Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Can you just shoot a BG without saying anything to him first?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    Let's say I am at 7-11 at 2:30am and a guy walks in to rob the place, he doesn't see me, and I decide to step in. Would I have to yell, "Drop the gun!" like cops do? or just shoot him? Sorry if this seems like a stupid question but a buddy ask me and I didn't know how to reply.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pahrump, NV, , Netherlands
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    i wouldnt get involved unless i was in danger

    dont forget all those store have cameras



  3. #3
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    You are justified in using lethal defense of yourself and others if you reasonably think that that not using lethal defense will result in severe bodily harm and/or death. If the guy is about to shoot the clerk I'd say you could be found justified if it appeared that your actions were necessary to save the life of the clerk.

    I don't think cops always yell "drop the gun," either. They only yell "drop the gun," if they think the gun isn't about to be discharged before they can finish saying it.

    On the flip side, if the guy walks in and tries to rob the store demanding the money and making threats but he doesn't appear to be an immediate threat you can't shoot him at all. You can however arrest him if he is attempting a robbery.

    No matter what you do the consequences could be harsh.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    In defense of others you are permitted to apply what ever force the other person would be justified to use in his own self defense. If you happen across an unarmed person being assaulted or threatened with deadly force you may use deadly force in their defense.

    Now I have a question of my own. Can a woman being raped apply deadly force to defend herself even if deadly force in not applied to restrain or coerce her? Can someone else use deadly force in hear stead?
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pahrump, NV, , Netherlands
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    what if the rober has a airsoft or pellet gun and you shoot him

  6. #6
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    At least from my CCW class, I can can say that you can more than likely shoot the criminal in the back without saying a word. If the situation is that the criminal has the victim at gunpoint, then they are in imminent danger of grave bodily harm/death.

    I can only speculate, but in that situation I think it would be wise to take the shot. If you hesitate, either because you aren't sure if the criminal will kill, or you don't think it's your problem imagine how you would feel if the clerk was killed in front of you when you had the capability to save their life and you did nothing. On the flip side, and you fire killing the burglar and it turns out that they had an unloaded gun/spray painted airsoft etc then they alone are responsible for the situation they put you and themselves in.

    Also I do recall reading a story where a CCW'er drew on an armed burglar and shouted a "drop the gun" command, and the criminal turned, fired, and killed the CCW citizen.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  7. #7
    28kfps
    Guest

    Post imported post


    Here is the bottom dollar from a class I had, by law if a person dies at someone else’s hand it is a homicide. The next question is can it be determined justified? Depending on evidence if it is not strongly clear to the arriving investigators charges may be issued followed by trying to convince 12 of our peers it was justified.

    That being said I believe if I found myself in the situation you were talking about a clerk with a gun aimed at him and an obvious robbery It may be stupid on my part however, If I thought I had the time, with the laser dot on him, I would scream freeze. However, I might be pulling the trigger at the same time I am screaming freeze.

    Like most I am hoping, the good Lord keeps me out of such a situation.

    There have been some great replies to this. Interesting to see the different thoughts. Looks like a big factor is the background of the armed civilian. I am sure other factors such as tactical trained verses range and target trained verses age would be an issued to how the armed civilian would react.

    Research the NRA web site there is many stories under armed citizens. May find some examples of civilians shootings defending in similar situations.





  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    Nevada carrier wrote:
    In defense of others you are permitted to apply what ever force the other person would be justified to use in his own self defense. If you happen across an unarmed person being assaulted or threatened with deadly force you may use deadly force in their defense.

    Now I have a question of my own. Can a woman being raped apply deadly force to defend herself even if deadly force in not applied to restrain or coerce her? Can someone else use deadly force in hear stead?
    Yes. If she is being raped, she has already been overpowered and is defenseless on her own. If the rapist decides to strangle her or beat her to death, he could easily do so at the time. If she can acquire the means to apply deadly force, she is legally within her rights to do so. Since you can never know the intentions of a violent criminal in regardsto your safety, deadly force is authorized in defense against violent attack.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Forgive me for not cutting and pasting this is from memory. nrs 202.160

    In lawful defense of the slayer his or her husband wife parent child brother or sister or anyone else in presence or company if there is reasonable apprehention of the design on the part of the person slain to do great bodily injury or death and there is reasonable belief that such design will be accomplished or

    In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer in his presence in or upon any dwelling or other place of abode where he is.

