don't act as a LEO officer?

imported post

Usually... the need for use of deadly force is not a planned event. It will occur suddenly... often violently. The perp will have the element of surprise. You don't have time to re-hash the vaguaries of 'law' in yer head. You will react... one way or the other, to the dynamic of the event. The event may happen in your presence... or you may happen upon the event in progress. The one option you will not have is pursuit. That's up to the LEO's. Lets say... if two guys get at it in a fist fight... 'n there's no weapon displayed.... Don't draw yours and 'break it up'... unless it's life threatening. As in... some thug is in process of stomping someone... or strangling them. If any weapon is brandished... and the circumstances seem imminent that the 'actor' will use that weapon... then deadly force would be an appropriate response. You'll never know... until you KNOW! I live in a rather remote area... with 5 Deputies covering 155 sq. miles per shift. LEO response time is an issue... and the Sheriff's Dept.is very much aware ofit. Perhaps... I may have more latitude than some because of that. The AZ Constitution reads; RTK&BA... In defense of themseves or the state. The 'state'... would include 'others'... not just the government or territory. In many ways... this is still the 'wild' part of the old wild west. That said... anyone who OC's may have thwarted a criminal activity just by their presence... if noticed by an individual or 'group' bent on some criminal activity. We have no way to know. Criminals don't know what John Q will do... and therein' lies the element of fear and doubt.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

Theseus wrote:

The way I figure is that it is my duty to stop any crime that is being commited in my presence, if I have the means to do so.

Click to expand...

I think I would take a serious look at this thought if I were you.

To intervene in "any crime" can land you in jail in the blink of an eye.

Click to expand...

I will worry about that when the time comes. But you are somewhat right in my use. I will likely not stop someone stealing a car, but I will get what information I can to aid in the capture. A car is a car and can be replaced. .

But I will certainly not stand by and watch people be beaten, battered or abused if I can do something about it whether I am armed or not.

imported post

I have never been in a situation that i can recall of seeing someone being attacked or a crime in process. But I think if I saw a street fight I would do nothing, (yeah I remember Idid see one fight once and kept driving,)if I saw a petty crime i would call the cops, but if I saw someone about to be killed, I would do something about it, if i had my gun on me.

If a BG is shot by a innocent victim, then I would stick around to be a witness

imported post

My 2 cents:

I will defend my self, my family, or my fellow citizen against those who would do them harm. Using my firearm is not a light decision, and would that decision would only be made when there is no other reasonable opportunity available in that moment.

I am fortunate to live in Indiana. Here, we have the "Castle Doctrine" law, that clearly states that a citizen has a right to be secure in their persons, regardless of where they are.


IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.


Indiana law then goes further to allow the use of deadly force to prevent the unlawful entry into one's home or occupied motor vehicle.


(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.


It is nice that this law is in place. It takes away those concerns for me. However, regardless of the law, I would not hesitate to use lethal force to defend another against a violent attack or the threat of such attack. I will take my chances with a jury, before I stand by and let another citizen of my community be harmed by a criminal.

Some things in life are worth fighting for, no matter the cost. For me, this is one of them.

imported post

The more that you think about it at that moment that it happens the more likely someone besides the dirtbag gets hurt. It just comes down to whats gonna make you sleep easierat night? letting some asshole kill an innocent? or u smoking him regardless of the repercussions? dead men tell no tales. whats right is right regardless of lawyers, police, laws, lawsuits.

imported post

Like I always say, When the time comes, You'll know. You won't even have to think about it, Survival/Defender Instinct will take over for about 3 seconds.

imported post

Dustin wrote:

Like I always say, When the time comes, You'll know. You won't even have to think about it, Survival/Defender Instinct will take over for about 3 seconds.

Click to expand...

exactly. when your life or someone elses is on the line. all these mumbo jumbo laws won't matter.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

Theseus wrote:

The way I figure is that it is my duty to stop any crime that is being commited in my presence, if I have the means to do so.

Click to expand...

I think I would take a serious look at this thought if I were you.

To intervene in "any crime" can land you in jail in the blink of an eye.

Click to expand...

It is a shame how folks are now restrained from "up holding the law"as citizens. There was a time when the community was expected to defend each other without question. But now the lawyers and there kind will go after any good person justto MAKE a case to notch there pencil with. It's not about protecting so much as making a dollar. Crime is needed to bring in dollars for LEO Departments and lawyers. Without it, they would be out of work if the citizens took care of there own problems. There was a time if someone called your wife a B***h and you handled it yourself the LEO would have said the "punk got what he asked for" But we do not have men in this country any more. Just robots, doing what there told!

imported post

murphy2 wrote:

It is a shame how folks are now restrained from "up holding the law"as citizens. There was a time when the community was expected to defend each other without question. But now the lawyers and there kind will go after any good person justto MAKE a case to notch there pencil with. It's not about protecting so much as making a dollar. Crime is needed to bring in dollars for LEO Departments and lawyers. Without it, they would be out of work if the citizens took care of there own problems. There was a time if someone called your wife a B***h and you handled it yourself the LEO would have said the "punk got what he asked for" But we do not have men in this country any more. Just robots, doing what there told!

Click to expand...

And where have you been ? That's been going on for how long ? Hundreds of years.

imported post

murphy2 wrote:

Sheriff wrote:

Theseus wrote:

The way I figure is that it is my duty to stop any crime that is being commited in my presence, if I have the means to do so.

Click to expand...

I think I would take a serious look at this thought if I were you.

To intervene in "any crime" can land you in jail in the blink of an eye.

Click to expand...

