Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: what if scenario

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Hypothetical scenario:

    Victim is out side of his/her car minding his/her own business - pumping gas or something - bad guy comes up with a lethal, non-firearm weapon (knife, club, etc.) displays it in no uncertain terms and demands wallet. Unarmed victim complies, then bad guy walks off.

    Bad guy walks away, but remains in the victims sight. Victim reaches into car, grabs gun that is safely stowed away under the drivers seat. Victim, now with a superior weaponand thus superior force in hand persues bad guy with the intention of getting his/her property back - nothing more nothing less.

    Thoughts? Does the law having anything to say about such a scenario?
    Is the victim making a wise/unwise move?

    I undertand its hard to talk specifics or detailswith made-up,vague, orhypothetical stories, but the real question boils down to: Is there any legislationcoveringtrying to "rob" back what has just been robbed from you?If not,is this a good idea or a bad idea?

    I do carry and carry often, but I'm not 100% and sometimes my weapon is not always on my person, within reach, or readily accessable at a moments notice....

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Not a smart move.

    The law of your State would apply - in NH the moment bad guy walked off I no longer had any fear of deadly force being used against me so anything I did would get me in trouble.

    Don't pick up the gun, call 911, tell them you have been robbed and the bad guy is still there, give them a description and stay on the line.

    Edit to add: here's how the scenario should have been written

    Victim is out side of his/her car minding his/her own business - pumping gas or something - bad guy comes up with a lethal, non-firearm weapon (knife, club, etc.) displays it in no uncertain terms.... Victim having already noticed bad guy and determined him to be a potential threat is now in fear of deadly force being used against him and acts accordingly, victim draws his weapon and fires until bad guy is no longer a threat.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Lou_Sanderson wrote:
    Is there any legislationcoveringtrying to "rob" back what has just been robbed from you?If not,is this a good idea or a bad idea?

    Isn't that what OJ Simpson says he was doing? (Sorry, had to be said).

    My understanding is that you may not legally use force to get your property back once the threat has passed and the guy is walking away. I don't think there's anything illegal about following him, cellphone in hand, to find out where he took it, although it may not be the smartest thing to do.

    Sorry, no cite to back it up, and it may vary from state to state.

    ETA: DO pick up the gun, but put it in your holster/pocket/waistband where it should've been in the first place. Then don't touch it again. IMHO.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Isn't that what OJ Simpson says he was doing? (Sorry, had to be said).

    Sorry, no cite to back it up, and it may vary from state to state.
    Roger, state laws do vary wildly, so I really didnt expect a straighforward "yes" or "no" answer, but didnt want to assume.

    I'm not 100% up to speed on what OJ did this time, but the hypothetical situation I tried to describe was a more "bang-bang" (no pun intended) sequence ofeventsrather than gathering up a goon squad, drawing up a gameplan, and then breaking and entering....

    I do see how saying its ok to persue/confront could lead to such "OJ" behavior in an extreme case, but that is not what I origionally had in mind.....

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    MarkNH wrote:
    Not a smart move.

    The law of your State would apply - in NH the moment bad guy walked off I no longer had any fear of deadly force being used against me so anything I did would get me in trouble.

    Don't pick up the gun, call 911, tell them you have been robbed and the bad guy is still there, give them a description and stay on the line.

    Edit to add: here's how the scenario should have been written

    Victim is out side of his/her car minding his/her own business - pumping gas or something - bad guy comes up with a lethal, non-firearm weapon (knife, club, etc.) displays it in no uncertain terms.... Victim having already noticed bad guy and determined him to be a potential threat is now in fear of deadly force being used against him and acts accordingly, victim draws his weapon and fires until bad guy is no longer a threat.
    Awareness could be a first level of protection, and without persuit as an option, trickery could bea second: "here is my wallet, but I have more money in my car if you like...." he he he....

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The elements of common law self-defense are four; 1) Be innocent of instigation. 2) Be in reasonable fear of harm. 3) Attempt to withdraw. 4) Use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil. What ever your statute law or case law, ignore these at your peril.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    Post imported post

    You can make a citizen arrest. But if you shoot it (BG is an it, not a he/she) you better be able to exlain it tried to attack you. Of course it will accuse you of stalking.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    color of law wrote:
    You can make a citizen arrest. But if you shoot it (BG is an it, not a he/she) you better be able to exlain it tried to attack you. Of course it will accuse you of stalking.
    I think this is the option I was looking for. Is there a thread or some other website that provides some detail about all that is involved in making a citizens arrest?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Lou_Sanderson wrote:
    color of law wrote:
    You can make a citizen arrest. But if you shoot it (BG is an it, not a he/she) you better be able to exlain it tried to attack you. Of course it will accuse you of stalking.
    I think this is the option I was looking for. Is there a thread or some other website that provides some detail about all that is involved in making a citizens arrest?
    Depends on your state. In WA, you would be justified in drawing a weapon and holding thethief at gunpoint until the police arrive (citizens arrest), because he has committed a felony against you or in your presence. In WA, that is the only requirement to arrest someone. Your state's laws may be different. Shooting him is still a bad idea, regardless of state.

