stand your ground/Concealed carry

[MP1518]

Stand Your ground is an interesting concept.

If I am facing a threat and I can just leave . Walk away or drive away. I could take that option . If by taking that option I feel that there is even a SMALL chance that I will get killed , I will NOT take that option . Am I being reasonable?

Also , how about protecting property vs. protecting life?

If I am having a cup of coffee on my porch and couple of people are trying to take my bike that is in front of the house and after I tell them to stop it and get lost they attack me. I may not try to run away

Will I be protecting Life? Or Property?

Because if I just let them take my bike , maybe they would never attack me. Or maybe they would (?)

Am I making any sense?

 

[nipster]

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!"

The fact that he was in a gated community has no bearing. Under FLA law, the stand your ground law applies "wherever you have a legal right to be", could be inside your house, place of business, parking lot, etc.

That said, it was his vigilante, wanna-be cop attitude which put him in the position to have to do this (which, as of the last version of the story I heard, makes it a legitimate SD/SYG). He should have just called the cops and stayed away from him.

Having a CCP does not give you the right to be a vigilante. You cannot defend property in Florida with lethal force. This is distinctly different from defending your self.

 

[MP1518]

The fact that he was in a gated community has no bearing. Under FLA law, the stand your ground law applies "wherever you have a legal right to be", could be inside your house, place of business, parking lot, etc.

That said, it was his vigilante, wanna-be cop attitude which put him in the position to have to do this (which, as of the last version of the story I heard, makes it a legitimate SD/SYG). He should have just called the cops and stayed away from him.

Having a CCP does not give you the right to be a vigilante. You cannot defend property in Florida with lethal force. This is distinctly different from defending your self.

in Your opinion, is defending Your self from someone who got mad after You told them to leave Your property alone an Ok thing to do?

 

[Maximumbob54]

in Your opinion, is defending Your self from someone who got mad after You told them to leave Your property alone an Ok thing to do?

Why am I reading that as a leading or baiting type of question?

If you have to defend yourself for ANY reason then you are within your rights and covered by the law. If I look out the window and see someone trying to steal my car, I run outside shouting, then they come running at me, then I stand my ground and defend myself. I haven’t seen a single person say anything to the effect that you can just shoot someone for any reason other than self defense. This is part of the reason I’m such a big proponent of everyone being armed. It’s that whole “an armed society is a polite society” theme. If criminals know their lives may be on the line then they avoid those areas and focus on “gun free zones”. Time and again statistics show that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens are a deterrent to crime while easy targets continue to pay the price. None of this is difficult to understand unless you are purposefully trying to confuse the situation.

 

[Pasifikawv]

For me, when analyzing (from the comfort of my desk chair) the moral and legal issues of the use of deadly force in a self-defense encounter, the question is not "When CAN I shoot?" but rather, "When MUST I shoot?"

I'll avoid whenever possible, walk/run away if I can, but I am determined to prevail if I must meet force with force.

 

[CCWKY]

I think everyone needs to wait and get the whole story on the Zimmerman incident before rushing to judgement. There have been a few more details leaking out over the last few days that dispute the media reports that he just killed an innocent kid in cold blood. Apparently Zimmerman had a broken nose and a laceration on back of his head. Just simply following someone that appears suspicious is not a crime, at least not in Kentucky or Florida.

 

[old curmudgeon]

For me this is a non-issue. I'm not going to run.

I will take one step back and say, "I stepped back so that you don't feel threatened." Then blast away.

There is nothing in the laws that say you need to run for your life. I have arthritis; I'm not going to run. But stepping back (a "retreat") will meet the requirements. Verbalizing it makes a statement in case it ever goes to court. Witnesses will remember what you said.

Who will be in court to testify that you stepped back?

Who will be in court to testify that Zimmerman did not push this guy to the point that he thought he had to fight?

 

[Chuck1217]

M&P, that property question, I believe, has perplexed many people- myself included. If by 'bike' you mean a motorcycle, does that make a difference from a $50 bicycle? I don't know the answers, would like to. I imagine it boils down to the prosecutor, as usual.

 

[old curmudgeon]

M&P, that property question, I believe, has perplexed many people- myself included. If by 'bike' you mean a motorcycle, does that make a difference from a $50 bicycle? I don't know the answers, would like to. I imagine it boils down to the prosecutor, as usual.

I don't understand why this is even discussed.

Except in TX, if the guy is stealing your bile and you are on the porch you call the cops and be cool.

If you are on your bike in the driveway and he approaches you with a weapon and demands you bile or else he is going to naim or kill you, you shoot.

Property laws in almost all states say that you do not protect your property at the cost of a life.

I have no done any searches on it, but I suspect that arson of an occupied dwelling is an exception.

 

[MP1518]

Ok. Ok.
May be its the way I asked the question.
I like to use examples too much LOL.

Ok. Lets say You are legally armed ( or just on Your property), someone tries to take Your property or does anything else that DIRECTLY offends You .

You say," Hey ! Stop doing this S..T! " , the person or people stop and turn agianst You ( attack You ).

You must now protect Your self. Right?
Protect Your self from what He/They are trying to do NOW.

Some people may say ," Well, if You did not say anytihing , this would never happen"

How do You feel about this ?
Just wondering?

 

[681ismyfavorite]

I don't understand why this is even discussed.

Except in TX, if the guy is stealing your bile and you are on the porch you call the cops and be cool.

If you are on your bike in the driveway and he approaches you with a weapon and demands you bile or else he is going to naim or kill you, you shoot.

Property laws in almost all states say that you do not protect your property at the cost of a life.

