Person Playing Cop claims to have CCW in DE makes me feel better its NOT Shall issue

The bottom line for all this backing and forthing about opinions is that there are prerequisites: First, know what are your state laws pertaining to the use of deadly force where third parties are involved.

Second, some common sense about where and how severe are the threats you observe: What sort of intervention, if any, are needed?

The Kitty Genovese case (see Wikipedia) was clearly a case for armed intervention. Others may well not be.

And for cryin' out loud, keep your hypothets somewhere in the realm of real life.

Art

Speaking of ego Deavis, like I said, jump on in. Let your ego write whatever checks you think your life can cash. Just remember that your actions will be used by antis against all of us. What you don't understand is that you are not the one who decides the correctness of your actions in light of what the law says. Whether it is naivety, immaturity, or just plain narcissism I don't know, nor do I care.

Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point that you are out of your mind with your own parent ego. Again, you have yet to refute my answer or say that it is incorrect with facts. As good old Foghorn Leghorn says, "Your gums are flapping but ain't nothing comin out." My ego isn't writing checks I can't cash, it is simply pointing out facts.

You asked whether I would shoot and I have given you my answer. You say that all sorts of bad stuff could happen because I said IF THE LAW ALLOWS IT AND THE SHOOTER DECIDED IT IS OKAY, THEN HE COULD SHOOT. Your examples have nothing to do with my answer and furthermore what happens afterwards is uncontrollable.

No logical person can prefetch what will happen when he makes the decision to shoot however if he has the law on his side then he has nothing to worry about. You want to prefetch all sorts of ridiculous emotional and rhetoric based things and I won't let you get away with such a disingenuous puffed up self-aggrandizing stance. You say you are trying to educate and I say you are trying to manipulate.

A man cannot and should not be expected to calmly consider what MIGHT happen after he defends his life during an episode. He must know the law and act accordingly. Either he was within the law or he wasn't when he shot. Show me a case where a man was within the law when he shot and was found guilty. Dispute it using a few facts this time around rather than all that useless hot air you are throwing my way. Don't use emotional BS, racial stereotyping, or anything that is otherwise ridiculous. Give me cites. Prove it to me or accept that you can't and are just writing to try and solidify your fortress of play sand. You are trying to be your student's Dad and it is sad.

Attorneys aren't cheap. If you have piles of spare cash laying around be my guest, play superhero all you want.

Click to expand...

Didn't see this gem. Again, ridiculous rhetoric ratched up to hide any hint of logical discourse in this thread. We have yet to see the vast knowledge of IC brought to bear in a useful way. I can't wait to see the cites to back up how many times a "superhero" has been sent to jail when he shot and the law was on his side. This is going to be so great for my case study work.

Wether or not this guy had a permit or the shall issue/may issue stuff would have changed the outcome of this HOW??????? He broke the law if he had a permit or NOT! What kind of liberal thinking is that? We should restrict the rights of everyone because some jerk abuse his rights. Faulty logic at best. DANGEROUS logic at its worst.

I can carry legally in my state. If I point my weapon at people without justification I'm breaking the law!! Making it more difficult for people to get permits is going to stop retards and criminals from having guns. You should know that.

Now I would probably prefer to see a shall issue permit system, rather than the may issue we have now, but on the other hand it screens out some of the ninjas and wanna be cops who probably shouldnt have a license like this gent here:

Click to expand...

So, what you are saying is that because this one man might have abused his 2A rights, you would infringe those rights from everyone else?

That makes no sense at all, unless you are perhaps a Kindergarten teacher.

Yeah, gangbangers shoot each other all the time, but it's sure as hell no reason to ban guns from all of us...

playing cop

Well since I live Delaware I might have a little more knowledge of what happened. First is to NOT believe anything the paper reports. It had 3 different takes on what happened as well as an editorial that didn't jive with any of the 3 stories the paper published. That makes 4 completly different stories of the same incident.

What is clear is that somebody decided to get involved with something that wasn't life threatening and pulled out 1 of 3 guns that were in his vehicle. None of the guns were loaded and he was incapable of producing a CCDW. Open carry is allowed in this state.

The handgun safety course I took was 12 hours(required for CCDW) not 4. Their are no hourly requirements for CCDW but they DO have a list of thing that HAVE to be covered before receiving a CCDW.

There are NO laws on the books for open carry.Anyone(except felons) over 21 can carry any deadly weapon if it's not concealed. Without a CCDW the gun in the glove compartment and the one under his seat would be considered concealed even without ammo. If he is able to produce a permit for court those charges will be dropped.

Our laws also give you more rights in protecting a 3rd party the they do for protecting yourself.

What he did was stupid and not all the facts are known. Good chance that he'll do some time and if he had a CCDW it will be revoked. If he gets a felony conviction on his record he won't be allowed to own guns anymore. So for an idiot who gets involved in someone else's business he will certainly find the law not on his side.

This incident has very little to to with CCDW and weather it shall or may issue.
It has more to do with someone not thinking very straight,getting involved with something that isn't life threatening and pointing an unloaded gun at others. Threatening and pretending to be something he wasn't(LEO) and having do deal with the legal ramifications of that stupidity.

Just an FYI for folks out there who aren't familiar with "The News Journal" who all of these idiot reporters work for, the entire news paper is written by folks who clearly did not have to pass a spelling test, a grammar test let alone produce any previously written pieces prior to being hired. Its the largest news paper in the state (we're not that big) and its all pure one sided CRAP!

However! DSP made a good arrest. The courts here suck and typically allow folks to be nolle prossed with a year probation.

Deavis and others raise the issue is deadly force appropriate for breaking up a fist fight? No, it is not and never will be. What kind of world is this where trading punches is life threatening?

Click to expand...

Okay I can't let this one pass.

I have, with my own eyes, witnessed two fatalities after single (un)lucky punches. I also witnessed someone turned into a parapalegic by two (just two) solid hits to the lower spine/kidney area by an enraged but otherwise average sized guy.

Now I'm not saying draw instantly under any circumstances but I am saying that if you are actually in a situation where someone attacks you with "just fists" they are still ATTACKING YOU WITH A WEAPON and failing to recognize that fact can have severe consequences for you as the victim.

so please try to keep in mind that you need to ignore the "just fists" part and remember the "attacking" part.

Deavis and others raise the issue is deadly force appropriate for breaking up a fist fight?

Click to expand...

No offense, but you must have seen some pretty laid back fist fights if there was no threat of severe bodily harm or death.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329827,00.html

^+1

It sounds like he went straight for his gun. Bad move.

First of all, he could have called the police, and announced that he had done so to the people fighting in the parking lot. Instead, he escalated the situation by introducing a deadly weapon. Sorry, but he's no better than the guys who were fighting in the first place. What if all three had decided to disarm him?

Second, one of the people being held at gunpoint calls the police? Umm.. who do you think they're going to believe?

1st move when you see a fight that doesn't involve you: Call the police!
2nd move: Tell the fighters you've called the police.
The very last resort: Break up the fight yourself.

I skimmed the OP and title, and will say this. I hate it when people judge a group of which I am a part based on one idiot. This one idiot should not affect my rights or yours to keep and bear arms.