Castle Doctrine against someone open carrying?
- Thread starter Beretta686
- Start date
- Status
colbad said:
Um, what?
Please read the question posed and my answer, in full.
The word "shoot" is not included anywhere in my text, or in Koda94's text.
He asked what the difference was, and I said that unless one was a prohibited person, they were the same, I.E. both law abiding citizens.
Your extrapolation that I believe the improper person would be "good to shoot" shows either a lack of reading comprehension or carelessness.
Beretta686
New member
Interesting responses.
I'd see someone carrying a weapon slung behind them, much differently than someone carrying at the low-ready, which based on my experience says "I'm ready for battle".
If I decided to lock-and-load my personal M16 with suppressor, strap on my Kevlar & IOTV with plates and loaded mags and other assorted battle-rattle for a stroll around the local mall, I'd fully expect others to take that as a sign that I'm not there to sell Girl Scout cookies.
Personally I'm not going to engage someone with a weapon unless there's a really, really, really good reason to do so. However I'd say these open carry clowns are asking to get shot, as I'd be hard-pressed to convict someone who shot one carrying a weapon at the low ready.
I'd see someone carrying a weapon slung behind them, much differently than someone carrying at the low-ready, which based on my experience says "I'm ready for battle".
If I decided to lock-and-load my personal M16 with suppressor, strap on my Kevlar & IOTV with plates and loaded mags and other assorted battle-rattle for a stroll around the local mall, I'd fully expect others to take that as a sign that I'm not there to sell Girl Scout cookies.
Personally I'm not going to engage someone with a weapon unless there's a really, really, really good reason to do so. However I'd say these open carry clowns are asking to get shot, as I'd be hard-pressed to convict someone who shot one carrying a weapon at the low ready.
Frank Ettin,
You saved me a lot of typing. Actually, you did it better than I could have.
+10
Beretta686,
I am a Texas CHL holder. I had to demonstrate far more knowledge of Texas law than you have shown to get my license.
The way your question is worded makes it appear that you also carry. If so, PLEASE get some remedial training about the law and shoot/no shoot.
You saved me a lot of typing. Actually, you did it better than I could have.
+10
Beretta686,
I am a Texas CHL holder. I had to demonstrate far more knowledge of Texas law than you have shown to get my license.
The way your question is worded makes it appear that you also carry. If so, PLEASE get some remedial training about the law and shoot/no shoot.
all I'm suggesting is (in response to Dakotas comment) that is the low ready position (LRP) can be considered threatening. I do realize that there are a number of scenarios to put that in context and you cant rely on a blanket statement, I never suggested the LRP alone was reason enough to shoot.Frank Ettin said:
in itself, the LRP is not enough reason to lawfully shoot. I do agree its a threatening position but that position has to be directed at someone, among other things... its a fine line yes but that is why you cant program yourself with rule based responses to self defense scenarios.Beretta686 said:
...and that is why I think these open carriers are hurting the cause when they carry in that manner. That said, most of the photos I've seen of this are them "posing" for a photo op I cant really say that is how they actually go about their protesting. Hopefully they are demonstrating safe rifle etiquette.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/chipotle-guns-open-carry-texas
The question is whether the short idiot is a good shoot, if I read the OP correctly. Guy walks into the store and stands there like that.
Defender of the RKBA or mentally ill person who has a Columbine fetish and a touch of the die like a warrior suicide mind set?
Interesting question - what if you just draw and challenge Shorty? That a crime if you tell him DON'T MOVE. A finger noticeably close or on the trigger - is that a threat?
So when do you have to wait for the shot? If we pass campus carry and Shorty walks in to the lecture hall?
This points out to the OC crowd why Shorty is perhaps not good for the cause.
The question is whether the short idiot is a good shoot, if I read the OP correctly. Guy walks into the store and stands there like that.
Defender of the RKBA or mentally ill person who has a Columbine fetish and a touch of the die like a warrior suicide mind set?
Interesting question - what if you just draw and challenge Shorty? That a crime if you tell him DON'T MOVE. A finger noticeably close or on the trigger - is that a threat?
So when do you have to wait for the shot? If we pass campus carry and Shorty walks in to the lecture hall?
This points out to the OC crowd why Shorty is perhaps not good for the cause.
I see it as a threat. I don't think its unreasonable to see anything as a threat that causes you to go into condition orange. Maybe not a direct threat specifically at me, but yes its one symptom that something is going bad and I do have reason to react. Yet I'm supposed to wait until he raises his rifle to conclude his intentions...? No. How many of these recent mall, school, theater, etc. shooters had to make the walk from the parking lot to the scene of attack? How many of us wish somebody armed would have intervened?
No honest man has a need to walk around like hes on point, he's not under attack. Since this OC movement has gained traction its caused me to think about how I would react and nothing I can think of has a good outcome (and these guys have done this 2 blocks from my house...). Say if I'm out shopping and a guy walks in low and ready I'm going for cover. If my movements cause him to track my movements maintaining the LRP do I have lawful reason to draw? I'm really trying hard to figure out a way to think this out but nothing looks good at all.... just how am I supposed to determine his intentions when he's carrying low and ready?
