09jisaac
Regular Member
Does it just come up with the vehicle license plate or does he have to request that information on the owner?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
CCDW......confused as hell now!!!!
- Thread starter self preservation
- Start date
Does it just come up with the vehicle license plate or does he have to request that information on the owner?
The registered owner(s) social security #'s are attached to the license plate. Whenever a license plate is ran through LINK/NCIC is automatically runs the SSN which returns the operators license information, wanted status, and CCDW status with the registration information. So anytime you run a tag, you get the vehicle info and the owner info whether you need it or not.
MrOverlay
Regular Member
Your actions will be evaluated based on would a reasonable person, put in the same situation, be in fear of losing their life or serious physical harm. Not just physical harm, but serious physical harm.
If it is viewed that a reasonable person would have been in fear of losing their life or serious physical harm, in that same situation then you are good to go. If not, then that might just be a problem.
self preservation
Regular Member
So I would only have to show my CCDW and not my OL? If thats the way the law reads I can live with that but just because he sees a bulge doesnt mean I am commiting a crime. I understand that CC is illegal in KY and the CCDW is an exemption to that law, but what would keep that LEO from saying "I see you're wearing brand new shoes and I need your ID just in case you just stole them" And this of course is him aproaching me out of the blue for no reason. Plus if he had true RAS then you would be required to show all ID, not just some of it. Is there a such thing if the LEO said "yeah, I have a little RAS so I need your papers"?
MrOverlay
Regular Member
It is not illegal to wear new shoes. It is illegal to carry a CCDW without the proper license.
self preservation
Regular Member
But it is illegal to steal shoes. Like I said, I can live with that law but just because I'm wearing new shoes doesnt mean I stole them, and just because I am CC'ing doesnt mean that I am doing anything illegal either (if I have the proper license). I wont lose any sleep knowing that if a LEO ask for my CCDW license because he sees an outline of a weapon on my person that I have to produce it, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is it can be illegal to OC as well (convicted felon) But if a LEO walks up to a person just because he sees a gun on their hip and wants to know their life story, he cant because he doesnt have RAS. Even if the OC'er is a convicted felon the LEO will never know unless he can produce RAS and simply OC'ing is not RAS. Just saying that branch swings both ways and it seems that if a convicted felon wanted to carry a gun he would be more secure OC'ing because he doesnt have to produce crap if the LEO has no RAS. The felon wouldnt have to prove that he can legally carry if open, but is required by law to prove that he can carry concealed. Now I know that for the most part felons wont OC....Just saying he could if he wanted and would be more secure in his papers if he did.
self preservation
Regular Member
And another thing that concerned me was they mentioned "the person who pulls first is the aggressor and is the one in deep **** if a shoot out happens" So lets say that I'm out and about and I notice a guy has been following me and acting weird. He finally walks up to me and says "give me your money" Its obvious at this point in time that I'm being mugged, but up to this point he hasnt been aggresive. Now lets say I pull on him and he reaches toward his back pocket and pulls out his own gun. If I'm faster on pulling the trigger than he is am I in trouble for pulling mine in the first place? They say in the class that you cant use deadly force just because someone is stealing your stuff (unless they are in your dwelling) and in their words "no matter have valuable your property is" Would the law look at it as I had no right to pull a gun in the first place because he hadnt pulled his yet? Keep in mind that prior to me pulling my gun that the mugger hadnt made a threat to me and hadnt even touched me. He just simply said "give me your money". And my original plan when I pulled my gun was to prevent the situation from escalating and to possibly hold the mugger til police could arrive. But in this scenario the situation did escalate and now we have a dead mugger. What would you have done???????
MrOverlay
Regular Member
What they say in class is worthless, except for the license requirement. It will come down to a prosecutor and a grand jury, and possibly a petit jury if your situation is going south.
I have told folks before, the next to the last thing you ever want to do is to kill someone. The last thing you ever want to do is be killed.
Always remember what you do, you are responsible for and will have to explain to others and hope they agree.
Good luck.
09jisaac
Regular Member
You can use the threat of deadly force to stop a crime against you or other people, you can only use deadly force to stop certain crimes.
