CCW course---what a waste
- Thread starter JimW
- Start date
I've never been to a CCW course and I have a permit to carry. There are many of us who are self taught, military trained, LEO trained.
In my opinion a CCW course only feeds the anti-gun bueacracy. When did the Founding Fathers come up with, we all have the right to bear arms, but not under our clothes without a CCW course? Hello!
Maybe I've been around too long.
In my opinion a CCW course only feeds the anti-gun bueacracy. When did the Founding Fathers come up with, we all have the right to bear arms, but not under our clothes without a CCW course? Hello!
Maybe I've been around too long.
XavierBreath
New member
Jim,
It sounds to me like you got a lot out of the class. As I said, not many instructors will go out on a limb and tell you when you CAN shoot, but most will tell you when you cannot. When you can shoot is judgement, not clear cut.
It sounds to me like you got a lot out of the class. As I said, not many instructors will go out on a limb and tell you when you CAN shoot, but most will tell you when you cannot. When you can shoot is judgement, not clear cut.
Except, all of those held true before you had your CCW license anyhow, so why are you complaining?
2 things:
1. They could cover the essential information in 10 minutes instead of 3.5 hours
2. Seems like an awful lot of time and money to be told that CCW is pretty much a PITA due to restrictions and pepper spray is your only option---just trying to save some of you some time---at home no doubt get a gun and shoot anyone who enters(don't need CCW)---away from home forget CCW and carry pepper spray or you could be looking at jail time in almost any scenario you pull your gun and live!
2 things:
1. They could cover the essential information in 10 minutes instead of 3.5 hours
2. Seems like an awful lot of time and money to be told that CCW is pretty much a PITA due to restrictions and pepper spray is your only option---just trying to save some of you some time---at home no doubt get a gun and shoot anyone who enters(don't need CCW)---away from home forget CCW and carry pepper spray or you could be looking at jail time in almost any scenario you pull your gun and live!
Jim, in Florida, 776.012:
===
... the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
===
Elements:
REASONABLE BELIEF - if a reasonable person would come to the same conclusion as you did under the circumstances
NECESSARY - other lesser alternative unavailable
IMMINENT - happening right here and now, or in the immediate future
GREAT BODILY HARM - according to Washington State: "bodily injury which creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ"
FORCIBLE FELONY - 776.08 - "Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Aggravated battery involves use of a weapon or a battery of a pregnant person, and aggravated assault is assault with a weapon or with intent to commit a felony.
Unarmed robbery is still a forcible felony, 812.13(c).
If there was no other way available to stop an unarmed robber, deadly force would be justified in Florida.
===
... the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
===
Elements:
REASONABLE BELIEF - if a reasonable person would come to the same conclusion as you did under the circumstances
NECESSARY - other lesser alternative unavailable
IMMINENT - happening right here and now, or in the immediate future
GREAT BODILY HARM - according to Washington State: "bodily injury which creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ"
FORCIBLE FELONY - 776.08 - "Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Aggravated battery involves use of a weapon or a battery of a pregnant person, and aggravated assault is assault with a weapon or with intent to commit a felony.
Unarmed robbery is still a forcible felony, 812.13(c).
If there was no other way available to stop an unarmed robber, deadly force would be justified in Florida.
JimW, I live in Florida and I'm waiting for my ccw (2 weeks out). As I posted in an earlier post, the laws for ccw in Florida are about to change for the better. We will no longer have the "duty to retreat". We will be allowed to stand our ground if the threat is so justified. There is more to the law change but I can't think of the rest off the top of my head.
Edison Carter
New member
Jim, I don't know if you just have a bad attitude,
or whether you took your class from the wrong people.
Some so-called trainers are so.... RISK AVERSIVE,
shall we say, that they try to scare you about the legal
possiblities so you never shoot anybody and thus, they
cannnot be held responsible.
Florida's legal principle of retreat is stupid, and archaic.
But even that is not as constraining as some might think.
I believe the language of most of these statutes is something
to the effect of retreating with COMPLETE safety.
That is not partial safety, not relative safety, that is not
fleeing, with savages running you down.
You mentioned you have that bad knee, in another thread,
didn't you? (wink wink) Means you can't run worth a darn,
RIGHT? Even defense hostile places like Commiefornia, and
Massachussets will acknowledge that a disparity, in size,
numbers, or weapons, reinforces your claim of self defense.
If a lawyer can't get the "lack of retreat" tossed right off,
he should be selling shoes.
A CCW class (even a good one) is just a starting point.
If you want to survive a gunfight and be sure that your actions
are legally defensible, get more training.
EC
or whether you took your class from the wrong people.
