card. It's application is actually very narrow and technical.

  • We discussed Castle Doctrines here.

  • There is also a detailed Sticky on Castle Doctrines here.

  • A link to one article on The Cornered Cat has already been posted. But here's an article specifically on Castle Doctrines.

The bottom line is that, as usual, there is no "cookbook" answer to the OP's question. And Castle Doctrine or Stand-Your-Ground laws are irrelevant to the OP's hypothetical. Whether or not lethal force can be justified will be determined according to the basic principles of self defense law.

  1. Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.

    • However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.

    • Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.

    • Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.

  2. The amount of force an actor may justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.

    • Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --

      • Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;

      • Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and

      • put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.

    • "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."

    • "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.

    • "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.

    • And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.

  3. If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.

    • Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.

    • If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.

    • Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.

      • Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?

      • In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.

      • It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.

      • It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.

  4. Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.

  5. Sometimes a defensive use of lethal force will have grave consequences for the defender, even when ultimately exonerated. For example --

    • This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.

    • Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

    • Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.

    • Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

    • Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

    • Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.

    • And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.
 
Koda94 said:
Another question: whats the difference between a mall shooter walking towards the food court and an open carrier carrying his rifle in the low ready position walking towards the food court?
Click to expand...
Beats me. But if you find yourself in that situation and decide to shoot, you better hope that you can convincingly explain why a reasonable person in that situation would have done so.
 
Beretta686 said:
Let's say I live somewhere that has a Castle Doctrine/"Stand Your Ground" law and allows for open carry of long-guns.

As I'm going about my day, I see someone open carrying an AR-15 at the low ready in public. I personally view that as a very threatening gesture and would feel legitimately threatened by it. Would that be enough to legally shoot?
I'd say yes, as I can reasonably fear for my life. I don't know if it's some open carry campaigner or a mass shooter about to start cranking off rounds.
Click to expand...

Personally, if I were sitting on a jury with a case like you presented in front of me, without additional threatening words and gestures, I see no way to call this self defense. You are advocating shooting a guy because he is holding a rifle in public.

Now, if the person were looking at you, yelling at you, or making threatening gestures or remarks, then you might have a case. I just don't think a rifle carried at low ready indicates an imminent danger.
 
Last edited:
I think the answer to this is NO. Unless you can absolutely articulate hostile actions directed at you or others there is no threat. Regardless of any "stand your ground" law, you are going to be hard pressed to justify not just leaving or calling police. You are most certainly going to be painted as some kind of "wannabe" hero.

Myself and friends were out hunting and went to breakfast after. We could not lock the vehicle and did not want to leave the shotguns in the racks (did not bring cases) so we took them in with us and put them in the corner where we were eating. Of course the owner knew us and what was going on but some of the tourists eating gave some looks. Would hate to think some nut job wanting to be a hero would shoot us.
 
Koda94 said:
Another question: whats the difference between a mall shooter walking towards the food court and an open carrier carrying his rifle in the low ready position walking towards the food court?
Click to expand...

That's an easy one.

Unless you know for a fact one person is a prohibited person, absoluetly nothing.

We cannot be held accountable for actions we have not committed yet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top