It is a shame how folks are now restrained from "up holding the law"as citizens. There was a time when the community was expected to defend each other without question. But now the lawyers and there kind will go after any good person justto MAKE a case to notch there pencil with. It's not about protecting so much as making a dollar. Crime is needed to bring in dollars for LEO Departments and lawyers. Without it, they would be out of work if the citizens took care of there own problems. There was a time if someone called your wife a B***h and you handled it yourself the LEO would have said the "punk got what he asked for" But we do not have men in this country any more. Just robots, doing what there told!

Click to expand...

and that's just how govt. wants it to be. no individualism period.

yes you can have a gun, but if you ever use it, you're in big trouble.

it happens little by little...

imported post

Weak 9mm wrote:

Your state must have different requirements then. My class was plenty long to cover both matters and involved a shooting test where you had to demonstrate competence with the firearm.

There were plenty of people in the CC course that hadn't been around firearms "since before they could walk," including me. There were no firearms in my home growing up.

Click to expand...

It probably does, Colorado does seem to have some fairly liberal gun laws. This wasn't really a CC course, it was basic firearms training that just happened to meet the minimum requirements for the CWP. They had some more advanced classes and in retrospect I wish I would have spent the extra cash and gone to one of them.

Jizzle wrote:

The more that you think about it at that moment that it happens the more likely someone besides the dirtbag gets hurt. It just comes down to whats gonna make you sleep easierat night? letting some @#$% kill an innocent? or u smoking him regardless of the repercussions? dead men tell no tales. whats right is right regardless of lawyers, police, laws, lawsuits.

Click to expand...

Not thinking about it is exactly what is going to hurt you in the long run.

imported post

MICHIGAN CPL class is 8 hours. 2-4 hours at range and remaining in a class room with a state instructor/lawyer.

michigans biggest cpl change a year or so was the no retreat and you can fight force with force, no civil suite after cleared of a shooting. i believe florida has now adopted this amendment to the cpl permit.

imported post

murphy2 wrote:

Sheriff wrote:

Theseus wrote:

The way I figure is that it is my duty to stop any crime that is being commited in my presence, if I have the means to do so.

Click to expand...

I think I would take a serious look at this thought if I were you.

To intervene in "any crime" can land you in jail in the blink of an eye.

Click to expand...

It is a shame how folks are now restrained from "up holding the law"as citizens. There was a time when the community was expected to defend each other without question. But now the lawyers and there kind will go after any good person justto MAKE a case to notch there pencil with. It's not about protecting so much as making a dollar. Crime is needed to bring in dollars for LEO Departments and lawyers. Without it, they would be out of work if the citizens took care of there own problems. There was a time if someone called your wife a B***h and you handled it yourself the LEO would have said the "punk got what he asked for" But we do not have men in this country any more. Just robots, doing what there told!

Click to expand...

[sigh]... The first one is "their." "There" is a place, like "over there."

The second one is "they're," which clearly means "they are." You can't just substitute the word "there" any time you come across a heterographic homophone of that word. There, their and they're are spelled differently even though they sound the same...

And I guess you're the type to attack someone over name calling?

imported post

Thank you, yewfor, fourthe spelling lesson weak, week9mm. I'm always willing to, too, two learn what I have forgotten in the years since, cents school. I wish I could meet, meat with you, yew someday. I'd buy, by you a coffee. No! Really thanks! You are right, I should pay more attention. As far as "attacking" over name calling. NO! Or is it know? I can't remember.

imported post

Right......

imported post

As for me, well, I would do what I know to be right in my heart and mind. I could not allow someone to die that was just an innocent. I would have to take action (if at all possible and appropriate) to save the life of someone that came under the attack of a BG. If I wind up in prison and my family suffers, well, I did what I deemed to be right and righteous. I will sleep wellknowing that someone is alive because I wasn't afraid to take action.

imported post

rodbender wrote:

As for me, well, I would do what I know to be right in my heart and mind. I could not allow someone to die that was just an innocent. I would have to take action (if at all possible and appropriate) to save the life of someone that came under the attack of a BG. If I wind up in prison and my family suffers, well, I did what I deemed to be right and righteous. I will sleep wellknowing that someone is alive because I wasn't afraid to take action.

Click to expand...

Amen.

imported post

murphy2 wrote:

Thank you, yewfor, fourthe spelling lesson weak, week9mm. I'm always willing to, too, two learn what I have forgotten in the years since, cents school. I wish I could meet, meat with you, yew someday. I'd buy, by you a coffee. No! Really thanks! You are right, I should pay more attention. As far as "attacking" over name calling. NO! Or is it know? I can't remember.

Click to expand...

You, yew forgot ewe. Oh yes you, yew, ewe did.

I hate it when someone does that. Correct someone else's spelling or grammar. That's not what this site is for and if you understand what they are saying, LEAVE THEM ALONE. You could make the same mistake. GEEZ

imported post

rodbender wrote:

I hate it when someone does that. Correct someone else's spelling or grammar. That's not what this site is for and if you understand what they are saying, LEAVE THEM ALONE. You could make the same mistake. GEEZ

Click to expand...

Well said rodbender, I accidentally inserted an extra "o" in the word lose to spell loose on another thread and darn near derailed the thread. It was just a typographical error. I was amazed at how much energy was redirected off topic. Kind of like what I'm doing now. Focus...focus...focus...ding :idea:There, all better.

imported post

cccook wrote:

rodbender wrote:

I hate it when someone does that. Correct someone else's spelling or grammar. That's not what this site is for and if you understand what they are saying, LEAVE THEM ALONE. You could make the same mistake. GEEZ

Click to expand...

Well said rodbender, I accidentally inserted an extra "o" in the word lose to spell loose on another thread and darn near derailed the thread. It was just a typographical error. I was amazed at how much energy was redirected off topic. Kind of like what I'm doing now. Focus...focus...focus...ding :idea:There, all better.

Click to expand...

rest easy, i got a C+ in english class ;-)