Taking the Shot - Would YOU?

[brownie0486]

Okay,
Just got the call back from the head atty at the criminal division and licensing authority for the State of Arizona.

He stated there is no "duty" to intercede on another citizens behalf as a private citizen with a ccw license here.

He stated the law is that I do not have a duty to retreat, I also may be pressed for assistance by law enforcement officers and have a duty to assist, if asked, and if I refuse to assist an officer in the state I can be held criminally responsible.

So, there you have it. He told me this:

"You apparently were talking to the horses ass, and by making this call to us, you are now talking to the horses mouth on this issue"

I thought that comment was priceless myself.

Brownie

 

[FIREARMZ]

That sounds more like what one would expect. Sounds dead on to me!

 

[NineseveN]

I also know of no law that covers all 50 states (or any off the top of my head really) that suggests that not using a CCW is "failure to render aid" and criminally actionable.

Please cite the law and state.

 

[TCB in TN]

What?

RKBAman
New Member

Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 28 Quote:
You have not done so, but you have now reiterated your statements that this is true. Please provide the statute, specifically, that states I have to render aid to anyone when deadly force is justifiable or suffer potential criminal charges anywhere in the US as a ccw card holder.


Varies state to state, which in my case is Texas. That being Chapter 3, subchapter D, PC 9.43. While the handbook doesn't spell it out every state requires, in different ways, that a person capable of rendering aid must (to the point in Texas you can use deadly force to even stop a suicide). I don't claim to know all the laws but I know ignorance my be bliss but is no excuse for ignoring to follow the law. While this is state level its quickly becoming a federal law.


Quote:
Being a paramedic does not covey any professional knowledge to the proposition you have made here where rendered aid, or more specifically, lack therof to another has criminality attached to it as a ccw card member.



Actually it does. Consider a non-ccw like a non-medical professional. Good Samaritan laws protect those people from no acting. Now consider a paramedic like a ccw holder who has the power to render aid effectively. Good Samaritan laws do not protect either.

I'd be interested to hear what Az state has to say. Again even if its not law I can't see a person who cares enough about life to protect his kids without protecting another’s from harm. That’s your choice, but keep in mind acting or not acting may both or neither lead to your arrest.

As far as the sheepdog blog, I should know what it says.. as its my blog
__________________
A primer on conceal handgun carry
http://sheepdog.blog-city.com/a_primer_to_chlccw.htm

Sorry RKBAman,
But you are way off base legally. Morally I feel I have a responsibility to help anyone I can in pretty much anyway I can. Legally I have never seen or heard anything anywhere close to what you are talking about. If that was the case then LEOs would be held responsible for not protecting you, and the recent SCOTUS ruling clearly says they cannot be. CCL require a bare minimum of training and certainly don't bring the average CCL holder to a "professional level". EMT, Dr.s and the like are "TRAINED PROFESSIONALS" and as such have a responsibility to aide, and should be held responsible if they do not. We are nothing but everyday average citizens who are merely using our God given RKBA.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Varies state to state, which in my case is Texas. That being Chapter 3, subchapter D, PC 9.43. While the handbook doesn't spell it out every state requires, in different ways, that a person capable of rendering aid must (to the point in Texas you can use deadly force to even stop a suicide). I don't claim to know all the laws but I know ignorance my be bliss but is no excuse for ignoring to follow the law. While this is state level its quickly becoming a federal law.

You appear to be incorrect on two points, just in this one paragraph. I also do not claim to know the law in all 50 states, but I have CCW licences/permits from four states and I do know that none of them require me to do anything if I see a crime in progress, and they most assuredly do not "require" me to use deadly force. They do, however, allow me to use deadly force to defend a third person under the same conditions in which I would be allowed to use deadly force in defense of myself.

As to your link ... what it says is that five states are "considering" such a law (but they don't specify that the assistance to be rendered must extend to the level of deadly force). It's a rather huge leap to get from five states considering such a law to claiming that such a law is "quickly becoming a federal law."

 

[RyanM]

Myself, my family, a child, and friends only. Though by "friend," I mean anyone I know who wouldn't sue me for, you know, saving their life.

No one else is worth risking my life for. I may be young and have no dependents now, but someone is going to have to look after my parents when they're old(er). They've used up a fair portion of their retirement funds sending me to college, and I'm an only child, so I kind of need to live longer than them.

Most other people, like strangers, I'll call 911 and be a good witness (from a safe distance), unless the situation changes to threaten me and/or mine.

Though a few people I know, I'd just call 911, say there's "a disturbance" in such-and-such a location, then walk away. Those are the people who I'm pretty sure would blame (and sue) me if their precious criminal was shot by police. The pathetic simps who fully believe that killing someone who is attempting to rape and kill a 2-year-old girl, is tantamount to cold-blooded murder. So I wouldn't want them to be able to trace the 911 call to me. Last thing I need is some weirdo on life support, throwing their blood transfusion and screaming "MURDER SOLICITOR!" at me as I walk out my front door.

I'm not always so jaded, but then I remember the woman who sued a guy who, while unarmed, took on a pedophile-rapist-murderer that was trying to kidnap, rape, and murder her and her young daughter. He broke the guy's arm in the process. She said the sight of the pedophile-rapist-murderer's arm being broken was "too traumatic" for her kid. She won the suit.

