Duramaximum
Member
Delete
Last edited:
Delete
- Thread starter Duramaximum
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Hey, I think you left out a piece of the story! Which thing was the immediate unlawful threat of grave injury or death which was justification for threatening them with firearms?
I'm sure I missed it, but you should really include it because the way it is written it sounds terribly like you and your group (left your own campsite to confront some people in another site, and) brandished weapons (a felonious assault) to scare off a few noisy partiers from using a camp site near yours.
I'm sure that's not what happened, so maybe you should clarify.
I'm sure I missed it, but you should really include it because the way it is written it sounds terribly like you and your group (left your own campsite to confront some people in another site, and) brandished weapons (a felonious assault) to scare off a few noisy partiers from using a camp site near yours.
I'm sure that's not what happened, so maybe you should clarify.
Sounds like some drunks just out tearing stuff up.
Don't even think this would have justified firearms (although having them ready sure doesn't hurt). I wouldn't have brought them to bear unless they were actively trying to run over tents or something (e.g. at that point the vehicle is a weapon).
Just an FYI, but in some states it's a felony (assault with a deadly weapon) to point a firearm at someone.
Illinois is a little blurry that way.
Pointing a firearm at someone (to make them leave your property, for instance) can earn you a prison sentence.
Meanwhile, SHOOTING someone on your property when you have reason to believe they are committing a felony, is protected under State Law.
I almost ran afoul of this once at my old computer shop - I had to brandish a firearm to stop a random person from jumping the counter. He fled; right to the police station. When the detectives showed up they asked me (repeatedly) if I had pointed the firearm at the person. I answered "No", repeatedly. (I had not)
If I *had* pointed the firearm at the person half-way over my front counter, I would have been arrested.
If I had SHOT them, I would have been in the clear, because they were obviously in the process of committing a felony (robbery, assault, what have you).
But if I'd POINTED the weapon at them and NOT shot them, I would have been tried.
There is no "self defense" plea for "assault with a deadly weapon" - by definition this includes pointing a firearm at someone.
Our laws EVERYWHERE are so blurry, you need to be very careful.
DO NOT POINT A WEAPON AT SOMEONE UNLESS YOU IMMEDIATELY PLAN ON PULLING THE TRIGGER. EVER.
Don't even think this would have justified firearms (although having them ready sure doesn't hurt). I wouldn't have brought them to bear unless they were actively trying to run over tents or something (e.g. at that point the vehicle is a weapon).
Just an FYI, but in some states it's a felony (assault with a deadly weapon) to point a firearm at someone.
Illinois is a little blurry that way.
Pointing a firearm at someone (to make them leave your property, for instance) can earn you a prison sentence.
Meanwhile, SHOOTING someone on your property when you have reason to believe they are committing a felony, is protected under State Law.
I almost ran afoul of this once at my old computer shop - I had to brandish a firearm to stop a random person from jumping the counter. He fled; right to the police station. When the detectives showed up they asked me (repeatedly) if I had pointed the firearm at the person. I answered "No", repeatedly. (I had not)
If I *had* pointed the firearm at the person half-way over my front counter, I would have been arrested.
If I had SHOT them, I would have been in the clear, because they were obviously in the process of committing a felony (robbery, assault, what have you).
But if I'd POINTED the weapon at them and NOT shot them, I would have been tried.
There is no "self defense" plea for "assault with a deadly weapon" - by definition this includes pointing a firearm at someone.
Our laws EVERYWHERE are so blurry, you need to be very careful.
DO NOT POINT A WEAPON AT SOMEONE UNLESS YOU IMMEDIATELY PLAN ON PULLING THE TRIGGER. EVER.
HoosierQ
Member
About 47 mistakes will be pointed out to you.
YOU escalated.
YOU were the one committing the crime and/or endagering the public and/or yourself.
YOU goofed.
But I'll let everybody else pile on. It happens. You're gonna be real surprised how this thread's gonna go. Hope you got a thick skin.
YOU escalated.
YOU were the one committing the crime and/or endagering the public and/or yourself.
YOU goofed.
But I'll let everybody else pile on. It happens. You're gonna be real surprised how this thread's gonna go. Hope you got a thick skin.
Last edited:
I'd be less worried about the particular make and model of gun than whether they were necessary in the first place. I'm not saying I would have gone to investigate unarmed, but bring drunk and stupid isn't a reason I'd aim a gun at someone. Not trying to put you down, that's just my first thought after reading the story.
There is a certain mindset in your post that seems to be present, with the details on who carried what gun, training etc, that seems to suggest that these drunks made your day. Just my sense. No matter how well armed and trained you are, it just doesn't make sense to confront if there is no immediate and real threat.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
In EVERY state it is a felonious assault to point a firearm at someone. Your only recourse to avoid conviction is to have an affirmative defense -- a justification for why you HAD to do that in order to keep yourself from being injured or killed.