Some so-called trainers are so.... RISK AVERSIVE,
shall we say, that they try to scare you about the legal
possiblities so you never shoot anybody and thus, they
cannnot be held responsible.
Florida's legal principle of retreat is stupid, and archaic.
But even that is not as constraining as some might think.
I believe the language of most of these statutes is something
to the effect of retreating with COMPLETE safety.
That is not partial safety, not relative safety, that is not
fleeing, with savages running you down.
You mentioned you have that bad knee, in another thread,
didn't you? (wink wink) Means you can't run worth a darn,
RIGHT? Even defense hostile places like Commiefornia, and
Massachussets will acknowledge that a disparity, in size,
numbers, or weapons, reinforces your claim of self defense.
If a lawyer can't get the "lack of retreat" tossed right off,
he should be selling shoes.
A CCW class (even a good one) is just a starting point.
If you want to survive a gunfight and be sure that your actions
are legally defensible, get more training.
EC
Unarmed robbery is still a forcible felony, 812.13(c).
If there was no other way available to stop an unarmed robber, deadly force would be justified in Florida.
__________________
Not true according to the course I took a while back. If he was in your home yes, but if he were trying to rob you(without a weapon) or carjack(they said drive away) you would have an incredibly hard time explaining that you killed an unarmed man over something that can be replaced by insurance---not worth the risk. Let him have the car, money etc...Sucks but true in Fla.
If there was no other way available to stop an unarmed robber, deadly force would be justified in Florida.
__________________
Not true according to the course I took a while back. If he was in your home yes, but if he were trying to rob you(without a weapon) or carjack(they said drive away) you would have an incredibly hard time explaining that you killed an unarmed man over something that can be replaced by insurance---not worth the risk. Let him have the car, money etc...Sucks but true in Fla.
From section 790.15--disharging a firearm in public
(2) Any occupant of any vehicle who knowingly and willfully discharges any firearm from the vehicle within 1,000ft of any person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided...
See, they told us NEVER to fire your gun from a car in any circumstance----let them have the car or money period or YOU then face consequences.
Case in point, man was being robbed in his car at an ATM, the robber had a weapon--got the money and began to flee when the man in the car shot at him--missing the robber and hitting(killing) an 8yr old girl in the back seat of a car some distance away. Man's in deep ----. Even at that point when the robber had a weapon, he was fleeing and the man who shot was no longer in danger for his life--he would have been in trouble for just firing his weapon as the man fled, but now his life is over criminally and civil.
(2) Any occupant of any vehicle who knowingly and willfully discharges any firearm from the vehicle within 1,000ft of any person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided...
See, they told us NEVER to fire your gun from a car in any circumstance----let them have the car or money period or YOU then face consequences.
Case in point, man was being robbed in his car at an ATM, the robber had a weapon--got the money and began to flee when the man in the car shot at him--missing the robber and hitting(killing) an 8yr old girl in the back seat of a car some distance away. Man's in deep ----. Even at that point when the robber had a weapon, he was fleeing and the man who shot was no longer in danger for his life--he would have been in trouble for just firing his weapon as the man fled, but now his life is over criminally and civil.
MoW wrote:
If you are being robbed without a weapon, it is a forcible felony, and if you reasonably believe that drawing your gun and firing is "necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony," then you are justified in doing so.
If you can't escape because have a bum knee or asthma, if you can't talk him out of it, if it's NECESSARY, then you're justified, even if he's unarmed.
If you're being carjacked, and you're blocked in and can't escape, then deadly defensive force is justified, because carjacking is a forcible felony, and being blocked in would lead anyone to a "reasonable belief" that it was "necessary" to "prevent the imminent commission" of that crime.
Yes, it's true, you might be forced to explain your actions to a jury. But if you hire a lawyer who's not anti-gun and who didn't get his degree from a cracker-jack box, you'll get on the stand, and explain each of these elements: "reasonable belief," "necessary," "imminent," "great bodily harm," and "forcible felony."
And the jury, if they believe you, will be forced to acquit you.
You need to memorize this statute, and the "doctrine of competing harms," rather than buying into all the tall tales your CCW instructor told you.
Because if you die with the words of your CCW instructor going through your mind, as the next-to-last thing before the "unarmed robber's" boot, while armed with a defensive handgun, we will all be very angry with you.
What I was citing was Florida Statutes Chapter 776, Justifiable Use of Force. True? The law in Florida is the final arbiter of what's true or false when it comes to the law in Florida.
If you are being robbed without a weapon, it is a forcible felony, and if you reasonably believe that drawing your gun and firing is "necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony," then you are justified in doing so.
If you can't escape because have a bum knee or asthma, if you can't talk him out of it, if it's NECESSARY, then you're justified, even if he's unarmed.
