HOWARD J
Member
@heeler
You think you can't be tried or sued under castle doctrine--THINK AGAIN
You think you can't be tried or sued under castle doctrine--THINK AGAIN
YouTupe video from CCW class.
- Thread starter Owen Sparks
- Start date
- Status
HOWARD J
Member
Are you the shooter in the video
No,not at all.
But again if some felon is coming at you with a gun his intentions are not nice and are you so worried about a damn law suit you are willing to put your life on the line???
If so perhaps you should totally rethink carrying a firearm.
This mindset has me totally confused.
But again if some felon is coming at you with a gun his intentions are not nice and are you so worried about a damn law suit you are willing to put your life on the line???
If so perhaps you should totally rethink carrying a firearm.
This mindset has me totally confused.
HOWARD J
Member
Relax--take life easy
Maybe someday your turn will come & you will be a hero
Good Luck............
Maybe someday your turn will come & you will be a hero
Good Luck............
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Ancient video, years old anyway (at least Feb 2008, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=344100&highlight=mother+clerk+motel+robber ). Whether the camera narrows the angle or not, the clerk didn't play by safe firing line, IPSC, IDPA, or Bob's Gun Range safety rules. It was a horrific travesty of breaking the 180 rule. LOL. Really???
Having to deal with a real life situation where sometimes the bad guy isn't the only one down range and that the people in danger from the bad guy are close to, but not directly in the line of fire is something that happens commonly in real life situations.
Look, the clerk didn't try to shoot between the woman and the baby or try to line up a shot that would take out the baby's pacifier and hit the clerk at the same time. You don't have to be a ninja, a copy, firearms instructor, or cowboy to make that sort of shot. Lives were in danger, including his own and he protected them. The clerk didn't break any conventional safety rules. He didn't point the gun at anything he wasn't willing to destroy. He hit was he was trying to shoot. He didn't shoot the mother or the baby. It wasn't even a hard shot to make.
Worrying that he got too close is like me worrying about all the people I almost killed driving my wife to the hospital to have a baby. I missed people by just 2 or 3 feet with my car at 60 mph hour and nobody complained or thought badly of it.
As far as debating castle doctrine here, don't bother. The robbery took place in Ohio BEFORE Ohio castle doctrine went into effect and it does NOT apply aboutside of the reside or vehicle. Your place of employment is not part of your castle.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ohio-s-castle-doctrine-gives-legal-right-to-self-defense
Having to deal with a real life situation where sometimes the bad guy isn't the only one down range and that the people in danger from the bad guy are close to, but not directly in the line of fire is something that happens commonly in real life situations.
Look, the clerk didn't try to shoot between the woman and the baby or try to line up a shot that would take out the baby's pacifier and hit the clerk at the same time. You don't have to be a ninja, a copy, firearms instructor, or cowboy to make that sort of shot. Lives were in danger, including his own and he protected them. The clerk didn't break any conventional safety rules. He didn't point the gun at anything he wasn't willing to destroy. He hit was he was trying to shoot. He didn't shoot the mother or the baby. It wasn't even a hard shot to make.
Worrying that he got too close is like me worrying about all the people I almost killed driving my wife to the hospital to have a baby. I missed people by just 2 or 3 feet with my car at 60 mph hour and nobody complained or thought badly of it.
As far as debating castle doctrine here, don't bother. The robbery took place in Ohio BEFORE Ohio castle doctrine went into effect and it does NOT apply aboutside of the reside or vehicle. Your place of employment is not part of your castle.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ohio-s-castle-doctrine-gives-legal-right-to-self-defense
Last edited:
Apachedriver
Member
The points Howard J and DNS bring up should strongly reinforce the fact of how important it is to know, in advance, the laws that apply in ones state for these situations.
Applying today's CHL laws in TX to the situation in the video, anyone in that lobby would've been justified to take actions against the armed person coming in with ill-intent as long as they reasonably felt their life, or the life of a third party was threatened. TX law also includes justification for the fact that it was in a place of business and not just a home or vehicle. It's covered under Penal Code Chapter 9, para. 9.31 and 9.32.
So the keys to deciding are knowing your local laws, and what reasonable level of threat you feel to yourself. You are justified to protect others but that's not a requirement.
ETA: TX law also provides protections against civil lawsuits resulting from the action if the defender is deemed to have acted legally and no charges are brought to bear.
If anyone knows better, please let me know.
Applying today's CHL laws in TX to the situation in the video, anyone in that lobby would've been justified to take actions against the armed person coming in with ill-intent as long as they reasonably felt their life, or the life of a third party was threatened. TX law also includes justification for the fact that it was in a place of business and not just a home or vehicle. It's covered under Penal Code Chapter 9, para. 9.31 and 9.32.
So the keys to deciding are knowing your local laws, and what reasonable level of threat you feel to yourself. You are justified to protect others but that's not a requirement.
ETA: TX law also provides protections against civil lawsuits resulting from the action if the defender is deemed to have acted legally and no charges are brought to bear.
If anyone knows better, please let me know.
Last edited:
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
I made the point to ask the instructor about the fact that the motel employee continued too fire when the criminal fled. He told me that the bad guy was still dangerous and just because he turned for a second to avoid being shot did not mean that he would not come back in and continue shooting.
Apachedriver
Member
I understand the instructor's logic but, for me in TX, I'd want to be wary of continuing to shoot once he's turned away. It's on tape and all but, what's to say some DA or jury won't perceive the threat had ended at that point and the guy was just trying to get away?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
LOL, did I say anything about Texas?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