 

[NineseveN]

While the handbook doesn't spell it out every state requires, in different ways, that a person capable of rendering aid must

http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/18.Cp.5.html
Have fun finding it....it's not in there.


http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/Index.html
There's the complete statutes in case you think that it's not in that section of code.

Either prove this or retract your statement that " every state requires, in different ways, that a person capable of rendering aid must". If you cannot prove this, it is irresponsible to advocate that someone use deadly force because state law requires it. There are states that do not allow for the defense of others using deadly force, your statement is unfounded and dangerous and it does a disservice to the community as a whole. You're actually advocating actions that you say are required by law that would in all actuality have someone kill a human being via an illegal act. Do you realize that? That's bad form. So either buck up, cite the laws in all 50 states that require this (or every state that you want to say requires what you say they do) or retract that statement.

The law in many states "allows" one to render aid, in fact, here's the section of the statutes dealing with defense of others in my state, which is Pennsylvania:

§ 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons.

(a) General rule.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

1. the actor would be justified under section 505 of this title (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
2. under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
3. the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

(b) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section:

1. When the actor would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, he is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person.
2. When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way.
3. Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the dwelling or place of work of the other to any greater extent than in his own.

 

[tepin]

Originally Posted by RKBAman
While the handbook doesn't spell it out every state requires, in different ways, that a person capable of rendering aid must

This is completely 100% false when it comes to use of force. Private Citizens have no duty to intervene where someone is in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Cops are duty bound because they are chartered to serve and protect as well as seek out and lay hands on the malefactor. Ayoob covers this in his Judicious Use of Lethal Force video. You might want to buy it, its only 34.95 for the DVD and is packed with great information. In any case, your comment doesn’t even pass the common sense test.

 

[armorplate]

I would have liked to see LEO in your poll. There was a situation that happened about ten years ago in the East side of St. Paul, MN.
A car was parked in a Church parking lot,and a LEO stopped to check it out.
A man was found sleeping in the car. A confrontation insued, and the LEO was shot. The man took his time to shoot the LEO apparantly giving a good samaritan plenty of time to take out the bad guy. The dept. was upset that no one helped the officer. That was then. Things being the way they are now... All I can say is, if the situation doesn't feel right, use the cell phone.
You can't be faulted for calling 911.

 

[TeachMe]

In NC, you can intercede and use deadly force for another if they would be justified in using deadly force themself. For a stranger, this would be hard to establish, because by various actions they could be in a position where they would NOT be justified in using deadly force. By assuming the stranger is justified in using deadly force and by assuming who is the criminal, you could easily do jail time and/or lose big in a civil suit. There are only a few people for which I would be willing to make the above assumptions with the necessary consequences.

That being said, if the situation allows me to KNOW that one person is justified in using deadly force, I would like to think that I would step in. The reason I say this is because if it were my family member in that position, I would want someone to step in if they could.

 

[NineseveN]

Sorry RKBAman, your heart is probably in the right place, but you're wrong. This isn't attacking you, it's refuting your argument. It's nothing personal, honest. I cited the laws on deadly force in my state to prove my point.

For the record, I said I would choose to intervene, but your notion that it is required by law is faulty.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Please disregard RKBAman's posts - in addition to giving legal advice that is extremely questionable and unsupported by any law that I know of, he has also been banned repeatedly from THR under various names.

For me, it comes down to this - every citizen that has the same right I do to acquire a a firearm and a concealed handgun license has the opportunity to take responsibility for their own safety. If you do not value your own life enough to take that responsibility, why should I risk my own life and subject myself to the legal expenses to undertake a responsibility that you shirked?

I may make exceptions to that rule as the situation dictates; but for the most part that is my general view on using my firearm to assist others.

 

[NineseveN]

SHould I go and delete his words out of the quoted areas of my post?

 

[Roadwild17]

In the poll, there should be another group, "People that owe you a lot of money"

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

SHould I go and delete his words out of the quoted areas of my post?

That is entirely up to you. From a practical perspective, I think some of the legal advice offered is so bad it borders on dangerous; but THR members have all done a great job of explaining that it is incorrect as law and why it is generally not a good idea.

The posts were removed as part of a general policy to discourage repeat offenders from returning to THR. The idea is that hopefully when they understand that everything they have spent days writing can be wiped out in about two seconds, they will figure out that their time is better spent finding a forum that matches their needs better.

Normally, I do not comment on these things publicly; but in this case it affected the thread continuity so much that I thought I ought to explain what happened to the posts.

 

[NineseveN]

Well, as long as it's not breaking any rule, I'd rather leave it there then for the reason you stated, we did a good job of refuting that information, and hopefully some unknowing gun owner that mistakenly holds the same beliefs will be educated by the posts. If I need to change it, or if a MOD feels it is necessary, no hard feelings of course.

 

[kikr]

For my entire life I have been taught the value of protecting those that can not protect themselves. From the scouts, to the martial arts, to the military, to law enforcement, and now as a nurse, I've always been about looking out for those that can not look after themselves. Who somebody is does not describe the danger they are in. The way I see it there is no such thing as a 'only did it once" criminal. If you did see someone causing harm to another and have the means to stop it and do not. Then you just helped the criminal by not helping the victim. You just gave the criminal your blessing to commit crimes. I carry a weapon to protect my family, and just like fighting a war over sea's. I'd rather fight them there than fight them here. I'd rather stop a mutt from hurting someone else than to let them hurt someone else and have to stop them from hurting me or mine. Just my point of view.