Where is the line?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for helping.

I'm going to have to reread some of Jeff Snyders' essays again if I can find them.
The problem that comes to my mind is; you have just chased a rapist out of your daughter's room. You see his back so you do not shoot. While reporting this to the police the rapist is down two blocks having his way with a mother and son. Of course it would be wrong to shoot someone fleeing, but look at the pain you could have prevented?
I think that as a moral agent I have a certain set of responciblities to myself and the community that at times the "law" prevents me from taking to heart!
 
So tell me why we should calmly sit and analize what the bad guy is thinking while he is holding you and you family hostage.If your going to analize that much tell him to pull up a couch and talk about how bad his childhood was,or worse how you are going to cure his crack problem and make his pain go away.Take it for what it is worth they didn't care about you, why should you care about them.

Honesty it's not what you think,but how you act on what you know.Books can save you in a bad situation but you will need some duct tape to go with it.
 
Hondo 11

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

You Said "I hope I am misunderstanding your post." No you did not, actually it is very clear. The test is not mine it was my states guideline for the use of deadly force. I find them very easy to understand, don't see what the problem is.

You Said "You're saying that an armed individual (has the means and opportunity...you set those conditions) who states that he is going to kill you "is not enough"? Wow. I guess one should wait until bullets are making holes in his or her body to determine that "intent" has been met?"

Perhaps you are having a problem with the word INTENT, in reality words have nothing to do with intent, within the law specific ACTIONS have everything to do with the word intent. I am not interested in taking the time to legally educate you in this matter, you may find the information in law books by Way or Black.

So, on the street, what comes out of a fellows pie hole is of little importance to me, idiots say most anything and what they say has Little Baring on what they intend to do! My enemies hands are the things that deserve my full intention, and will provide me with the proof of my enemies intent to engage me.

So, you may tell me that you do not intend to kill me, but as your hands reach for your gun in your waist band, I will believe that ACTION and seek to stop it.

Unlike you Hondo, My concealed handgun is for protection of life only. I Draw it only in preparation to protect myself from the willful and wanton life-threatening actions of another.

That is MY LINE IN THE SAND, and it has nothing to do with property or Preemptive Strikes, by white knights saving society the cost of a trial.
 
The equation boils down to how much time you want to invest in prison versus what the value of the property you are to give up?
 
The equation boils down to how much time you want to invest in prison versus what the value of the property you are to give up?
Click to expand...

We are talking about robbery, and in the case of the thread cited in the OP, armed robbery with guns. We are not talking about burglary. When somebody threatens your life in an armed robbery so that you give them property, you have the right to defend your life. At that point, the property isn't even relevant. It is called self defense, not defense of property.
 
Double Naught Spy

armed robbery, where at no time did the original thread mention guns pointed at the CCW holder or his family. That has been the issue and discussion. Do you intervene on a armed robbery, not that the gun is pointing at you, if I remember correctly "guns waving around" was the exact quote.
 
No one gets the wallet or family or anything else.

Whether they decide to threaten with serious bodily injury or death in order to get what they want is their choice.

That's where line is drawn.
 
Crossing the line?

Again I say, this is up to each individual and their personal situation when robbery happens. Burglary and Robbery are two distinct crimes. Robbery is the more serious as it is actually occurring to you in real time, face to face and your life may be in danger more than you realize.
In my case, if I had had a carry gun with me when I was robbed and mugged and neck was cut with a knife, it would have ended before it began. I would not have went to the hospital and the bad guys would have gone to jail (or worse if they decided to engage me further).
All these legal eagle opinions I have been reading here are for folks who usually haven't been in situations like this. I used to feel exactly the same but not any more. Bottom line is that you are the victim of someone wanting to take your money, personal property, etc..But are you 100% positive that it will end there after you give it to them?
Hell no, you are not! Nobody can ever tell me what they "think" a criminal will do after they rob you because you never know what they are thinking. They could panic especially if it goes down wrong....
Too many folks have paid the price for doing the "right thing" and what they belive the law is for their area. In my humble opinion, this is truly the best saying regarding these situations:
"Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6". I know it's trite, but belive me, it is actually true when its all said and done and your life has been on the line. Think about it.
Of course when its all said and done, each one of us will have to make his or her decision (quickly and decisively) on what you are going to do. You had better make the right one as the consequences could prove to be unduly harsh for you and/or your family if its the wrong decision.
Best of luck to anyone who unfortunately has to endure something like this.
 
A little clarification please regarding-
1. "the ability to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (He is armed)"
armed with a deadly weapon I would assume?
2."the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm. (distance, body type, position)"
He is close enough to take something from my hand?
3."his intent indicates that he means to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (mere words are not enough)"
So would mere words -I'll kill you if you do/don't do X, meet all the criteria to respond with deadly force if #'s 1 & 2 are met?