    Defense of the third party. I would caution getting involved unless you are in the direct line of threat. Look at the situation and I certainly know we can "What if" this to death but..... The dirt bag comes in pulls gun screams at the clerk "hand over the cash or I will kill you." Typical Hollywood stuff. If your in the back and can see the event clearly from the moment his foot breaks the threshold of the door what is your response? assuming clear line of sight to the target and safe backstop do you shoot? My simple answer is NO. I roll the dice anything I do could set him off with a clear line of sight I have no cover or concealment. I guarantee if you shoot he will turn his attention to you. Are you ready for a gunfight at the Stop n Rob? I would look for cover/concealment and get there. I doubt engaging him would make things better. They tell the clerks to give them everything thats what the DBs expect and will soon be out of there. Most are fairly non violent. Chances are they won't shoot. Why start a gun fight based upon a small chance the clerk is in danger as apposed to theTHREAT of death or great bodily harm.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Real life is not T.V.

    You are not a cop.

    You are not required to intervene, therefore, by doing so, it is a personal choice. By choosing to do so, you are not obligated to play by the "unwritten rules of courteous gunfighting". There are none. It is life and death.

    Several years ago, (I believe in St. Louis) a man standing in a White Castle line observed the customer in front of him remove a pistol from his pocket and demand money from the cashier. The man, who was carrying a concealed pistol, chose to pull the pistol and "AS SEEN ON T.V." and yell "Freeze!"

    The robber turned instantly and plugged him three times in rapid succession with a .380.The manfired once before collapsing.

    Luckily, after an extensive stay in critical condition, the man recovered. The criminal did not.

    By yelling "freeze!" as seen on T.V., the man provided an excellent opportunity, not only for the crook to open fire on him, but to open fire on any innocent bystanders that may have been behind him in line. Or to shoot the cashier. Or anything else the violent criminal chose to do.



  11. #11
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    28kfps wrote:

    Here is the bottom dollar from a class I had, by law if a person dies at someone else’s hand it is a homicide. The next question is can it be determined justified? Depending on evidence if it is not strongly clear to the arriving investigators charges may be issued followed by trying to convince 12 of our peers it was justified.*

    That being said I believe if I found myself in the situation you were talking about a clerk with a gun aimed at him and an obvious robbery It may be stupid on my part however, If I thought I had the time, with the laser dot on him, I would scream freeze. However, I might be pulling the trigger at the same time I am screaming freeze.

    *Like most I am hoping, the good Lord keeps me out of such a situation.

    There have been some great replies to this. Interesting to see the different thoughts. Looks like a big factor is the background of the armed civilian. I am sure other factors such as tactical trained verses range and target trained verses age would be an issued to how the armed civilian would react.

    Research the NRA web site there is many stories under armed citizens. May find some examples of civilians shootings defending in similar situations.*

    *

    *
    the good thing is that 12 of your peers have to be convinced you are guilty to be convicted. to be freed however, you only have to instill doubt in one of them. Of course a hung jury doesn't mean you are found not guilty, it means the judge will declare a mistrial and the Prosecutor may refile the charges. Usually they can not convince a grand jury to indict a second time after a mistrial without new evidence being presented.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  12. #12
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    gunrunner1911 wrote:
    Forgive me for not cutting and pasting this is from memory. nrs 202.160

    In lawful defense of the slayer his or her husband wife parent child brother or sister or anyone else in presence or company if there is reasonable apprehention of the design on the part of the person slain to do great bodily injury or death and there is reasonable belief that such design will be accomplished or

    In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer in his presence in or upon any dwelling or other place of abode where he is.

    Defense of the third party. I would caution getting involved unless you are in the direct line of threat. Look at the situation and I certainly know we can "What if" this to death but.....*** The dirt bag comes in pulls gun screams at the clerk "hand over the cash or I will kill you." Typical Hollywood stuff. If your in the back and can see the event clearly from the moment his foot breaks the threshold of the door what is your response? assuming clear line of sight to the target and safe backstop do you shoot? My simple answer is NO. I roll the dice anything I do could set him off with a clear line of sight I have no cover or concealment. I guarantee if you shoot he will turn his attention to you. Are you ready for a gunfight at the Stop n Rob? I would look for cover/concealment and get there. I doubt engaging him would make things better. They tell the clerks to give them everything thats what the DBs expect and will soon be out of there. Most are fairly non violent. Chances are they won't shoot. Why start a gun fight based upon a small chance the clerk is in danger as apposed to the*THREAT of death or great bodily harm.
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRSRepealed/R_R011.html

    202.160 --- Repealed. I believe you mean 200.160.

