Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where do you stand?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Carbonfiberfoot
    replied
    Originally posted by Ex Army MP View Post
    I disagree. Not everyone who puts another in fear of death is necessarily a criminal or intends to kill that person. But obviously if the person in fear doesn't know this and has a legitimate fear of death, then they need should be allowed to use deadly force. However, if it's pretty clear that you have an opportunity to get away, you should be required to take it. Whether you actually could have escaped is something that can be litigated.

    Let's take this scenario: You get into a road rage incident with someone twice your size because you cut him off. You pull into a store parking lot and he gets out and is coming toward your car. Could be to break you in half or it could be to tell you what a jackarse you are. You, nonetheless are scared you may die. You have two choices. One, shoot the guy or two, drive away. Let's assume that there is nothing blocking you from driving away and big guy has no chance to catch up to you. You should, and most people would, take off in your vehicle. However, the way the law is written, even if you could get away, you're given the option of doing what you want. Seems like a recipe for Billy Bad Arse who has been dying to off someone to do so.

    Now, in your home, you should never have to retreat. I mean, do we really expect homeowners to leave their kids and family behind and run out their front doors? But I know of no place, Wyoming, NJ or anywhere else, that requires you to do so.
    Maybe the states that enact these laws are telling the morons who want to jump out of their cars and assault people over traffic incidents that they aren't welcome?

    The only time I've ever had to remove a carry weapon from its holster occurred during an incident similar to what you described; so, I have a rather strong sense of pride in my state's willingness to permit exactly such. The other individual involved left that scene in handcuffs with a DUI, and I went home unscathed. I'm no slouch, but this was not an individual I wanted to scuffle with.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhall
    replied
    Shoot first ask questions later! I see most feel the same as I, thank you gentlemen for taking the time and responding!!

    Leave a comment:


  • NextGenOfc
    replied
    Do what you have to do to survive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sgt. Slaughter
    replied
    The scenario posited is simply ridiculous. I have never seen a case where it was justified to shoot someone because they were being yelled at. I'm unaware of any law that justifies deadly force to combat verbal battery.

    The problem with most self-defense situations is that they happen much too quickly to have thought out means of escape. Life-saving choices that must occur in the blink of an eye will have the luxury of hours upon hours of investigation. If you enact a statute that requires someone to retreat whenever possible, you needlessly turn victims into criminals/suspects if an officer believes they had probable cause to believe a means of egress was available at the time, somehow believing prescience should have been present through the cognitive ability to see and use that escape.

    It's bullspit.

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    A criminal doesn't legally own the streets because he is intent on committing a crime.

    A law abiding individual shouldn't have to flee a public place just because somebody else is breaking the law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbus
    replied
    Originally posted by Ex Army MP View Post
    I disagree. Not everyone who puts another in fear of death is necessarily a criminal or intends to kill that person. But obviously if the person in fear doesn't know this and has a legitimate fear of death, then they need should be allowed to use deadly force. However, if it's pretty clear that you have an opportunity to get away, you should be required to take it. Whether you actually could have escaped is something that can be litigated.

    Let's take this scenario: You get into a road rage incident with someone twice your size because you cut him off. You pull into a store parking lot and he gets out and is coming toward your car. Could be to break you in half or it could be to tell you what a jackarse you are. You, nonetheless are scared you may die. You have two choices. One, shoot the guy or two, drive away. Let's assume that there is nothing blocking you from driving away and big guy has no chance to catch up to you. You should, and most people would, take off in your vehicle. However, the way the law is written, even if you could get away, you're given the option of doing what you want. Seems like a recipe for Billy Bad Arse who has been dying to off someone to do so.

    Now, in your home, you should never have to retreat. I mean, do we really expect homeowners to leave their kids and family behind and run out their front doors? But I know of no place, Wyoming, NJ or anywhere else, that requires you to do so.
    I disagree. I should never be legally obligated to retreat when I am not breaking any laws. If your large-male character is advancing on me, I'm going to tell him to stop. If he doesn't, I'm going to pull my gun. And if he gets within arms reach, he's catching rounds to the chest. I'm not going to play the game of "just wait and see" what the 300 lb. angry man wants to do when he gets within two feet of me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ex Army MP
    replied
    Originally posted by kermit315 View Post
    I dont feel people should have to retreat from spaces that they legally have a right to be in. Nobody should have to run from a criminal or face charges.
    I disagree. Not everyone who puts another in fear of death is necessarily a criminal or intends to kill that person. But obviously if the person in fear doesn't know this and has a legitimate fear of death, then they need should be allowed to use deadly force. However, if it's pretty clear that you have an opportunity to get away, you should be required to take it. Whether you actually could have escaped is something that can be litigated.

    Let's take this scenario: You get into a road rage incident with someone twice your size because you cut him off. You pull into a store parking lot and he gets out and is coming toward your car. Could be to break you in half or it could be to tell you what a jackarse you are. You, nonetheless are scared you may die. You have two choices. One, shoot the guy or two, drive away. Let's assume that there is nothing blocking you from driving away and big guy has no chance to catch up to you. You should, and most people would, take off in your vehicle. However, the way the law is written, even if you could get away, you're given the option of doing what you want. Seems like a recipe for Billy Bad Arse who has been dying to off someone to do so.

    Now, in your home, you should never have to retreat. I mean, do we really expect homeowners to leave their kids and family behind and run out their front doors? But I know of no place, Wyoming, NJ or anywhere else, that requires you to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • jofer
    replied
    I support 'stand your ground' or 'castle doctrine' while cautiously remaining cognizant that there are instances in which the display of deadly force de-escalates a situation to a point that no use of deadly force is actually required.

    The intent during an encounter would be to use deadly force by default, with the above result being a pleasant surprise.

    Leave a comment:


  • -Erik-
    replied
    Originally posted by 1042 Trooper View Post
    Enter my home, my property, my space and threaten me or mine? You're dead. That's where I stand.
    Pretty much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Langford PR
    replied
    I stand when and where I choose, which is over the dead body of my enemy!

    Leave a comment:


  • retired
    replied
    Originally posted by 1042 Trooper View Post
    Nope. This is based upon a per capita data base.

    We just shoot people here. It works for us.
    I'm wondering where you found that info on home invasions since Wyoming doesn't have a specific "home invasion" statute, nor does the FBI have any stats on home invasions.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1042 Trooper
    replied
    Originally posted by LINY View Post
    Are you sure it's not because you're in the least populated state?
    Nope. This is based upon a per capita data base.

    We just shoot people here. It works for us.

    Leave a comment:


  • Erik
    replied
    Stand your ground laws, castle doctrine laws, and other such similar legislation? I support them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    Originally posted by Sgt. Slaughter View Post
    If only you could find ammo to shoot it, you'd be set!
    Not a problem.........................agency supplied ammo & range time

    Plus my "personal" supplier just messaged me that he has some S&W40 in stock

    Leave a comment:


  • LINY
    replied
    Originally posted by 1042 Trooper View Post
    God I'm glad I live in Wyoming.

    And, that's why we have the fewest home invasions, armed intrusions and burgs of any state - cuz we shoot the bastards. Next?
    Are you sure it's not because you're in the least populated state?

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 13051 users online. 492 members and 12559 guests.

Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X