Even waving the gun around in my direction would seem to be enough of a threat IF words of physical harm are uttered? "Pulp Fiction style robbery?"
Am I not supposed to believe someone with a weapon that threatens me means to do exactly what they say? And of course should I believe that they WON'T hurt me if I comply? Doesn't waving a gun in the direction of LEOs meet the criteria for them to respond with deadly force even if words are not exchanged?
As I write this I am about 2,000 miles from home, In a city with a high crime rate.... having to eat out. (which fortunately honors my CCW permit-except at their airport :mad:- unless it is in my luggage)
I believe I would do what ever is necessary to insure I would be able to see my family again.
 
Last edited:
ArizonaTRex

Where do it say " waved in your direction?"

Mere words,
I just explained that, I am not here to give a class in the 3 legged stool, do your own work.

The OP asked each of us to draw our line, I explained mine, then I re-explained, I believe I was clear, and It is, What it is.

Good Luck & Be Safe
 
When somebody threatens your life in an armed robbery so that you give them property, you have the right to defend your life.
Click to expand...
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something, or even that it is a good idea to do it. That is the issue, folks. Nobody (AFAIK) disputes the legal standards establish a line. But do you base your actions on a non-thinking A/B legal response or do you think about cost/benefit, need, ramifications of act, etc?
 
But, there is a time when this should be stopped so that others do not have to suffer.

This is what is known as reciprocal altruism. Here's the issue - in an incident should your goal be to minimize a negative outcome to you (and if you have loved ones near them) or do you want to make statement or generate an outcome that might lead to significant harm to you and your loved ones because if you harm that BG (even if you suffer many bad consequences) that may deter him or other BGs in future incidents.

If you were mugged (and it seemed that you could get by without harm without a fight), it that ok with you. Yes, your pride is hurt and you didn't deter.

However, if you start the fight (if it seemed that you didn't need to), you can suffer many negative personal, social and financial consequences. Folks who shoot someone don't always go unscathed by the incident (posture here if you must).

Do you make a social statement or hope to deter future crimes at a risk to yourself and family or do you act because your goal is to minimize grievous bodily harm in this incident.

If you postulate that you want to act for the great social good - is it a hero fantasy - a large part of some views of prosocial behavior? Be honest. That doesn't last long and some folks who acted heroically don't care for the accalades and some seek them and then go nuts when they fade.

If you read the professional literature on after gun fight consequences, it isn't always pretty and a thing to get into if you don't have to.
 
Much of the above discussion has had to do with when and where it is permissible to use deadly force. In the case of the specific instance cited by the OP, the judgement on that score may be arguable. But let's return to the original question:

Two masked men entered waving guns and then proceeded to rob the individual customers before leaving. No one injured. .... Say you are a customer carrying your ccw when an incident like this happens. As a CCW holder, what actions do you take? Do you grab your weapon and open fire to protect yourself and others in the restaurant? Do you delay for a few to try to feel out how the incident is going to unfold?
Click to expand...

Seems to me that if "you grab your weapon" when two men are "waving guns", you and others are a lot more likely to end up being carried by six than tried by twelve.

If you wait and determine that the masked men are leaving with their booty and you "open fire" nonetheless, it would seem highly likely that you will be found guilty by twelve under instructions given them by the judge.

So the best outcome is clearly

a third option, that it is better not to be tried or carried at all.
Click to expand...

The worst would be for you to draw and get yourself and others killed.

If I had been there, I believe the only way I would have drawn is if one of the miscreants had started to shoot first.
 
the worst?

The worst would you did nothing, you are dead. You did nothing, your family/friend is dead. You live the rest of your life wishing you could have done something.

Suzanna Hupp was forced to leave her pistol in her truck while dining at Lubys with her family. I say forced because Texas law,at the time had no ccw. So being a "good citizen" kept her from doing something.
 
Pax wrote,"Here is the bright, clear line that will keep you firmly on the sunny side of the law in all 50 states, and keep you alive to tell the story later: You must be able to articulate how an innocent life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger.

Put another way, the line looks like this: there is "an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."

Everything else is just chatter".

A BIG +1
 
The worst would you did nothing, you are dead.
Click to expand...

Same outcome as if I tried to draw and got killed. What's the point?

From concealment, I'm not fast enough to stop a man whose gun is in his hand, much less two of them.
 
I hate to spout statistics but if you are robbed at gun point, you are less likely to get hurt than if robbed at knife point or with impact weapon. It's in the criminology literature - so one can go google-scholar or other data bases to look it up.

It's because the gun is usually used for compliance and gets such. With knives or clubs, people tend more to duke it out and get hurt and the BG sometimes starts with a whack to you to get compliance as they know people will try to duke it out if they don't have a gun.

No situation is the same - yes, you might get shot but compliance seems to work if you get past being outraged as a reason to shoot. Again, you have to see how it is going before starting an action.

Do you get hurt less if you start a gun fight against a drawn gun as compared to compliance? That's an interesting figure if someone wants to look for it - too busy now.
 
So it would seem that the best defence is to do nothing and leave the guns at home in a safe because no matter what you do you are going to do the wrong thing.There problem solved:confused:

Not that i'm being pissy or a poor sport,but if you really want the best solution to the waffle house problem,DON'T go there ,stay home and cook.:D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top