You are not required to have an ID period unless you are driving or carrying concealed, so unless you are doing one of those two things you are not obligated to show an ID. If you are carrying concealed then you are obligated to show your CCDW if asked, but not your drivers license(although for all practical purposes you might at well, you can the DL information from a CCDW just as easily as you can the CCDW information from the DL.) You comparison between the shoes and concealed weapon is somewhat flawed. Now I will clarify something, I don't think a "bulge" alone would be enough, a "bulge" that looks like a firearm would be. An officer can't reasonably believe that someone stole a pair of shoes because they are new. But because CCDW is the exception to the law, an officer could reasonably believe once is committing a crime if they saw an outline of a concealed weapon.
self preservation
Regular Member
So basically whatever the Judge, prosecutor and jury feels??? They said you couldnt use deadly force for simple trespassing, But I know of a case in Montgomery Co. where a land owner shot and killed a guy on his 4 wheeler because he was on the guys land. I also know of a case here in Bath Co. where 2 men had been fueding for a few days, the one man shows up drunk in the other mans yard and the home owner ends up giving him some 12 ga lead poisoning. Both cases went to the grand jury and the both shooters were acquited. I cant say that I would have used deadly force for either of these situations but these men did and were declared justified. But you also hear of people who were dead to rights to do what they did and got the ax for it. Not just people who have had to kill but look at the Michell vs UK case. He got justice in the end but had to fight hell of a lot harder than he should have to get it.....he was screwed first THEN prevailed. Sometimes the idea of being judged by your "peers" is a scary thought.
self preservation
Regular Member
So a few years a go when in the middle of the night I heard someone in my vehicles and I went out with a firearm, I could have held them at gunpoint (they were gone by the time I made it out) to detain til police arrival?? Of course I couldnt shoot just because or if they started to run away....but I assume if they charged at me as if they planned to overtake me I should have been fine to use deadly force.
Someone open carrying is not breaking any laws, and you can't reasonably assume someone is a felon because they are openly carrying. Someone carrying a concealed weapon IS committing a crime unless you fall into one of the exceptions.
self preservation
Regular Member
I agree, but just for s**ts and giggles would you agree that if a felon did OC that he would be more secure in his papers than if he CC? I know the laws cant be perfect because every person and situation is different. And I'm not debating but just having conversation just to be having conversation, but IF...IF I were a felon, technically I would have a better chance of keeping my information secure if I OC. Felons like to CC (well, felons that still carry regardless, not saying ALL felons carry) to keep it hid...but it seems ironic that they would be safer OC'ing. And like I've said I can still sleep at night if you have to present your CCDW to LEO if requested, and I agree that you might as well disclose everything because the CCDW has everything on it already.
I wouldn't hold someone at gunpoint unless you are already in a situation in which you can use deadly physical force. For example, you hear someone going through your vehicles, you rush outside with your trusty sidearm, the thief notices you and pulls a knife, your 30 feet away(you could use deadly physical force at this point, but you still have time to wait(at full speed you would have about 2 seconds to act), it would be very reasonable to hold that person at gunpoint.
self preservation
Regular Member
I would assume that odds are I wouldnt even have to point it at them but simply let them know I have it. They may flee or even come at me but chances are they will hold tight and wait for police. And if they flee so be it...if they charge at me....well...you know.
Yes they would be safer(legally) openly carrying. The only way to verify someone is a felon in possession of a handgun is to run a criminal history through NCIC. You just can't run a history for s&g's, you must submit your reason when you run the history, and it's something the FBI and KSP audit from time to time. Now if an officer is patient enough it isn't difficult to develop PC to stop someone for further investigation. If I see someone in wal-mart carrying a weapon, and I just know it doesn't look right, the odds are that person drove there. At some point he is going to come out and get in a vehicle and drive. Very few people drive perfect, and all it takes is one infraction to have PC for a stop. Now if the person has that weapon visible or in a glove box your still out of luck on the weapon, but if its not you can now run your criminal history.
self preservation
Regular Member
When I said "peers" I was refering to criminal court...not civil. And no I dont know what the conversation between the men involved in these cases were. And I did use the word acquitted incorrectly. I just meant no charges ever went anywhere. And you're probably right, the law isnt an exact science and for every law there are probably 1000 different ways thats a 1000 different people would view it. I was just suggesting that whats good for the goose may not be good for the gander. I doubt I could pull an OJ Simpson and get by with it......... but he did...Wonder if they ever gave him his glove back???
neuroblades
Regular Member
3 Things You MUST KNOW!!!!!
OK! This is a bit long but well worth the time to read!
There are 3 things that MUST occur before you can legally discharge your weapon in self defense! These are literally the backbone of law pertaining to self defensive shootings! Remeber these 3 things no matter what!
ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY & JEOPARDY!
Massad Ayoob, possibly one the greatest authors on the topic of handgun self defensive, wrote about these 3 things and explained how important they are to know and realize as a matter of seond nature! Here's a breakdown of each of these 3 and just what they mean:
ABILITY - means that the other person has the power to kill or to cripple you.
