Crowded areas
- Thread starter OhioGuy
- Start date
Yes, we did. I believe that it went into effect in January. We have had open carry for as long S I can remember. Carry in the front is legal, there used to be restrictions on loaded weapons that are easily accessible.
This state has liberal castle laws. The last change, if I'm remembering correctly, is that it applies pretty much wherever you are legally present, for example, in a hotel, your car, outside your car, visiting another person's home, etc, but it does not carry over to general public places. Only a home-like situation, or your "temporary castle."
The definition of the castle here is pretty liberal, in some places, it must be an actual invasion of the home, here it applies to everything out to the street, but that leaves a vague definition for people on land or in multiple units.
I believe that our legislative body will eventually adopt a stand your ground law.
This isn't legal advice and it's not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of my state's legal environment. There are a lot of parts in place to protect a person who has been involved in a shooting that meets the legal terms.
In a side note, there used to be an open bottle law forbidding having an unsealed bottle in the passenger compartment, just having it there, even empty, would result in a fine. Of course, it is legal to drive after drinking as long as you're bac is legal.
As it stands now, the open bottle law was removed. In fact, a passenger can even drink, as long as the driver isn't. I never expected that I could trade seats with my wife on a long trip, have a beer and sandwich while she drove, then trade seats again. We have put out some very odd laws.
Again, not intended as advice and these are only to be taken as how I understood and remember these laws as posted on state legal information sites.
This state has liberal castle laws. The last change, if I'm remembering correctly, is that it applies pretty much wherever you are legally present, for example, in a hotel, your car, outside your car, visiting another person's home, etc, but it does not carry over to general public places. Only a home-like situation, or your "temporary castle."
The definition of the castle here is pretty liberal, in some places, it must be an actual invasion of the home, here it applies to everything out to the street, but that leaves a vague definition for people on land or in multiple units.
I believe that our legislative body will eventually adopt a stand your ground law.
This isn't legal advice and it's not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of my state's legal environment. There are a lot of parts in place to protect a person who has been involved in a shooting that meets the legal terms.
In a side note, there used to be an open bottle law forbidding having an unsealed bottle in the passenger compartment, just having it there, even empty, would result in a fine. Of course, it is legal to drive after drinking as long as you're bac is legal.
As it stands now, the open bottle law was removed. In fact, a passenger can even drink, as long as the driver isn't. I never expected that I could trade seats with my wife on a long trip, have a beer and sandwich while she drove, then trade seats again. We have put out some very odd laws.
Again, not intended as advice and these are only to be taken as how I understood and remember these laws as posted on state legal information sites.
HiBC,
I'm not suggesting that a CHL holder should not take action under any circumstances. On the contrary, you may be forced to take action or the only person reasonably capable of stopping deadly behavior in time, as we saw in the case of the Arizona DPS trooper whose life was saved by an armed passerby.
That being said, when I am off duty I'm not running toward the sound of gunfire. I've been to many shootings in many different venues (parking lots, apartment complexes, trailer parks, movie theaters, etc) in situations in which we located as many as nearly half a dozen gunshot victims. In my experience the VAST majority of these incidents were drug or gang related, sometimes both. My morals may be warped these days, but I value my life more than that of a few criminals whose heroin deal just went bad.
I'd be willing to bet the average gun enthusiast is a better marksman than the average LEO. But uniformed patrol have several advantages that CHL holders, off duty LEOs, and even undercover LEOs don't have when responding to situations like this. #1 They are uniformed, and don't have to worry about being shot in a case of mistaken identity. #2 They at minimum will be equipped with a full size handgun and two extra magazines. #3 They will more than likely be wearing body armor. #4 They are in constant communication with the several other armed LEOs that are rapidly converging on the scene. #5 LEOs have extra resources at their disposal to include several less lethal force option, a helicopter overhead that can observe and relay critical information almost instantly upon arrival, police service dogs, and more information about the situation as a whole #6 LEOs are generally more accustomed to the physiological effects of critical stress and will be less crippled by it. #7 LEOs have legal protections through their agency and unions that will protect them in the event of civil or criminal liability.
Again, the possibilities in these situation are endless, but it really boils down to this: If I'm in the immediate vicinity of a violent crime as it evolves and am able to reasonably conclude that my intervention is practical and necessary for the preservation of life, I'll intervene. If I'm not, I'm going to put distance between myself and the perceived area of danger and allow on duty LEOs to handle it.
I'm not suggesting that a CHL holder should not take action under any circumstances. On the contrary, you may be forced to take action or the only person reasonably capable of stopping deadly behavior in time, as we saw in the case of the Arizona DPS trooper whose life was saved by an armed passerby.
