Using your CCW

Last Thursday-went to one of our local Dominos pizza stores that I've gone to for at least fifteen years to -shocker-order and buy a pizza.

As I go in,there is a small asian lady going in too,I hold the door for her and we both go in.

For fifteen years,I've gone in this store and ALWAYS there has been someone at the counter.

NO ONE was in the front of the store.

The register was closed but active and all the counters where pizza would be made were dirty with pizza making stuff on them.

The store was empty of employess and silent.

I was really kind of freaked.

I know these people in a kind of passing way.

I did'nt have my ccw on me-it was in the car in the glove box,locked in the car.

I led the asian lady out and went to my car and quietly placed my ccw in my pocket in a uneventful way and went back to the store.

STILL no one was in the front of the store.

So,I put my hand on my revolver that was in my pocket ready to pull it if need be and slowly walked past the register counter,past the pizza oven and pizza making counters and past the little office looking all over as I went.

When I got to the freezer I really got creeped out because I've worked in foodservice long ago and know freezers are great insulators for sounds.

But the freezer door was cracked open and I did'nt hear anything at all.

So I peered around the freezer door some and felt safe enough to work myself to the back door of the Dominos.

When I opened it,I had my hand on my revolver and was ready to retreat if need be should I find myself over matched in any way tactically.

I open the door and there are the three white male employees sitting on their cars smoking cigarettes.FALSE ALARM.

I was relieved.

The guys were kind of freaked out to see a customer peering out the back door at them and they asked me where a female employee,they said,they had left up front was.

I said,I saw no one and also said,'I'm just glad you guys were'nt shot back here ."

So it was just a false alarm with people I knew in the balance and I am pretty sure that Domino's will never be empty in the front counter area again.

I never disclosed I was armed and went home with my pizza.

As I left one of the guys said,"it's nice to know someone cared enough to come back and see if we were o.k."
 
Years ago when I was a young newly-wed, my wife woke me in a panic saying that someone was downstairs. I only had a .22 revolver at the time. I went to the top of the stairs and saw that the lights were on downstairs. I could hear someone walking around. I yelled down the stairs that I had a gun and was coming down. I heard rushing around and then silence. I went down and found the front and the back doors standing wide open. A couple of items were broken, but nothing major was damaged or taken. Evidently I had surprised someone in the burglary.
 
One common point in these stories

What strikes me in almost all of these stories is that the mere PRESENCE or SHOWING of a firearm quickly defused the situation, usually causing the BG to retreat or run away.

IMHO this puts much more importance to the notion of ANY CARRY IS BETTER THAN NO CARRY.

In other words this MINIMIZES (doesnt eliminate) the discussion of "which calibre is better as a manstopper" or "what is the best ammo to have in a carry gun" or "how many backup guns /extra magazines do you carry"

The majority of situations seem to be "solved" by the mere presence of an equalizer. I KNOW, IF A REAL GUNFIGHT BREAKS OUT YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE A .45 THAN A .380 OR .22 ETC, but you must admit, from these stories a .380 or a 9 mm in your hand is worth a whole safe full of .45's at home
 
Last edited:
I had to pull mine out twice. One time it was because one kid shot at another kid 10 feet in front of me. The threat wasn't directed at me so I didn't aim at him and it was over as soon as it happened. The second time some dude tried threatening me with a knife so I pulled out my carry gun and the threat ceased immediately. My carry gun for both instances was my kimber stainless II with a 10 round extended mag.
 
I use mine all the time, I just don't shoot bandits.

I carry a 642 in my pocket and I consider it a tool like a pocket knife, just sets in the pocket until needed.

And I use it. Don't know how many rattlers I dispatched with it. Including one under my back steps and on I came nose to nose with while crawling through the grass stalking antelope.

I've come out of the shop and dispatched a coyote trying to eat one of my chickens, I've put down injured horses, I finished off deer and other critters while hunting.

Popped a few rabbits for the spit while camping or horseback riding.

In this part of the country I really doubt I'll need it for self defense in the normal meaning of SD, but it does set in my pocket like my pocket knife as a tool to be used as needed.

Besides, I know its not proper but it is fun every now and then to pop open the cylinder, unload it and drive the cat crazy with the CT laser sight.
 
The one time I had to pull out my CCW, several people walked up close, looked in amazement, and asked where I got it.

