stand your ground/Concealed carry

[smoothice]

With all this news coverage about the Florida shooting, and stand your ground, an interesting question keeps running through my mind...

"If you live in a state that does not recognize stand-your-ground laws, what good is having a permit for a concealed weapon?"

thaughts?

 

[dougb1946]

You are still allowed to defend yourself. You may need to take a course to learn the rules, but that seems to just be common sense when wearing a weapon that can either save your life or bankrupt you, at the same time.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

In Vermont we don't have any special laws regarding this, beyond "Common Law". And we are the most gun friendly state in the union. It all boils down to this. You can carry a gun and use it to protect yourself and your family. However, the law expects you will not go looking for trouble, that you will take all reasonable actions to avoid using deadly force, and that such force will be used only as a last resort. That really covers all circumstances. If I can safely run away from a person threatening me with a knife I'm expected to do so. But if I'm unable to avoid injury or death the law states I can use my gun to defend myself, including shooting another person. The bottom line is I didn't initiate the confrontation, I did everything possible to avoid it, and I used a firearm because I or my family was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm and there was no alternative. This isn't rocket science, yet we make it more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[StatesRightist]

NC is very similar, except the instigator in a fight can NEVER start it and then claim SD nor can deadly force be used to prevent a simple assault, except below. That last part is the tricky part, at what point does it turn deadly, what if the victim is older or female, how does that alter it?

We also have the Castle Law, which basically says if someone attempts to commit a crime involving force or violence against you at your home, workplace or in your car you may respond with your CCW. You also have no duty to retreat in those three places. That's my opinion, consult your lawyer for an expert opinion.

Without laws like this you depend on demonstrating fear for your life or the lives of others and no other option than deadly force. IMO.

 

[cmort666]

In Ohio, if not in home or vehicle, I'm required to ATTEMPT to retreat from a confrontation, IF I can do so in PERFECT SAFETY. That's IT.

I have no duty to run, take a beating, beg for my life or anything of the sort. I just have to TRY to leave. If you thwart that attempt, you'll likely get a sucking chest wound for your efforts.

"IN PERFECT SAFETY" is a pretty low bar to meet.

One of the first things I learned in ROTC was that you CANNOT outrun a bullet. I don't plan to try.

I was a lousy runner as a 21 year old Infantry 2lt. I'm not one iota faster at 54. I'm not going to outrun an assailant. I have neither duty nor intention to try.

I don't go looking for fights, nor do I go to places where other people do. If you leave me alone, I'll return the favor. If you don't leave me alone, I'll ignore you... if you let me. If that doesn't work, I'll move along... if you let me. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't try to humor you. I won't joke around with you. I won't engage you in any way beyond, "Leave me alone." I'm not what they call a "people person". If that doesn't work, you're going to have a VERY bad day.

 

[681ismyfavorite]

if you saw somebody you thought was suspicious, and you followed him, and called the police on him, then stopped following him, and went back to your car where the person you called the police on for acting suspicious to you now punches you in the face, breaking your nose and knocking you to the ground then starts banging your head into the cement, you are still allowed to shoot them.

 

[MaximumLawman]

It's funny what happens when you try to legislate common sense. If you need to shoot someone to live, shoot them. If you need to shoot someone to prevent a serious injury, shoot them. If you have to ask what a serious injury is, go ahead and shoot them and the jury will decide for you. If I was on the jury and someone shot an unarmed man and walked away without a scratch, he'd better have a good lawyer and he'd better take the stand and testify convincingly. If he chose NOT to testify, he'd likely be looking at at least one guilty vote.

 

[nipster]

In Vermont ... It all boils down to this. You can carry a gun and use it to protect yourself and your family. However, the law expects you will not go looking for trouble

Honestly, so does Florida's law in so many words. They are already talking about revising it, before the investigation is even complete. Completely sackless politicians here.

that you will take all reasonable actions to avoid using deadly force, and that such force will be used only as a last resort. That really covers all circumstances. If I can safely run away from a person threatening me with a knife I'm expected to do so. But if I'm unable to avoid injury or death the law states I can use my gun to defend myself, including shooting another person.

See, this is where I differ with you. Someone pulls a knife on you, you should be able to shoot them, no questions asked. Not try to run away and get hit by a car fleeing because you couldn't defend yourself with the weapon you had on your person but couldn't use. That is the POINT of stand your ground.

