Earlier this week in Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do you think we should be interested? This might be worth talking about, but you really ought to start the discussion off by contributing some substantive thoughts on the content.

Otherwise, it's pretty much a drive-by post:
Forum rules said:
...the Opening/Originating Post (OP) must contain a summary of what the link is about and should also contain some opinion by the OP in order to start a discussion in a specific direction. [My emphasis.]
Click to expand...
 
Aside from the fact that the incident was mentioned in another thread, that I'm too lazy to look up, there is an opportunity here to discuss the role of the CHL/CCW holder in civil society.

My first CHL instructor made it very clear that we were getting a license to carry a concealed weapon, not a "Batman" card or a "Junior G-Man" card. His point was that the license conferred no police power of any kind, nor any responsibility to see to public safety over and above the responsibility of one citizen to another, regardless of a concealed handgun license.

In the cited case the CHL holder was able to terminate an assault without having to discharge his weapon. I think the discussion could concern whether or not his intervention was wise.

My own view is that I can have no informed opinion since there is no substantive information to be had regarding what the fight was about, what it looked like to him, whether he knew (as much as one can claim to know such a thing a priori) that showing the pistol would defuse the situation rather than escalate.

I might have yelled at them to cut it out as I called the cops, but seriously doubt I would have drawn my pistol. Seriously, seriously doubt.
 
My advise, dial 9-1-1,NOW. Lay on car horn and advise everyone police are on the way. DO NOT display a gun unless someone starts to come after you.....
 
Third party defense situations can be complex, and what would constitute an appropriate response is highly dependent on (1) exactly what is happening and how it is happening; (2) how well you really understand what is going on; and (3) what your true skill level is.

  • This has been discussed at length on this board, including here, here, here, and here.

  • You may be legally justified in using lethal force in defense of others, but in doing so, you step into the shoes of the person you are defending. If that person would have been justified to use lethal force to defend himself, you would be justified in using lethal force in his defense. But if not, your act of violence would be a criminal act subjecting you to prosecution, conviction and jail.

  • So if you are considering using force in defense of someone, are you sure you know what happened? Are you sure you know who the original aggressor was? Are you sure that the person you intend to help is the innocent good guy? If you think you know, but are wrong, you are risking jail and your family's future.

    • You might think a kid is being kidnapped, but no one is going to be giving you the key to the city for shooting the father taking his kid, in mid-tantrum, outside for a "time out.

    • The guy you think is beating up an old lady might be a caregiver trying to get a confused and combative Alzheimer patient out of traffic to safety.

    • You think that a scruffy bum is beating up some guy, but you won't get a medal for shooting an undercover cop trying to arrest a pimp who is resisting. You'll be going to jail instead.

    • And you certainly won't be getting any congratulations if you injure an innocent bystander in the process.

    • And if you think you know, but are wrong, you will be shooting the innocent good guy.

  • If you can't be absolutely sure what's going on, you still don't have to do nothing. But do things that limit jeopardy to you and minimize the risk of making hash of things.

    • Call 911,

    • Be a good witness

    • Take notes,

    • Take photos,

    • Let those folks involved in the apparent conflict know they've been seen,

    • Be prepared to defend yourself if necessary.

  • There's an adage from medicine which applies here. "First, do no harm."
 
In the state of Florida, you can legally shoot someone if the perpetrator appears to be trying to kill our cause great bodily harm to yourself or another person AND your inability to act will most likely cause death or great bodily harm to you or another person. This is, of course, subject to other case law such as reasonable objectiveness and totality of the circumstances. But nonetheless, it seems like this individual has every right to shoot someone if he felt someone was in great danger.

I am a corrections officer in Florida.
 
In KY, my CC instructor explained that the law is:

In defense of yourself, you are legally justified to use lethal force if you BELIEVE that you are at risk for death or grievous injury.

In the defense of someone else, it is not what you BELIEVE, but the situation as it ACTUALLY exists.

As explained to us: If someone is threatening you with an empty gun, you are probably justified to use lethal force, because it is reasonable to believe you feared for your life.

If you see someone else being threatened with a gun and use lethal force in there defense, and it turns out that the gun was empty, then you are in very deep trouble.
 
"If you see someone else being threatened with a gun and use lethal force in there defense, and it turns out that the gun was empty, then you are in very deep trouble"

The "threat" is there (the presentation of a firearm)regardless of the ability(unloaded gun) to follow through. A cop will blow your a$$ away if you point an unloaded(?) gun at him and so would I.
The 3rd party defense issue is a personal choice. If you're the "dial 911 and make a good witness" sort of person, I hope I'm not the guy getting assaulted.
 
Does it seem like there are several new posters posting "make my day threads"? It sure seems that way to me....

They seem to all have a consistently bad understanding of the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top