Justified or not, legal or not, if you plan to use your gun to defend others, better get insurance to cover the legal bills or your act of heroism will put a real dent in your savings and maybe in your employment. You shoot somebody, and unless there is really obvious evidence (film on TV, lots of witnesses who really like you) your life is going to change. Maybe for short term, maybe long. You are not a cop, you may not know what is actually going on, you may be wrong, you may miss and get shot yourself, or the cops arriving on top of an adrenaline rush may just shoot you because( especially if you have a cow badge-better wear the sash)..

My goodness, if you actually do believe that's the law re: 'castle doctrine' you need education/guidance/legal advice from a professional...seriously.

You are waaaaaaaaay off track.

Be safe.

(emphasis added)

These threads pop up occasionally and always get forceful arguments from those who would abandon their fellow citizens and those who would endeavor to help.

I am in the latter category, but I won't refuse to help any of your family members who are in danger even if you are one of the folks who will only help yourself or YOUR loved ones.

I am not stupid, am well trained, know WHEN to use a gun, and have a history of (then) off duty and (now) armed citizen involvement. Still haven't had the need to shoot anybody and was once sued for $50M in a case where there was no zero violence.

Will continue to do what I think is right. Will accept the consequences if I am wrong. Think that is part and parcel of being a responsible world citizen.

Be safe.

In the interests of making lemonade for those who are familiar
with castle doctrine, and wonder "just how far back, does it go?"...

From 'An Englishman's home is his castle' - the meaning and origin of this phrase :

What was meant by 'castle' was defined in 1763 by the British Prime Minister...
William Pitt, the first Earl of Chatham, also known as Pitt the Elder:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown.
It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm
may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter."

But it was noted earlier, in Semayne's case, where it was
" ...established as common law by the lawyer and politician Sir Edward Coke...in...1628:

'For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium
[and each man's home is his safest refuge].' "

Semayne's case--essentially a claim for property owed Semayne by a
deceased (but located within the home of a third party)-- also noted the
unique sanctity afforded the home under the castle precept with a seemingly
tangential observation---that while a homicide committed in self-defense
was still a felony, a killing in defense of one's home was not.

An interesting paper on the origins of castle doctrine, and it's
inclusion in American colonial and subsequent law, is here:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/vi...context=wmjowl

All well and good, but has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

First two lines, my crusty curmudgeon..."duly noted".

Since I have the misfortune to live in the PRC (People's Republic of California) I would be VERY SLOW to insert myself into that situation. I would likely maintain my place in the parking lot, call the cops and if the shooter showed up within my reasonable line of sight I would then feel justified in shooting. Some jurisdictions in CA like nothing better than to arrest legally armed private citizens, confiscate their weapons and prosecute them merely for having the temerity of being armed in public. If you are in the middle of a developing situation that is one thing. If you rush in (play cop in gun-haters lingo) to a situation that did not and does not involve you, your potential criminal and civil liability is HUGE. In the real world that might not be an issue, in CA it is.

I'm pretty sure that fella' that's makin' all the fuss here doesn't like lemonade . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Seems like a lot of shooting going on here before breakfast!

WOW, I was trying to follow the discussion, that made me dizzy, then I realized the discussion had turned into “cussin” so I gotta quit following along before I fall down. See ya on another thread.

I have to agree with keith on this one, I don't know for sure what I would do but like he said, at the end of the day I would sure hope I did or didn't do the right thing. You do have to look yourself in the mirror everyday. Can't see a black and white answer here.

Now ask a relevant question, like what would you do if you had heard shots while you are in the parking lot, and a person came out of the restaurant and aimed a gun at you? You are LEO trained.[/QUOTE]


That is still difficult question to answer based on insufficient information. He might be an LEO looking for a perp. There is a lot to consider here just in this situation. First thing to sensibly do is to get to cover and find out just who he is and what his intensions are. Once in cover I would draw and stay covered until I assessed his intensions, either identify himself as an LEO or? A few extra minutes might provide enough information to find out. We would certainly communicate! Anyone else have any views?

If you rush in (play cop in gun-haters lingo) to a situation that did not and does not involve you, your potential criminal and civil liability is HUGE. In the real world that might not be an issue, in CA it is.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, this situation exists here. I totally agree with your answer. Every time I carry I consider the consequences. Yesterday I decided not to carry after suiting up and removed my CCW. It took a lot of thought. We aren't supposed to discuss politics here, but they have brought this situation upon us. I'm totally disgusted. A lot of people are likely to suffer the consequences of these restrictions. and every time they do the media cries out wanting to understand the 'motives' of the shooter.

Lots of wind here, less substance. This happened about two miles from my house. The guy was still an active shooter posing an immediate threat, loaded firearm in hand after having shot three people. The two interveners were both well trained (one military, the other security) and both gave verbal commands to the shooter to disarm before firing when he either fired at them or made gestures to indicate he was about to. Here in Oklahoma the law is clear -- you may deploy deadly force in self defense or in defense of others, both of which apply here.

Sorry but I spent too many years on the street with the cops seeing the realities out there to ever get in synch with the mindset of "my gun is only for me and my immediate family and otherwise I will run away!"

No one can predict every possible situation or eventuality but in a situation like this one I would not hesitate to do what the two guys did. Had they not acted when they did there could easily have been multiple additional innocent victims. Sorry, but flight is not an option.

Some statements like on Twitter have a tendency to come back and 'bite'. I would imagine that they regularly troll blogs and message boards like SW's. We all know by now the prosecutors check 'posts' whenever a shooting occurs. These statements can end up in court. It might be better to not make them. rather than later attempt to explain them.