Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/28/2010 11:53:57 AM EDT
I've had my CHL in Yamhill County for a little over a year.  I carry almost every time I leave my house except for in my company vehicle.  I had a bit of a situation that got me thinking what I actually have the right and/or obligation to do if something arises while in a public place.

So, I was in a Plaid Pantry at 11ish and when I walked in there was nobody besides the cashier.  I went to the back of the store where the drink coolers are.  I heard somebody come in the store and he instantly started yelling at the cashier.  I kinda froze and then moved up the far isle in a crouch.  As soon as I peeked around the corner,  the cashier and the other guy started laughing and did their own little handshake/ fist-bump thing.  It all only took about 10 seconds.  I didn't draw my weapon, probably from not being sure what was going on.  I'm glad I didn't after seeing what it was all about.  So, obviously these dudes are friends and one was playing a little prank on the other one... no big deal.  But it got me thinking.  I believe the general rule is protection of yourself, your loved ones and your property.  If this was a true robbery I think the best thing to do is stay out of it and let the fool get his 43 buck from the register and go.  But, what if you're in a more dire situation?  Can you protect a stranger from a bad guy if he's threatening their life?  Or do I need to just keep my weapon holstered and ride it out?

I know this sounds a little like "action-flick poisoning", but I just thought I should know what I can and can't do.

Your thoughts?



-=Stand for Liberty or Fall to Tyranny=-
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 1:00:30 PM EDT
Shoot them both for fucking with you.  Load up on Hostess fruit pies.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 1:19:16 PM EDT
never draw you weapon unless it is the last resort to save your or someone elses life.  You did what I would have done, observe and just be ready until you know it is all safe.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 2:18:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2010 3:20:20 PM EDT by SMPrider112]
I think what you did was perfect....its probably what I would have done as well....You didn't jump to conclusions and become too quick to draw and be a hero, instead you went to investigate, sounded like you did it while being tactically sound.  I will correct you on a common misconception, you mentioned protecting yourself, your family and your PROPERTY.....the first two, spot on, however, you cannot use deadly force to protect your property.

As for yer question about protecting others, you are also allowed to use deadly force to protect someone else from serious physical injury or death.....However I will ad this, in the scenario you gave, if we modify it a little and make it a robbery of the Plaid....I would say it would probably better to be a good witness then to engage the bad guy.....Most robberies (Especially conveniant stores) are ussualy non-violenent.  Most of the time they demand cash, get it and leave...obviously this isnt always the case and sometimes you just gotta make that split second, gut decision, in the heat of the moment.  Sometimes pulling yer gun will esculate the situation even further, and unless you have a good shot, may not be the safest for anybody else inside.  Another thing to consider, is say you blast the robber, saving the stores $57 from being taken, and potentially saving the clerk.....Yer justified so you dont get into trouble, except now robber's baby momma hires a wrongful death attorney and decides to sue you.....They paint you as a crazy gun nut, trying to be a hero, who took some innocent, misguided young persons life, who was only stealing to feed his family  Even if you win, you'll still be out huge money for yer lawyer to defend you....just something to think about.

I have ran this and similiar scenarios in my head....if I see a robbery and am not in the line of fire, I.E. concealed or un-noticed by the bad guy....I will try to be a good witness for responding LE, get as good a description as possible of suspect, this assuming I do not believe the clerk is in any serious danger.  Now once the bad guy leaves, I may pursue to get a direction of travel, vehicle description, etc...Now once outside if no one else is around, I may ID myself as LE and attempt to stop suspect, depending on cover, if suspect has put weapon away, safety, etc...Now if I engage suspect in a gun fight outside, at least I have elminated any potential bystanders....I will ad this tho, I wouldn't recommend the pursueing and confronting an armed suspect..
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 2:23:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Xombie:
...
I believe the general rule is protection of yourself, your loved ones and your property.
...


Property?!

That could get you convicted (or possibly killed).

Re-educate yourself on justifiable use of deadly force before you get into trouble. Plenty of good classes available.

Best,

ac
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 4:37:55 PM EDT
Property...I would allow the bad guy to steal everything I own and wouldn't shoot him.  However, if he made a move that jeopardized myself or my family, he won't get such a charitable reaction.  

