So...just when is it acceptable to pull your gun?

[Soybomb]

But, in my opinion I think the crime should fit the punishment, and brandishing or shooting at an unarmed robber isn't right. (or legal in my state)

What state do you live in? I can't imagine we have a state that doesn't allow a victim to defend themselves against someone threatening them with harm.

Remember that concealed carry isn't about punishment or justice, its about defending yourself. A robber doesn't need to be armed to hurt you in a serious way. If someone threatens my well being for my property shouldn't I be able to effectively defend myself against them, armed or otherwise? Why should I have to box the robber?

 

[welldoya]

Check your state laws. I wouldn't rely on internet advice for something so serious.

 

[Templar223]

Reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury.

Just because you pull it in those circumstances doesn't mean you're gonna shoot. Just because a BG is 'bought and paid for' doesn't mean you should shoot.

Mr. M&PVolk: Get some formal training if you really want to know. While the internet is great, you probably wouldn't necessarily risk a felony because you "thought" you understood what someone you don't know wrote.

There are some good resources on this site, but you never know when someone isn't what they purport to be in terms of credentials when posting online.

John

 

[MattTheHat]

As others have said, the legality of he matter will vary from location to location. A couple of months ago, I had to make this decision at 3AM, while waiting for the bad guys (who had robbed my place in the country many times over the previous weeks) to make another visit.

I realize my Sheriff's department has limited resources. After a half dozen break-ins and losing over $20,000 worth of personal property and equipment, it dawned on me that if I wanted to retain any of what was left, I would have to make a stand by myself. For me, the decision was fairly easy, as one of the bad guys broke my gate open and then immediately started shining a gun-shaped flashlight around as he led the other bad guys in their 4x4 into my property.

In Texas, I have the right to protect my property, as the Sheriff's deputy made sure I understood. Even so, he agreed it was very fortunate that the bad guy's flash light looked like a gun, in case they tried to sue me for damages (which they have not).

To make a long story short, I drew my weapon and took two shots. The first hit the radiator, and the second hit one of the headlights. A high speed chase ensued while I called 911. Within 5 miles the bad guys' truck was having serious overheating problems, so they went off road. The truck died less than a half mile later, and was impounded the following day. The bad guys escaped on foot.

Interestingly, the bad guys have apparently decided to leave my property alone. At least they haven't yet returned in the 8 weeks since. Had I not made a stand, drawn and shot, I'm guessing they would have come back any number of additional times. It was never my intention to shoot anything but the truck. And I would have been seriously bothered if I would have hit any of them. (Which is why I didn't discharge any of the other 80 rounds or so I had at the ready.)

Your mileage may very (especially depending on location).


-Matt

 

[Seotaji]

IMO, the laws I live under come very close to declaring that the large and strong have a right to take stuff from the small and weak.

That's exactly what the law says IMO. They would rather you get hurt and/or killed instead of being able to protect yourself. No consideration for women or handicapped individuals.

A crime to protect yourself. Terrible.

 

[M&PVolk]

Just for the record, I didn't start this thread because I am unaware of the legalities in my state, but rather to get a feel for the moral aspect of the matter. I have had training and am a CCW holder.

Most CCW holders seem to understand the law, but the law doesn't necessarily reflect the morals of each individual. Even though it might be lawful to draw, moral convictions may lead you to another course of action. I find these perspectives quite interesting.

 

[FCFC]

To make a long story short, I drew my weapon and took two shots. The first hit the radiator, and the second hit one of the headlights. A high speed chase ensued while I called 911. Within 5 miles the bad guys' truck was having serious overheating problems, so they went off road. The truck died less than a half mile later, and was impounded the following day. The bad guys escaped on foot.

Can you clarify? You chased them in your vehicle? Or the cops chased them?

 

[MattTheHat]

Can you clarify? You chased them in your vehicle? Or the cops chased them?

FCFC,

I followed them as best I could while calling 911. The responding deputy arrived at the spot where the bad guys left the road about 3-4 minutes late. This particular county doesn't have an off road vehicle, so they were unable to follow them, which is how they were able to escape on foot. At 3 AM in that part of Texas, a high speed chase is much safer than you would likely imagine.

All of the four deputies who eventually arrived before I finished completing the report seemed quite entertained by the thought of the bad guys being fired upon. I was not asked to surrender my weapon--they didn't even ask to see it. In fact, I don't recall even being asked if I hit any of the bad guys. The deputies seemed far more interested in knowing what size hole they were going to find in the radiator. They each nodded approvingly when I answered .452".

The reason I posted this little story was to point out *the actual need* for citizens to be able to protect their property. I don't know how many deputies the county has (I do know that on weekends, there are only three on duty), who are trying as best they can to protect over 850 square miles. If the economy gets much worse, this *need* to protect one's property is going to become more and more apparent.

Taking away a citizen's right to protect his/her property is tantamount to requiring them to hand it over at the bad guy's request. I'm guessing the insurance industry thinks it's a great idea. :banghead:

-Matt

 

[moga]

Yelling/charging my car in a rage without a firearm? No. I'll leave them to yell at my tail lights while I continue on my way.
Breaking into my home forcibly while I'm home? Yes. Change directions or prepare to be shot. It has absolutely nothing to do with protection of property.
Armed with a weapon in close proximity to me/mine and looking for a victim? Better believe it.
To dissuade a non-personable character from perceived or actual surveillance while out on foot in some public space? No. There are many other tactics to employ first.
A man running out of my home with my laptop as I pull in the drive way? Not me. I'd rather be a good witness.
Disparity of force/multiple attackers? Yes. Terminate your attempt at attack or prepare to be forcibly discouraged.

