Do YOU intervene?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow!

I'm still laughing, even after reading this whole thread. Is this Boise IDAHO? TWO concealed carry permit holders drive down the same street and end up being total and complete idiots? Is this a Pink Panther movie?

Does anyone realize how bad this looks for concealed permit holders? The policeman in the news video was obviously trying to hold back guffaws while being interviewed.

If this display of idiocy isn't a wake up call to those who think strapping on a pistol suddenly turns them into some white-hat wearing cowboy, nothing will be, I suppose.

Dr Raoul Duke:
1st: Excellent screen name and yes, Gonzo Forever!
2nd: Great post, should be required reading.

I posted what scottaschultz quoted in the "parking lot incident thread", I hope many who posted in that thread read this one. The current thread illustrates the consequences of not knowing the law and being quick to draw your weapon. The site I quoted from is here:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

This page doesn't pretend to explain the laws involved, nor do I, but it is a good read for those who may think that their CCW suddenly gives them White-Hat super powers.

Jumping out of your car with pistol at the ready because you saw something "going down" where you have no involvement and no idea what is going on is a good way to a quick trip out of the gene pool, folks.
 
Last edited:
Snake in the pants...

... haven't seen that one, BillCA, but did once see something similar involving a jellyfish in a swimsuit.

It's always good to be sure of what you are observing, because the consequences of misinterpreting what you see can be really, really horrible.
 
Just a point of clarification. Possession of a CHL permit does not also comprise authority to make an arrest; simply being a citizen under common law is what provides one with the authority to make an arrest. That said, you have to actually witness the crime (and be able to effectively identify the law(s) broken). The authority to make a citizen's arrest is completely independent of (and frequently contradictory to) the right to draw one's concealed firearm and point it at another human being. By that standard, CHL #1 is very possibly toast for three reasons - first, he didn't see the duffel bag actually being stolen, so he didn't observe any crime he could legally make a citizen's arrest for. Next, he fraudulently claimed to be a law enforcement officer. That's a big no no anywhere you step in these fifty states. Third, and independently of the first set of circumstances, he drew on someone who doesn't appear to have been of any imminent physical threat to himself or to anyone else. CHL #2, while one can argue with his judgement (I won't, as I wasn't there), doesn't appear to have committed any chargeable offense. What happens to CHL #1 will be strictly up to the DA and how merciful he feels like being.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and one other thing. The ability of LEO's to comprehend, articulate, and fairly enforce weapons laws is definitely a mixed bag. They are not lawyers, they are not statutory nor constitutional scholars, and at the end of the day you can count on one thing and one thing only - the overwhelming majority of them will interpret and enforce the law in the manner which they believe best helps them get home safely that night. If that means overreaching in the determination of what is a legal vs. illegal weapon, so be it.
 
The ability of LEO's to comprehend, articulate, and fairly enforce weapons laws is definitely a mixed bag.
Click to expand...

Really? Got any stats from the criminal justice system to back that up? Specifically, the percentage of weapons offenses dismissed by the Courts or dismissed by prosecutors or aquittals vis a vis the number of arrests?

WildiknowwhatoyuranswerisAlaska TM
 
Really? Got any stats from the criminal justice system to back that up? Specifically, the percentage of weapons offenses dismissed by the Courts or dismissed by prosecutors or aquittals vis a vis the number of arrests?
Click to expand...
Do you? I do happen to know plenty of cops who will echo what I said above - in the absence of absolute and unequivocal knowledge of what can be very arcane weapons statutes, they will do whatever they feel will keep them and everyone else most safe. It's not an unreasonable perspective - in fact, what's UNREASONABLE is your implied assumption that cops always have a scholarly and encyclopedic knowledge of state statutes and interpretations, as well as the relevant constitutional precedents, when making these sorts of decisions on the street. Your position is, in all honesty, quite laughable.
 
I do happen to know plenty of cops who will echo what I said above
Click to expand...

And I know plenty of cops who will dispute it:p

in fact, what's UNREASONABLE is your implied assumption that cops always have a scholarly and encyclopedic knowledge of state statutes and interpretations, as well as the relevant constitutional precedents, when making these sorts of decisions on the street. Your position is, in all honesty, quite laughable.
Click to expand...

tell it to the judge:rolleyes:

Most weapons statutes are pretty clear cut. Most weapons violations are pretty clear cut.

But hey, its a "weapon", so looks like some oxen get gored:rolleyes:

WildimnotsayingcopsareperfectbuttheyprobablynomorethantheaveragemessageboardexpertAlaska TM

PS check your local conviction rates
 
In response to MR JAMES comment

Hi Mr James,

You quoted part of my post calling it a gem. It could be that you considered my words to be wise, or that you were being sarcastic.