    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-2...l#NRS200Sec010
    NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.
    [1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518)

    NRS 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required. A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.
    [1911 C&P § 130; RL § 6395; NCL § 10077]

    NRS 200.140 Justifiable homicide by public officer. Homicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer, or person acting under the command and in the aid of the public officer, in the following cases:
    1. In obedience to the judgment of a competent court.
    2. When necessary to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
    3. When necessary:
    (a) In retaking an escaped or rescued prisoner who has been committed, arrested for, or convicted of a felony;
    (b) In attempting, by lawful ways or means, to apprehend or arrest a person; or
    (c) In lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace.
    [1911 C&P § 131; RL § 6396; NCL § 10078]—(NRS A 1975, 323; 1993, 931)

    NRS 200.150 Justifiable or excusable homicide. All other instances which stand upon the same footing of reason and justice as those enumerated shall be considered justifiable or excusable homicide.
    [1911 C&P § 132; RL § 6397; NCL § 10079]

    NRS 200.160 Additional cases of justifiable homicide. Homicide is also justifiable when committed:
    1. In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
    2. In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which the slayer is.
    [1911 C&P § 133; A 1931, 160; 1931 NCL § 10080]—(NRS A 1993, 932)

    NRS 200.170 Burden of proving circumstances of mitigation or justifiable or excusable homicide. The killing of the deceased named in the indictment or information by the defendant being proved, the burden of proving circumstances of mitigation, or that justify or excuse the homicide, will devolve on the accused, unless the proof on the part of the prosecution sufficiently manifests that the crime committed only amounts to manslaughter, or that the accused was justified, or excused in committing the homicide.
    [1911 C&P § 134; A 1951, 524]

    NRS 200.180 Excusable homicide by misadventure.
    1. Excusable homicide by misadventure occurs when:
    (a) A person is doing a lawful act, without any intention of killing, yet unfortunately kills another, as where a person is at work with an ax and the head flies off and kills a bystander; or
    (b) An officer punishing a criminal happens to occasion death, which acts of correction are lawful.
    2. If the officer exceeds the sentence under which the officer acts, either in the manner, the instrument, or quantity of punishment, and death ensues, it is manslaughter or murder, according to the circumstances of the case.
    [1911 C&P § 135; RL § 6400; NCL § 10082]—(NRS A 1985, 1399)

    NRS 200.190 Justifiable or excusable homicide not punishable. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the person indicted shall, upon trial, be fully acquitted and discharged.
    [1911 C&P § 136; RL § 6401; NCL § 10083]

    NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:
    1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and
    2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.
    [1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Like I said from memory but the point is made. To the subject at hand. Most who carry a gun will be the range trained type. The reason you don't see it here is because well most people who spend time, or quality time, here are gun people who take responsibility for there training. The public as a whole does not. You see it in all the CCW threads where you get the smae old responses. Just find the cheapest you won't learn anything blah blah blah. So the success rate amonst the self defense crowd is mostly because of the training rate among the criminals. I would prefer in this circumstance that everyone just keep it in their pants unless they are 100% sure they can take the guy out AND that someones life was in in grave danger and action was required.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    Post imported post

    KTMRIDER wrote:
    what if the rober has a airsoft or pellet gun and you shoot him
    Then he picked a really stupid way to die.

    If a reasonable and prudent person would assume that the item is a weapon, and it is being used in a threatening manner (as if it WERE a weapon), then the law generally considers it to be a weapon, so far as laws regarding armed robbery, use of a weapon in a crime and justification are concerned.

    In other words, if you try to convince someone that your airsoft pistol is the real steel, they can respond in ways appropriate if it were real steel.



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:
    1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and
    2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.
    [1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]
    There is your legal requirement to warn before shooting. "Mortal blow" is any mechanism which proves to be the cause of death.

    Mitigating circumstances would be if the BG is in the process of the actual assault (such as raising is gun to fire), giving you no time to issue a warning or him no time to react to one.

    Ever seen the William Shatner clip where his TV character is being mugged, then pulls a pistol and shoots the mugger? He gives warning, announcing that he has a gun, but gives the BG no time to react because the BG is holding a gun on him. He then shoots twice, stopping when the threat has been reduced.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    Check out these videos:

    The Right & Wrong way to shoot someone.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vaC6jCIyLo

    Convenience Store Robbery.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcR6u...eature=related




  17. #17
    28kfps
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Superlite27 wrote:
    Real life is not T.V.

    You are not a cop.

    You are not required to intervene, therefore, by doing so, it is a personal choice. By choosing to do so, you are not obligated to play by the "unwritten rules of courteous gunfighting". There are none. It is life and death.