I happened to be in a class teaching my university students, and they had never seen a CCW card before. *laugh*

I will echo the belief that just showing a gun can diffuse problems. One must be careful, though, as there are laws against brandishing in most places, if memory serves.
 
My story: I was eating a quick lunch with my girlfriend in a Chipotle and noticed a man talking to people from table to table. Finally he makes it over to my table explaining that hes from out of town and was up here to watch his daughters baby being born and forgot his wallet at home and needed gas money to get back. He had a little girl with him who then stuck her face way to close to our own personal spaces and was making a barking like sound. I thought it was extremely rude that he was asking people this while we were eating and said "No i dont have any money" my girlfriend trying to be nice said "I only have credit cards sorry"... His face then became very angry and he said "oh come on!"... The restaurant was busy and I didn't want to show the gun because of his little girl and a lot of people so again I said "sorry"...then he said "you gotta have something" matter of factly...my patients had worn out and now rather than being cautious of the little girl there I felt sorry for her that her father or whatever he was was teaching her to do this... So I reached into my pocket and said "Here actually your right I do..." I took the top round out of my extra magazine .45 and set it on the table (now i have no idea what made me think to do this because usually am not that creative but somehow i just thought it would work) He looked at it and his eyes got really big and I said "You can at least get $.50 for that"... He turned around and walked straight out
Click to expand...

A firearm is meant to be used to defend yourself, not to get rid of minor annoyances like some random guy bugging you for money. In most states you would be arrested for brandishing a firearm if you just pulled it out to scare the guy off, even if you were not in a crowded restaurant. I get asked for money most times I go into Boston which is pretty often, just because they pester me doesn't mean I can just pull a gun on them.
 
Last edited:
But at least I did not have to discharge my firearm and kill some 17-21 year olds.
Click to expand...

You sir, are a better man than I. If someone hit me in the head with a wrench, my immediate response would be *absolute* defense. A wrench is a lethal weapon when applied to my skull. That 17-21 year old would be dead on the pavement and frankly, everyone but his mother would be better off for it. And despite her grief, it would prevent him from beating and stealing from her from then on. But I do commend your supernatural restraint.
 
Lawnboy: Just because you believe that you are legally justified in defending yourself and/or others and/or property with deadly force doesn't mean that you actually are justified, legally.
Click to expand...

We have a duty to know the laws pertaining to deadly force in any state we travel in. In Texas he will be in the clear protecting his vehicle, but he still might be charged. If he has not broken any glass, breaking into the car, he might very well be in trouble even in Texas. One always has to ask themselves, do they have anything in the vehicle worth the legal fees that
may follow, after defending their property. This is a good reason to keep
full insurance coverage on one's vehicles, so their options are not limited.
Messing with somone's vehicle though in my state can very easily get a
criminal killed. :(
 
I was hastled by some kids at the apartments I lived in during college. They were convinced that I had let the guy they had done some auto repair for run in to my apartment to hide there to avoid paying them. I had NO idea what they were talking about or who the white-guy they were supposedly working for was. But, they were very upset.

One of them starting getting aggressive but the other got really calm and made the other guy get the hell out of my face when he realized I had my hand in my pocket and that I also had a gun in there. Yes, I'd have shot them if I had to but I don't want to hurt anyone if I can help it.

Also, the laws are different for me. If I hit someone, I could go to jail more easily. I study martial arts (since 1979) and even taught them for a while so that would work against me in court. If I shoot someone, all of that training could be used against me also by the prosecution.

I keep telling my son (7) that if something happens, say at IHOP (like that shooting they had there a while back), that it will be loud and eveyone will start screaming, so do what I say, get low, and we'll try to escape. If we can't, I will start shooting. Now, if my son is not with me and hell breaks loose, I'll shoot more readily I think. I hope I never have to.
 
My main emotion was not that I was afraid, it was how much I WANTED to shoot the perps. That scared me more than anything else, but I also believe that my aggression made them back away and take off.
 
I don't think any bad guy going to call police if you show them your gun.
Click to expand...
It's happened. If you have to draw, or even mention, your firearm in a confrontation, it will be prudent to be the first party to contact law enforcement, as the first account is usually given more credibility.

