LIABILITY of CONCEALED CARRY

just be careful that you don't let it cloud your judgement
Click to expand...
Don't worry, it won't. But if I'm going to make a decision as important as this I will get all the practical info I can.

YOU (and only YOU) are responsible for YOUR actions
Click to expand...
You have no idea how well I understand/appreciate this comment. As the father of 5 (by my first wife. She's also my last wife, after 5 kids I couldn't even think about another wife :D ) I've told all of them at one time or another, if they don't learn anything else from being my kid, they will learn to take responsibility for what they do.

Carrying concealed is an extremely serious decision, I see it as one of the most serious decisions one can make in life. I wonder, from some of the posts I see on the forum, (not this thread) if everyone fully appreciates the gravity of such a decision. I do.
 
Carrying concealed is an extremely serious decision, I see it as one of the most serious decisions one can make in life. I wonder, from some of the posts I see on the forum, (not this thread) if everyone fully appreciates the gravity of such a decision. I do.
Click to expand...

C'mon, back up a little and don't get pompous. Putting aside the various levels of maturity some here might appear to have ( ;) ), I don't doubt anyone's judgement when push comes to shove. This is just people talking about the issue; when a situation arises, I'm reasonably sure that all will error on the side of caution.

As far as your questions, here's another way to look at it:
No matter what happens in a defensive situation, it is not the law per se that you have to worry about, it's those 12 people that will be chosen to decide your fate. Those people are generally no more or less reasonable as you, and if the facts of your case make as much sense to them as they did to you when you pulled the trigger, then you don't have a thing to worry about.

Another notion that I think is pretty important to have in your head is that your right to defend yourself or your property or other people and their property is EXACTLY the same after you get your CCW license as the rights you had before.
With your CCW permit, you are given NO more rights (other than to simply carry a weapon) than you had before you were permitted to carry. Period
And with your CCW permit, you are given no more responsibilities than you had before either.. another "Period".

Remember all that when you come upon a scene where a guy is reaching into a car and punching a girl in the face so you think fast and decide to shoot him to protect that innocent girl.
His wife that he was punching may not appreciate that you just killed her husband.

Carter
 
don't get pompous
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you think that I'm being pompous. But I stand by my statement. There seem to be a few that have somewhat of a "cowboy" mentality.

it is not the law per se that you have to worry about, it's those 12 people that will be chosen to decide your fate.
Click to expand...
It is this very fact that worries me a great deal. As I previously stated, I have seen first hand the results of "12 reasonable people" in civil liability lawsuits. I don't see why there would be a difference in a criminal liability.

your right to defend yourself or your property or other people and their property is EXACTLY the same after you get your CCW license as the rights you had before
Click to expand...
And where is this right stated and defined? My understanding is that it isn't. That is why a number of states have enacted "stand your ground/no retreat/shoot first" laws. Others require that one make every effort to avoid a "bad situation". While the "right" to self defense is acceptable to most everyone, not everyone agrees as to the level or extent of force. My reasons for posing these questions in the first place was to get a quick idea of what other states allow.

Even more vague is the "right" to defend property. When is deadly force justified to protect "things"? (it's a rhetorical question, I'm not looking for an answer.)

Remember all that when you come upon a scene where a guy is reaching into a car and punching a girl in the face so you think fast and decide to shoot him to protect that innocent girl.
Click to expand...
The correct response the this situation would be a 911 call. I don't believe LEO's would even would draw down in a situation like this.
 
You do not have a RIGHT to defend yourself under the law - that's why the States have statutes that define the framework for JUSTIFIABLE use of deadly force. Justifiable - as in you have to be able to show that your decision to use deadly force was both reasonable and protected you from IMMEDIATE danger of serious injury or death.

The Bill of Rights pretty much sums up what inalienable rights we have - "Self Defense" isn't listed.

Gary -
I think what is troublesome (to me at least) is that your questions could have been answered by a quick trip around Google. Dropping something like that into open forum is a sure way to get everyone riled up and will usually land you every answer to every question but the one you were looking for. The answers you got were in direct proportion to the amount of effort you put into finding them.

Do some research, you'll feel better about the answers you find.

Stay safe -
 
2) even in FL, if you injure an innocent during a defensive shooting, you will be liable. For example, suppose Big Bad Bob breaks into your house. You shoot at Big Bad Bob but miss him and your round exits your house, enters the neighbors' house and kills their daughter. You are liable for that shot and will likely face criminal charges (e.g., manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.) and civil charges.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the legal nightmare if people were protected from prosecution during an SD shooting and they shot someone else rather than their assailant?
Click to expand...