OPPORTUNITY - means that the circumstances are such that the other person would be able to use his ability against you.
JEOPARDY - means that the other person's actions or words provide you with a reasonably-perceived belief that he intends to kill you or cripple you.
If the situation that you find yourself in meets all 3 of these (A,O & J), then by the letter of the law, it is a justifiable shooting, AKA Self Defense!
It is important to realize that any two of the elements may be present in a lot of common interactions. The presence of only two elements does not justify using deadly force. This isn't as complicated as it sounds, and it is mostly just common sense.
An example of A & O, but not J: a young man with a baseball bat (ability) is standing within ten feet of you (opportunity). Unless the young man either verbally threatens to assault you, or physically begins the motions necessary to whack you, or in some other way makes it very obvious that he intends to do you harm, jeopardy is not present.
An example of O & J, but not A: a very irate little girl says, "I hate you! I'm going to kill you!" (jeopardy). She is standing right next to you, close enough to hit you (opportunity). But she's only a little girl, and she doesn't have any weapons. Ability is not present.
An example of A & J, but not O: you are in court and you have just testified against a male criminal who is physically much bigger and stronger than you are, and who has been trained as a martial artist (ability). As the guilty verdict is read, the criminal rages to his feet and begins shouting and threatening to kill you right then and there (jeopardy). But he is restrained by handcuffs and by the bailiffs. Opportunity is not present.
ABILITY:
Ability is the power to kill or cripple another human being can be represented by a lot of different things. Most often, it is represented by a weapon of some sort: a gun, a knife, a tire iron or club, or even some improvised weapon like a screwdriver or a metal chain. This isn't a complete list, of course. The number of items that could be used as deadly weapons is nearly infinite, and they all represent ability. But ability can be present even when a weapon is not.
If a weapon is not present, ability may be represented by something the courts call disparity of force. This is just a fancy phrase that means the fight would be so radically unfair and so unevenly matched that any reasonable bystander would agree that one of the participants could kill or permanently damage the other person even without a weapon. Disparity of force is figured out on a case-by-case basis, taking in the entire set of circumstances. Generally speaking, disparity exists:
•When a young person attacks a really old person
•When a large, powerful man attacks someone who is very, very much smaller than he is
•When three or more people attack one person
•When an adult attacks a child
•When a healthy person attacks someone who is handicapped
•When a known, skilled martial artist attacks someone who is not a martial artist
•When one participant has become so badly injured that he is unable to physically defend himself from a continued violent assault
•When a man attacks a woman
Let me repeat that last point for emphasis: if an unarmed man attacks a woman, the courts generally recognize that disparity of force is present. This means that if a woman is attacked even by an unarmed man, she may generally assume that ability exists. A male attacker who goes after a female victim does not have to display a weapon in order to be a deadly threat. A woman who is attacked may reasonably believe that even an unarmed male possesses the power to kill her or to severely injure her.2
OPPORTUNITY:
Opportunity means that the total circumstances are such that the other person would be able to use his ability to maim or kill you. It includes, but is not limited to, questions such as how close he is to where you are, what objects might be between you and him, whether you have a readily-available means of stopping him from reaching you, and what he is armed with if he is armed at all.
When opportunity is present, a person with a gun will be within shooting distance (which can be quite far away, if there is no readily-available cover for you). If he is armed with a blade or an impact weapon, he will be room distance from you or closer, with no impediments between you. He will be close enough to kill you with whatever weapon he has, or with his bare hands. And there will be nothing in the environment to prevent him from doing so.
Probably the most important thing to note about opportunity is that even if the other person is armed with an impact weapon or a blade, they can possess the element of opportunity even if they are on the other side of an average household room. This is because an average adult human being can cover 21 feet of distance in about 1.5 seconds or a little less. If you have practiced on the range with a timer, you know that is just barely enough time to draw your gun from concealment and get one good shot downrange. This means that an attacker armed with an impact weapon can swarm you and kill you before you are able to draw your gun, unless you begin the defensive process before he covers that distance.3
On a practical level, most criminals prefer to operate without any witnesses. If you are trying to avoid the elements of A,O,J coming into place around you, it is a good idea to be especially alert in places where a crowd is not far away, but witnesses are unlikely to follow.4
JEOPARDY:
Jeopardy is the most difficult of the three elements to articulate and the most difficult to prove. It is most often the central nub of a criminal trial. The reason for this is that human beings are not mind readers. You cannot know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, what another person is thinking and what he intends to do. You can only reasonably perceive his intentions based upon his actions and his words.