The bottom line is I didn't initiate the confrontation, I did everything possible to avoid it, and I used a firearm because I or my family was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm and there was no alternative. This isn't rocket science, yet we make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Under your first scenario, even though you didn't initiate the confrontation, you had to flee the confrontation rather than end it there.

If they are going to change ANYTHING about the Florida SYG, they need to put wording in there to the effect of "law not valid if you initiate the confrontation, initiate pursuing the individual, etc.

Not getting back to the Sanford case, there was a case recently where an off duty SECURITY GUARD followed what he thought of as a "suspicious vehicle" on a public road, they turned down a dirt road, the 2 guys in the car stopped, got out, confronted the security guard and he shot and killed them both from inside his car. One or both of them was unarmed, and he got off. I really think that is a stretch and he initiated the pursuit. You don't go looking for trouble. If the "current" story in the Martin case turns out to be the truth (Martin jumped Zimmerman, but Zimmerman was following him), I don't think I can fault Zimmerman for actually shooting, but he should not have been pursuing Martin.

 

[seagill]

See, this is where I differ with you. Someone pulls a knife on you, you should be able to shoot them, no questions asked. Not try to run away and get hit by a car fleeing because you couldn't defend yourself with the weapon you had on your person but couldn't use. That is the POINT of stand your ground.

I agree. I've got a bum knee, I can't outrun anyone.

 

[samuelrp]

Basically as long as 12 of your peers agree with your actions, all is well.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

Nipster:

Quote: See, this is where I differ with you. Someone pulls a knife on you, you should be able to shoot them, no questions asked. Not try to run away and get hit by a car fleeing because you couldn't defend yourself with the weapon you had on your person but couldn't use. That is the POINT of stand your ground. Quote.

Remember, I said "safely run away", not put myself in danger by running into traffic. "No questions asked"? You may well get a lot of questions, in front of a jury, and need to convince them that before shooting another person you did
everything "reasonable" to avoid doing so, including running away (if possible). And by the way, if you're ever in this situation, there are two things that will help you. First, convince the jury as described above. Second, convince the jury of your sincere remorse at having to shoot another person. Convince them that, on the one hand you're glad to be alive, but on the other you're sorry it was absolutely necessary to shoot another person. A little sympathy towards you will go a long ways. Again, remember if you're involved in a shooting there will be no such thing as "No questions asked".

 

[cololab]

Nipster:

Quote: See, this is where I differ with you. Someone pulls a knife on you, you should be able to shoot them, no questions asked. Not try to run away and get hit by a car fleeing because you couldn't defend yourself with the weapon you had on your person but couldn't use. That is the POINT of stand your ground. Quote.

Remember, I said "safely run away", not put myself in danger by running into traffic. "No questions asked"? You may well get a lot of questions, in front of a jury, and need to convince them that before shooting another person you did
everything "reasonable" to avoid doing so, including running away (if possible). And by the way, if you're ever in this situation, there are two things that will help you. First, convince the jury as described above. Second, convince the jury of your sincere remorse at having to shoot another person. Convince them that, on the one hand you're glad to be alive, but on the other you're sorry it was absolutely necessary to shoot another person. A little sympathy towards you will go a long ways. Again, remember if you're involved in a shooting there will be no such thing as "No questions asked".

Well said.

 

[old curmudgeon]

Honestly, so does Florida's law in so many words. They are already talking about revising it, before the investigation is even complete. Completely sackless politicians here.



See, this is where I differ with you. Someone pulls a knife on you, you should be able to shoot them, no questions asked. Not try to run away and get hit by a car fleeing because you couldn't defend yourself with the weapon you had on your person but couldn't use. That is the POINT of stand your ground.



Under your first scenario, even though you didn't initiate the confrontation, you had to flee the confrontation rather than end it there.

If they are going to change ANYTHING about the Florida SYG, they need to put wording in there to the effect of "law not valid if you initiate the confrontation, initiate pursuing the individual, etc.