  10. #10
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    First impression, what the hell was the gun doing in the car rather then on the person?

    In the situation you place forward, I would have to use the laws of the area i live in to comment.

    In Virginia, you must be under threat of grevious bodily harm and/or death to introduce a firearm into the situation, and even more so if you fire said weapon. In the situation you describe, the bad guy came up, mugged somebody while holding a club or bludgeoning weapon, and then left. While there was initial threat of bodily harm and/or death, the second the bad guy walked away the situation was over. By getting out a gun and going after the badguy. . .the victim has now instigated a new confrontation and would be in deep doo-doo should there be shots fired.

    As the person in your story did not have the gun ON them when the bad guy approached and assulted them, nor did he go for the weapon during the confrontation to defend his life which was in danger of grevious bodily injury and/or death. . .their only lawful course of future action would be to call the police to respond, or to shrug their shoulders, chalk the incident up to stupidity in not having their firearm ON them and go home.
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    ChinChin wrote:
    First impression, what the hell was the gun doing in the car rather then on the person?

    In the situation you place forward, I would have to use the laws of the area i live in to comment.

    In Virginia, you must be under threat of grevious bodily harm and/or death to introduce a firearm into the situation, and even more so if you fire said weapon. In the situation you describe, the bad guy came up, mugged somebody while holding a club or bludgeoning weapon, and then left. While there was initial threat of bodily harm and/or death, the second the bad guy walked away the situation was over. By getting out a gun and going after the badguy. . .the victim has now instigated a new confrontation and would be in deep doo-doo should there be shots fired.

    As the person in your story did not have the gun ON them when the bad guy approached and assulted them, nor did he go for the weapon during the confrontation to defend his life which was in danger of grevious bodily injury and/or death. . .their only lawful course of future action would be to call the police to respond, or to shrug their shoulders, chalk the incident up to stupidity in not having their firearm ON them and go home.
    Ok, how about you have your firearm locked and unloaded in the trunk in accordance with interstate travel laws. You pull off the interstate to get some gas...

    As always, "what if" can be played all day - but I was mostly intersted in the concept of "mugging" (not shooting!!!!!) someone who moments or seconds ago just mugged you - for the purpose getting your stuff back, not trying to cleaning up the streetsby shooting up criminals.

    I understand the "shooting someone in the back" action is an accepted no-no in this forum and was not intentionally describing or asking about such a scenario.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Lou_Sanderson wrote:
    ChinChin wrote:
    First impression, what the hell was the gun doing in the car rather then on the person?

    In the situation you place forward, I would have to use the laws of the area i live in to comment.

    In Virginia, you must be under threat of grevious bodily harm and/or death to introduce a firearm into the situation, and even more so if you fire said weapon. In the situation you describe, the bad guy came up, mugged somebody while holding a club or bludgeoning weapon, and then left. While there was initial threat of bodily harm and/or death, the second the bad guy walked away the situation was over. By getting out a gun and going after the badguy. . .the victim has now instigated a new confrontation and would be in deep doo-doo should there be shots fired.

    As the person in your story did not have the gun ON them when the bad guy approached and assulted them, nor did he go for the weapon during the confrontation to defend his life which was in danger of grevious bodily injury and/or death. . .their only lawful course of future action would be to call the police to respond, or to shrug their shoulders, chalk the incident up to stupidity in not having their firearm ON them and go home.
    Ok, how about you have your firearm locked and unloaded in the trunk in accordance with interstate travel laws. You pull off the interstate to get some gas...
    same thing, man. One's balls would be in a sling if they grabbed the gun out of the trunk, loaded it, then "got their stuff back." This hypothetical deal is another example of why you should ALWAYS carry your gun.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Ok, I think the information I was looking for in situations like these - citizen's arrest - can be found here:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...29&id=2485

    and here

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/5467-2.html

    I would think that in said made-up scenario if bad guy tried to sue, you could turn around and sue bad guy cuz bad guy just mugged you!

  14. #14
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    FightingGlock19 wrote:
    Lou_Sanderson wrote:
    ChinChin wrote:
    First impression, what the hell was the gun doing in the car rather then on the person?

    In the situation you place forward, I would have to use the laws of the area i live in to comment.

