To Keep in Mind at All Times:

Exactly!, I hope all the "cops" read that as well. It's exactly what I tried to tell every non action person on the debate. The only thing is in Tennessee we have a no retreat bill which means if you're threatened you don't have to retreat you can stand your ground and protect yourself. We can also openly carry with a ccw permit here.
 
Personally, I favor stand your ground laws like TN and FL.

Having said that, could and should mean different things to different folks. I could have shot a few folks back in my working days, but I did not have to so that ammo got burned at he range and my court time was for minor stuff with defendants other than myself. Don't regret my decisions.

Having a mangled leg from a motorcycle accident my ability to flee is limited. In my current state a person entering my home displaying means intent and ability to do serious evil meeting demise from defensive action would stand a good chance of being justified under the law. That does not mean my first option will be lethal force if there is another way.

I agree that a person engaged in lawfull activity where they have a right to be should not be legally required to retreat. That should be left to the individual IMO.
 
I agree with the post. Well written and not done by a keyboard commando. I am not sure i would run away, The Marine in me wont let me but i would tacticly withdraw. If i pull my pistol its to save life an it will come out with the owner ready to pull the trigger if need be.
 
When the use of force is threatened, force is justified to stop the threat. If a person is attempting a crime with a weapon, why do you think that weapon is there? An armed criminal is a direct threat to your life and should be treated accordingly.

You shouldn't go looking for trouble, but to say you have to avoid it when it comes looking for you is another thing all together.
 
If a person is attempting a crime with a weapon, why do you think that weapon is there? An armed criminal is a direct threat to your life and should be treated accordingly.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's included in the man's list:

" 1. Your concealed handgun is for protection of life only.

Draw it solely in preparation to protect yourself or an innocent third party from the wrongful and life-threatening criminal actions of another."
 
Yes, but you say a person should run if that option is available. I contend that they should never run unless their state or local laws require it. Otherwise they should resist. Bear in mind I said 'should,' ultimately the decision is theirs but failing to resist a criminal only allows that criminal another opportunity to hurt someone.
 
A criminal adversary must have, or reasonably appear to have:

1. the ability to inflict serious bodily injury (he is armed or reasonably appears to be armed with a deadly weapon),
2. the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm (he is physically positioned to harm you with his weapon), and
3. his intent (hostile actions or words) indicates that he means to place you in jeopardy -- to do you serious or fatal physical harm.

When all three of these "attack potential" elements are in place simultaneously, then you are facing a reasonably perceived deadly threat that can justify an emergency deadly force response.
Click to expand...

This has always confused me! I have a concealed carry permit, and carry most of the time that I legally can, and try to be as informed as possible, but this REALLY confuses me...!

A person cannot be considered to be a threat to my life or serious bodily harm to me, unless they are armed with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, crow bar or baseball bat?!?! and that weapon is VISIBLE to me? Otherwise I am legally required to flee?!?

I am 49 years old. I have back problems. I can walk for reasonably long distances (10 miles or more, a few times a year, for exercise) and move fairly quickly for short distances like 10-15 feet, but outrunning a younger assailant is pretty unlikely.

So all the assailant has to do when I see him - 40 feet away - as I'm walking back to my car, 110 feet away, is to be able to outrun me to my car, and keep his straight razor in his pocket until it is too late for me to draw and fire?

What if there are two or three of them - unarmed? Anybody ever get killed or suffer serious body harm from somebody's bare hands? or boots? You ever see anybody kicking someone in the head when they were lying on the ground?

Don't send flowers to my funeral - it will be too late for me. Please make a contribution to the NRA instead.
 
Yes, but you say a person should run if that option is available.
Click to expand...

NY State - and I think most states - require killing someone as a result of SD action be the last house on the street. To me, ethically that means something too. I wouldn't want to kill someone if an option was left - including running. But the law has the proviso that if running would expose you to more risk, you are not legally obligated to do so (e.g., someone very close to you with a knife pointing at you, turning your back to flee might make it much worse. But if he's 40 yards away with a knife, well do what most people would do: take off and call 911.)

A few states don't require an attempt to flee (if it doesn't expose you to more risk). Check where you live.

This is a layman's answer. Talk to a skilled attorney in your area for a professional opinion.
 
So all the assailant has to do when I see him - 40 feet away - as I'm walking back to my car, 110 feet away, is to be able to outrun me to my car, and keep his straight razor in his pocket until it is too late for me to draw and fire?
Click to expand...

I guess you'd have to reasonably believe your life was under imminent threat of death/serious injury, being beaten to death or something. And that would have to be a belief that the Reasonable Man (ie anyone) would likewise believe if in the same circumstances - including your own physical limitations. That would be for the prosecitor, courts, juries, attorneys etc. to interpret the law in the that situation.

I do not believe, though, if you shoot somebody solely because of a weapon he MAY have, it's OK. I mean, we'd all be shooting each other at times anyone had a fantasy about future possibilities for danger in anyone else.

This is a layman's answer. Talk to a skilled attorney in your area for a professional opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top