allaroundhunter
Member
On the family farm I have had to draw and fire on an aggressive dog. I have never had to fire on another person, however, and don't ever want to be put in the position that I need to.
heeler: "His beef was that I had the audacity to have a relationship with his ex wife and he could not handle it and came forcefully to try and change my mind."
Given the choice of being shot or being the one shooting, trust me, being shot is a lot less fun... Adrenaline-wise, they're probably about the same... All in all though, I kind of prefer to end the day with the same amount of blood that I started with... I haven't always managed that during my life, but I figure it is a good goal to shoot for... (no pun intended)...Yes. Wasn't fun.
Now, THAT is some screwed up laws.Then he returned to my office and said "You're fine, but only because you didn't point the weapon at him. If you pointed the weapon at the man, we would have to arrest you for assault with a deadly weapon. You are allowed to carry in a fixed place of business, per Illinois law, there's no problem there. Just remember never to point a weapon at someone unless you are afraid for your life, and need to shoot them."
Actually, that seems fairly leniet. Certainly common to the laws of most states. Pointing a firearm at someone is usually considered Assault, which is a felony. You must have VERY significant justification for doing so -- usually just about the same justification as you'd need to present if you were to actually shoot him. The cop gave extremely good advice, "never point a weapon at someone unless you're afraid for your life."Now, THAT is some screwed up laws.
You may think so, but it is the law in almost every state in the union and in all US territories.Posted by CollinLeon: Now, THAT [(...never ... point a weapon at someone unless you are afraid for your life, and need to shoot them)] is some screwed up laws.
It is best to not state in a public forum that one might have committed, or would likely commit, a felony. Matter of fact, that's addressed in the forum rules.You trespass on my property, you are likely to have a gun pointed at you. Hell, I even pointed a gun at my daughter's boyfriend once when I caught them behind the house swapping spit.
Caution!
Let's exercise some care here, folks.
Presenting a firearm is serious business, and in a confrontational situation, doing so is unlawful unless it is justified. The threshold for justification varies among jurisdictions, but in most states, a civilian may not lawfully do so except when engaged in lawful self defense.
Should one ever have to do so, it is a very good idea to be the first to report the incident. That can reduce the likelihood of being regarded as a suspect from the outset, should the other party, or another witness, report something different from your account of the incident.
It is also a good idea to avoid the creation of unfavorable evidence regarding such an incident by placing statements on a public forum where there is no expectation of privacy.
Everything posted on THR can have significant long term impacts on public opinion, on the reputation of THR, the staff, and our members.
Advocacy of any kind of unlawful or clearly unethical conduct is not permitted.
Everyone who posts here or anywhere else on the Internet should understand that such posts are permanent, and they may be subject to discovery in legal proceedings at any time in the future. Should any member ever find himself or herself involved in such proceedings, posts containing comments that could be interpreted unfavorably could prove damaging.
You may think so, but it is the law in almost every state in the union and in all US territories.
One may lawfully point a firearm at another person under some circumstances in which when deadly force is not justified in Minnesota and in Texas, but only when force is legally justified.
It is best to not state in a public forum that one might have committed, or would likely commit, a felony. Matter of fact, that's addressed in the forum rules.
Read and heed this, which was posted earlier in this thread (Post #40):
....and read and comply with the rules of the forum; here are two very relevant excerpts:
It is strongly suggested that anyone who has not yet read the rules do so.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
Not so fast! The operative words are "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". That means that the actor had reason to believe that he or she had no other way of terminating the trespass; someone else will judge, based on the evidence, whether the actor's belief had been reasonable. Should the trespasser later claim that he or she was not even asked to leave, whether that is true or not, the man or woman with the gun will be in a lot of trouble.Posted by CollinLeon: Perfectly legal in Texas... [(pointing a gun at a trespasser)]
In this Internet age, many people have found it is easy to search for and read the state criminal codes. A warning is in order: trying to interpret a particular law in isolation by using lay dictionary definitions can lead to erroneous conclusions. Case law—decisions rendered by high courts in the interpretation of the laws—and relationships among other pertinent laws and constitutional principles can have as much to do with the real meaning of the law as the words in a single statute.
For this reason, we strongly discourage the rote cutting and pasting into posts of state legal codes to support one’s position in a discussion here, and we advise against the reliance on same to justify the lawfulness of a particular course of action.
Such reliance is particularly dangerous when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force. The use of a weapon, and even its display by a civilian in many circumstances, is normally an unlawful act. Relying upon a layman’s interpretation of the code to justify the use of a weapon is usually not a good idea. Probably the safest philosophy is that a deadly weapon should be used only when it is immediately necessary and when there is no alternative.