If I saw a guy with a rifle slung on his back it would be a totally different situation.
Like I said earlier I honestly dont know how often these open carriers walk around in the low ready position but its just a really bad idea not just for the situation but for our cause. We're not being invaded, there is no [natural] disaster/rioting/looting/chaos going on there is no reason to walk around like your on point... the OC movement really hasn't thought this out as far as I see...
JimmyR...you are correct, YOU don't understand or are irresponsible in your conclusion.
The question posed..."Would that be enough to legally shoot?"
Your answer is that you do nothing UNLESS THEY ARE A PROHIBITED PERSON. Thus it appears your conclusion is that they are good to shoot if they are prohibited. Suggest YOU read the post!
The question posed..."Would that be enough to legally shoot?"
Your answer is that you do nothing UNLESS THEY ARE A PROHIBITED PERSON. Thus it appears your conclusion is that they are good to shoot if they are prohibited. Suggest YOU read the post!
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Your "No" should be "Yes."Koda94 said:
Go back and read what Frank Ettin wrote. Consider the way the law is written in most states (although the specifics obviously vary by state). You are NOT allowed to use lethal force in defense against any potential threat you might happen to encounter. You are (typically) allowed to use lethal force in self defense when you reasonably fear death or serious (many states call it "grievous") bodily harm. That, to me, suggests that the threat must be immediate, not potential.
I don't think something that shifts you to Condition Orange is an immediate threat. Condition Red? Now we have a different discussion.
Daugherty16
New member
Carrying in the manner suggested is akin to walking around, pistol in hand, maybe pointed low but in hand. I'd call it alarming, at the least. An immediate threat? No but I'd certainly get cover and distance, right away. You could articulate he had the means, and the opportunity, but you are missing the intent. put another way, it would alarm me greatly, but more the way a guy could fly past you at 110mph on the freeway without smashing your car.
I've seen cops in riot gear with ARs, doing this and worse in crowded subway platforms, even sweeping the crowd. i got cover and then got away, fast. Only after did i phone in a complaint. since i didn't stick around to get a badge number or the like, i'm sure nothing was done.
in CT and probably elsewhere there have been a number of citizen complaints for simple holstered open carry, which is perfectly legal but apparently only until it frightens someone. The complaint seems to turn it into a public disturbance, and guarantees an unpleasant encounter with a lot of cops, if not arrest, revocation of a pistol permit, and who knows what else under the current laws.
I personally do not openly carry, and especially with a rifle - at least outside the woods during hunting season. it may be legal, but that does not necessarily make it smart.
I've seen cops in riot gear with ARs, doing this and worse in crowded subway platforms, even sweeping the crowd. i got cover and then got away, fast. Only after did i phone in a complaint. since i didn't stick around to get a badge number or the like, i'm sure nothing was done.
in CT and probably elsewhere there have been a number of citizen complaints for simple holstered open carry, which is perfectly legal but apparently only until it frightens someone. The complaint seems to turn it into a public disturbance, and guarantees an unpleasant encounter with a lot of cops, if not arrest, revocation of a pistol permit, and who knows what else under the current laws.
I personally do not openly carry, and especially with a rifle - at least outside the woods during hunting season. it may be legal, but that does not necessarily make it smart.
Castle Doctrine against someone open carrying?
CASTLE Doctrine.
Castle doctrine means your castle. Castle = HOME.
Applying the Castle Doctrine to a public place negates the defense I'd think.
Are some missing the meaning of Castle?
As long as we are amusing ourselves with hypothetical scenereos lets imagine
the aftermath of shooting the person with the rifle at low ready.
We learn the "man" is 16 years old, is carrrying an AR airsoft "rifle".
The teenager is playing a trick on his buddies at the mall.
That being the case then the shooter might get away with only being charged with some form of manslaughter.
A conviction would get the shooter a shorter prison stay, huge lawyer bills,
the lose of home & probably family, career and so forth.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
The troubling issue of this post is the TITLE; Castle Doctrine, used a defense
for homocide that ocures in a public place.
CASTLE Doctrine.
Castle doctrine means your castle. Castle = HOME.
Applying the Castle Doctrine to a public place negates the defense I'd think.
Are some missing the meaning of Castle?
As long as we are amusing ourselves with hypothetical scenereos lets imagine
the aftermath of shooting the person with the rifle at low ready.
We learn the "man" is 16 years old, is carrrying an AR airsoft "rifle".
The teenager is playing a trick on his buddies at the mall.
That being the case then the shooter might get away with only being charged with some form of manslaughter.
A conviction would get the shooter a shorter prison stay, huge lawyer bills,
the lose of home & probably family, career and so forth.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
The troubling issue of this post is the TITLE; Castle Doctrine, used a defense
for homocide that ocures in a public place.
cryogenic419
New member
What if the guy just got off of a public transportation bus, while walking into a mall or shopping center happened to find the gun in a parking lot, didn't have a cell phone to call anyone, and was carrying the gun to keep kids from getting their hands on it and get to a phone to call police so that the gun could be secured. You only see one part of the equation and you're pondering shooting him based on that?
