[ModGlock17]

Originally Posted by jeremy_283

This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

First, a sarcastic response: Isn't that our justification to send our military abroad ? I actually agree in many cases. OK. Done with sarcasm.

State law dictates the legality here. The Feds are leaving that to the States, for the time being despite some effort to make it a federal issue.

Even when it is allowed, it is not simple. Your life will be altered in many respects when you pull that trigger even when it is legal. There will be
-civil litigation which is allowed in some states
-social/community relationship issues like "That's the guy who shot your cousin, Bubba!" which may require you to move. And even that may not be enough.
-psychological issue, flash backs, "breakdown" moments.
-records that effect future employments.

All of these can drain your savings and marriages.

You are smart to visit the scenario now and that helps you to decide whether it is worth it for you.

The other option is to watch someone get hurt or killed or children parentless knowing that you could have done something about that. Are you ok with that, too ?

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Misty02

Hence the “likely” in my statement which had a bunch of qualifiers you’ve left out when you quoted only part of it. Getting involved when you don’t know what is going, who the characters are and what their history is; is a recipe for disaster. The story you've posted is a perfect example of that. The entire post is as follows:

I wasn't really responding to you - just to the whole idea, in several posts, about "do what's right and you'll be OK." It's not really true.

[HKLovingIT]

Originally Posted by jeremy_283

This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

Can you? Depends on your state law and what the circumstances are.

Should you get involved? http://www.stoppingpower.net/comment...tervention.asp

To me, it would have to be something extremely, blatantly, obvious, that I saw unfold from start to finish before I would even think about anything other than using my cell phone.

Like you walk out of the grocery store behind a young woman. As you are walking in the parking lot, a dude runs up and whacks her in the head with a pipe wrench and starts going through her pockets and purse. Maybe she owes him drug money, maybe not, I dunno, but you can't go around hitting chicks in the head with wrenches in parking lots.

That seems pretty obvious. It's implausible where I live now, but obvious. That doesn't mean you draw your gun and start shooting at people. I would likely punch him in the nuts as a first option.

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by Bren

I wasn't really responding to you - just to the whole idea, in several posts, about "do what's right and you'll be OK." It's not really true.

Oh, ok.

(an issue there, what one believes is the right thing, might actually be the wrong thing)
.

[CarryTexas]

Originally Posted by HKLovingIT

Can you? Depends on your state law and what the circumstances are.

Should you get involved? http://www.stoppingpower.net/comment...tervention.asp

Good Read.... I agree with the author's opinions

[Sam Spade]

You're making the effort, so will I.

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

so atheists have no right to self defense?

No, that's not what I said and it's not what the thread's about. Since you brought it up, I'll address it: Every living creature fights for its life. That right falls firmly into the category of "natural rights" and exsists totally outside of any society. From the view of a religious man, the right is accorded by God whether or not the individual recognizes Him.

Dealing with intervention, now:

I just think that the way the government is growing and grabbing power it is becoming more difficult for good, moral people that follow their god's rules to keep from running afoul of the law.

if you employ deadly force to defend yourself, your actions in a possibly chaotic, adrenalin fueled life or death situation will be scrutinized at length in a calm setting with 20/20 hindsight.

deviate just a little from what as been prescribed as "appropriate" and the book will be thrown at you.

and a court deals with the facts of the case, not relationships with God.

I actually agree with you as far as the expansion of government goes. The sub-category of statute and common law, though, is pretty well developed and not evolving much at all. If you look on the sources for our statutes and the philosophy that shaped them, you'll find that they're profoundly Judeo-Christian. Those ethics do not value life equally. The innocent life is always more important than the aggressor, and this dates back to Moses. (There are specific exemptions from blood-guilt in the OT for defense of one's home, for example.)

So when the court applies the law to the facts of the case, they're looking at literally thousands of years of thought that gave birth to the current law. Overwhelmingly, if you do the moral thing as codified from Moses through Thomas Aquinas into the Magna Carta and finally our system, the law will back you. The hairs are split on how a given place treats mistakes of fact; we're all in agreement on what righteous intent is.

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

You're making the effort, so will I.


No, that's not what I said and it's not what the thread's about. Since you brought it up, I'll address it: Every living creature fights for its life. That right falls firmly into the category of "natural rights" and exsists totally outside of any society. From the view of a religious man, the right is accorded by God whether or not the individual recognizes Him.

Dealing with intervention, now:


I actually agree with you as far as the expansion of government goes. The sub-category of statute and common law, though, is pretty well developed and not evolving much at all. If you look on the sources for our statutes and the philosophy that shaped them, you'll find that they're profoundly Judeo-Christian. Those ethics do not value life equally. The innocent life is always more important than the aggressor, and this dates back to Moses. (There are specific exemptions from blood-guilt in the OT for defense of one's home, for example.)