    In Virginia, you must be under threat of grevious bodily harm and/or death to introduce a firearm into the situation, and even more so if you fire said weapon. In the situation you describe, the bad guy came up, mugged somebody while holding a club or bludgeoning weapon, and then left. While there was initial threat of bodily harm and/or death, the second the bad guy walked away the situation was over. By getting out a gun and going after the badguy. . .the victim has now instigated a new confrontation and would be in deep doo-doo should there be shots fired.

    As the person in your story did not have the gun ON them when the bad guy approached and assulted them, nor did he go for the weapon during the confrontation to defend his life which was in danger of grevious bodily injury and/or death. . .their only lawful course of future action would be to call the police to respond, or to shrug their shoulders, chalk the incident up to stupidity in not having their firearm ON them and go home.
    Ok, how about you have your firearm locked and unloaded in the trunk in accordance with interstate travel laws. You pull off the interstate to get some gas...
    Then you'd be breaking the law. . .If you are referencing interstate peaceful journey laws, they will not allow you to stop ANYWEHRE in their state if you are transporting a firearm, you have to drive straight through with no stops for refuling, bathroom breaks, etc. If you do you are in violation of law.They vary from state to state, but off the top of my head I know DC and Maryland are like that. Otherstates I know of don't have any peaceful journey statutes at all. They fear all guns and don't want them in their states, driving through or otherwise..
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    ChinChin wrote:
    Then you'd be breaking the law. . .If you are referencing interstate peaceful journey laws, they will not allow you to stop ANYWEHRE in their state if you are transporting a firearm, you have to drive straight through with no stops for refuling, bathroom breaks, etc. If you do you are in violation of law.They vary from state to state, but off the top of my head I know DC and Maryland are like that. Otherstates I know of don't have any peaceful journey statutes at all. They fear all guns and don't want them in their states, driving through or otherwise..
    Alright ChinChin, if you absolutely insist that invented and made up scenarios do not have any secondaryholes:say the victimworks on a federal facility. the victimdrives to work with his/her trusty 9mm in his/her vehicle, which is great b/c victim iscovered along the drive to/from work, but the downside is victim hastopark in a parking lotoutside of the federal facility boundaries, and leave the gun behind in thecar and go to work unarmed. Assuming an attack could never occur on a federal facility, thevunerability exists as the victimwalks from his/hercar onto the federal facility. No, the victim can not getanother job.

    and what do you know, since this is a made up story anyway,bad guy attacksthe victim as the victim iswalking to his/her car. The rest of the hypothetical situtation remains the same.

    None of that modification/detail really matters for the question I was trying to bring up. In a perfect world, our gun stays with us 100% of the time. Its great if you can do 100%, but I'd have a hard time believing anyone who says they do.

    In my mind, the question of what to do has been answered by the suggestion of conducting a citizens arrest on the bad guy (thank you Color!).

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Lou_Sanderson wrote:
    Its great if you can do 100%, but I'd have a hard time believing anyone who says they do.
    I carry my gun 100% of the time. Even when I've been dispatched to Illinois, **** 'em, I bring my gun.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    FightingGlock19 wrote:
    Lou_Sanderson wrote:
    Its great if you can do 100%, but I'd have a hard time believing anyone who says they do.
    I carry my gun 100% of the time. Even when I've been dispatched to Illinois, **** 'em, I bring my gun.
    Please refrain from discussing breaking the law on these boards. We promote law-abiding behavior 'round these parts.

  18. #18
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    Lou_Sanderson wrote:
    Alright ChinChin, if you absolutely insist that invented and made up scenarios do not have any secondaryholes:say the victimworks on a federal facility. the victimdrives to work with his/her trusty 9mm in his/her vehicle, which is great b/c victim iscovered along the drive to/from work, but the downside is victim hastopark in a parking lotoutside of the federal facility boundaries, and leave the gun behind in thecar and go to work unarmed. Assuming an attack could never occur on a federal facility, thevunerability exists as the victimwalks from his/hercar onto the federal facility. No, the victim can not getanother job.

    and what do you know, since this is a made up story anyway,bad guy attacksthe victim as the victim iswalking to his/her car. The rest of the hypothetical situtation remains the same.

    None of that modification/detail really matters for the question I was trying to bring up. In a perfect world, our gun stays with us 100% of the time. Its great if you can do 100%, but I'd have a hard time believing anyone who says they do.

