A couple scenarios

imported post

Hello,

First off, my name is Segev. I'm 17 and I'm considering legally, openly carrying a handgun when I turn 18. The handgun would be registered under my name via intra-familial transfer. I live in California so I thought this post would be best suited to this section.

I have a couple questions:

Let's say I'm at a grocery store with my legally openly carried weapon, and a criminal pulls out a gun and attempts to rob the cashier. I see this and then shoot the criminal. Am I within my rights? I was in no direct contact with the criminal other than the fact that we were in the same store.

Second-An unknown man walks into my house uninvited. He is unarmed. I happen to have a baseball bat with me and break his knees. Am I liable for his injuries? What if he is armed? What if I think he's armed, but he's actually not?

Thanks for any replies,

Segev

imported post

sega18 wrote:

Hello,

First off, my name is Segev. I'm 17 and I'm considering legally, openly carrying a handgun when I turn 18. The handgun would be registered under my name via intra-familial transfer. I live in California so I thought this post would be best suited to this section.

I have a couple questions:

Let's say I'm at a grocery store with my legally openly carried weapon, and a criminal pulls out a gun and attempts to rob the cashier. I see this and then shoot the criminal. Am I within my rights? I was in no direct contact with the criminal other than the fact that we were in the same store.

Click to expand...

The bad guy has already used lethal force in producing his weapon (doesn't matter if he has shot anyone, or shot at all). The clerk, you, and all others within reach ofhis bullets can honestly and legallyfear for their lives or well being. You are fully justified in using that level of force required to stop his aggression.

Click to expand...

Second-An unknown man walks into my house uninvited. He is unarmed. I happen to have a baseball bat with me and break his knees. Am I liable for his injuries? What if he is armed? What if I think he's armed, but he's actually not?

Click to expand...

If the man is unarmed, has made no threatening gestures or communications, YOU will be arrested for assault and battery. He can also sue the hell out of you.

Click to expand...

If heis armed, you are justifiably in fear for your life or well being, and used that level of force required to stop his aggression.

Click to expand...

Thanks for any replies,

Segev

Click to expand...

Notice that I did not say shoot to kill, or shoot to wound.

You use whatever force level is necessary to stop the attack. This may result in a wounding. It may result in a dead bad guy............but that is not your goal. Your purpose, in defense of your life, is to stop him.

imported post

sega18 wrote:

Hello,

First off, my name is Segev. I'm 17 and I'm considering legally, openly carrying a handgun when I turn 18. The handgun would be registered under my name via intra-familial transfer. I live in California so I thought this post would be best suited to this section.

I have a couple questions:

Let's say I'm at a grocery store with my legally openly carried weapon, and a criminal pulls out a gun and attempts to rob the cashier. I see this and then shoot the criminal. Am I within my rights? I was in no direct contact with the criminal other than the fact that we were in the same store. If you were in fear for your life, or in fear that the cashier was going to be killed, then you most likely would be legally justified in shooting the criminal.

Second-An unknown man walks into my house uninvited. He is unarmed. I happen to have a baseball bat with me and break his knees. Am I liable for his injuries? What if he is armed? What if I think he's armed, but he's actually not?
Thanks for any replies. This one depends upon what he is doing. If an unarmed man walks into your home, and he doesn't threaten you in any way with physical harm, even if he walks over and picks up your TV and walks out with it, you would not be legally justified in harming him in any fashion. If he is armed, and he makes any hostile or threatening moves towards you that put you in fear for your life, then you would be legally justified in defending yourself. If you just think he is armed, it depends on why you think he is armed. If he points a black toy gun at you, you would reasonably assume that it was a real gun and you would be legally justified in defending yourself. If he reached around to scratch his but and you thought he was going for a gun, sketchy as to whether or not that would sway a jury in your favor. In any case if you shoot/hit/stab someone in your home, expect it to go before a DA.

Segev

Click to expand...

Hope that helps

imported post

Thanks for the responses. I was mostly curious about the 'in your home' one.

Segev

imported post

sega18 wrote:

Hello,...

Click to expand...

Welcome to OCDO!!!!

An internet forum is not the place to learn about this stuff.

Shooting someone even in totally justified self-defense has huge legal liabilities. Your freedom and your financial future are at stake.

Your best bet is to get some books on the subject to get started. I suggest:

In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob as a first book.