I would think until he starts manipulating the magazine, finger on the trigger, cocks the weapon, yelling out threats, or starts aiming at people he would not be a justifiable threat. A major idiot perhaps but not a threat. I know it only takes a split second to go from weird innocent guy eating a slice of pizza in the food court with an AR on his back to flavor of the month mass shooting nutjob. Until he crosses that line, and I am sure there are some who would argue with this too, until he crosses that line you would be in the wrong to do ANYTHING other than engage the guy in conversation.
What would your reaction be if the police were called on this individual and they acted as you have suggested and just shot the guy, no questions, no warnings, no talking to the guy period. Would you be supportive towards the police because they had a reasonable fear?
I would think until he starts manipulating the magazine, finger on the trigger, cocks the weapon, yelling out threats, or starts aiming at people he would not be a justifiable threat. A major idiot perhaps but not a threat. I know it only takes a split second to go from weird innocent guy eating a slice of pizza in the food court with an AR on his back to flavor of the month mass shooting nutjob. Until he crosses that line, and I am sure there are some who would argue with this too, until he crosses that line you would be in the wrong to do ANYTHING other than engage the guy in conversation.
What would your reaction be if the police were called on this individual and they acted as you have suggested and just shot the guy, no questions, no warnings, no talking to the guy period. Would you be supportive towards the police because they had a reasonable fear?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The final arbitrator will be the jury.
You will have an interesting jury problem:
1. How do pro and anti gun folks decide?
2. Anti may think the OC doofus deserves it but not be sympatico to the CHL person - unless that person is sympathic. There may be a difference between a mother and her child in the mall vs. a single guy concealed carrier.
3. The progun person:
a. Sympathic to OC or has we see hear many who think that style of carry is not appropriate. It is dangerous and cannot be separated in real time from a rampage killer.
b. Progun folks who are not sympathetic to EBRs. There is a significant gun population who aren't OK with military derivative guns.
Given the juries and decisions we have seen - you won't know till the spokesperson speaks.
You will have an interesting jury problem:
1. How do pro and anti gun folks decide?
2. Anti may think the OC doofus deserves it but not be sympatico to the CHL person - unless that person is sympathic. There may be a difference between a mother and her child in the mall vs. a single guy concealed carrier.
3. The progun person:
a. Sympathic to OC or has we see hear many who think that style of carry is not appropriate. It is dangerous and cannot be separated in real time from a rampage killer.
b. Progun folks who are not sympathetic to EBRs. There is a significant gun population who aren't OK with military derivative guns.
Given the juries and decisions we have seen - you won't know till the spokesperson speaks.
The classic "Castle" doctrine has nothing to do with any of this.
That said, well-publicized incidents of late have served to spring-load defensive reaction to what in many a yesteryear would not have gotten a second look. If on a country road, backwoods, gun range, ... unlikely threat. If a stranger and walking down your suburban street with an AR/sans magazine strapped across his back -- odd, and I watch you carefully.
But If someone walks into a public mall today with an naked AR/magazine-in,
slung forward in a 1-point carry and his hand on the grip....
The balance has swung way negative.
Add darker clothing -1
Add "hoody" -1
Add unkempt appearance -1
Turn in my family's direction -minus a whole bunch
Context is everything -- "Rights" notwithstanding.
.
That said, well-publicized incidents of late have served to spring-load defensive reaction to what in many a yesteryear would not have gotten a second look. If on a country road, backwoods, gun range, ... unlikely threat. If a stranger and walking down your suburban street with an AR/sans magazine strapped across his back -- odd, and I watch you carefully.
But If someone walks into a public mall today with an naked AR/magazine-in,
slung forward in a 1-point carry and his hand on the grip....
The balance has swung way negative.
Add darker clothing -1
Add "hoody" -1
Add unkempt appearance -1
Turn in my family's direction -minus a whole bunch
Context is everything -- "Rights" notwithstanding.
.
Last edited:
colbad said:
If I had been responding to the OP, then you would be correct. However, I was answering Koda's question, which i copied in my post and again in my response to you. Koda's questions were twofold:
Koda94 said:
Koda94 said:
I responded to his last post, which I quoted in my post to make it clear.
While the OP began this discussion by asking if carrying a rifle at low ready was sufficient for a claim of self defense, Koda raised the point of questioning how we know if someone is carrying a rifle with pure intentions or evil ones. I responded, in the eyes of the law, there is no difference, as neither had committed a crime. In fact, I brought up the prohibited person to highlight the fact that walking through the mall before shooting is not a crime, until the bang switch goes off.
I apologize if I wasn't clear. I think you were connecting my posts to others, when I was responding to a specific question.
Apparently, gun rights are an absolute thing that transcends concerns like context and public perception.
As far as the hypotheticals in this thread go, every situation is different, and juries are hard to predict. Unless I saw imminent, articulable proof the person was a danger, I'd withdraw from the scene and contact the authorities. Let them make the call.
If he's Mr. 2A Defender, he's in for some inconvenience, but he brought it on himself. If he's not, people better qualified than myself can handle it.
I am not going to risk my life and livelihood on hypotheticals. That's not why I carry a gun.
- Status