Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: New Member with questions.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Portage des Sioux, Mo
    Posts
    1

    New Member with questions.

    Hello!
    Just found this site, and have been lurking for awhile, trying to come up to speed on OC. What a wonderful warehouse of knowledge this is!! I have always wondered why anyone would need a CC permit when the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. My question is, since the Travon Martin episode, the "Stand Your Ground" laws have become a hot topic. As I understand it, Mo is a stand your ground state. Is that correct? And if so, what rights do law abiding citizens have when confronted with a situation outside of your home, vehicle, private property?
    Also, I live in St Charles county and would like to meet other members who live in the area. Thanks again for a great site and your obvious belief in, and allegiance to, the Constitution of the U. S.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / Rolla, MO
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdogdale View Post
    Hello!
    Just found this site, and have been lurking for awhile, trying to come up to speed on OC. What a wonderful warehouse of knowledge this is!! I have always wondered why anyone would need a CC permit when the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. My question is, since the Travon Martin episode, the "Stand Your Ground" laws have become a hot topic. As I understand it, Mo is a stand your ground state. Is that correct? And if so, what rights do law abiding citizens have when confronted with a situation outside of your home, vehicle, private property?
    Also, I live in St Charles county and would like to meet other members who live in the area. Thanks again for a great site and your obvious belief in, and allegiance to, the Constitution of the U. S.
    The idea of "Stand Your Ground" should only be applied to your home, not public, in public you have no right OR duty to defend anywhere or anything other than yourself, your car, and any dependents you may have. If no shots are fired and no gun is aimed at you stand down, seek retreat and if retreat is not an option then consider the gun, trying to use your gun to help the situation is a bad idea and if you kill the person you could face charges. Also "Stand your ground" laws vary from state to state so before relying on that defence check into the actual laws AND it's use in previous cases. One thing that is happening in Saint Louis area is now the idea of castle doctrine defence is being investigated in all cases rather than just accepted based on the word of the home owner. Also, the shooting in O'Fallon, MO has brought up an important question, in the case of castle doctrine for a car could the man have simply tried driving away from the angered motorcyclist before it turned to punching and then shooting, luckily no charges were filed but a decent case of excessive force could be brought up.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    So are you saying if you are about to be car jacked and or assaulted while in your vehicle you should just try driving away?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / Rolla, MO
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by 9026543 View Post
    So are you saying if you are about to be car jacked and or assaulted while in your vehicle you should just try driving away?
    No, the case in O'Fallon MO involved people getting into an argument then one person assaulted the other, which was done through the open car window, even though either one could have drove away unhindered. If you are about to get carjacked in a parking lot or parking garage feel free to pull the gun as your only easy retreat is your car and you are being hindered, but if you are getting carjacked on the road the option to drive away is there and avoids the possible liability of discharging a weapon in public. To use ANY lethal force you must truly feel a threat against your life to be legally justified, I would just as soon seek retreat if possible except where castle doctrine applies, just because I can legally pull a gun doesn't mean I want to, no one should EVER feel that drawing a gun is the best solution until the situation is at the point of life or death. If you are in your vehicle getting carjacked you have greatly failed at securing your property as you have somehow let the doors be unlocked and/or the windows down enough to get an arm inside as which point the carjacking, while illegal, is also a matter of being aware of your surroundings. If you are assaulted inside your vehicle it's the same situation, how did the person manage to assault you through a properly secured vehicle without excessive, violent force? Carrying a gun to deal with a preventable situation is not a good practice and one that puts you at greater risk than needed, the key to responsibly carrying a weapon readily capable of lethal force is preventing any situation you would expect to need it.
    Last edited by wolfgangmob; 06-12-2012 at 10:32 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member xdmcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St Louis City
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgangmob View Post
    No, the case in O'Fallon MO involved people getting into an argument then one person assaulted the other, which was done through the open car window, even though either one could have drove away unhindered. If you are about to get carjacked in a parking lot or parking garage feel free to pull the gun as your only easy retreat is your car and you are being hindered, but if you are getting carjacked on the road the option to drive away is there and avoids the possible liability of discharging a weapon in public. To use ANY lethal force you must truly feel a threat against your life to be legally justified, I would just as soon seek retreat if possible except where castle doctrine applies, just because I can legally pull a gun doesn't mean I want to, no one should EVER feel that drawing a gun is the best solution until the situation is at the point of life or death. If you are in your vehicle getting carjacked you have greatly failed at securing your property as you have somehow let the doors be unlocked and/or the windows down enough to get an arm inside as which point the carjacking, while illegal, is also a matter of being aware of your surroundings. If you are assaulted inside your vehicle it's the same situation, how did the person manage to assault you through a properly secured vehicle without excessive, violent force? Carrying a gun to deal with a preventable situation is not a good practice and one that puts you at greater risk than needed, the key to responsibly carrying a weapon readily capable of lethal force is preventing any situation you would expect to need it.
    If I understand you correctly I should not drive with my windows open? So because of the possibility that someone may try to carjack me, I should never open my car windows? That rationale is part of the problem, so I should give up my right to have my windows down because of some criminal that may carjack me. I carry a firearm to protect myself and my family. I go about my life as I always have, if a criminal inserts himself into my daily life, I will take whatever means necessary to protect me and my family. Up to and including ending the criminals life. No one wants to take a life but a responsible firearm owner knows that, he/she may have to end a criminals life in order to survive. When seconds count police are minutes away. I carry a firearm because police are just too heavy to carry.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / Rolla, MO
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by xdmcompact View Post
    If I understand you correctly I should not drive with my windows open? So because of the possibility that someone may try to carjack me, I should never open my car windows? That rationale is part of the problem, so I should give up my right to have my windows down because of some criminal that may carjack me. I carry a firearm to protect myself and my family. I go about my life as I always have, if a criminal inserts himself into my daily life, I will take whatever means necessary to protect me and my family. Up to and including ending the criminals life. No one wants to take a life but a responsible firearm owner knows that, he/she may have to end a criminals life in order to survive. When seconds count police are minutes away. I carry a firearm because police are just too heavy to carry.
    If you see someone approach your vehicle and you know they are going to argue with you do you leave the window down so you can let them have access to you directly? If so you are putting yourself in a bad situation and if you get injured or killed it's your own damn fault. You can drive with windows down but if you are going to do it don't forget to look around, a lot of people say the gun is there for back up, well how often do you need the gun if you just pay attention to your surroundings? I respect the right to carry, as long as you have no felonious past or otherwise restricted form owning a firearm, but to do it simply because you can and then not take on the responsibility of taking your life into your hands is ignorant. If you want to carry do so with caution toward what's going on around you and who is around you, the best prevention is avoidance, if you must you must, but if you can avoid a bad situation you are much better off doing so and in the case of an angry person outside your car roll up the damn window! In the case of a suspicious person approaching your car at a stop sign or red light roll up the damn window! You have guns in your home to secure your property, you also have locks on doors and possibly a security system to make additional levels of hindrance and deterrence against an attacker, well a window is a physical barrier that severely hinders physical assault! Carrying is a right, so is speech, but you don't go flapping your mouth, use a bit a common sense! Also, driving with windows down, especially on highway, causes near equal MPG loss as running an AC while being much less effective.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    Using that line of reasoning we should never stop at a red light or stop sign because if we were car jacked it would be our fault because we were stopped inviting a car jacking. And besides all that stopping and starting cuts way down on gas mileage.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Carjacking and the O'Fallon incident are two different things. The nitwit on the motorcycle broke the first rule of driving where other nitwits are present. Do not stop and have a battle of nitwits with nitwits. The worst possible outcome is if the nitwit in the car gets charged and ultimately convicted of a crime. Castle Doctrine while in your vehicle will be dead.