No. As long as you do nothing stupid, if you fire at a BG and hit an innocent, the BG is charged with the murder of the innocent. It is the same as if there were two BGs and you killed one. The living one is charged with the murder of the other. They initiated the felony action that resulted in the death. It is the same for police officers and civilians. You *may* be tried in civil court, depending on your location. In places like Florida, when you are found justified, you are also except from any civil processes.
 
Dave,

I have Google'd, but it's not exactly a quick trip, and to be honest I was looking at this as a short cut, gaging the wind as it were, understanding of course that closer scrutiny is warranted. I am not tying to start a "flame war".

And I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. The "right" to self defense is vaguely stated as best, although it seems some states are making an attempt to better define it. It is also seems that states w/ a higher crime rate have a more "liberal" attitude as to what constitutes reasonable force.

Please don't over analyze or try to read into my comments and questions. There is no hidden agenda on my part.

Is the light off yet or is it still flashing?
 
You do not have a RIGHT to defend yourself under the law - that's why the States have statutes that define the framework for JUSTIFIABLE use of deadly force. Justifiable - as in you have to be able to show that your decision to use deadly force was both reasonable and protected you from IMMEDIATE danger of serious injury or death.

The Bill of Rights pretty much sums up what inalienable rights we have - "Self Defense" isn't listed.
Click to expand...

Just as there are "rights" inumerated in the Constitution itself with the preamble that they are "God given", so is the right to defend oneself "God given".

Perhaps it's because that defending that which you possess including your life, family and possessions was so obviously assumed by the Founding Fathers that it would have seemed silly to them to have to put it into words.

When society in the US starts arguing whether or not we have the right to defend ourselves, then we have lost our way.

And garyfdl; I agree that the definitive answers you are looking for can come only from your state's laws. In Texas, we are given a nifty little pamphlet that defines, very clearly, the answers to the kind of questions you ask. When your state allows CCW carry, I have no doubt that you will be supplied with the same material appropriate to your state.

Beyond that, however, someone who is too worried about the fine points of the law and does not trust themselves to actually KNOW when to pull the trigger should probably reconsider carrying at all.
When push comes to shove, indecision can be just as deadly.

All of us who take on the responsiblity that comes with the ability to quickly and easily end a life have to be willing to trust ourselves and our judgement more than the law. Those who doubt their own judgement and instead rely on the "law" in the hope of making them immune from prosecution should not be carrying.

The biggest worry I have is not that the law will fail me, but that my judgement will fail me.
If my judgement in retrospect turns out to have been right, then I have successfully saved my life or the life of a loved one, and I don't give a damn what the law says.
If my judgement in retrospect turns out to have been wrong, then I have killed needlessly and will have to accept any legal decision that comes of that.
If that's too much of a weight, then don't carry. If the moment arrives where you have less than a fraction of a second to draw and fire, you will not have time to work out all the legal ramifications in your head. It's just you, and the split-second decision to fire. That's all you're going to have to work with, and the consequences of that decision will all have to be worked out later because you're just a little too busy at the moment.
That's the weight you carry when you "carry".

Carter
 
Last edited:
Just as there are "rights" inumerated in the Constitution itself with the preamble that they are "God given", so is the right to defend oneself "God given".

Perhaps it's because that defending that which you possess including your life, family and possessions was so obviously assumed by the Founding Fathers that it would have seemed silly to them to have to put it into words.

When society in the US starts arguing whether or not we have the right to defend ourselves, then we have lost our way.
Click to expand...
Slow down, cowboy.

Read again carefully - the LAW does not implicitly state that we have the unalienable RIGHT to defend ourselves.

Defending ourselves is not a "God-given" right , either...it's simply common sense. Nobody is trying to make the point that we should not defend ourselves, nor is anyone trying to make the point that the law does not allow us to protect ourselves.

The point is that we shouldn't expect to be completely "protected" by the law if we are ever involved in a shooting, no matter how many hours we've spent reading and re-reading the little pamphlet. If that were so, then the LAW would be worded differently.

So, back to my point - UNDER THE LAW:
There is a RIGHT to Free Speech.
There is a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
There is a RIGHT to not be forced to board troops in private residences.
There is a RIGHT to not be forced to incriminate ones self
There is a RIGHT to a speedy and public trial.
There is a RIGHT to trial by jury.
There is a RIGHT to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
There is a RIGHT to not have the law be construed so as to deny people their rights.
There is a RIGHT to allow the States to govern themselves in matters not restricted by federal law.

There cannot be an argument that "Self Defense" is anywhere in there. It is more important to acknowledge this than you seem to think. It doesn't mean that we CAN'T defend ourselves...it means that we are not JUSTIFIED in using deadly force unless certain conditions are met under penalty of criminal prosecution. That's all.
Know the law, or risk invoking your RIGHTS under the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.