So when the court applies the law to the facts of the case, they're looking at literally thousands of years of thought that gave birth to the current law. Overwhelmingly, if you do the moral thing as codified from Moses through Thomas Aquinas into the Magna Carta and finally our system, the law will back you. The hairs are split on how a given place treats mistakes of fact; we're all in agreement on what righteous intent is.

I don’t know if your thoughts are as calm as the tone I apply while reading them, but I truly enjoy your explanations. Thank you.

.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

So when the court applies the law to the facts of the case, they're looking at literally thousands of years of thought that gave birth to the current law. Overwhelmingly, if you do the moral thing as codified from Moses through Thomas Aquinas into the Magna Carta and finally our system, the law will back you. The hairs are split on how a given place treats mistakes of fact; we're all in agreement on what righteous intent is.

I agree with that. I think of it as "the zen of law" or something like that. I noticed in law school that you don't really have to learn the law - you can just know it, like being in touch with the force - once you understand what it is. The only thing you really have to learn are the exceptions, where the law has gone off track.

[Gunnut 45/454]

In Idaho the answer is yes you can! It is legal to use deadly force to stop a felony.

[X-Concealment]

CCW holders are held by the justice system with the "Higher standard ofcare". While some states' laws allow deadly force to be used to stop afelony; it doesn't mean a permit holder can be a freelance cop. As sad as a situation can be, using deadly force to save a stranger's life is"Not recommended"!

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Warp

That is exactly accurate. Some state laws are written such that a reasonable belief is necessary, same as in defense of yourself

True enough. BUT some states reasonable belief for intervening in third party situations is not good enough. You must be right, not just reasonable. Kentucky sounds like one, and I believe Michigan is another (at least that's what was stated in my cpl class).

Originally Posted by Bren

That is also pretty much the law in some places. Here in Kentucky, if you use deadly force to defend a third party and it turns out the third party did not have the right to use deadly force in his own defense (he was the bad guy, it was a joke and he knew it, etc.) you have NO legal justification, no matter what you thought was happening.

Everyone needs to know what the law is in the state they are in before going in with guns blazing so to speak...

Randy

[ModGlock17]

Here's a long look into a real shooting (with video). http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.p...=53502&start=0

Give you a sense what went on afterwards.

[blkt2]

I did when I was 17 (1988) and spent just over 4 months in jail before I was cleared.

Your best bet is to mind your own business unless it is a pure innocent who will be harmed by your inaction.

[GKglock324]

real life situation was a woman being chased by a guy with a gun..her clothes were ripped, I may have posted this before, but assume nothing. Turned out the woman was a fugitive and was being pursued by under cover officers..jump the gun and shoot the guy would be a bad idea...

[Mister_Beefy]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

You're making the effort, so will I.


No, that's not what I said and it's not what the thread's about. Since you brought it up, I'll address it: Every living creature fights for its life. That right falls firmly into the category of "natural rights" and exsists totally outside of any society. From the view of a religious man, the right is accorded by God whether or not the individual recognizes Him.

Dealing with intervention, now:


I actually agree with you as far as the expansion of government goes. The sub-category of statute and common law, though, is pretty well developed and not evolving much at all. If you look on the sources for our statutes and the philosophy that shaped them, you'll find that they're profoundly Judeo-Christian. Those ethics do not value life equally. The innocent life is always more important than the aggressor, and this dates back to Moses. (There are specific exemptions from blood-guilt in the OT for defense of one's home, for example.)

So when the court applies the law to the facts of the case, they're looking at literally thousands of years of thought that gave birth to the current law. Overwhelmingly, if you do the moral thing as codified from Moses through Thomas Aquinas into the Magna Carta and finally our system, the law will back you. The hairs are split on how a given place treats mistakes of fact; we're all in agreement on what righteous intent is.

ok, I get where you're coming from.

but I also agree with what bren said, sometimes things are more complicated that just "be good and everything will be ok"

and issue that is sometimes simple, but often complicated.

[HarleyGuy]

Originally Posted by X-Concealment

CCW holders are held by the justice system with the "Higher standard ofcare". While some states' laws allow deadly force to be used to stop afelony; it doesn't mean a permit holder can be a freelance cop. As sad as a situation can be, using deadly force to save a stranger's life is"Not recommended"!

Not ever being in a situation where I've had to even unholster a gun in a self defense situation I would hope that if I encountered a situation where the loss of innnocent life was at stake that I could help, either by calling 911 or other non-lethal methods before resorting to using my firearm.