Not getting back to the Sanford case, there was a case recently where an off duty SECURITY GUARD followed what he thought of as a "suspicious vehicle" on a public road, they turned down a dirt road, the 2 guys in the car stopped, got out, confronted the security guard and he shot and killed them both from inside his car. One or both of them was unarmed, and he got off. I really think that is a stretch and he initiated the pursuit. You don't go looking for trouble. If the "current" story in the Martin case turns out to be the truth (Martin jumped Zimmerman, but Zimmerman was following him), I don't think I can fault Zimmerman for actually shooting, but he should not have been pursuing Martin.

Exact;y.

Based on today's news that the kid had a juvenile record for assault, my belief at this point is that this is the typical case to two stupid people running into each other with the predictable result.

The kid deserved to be shot for jumping the guy and Zimmerman deserves to spend time in prison for playing cop.

The bottom line is that a CCW and the stand your ground law do not give you a badge. They pay cops to get shot and and to fight guys that think they can whip anyone. They don't give you a paycheck and a badge with a CCW.

I have had many arguments with guys who think that getting a CCW allows them to act likeJames Bond. I often wonder if Zimmerman was one of them.

 

[OLDFED]

I'll post my opinion after I talk with MR. Al Sharpton. He and Jesse Jerkson have all the answers.

 

[old bear]

This probably will be unpopular but what else is new, at least for me? Discounting a home invasion, I believe that no matter what the local laws are everyone has a moral duty to retreat if one can do so safely. I like CMORT666 will not be bullied but neither will I do something rash or stupid.
Understand that the taking of a life, no matter how legal or moral your actions were is a life changing event, and it’s not a positive event. I’m finally at the point in my life were I’ve been able to accumulate a few things and I’m not willing to be forced to giving these to someone’s relatives or a good criminal/civil defense attorney.

 

[Skeptic 9c]

One problem in the Zimmerman incident, he was in a gated community, where he lived. Now per my understanding, the "stand your ground law" is irrelevant in this case, because Zimmerman was not on a public street. Geoff
Who notes the classic legal advice, "NEVER BE A TEST CASE!"

 

[cmort666]

This probably will be unpopular but what else is new, at least for me? Discounting a home invasion, I believe that no matter what the local laws are everyone has a moral duty to retreat if one can do so safely.

And THAT is the operative condition.

When the gun or knife comes out, you probably CAN'T retreat safely. As I said, "in perfect safety" is a pretty low bar.

 

[The Big D]

I wholly agree with old bear. Having been a LEO I had multiple opportunities when I could have shot people yet did not. Why not? I was able to render solutions otherwise. Of course, a continuum of force policy was in effect. Though I have absolutely no reservations about using deadly force when required, I don't believe it should be the first resort...ever.

The shooter in the FL case was certainly "wrong" given the outcome. And, I would not be the least bit surprised if we learn the shooter was carrying a badge of some sort. But I digress...

Be safe.

This probably will be unpopular but what else is new, at least for me? Discounting a home invasion, I believe that no matter what the local laws are everyone has a moral duty to retreat if one can do so safely. I like CMORT666 will not be bullied but neither will I do something rash or stupid.
Understand that the taking of a life, no matter how legal or moral your actions were is a life changing event, and it’s not a positive event. I’m finally at the point in my life were I’ve been able to accumulate a few things and I’m not willing to be forced to giving these to someone’s relatives or a good criminal/civil defense attorney.

 

[old bear]

And THAT is the operative condition.

When the gun or knife comes out, you probably CAN'T retreat safely. As I said, "in perfect safety" is a pretty low bar.

Yes Sir that is a VERY low bar yet one of the hardest to decide when to cross, and once crossed you can't return.

 

[StatesRightist]

Reading these posts, I feel led to interject one piece of factual info into the discussion, you can decide how it affects your thought process.

Anyone in here who's spent much time in LE training or self defense has has the fact that the average man with a knife in his hand and is within 21 feet of you can advance on you and knife you before you can clear leather and fire drilled in their heads. That fact has been researched/tested and proven multiple times. From my own point of view that means any commands given to a knife wielding individual are giving looking down the sights, not while "defusing" the situation by not having my gun drawn--just throwing this out for your consideration.

...I would also add if you think being shot is bad, you probably have never seen someone disemboweled etc by a knife or box cutter.

*** 21 feet does not apply to anyone named Jerry Miculek...you may feel free to make your own rules up...lol.