I agree with the rest of your post, however.

Stay sharp.
 
"I think I've created a monster" - Dr. Frankenstein

Easy guys. The question hinged around liability, not the right to defend. And that question is pretty much answered.

The biggest worry I have is not that the law will fail me,
Click to expand...
I tend to by more cynical of the law. Several years ago I took a couple business law classes. The first night of class the Professor said "You must get the notion out of your head that the Law has anything to do w/ justice. If the Law results in justice being served that is fine and well, but justice is only a byproduct of the Law. The Law does not care about justice."

A big part of the course was analyzing real-life (civil) test cases. Many of the cases were ones that "your gut" told you one thing, i.e.what was fair and just, but the outcome was just the opposite, because of the Law.

Again my intent here was to "cheat" (yes, I'm a lazy bastard) and get an idea how other states approach the liability issue w/out having to do a lot of independent research.
 
I believe that at some point, between considering all the legal ramifications and liability concerns, one must just ask if they're willing to take on the responsibilities of carrying a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-protection.

The responsibilities are many, and they include the usual suspects such as proper training, practice,... etc.

Beyond that, one assumes the responsibility of coming to terms with what may be the inexorableness of one's life being turned upside down after using a weapon for self-defense or the defense of another. This includes being liable for one's actions both morally, and legally.

There is no cookie-cutter answer, as each case will be its own animal, judged on its own circumstances.

For me it all boils down to a cliche I hear often on these boards: Its better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6.
 
Amen pickpocket!!!

The VAST majority of the gun enthusiasts that I know have clearly NEVER read the U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding the amount of knowledge they purport to have about our inalienable, undeniable rights. (pronounced Raaahhh-tz).

I have been to law school. I have taken a Con Law class. I have read the cases about the 2nd Amendment, about Due Process, and let me tell you: I am NOT impressed! Contrary to popular belief, we do NOT have the right to carry arms. The Supreme Court ripped that right away from us just a few years after the Congress drafted the 2nd Amendment! This is not the way it should be, but right now, conceal carry is a privilege, not a right!

Self-defense is an exception to a CRIME, not a right! If you gun someone down, you have STILL committed a crime, it's just that you're excused.

I'm sorry for the off-topic outburst, and I'm sorry if I'm flaming anyone, but a personal pet-peeve of mine is someone who leans on the paraphrasing of the Bill of Rights, claiming that their "God given rights" are being infringed. If you want to impress the jury of 12, talk about "fairness and justice," or better yet, cite some case law! Don't complain about your 2nd Amendment rights being infringed. EVERYONE's 2nd Amendment rights have been infringed for the past 200 years! Why should they stop with you???

Ahem... sorry 'bout that. Ok. Now I feel better!
 
Trip

I agree wholeheartedly, particularly w/ the training, practice, etc . In that light I looked at the list of trainers on the PM you sent. I fwd'd it to a former LEO buddy to see if he knew(of) any of these and had a recommendation. I could use a little proficiency training, and the CCW courses seem to put out good info even if we can't carry here.
 
So Samurai, did you actually finish law school and pass some state's bar exam? When one defends oneself per one's state's authority to do so, one has not committed a crime. The "you've commited a crime, but just been excused of the crime" is the most contorted reasoning I've experienced since my last conversation with my second ex-wife. ;) What's a crime and what's not are spelled out in your state's criminal code.

It's been accurately said in this thread that how one is treated in a case of self-defense varies greatly by one's jurisdiction. That's about the truest truism expressed in this thread by anybody.

To think that one would be treated the same in liberal states like Wisconsin and Massachusetts as in less Democratic states is naive. In MOST states, one would not be charged with a criminal offense, if one justifiably used a weapon in self-defense, yet one's bullet traveled through the intended target and killed or injured somebody across the street. Key word being "justifiably". That's absurd. It's not absurd to think that one would be sued by the victim or family of the victim across the street, however.

If you're going to carry a deadly weapon, you'd better have the right mindset to apply deadly force, if necessary. You're not going to have time, in the Real World, when you're attacked by an uncivilized savage Democrat, to meditate, fret and whine over your potential liabilities. If you're carrying legally and you happen upon a CLEAR-CUT case of an innocent citizen's having his or her life put in danger by such an aforesaid uncivilized savage, and you fail to act, then, in my humble opinion, you're not much better than the said uncivilized savage.

If you wake up in the morning and share your state of residency with Barney Frank, John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, then your biggest question in the morning should be, "What the hell am I doing here!?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top