It is important to note here that simple fear isn't enough to believe jeopardy is present. Someone who "looks menacing" may in fact be an innocent person with unfortunate features. Being afraid of what someone might do, when they have not given any real indication that they will do it, is not jeopardy.
As with the other two elements, jeopardy is really based on the entire set of surrounding circumstances. The jury will be instructed to ask themselves whether a reasonable and prudent person, knowing exactly what you knew at that moment (and no more!), would have come to the same conclusion you did. Would a reasonable and prudent person have believed that your attacker meant to use his ability to kill or cripple you? Was your decision that the person was a threat based upon simple fear, or did his actions and/or words give you a reasonable perception that he intended to kill you? What did the other person say or do, what physical motions did he make, which convinced you that he meant to do you harm?
Jeopardy does not necessarily require a clear verbal statement that the other person is trying to kill or cripple you. Some attacks might include a spoken threat ("I'm going to kill you!" or "Do what I say or you'll die, b*****" or "See this knife? I'm gonna cut your throat...") Any of these types of verbal statements may be used to establish jeopardy. But jeopardy can be present even when the other person does not say a single word. For example, an intruder who climbs in through a bedroom window, brandishes a knife, and advances toward you may be clearly showing, by his actions, that he intends to slice you to ribbons. Jeopardy would be present because the intruder's physical actions clearly demonstrate his probable intent.
Jeopardy can be present even if the other person later says they were "just joking," or if it turns out the gun or knife they were threatening you with was nothing but a toy. Remember, the jury will be instructed to ask themselves whether a reasonable and prudent person, knowing exactly what you knew at the time (and no more!) would have come to the same conclusion you did. If the person was acting in such a way that anyone with a lick of sense would have believed he really did intend to maim or kill you, then jeopardy did in fact exist no matter what other facts might have come to light after the dust settled.
Hopefully this clears up a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about when we're justified to shoot and when we're not. It's a dangerous world out there and we've got to look out for one another!
OK! This is a bit long but well worth the time to read!
There are 3 things that MUST occur before you can legally discharge your weapon in self defense! These are literally the backbone of law pertaining to self defensive shootings! Remeber these 3 things no matter what!
ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY & JEOPARDY!
Massad Ayoob, possibly one the greatest authors on the topic of handgun self defensive, wrote about these 3 things and explained how important they are to know and realize as a matter of seond nature! Here's a breakdown of each of these 3 and just what they mean:
ABILITY - means that the other person has the power to kill or to cripple you.
OPPORTUNITY - means that the circumstances are such that the other person would be able to use his ability against you.
JEOPARDY - means that the other person's actions or words provide you with a reasonably-perceived belief that he intends to kill you or cripple you.
If the situation that you find yourself in meets all 3 of these (A,O & J), then by the letter of the law, it is a justifiable shooting, AKA Self Defense!
It is important to realize that any two of the elements may be present in a lot of common interactions. The presence of only two elements does not justify using deadly force. This isn't as complicated as it sounds, and it is mostly just common sense.
An example of A & O, but not J: a young man with a baseball bat (ability) is standing within ten feet of you (opportunity). Unless the young man either verbally threatens to assault you, or physically begins the motions necessary to whack you, or in some other way makes it very obvious that he intends to do you harm, jeopardy is not present.
An example of O & J, but not A: a very irate little girl says, "I hate you! I'm going to kill you!" (jeopardy). She is standing right next to you, close enough to hit you (opportunity). But she's only a little girl, and she doesn't have any weapons. Ability is not present.
An example of A & J, but not O: you are in court and you have just testified against a male criminal who is physically much bigger and stronger than you are, and who has been trained as a martial artist (ability). As the guilty verdict is read, the criminal rages to his feet and begins shouting and threatening to kill you right then and there (jeopardy). But he is restrained by handcuffs and by the bailiffs. Opportunity is not present.
ABILITY:
Ability is the power to kill or cripple another human being can be represented by a lot of different things. Most often, it is represented by a weapon of some sort: a gun, a knife, a tire iron or club, or even some improvised weapon like a screwdriver or a metal chain. This isn't a complete list, of course. The number of items that could be used as deadly weapons is nearly infinite, and they all represent ability. But ability can be present even when a weapon is not.