Possible on-line resources for books:

• Gunlaws.com
• Lethal Force Institute's "Police Bookshelf"
• Paladin Press

Besides the legalities, there are tactics--a whole different subject in itself. You will want to read up or takeclasses.

This is very serious stuff. You definitely want to get it right. Even if the answers you get on an internet forum are accurate, the answersmay not be complete.

imported post

Thanks for the info, Citizen. I'm trying to do all the research I can so that I'm prepared for whatever circumstances I may encounter.

I'll definitely find a copy of those book. I find nonfiction books a good source of info. If you have any other recommendations I'll be glad to take them.

Thanks,

Segev

imported post

sega18 wrote:

Second-An unknown man walks into my house uninvited. He is unarmed. I happen to have a baseball bat with me and break his knees. Am I liable for his injuries? What if he is armed? What if I think he's armed, but he's actually not?

Click to expand...

lol probably, knowing CA youll be in court for the rest of your life while some thug that used to live in a trash can is collecting money for the rest of his life. personally thats why i moved out at 17, i couldnt stand that state. if you do decide to carry though, make sure you find a good attorney before hand and arm yourself with as much knowledge as you can.

what part of CA are you around?

imported post

Alright I hate to burst this love fest bubble. But SHOOT TO KILL every TIME a dead man tells no tells... It his word against yours.. IF he is dead , he can not talk, if he cant talk he cant lie.


Yes you will have killed a man, but i reality its better to have killed him than end up in court for 5 years getting sued by him
The main reason why I run with a 40 and not a 9 is that 3 shots centermass mean that POS is not going to make it yet the rounds are less likely to go through and through like with a 45.

The military only shoots to wound because it draws out his buddies like bait. plus u cant interrogate a dead person. Hence the reason why the M16 runs with the weak 5.56 nato round

IF ITS LIFE OR DEATH TAKE HIS TO SAVE OTHERS

imported post

stuckinchico wrote:

The military only shoots to wound because it draws out his buddies like bait. plus u cant interrogate a dead person. Hence the reason why the M16 runs with the weak 5.56 nato round

Click to expand...

whered you hear that?

imported post

Personal Experience as I served in Us MArines as a helicopter doorgunner And I was always armed

imported post

oh just wondering. we were always taught to kill first and then the guys behind us will collect the injured as POWs

imported post

stuckinchico wrote:

SNIP Alright I hate to burst this love fest bubble. But SHOOT TO KILL every TIME a dead man tells no tells... It his word against yours.. IF he is dead , he can not talk, if he cant talk he cant lie.

Click to expand...

Sega18,

The above quoteis a perfect example of being guarded aboutadvice seen on an internet forum.

That is very dangerous advice. It also paints us as bloodthirsty/vindictive/willing to kill to avoid possible non-lethal legal consequences, etc.

The law varies from state to state, but most all of them as I understand it only authorize shooting to stop the threat.

I have never read ofa law that lets someone keep shooting after the attackis stopped just to make sure the bad guy is dead and unable to testify or sue.

If you continue shooting in order to kill after the threat stops, you could be in very deep hot water legally. Heck, you could be in very deep hot water even if you stop shooting once the threat is over, depending on a hostile prosecutor, lying witnesses, insufficient evidence to corroborate your story, etc.

Modern forensics may be able to tell that the defender "shot to kill" beyond the shots firedto stop the threat. In which case, here comes the manslaughteror murder charge.

Once the threat is over, stop shooting.

Hopefully, the author of the quoted post meant to say shoot at vital areas most likely to immediately shut down theattack, which coincidentally are sometimeslethal, andoverlookedclarifying that one should stop shooting after the threat is over.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

stuckinchico wrote:

Alright I hate to burst this love fest bubble. But SHOOT TO KILL every TIME a dead man tells no tells... It his word against yours.. IF he is dead , he can not talk, if he cant talk he cant lie.

Click to expand...

Sega18,

The above quoteis a perfect example being guarded aboutadvice on an internet forum.

That is very dangerous advice. It also paints us as bloodthirsty/vindictive/willing to kill to avoid possible non-lethal legal consequences, etc.

The law varies from state to state, but most all of them as I understand it only authorize shooting to stop the threat.

I have never read ofa law that lets someone keep shooting after the attackis stopped just to make sure the bad guy is dead and unable to testify or sue.