I hope that I'm NEVER in a position where I have to use lethal force, for myself or anyone else, but I would hope that if my wife (or any other innocent person) was being attacked and facing great bodily harm, rape, or death that someone would step up and attempt to stop the attack if they could do so safely.

As another poster stated, shooting (or killing) someone is a very serious than can impact your life and future in many negative ways.

[fredj338]

Originally Posted by CarryTexas

Unless I was nearly 100% certain that I knew what the situation was I wouldn't use deadly force...

The potential victim would likely have to be a kid or something like that for me to use deadly force to protect them.

If it was two adults or something like that... I have no idea what is going on and I might very well shoot the wrong person.

It would have to be more than 100% certain. In many situations, you see something but do you really know what is going on? Say you hear screaming, sprint around the corner & see some big guy pounding the crap out of a smaller guy. You engage, he refuses to stop, maybe even turns on you, so you shoot him. Come to find out, he was the vic & the guy he was pounding was the attacker & there is a knife laying nearby. You just never know. There are probably less than 5 instances where I could be 100% sure at a glance what is going on, everything else is an educated guess. I am not risking everything for an educated guess. In most cases not directly involving you or your family, it's better to do the smart thing instead of the perceived right thing.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Everyone needs to know what the law is in the state they are in before going in with guns blazing so to speak...

Randy

Another point I teach in classes, is that not knowing the law can not only result in you doing something that is illegal, it can also result in you losing the fight because you hesitate to do something that is legal.

[OldArcher]

Originally Posted by jeremy_283

This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

Simply put, yes.

Protect the innocent. Make sure that there's no other alternative, but when sure, take out the trash...

As you may not get the opportunity to yell, "Drop Your Weapon," try to make sure that there are witnesses to the event. There may not be any, so make sure that you have a good lawyer on speed dial.

Regardless, defend and protect the innocent...

OA, out...

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Bren

Another point I teach in classes, is that not knowing the law can not only result in you doing something that is illegal, it can also result in you losing the fight because you hesitate to do something that is legal.

Very good point, its a bit of threading the needle. Neither too anxious, nor too hesitant. You need to know the law before going in guns blazing, or guns grazing...

Randy

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by ModGlock17

Here's a long look into a real shooting (with video). http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.p...=53502&start=0

Give you a sense what went on afterwards.

I followed that one for a while. Needless to say, I learned more than a thing or two from his experience.

.

[ModGlock17]

Originally Posted by Bren

Another point I teach in classes, is that not knowing the law can not only result in you doing something that is illegal, it can also result in you losing the fight because you hesitate to do something that is legal.

Bren, you've never failed to say thoughtful things well !

[Search]

Most people will never act out the actions they previously thought they could. It's easy to sit and tell yourself you would do this if that ever happened. Actually breaking through the mental barriers in a high stress situation and performing isn't an easy task. This being the internet there is no point. So let's go through some possibilities to consider before involving yourself in a situation.

Let's pretend that this being a "public location" there are other people besides yourself, the bad guy, and the innocent victim.

1) Do you know the full story? Do you know why the bad guy is fixing to harm the good guy? Is the bad guy actually the good guy? I hope the answer was obvious.

2) If you attempt to take a life (which most have never done and just been ok with) and fail what will happen when the bad guy turns on you? Better not miss with all of that going through your mind and the stress of the situation bearing down on you.

3) Are you action even legal? Does it even matter? I mean could you live with yourself the rest of your life knowing you could have helped?

4) Are your rounds going to travel past the bad guy and harm another innocent victim?

5) Are there cops around that might mistake you for a bad guy?

6) Is your family there? Could they possibly get involved in a threatening situation?

7) Does the bad guy have friends that are going to turn on you?

8 Could I keep going? Yes.



Learn the laws of your state. Then hope it never happens. If it does, good luck

[domin8ss]

9) Does your state have a stand your ground law? Virginia, no. Florida, yes.

10) Does your state allow citizens arrests? Utah, yes if the crime is committed against the public. (shoplifting, property damage, mass shootings at a mall, etc.)

[Deaf Smith]

Originally Posted by jeremy_283

This may be a an easy to answer/stupid question but can you legally take down a perpetrator threatening another's life in an altercation in a public place as long as you have the right to have a gun in that location?

*by altercation I mean like an event where there is a completely innocent victim involved

In Texas it's yes jeremy, you can use force or lethal force if need be.

But talking MORALLY, if the attacker is trying to kill a innocent person, you bet your bippy I'd use lethal force if need be, screw the laws.

Deaf