If a weapon is not present, ability may be represented by something the courts call disparity of force. This is just a fancy phrase that means the fight would be so radically unfair and so unevenly matched that any reasonable bystander would agree that one of the participants could kill or permanently damage the other person even without a weapon. Disparity of force is figured out on a case-by-case basis, taking in the entire set of circumstances. Generally speaking, disparity exists:
•When a young person attacks a really old person
•When a large, powerful man attacks someone who is very, very much smaller than he is
•When three or more people attack one person
•When an adult attacks a child
•When a healthy person attacks someone who is handicapped
•When a known, skilled martial artist attacks someone who is not a martial artist
•When one participant has become so badly injured that he is unable to physically defend himself from a continued violent assault
•When a man attacks a woman
Let me repeat that last point for emphasis: if an unarmed man attacks a woman, the courts generally recognize that disparity of force is present. This means that if a woman is attacked even by an unarmed man, she may generally assume that ability exists. A male attacker who goes after a female victim does not have to display a weapon in order to be a deadly threat. A woman who is attacked may reasonably believe that even an unarmed male possesses the power to kill her or to severely injure her.2
OPPORTUNITY:
Opportunity means that the total circumstances are such that the other person would be able to use his ability to maim or kill you. It includes, but is not limited to, questions such as how close he is to where you are, what objects might be between you and him, whether you have a readily-available means of stopping him from reaching you, and what he is armed with if he is armed at all.
When opportunity is present, a person with a gun will be within shooting distance (which can be quite far away, if there is no readily-available cover for you). If he is armed with a blade or an impact weapon, he will be room distance from you or closer, with no impediments between you. He will be close enough to kill you with whatever weapon he has, or with his bare hands. And there will be nothing in the environment to prevent him from doing so.
Probably the most important thing to note about opportunity is that even if the other person is armed with an impact weapon or a blade, they can possess the element of opportunity even if they are on the other side of an average household room. This is because an average adult human being can cover 21 feet of distance in about 1.5 seconds or a little less. If you have practiced on the range with a timer, you know that is just barely enough time to draw your gun from concealment and get one good shot downrange. This means that an attacker armed with an impact weapon can swarm you and kill you before you are able to draw your gun, unless you begin the defensive process before he covers that distance.3
On a practical level, most criminals prefer to operate without any witnesses. If you are trying to avoid the elements of A,O,J coming into place around you, it is a good idea to be especially alert in places where a crowd is not far away, but witnesses are unlikely to follow.4
JEOPARDY:
Jeopardy is the most difficult of the three elements to articulate and the most difficult to prove. It is most often the central nub of a criminal trial. The reason for this is that human beings are not mind readers. You cannot know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, what another person is thinking and what he intends to do. You can only reasonably perceive his intentions based upon his actions and his words.
It is important to note here that simple fear isn't enough to believe jeopardy is present. Someone who "looks menacing" may in fact be an innocent person with unfortunate features. Being afraid of what someone might do, when they have not given any real indication that they will do it, is not jeopardy.
As with the other two elements, jeopardy is really based on the entire set of surrounding circumstances. The jury will be instructed to ask themselves whether a reasonable and prudent person, knowing exactly what you knew at that moment (and no more!), would have come to the same conclusion you did. Would a reasonable and prudent person have believed that your attacker meant to use his ability to kill or cripple you? Was your decision that the person was a threat based upon simple fear, or did his actions and/or words give you a reasonable perception that he intended to kill you? What did the other person say or do, what physical motions did he make, which convinced you that he meant to do you harm?
Jeopardy does not necessarily require a clear verbal statement that the other person is trying to kill or cripple you. Some attacks might include a spoken threat ("I'm going to kill you!" or "Do what I say or you'll die, b*****" or "See this knife? I'm gonna cut your throat...") Any of these types of verbal statements may be used to establish jeopardy. But jeopardy can be present even when the other person does not say a single word. For example, an intruder who climbs in through a bedroom window, brandishes a knife, and advances toward you may be clearly showing, by his actions, that he intends to slice you to ribbons. Jeopardy would be present because the intruder's physical actions clearly demonstrate his probable intent.
Jeopardy can be present even if the other person later says they were "just joking," or if it turns out the gun or knife they were threatening you with was nothing but a toy. Remember, the jury will be instructed to ask themselves whether a reasonable and prudent person, knowing exactly what you knew at the time (and no more!) would have come to the same conclusion you did. If the person was acting in such a way that anyone with a lick of sense would have believed he really did intend to maim or kill you, then jeopardy did in fact exist no matter what other facts might have come to light after the dust settled.
Hopefully this clears up a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about when we're justified to shoot and when we're not. It's a dangerous world out there and we've got to look out for one another!
KYGlockster
Activist Member
Right. That is why I said you only have to show your cdwl if "ASKED" by an LEO. 237.110 says you must show your cdwl to an officer "requesting" to see it, and if you refuse then you can be fined $25.