    The motorcycle nitwit's lawyer painted motorcycle nitwit as a saint, the model citizen, and the car nitwit as a gun-happy nitwit looking for the smallest excuse to use the Castle Doctrine to gun-down in cold blood any and all.

    @wolfgangmob, I recommend that you read RSMo 563. If you still disagree with the current then law work the process to change the law to one of your liking.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgangmob View Post
    The idea of "Stand Your Ground" should only be applied to your home, not public, in public you have no right OR duty to defend anywhere or anything other than yourself, your car, and any dependents you may have. If no shots are fired and no gun is aimed at you stand down, seek retreat and if retreat is not an option then consider the gun, trying to use your gun to help the situation is a bad idea and if you kill the person you could face charges. Also "Stand your ground" laws vary from state to state so before relying on that defence check into the actual laws AND it's use in previous cases. One thing that is happening in Saint Louis area is now the idea of castle doctrine defence is being investigated in all cases rather than just accepted based on the word of the home owner. Also, the shooting in O'Fallon, MO has brought up an important question, in the case of castle doctrine for a car could the man have simply tried driving away from the angered motorcyclist before it turned to punching and then shooting, luckily no charges were filed but a decent case of excessive force could be brought up.
    Back up a second here. The law does not require the threat of a firearm. It does require the threat or use of violence. Violence can come in any form, to include physical as we saw with the biker case where the grandfather shot the biker that punched him in the face while inside his own vehicle.

    The situation will dictate if any withdrawl is even remotely possible. A human can cover 21 feet in less than 3 seconds. At that distance, and in some cases even farther out, retreat is not an option. A retreat is merely a communication of an intent to withdraw or an intent of no desire to be engaged the situation. If one conditions to always retreat, when no retreat is possible that attempt will still be made. It's a perplexing problem to say the least.

    Threats are communicated in two primary ways: Visual and Verbal. The exceptions will be with some form of disability limiting vision or hearing, at that point they will obviously be physical.

    No case of excessive force exists with the biker case. Biker committed a felony assault, grandfather acted in accordance with the law. Though some of us may not agree with how the grandfather responded or may think we may have acted differently, none of us were there and cannot say for certain how we would react. He followed the 3 A's.

    Access to a reliable firearm.
    Ability to use it (physical and training)
    Attitude to use it (I will pull the trigger)

    Could he have driven away? Possibly, but Missouri law says you have NO duty to retreat from your vehicle. Driving away would be a retreat. That is back-pedalling and we don't want to go backwards.

    Next, if you're found justified you cannot face charges, nor can you face a civil lawsuit. Missouri law provides protections against both and prescribes an absolute defense for the justified use of force.

    The castle doctrine is supposed to be investigated. "The court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a justification." (RSMO 563.026) I don't see where that involves any kind of "assumption" or lack of an investigation.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000026.HTM
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 06-21-2012 at 12:16 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •