Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: When is it ok to USE your gun ... to fire your weopon while OC?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Personally I would like to never ... EVER have to use my gun for lots of reasons but one would be everything just escalates big time and gets complicated especially legally.

    For example you are in a conveniance store and it is getting robbed but you are not threatened. Personally right now unless you guys could give better reasons I would not use the gun but maybe get it ready. My reason is that I dont want a loss of life. And if the only objective (as in most cases) is to get money then let them have it.

    Unless a person is shooting or seems likely to shoot other people or myself then I dont think I would pull on the person. However if anyone other then a LEO was threatening me or my party that would probably be different but that doesnt mean I shoot.

    I dunno thats some mental calculations I have gone through. Honestly would not like to be in that situation as there are too many variables and would rather not get prosecuted in trying to defend myself or others but if anyone was at risk as in the perp is shooting and or harming people then everything changes.

  2. #2
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    This is a hard issue to discuss on line. Best I can do is say buy the book "how to own a gun and stay out of jail" as it has excellent descriptions of use of force case law and CA penal code in plain to understand English.

    But thank you for bringing the topic up. Much is discussed hereabout possession laws and the right tocarry our tools of self defense but less is aimed at actualuse of deadly force. Get educated and trained!!!

    Places like Front Site in NVoffer excellent training.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    Once a badguy has inserted a gun or other tool of potential lethal force into a situation it's pretty easy to justify bringing lethal force back to him.This doesn'tmean that the clean up after the party will be quick or easy. Cato is right though, If you plan on going heeled it's best you know the laws of violence. There's more to it than just legislation. There's case law and a bunch of other stuff to take into account too. Once you are educated you can make better decisions about whether or not you involve yourself.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Well, 12031 does have exemptions for when you can load in an area that it otherwise forbids:
    (j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, "immediate"means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.

    (k) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of a loaded firearm by any person while engaged in the act of making or attempting to make a lawful arrest.
    As for when you can use lethal force, my recommendation is In the Gravest Extreme, by Massad Ayoob.

    http://ayoob.com/cgi-bin/miva?Mercha...gory_Code=AMAB

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Hopefully it never comes to it, but I think you'll know when the time comes to use deadly force... when the consequences of inaction become more dangerous than the consequences of action.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  6. #6
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    The only time MY gun will be used in self defense is to save the life of my family or myself. If others cannot be bothered to take their own security seriously, I am not there to act as their stopgap.

    Scenario #1: I am at a 7/11 and it's being robbed... I duck down behind the chips and sodas with my pistol at the ready. The only time I will engage is if the BG comes around the corner, sees me, and levels a weapon at me. The store is robbed and loses money (not my money though). I stay and answer a few police questions and I go home.

    Scenario #2: I am at a 7/11 and it's being robbed... I duck down behind the chips and sodas with my pistol at the ready. I creep around the corner and see the BG pointing a weapon at the clerk demanding money. I exhale, take careful aim, and pop the BG in the head. The police arrive and take my gun as evidence, cuff me, take me to the station and interview me. Even though they know it was SD, they craft the questions to trap me into making statements which will not help my defense. I don't have my lawyer because I think it's an open and shut case of SD. (Now, that would not happen to ME but not everyone is like me, they will speak w/o a lawyer like fools) The DA presses charges and I defend myself successfully at the personal cost of $30k. The BG's family sues me in civil court and wins. My life is destroyed. All because I got involved when I could have stayed ducked behind the chips.

    Granted, these two scenarios are narrowly crafted. But, they show just one of the several reasons why I will not get involved. Too much liabilities, too many unknowns.



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    Snip: The only time MY gun will be used in self defense is to save the life of my family or myself. If others cannot be bothered to take their own security seriously, I am not there to act as their stopgap.
    Not picking on you here, just exploring the topic. You turn the corner and see some folks beating an unconscious man with bats and bricks. What do you do? By the way, I do agree with you that someone else's cash is not worth fighting for unless I'm getting paid alot of moneyto do it.

    Legal Stuff: If you do shoot, dealing with the cops is no big deal. I was afraid that the bad guy was going to hurt/kill me/other person. I shot that many times in that direction. I'll tell you who I am but I'm not going to answer any more questions. Doing it this way establishes that you had a reason for engaging the bad guy, you are concerned about the whereabouts and effects of any bullets you sent down range and that you are smart enough to know what the rules of the game are.

    Sociological Stuff: It makes me sad that modern American jurisprudence has created an amoral familist mindset amongst many of those who are willing to take responsibility for their own lives.

    Amoral Familism=Only what is good for me/my family/my clan is worth doing. Amoral familists are incapable of acting on behalf of/ in support of any social structure beyond their own blood. Look to Afganistani tribes and Iraqi militiasfor good examples.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    La Mesa, California, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    I've thought about this myself. Would I be willing to insert myself into a violent situation that poses no direct threat to myself? I would first seriously have to decide if my intervention would further escalate the situation. Unfortunately, I cannot read the mind of the BG. Does he just want the money or is he intent on harming his victim? I don't believe there's any textbook answer. Every situation would be unique. I would trust my training to allow me to evaluate the situation and respond appropriately. I guess what I'm saying is, training is the key. I'm going to look into the items mentioned above for further instruction. You can never have too much training.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    I like this answer the best but really all the answers kind've back up what I was thinking. And that is the best thing is to do your best to not use the gun if at all possible.

    Didnt want to seem like a coward but damn these days it just seems smart to let people take money or something stupid like that then to chance further injuries or some hardcore legal problems.

    In the convenience store situation we're talking a few hundred probably anyways not even worth it in the slightest.

    Thanks everyone for answering.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    you are concerned about the whereabouts and effects of any bullets you sent down range and that you are smart enough to know what the rules of the game are.
    Good thing to take into consideration. you are responsible for every bullet you fire. if you arent acurate and your bullets hail into the neightbor hood across the street from the 7/11, you better pray to the gods everyone across the street knows matrix bullet dodging moves lol.



    Edit: also in my firearms training to be an armed guard, the teacherstressed that its a lot harder to explain why you shot someone in the back(ie. if he was running away after he got the money since that would be use of escesive force) im not sure as this apliesto if he had shot the clerk and was running away. would shooting him be justified?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    NoHammer wrote:
    I've thought about this myself. Would I be willing to insert myself into a violent situation that poses no direct threat to myself? I would first seriously have to decide if my intervention would further escalate the situation. Unfortunately, I cannot read the mind of the BG. Does he just want the money or is he intent on harming his victim? I don't believe there's any textbook answer. Every situation would be unique. I would trust my training to allow me to evaluate the situation and respond appropriately. I guess what I'm saying is, training is the key. I'm going to look into the items mentioned above for further instruction. You can never have too much training.
    +10

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    La Mesa, California, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    poothrowingape wrote:
    grumpycoconut wrote:
    you are concerned about the whereabouts and effects of any bullets you sent down range and that you are smart enough to know what the rules of the game are.
    Good thing to take into consideration. you are responsible for every bullet you fire. if you arent acurate and your bullets hail into the neightbor hood across the street from the 7/11, you better pray to the gods everyone across the street knows matrix bullet dodging moves lol.



    Edit: also in my firearms training to be an armed guard, the teacherstressed that its a lot harder to explain why you shot someone in the back(ie. if he was running away after he got the money since that would be use of escesive force) im not sure as this apliesto if he had shot the clerk and was running away. would shooting him be justified?
    Unless the BG was engaged in a gun fight with your partner or someone else and you came up behind him, there would be no way to justify shooting him in the back. Even then, you'd have to prove that there were no other options other than lethal force.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA, ,
    Posts
    105

    Post imported post

    I think the 7/11 scenario is a good example of when and if you will use your weapon. If I were in the local 7/11 or Arco station and it was being robbed while I was inside, I would just simply do the best I can in that situation. I would indeed go for my gun but stay behind the "chips and sodas" rack until it was all clear. My outlook on robberies may differ from others but I tend to look at it like this....its only money, it can be replaced, the life of the store clerk can not be replaced, nor mine or yours or anyone else's for that matter.

    Just use situational awareness at all times and you should be ok....



