A post on disarming a random person carrying a firearm

Jeff Hayes said:

I do not allow people that I do not know to invade my personal space, I move away when I can but if I can not I will tell them to back away from me. There is never a need to stand so close to me in a grocery store check out line that you are touching me. No one needs to stand six inches behind me in line at the bank or a checkout line at a store.

Click to expand...

I'm with you. I do the same thing. Often times I will stand sideways in line. It forces people to give you some breathing room and as an added benefit encourages them to have a conversation. When they can see your face people like to ask anything and everything about firearms. Usually it's about getting a cpl and the process for buying a firearm.
I value my personal space. For safety, health, and comfort.

Jeff Hayes said:

The point was/is theft of a firearm is a felony and deadly force "CAN" be used to stop that felony upon a person in progress. The fact that you or I or the guy down the street would never use deadly force to prevent nor stop the mere theft of property is a moot point.

Click to expand...

Grim_Night said:

I sure as hell would use deadly force to prevent the theft of my firearm. I can logically assume that if someone were to try and steal my firearm, that I would then become the first target of such firearm and thus, I would be protecting my own life from the use of deadly force.

Click to expand...

The point may be legally moot in the abstract. In the specifics, including if anyone ever has cause to start reading my posts as evidence of my mindset, I want to be clear that I personally reserve deadly force for cases where I reasonably believe such force is necessary to preserve my life and limb, or that of my immediate and innocent family members. It may be a felony to steal my car. But unless that theft endangers my life and limb (ala a car jacking while I'm in the car), I'm not using deadly force. My property is insured and my deductible is way less than what a decent attorney will cost just to show up and advise me over the "routine" questions following a perfectly justifiable shooting; not to mention what legal bills might be if in the calm aftermath it looks to some anti-gun prosecutor like maybe it wasn't so clear cut.

"I didn't shoot because the guy was stealing my property that happened to be a gun. I shot because he was attempting to gain control of my deadly weapon which indicates to any reasonable man an immediate, credible, and imminent risk to my life and limb. Guys who want to steal a gun, break into unoccupied homes and cars. Guys who try to forcibly take a gun from a holster on my belt have to be assumed to be very intent on killing me and then raping my wife or daughter."

The material facts look all but identical. The difference in mindset may be important.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

The point may be legally moot in the abstract. In the specifics, including if anyone ever has cause to start reading my posts as evidence of my mindset, I want to be clear that I personally reserve deadly force for cases where I reasonably believe such force is necessary to preserve my life and limb, or that of my immediate and innocent family members. It may be a felony to steal my car. But unless that theft endangers my life and limb (ala a car jacking while I'm in the car), I'm not using deadly force. My property is insured and my deductible is way less than what a decent attorney will cost just to show up and advise me over the "routine" questions following a perfectly justifiable shooting; not to mention what legal bills might be if in the calm aftermath it looks to some anti-gun prosecutor like maybe it wasn't so clear cut.

"I didn't shoot because the guy was stealing my property that happened to be a gun. I shot because he was attempting to gain control of my deadly weapon which indicates to any reasonable man an immediate, credible, and imminent risk to my life and limb. Guys who want to steal a gun, break into unoccupied homes and cars. Guys who try to forcibly take a gun from a holster on my belt have to be assumed to be very intent on killing me and then raping my wife or daughter."

The material facts look all but identical. The difference in mindset may be important.

Charles

Click to expand...

UT...would you also "approve" deadly force to protect the freedoms that you enjoy? Any set of circumstances where you would use deadly force beyond that of protecting a person?

davidmcbeth said:

UT...would you also "approve" deadly force to protect the freedoms that you enjoy? Any set of circumstances where you would use deadly force beyond that of protecting a person?

Click to expand...

I approve of defensive wars to protect and defend the US Constitution and my nation from foreign enemies.

I approve of capital punishment following proper due process to protect and defend the US Constitution, my nation, and my community from domestic enemies including traitors and the worst of "common" criminals.

I support the intent of the Founding Fathers in having a well armed populace and militia to prevent tyranny at the hands of our own government and the ability to throw of such tyranny should that ever become the only option. I believe men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

I believe liberty is protected by four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. I believe they should be used in that order and we are not to the point of needing to much discuss anything beyond the jury box. Getting frustrated over a lack of perfect candidates' winning easily and not voting is not just cause to start jumping over the other steps. I believe we are still very much at the point of being able to obey the law while working within legal means to repeal bad laws.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

The point may be legally moot in the abstract. In the specifics, including if anyone ever has cause to start reading my posts as evidence of my mindset, I want to be clear that I personally reserve deadly force for cases where I reasonably believe such force is necessary to preserve my life and limb, or that of my immediate and innocent family members. It may be a felony to steal my car. But unless that theft endangers my life and limb (ala a car jacking while I'm in the car), I'm not using deadly force. My property is insured and my deductible is way less than what a decent attorney will cost just to show up and advise me over the "routine" questions following a perfectly justifiable shooting; not to mention what legal bills might be if in the calm aftermath it looks to some anti-gun prosecutor like maybe it wasn't so clear cut.

"I didn't shoot because the guy was stealing my property that happened to be a gun. I shot because he was attempting to gain control of my deadly weapon which indicates to any reasonable man an immediate, credible, and imminent risk to my life and limb. Guys who want to steal a gun, break into unoccupied homes and cars. Guys who try to forcibly take a gun from a holster on my belt have to be assumed to be very intent on killing me and then raping my wife or daughter."

The material facts look all but identical. The difference in mindset may be important.

Charles

Click to expand...

I agree with you Charles, I am not shooting someone over a TV/car/$100 either, but that was not what I said either. I said it would lawful to shoot the guy nt that I would shoot him. I simply recited the law to point out just how much danger he would put himself in if he tried a firearms grab.

Jeff Hayes said:

I agree with you Charles, I am not shooting someone over a TV/car/$100 either, but that was not what I said either. I said it would lawful to shoot the guy nt that I would shoot him. I simply recited the law to point out just how much danger he would put himself in if he tried a firearms grab.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. Very dangerous for someone to try to grab a gun from my holster. And it is good the law in Washington recognizes that as a case where use of deadly force is justified.

I simply wanted to point out my personal mind set in such cases is based on the common law right to defend life and limb, rather than on whether any particular State law makes theft of a gun a crime warranting use of deadly force to end.

As another example, years ago I learned that Arizona law permitted use of deadly force to prevent arson of an occupied structure or unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. The proverbial daughter's boyfriend crawling through the window came to mind. But law or no, I think it would be imprudent to use deadly force against my daughter's boyfriend for conduct that she was (materially even if not technically legally) "consenting" to. Even if technically legal, I just don't think I want to defend myself (legally, socially, to my own conscience) for using deadly force in that case.

If I honestly believed she was being assaulted against her will, that warrants deadly force to stop.

(It has been 20+ years since I read that law, no idea what changes may have been made, or even whether I read it correctly. So don't act on anything here until confirming the current law.)

Deadly force really is the last option I ever intend to employ. The very last, and only when innocent life or limb is at immediate, imminent, credible risk from criminal assault.

Charles

Jeff Hayes said:

I agree with you Charles, I am not shooting someone over a TV/car/$100 either, but that was not what I said either. I said it would lawful to shoot the guy nt that I would shoot him. I simply recited the law to point out just how much danger he would put himself in if he tried a firearms grab.

Click to expand...

I am all for saving the prison space and the tax money that would be spent prosecuting the dirt bag. I am willing to donate the cost of a couple of rounds to save tax money.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

utbagpiper said:

I approve of defensive wars to protect and defend the US Constitution and my nation from foreign enemies.

I approve of capital punishment following proper due process to protect and defend the US Constitution, my nation, and my community from domestic enemies including traitors and the worst of "common" criminals.

I support the intent of the Founding Fathers in having a well armed populace and militia to prevent tyranny at the hands of our own government and the ability to throw of such tyranny should that ever become the only option. I believe men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

I believe liberty is protected by four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. I believe they should be used in that order and we are not to the point of needing to much discuss anything beyond the jury box. Getting frustrated over a lack of perfect candidates' winning easily and not voting is not just cause to start jumping over the other steps. I believe we are still very much at the point of being able to obey the law while working within legal means to repeal bad laws.