That being said, when I am off duty I'm not running toward the sound of gunfire. I've been to many shootings in many different venues (parking lots, apartment complexes, trailer parks, movie theaters, etc) in situations in which we located as many as nearly half a dozen gunshot victims. In my experience the VAST majority of these incidents were drug or gang related, sometimes both. My morals may be warped these days, but I value my life more than that of a few criminals whose heroin deal just went bad.
I'd be willing to bet the average gun enthusiast is a better marksman than the average LEO. But uniformed patrol have several advantages that CHL holders, off duty LEOs, and even undercover LEOs don't have when responding to situations like this. #1 They are uniformed, and don't have to worry about being shot in a case of mistaken identity. #2 They at minimum will be equipped with a full size handgun and two extra magazines. #3 They will more than likely be wearing body armor. #4 They are in constant communication with the several other armed LEOs that are rapidly converging on the scene. #5 LEOs have extra resources at their disposal to include several less lethal force option, a helicopter overhead that can observe and relay critical information almost instantly upon arrival, police service dogs, and more information about the situation as a whole #6 LEOs are generally more accustomed to the physiological effects of critical stress and will be less crippled by it. #7 LEOs have legal protections through their agency and unions that will protect them in the event of civil or criminal liability.
Again, the possibilities in these situation are endless, but it really boils down to this: If I'm in the immediate vicinity of a violent crime as it evolves and am able to reasonably conclude that my intervention is practical and necessary for the preservation of life, I'll intervene. If I'm not, I'm going to put distance between myself and the perceived area of danger and allow on duty LEOs to handle it.
Ton,I appreciate every thing you said.
And I agree.
I get it that the use of deadly force most likely will result in great legal jeopardy,giving my home and every shread of "wealth"
to lawyers,a disrupted life,and maybe prison,along with civil action.
This all assumes I do not get shot myself.
I don't owe any of that to anyone. I'm not "Johnnie Sav-a Life or a Marvel Super hero.
I'm prone to saying "Things are looking like it's time for me to go"...as anyone else could.
I'm 65,fairly worn down,far from being a "warrior".I've never drawn a gun to change a situation with a human being.
I prefer I never do.
Sometimes the "Here and Now" shows up. I choose to not be helpless.
And I agree.
I get it that the use of deadly force most likely will result in great legal jeopardy,giving my home and every shread of "wealth"
to lawyers,a disrupted life,and maybe prison,along with civil action.This all assumes I do not get shot myself.
I don't owe any of that to anyone. I'm not "Johnnie Sav-a Life or a Marvel Super hero.
I'm prone to saying "Things are looking like it's time for me to go"...as anyone else could.
I'm 65,fairly worn down,far from being a "warrior".I've never drawn a gun to change a situation with a human being.
I prefer I never do.
Sometimes the "Here and Now" shows up. I choose to not be helpless.
ShootistPRS
New member
HiBC and Ton,
My personal morals are that my safety comes first. I have family that deserves to have me home at night. I have never had a desire, and I still have no desire, to use deadly force against another person. I don't want to be a killer even in defense of others. I made up my mind a long time ago that I would use deadly force to protect my family and myself rather than die needlessly at the hands of a crook. I have trained, gone over a lot of stuff in my head over and over and learned about the legalities of a self defense shooting. I've gone to classes, have books and DVDs that I study and intend to continue my training. This is just an agreement to your posts.
My personal morals are that my safety comes first. I have family that deserves to have me home at night. I have never had a desire, and I still have no desire, to use deadly force against another person. I don't want to be a killer even in defense of others. I made up my mind a long time ago that I would use deadly force to protect my family and myself rather than die needlessly at the hands of a crook. I have trained, gone over a lot of stuff in my head over and over and learned about the legalities of a self defense shooting. I've gone to classes, have books and DVDs that I study and intend to continue my training. This is just an agreement to your posts.
Ton, you are right, there will be situations that call for hunkering down behind the dumpster. A couple dozen shots down the streets? That's not a situation that should be blindly engaged in order to save hypothetical victims. In some situations you should save potential victims by shoving them back through a door. Death by hoodlum with twenty rifle rounds in the chest doesn't have to happen. It's almost suicide to race towards shots in some areas, knowing that the damage will probably be done already.
Every situation, every person, all different,whether it's London bridge, Portland, or the the Florida nightclub, armed citizens could help there, but if a half dozen Mexican gang members tear into a neighborhood, it's folly to do anything but try to stay alive. In this case, especially, you wouldn't make a difference.
And like hib, I'm going on sixty and not former swat. I have arthritis, and even though I'm trim, if I go to my knees, I won't be up again without a struggle. I might as well turn the gun on myself.
Every situation, every person, all different,whether it's London bridge, Portland, or the the Florida nightclub, armed citizens could help there, but if a half dozen Mexican gang members tear into a neighborhood, it's folly to do anything but try to stay alive. In this case, especially, you wouldn't make a difference.