Short of a hot invasion of my home or an obvious deadly encounter involving an armed adversary, I will not draw unless other circumstances are present because those are the only instances when I am fully committed to shoot.

Georgia does not have protection of property statutes. However we do have Castle Doctrine and protection from civil liability suits in cases of justifiable homicide.

Edit: Would I ever shoot through a door without identifying a target, even if I have reasonable suspicion to believe that some one is trying to get in that wishes me harm? Nope. Nothing good can come out of that. Either they're in or they aren't. Until they are actually in my dwelling then I am safe from harm. There isn't sufficient need for lethal force.

Someone in my neighborhood shot a kid through the door last year without indictment. I really thought that he was going to get the book thrown at him. He'd seen someone peering through his window then twisting the knob. Said he dispatched a few rounds from his handgun to scare the fools off. Two days later, a neighbor on an abutting street found a body in her back yard while preparing to do some gardening. His baggy pants were gathered around his ankles according to the write up in the local paper.

 

[mewachee]

I think it is important to distinguish between carry, brandishing and shooting. I know, these are obvious what they actually are. What I take from this question is this, how can I justify carrying, brandishing or shooting?

1st, I think carrying a weapon of any sort is like driving my Tahoe, or carrying a bat, or any other action a free person would do. You have a right to ask why I drive a gas guzzler, but I don't have to explain why I do.

2nd, to me brandishing is not much different that threatening a person with a fist, a bat or my suv. If I were to use any of those tools to tell you to stand down or back away, I am justified.

3rd, shooting is the same punching, hitting with a bat and so on. If I would feel justified to use those, based on degrees of threat of course, then shooting shooting stands as well.

I will give you a for instance. On the 4th, I was packing up my family to go to the parade. Our neighbor son in law has two guard/fighting type dogs which have given us problems in the past (I won't tell the breed, because I don't want to send this thread astray). My daughter was coming around the car to the side facing the dogs and their owner. One of the dogs barked and approached us. This dog, standing at eye level with my daughter, growled at her, at 4' from her.

I second guessed myself, but fortunately I redeemed myself in a split second and stepped between the dog and my daughter, then got in the dogs face and threatened it sternly with a finger and a deep voice.

I was O.C.ing a .40 at the time, I will not second guess that situation again.

The weird thing was that the guy came around the car and said, "Don't even think about it." He was concern for his dog over my daughter. He proceeded to argue with me irrationally for five minutes or so. The next time the dog goes down, and I get a ticket.

My point, irregardless of the weapon or tool in my possession, I would use it to the degree I deemed necessary. Just because it may be a gun shouldn't deter me from deter someone or something else. I am always so long winded.

 

[mewachee]

Short of a hot invasion of my home or an obvious deadly encounter involving an armed adversary, I will not draw unless other circumstances are present because those are the only instances when I am fully committed to shoot.

I agree to a point, but drawing and aiming are just steps that get you to a point where you can shoot. The final decision isn't until just before you pull a trigger. Aiming a firearm in the direction of anyone or anything just says that I am ready and willing to pull this trigger. As I was saying so long windily in my previous thread, choking up on a bat is appropriate for some situations, and swinging it is appropriate for others.

 

[gym]

It's all about the individuals fear level, if you are in fear of losing your life or the lives of you family and or an innocent victim/friend. From the actions of another.who has the will and intent, and means to take your lives, You have the right to defend those lives. I don't think that a reasonable man can argue that you were neglegent if such a situation occured. You can't muddle around with this, or you will second guess youself into an early grave,
Your actions must be deliberate and steadfast, once you start thinking things like what if this or that happens, you are dead or you got lucky. When I took my carry test in NY in the early 70's, the Officer who was giving the verbal interview, "that's the way it was done back then", also asked me if I minded that he was training a new officer, and if it was ok that he sat in. I said of course not, "what else can you say", he then introduced the officer we shook hands and he sat down with us, he then told the officer that he was going to ask me, a few questions. I had that feeling, you know the one you get when you know that you better get this right, or your out of the parade. So he did it, he asked me Sir do you know when you are allowed to use "deadly force", I thought and said to myself don't over think this, So I asked if he wanted me to give an example, and he said that would be fine. So I said, , if I am walking down the street, and a man pulls a gun and points it at me, I can pull my gun, and shoot to kill. He turned to the other officer and said, you see, Mr xxx. knows the use of deadlly force. That's the kind of answer we want to hear. He also told me that there were only 2 times that a permit holder was allowed to shoot to kill without warning, "I don't know if these are still the case, so please don't take this as gospel", but they were, If you see someone committing 'arson', or 'forced sodomy'. I could never figure out how one could be sure of the second one, but figured I probablly would never have to concern myself with that one. He said that I would be hearing something back in 30 days, a day and a half later, my permit was granted. I carried in NY from 1974 to 1996, when I sold my business, and left for sunny Florida. It saved my life on 3 occasions.

 

[XD Fan]

I am going to answer and then read the logic of others. After I have read the other responses, I'll see if my thinking is affected by the reasoning of others.

Anyway, I believe it is ethical to draw a firearm (with the distinct possibility of using it in a lethal manner) if the life or welfare of an innocent or the righteous (i.e. the good guys) is endangered by an evil person or a dangerous animal.