An example: several years ago, I was rear-ended by a drunk driver. I got out to inspect the damage, and he articulated anger at what I'd supposedly done to his car. He had an easy 80 pounds on me, and was intoxicated and agitated. Realizing this wasn't going anywhere nice, I decided to go back to my car and leave the scene. He seemed willing to do the same.

At that time, two things happened. The first was that his girlfriend reminded him that I had his plate number. The second was that he yelled something along the lines of "get it out of the glove box! Get it now!" He'd been matching my stride, and I couldn't reach my door, open it, and close it behind me before he could get to me.

I drew, he got a look at the gun, and he left the scene in a hurry. I drove to the nearest gas station and called the police. They took a statement from me and set about finding the guy.

Why was this important? Because when they found him several days later, he claimed that he wanted to cooperate, but he felt compelled to leave the scene because I was screaming threats and waving a gun around.

Other factors worked against the guy's credibility, but it could have quickly turned into my word against his, and he likely would have conned the girlfriend into backing up his story. One point the detective made was that the responding officer saw me calm and sober directly following the incident, while the other party had to be dragged out from under his rock.
 
Dave9969 said:
The castle doctrine no longer applies in Florida. We have what is known as the Florida Stand your ground law, and in a nutshell it says, that no matter my location, I am not required to RUN from you if I feel threatened. There is no need to "escape" the threat as in some states. Furthermore, I am allowed to use up to deadly force in defense of personal property. If I catch you breaking into my car in the parking lot at the mall, I can drop you on the spot. It happened about 6 months ago, the "bad" guy was killed. The shooter, despite the bad guys family attempting to press charges, none were filed by the State Attorney. The law was clear, the intent was present, and we are now one fewer car thieves in Florida.
Click to expand...

Somehow i don't think that's accurate. In a civilized society we have a judicial system where the punishment must fit the crime. Killing a harmless junkie for breaking into your car to steal a gps system to pay for their next fix somehow doesn't seem justifiable to kill them. That's called excessive force.
I'm thinking there's more to that car robbery story, like they approached the car and said "*** get out of my car", the heated confrontation ended in a tussle, or the intruder charged at them, resulting in their fatality which would be justified. The stand your ground law would give you the ability to confront your thief, but i don't think you can just shoot them on sight. If you spook them and they start retreating, you can't legally shoot them.
 
Last edited:
ggplayaa: Somehow i don't think that's accurate. In a civilized society we have a judicial system where the punishment must fit the crime. Killing a harmless junkie for breaking into your car to steal a gps system to pay for their next fix somehow doesn't seem justifiable to kill them. That's called excessive force.
Click to expand...

While I do not live in Florida, I have been reading about some cases in Florida. In Texas, the law also gives a person the right to use deadly force in defense of property. I think your objection is more to the point you may not believe that it is civilly justified for someone to use deadly force in defense of property. Thats a separate issue to what the laws actually are. In Texas most shootings are referred to a grand jury. How does one know whether it is an attempt to steal the car, the gcps or loose change. The fact is you do not. Texas had so much crime the lawmakers acted to put an end to it some years ago. It has not stopped it all but it has slowed it down.

Even in lawful shootings though one needs to consideer the legal cost of having to defend it.
 
TexasJustice7 said:
While I do not live in Florida, I have been reading about some cases in Florida. In Texas, the law also gives a person the right to use deadly force in defense of property. I think your objection is more to the point you may not believe that it is civilly justified for someone to use deadly force in defense of property. Thats a separate issue to what the laws actually are. In Texas most shootings are referred to a grand jury. How does one know whether it is an attempt to steal the car, the gcps or loose change. The fact is you do not. Texas had so much crime the lawmakers acted to put an end to it some years ago. It has not stopped it all but it has slowed it down.

Even in lawful shootings though one needs to consideer the legal cost of having to defend it.
Click to expand...

No it's murder and doesn't fall within florida's castle doctrine. The problem is it relies on the prosecution to prove it. If they can't prove that the deceased was spooked and tried to run, or didn't want to hurt you. Then, you just got away with murder.

In states without the castle doctrine, it's up to you to prove you were in fear for your life. If you can't, then you're screwed even if it was justified.

Florida's Defense laws:
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

Notice how it says occupied vehicle. That's because if it's occupied, then your life really is in danger. It doesn't say anything about protecting your property with deadly force, being able to shoot on sight. You also have to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril. You can't take your .308 hunting rifle go up to your second story window and snipe someone breaking into your car at the end of your driveway. That's also murder.