And like hib, I'm going on sixty and not former swat. I have arthritis, and even though I'm trim, if I go to my knees, I won't be up again without a struggle. I might as well turn the gun on myself.
Sorry that's just not something we can know for certain about the Portland attack.
There are claims that the men who intervened were trying to deescalate the situation and that the attacks happened only after one person "grabbed" the arm of the attacker.
It is possible that violence could have been avoided or delayed till the police could arrive. But that is also something we cannot "know".
One thing I guess at, is the men were far too close to their attacker and even if they had been armed the results very well might have been the same.
If, for whatever reason, I am going to engage a knife wielding attacker in a crowded situation and my children are not present there is no such thing as "too close" IMO.
I still see this concept that the armed citizen should gain distance to draw his or her firearm to deal with an attack. The generally accepted distance needed to be gained to draw and engage a knife wielding attacker is seven yards and that is based on police duty style holsters. Add a yard or two to clear concealment. Subtract a yard or two if you intend to draw your weapon while your attacker is distracted. So lets say 10 feet between you and a knife wielding attacker.
I'm not certain how an armed citizen is going to succeed while using a firearm without potentially creating more danger to those around.
You want to intervene? Go ahead. I beg of you not to use your gun to do so.
My guidelines would be the use of force laws for the state I reside in. Also keep in mind that in Texas you are responsible for where a bullet end up once you pull the trigger especially for crowded areas. An armed private citizen does not have the same immunities that a law enforcement officer has.
You're making an assumption that you would "know" that the man was going to attack you with a knife and that you would be better able to defend yourself if you were very close.
If you're very close you might not be able to watch your potential assailants hands. That might be a serious detriment.
I also think you may be overestimating how crowded the train was. According to the report I read the train was not as full as it would be at peak usage. All or most of the seats were full, but there were few people standing.
I wouldn't use a gun.
Given 20/20 hindsight I would try to evacuate the people to the connected train car. Hopefully fast enough so that the men engaging the assailant would be able to retreat before the attack started.
But that's just as much fantasy thinking as people claiming thay'd double tap the bad guy no problem.
To repeat my first post. People assume things about a scenario that they can't know.
Buzzcook you are right about the attacker having an element of surprise. I intended to convey a decision to engage rather then retreat made likely after the initial attack.
Obviously there are positions one is in where retreat is not an option and one must engage. However if I am making the choice between the two to engage for whatever reason retreat was an option and I chose to forgo it.
Obviously there are positions one is in where retreat is not an option and one must engage. However if I am making the choice between the two to engage for whatever reason retreat was an option and I chose to forgo it.
I'm just gonna shoot like crazy until the attacker falls. Later... I will reflect and be forever haunted by any innocents that were struck by my pass-through bullets.
That said, I'd do it again in a heartbeat. You need to eliminate the threat first and foremost. Everything else is secondary. In the end, you'll save lives.
That said, I'd do it again in a heartbeat. You need to eliminate the threat first and foremost. Everything else is secondary. In the end, you'll save lives.
Just offhand, if a person opens fire on a crowded train and kills, unless there are solid protective ordinances in place, I believe that there is a huge range of charges that can be filed. I believe that some form of involuntary manslaughter might be considered. Unloading a weapon into a crowded train with intent to rescue doesn't entire fit into deliberate intent.
I killed the guy when I missed but I didn't mean to.
Not legal counsel but it seems right.
I killed the guy when I missed but I didn't mean to.
Not legal counsel but it seems right.
Why? You already noted that everything else is secondary so I'm curious why one must violently stop the threat as a top priority
If stopping the threat is first and foremost priority it begs the question, again, as to why? If the protection of innocent life is not the primary priority it seems you are justifying violence for the sake of violence.
In Portland the casualty toll were two fatal stabbings. I am willing to bet a modern high capacity firearm fired... well let's use your words:
Again, two. A modern pistol is likely going to result in more than two injuries and likely many of them fatal.
The fact of the matter is if you did respond as you indicate and injured or killed one of my family members I would have no problem holding you morally and legally responsible for your actions. I would also argue that you were not seeking to save lives but that you were seeking to satisfy a blood lust. By your own words you have already made that fairly clear.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
A J said:
That is beyond stupid.
Yes, it is. I have to question your purpose in such a tactic. It certainly isn't minimizing death and injury to innocent people, or doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Your motive for such action will certainly be questioned, and you very might well be doing your reflection from a prison cell.
I almost responded to A_J when I read his post yesterday. I decided to follow the sage advice given me long ago, "argue with a fool, and you're liable to act like one." My guess is the remark was meant to be funny in its sarcasm. It certainly is not, and it violates the strenuously enforced rule of never advocating illegal conduct on this board in my opinion.