As SMPrider properly points out.  Even if the shooting is justified it will probably cost you a fortune.  Allowing the bad guy to take everything in the house is simply cost effective...insurance will cover what the bad guy steals with alot less cost and grief than winning a wrongful death suit.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 5:10:07 PM EDT
http://www.oregonshooter.com/index.php/articles/view/oregon_use_of_force_laws_summary/

I just put this up as if you read the law, it helps to know what you should do or not do.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 5:40:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By oregon-shooter:
http://www.oregonshooter.com/index.php/articles/view/oregon_use_of_force_laws_summary/

I just put this up as if you read the law, it helps to know what you should do or not do.


Great website shooter!!  This will help alot of people understand the black and white of use of force law....sure there is still a ton of gray, but that is what courts are for.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 5:49:16 PM EDT
You made the right choice. I carry to protect my family and myself, so I am here for them. All else is just stuff.

SMP put it very good terms.  

Oregon shooter good link. I'm forwarding it to a few friends that don't frequent AR15.com
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 6:02:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Genin:
Property...I would allow the bad guy to steal everything I own and wouldn't shoot him.  However, if he made a move that jeopardized myself or my family, he won't get such a charitable reaction.  

As SMPrider properly points out.  Even if the shooting is justified it will probably cost you a fortune.  Allowing the bad guy to take everything in the house is simply cost effective...insurance will cover what the bad guy steals with alot less cost and grief than winning a wrongful death suit.

While I agree with this statement, it really pisses me off.  Its like saying "hey, let the bad guys win."  Its just a shame that it has come to this in our country that you can't even defend whats yours.  And if you do, the baddies will take you to court and no matter what you lose.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 6:23:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sortafast:
Originally Posted By Genin:
Property...I would allow the bad guy to steal everything I own and wouldn't shoot him.  However, if he made a move that jeopardized myself or my family, he won't get such a charitable reaction.  

As SMPrider properly points out.  Even if the shooting is justified it will probably cost you a fortune.  Allowing the bad guy to take everything in the house is simply cost effective...insurance will cover what the bad guy steals with alot less cost and grief than winning a wrongful death suit.

While I agree with this statement, it really pisses me off.  Its like saying "hey, let the bad guys win."  Its just a shame that it has come to this in our country that you can't even defend whats yours.  And if you do, the baddies will take you to court and no matter what you lose.


I agree....it sucks that criminals have more rights then law abiding citizens!!  But all the law says is you can't use DEADLY force to protect property....there is other means to protect your property  Pointing a gun is also not considered DEADLY force either.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 6:34:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SMPrider112:
Originally Posted By Sortafast:
Originally Posted By Genin:
Property...I would allow the bad guy to steal everything I own and wouldn't shoot him.  However, if he made a move that jeopardized myself or my family, he won't get such a charitable reaction.  

As SMPrider properly points out.  Even if the shooting is justified it will probably cost you a fortune.  Allowing the bad guy to take everything in the house is simply cost effective...insurance will cover what the bad guy steals with alot less cost and grief than winning a wrongful death suit.

While I agree with this statement, it really pisses me off.  Its like saying "hey, let the bad guys win."  Its just a shame that it has come to this in our country that you can't even defend whats yours.  And if you do, the baddies will take you to court and no matter what you lose.


I agree....it sucks that criminals have more rights then law abiding citizens!!  But all the law says is you can't use DEADLY force to protect property....there is other means to protect your property  Pointing a gun is also not considered DEADLY force either.


good point  
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 8:12:39 PM EDT
That's a real good link; thanks for sharing.

Also, maybe SMP can clarify, but I'm pretty sure vie also read at least one ORS that dealt specifically with brandishing, right?

cheers, Benji
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 8:58:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2010 9:01:47 PM EDT by oregon-shooter]
Thanks guys, It was the Kitzhober thread in the church a few weeks back that got me putting that together.  Let me know if there is more that should be on it.  I did the same for ORS 166 years ago to help me get an overview of the CHL laws.

There is no brandishing law, just pointing a gun at people is illegal.  