In a few states, threatening someone with a firearm is considered "force" (not deadly force) and may be lawful to prevent crimes of somewhat lesser natures like theft. But you'd better know the law very clearly.
Following someone and scaring them away from a nearby campsite at gunpoint is a very serious offense.
DammitBoy
Member
What would you have done if a drunk with a beer can in his hand had ignored your threat and entered your camp?
Tommygunn
Member
Duramaximum said:
Certainly a LEO would understand what the laws concerning firearms were. This leads me to believe that something is likely being left out of the story, being misconstrued, or has not been explained correctly.
I am not suggesting that it's OK to aim guns at people sans justification but I simply think there's something missing.
Everyone has a point, not to be a nag! I get a pound of provention thing! Everyone is right Never do that again! If we all were judged like you were going to do, there would be alot less people on the planet! Everyone does something stupid, learn from this! FYI, it doesnt matter whose with you! Police in other states,dont like others practicing law in their backyard! I know we gave you a hard time on here, but its really for your own good. Keep your weapon ready, but not in plain sight! Never threaten anyone, unless you are being threatened! Deadly force is a last final option!
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Yeah I hate to say it man, but you escalated this.
Did you think about asking them politely to be quite and leave? Sure have a gun on hand, but out of sight, in case they were armed and decided to attack you.
Then you all went looking for them like some sort of vigilanty justice squad?
I realize you guys were upset and probably half asleep, but you are pretty lucky not to be in the newspaper and in jail.
I wasn't there so I'm going off of what you wrote, but it sounds like you guys handled this the exact opposite way you should have to be legally, or even logically justified in any way.
If they had threatend you, or ignored a request to leave you and yours in peace, well that's a little different. But all you did was tell them to "Get the
out of there." That's a great way to start a fight. I probably would have asked them if they needed help as a polite way to get them to leave. Even a drunk usually responds well if you ask them if they need anything. Your LEO buddy could have hidden in the shadows to watch the situation and jump in if need be.
I can't believe you had an LEO with you and this is how things went down. He of all people should know better.
Did you think about asking them politely to be quite and leave? Sure have a gun on hand, but out of sight, in case they were armed and decided to attack you.
Then you all went looking for them like some sort of vigilanty justice squad?
I realize you guys were upset and probably half asleep, but you are pretty lucky not to be in the newspaper and in jail.
I wasn't there so I'm going off of what you wrote, but it sounds like you guys handled this the exact opposite way you should have to be legally, or even logically justified in any way.
If they had threatend you, or ignored a request to leave you and yours in peace, well that's a little different. But all you did was tell them to "Get the
out of there." That's a great way to start a fight. I probably would have asked them if they needed help as a polite way to get them to leave. Even a drunk usually responds well if you ask them if they need anything. Your LEO buddy could have hidden in the shadows to watch the situation and jump in if need be.I can't believe you had an LEO with you and this is how things went down. He of all people should know better.
And even in those States it's still a criminal assault unless justified by being necessary to prevent an imminent attack or felony.Sam1911 said:
Bottom line is that in general a display of a firearm in a threatening manner is a criminal act unless a reasonable and prudent person in the same situation would conclude that it was necessary to prevent immediate, otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to an innocent (in a few States that might also extend to preventing an immediate violent or forcible felony).
But in no State is a threatening display of a firearm justified merely to stop raucous behavior.
mgmorden
Member
How many cases lately have their been where cops have harassed people over recording them? Not only does THAT show ignorance of the law (every attempt to ever restrict a citizen's right to record has been struck down by the courts), but generally they don't like to be filmed because of how poorly many of them act.
At this point aside from minor traffic violations many LEO's really don't know the intricacies of the law that well. In particular too to many that LEO status gives many a sense of authority to "do whatever they want" when legally they just don't have that power.
Not only that, but given how wildly laws vary from state to state, a California LAWYER wouldn't even be up to speed on the laws in Montana, much less a patrolman.
All in all though, this doesn't sound good. Another party was at a campsite. Drunk and disruptive sure, but that generally doesn't give you the legal authority to enforce your will at gunpoint.
My guess, given their intoxicated state nothing will come of it, but based on what was posted it doesn't sound like the OP's actions were rational, justifiable, or legal.
788Ham
Member
I think you now realize you done screwed up! Cooler minds didn't prevail !
Tommygunn
Member
mgmorden said:
So, because some LEOs don't like being taped, THIS LEO must be wrong?
I was trying to suggest an alternate possibility. Maybe I'm wrong but if I am I doubt it will be because some LEOs arrest people for taping them.
Tinman357
Member
But, but, but, there was an out of state, out of jurisdiction policeman there. No wrong done. Nothing to see here. Move on. Nice ending BTW. Nobody hurt and families protected. Illegal actions are for the courtroom. Not a dark, secluded campsite with a drunk driver tearing around.