If I misunderstood your comment, and there was no sarcasm from your side please don't take offense, but I feel that I need to clarify what I meant to say.

What I meant tto say is:
IMO carrying a firearm makes it imperative that we act in a very responsible manner at all times. not that it is our responsibility to fight crime wherever we see it.

carrying a firearm gives us a means to defend ourselves and our loved ones (or the occassional by-stander) but does not give us any rights other than the laws state for everyone else.

Therefore what I meant in my post is that while I believe that a good person (aren't we all?) will be inclined to help others in need or act to prevent crime, a firearm needs to be the last thing we resort to, and only in circumstances that otherwise will result in injury or death to an innocent person.

let us not forget that in most circumstances there will be people around, and they be put at great risk if firearms are to be used. so drawing a firearm is something that you really want to do only as a last resort.

Brgds,

Danny
 
Bottom line: Would I want somebody to pull a gun on somebody, and impersonate a police officer, in order to retrieve my duffel bag?

Of course not! Some people should not carry....
 
simply being a citizen under common law is what provides one with the authority to make an arrest
Click to expand...

That may be the way it works in Texas, but it may not be so in other States. One problem with your comment for people in California is that in this State there is no "common" law. Example: no "common" law marriages. We invented a new legal term over that. A woman could not request alimony from her long time mate because there was no marriage, but she won it anyway in a landmark legal case that created "palimony".:)

I may be wrong (that has happened) but my Department training was to never accept a citizens arrest. In ten years on the PD I never saw or heard of a citizens arrest being made. I repeatedly had people want me to take someone into custody that they had "arrested". My response was always, "Tell me what happened, and I will investigate. If there is probable cause I will arrest the person". I did arrest people for assault because they had gone vigilante looney, and either physically assaulted, or assaulted with a weapon, people that they thought committed a crime. It's a pretty good rule to not get involved when a man runs by and a pursuer calls out, "Stop that guy!".

In the classroom a rookie cop would be asked questions like this: Is the guy who just ran by a criminal? Is he a jogger? Is he someone who just didn't want to be around a bad scene, and decided to take it on the shoes? Is the pursuer a credible witness? What do you actually know about the situation? Has there actually been a crime committed? If there has been a crime committed, is it serious enough that YOU want to take responsibility for the outcome? Are you willing to take the confrontation to the next level, possibly to lethal violence for you or the suspect, based on what you know? If you pull your pistol and call for the suspect to halt, and he keeps on running, are you going to shoot him? If the suspect stops, how are you going to hold him until the police arrive? Have the police been notified? Are you alone, holding a suspect at gunpoint, with no back up in route? Once he stops, if he takes off running again, what will you do? How far are you willing to go? This is Cop 101 stuff, but I think anyone who has a weapon and is out among the public should be able to give pretty good answers to those questions.

Someone once said that in any crime there is a criminal and a victim, and the thing to do was be neither. I would re-write it to include the possibility of a fool with a gun. :)

And, thanks Dr. Strangelove.:cool:

Dr. Raoul Duke
Gonzo Forever
 
NOBODY in this thread is supporting dude #1 that I know of. I think he was an idiot and could very well be charged. And likely should. A felony bust appears possible, esp. if an "impersonating a cop" charge sticks.

It's guy #2 who at worst wasn't very smart should in my opinion and that of several others go uncharged.
 
No sarcasm at all

Dannyl said:
You quoted part of my post calling it a gem. It could be that you considered my words to be wise, or that you were being sarcastic.

If I misunderstood your comment, and there was no sarcasm from your side please don't take offense, but I feel that I need to clarify what I meant to say.
Click to expand...

Definitely wisdom - there was no sarcasm at all. I meant it's a gem worth keeping. That is as pithy a rendering of what it means to carry a firearm (or any weapon, really) as I've seen. A ton of responsibility and not one additional right. I wish the two yahoos in Boise, Idaho had read your post before "John Wayne-ing" it in the street. I hope some of the good and well-intentioned folks here take it to heart.

Bob James,
who is still trying to figure this all out!
 
Well, Dr. Duke, if you had actually refused to accept a valid citizen's arrest, you would have been poorly serving the public, if not in outright dereliction of your official duty, as California statute specifically provides for citizens' arrests:

C.P.C. 837 said:
A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
Click to expand...
 
Every time an everyday "civilian" waves his gun and maybe tosses some lead in some self-assigned duty as an ersatz wanna-be police officer, and gets it wrong, we all face the loss of CCW rights as the public accumulates evidence that CCW rights might bring more danger than good to them as bystanders or innocents who were misjudged by someone with a legal gun. What "getting it wrong" is made of isn't at all clear, its definition varies with each situation and with each witness to each situation which means there's no simple recipe that can be followed that evades a criminal charge every time, except leaving the gun at home. It's my contention that without the legal grounds and the training and experience expected of police officers, too many of the times a civilian inserts himself and his gun into a situation will be a mistake, which is at least bad for his legal situation and the reputation of CCW's, and at worst the unjustified injury or death of someone.