I have no done any searches on it, but I suspect that arson of an occupied dwelling is an exception.

in the free states, if some P O S is trying to steal your bike, you have a legal right to use less lethal or physical force (pushing them, punching them, taser, o.c.) to stop them. if they in turn attack you, you can use lethal force to stop them.

it really isnt that hard to understand unless you live in the third world states.

 

[nipster]

in Your opinion, is defending Your self from someone who got mad after You told them to leave Your property alone an Ok thing to do?

It depends how mad they got.

Guy is on your property, you tell them to leave, they throw profanities at you and come up and sucker punch you, you have a decision to make. At that point, you would most likely be justified in using deadly force. In Florida anyway.

But you just cant brandish your weapon or shoot someone who is just trespassing or stealing your property. It dont work like that.

in the free states, if some P O S is trying to steal your bike, you have a legal right to use less lethal or physical force (pushing them, punching them, taser, o.c.) to stop them. if they in turn attack you, you can use lethal force to stop them.

it really isnt that hard to understand unless you live in the third world states.

That is something no one has touched on yet. In Florida, if you have a CCP, you have the right to carry certain "less than lethal" devices like large containers of mace, stun guns, tazers, etc as well as firearms. Using my above example, someone coming at you, you can pull your mace and mace them. Escalating levels of aggression / force is taught in most CCP classes that you have to take to get your permit. No one says you have to use lethal force. Spray them with mace and if they keep coming or land a shot, you can escalate to deadly force if they continue to attack you.

 

[Moonman]

One thing in your favor is that the license makes for much better FIREARMS TRANSPORTATION LAWS for you.

 

[nipster]

One thing in your favor is that the license makes for much better FIREARMS TRANSPORTATION LAWS for you.

Not really. Federal law provides for interstate transportation of firearms, even through the republik's of NY and CA. Here in Florida, the laws concerning firearms in a vehicle are virtually identical, depending on who you talk to. The statutes are difficult to understand. They state that a handgun in a vehicle must be "secured" and "concealed", if you have a CCP or not (if you dont have a CCP, you can transport a handgun/firearm that is "securely encased" and "concealed", and the statute does not specifically make an exception for CCP. Some people interpret the statute that grants persons with a CCP to carry concealed to mean that even in their car, it just has to be concealed, does not necessarily have to be encased. This could mean sitting on your seat with a towell over it.

Lawyers and cops have a field day over this stuff.

 

[STCM(SW)]

One thing I have not seen posted is "Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6"

At my age, any young punks try to do me harm will receive deadly force.
Seen two case's here in the past few years, one died from the un-armed assailant’s, the other used a handgun. The first one is dead, the second case only the punk high on drugs & booze was dead.

 

[OLDFED]

If you see someone in your driveway trying to steal your motorcycle, grab your .44, rush out and put a bullet thru the bike's engine! The thief will no doubt not want to steal it and hopefully will go away. If that plan doesn't work...be sure there's another round in your .44.

 

[Hondo44]

This Zimmerman/Martin case has too many facts yet to be confirmed and or learned before I could make anything even near a judgement about what justice would be and who's guilty of what. And no one else in this discussion seems willing to either, which is what I'd expect from the caliber of members on this forum.

The dicussion is extremely informative and mind wrenching which is good practice for our mental processes if or when that moment in life is upon us when we might have to make those split second evaluations and decisions!

This particular case strikes me, like most real encounters, as being muti encounters happening very close together with more than one decision needed to decide on guilt and justice. We hear Mr. Z followed the victim and confronts him; actually the aggressor one could say. Then we hear Mr Z departs and is attacked and assaulted whereupon he uses deadly force to stop Mr. M. Questions abound:

Was M in a backyard more or less illegally?
Did Z follow him and confront M more or less illegally?
Did M attack Z after the confrontation had ended more or less illegally?
Was Z justified to shoot legally when M was besting him illegally?
Seems like lotsa fault to go around.

There's a lot more detail to come out. And the one thing I do know is that I would not want to be a juror on this case especially if Mr. Z doesn't get the death penalty. Those 12 jurors' lives will change forever. Or even try to pick a jury after the nation-wide mass media hysteria.

 

[Moonman]

This case needs to be settled in the COURTS, Not CNN, MSNBC, FOX, AL Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Nancy Grace, Velez-Mitchel. I'm of the opinion that all the cable news channels and their surrogates should be SUED for the violation of the civil rights of the people they TRY IN THE PRESS.

 

[TexasArmed]

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

Glad I live in Texas, as I sure can't outrun them, and if assaulted they might very well use my own gun against me.
In Texas we do not have to wait till we are assaulted before using deadly force. But In Florida, I really think someone with a CHL ought not to be patrolling for neighborhood watch. He may have been acting in self defense, we don't know all the facts,
but his life is totally ruined, financially as well. But in Texas there will not be any orginization circulating wanted dead or alive posters, other than law enforcement. In Texas deadly force can be used to stop someone escaping with the loot. I think this incident in Florida is not good for those of us with CHL as there will be pressure to change the SYG laws, and I favor this law and I don't believe anyone is going to change it. I also don't think in Florida, Zimmerman can use the SYG law since he initially pursued the other man. I think that will be a contest over whether he acted in self defense under Florida Law.

 

[Moonman]

Nipster,

In Ohio a LOADED MAG is considered a LOADED GUN by itself. So the transportation deal is better with a license because if you don't have one you could be in deep stuff.

Due to the high HOURLY RATE that some ranges charge, some people load up many mags ahead of the range to save time, if you transport and do not have a license, you are breaking the law here.