why one should ALWAYS carry your weapon

[JB4310]

Speaking of carrying a concealed deadly weapon: Only a fool and/or an idiot would fail to take advantage of the right to carry a weapon, if in possession of a duly issued lawful permit. As a veteran Police Officer of 42 years, 10 of which, being a certified firearms instructor/trainer in a State Police Agency, I would like to say "Brush up on your State's deadly force statutes, write-em down and re-read them from time to time". If you carry and the time arrives when you are in fear of your safety or your life and you act, then you have a pretty good chance of being legally sound. On the other hand, ....lg

That is essential advice. Laws vary widely from state to state. Take the wrong action and you could find yourself being sued and/or in prison.

I don't think knowing the law has anything to do with a shoot or don't shoot situation, The laws governing the use of deadly physical force are based on the most logical, common sense, age old rights of self defense. I actually did read our laws recently and was surprised how simple and liberal they were in protecting those rights.

Any reasonable person should only shoot if it's justifiable, there is nothing to think about. It either needs to be done or doesn't.
Knowing the law inside and out sounds like you are looking for an opportunity to shoot someone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti gun or anything, just looking at things from a different perspective.
If you have to think about the letter of the law, then most likely you should not be engaging someone in deadly physical force at that time.

Another way to look at it is from the other extreme, when in doubt, shoot. for it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Yet another angle, from my brother in law who is not big advocate of firearms, told me once, knowing my interest in guns. "live by the sword, Die by the sword" Obviously an old saying but it does make me think sometimes.

I don't agree with lg on the fool or idiot not carrying a weapon issue, but that is a more complicated, personal preference debate. No simple right or wrong answer to that, as it is based on an opinion (which I still do respect).

I would agree that I/ we should never give up that right to carry a weapon.

JB

 

[RoyJackson]

I don't think knowing the law has anything to do with a shoot or don't shoot situation, The laws governing the use of deadly physical force are based on the most logical, common sense, age old rights of self defense. I actually did read our laws recently and was surprised how simple and liberal they were in protecting those rights.

Any reasonable person should only shoot if it's justifiable, there is nothing to think about. It either needs to be done or doesn't.
Knowing the law inside and out sounds like you are looking for an opportunity to shoot someone.

One reason to know the particular state's law is to know if there is a "duty to retreat".
Up until Castle Doctrine was passed and made law in PA, one had to attempt retreat in most circumstances...and I believe (but not sure) that applied to within one's home as well as out in public.

And, although the laws always stated to the effect "what a reasonable person would do", "reasonable" can have many definitions, depending on locality (amoung other things).

 

[JB4310]

One reason to know the particular state's law is to know if there is a "duty to retreat".
Up until Castle Doctrine was passed and made law in PA, one had to attempt retreat in most circumstances...and I believe (but not sure) that applied to within one's home as well as out in public.

I agree every state is a little different, but even in the states with the retreat requirement, it clearly states, only if you are "reasonable sure" your safety is not at risk, must you retreat. Which in my opinion is not a bad policy, if you want to sleep good at night.

I'm not real fond of those states that allow for you to go outside and shoot someone who is putting your neighbors TV, they just stole, in their trunk.
To me that's looking for a reason to shoot someone.
For me their has to be a threat to life or limb. Now if they were stealing your neighbors medical equipment that would put that person in grave danger, that falls under the threat to life or limb.

Also some state have old laws that say you actually must intervene in another's distress, not a right but an obligation. I fully agree with that, the only problem is it is almost impossible to enforce, since it clearly states that you don't have to help that person if you are not "reasonable sure" you wont be putting your self at risk as well.

JB

 

[5030]

Read the news clip. I'd say that the girls and the guy were probably out making some extra money by hooking at local truck stops and the guy was playing pimp. Something went foul and she got killed, either by a John or by the fellow and dumped in a secluded area, off the road.

Life is very cheap, especially when playing afoul of the law in the first place.

I don't believe you were in any immediate danger, the perp was long gone.

I don't carry everywhere even though I can. Sometimes it's not convenient and sometimes it's entirely unnecessary.

My Snakeslayer is very discrete but not always needed, or wanted.

We all spent many years without carrying a weapon and obviously we are still here (for the most part).

Just my opinion.

 

[dmccarty]

...
....
Any reasonable person should only shoot if it's justifiable, there is nothing to think about. It either needs to be done or doesn't.
Knowing the law inside and out sounds like you are looking for an opportunity to shoot someone.
...

What is justifiable?

What a person thinks is a justifiable act might not match the law.