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    Snip: The only time MY gun will be used in self defense is to save the life of my family or myself. If others cannot be bothered to take their own security seriously, I am not there to act as their stopgap.
    Not picking on you here, just exploring the topic. You turn the corner and see some folks beating an unconscious man with bats and bricks. What do you do? By the way, I do agree with you that someone else's cash is not worth fighting for unless I'm getting paid alot of moneyto do it.
    Personally, I would likly keep an eye on the situation and call the cops. As hard hearted as it may sound on the surface, I am not (likely) going to physically intervene. Put myself in the middle of a group of violent thugs? No thank you. How do I know they don't have a guy watching for the cops? That guy could just as easily either warn them about me, or just take me down from behind. Or, the guys with the clubs might be hiding their guns. No, I am not a Marine, and I am not going to go out of my way to engage a superior force.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    Standing at the counter with a gun on the clerk...shoot him in the back until the danger is gone.



    Running down the street after the robberyWITHOUT a weapon in his hand.....shooting into his back will be 2nd degree murder, or worse.



    The difference is "fleeing felon" and you not being law enforcement...... and protecting human life in immediate danger as a citizen.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    true. if there is a clear and immediate danger then shoot to end the threat. never state to the police you shot him in the leg to just wound him, thats excessive force, and it would sound incriminating if you said you were shooting to kill.

    and its my understanding that warning shots are a definite no no. not that anyone would do that. its really a stupid thing to do. illegal discharge of a firearm and im sure they can say u were using the firearm to threaten the robber(or anyone in any situation) by firing a warning shot.

    all-in-all its best to have your lawyer present durring questioning. dont wave that 5th.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    Call me a cold hearted, self-centered SOB if you want but carrying a gun is not something I'm going to do to save somebody else's life. I'm just NOT going through that legal nightmare to be a hero to somebody else.I don't have any kids or family in this area so its not like I'd be turning my back on a loved one. Getting my backside reamed by the courts for aiding a complete stranger is just a LOT more than I'll put myself through.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    HariCarry wrote:
    Call me a cold hearted, self-centered SOB if you want but carrying a gun is not something I'm going to do to save somebody else's life. I'm just NOT going through that legal nightmare to be a hero to somebody else.I don't have any kids or family in this area so its not like I'd be turning my back on a loved one. Getting my backside reamed by the courts for aiding a complete stranger is just a LOT more than I'll put myself through.
    I lol'ed. I'm right there with you. I can just see the 3rd party sueing you for not doing anything because you had a firearm. lol

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA, ,
    Posts
    105

    Post imported post

    Mykal wrote:
    HariCarry wrote:
    Call me a cold hearted, self-centered SOB if you want but carrying a gun is not something I'm going to do to save somebody else's life. I'm just NOT going through that legal nightmare to be a hero to somebody else.I don't have any kids or family in this area so its not like I'd be turning my back on a loved one. Getting my backside reamed by the courts for aiding a complete stranger is just a LOT more than I'll put myself through.
    I lol'ed. I'm right there with you. I can just see the 3rd party sueing you for not doing anything because you had a firearm. lol
    In a way, that's funny and NOT funny cause we both know some ******* liberal leftist lawyer WOULD take the case. Can just see the headlines now..."Armed man in store does nothing to help store clerk is sued".

    I know we have been beating this topic but in reality, we don't have an obligation to step in and mettle in affairs that isn't our own. I know we all would agree if it were say one of our family members being threatened, we would intervene.

    I watched on tv last night a show called Crisis Point and it had videos of different situations where both the LEO and civilians were in dire situations where they had to use deadly force and one of them was a pawn shop getting robbed. Well, the owner was in back and the store employees were just about to lock up the store when three armed black males came in to rob the place, waving a gun around and threatening them.

    The store owner was in the back and saw what was going on and after a moment, reached for a 9mm handgun he had tucked away somewhere and took careful aim and opened fire on the thugs hitting all three at least two or three times. His statement on tv was this..."I had a moral obligation to protect my employees and to make sure they go home to their famillies".

    The store owner also qouted saying "The three thugs were later found at the hospital wearing my bullets I shot them with and got seven years for armed robbery".

    Awesome example there in my book......be safe everyone...

Posting Permissions

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