How many know?


PDA






tpaw
August 12, 2008, 09:20 PM
I was just wondering. As a concealed carry handgun owner (LEO not included), how many of you definitively know all the circumstances when you can use deadly physical force. Did you take a course, or read your states laws on your own?

If you enjoyed reading about "How many know?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kind of Blued
August 12, 2008, 09:25 PM
You'd darn well better.

DoubleTapDrew
August 12, 2008, 09:36 PM
They are supposed to teach that in a CCW course. Ours taught the "pyramid" where deadly force is justified (I think it's pretty universal, most states likely do). Ability, Opportunity, Intent. Gotta meet all 3 (and intent is usually the one that gets argued most in court since it gets into gray "reasonable person" territory).

Jorg Nysgerrig
August 12, 2008, 09:38 PM
how many of you definitively know all the circumstances when you can use deadly physical force

Definitively know all the circumstances? That's a pretty tall order. I suspect you'd have a hard time finding many folks who know what they are talking about who claim to know all the circumstances.

Huddog
August 12, 2008, 09:39 PM
Georgia doesn't require a CCW course. You are of course held to the standard of knowing when it is appropriate to use your weapon for self defense. The Statutes are easily available on line and numerous books and forums address these issues. It is extremely irresponsible to ccw and not know the rules of how and when its use is appropriate. Not to mention the fact that improper use of lethal force will get you arrested and sued. If one does not know one need not carry.

neviander
August 12, 2008, 09:45 PM
"Definitively" depends on an infinite number of variables....and your lawyer. As prepared as one can be for a firefight, when one might break out is 'definitively' unpredictable :D

Jorg Nysgerrig
August 12, 2008, 09:47 PM
The Statutes are easily available on line and numerous books and forums address these issues.
Except the US, save Louisana, is a common law legal system which means that simply knowing the statutes won't give you a definitive view of all the circumstances.

tpaw
August 12, 2008, 10:31 PM
Just wanted to share this from another poster on a different site:


Massad Ayoob's LFI-1 course covers this in depth.

Before taking that course (which I highly!! recommend), I'd read his In the Gravest Extreme, which presents much of the same core material. I'd also encountered the concepts in courses from Marty & Gila Hayes at the Firearms Academy of Seattle.

While individual laws do vary from state to state, the core principles behind the laws regarding justifiable homicide/self defense are very very similar throughout the United States (and the western world). Once you have a firm grasp of those principles, you understand that if you stay within them, you will be legally okay nearly everywhere. A few states allow you to step outside them in rare circumstances, but no state will prosecute you for staying within them.

There's a very very brief summary on my website at www.corneredcat.com/Legal/AOJ.aspx and another more in-depth one at http://www.useofforce.us/

Hope that helps.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson

My website: http://www.corneredcat.com

Mot45acp
August 13, 2008, 02:10 AM
From a personal aspect I do.

My state allows me to pursue and fire as long as I dont lose line of sight.

From a moral aspect I prolly wont unless wife or kids are in danger. ( I still gotta sleep at night and look at myself in the mirror.)

SCKimberFan
August 13, 2008, 04:23 AM
This I know: If my life is in danger by the actions of another, I will use whatever force is necessary.

tigre
August 13, 2008, 07:54 AM
Morally: when someone forces me to choose between my life and theirs.

Legally: I've done some reading on my own and am planning on going to a dedicated self-defense course, but my CCW class covered basic ideas about escalating use of force, threat pyramid, and "Ability, Opportunity, Intent" as DTD mentioned. There's always room for Monday morning quarterbacking with anything you do, and a zealous DA could try to make things difficult I guess, but I'm in a pretty self-defense-friendly state. I would like to find more information about the legal implications of defending yourself against "unarmed" assailants. I'm not a dainty little flower, but I am small enough that most men of even average build could pose a serious threat without being armed. That reminds me that I need to buy some new pepper spray, actually.

pitbullman
August 13, 2008, 10:33 AM
here in NC its pretty simple as long as one of the 3 musts(treat of death-serious injury of bodily harm or sexually asst) occur deadly force is justifiable as long as your not the aggressor

Jorg Nysgerrig
August 13, 2008, 10:39 AM
My state allows me to pursue and fire as long as I dont lose line of sight.
I'm intrigued by this line of sight thing. Do you have statute number or a case where this is discussed?

TIMC
August 13, 2008, 10:42 AM
I definitely know and anyone who carries should.
They spent a lot of time in the class talking about it. There are even a few circumstances here in Texas where you could use deadly force that I don't think I would if the situation came up. Some things are just not worth it to me.

jrfoxx
August 13, 2008, 11:03 AM
I've read all of OR's gun laws MANY times, and try to read any gun related cases I can find too.reading the law is one thing, but it's how it tends to be applied/interpreted in your area that is most important, IMHO. The law can seem pretty clear-cut and obvious, but nearly all laws, when lawyers/judges get involved, can be interpreted in many slightly different ways, depending on circumstances, and just a minor variation in interpretation/application can mean the difference between no charges, areested but DA doesnt want to push it, ending up in court but winning at trial, and going to prison. Reading case law never ceases to amaze me at the ingenuity of judges/lawyers in their reading/presentation of the law, and the way a jury can decide in the end can be pretty wild too.