This "Stand your ground doctine" is getting way out of hand. Recently in florida young Trayvon Martin was killed for no reason at all. He was basically killed for "walking while black". Not breaking into any homes or cars, just walking with a bag of groceries on a public street. Yet the doctrine gave someone else the right to be judge, jury, and executioner on the wrong person.

I would be for the castle doctrine if there weren't too many idiots running around out there killing people, thinking it's ok to get away with murder. They are not police officers, and haven't been trained to use good judgment and de-escalate the situation. This is only more ammunition for the gun control advocates to take away our CCW rights and further take away our rights to bear arms.
 
Last edited:
ggplayaa: This "Stand your ground doctine" is getting way out of hand. Recently in florida young Trayvon Martin was killed for no reason at all. He was basically killed for "walking while black". Not breaking into any homes or cars, just walking with a bag of groceries on a public street. Yet the doctrine gave someone else the right to be judge, jury, and executioner on the wrong person.
Click to expand...

I don't look at things that way. You are entitled to your opinion regarding the stand your ground laws, in states like Texas. But you do not have have the option to revoke those laws, except through due process. We do not know the details yet, so I won't judge the Florida case till the facts come out. There will always be cases which are mariginal. In Texas almost all such cases go to a grand jury. I trust the jury's in Texas to uphold Texas law, not some law someone else in other states might believe is according to their values, should be the law. For someone to say that he was "basically killed for walking while black" is the same as acting as the judge, and jury
for the shooter. The prosecutor there has not yet acted on the case, and they may have witnesses and facts that they have not set out yet.
I like the laws which we have in Texas and I choose to live here. If I lived in Florida and I did not like the laws there, I would move, just as if I did not like the laws in Texas I would move somewhere else.

I would expect, that if the prosecutor charges the shooter in the case you cite, that the jury will uphold whatever is Florida Law, if and when an arrest is made. So I won't jump to any conclusion one way or the other without more facts coming out.
 
I trust the jury's in Texas to uphold Texas law, not some law someone else in other states might believe is according to their values, should be the law.
Click to expand...

I dont know about the rest of you, but I'm way past weary of different and conflicting laws from state to state based on these so-called values.
We're all Americans, theres very little difference between us.
More to the point, I'm utterly sick of state-based legislation by litigation, even to the point of interupting Federal issues.

I really like our system, but we need to trim the fat and introduce a third party.
These two corporately funded circus acts we have now have become useless and they dont respect or fear the people anymore.
We're past do for a political enema, a reset of sorts.

Stepping off of the soapbox now... :p
 
Last edited:
This "Stand your ground doctine" is getting way out of hand. Recently in florida young Trayvon Martin was killed for no reason at all. He was basically killed for "walking while black". Not breaking into any homes or cars, just walking with a bag of groceries on a public street. Yet the doctrine gave someone else the right to be judge, jury, and executioner on the wrong person.
Click to expand...

Actually, from what I gather (There's some serious anti-gun bias in that article, but the 911 tapes are easy to listen to - ABC here), Trayvon Martin's case will probably not be one of "standing your ground." The 911 dispatcher even told told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that sir" as he pursued him - apparently without reason. I can't see how his pursuit and attempted apprehension of the kid without any cause can fall under that statute. I'm all in favor of "stand your ground" laws as long as they protect citizens' right to self-defense in any place they are legally allowed to be. The Martin case (assuming there is ever an arrest made) does not seem to fit that criteria. Based on the 911 tapes and the clear negative bias of Zimmerman, through his own words to the dispatcher, he seems to be a liability to all of us who carry responsibility.

Though perhaps this broadens the topic of this post and I may get jumped on for saying this, I wish we, and the organizations who support our 2nd Amendment rights, would be as vocal about distancing ourselves from (and encouraging accountability toward) citizens, even those with permits, who use their weapons irresponsibly. It's in our collective best interest to do so. A simple statement by the NRA such as, "We feel confident that a jury will be able to determine if this case represents lawful self defense under Florida laws" goes a long ways. Heck, the NRA supported the recent expansion of those laws in Florida and should welcome their vetting... As you can see from the first link above, the anti-gun folks are are having a field day while our supporting organizations remain mute. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top