imported post
While I greatly appreciate everyone's thoughts and feedback, several posts here have demonstrated that such persons did not carefully read everything I posted. For one, this incident took place in Arizona and Arizona laws apply. Arizona used to have poor self-defense laws not too long ago but that has changed. Arizona has a stand-your-ground law. In addition, it also has a citizens' arrest law. A person can act on behalf of a peace officer in his or her absense and actually detain someone who a reasonable person would believe is constituting a danger to public safety.
First, Arizona has no restrictions on open carry anywhere in the statutes other than that the firearm is carried in a safe manner. You can openly carry long guns and handguns with or without their cases or holsters or slings attached or placed in but the weapon must be pointed in a safe direction and it cannot be done in away that is deliberately designed to cause a public disturbance. Concealed carry without a permit is restricted in the statutes and an exemption is made if the holster, case, or other carrying device itself is visible. But there is no statuatory restriction on the actual gun being visible itself. If you enter a public place that provides storage lockers to check the gun in when entering, that will require you to remove it from the holster, pull the slide back to unload it, and then you will have to hand the gun to the person securing it for you and this will probably be done in front of many other people. There is nothing illegal to that. A lot of the so-called "pro-gun" people on this forum sound a lot like the anti-gun people who think that anything you do with a gun is illegal. Maybe in your state but not in ours.
I need to critique some more points in the following post:
It probably was a bad move, but it's over now. I just hope that you don't get robbed, that is what would be my biggest concern. It concerns me to just walk out of my place to my car with an ammo can and a rifle case when I go to the range. Then people who are scoping places out would know where it "lives."
That is worth considering. However, my apartment itself is pretty well secured. The main risk of a burglary is from people who know you, what you have, and how to get it. That makes the maintenence crew who have all the keys the most likely to break in, not the gangbangers. If I'm really concerned about that, I can put up a camera in the apartment and have it aimed at the entrances and record any activity to an external computer. That would prevent any maintenence person or someone with a key from breaking in. As to gangbangers, they don't know my habits or what exactly I have and the place isn't that easy to get into forcibly. Likewise, they don't want to get killed and if they consider the possibility that even though the place "looks" empty that someone actually is inside, then they risk facing a wall of 00 buckshot.
You're also going to need to watch your back a lot more now. If one of them was a gang member they may feel that you've somehow disrespected them, and that's something they will kill anyone (Including LEOs) over. Next time try to either enter from another direction or don't enter at all if it's not possible. I think you should try to avoid a crowd of intoxicated folks full of adrenaline at any cost. If that means not driving up to a parking space right in front of your place, then so be it. If your apartment were completely ablaze you wouldn't just walk into it because you think you shouldn't have to deal with the place being on fire. I don't see this as being very different, it's a highly volatile situation that's best to simply avoid.
Obviously, you didn't read the recent post carefully as I didn't notice there was a serious situation until I was right in the middle of it. Please re-read the second description. As to avoiding a "highly volatile situation" that applies to the street but not your home. Arizona has a "castle doctrine" law. If people want to kill each other, fine, but get it off of my property. These criminals were on the property where I live. The lease agreement governs my right to my apartment as well as the common areas. In essence, the parking lot, swimming pool, laundry rooms, and other areas of the complex are also my property. While the castle doctrine only applies to inside of the house, these people were on
private property which I have legal rights to according to Arizona law and the lease agreement. If the situation involved following the fighters down the street and off the property, that is different, but it was happening on the property. There is a major difference between violence on the street and on the property where you live. Anyone who thinks that anyone should put up with it when it is on their property needs to do a reality check.
I know for sure that what you did made it so that if you'd shot anyone you would have gone down for it in North Carolina. I am not sure about the laws in your state, but most have a duty to retreat and also require that you do nothing to instigate a problem. You did something that could easily be seen as instigating IMO and you made no attempt to flee, but rather walked right into it. The duty to retreat is a requirement in almost all states when you feel like you're in enought danger to justify having the weapon in your hands. By walking right into it with a weapon and racking the slide in front of everyone, you presented all of them with a threat. Nobody there knew whether or not you were going to just turn around and start shooting them or what. If they'd have attacked you I don't know how much of a defense you'd have had if you shot them for it. You would have had a part in instigating their attack by presenting them with a lethal threat when nobody had threatened you. Not to mention you were the one that chose to walk right into the massive fight when you had no involvement in it prior to that time.
Nonsense. Arizona has a "stand your ground law." There is no duty to retreat. First of all, I was threatened by multiple assailants. While they were not interested in me, there was no guarantee that they might suddenly become interested. Additionally, deadly weapons were already introduced and in full use by the fighters. With beer bottles being thrown, that immediately puts my life in danger. In addition, even had my life not been in danger, Arizona has a third party defense statute. The people attacking each other with bottles were not only threatening each other with deadly force but they were endangering the public safety of everyone there. I could have legally
shot anyone who had threatened me or another with a bottle. So to say I wasn't being threatened is ridiculous. These situations are extremely dangerous and even people who chose to stay inside their own homes were in danger. While there were numerous spectators who obviously were not afraid of where they were positioned, that is meaningless for two reasons. Stand your ground has nothing to do with someone else feeling or not feeling threatened. It has to do with
you being threatened. Additionally, these spectators could have also been gang members, drunk, or on meth. Either way, just the fact that they were there made them a part of the situation and thus a threat. Since they were doing nothing to prevent or stop the violence and were actually egging the others on, they were also a threat to public safety as well as mine.
There is no such thing as me instigating a fight when it clearly was already on the borderline of someone getting killed. Ask yourself how likely you are not to be injured or killed if someone picks up a broken beer bottle and busts it over your head? If it didn't kill you, it may knock you unconscious and probably put you in the hospital. Technically, I should have gotten out of the car, pointed the gun at anyone reaching for, holding, or ready to throw a bottle, and shot them. Let me repeat this one more time. Not only was my action not considered brandishing, I actually had the right to shoot anybody wielding a bottle. People who still are not reading my posts clearly need to understand that this was not a common fist fight but a fight involving the use of deadly weapons.
Unfortunately you have to deal with idiots in this world, especially in a bad neighborhood. Just remember that if you'd have shot any of them you likely would have paid dearly for it in one way or another.
Not according to the statutes. Yes, you have to put up with "idiots" in public who may inconvenience you but are doing nothing illegal. You do NOT have to put up with felons who are putting your life as well as other people's lives in danger. Period. A "bad neighborhood" does not mean that you have to put up with it. The fact that I am a United States citizen and pay my taxes means I don't have to put up with it ANYWHERE.
even then you couldn't shoot them unless they attacked you
Again, not true and third party defense. Additionally, Arizona allows the use of deadly force if necessary to protect public safety. That means if I pull into the Circle K and see some idiot acting "cool" by holding a lit cigarette to the gas pump, I can pull my gun on him, tell him to get the cigarette away from the gas immediately, and if he continues to be funny by holding the cigarette where it could cause an explosion, I can legally shoot and kill him. True, he would not be threatening me or even a third party but his actions constitute a severe danger to public safety putting multiple lives in danger. That allows the use of deadly force. This is Arizona. It is not California, New York, or Chicago, IL. Keep that in mind.
Final point: I have to say it certainly was a learning lesson. Next time I witness someone threatening someone with a baseball bat, beer bottle, pool stick, knife, or other deadly object, I won't walk through them and rack the slide. Instead, I'll point the gun at them and pull the trigger. This is how you handle it. End of story.