I, with my non-legal training, would definitely reccomend reading all the local/state cases on guns/SD shoots you can. It's VERY useful info, and may make the difference in jail/no jail. Plus, its the judges/DA's/juties reading of the law that counts in the end, not ours.

OOOXOOO
August 13, 2008, 11:14 AM
In AZ to get a permit you must attend 16 hours of training. Twelve hours were dedicated to leagl matters dealing with CCW. Four hours of the class were taught by a practicing lawer. I thought the class was worth takeing even if you did not CC.

SHavis
August 13, 2008, 11:22 AM
For us here in Texas...

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

Deanimator
August 13, 2008, 11:49 AM
They are supposed to teach that in a CCW course.
Some states don't have training requirements. Ohio does. The Ohio Attorney General puts out a very useful book on CCW. You can either get a printed copy or download it from the AG's website.

possum_128
August 13, 2008, 11:53 AM
Read the laws. I know them very,very well. As should anyone who owns a gun.

jackstinson
August 13, 2008, 11:58 AM
Some states don't have training requirements. Ohio does. The Ohio Attorney General puts out a very useful book on CCW. You can either get a printed copy or download it from the AG's website.
Yup! Good reading.
Of course, some of that changes for the better on September 9th, when our version of the Castle Doctrine becomes law.

Soybomb
August 13, 2008, 12:33 PM
I always hate the "when do I get to shoot" questions. Save the gun for when your life is in danger and you have no choice but to shoot and you'll cut down on your chances for trouble.

tpaw
August 13, 2008, 10:40 PM
MOT45acp:My state allows me to pursue and fire as long as I dont lose line of sight.

Can you document that? And for what crimes?

Mike Franklin
August 13, 2008, 10:59 PM
My state allows me to pursue and fire as long as I dont lose line of sight.

I'd like to know this too?

glockman19
August 13, 2008, 11:05 PM
Did you take a course, or read your states laws on your own?

Both. I took and continue to train for Self Defense and YES Before traveling I make sure to know the laws of every state I'll be traveling in in addition to a copy of their CCW laws.

Scattergun Bob
August 13, 2008, 11:40 PM
Yes, I have studied the self defense laws that apply for CPL in the state of WA. However this is not a shield that will protect you from a mistake.

On thing is for sure if you are ever involved in the bloody, vomit inducing, viscera exposing, utterly terrifying catastrophic event called killing another human being to save ourselves, trying to interpret a vague and complicated criminal code for your state and apply it in the 3/5 of a second we have to make our choices is of no value toward your survival.

I "believe" each CCW individual NEED a set of rules that can INSTANTLY guide them thru "threat Identification, threat assessment, and threat nullification".

Below are a set of rules that have been kicking around for a long while, many have taken credit for them, I do not. I do use them and perhaps they can shed some light your way.

My Five Rules for CONCEALED Carry


1. My concealed handgun is for protection of life only.

Draw it only in preparation to protect myself or my family from the willful and wanton life-threatening actions of another.


2. Know exactly when I can use my gun.

A predator must have or reasonably appear to have:

the ability to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (He is armed)

the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm. (distance, body type, position)

his intent indicates that he means to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (mere words are not enough)

When all 3 of these element are in place simultaneously, THIS IS A THREAT STIMULUS!
The response to threat stimulus ; zero muzzle, flash sight picture, exercise trigger control, deliver a minimum response.

3. If I can move away safely - THEN RUN
If I force a confrontation I risk the possibility of myself or a family member being killed, criminal liability, arrest. I will flee if I can, fight only as a last resort.

The BEST gunfight that ever was, was the one that never happened!

4. Display my gun, go to jail.
I should expect to be arrested by the police at gunpoint, and be charged with a crime anytime I expose my concealed handgun to another citizen in public! I must continue to perfect a carry method that keeps my pistol reliably hidden from the general public view. Before I deliberately expose my pistol in public, I must ask myself "is this issue worth going to Jail".

5. Don't let my emotions get the best of me.

THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR YOU. If, despite my efforts, I do get into some kind of heated dispute with another while I am armed, never mention, imply, or exhibit my pistol to intimidate.

I hope this is of some value, Good Luck & Be Safe

Mot45acp
August 14, 2008, 01:38 AM
OK took some digging but I found it.

Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)

Also found this lil tidbit:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

I guess this part is the case law? (still kinda new to this)
Doug Briggs, "A Matter of Personal Protection: The Weapons Laws of Texas", 2nd ed., 1992. ISBN 1-881287-01-7.