I don't think the two dummies in Idaho are unique or uncommon among CCW permit holders. There are too many of us who think they can help and be heros with their gun, even that they are obligated to do so, but lack everything but the gun to do that legally and correctly.

It appears to me that fully understanding the magnitude of what one takes on when carrying a gun is too often missing. When gun enthusiasts carry a weapon, it might mostly be about their interest in guns, and the legal pitfalls and the mountain of reasons to at least leave it in their pocket, or better on the dresser at home, are dismissed as impediments to enjoying their hobby. Carrying the gun is, to them, more about their hobby and less about their real need for a weapon, and that predisposes them to pull it out at inappropriate times, times when they rush into doing a "gun thing". Not everyone, not all the time, just probably more often unless those that CC pay attention to more than just to the hardware, and realize that any mistake they make in those issues beyond selecting the hardware will bite them hard, because laws against illegal use of firearms have real teeth in them.
 
csmsss: THANK YOU, you just showed a classic example of cops not knowing the law.

Maybe it's especially rampant in California, I dunno.
 
So now I gotta ask the dude holding the weapon if he has a concealed permit and is doing a "citizens arrest"? Just another reason to stay the heck out of town, folks in the city are plumb crazy. Heck I bet if he gave the homeless guy 20.00 he would have forgotten all about that duffel.......


2 guns pulled over a duffle bag? Now that is crazy.
 
Several of the above posts by knowledgeable people have articulated very well the position that intervention to protect a third party can expose one to the very real risks of losing virtually everything. My idea of what to do and when mirrors that of Dr. Raoul Duke as set forth in a couple of posts above.

For those who might choose to be less risk averse, they should at least not proceed in ignorance. State laws vary a great deal.

This subject as come up from time to time, and during one of its earlier orbits, Marty Hayes, president of The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, LLC. offered the following comment:

For all of you pontificating on this subject, answer this question please.

Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?

If you cannot answer this question, then I submit you had better spend some time researching this topic, because to get the answer wrong, means perhaps a long time in prison.
Click to expand...


http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3471396&postcount=94

Here's more on the network.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/

As an illustration of the intricate but crucially important complexities involved, I noted with interest something in the link on Kentucky law posted above by Vanya in Post #31: In Kentucky, as in most places, the use of deadly force for self defense is justified if there is a reasonable belief that the danger of death or serious bodily harm is imminent and that the immediate use of deadly force is necessary to prevent it. However, when it comes to the defense of a third person, a reasonable belief will not suffice--the imminent danger must actually exist. Wow.

Laws and case law in other states vary, but I think it likely that one thing is the same all over: the citizen is not indemnified against civil liability.

For those who might be traveling in Kentucky, and that includes me, this might prove worth your careful perusal:

http://www.kentucky-concealed.com:/Information/Kentucky%20Concealed%20Carry%20Justifiable%20Homicide.pdf

The whole paper is worth reading, but the following excerpt applies to this thread:

Justifiable Homicide is a legal defense as long as the belief that the Defendant’s life is in danger is reasonable. Deadly force can be used to defend a third person. However if deadly force is used to defend the life of another the threat must be actual not just believed under KRS 503.070.

Although 503.100 says that the Defendant must believe that the threat existed it does not remove the requirement that the threat actually existed when deadly force is used to protect another.
Click to expand...

I am confident that the above is not the case where I live. As Marty Hayes advises, it is a good idea to find out just what does apply.
 
Last edited:
The time I came the closest to using a weapon in defense of another, he was being actively stomped into the ground by four lunatics with heavy boots, while lying flat on his stomach trying to cover up and bleeding from the scalp. A few seconds later I learned that two of the assailants had standard household claw hammers out, one visibly dripping with the victim's blood.

I believe he had only moments more to live.

That's the level of problem it would take to get me to draw, point and fire a gun to defend another.
 
NO.

I imagine that Actor # 1 had just received his CCW; the card may still have been warm from the lamination. He certainly didn't spend much time here at TFL, otherwise he'd know that he should have shot the duffel bag multiple times, then arrested its contents. Those damn things are always at the center of major crime outbreaks and need to be rubbed out.

Then Actor #2 could have shot him for unlawful discharge of a weapon, and given his gun to the homeless guy to protect himself against further efforts by the duffel bag to bring order and respectability back into his life.

Sorry, i couldn't help myself. Actually, saying anything more about the grossly dumb and potentially dangerous intervention where, as a driver going by, neither of these men could possibly have ascertained enough facts to understand what was going on, would be redundant, repetitive, unnecessary and duplicative, and in addition i would just be parroting what everyone else said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top