    Several years ago, (I believe in St. Louis) a man standing in a White Castle line observed the customer in front of him remove a pistol from his pocket and demand money from the cashier. The man, who was carrying a concealed pistol, chose to pull the pistol and "AS SEEN ON T.V." and yell "Freeze!"

    The robber turned instantly and plugged him three times in rapid succession with a .380.The manfired once before collapsing.

    Luckily, after an extensive stay in critical condition, the man recovered. The criminal did not.

    By yelling "freeze!" as seen on T.V., the man provided an excellent opportunity, not only for the crook to open fire on him, but to open fire on any innocent bystanders that may have been behind him in line. Or to shoot the cashier. Or anything else the violent criminal chose to do.

    Obviously, you are a lousy judge of character. I do not carry to play cops and robbers. I carry with the plans of never having to fire at anyone. For the past 16 years of carrying, that has been the case. However, as we all know, bad things happen and having a firearm is for me a last-ditch tool. The thought of firing on someone without them knowing it makes me think I would yell something. However, as you say I am not a cop. Nor do I play one on TV or anywhere for that fact. A cop may have a lot better idea of what he would do in such a scenario. I am just a trained civilian. In a real situation, it may become obvious this is the one time saving lives would mean to drop the guy without him having a clue. No one here knows for sure what they would do in a pretend issue. With that said if I had my laser bead on the bad guy my finger on the trigger and he does not know I am there until a yell I believe the odds will be in my favor. Not until the smoke cleared would the results truly be known. This form is full of great opinions some BS and an occasional expert. May be later an expert will make a post regarding this scenario.



  18. #18
    28kfps
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Nevada carrier wrote:
    28kfps wrote:

    Here is the bottom dollar from a class I had, by law if a person dies at someone else’s hand it is a homicide. The next question is can it be determined justified? Depending on evidence if it is not strongly clear to the arriving investigators charges may be issued followed by trying to convince 12 of our peers it was justified.

    That being said I believe if I found myself in the situation you were talking about a clerk with a gun aimed at him and an obvious robbery It may be stupid on my part however, If I thought I had the time, with the laser dot on him, I would scream freeze. However, I might be pulling the trigger at the same time I am screaming freeze.

    Like most I am hoping, the good Lord keeps me out of such a situation.

    There have been some great replies to this. Interesting to see the different thoughts. Looks like a big factor is the background of the armed civilian. I am sure other factors such as tactical trained verses range and target trained verses age would be an issued to how the armed civilian would react.

    Research the NRA web site there is many stories under armed citizens. May find some examples of civilians shootings defending in similar situations.



    the good thing is that 12 of your peers have to be convinced you are guilty to be convicted. to be freed however, you only have to instill doubt in one of them. Of course a hung jury doesn't mean you are found not guilty, it means the judge will declare a mistrial and the Prosecutor may refile the charges. Usually they can not convince a grand jury to indict a second time after a mistrial without new evidence being presented.
    Yep Nevada carrier they all have to agree. I had the pleasure of being a juror that hung a trial in Nye County. The a$$ whole was a child molester and it was amazingI was the only one willing to nail the guy. Later the prosecuting attorney came up to me, asked if I was the one and I said yes he said thanks because this guy did these things. I said I know it was obvious to me he was guilty. He said that there was information that was prevented from the trial which he now could share with me. Long story, they were able to retry the guy, Ido not know what happen the second go-around.

    Back to the original string. My point to this was if you take someone’s life, it is a homicide. Being able to get it declared as justified starts before ever pulling the trigger. There could be a lot of information to process in a few nanoseconds. The decision made in the heat of the issue may, make or break the ability to declare it justified.

  19. #19
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    DVC wrote:
    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:
    1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and
    2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.
    [1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]
    There is your legal requirement to warn before shooting. "Mortal blow" is any mechanism which proves to be the cause of death.

    Mitigating circumstances would be if the BG is in the process of the actual assault (such as raising is gun to fire), giving you no time to issue a warning or him no time to react to one.

    Ever seen the William Shatner clip where his TV character is being mugged, then pulls a pistol and shoots the mugger? He gives warning, announcing that he has a gun, but gives the BG no time to react because the BG is holding a gun on him. He then shoots twice, stopping when the threat has been reduced.


    ONE You are mis reading section two of the statute. What the part that is boldedis saying is that if the person who ORIGINALLY instigated the situation (the original assailant) makes a good faith effort to stop his attack but is then faced with deadly force from the person he attacked (or a concerned OCer) he may then defend his own life and be justified in exerting deadly force.

    This one is VERY tough for an attacker to prove in court but with all the video soruces out there these days, it's not inconceivable. This concept is apparent in many state statutes.