If I can find more I will post. I have to find the line of sight phrase.
It basically said if you catch a thief in the act of stealing property not otherwise recoverable you can give chase and use deadly force to prevent fleeing.

It was explained to my that my plasma TV is recoverable through homeowners insurance, but the $4 .22lr rifle that my great grand pappy is considered a heirloom and irreplaceable. Kinda turns into a gray area there.
Who determines recoverable? Is my deductible on my homeowners recoverable.


eta: I am in no way advocating shooting someone in the back, or on a LEO. I am just quoting the law as it is written.

tpaw
August 14, 2008, 06:05 PM
Scattergun Bob:

I like your approach. Can I assume that your rules apply to protecting the general public as well as yourself and your family? Example: If you saw a person being beaten with a baseball bat, would you use DPF if the culprit would not stop on your command?

Griz44
August 14, 2008, 06:30 PM
Jorg,
He is reference to the personal property clauses of Texas law. You do have the right to persue even off your property and use deadly force to recover same. The law even includes third person property, keeping an eye out for your neighbors. Bad guys in Texas have the deck stacked against them, one of the reasons we have such a low crime rate.
The law is such: (copied from Texas Penal Code)



PC 9.41.

Protection of One's Own Property

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

PC 9.42.

Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under

Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

PC 9.43.

Protection of Third Person's Property

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Mot45acp
August 14, 2008, 06:37 PM
Thanks Griz44. What site did you use?

Jorg Nysgerrig
August 14, 2008, 06:57 PM
He is reference to the personal property clauses of Texas law.

And where does that say anything about line of sight? That's the part that everyone is interested in.

one of the reasons we have such a low crime rate.
I'd love to know how you arrived at this conclusion as Texas had about 17% higher crime than the national average and ranked #6 in property crime per 100,000 in 2005.

Conqueror
August 14, 2008, 07:00 PM
here in NC its pretty simple as long as one of the 3 musts(treat of death-serious injury of bodily harm or sexually asst) occur deadly force is justifiable as long as your not the aggressor

There are four requirements here in NC, not three.

1) You were threatened with death, serious injury, or sexual assault.

2) Another reasonable person must agree that such a threat existed.

3) The force applied is not excessive (can't shoot someone 15 times if they go down on the third round).

4) You are not the instigator/aggressor.

Mot45acp
August 14, 2008, 07:23 PM
Fresh pursuit = line of sight.

Meaning you give chase NOW!!

Not call your buddies up and mount up to go over to the thief's house a half hour later.

This is how it was explained to me during class. He (the instructor) used the "line of sight" terminology. It makes sense to me.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something?

Can we get a lawyer in the house?


Jorg said:
I'd love to know how you arrived at this conclusion as Texas had about 17% higher crime than the national average and ranked #6 in property crime per 100,000 in 2005.

Two words fer ya: Hurricane Katrina. Look up 2004 stats. Our criminal element skyrocketed due to it.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
August 14, 2008, 07:30 PM
God Bless Texas.

Everytime I wonder how should VA change a law as it relates to RKBA or self defense I look towards two state FL and TX. If you best laws of both states (throw in no permit for open carry - VA and no permit for conceal carry - VT) and applied them across the country it would be a 2nd amendment dream come true. :)

Jorg Nysgerrig
August 14, 2008, 07:52 PM
Two words fer ya: Hurricane Katrina. Look up 2004 stats. Our criminal element skyrocketed due to it

Conveniently, those are in the same spreadsheet. Texas was #7 in property crime in 2004 but the state was only 12th in violent crime. If you wish to go back further, the Texas crime rate actually declined each year from 2002-2006 while remaining comfortably above the national average.

brickeyee
August 14, 2008, 07:57 PM
As noted above, the statute law is only part of the law.
The case law has just as much weight.

Virginia has NO statute law governing lethal force.
NONE.
It is ALL case law.

Scattergun Bob
August 14, 2008, 08:55 PM
Boy, this could open a can of worms!

I spent 20+ years protecting and serving the rights of others "sheep dog". It has taken me several years to deescalate from that experience. Today, I will only protect me and mine, the ground that I chose to own is very small and the flock that I Shepard is manageable by a single combatant. It is a hard stand, I have done a lot of soul searching about the issue, But IT IS what IT IS!

You could in this state use these rules to protect another, not being one of the parties with standing it is never a clear issue of who is really the bad guy, it could be that both are!

Good Luck & Be Safe

tpaw
August 14, 2008, 09:14 PM
Scattergun Bob:

I can understand. Be safe as well.

tpaw
August 14, 2008, 09:18 PM
Under Texas law, I find it interesting that they don't use fresh pursuit
under the Deadly Force to Protect Property, but use it under the Protection of One's Own Property? What am I missing here?

If you enjoyed reading about "How many know?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!