If you're being carjacked, and you're blocked in and can't escape, then deadly defensive force is justified, because carjacking is a forcible felony, and being blocked in would lead anyone to a "reasonable belief" that it was "necessary" to "prevent the imminent commission" of that crime.
Yes, it's true, you might be forced to explain your actions to a jury. But if you hire a lawyer who's not anti-gun and who didn't get his degree from a cracker-jack box, you'll get on the stand, and explain each of these elements: "reasonable belief," "necessary," "imminent," "great bodily harm," and "forcible felony."
And the jury, if they believe you, will be forced to acquit you.
You need to memorize this statute, and the "doctrine of competing harms," rather than buying into all the tall tales your CCW instructor told you.
Because if you die with the words of your CCW instructor going through your mind, as the next-to-last thing before the "unarmed robber's" boot, while armed with a defensive handgun, we will all be very angry with you.
This is a very different situation. You must NEVER shoot at a fleeing criminal. Only the police get to do that, and only under very specific circumstances.
You do not have a duty to apprehend a criminal, you only have a right to use deadly force when faced with an imminent, unavoidable, reasonable fear of great bodily harm, death, or forcible felony.
When the robber was driving away, the threat of force was not imminent or unavoidable. The crime victim in this case waited too long to draw his gun.
I only posted the disclaimer as part joke, and part hint for the intellectually challenged person, so that they would, if they were smart enough to read the whole post, that I am not a qualified legal professional, and that what I said is only an opinion based on the knowledge I had at the time, so that they would, in fact, do what I said, and READ IT THEMSELVES 
(Joke, because this is a legal thread, and it is a "legal disclaimer" ) I know I am a dork, so don't ask.
(Joke, because this is a legal thread, and it is a "legal disclaimer" ) I know I am a dork, so don't ask.When the robber was driving away, the threat of force was not imminent or unavoidable. The crime victim in this case waited too long to draw his gun.
The victim in this case(from what I read) didn't wait too long to pull his weapon--he never had a chance if being robbed by weapon and then the robber retreating with the money. When could he have drawn?
The victim in this case(from what I read) didn't wait too long to pull his weapon--he never had a chance if being robbed by weapon and then the robber retreating with the money. When could he have drawn?
Blind Tree Frog
New member
So someone mind explaining to me why "Duty to Retreat" is a bad thing?
While it is incumbent upon everyone to be judicious in the use of defensive force, giving the state the power to hold someone criminally liable for failing to retreat from a violent criminal in what will always be a fluid and fast-moving situation is considered by many to be affront to the right to self-defense.
If you get the bad luck to defend yourself against a violent attack under the jurisdiction of a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-gun prosecutor, then you can bet that he'll second guess your actions six ways from Tuesday in a religious effort to convict you for the so-called "crime" of "failure to retreat."
Anyone can come up with a hypothetical scenario in which retreat was possible.
New Hampshire law addresses this by demanding that the retreat must be able to be accomplished in "complete safety," so that helps rein in some of the more flagrant prosecutorial abuses committed against armed defenders.
If you get the bad luck to defend yourself against a violent attack under the jurisdiction of a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-gun prosecutor, then you can bet that he'll second guess your actions six ways from Tuesday in a religious effort to convict you for the so-called "crime" of "failure to retreat."
Anyone can come up with a hypothetical scenario in which retreat was possible.
New Hampshire law addresses this by demanding that the retreat must be able to be accomplished in "complete safety," so that helps rein in some of the more flagrant prosecutorial abuses committed against armed defenders.
Last edited:
XavierBreath
New member
Remember to that a good DA can indict a ham sandwich.
Even if you are 100% within the law, you still might loose your freedom, your fortune, your good name, and your ability to see the world as you once did.
Knowing the political climate of your area and your DA's opinions is almost as important as knowing the law.
Even if you are 100% within the law, you still might loose your freedom, your fortune, your good name, and your ability to see the world as you once did.
Knowing the political climate of your area and your DA's opinions is almost as important as knowing the law.
Blind Tree Frog
New member
Except that in NC, if you are already under attack, retreat is no longer required, and if his gun is already out, I consider that under attack.
But if he's got the gun on the table and not in his hand and he's talking ****, I'd be hard pressed not to think of a good reason to say why I didn't just walk out the door in court.
This being my understanding of right to retreat
Be glad you're not in Georgia. Here you only need to take 47 bucks to the courthouse, fill out some paperwork, go next door to have fingerprints taken, then wait SIX MONTHS for a piece of paper to arrive in the mail, and presto! You're legal to start packing! Luckily, I've already received some good defensive pistol and judgment shooting training, but I'm still responsible for learning all the laws on my own from the oh-so-easy-to-intrepret legal jargon provided by the state government.