 166.190 Pointing firearm at another; courts having jurisdiction over offense. Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both. Justice courts have jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court of the trial of violations of this section. When any person is charged before a justice court with violation of this section, the court shall, upon motion of the district attorney, at any time before trial, act as a committing magistrate, and if probable cause be established, hold such person to the grand jury. [Formerly 163.320]
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 9:42:54 PM EDT
The only thing I'd point out here, is that a good carry holster isn't a dropped thigh rig.  They're slow.  Waiting for the right moment to draw may get you shot.

Not sayin that with regard to anything in this situation, just a generalization.  You need to go through your OODA loop faster than the bad guy, and be ready with drawn weapon when its time, not after.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 5:30:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2010 5:39:09 AM EDT by Genin]
I guess everyone has to evaluate what they perceive possibly causing enough grave bodily harm (or death) that would justify the use of deadly force.   Just remember that you may have to defend that decision in court.  I just wish that everyone who carries a concealed handgun could be required to learn the statutes, and court decision regarding use of force, the force continuum and report writing detailing justification for the use of force.  I don't recommend they write a report, or even talk with anyone other than their attorney after a use of force incident, but learning what is supposed to be in those reports would make their attorney's job much easier, and help them think through use of force possibilities ahead of time.

It would also help if they knew about MEANS, OPPORTUNITY, AND INTENT so when they have to tell their attorney what happened, the attorney could write up a reasonable defense.   Of course, few people are able to keep their mouths shut until after they have spoken with their attorney.   An attorney's job is alot easier if people would simply exercise their right to remain silent after a use of force incident.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 6:54:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By oregon-shooter:
Thanks guys, It was the Kitzhober thread in the church a few weeks back that got me putting that together.  Let me know if there is more that should be on it.  I did the same for ORS 166 years ago to help me get an overview of the CHL laws.

There is no brandishing law, just pointing a gun at people is illegal.  

 166.190 Pointing firearm at another; courts having jurisdiction over offense. Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both. Justice courts have jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court of the trial of violations of this section. When any person is charged before a justice court with violation of this section, the court shall, upon motion of the district attorney, at any time before trial, act as a committing magistrate, and if probable cause be established, hold such person to the grand jury. [Formerly 163.320]


This is one of those laws I have never, at least in my career, seen enforced.....We have dealt with scenerios of people who have pointed guns at others, while protecting their property, and no arrest was made....even tho maybe technically you could under this statute.  We even had one that was a group of teens playing the game "Fugative," which is basically late night hide and seek using other peoples properties without their permission.  Home owners hears noises in his yard, gets gun to confront whoever is on his property, finds a group of teens, who he reasonably believed were prowling his property, and held them at gun point until we arrived....He unfortunantly was not very cooperative with our dispatch when they advised we were close and to put the gun down to avoid being shot....he kept them at gun point and was himself taken down at gun point by responding deputies.  When it was all sorted out, no charges were filed against either.

I would say if you are acting in a manner to protect yourself and your property, you'd be good.....of course you can always not POINT the gun at them, hint, hint....instead a low ready, aimed below their feet, which is actually probably better and what we train to do most of the time....this allows you to see hands, which is where the threat will come from anyways, and in the event of an AD or ND, no one will get shot  I also think this law is more applicable to hunting type scenarios....I.E. scoping someone from across a valley or down range from you.  This statute also doesnt spell out what level of crime it is anyways, I'm guessing an unclassified misdemeanor.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 8:27:52 AM EDT
WOW!  Thanks, guys, for all the info.  I'm so glad I posted this.  Your insight and links have given me a lot of clearity.

My CHL instructor gave me the "...denfence of people and property" thing.  I guess maybe I took it the wrong way.  He didn't give an explanation.
I didn't realize I could get so screwed by the bad guys.  
I've never been able to get clear info on some of this stuff, so THANKS again!

I'm going to be emailing that link around, too.  If anybody has more info, I'd still love to hear it.

Man, I love this forum!!!
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 8:30:19 AM EDT
Yah, thanks for the info.  That's what I was talking about.  I totally agree about using the low ready stance; that action makes more sense to me than just pointing a gun at somebody (situation dependent of course).  

You also have the added benefit of maybe not escalating the situation quite so rapidly if you are just holding the gun "at ready" instead of pointing it at their face...

cheers, Benji
Top Top