Charles

Click to expand...

Fine, you can pay my insurance premiums and will hold my fire just for your unsensibilities.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

ok lets make this real simple. A guy carrying like that is ignorant in the extreme. But no crime is being committed and he is not posing an immediate threat to anyone. Therefore to try to remove the weapon would be classed as theft and he'd have every right to use the weapon.

Jeff Hayes said:

This is from another firearms group.

"Maybe there should be an I saw you thread to out people for printing. I saw one idiot at Costco with his pistol just hanging around his knees because his pants were half off his butt. I thought to disarm him since it was so obvious and maybe get him to learn to conceal better. But I let him be."


What the heck is he thinking?

Click to expand...

Let him disarm the guy. The guy will learn a lesson and the disarmer will get an assult charge, which will revoke his permit.

Win/win.

Nang pa said:

Let him disarm the guy. The guy will learn a lesson and the disarmer will get an assult charge, which will revoke his permit.

Win/win.

Click to expand...

Or someone ends up dead....

Nang pa said:

Let him disarm the guy. The guy will learn a lesson and the disarmer will get an assult charge, which will revoke his permit.

Win/win.

Click to expand...

How would the victim end up with an assault charge dor stopping the idiot from trying to disarm him?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Freedom1Man said:

How would the victim end up with an assault charge dor stopping the idiot from trying to disarm him?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

He was referring to the person (idiot) attempting the disarm, assuming that individual was a licensed carried. And the victim would learn the lesson.

Freedom1Man said:

How would the victim end up with an assault charge dor stopping the idiot from trying to disarm him?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I said the disarmer...

noname762 said:

snip.........

The main reason I won't OC ...snip

Click to expand...

thanks for the fairy tale and the the thought provoking question about why someone won't OC is even on the OCDO forum.

ipse

Freedom1Man said:

How would the victim end up with an assault charge dor stopping the idiot from trying to disarm him?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Usually, protection of property is a raise able defense. It does not exist until plead in court. Like immunity ~ does not exist as a defense until raised in court. One may wish to waive this defense...I have been involved in civil cases where affirmative defenses that would act as a bar to the cases are not plead by the opposing party...so this happens.

But law enforcement sometimes considers this (these) possible defense ... I don't think that they should, but they do. Maybe the courts would be backed up due to all the crimes committed by those who have immunity -- I would think so.

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

Here's some interesting data. charts and graphs at the source

http://www.gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/12/officers-killed-with-own-gun-vs.html

When people talk about open carry, a common comment is that the open carrier will have their gun taken from them and used against them. I have yet to find a case in the United States where that happened to someone who was not a law officer. Law officers almost all open carry, and some have their guns taken from them and used against them, but the numbers are vanishingly small

Click to expand...

Here's a story from last year: http://www.kptv.com/story/26729956/man-openly-carrying-new-gun-in-gresham-robbed-by-armed-man

jfslicer said:

Here's a story from last year: http://www.kptv.com/story/26729956/man-openly-carrying-new-gun-in-gresham-robbed-by-armed-man

Click to expand...

Ok

jfslicer said:

Here's a story from last year: http://www.kptv.com/story/26729956/man-openly-carrying-new-gun-in-gresham-robbed-by-armed-man

Click to expand...

There is a lot of debate as to the authenticity of that incident. There are a few reasons.
1. Other news reports state it was an unloaded pistol.
2. Who purchases a walther p22 then open carries it on day one, unloaded, in the middle of the night, and then just stands on the sidewalk hanging out?
3. Zero witnesses.
4. Has every hallmark of a straw purchase.

decklin said:

There is a lot of debate as to the authenticity of that incident. There are a few reasons.
1. Other news reports state it was an unloaded pistol.

2. Who purchases a walther p22 then open carries it on day one, unloaded, in the middle of the night, and then just stands on the sidewalk hanging out? Apparently a 21 y.o. who just got a new gun.

3. Zero witnesses. The cousin doesn't count?

4. Has every hallmark of a straw purchase.

Click to expand...

You're claiming a case of false reporting? That the one man bought the gun, gave it to another, and then claimed robbery?