    As for the William Shatner character, it is "Denney Crane" from the show "Boston Legal" and it was three shots. It's a favorite. "Watch, wallet, gun, left foot, right foot, knee". It's funny but it is NOT a very smart move....it should have been "Watch, wallet, gun, center mass, center mass, center mass"
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    Post imported post

    We-the-People wrote:
    DVC wrote:
    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:
    1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and
    2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.
    [1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]
    There is your legal requirement to warn before shooting. "Mortal blow" is any mechanism which proves to be the cause of death.

    Mitigating circumstances would be if the BG is in the process of the actual assault (such as raising is gun to fire), giving you no time to issue a warning or him no time to react to one.

    Ever seen the William Shatner clip where his TV character is being mugged, then pulls a pistol and shoots the mugger? He gives warning, announcing that he has a gun, but gives the BG no time to react because the BG is holding a gun on him. He then shoots twice, stopping when the threat has been reduced.


    ONE You are mis reading section two of the statute. What the part that is boldedis saying is that if the person who ORIGINALLY instigated the situation (the original assailant) makes a good faith effort to stop his attack but is then faced with deadly force from the person he attacked (or a concerned OCer) he may then defend his own life and be justified in exerting deadly force.

    This one is VERY tough for an attacker to prove in court but with all the video soruces out there these days, it's not inconceivable. This concept is apparent in many state statutes.

    As for the William Shatner character, it is "Denney Crane" from the show "Boston Legal" and it was three shots. It's a favorite. "Watch, wallet, gun, left foot, right foot, knee". It's funny but it is NOT a very smart move....it should have been "Watch, wallet, gun, center mass, center mass, center mass"
    Agreed on the TV clip, but you are wrong on the law. The words "assailant" and "slayer" are divided by the word "or" -- meaning that they are not necessarily the same person. The law says that it EITHER must appear that the victim is the assailant OR is must appear that the slayer tried to de-escalate the situation.

  21. #21
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    I disagree, and so would just about any lawyer, defense or prosecution, on the meaning of the law.

    What it is saying is that "The person killed was the assailant" - simple enough, the bad guy got killed.

    the "OR" means that if it is not the assailant that gets killed (if it's not the assailant it is the one either assaulted or someone coming to their defense) that the SLAYER (who is now the original assailant) must have attempted to end the assault (i.e. disengage or surrender).

    Like I said, it's a common concept in the laws of many states. Ifthe bad guy shoots someone then throws down the gun and says "I give up"he has made a good faith effort (threw down the gun and yelled surrender) to disengage and therefore the threat has ended and you can not employ deadly force. NOTE: he doesn't have to throw down the gun necessarilly but if it's still in his hand there is an argument to be made that he is still a threat.

    You simply aren't allowed to employforce (deadly or otherwise) against someone who has communicated IN GOOD FAITH that he wants to stop his attack.

    An example that gets people in trouble. Someone starts a fight, knocks you around a bit (or a lot) and knocks you down then says "I'm done with you" and starts to walk away. The LAW (in general every state is different to some extent) says that at that point he has stopped his attack and if you then come at him and attack him, you are not covered by "self defense" statutes as you are now committing a new assault.

    Some jurisdictions allow the use of force to arrest the original assailant, depending on how they are worded and the severity of the original crime.


    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Disagree all you like, but if you parse the sentence, you see that I'm right.

    Essentially, the idea is that the original assailant was killed (defense in the act), OR that the person who DID kill someone tried to avoid doing so ("Don't make me shoot you!"), giving the victim a chance to save his or her life.

    The word "OR," when found in the law, separates individual persons, actions, etc. For instance, if the title on your car says Jack AND Jill, then both must sign to transfer the car -- if it says Jack OR Jill, then either can sell it.

    Likewise, "assailant" and "slayer" are not equal terms. One is a person who attacks, the other is a person who kills.

    In this case, the law is making a distinction between the original assailant OR the slayer. Your reading is that the law says "if the victim is the original assailant, or if the original assailant tried to de-escalate. . ." but doesn't give that protection to a victim.

    The way the law is written, WHOMEVER the slayer is, if they tried to de-escalate, then that part of the requirement is satisfied.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SMITHFIELD, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    270
    It would be rude to shoot him without asking him to turn around and introducing yourself first.










    .

  24. #24
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Firearm aimed at someone = shoot first ask questions later.

    firearm displayed, but not yet aimed = warn, then shoot. It doesn't say how long you have to give the assailant to comply with your warning.

Posting Permissions

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