1KPerDay
Member
I think you did great. Drunken, inconsiderate idiots got what they deserved, IMO.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Absent a whole lot of missing information, or the admission that the entire story is a fabrication, he did NOT do "GREAT."
Felonious actions are not to be lauded and this is a clear description of his party breaking the law.
Neither intoxicated, nor being inconsiderate rises to the level of a threat that needs to be met with a threat of lethal force, nor justifies such action under the law.
Last edited:
Gunnerboy
Member
I see no threat from the noisy idiots....... So because my neighbor is loud and drunk i should go threaten him and tell him he should leave????? by pointing a weapon at him....hmm i wonder why people dislike firearm enthusiasts, I think we see one valid reason in the OP.
"it was go-time"?
seriously?
funny how different a jury's reaction would be to "i was afraid for my life" versus "it was go-time"
personally, i'm guessing the OP story was entirely fabricated, but that's mostly because i just can't imagine someone actually saying "it was go-time".
seriously?
funny how different a jury's reaction would be to "i was afraid for my life" versus "it was go-time"
personally, i'm guessing the OP story was entirely fabricated, but that's mostly because i just can't imagine someone actually saying "it was go-time".
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
What you did was escalate a drunken disturbance into a potentially deadly force encounter. What you may have also done (depending on local laws) is committed a crime similar to the charge of "Menacing - felony" that we have here in Colorado. Your LEO friend should have known better. I guarantee that wasn't a response that would have been deemed acceptable by his employing department under the set of circumstances you described.
Aside from acting loud, swearing, and driving drunk, what exactly did these suspects do? Where did you guys reach the point that pulling out a weapon was necessary for protection against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury?
Your detailed description of your firearms and your statement about it being "go-time" gives me a hunch that you guys were just a bit too eager to show off your superior "firepower". First, you had no authority to make them vacate the other campsite, though I can completely understand why you wouldn't want them there. More importantly, you ordered them to leave and then menaced them with a weapon when they didn't listen to your request. Not a good idea.
Honestly, your best bet probably would have been to:
1) ignore them
2) go outside with a concealed weapon (which you would KEEP concealed) and politely and firmly ask them to leave your campsite
3) call the local authorities if that was possible in the area where you were camping
People get drunk and party sometimes, and it is certainly true that the actions of drunken partiers can amount to unlawful activity (drunken driving, for example). That still doesn't give you legal cause to go outside and threaten them with a gun.
IS THIS A TRUE STORY? If so, you might want to give some serious thought to the responsibilities that are involved with firearms ownership. The impression that I get from reading your account of this event is that you guys were really into the idea of playing backwoods commandos, and I think that kind of mentality reflects poorly on most gun owners.
Aside from acting loud, swearing, and driving drunk, what exactly did these suspects do? Where did you guys reach the point that pulling out a weapon was necessary for protection against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury?
Your detailed description of your firearms and your statement about it being "go-time" gives me a hunch that you guys were just a bit too eager to show off your superior "firepower". First, you had no authority to make them vacate the other campsite, though I can completely understand why you wouldn't want them there. More importantly, you ordered them to leave and then menaced them with a weapon when they didn't listen to your request. Not a good idea.
Honestly, your best bet probably would have been to:
1) ignore them
2) go outside with a concealed weapon (which you would KEEP concealed) and politely and firmly ask them to leave your campsite
3) call the local authorities if that was possible in the area where you were camping
People get drunk and party sometimes, and it is certainly true that the actions of drunken partiers can amount to unlawful activity (drunken driving, for example). That still doesn't give you legal cause to go outside and threaten them with a gun.
IS THIS A TRUE STORY? If so, you might want to give some serious thought to the responsibilities that are involved with firearms ownership. The impression that I get from reading your account of this event is that you guys were really into the idea of playing backwoods commandos, and I think that kind of mentality reflects poorly on most gun owners.
Last edited:
ny32182
Member
Exactly.
Looking for trouble; lucky you didn't find it. Sheesh.
Duramaximum
Member
I'll put this out there for the sake of some clarification.
- I felt threatened when they almost hit the camper we were staying in.
- I let the LEO cousin do the talking
- We hid behind his pickup, they couldn't see us from where we were standing through the brush
- I never aimed my weapon at them, only the LEO cousin did after they said they had a gun
- We were out of cell-phone range
- I pretty much knew I was going to get flamed for this but I figured 'What the heck, what's done is done.'
- I felt threatened when they almost hit the camper we were staying in.
- I let the LEO cousin do the talking
- We hid behind his pickup, they couldn't see us from where we were standing through the brush
- I never aimed my weapon at them, only the LEO cousin did after they said they had a gun
- We were out of cell-phone range
- I pretty much knew I was going to get flamed for this but I figured 'What the heck, what's done is done.'
- Status