If you continue shooting in order to kill after the threat stops, you could be in very deep hot water legally. Heck, you could be in very deep hot water even if you stop shooting once the threat is over, depending on a hostile prosecutor, lying witnesses, insufficient evidence to corroborate your story, etc.

Modern forensics may be able to tell that the defender "shot to kill" beyond the shots firedto stop the threat. In which case, here comes the manslaughteror murder charge.

Once the threat is over, stop shooting.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

I didnt say keep shooting once the threat stopped....... Make sure u carry the right ammo and place ur shots right center mass its called practice in a life or death sit u brain refers back to training what it knows there are cases out there where officer have hit there targets in life or death sits without looking im googling them now i will post links when i find them


BTW shoot to kill is also taught to LEOS in Academy and preached by lawyers IN SELF DEFENSE ONLY!!!! lets not get stupid now you just dont stroll up and shoot the pimpled freak behind the counter because he jacked up your order its called common sensE. You carry a weapon, you must accept that someday you may have to use it

imported post

nukechaser wrote:

Citizen wrote:

stuckinchico wrote:

Alright I hate to burst this love fest bubble. But SHOOT TO KILL every TIME a dead man tells no tells... It his word against yours.. IF he is dead , he can not talk, if he cant talk he cant lie.

Click to expand...

Sega18,

The above quoteis a perfect example being guarded aboutadvice on an internet forum.

That is very dangerous advice. It also paints us as bloodthirsty/vindictive/willing to kill to avoid possible non-lethal legal consequences, etc.

The law varies from state to state, but most all of them as I understand it only authorize shooting to stop the threat.

I have never read ofa law that lets someone keep shooting after the attackis stopped just to make sure the bad guy is dead and unable to testify or sue.

If you continue shooting in order to kill after the threat stops, you could be in very deep hot water legally. Heck, you could be in very deep hot water even if you stop shooting once the threat is over, depending on a hostile prosecutor, lying witnesses, insufficient evidence to corroborate your story, etc.

Modern forensics may be able to tell that the defender "shot to kill" beyond the shots firedto stop the threat. In which case, here comes the manslaughteror murder charge.

Once the threat is over, stop shooting.

Click to expand...

+1

Click to expand...

-1 Guilty til proven innocent??

imported post

^^that is the california way unfortunately...

imported post

Thats why as soon as I finish school Im moving But i do have residence here as way of my parents so i will continue to fight for you guys

imported post

stuckinchico wrote:

SNIP Guilty til proven innocent??

Click to expand...

Literally.

Remember that in many states, self-defense is an affirmative defense. Meaning you have to prove it was self-defense, not the other way around. Meaning you are guilty until you prove it was self-defense. As one of the gun law books puts it, "Remember that, 'I shot in self-defense' starts with 'I shot'." When you say "I shot", you just admitted to killing that dead body.

You understand that proving your innocence may cost anywhere from $20-50 thousand dollars in criminal defense legal fees, perhaps more.

This is not a subject for superficial examination and half-thought ideas.

Please take the time to read up on the subject.

imported post

Funny you should say that i Just finished that section IN CRIMINAL LAW 2 passed my final with 100 percent our DA clears self defense case most times in 8 hours

imported post

stuckinchico wrote:

Funny you should say that i Just finished that section IN CRIMINAL LAW 2 passed my final with 100 percent our DA clears self defense case most times in 8 hours

Click to expand...

Great!! Give that DA a raise and nominate him for governor!

That does not change the entire secondary career of one Massad Ayoob and the numerous justified self-defense shooting cases he's researched or testified in as an expert witness for the defense. His writings, although a bit stilted towards LE, and exaggerating thedrama a bit (in my opinion), are extensive on this subject.

Let me be blunt. I am not going to argue with you. Or even have a good natured debate on the subject with you. Giving unsound advice on a crucial subject, then going off on a tangent about a DA that clears self-defense cases, while totally overlooking the rest of the country and reams of self-defense cases that did not get cleared in 8 hours, is notcharacteristic of someone with who I am willing to discuss such an important subject.

I am glad to hear you did well in your criminal law class. Please let the rest of the new guys learn about the law from sources as reliable or nearly as reliable as you did, where the words are chosen carefully and the material is presented systematically.

The lawof self-defense, and armed self-defense tactics have already been extensively written about by people much more qualified to 1) know the law, and 2) write well on the subjects, treating them systematically.

Lets steer the new guys to those sources.