    In my mind, the question of what to do has been answered by the suggestion of conducting a citizens arrest on the bad guy (thank you Color!).
    In your first post in this thread, you asked: "Thoughts? Does the law having anything to say about such a scenario? Is the victim making a wise/unwise move? "

    I provided you with some of what the law would have to say, per your request. I offered additional information when you posted something that would land you in trouble (peaceful journey) were you toclaim it would protect you, when in your situation such might not be so. I never said there weren't "holes" to the scenarios provided, nor did i see that you were asking for such. I was attempting to make sure you were proceeding with information that was accurate as what I saw you saying may not be 100% correct, and should you find yourself in such a situation as described I wouldn't want you in hot water. If this was a case of sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, then I apologize and will hold my tongue in the future.


    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    This is in CT's General Statutes...not sure if i would use my firearm to get my property back, but i would use other means to get my property back...and the firearm as a last resort.

    Physical Force in Defense of Property

    A person is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it necessary to (1) prevent attempted larceny or criminal mischief involving property or (2) regain property that he reasonably believes was stolen shortly before.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    ChinChin wrote:
    In your first post in this thread, you asked: "Thoughts? Does the law having anything to say about such a scenario? Is the victim making a wise/unwise move? "

    I provided you with some of what the law would have to say, per your request. I offered additional information when you posted something that would land you in trouble (peaceful journey) were you toclaim it would protect you, when in your situation such might not be so. I never said there weren't "holes" to the scenarios provided, nor did i see that you were asking for such. I was attempting to make sure you were proceeding with information that was accurate as what I saw you saying may not be 100% correct, and should you find yourself in such a situation as described I wouldn't want you in hot water. If this was a case of sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, then I apologize and will hold my tongue in the future.
    No, no, you're good ChinChin. You were trying to help, thanks.

    One of my many character flaws isfindingit frusterating when hypothetical situtations or analogies I think arebeingover-analized to the point that they miss the whole intented topic of discussion. It happens very easily with asynchronous communication & I shouldnt have snapped at you. Tis I who needs to watch the toungue.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Fallguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    McKenzie Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    705

    Post imported post

    buketdude wrote:
    This is in CT's General Statutes...not sure if i would use my firearm to get my property back, but i would use other means to get my property back...and the firearm as a last resort.

    Physical Force in Defense of Property

    A person is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it necessary to (1) prevent attempted larceny or criminal mischief involving property or (2) regain property that he reasonably believes was stolen shortly before.
    Here is what I found at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap9...#Sec53a-21.htm

    Sec. 53a-21. Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by such other person to commit larceny or criminal mischief involving property, or when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to regain property which he reasonably believes to have been acquired by larceny within a reasonable time prior to the use of such force; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    ChinChin wrote:
    FightingGlock19 wrote:
    Lou_Sanderson wrote:
    Ok, how about you have your firearm locked and unloaded in the trunk in accordance with interstate travel laws. You pull off the interstate to get some gas...
    Then you'd be breaking the law. . .If you are referencing interstate peaceful journey laws, they will not allow you to stop ANYWEHRE in their state if you are transporting a firearm, you have to drive straight through with no stops for refuling, bathroom breaks, etc. If you do you are in violation of law.They vary from state to state, but off the top of my head I know DC and Maryland are like that. Otherstates I know of don't have any peaceful journey statutes at all. They fear all guns and don't want them in their states, driving through or otherwise..
    Please post a citation to the law you'd be breaking. You're teatering on the edge of Penalty Flag Point here.

    My understanding is that the safe passage law is a federal law, which allows for stops indidental to traveling, such asfuel stops. And, although DC and MD (and especially NY) might not honor it, it is they who are breaking the law, not you. Please provide evidence that I'm wrong, as it sounds very unreasonable.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    If you had your state listed then you would most likely get a very specific answer to your post. As it is you are going to get posts that apply toa lot of other places. In Virginia, if you had your gun drawn and approached that person, at a minimum, you would be guilty of brandishing 18.2-282A. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+18.2-282

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    sccrref wrote:
    If you had your state listed then you would most likely get a very specific answer to your post. As it is you are going to get posts that apply toa lot of other places. In Virginia, if you had your gun drawn and approached that person, at a minimum, you would be guilty of brandishing 18.2-282A. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...0+cod+18.2-282
    I always thought that term "brandishing" was a bit ambiguous

  25. #25
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Please post a citation to the law you'd be breaking. You're teatering on the edge of Penalty Flag Point here.

    My understanding is that the safe passage law is a federal law, which allows for stops indidental to traveling, such asfuel stops. And, although DC and MD (and especially NY) might not honor it, it is they who are breaking the law, not you. Please provide evidence that I'm wrong, as it sounds very unreasonable.
    You may be correct andI may be in error. My main information was from this source:

    http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIC2a.html

    Although in reviewing it seems I misread the article, I'm double checking other sources as well so I have a clear answer one way or another. I swear I read somewhere that some states requied you to pass completely through with no stops for Gas or bathroom breaks.
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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