Knowing the law HOPEFULLY will keep on out of trouble but not always.

Just because the law says you can do something, does not mean you should.

Over in the best gun thread I mentioned some of this stuff and cases where people used deadly force, some well within the law, and the results of their actions.

You see a woman in a parking lot screaming and struggling with a man who is beating and dragging her into a car. He has a knife in his hand. Do you shoot the man? Do you go after him with no weapon when he has a knife? What does the law say you can do? What do YOU think YOU should do?

What if there was no knife, does that change your reaction?

Knowing the law helps you decide what to do.

No answers are expected to the questions. They are to make one think a bit. State law could very well impact what one does.

I heard many years ago that the FBI only allows their agents to use deadly force if a life is threatened. Many years ago I had a firearms course taught by a retired FBI firearms instructor so I guess that is where I heard it. Me thinks that was/is a real good policy.

Later,
Dan

 

[5030]

What is justifiable?

What a person thinks is a justifiable act might not match the law.

Knowing the law HOPEFULLY will keep on out of trouble but not always.

Just because the law says you can do something, does not mean you should.

Over in the best gun thread I mentioned some of this stuff and cases where people used deadly force, some well within the law, and the results of their actions.

You see a woman in a parking lot screaming and struggling with a man who is beating and dragging her into a car. He has a knife in his hand. Do you shoot the man? Do you go after him with no weapon when he has a knife? What does the law say you can do? What do YOU think YOU should do?

What if there was no knife, does that change your reaction?

Knowing the law helps you decide what to do.

No answers are expected to the questions. They are to make one think a bit. State law could very well impact what one does.

I heard many years ago that the FBI only allows their agents to use deadly force if a life is threatened. Many years ago I had a firearms course taught by a retired FBI firearms instructor so I guess that is where I heard it. Me thinks that was/is a real good policy.

Later,
Dan

Having been divoriced more than once, I'd probably ignore the whole thing.

 

[RoyJackson]

What is justifiable?

In PA, before Castle Doctrine became law, there were two justifications for using deadly force:
1) The person is in imminent danger from an assailant and cannot retreat
2) Prevent rape of yourself or another person

Of course, after one's use of deadly force, there will be questions and possible legal repurcussions...no matter how justified.

In the example:

You see a woman in a parking lot screaming and struggling with a man who is beating and dragging her into a car. He has a knife in his hand. Do you shoot the man? Do you go after him with no weapon when he has a knife? What does the law say you can do? What do YOU think YOU should do?

That's a no win situation. You could be witnessing a crime, or a domestic dispute. Best course of action...get the car's tag number and call the cops.

 

[JB4310]

What is justifiable?

You see a woman in a parking lot screaming and struggling with a man who is beating and dragging her into a car. He has a knife in his hand. Do you shoot the man? Do you go after him with no weapon when he has a knife? What does the law say you can do? What do YOU think YOU should do?

What if there was no knife, does that change your reaction?

Knowing the law helps you decide what to do.

No answers are expected to the questions. They are to make one think a bit. State law could very well impact what one does.

Later,
Dan

Those are very good questions/ scenarios. I can't give an answer to now though, as it would all depend on the minuscule details on the scene at that moment. What I would not be thinking about is the law, you do not need to consider the law in a crisis like that.

Common sense and human rights are the foundation of common law, but law is complicated by its nature, lawyers go to school for how many years? You can't expect joe tractor to be pondering case law during a moment like that. I think the common sense that most of us possess is more important than written law in your parking lot scene.

It is a big time moment to act decisively for sure....
The big question I ask myself is would I come to anyone's aid, if I was not 100% convinced I would not be in no danger myself ?? I hope I would, regardless of "duty to rescue" just a question I can't answer til it happens.

I've got a twist for your screaming woman in a parking lot scenario, Exchange her for another man. Now that changes things doesn't it?
It shouldn't, but it does.

Some interesting reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

JB

 

[MossflowerWoods]

I open carry on the property almost all the time.

Usually a Taurus 9mm 17rd mag, plenty visible.

The pavement ends 2000 feet from my gate, and the gravel goes thru my gate and down to the house.

So far only my immediate neighbors, the Jehova's Witnesses, and UPS/FedEx have come on the property without some kind of an invite...

I plan to get my CCW ASAP.

Personally I'm a BIG fan of Open carry.

David

 

[RoyJackson]

I've got a twist for your screaming woman in a parking lot scenario, Exchange her for another man. Now that changes things doesn't it?

JB

Yeah...instead of calling the cops, I'd call Jerry Sandusky...

(I know, that really sucked, didn't it?)