Posted: 2/15/2014 5:18:08 PM EDT
|
I took a carry permit class today so I can apply to renew my permit. The instructor told the class that in the instance of a mugging made with the threat of force a person is NOT justified in using deadly force. He gave this scenario: someone comes up to you, points a gun at you, and demands your wallet. In that scenario he said your use of deadly force (i.e. draw and shoot) would NOT be justified in MN. I was rather surprised to hear this. A few students pressed the instructor on this and the instructor made the argument that by making a demand for your wallet the mugger was offering what is essentially a reasonable means of retreat from the situation (his words not mine) and since MN requires individuals to retreat if a reasonable option to do so exists (not talking about in the home) your use of deadly force would NOT be justified. The instructor also said that he was aware of four individuals who had elected to use deadly force in just such a scenario and are now in prison (this being in MN), he did not provide names or any further information.
Overall the instructor seemed very knowledgeable and competent and I think ran a great class. I just am wondering have any of you heard of this or something similar? Any caselaw citations? Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
The instructor also said that he was aware of four individuals who had elected to use deadly force in just such a scenario and are now in prison (this being in MN), he did not provide names or any further information. I've heard nothing about any of these situations. That's not to say it hasn't happened, but it's awfully easy to make those statements in support of your viewpoint when you don't have to provide a source for them. Where did you take the class? |
|
Quoted:
I've heard nothing about any of these situations. That's not to say it hasn't happened, but it's awfully easy to make those statements in support of your viewpoint when you don't have to provide a source for them. Quoted:
Quoted:
The instructor also said that he was aware of four individuals who had elected to use deadly force in just such a scenario and are now in prison (this being in MN), he did not provide names or any further information. I've heard nothing about any of these situations. That's not to say it hasn't happened, but it's awfully easy to make those statements in support of your viewpoint when you don't have to provide a source for them. Agreed. I'm not going to identify the class or instructor; I thought he did a very good job, he seemed very competent, and I don't want to start any drama. |
|
Quoted:
I took a carry permit class today so I can apply to renew my permit. The instructor told the class that in the instance of a mugging made with the threat of force a person is NOT justified in using deadly force. He gave this scenario: someone comes up to you, points a gun at you, and demands your wallet. In that scenario he said your use of deadly force (i.e. draw and shoot) would NOT be justified in MN. I was rather surprised to hear this. A few students pressed the instructor on this and the instructor made the argument that by making a demand for your wallet the mugger was offering what is essentially a reasonable means of retreat from the situation (his words not mine) and since MN requires individuals to retreat if a reasonable option to do so exists (not talking about in the home) your use of deadly force would NOT be justified. The instructor also said that he was aware of four individuals who had elected to use deadly force in just such a scenario and are now in prison (this being in MN), he did not provide names or any further information. Overall the instructor seemed very knowledgeable and competent and I think ran a great class. I just am wondering have any of you heard of this or something similar? Any caselaw citations? Thanks. I would say that is garbage. If you point a gun at me, I don't know what your going to do. People have been shot or killed even after compliance. If that happened to result in four convictions, there would be four news story results showing those horrible convictions. |
|
The truth is, none of us can say for certain how the law will be applied... especially in Minnesota.
You need to answer 4 basic questions to know if lethal force is justified in MN (outside of the home). 1. Are you in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death? 2. Are you an innocent party (you did not instigate the confrontation) 3. No lesser force would suffice to stop the threat. 4. Do you have a reasonable means of retreat? In the scenario you mentioned only one of the criteria is in question, were you in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death? If someone is pointing a gun at me, I would be in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death. The real question is, are you confident you can draw your firearm from concealment and put shots on target without being shot yourself? In the end is your wallet worth dying for? Unless you were in the situation there is no way to know if you thought the attacker would take your wallet and leave you unharmed... I hope none of us find ourselves in that situation. |
|
Quoted:
The truth is, none of us can say for certain how the law will be applied... especially in Minnesota. You need to answer 4 basic questions to know if lethal force is justified in MN (outside of the home). 1. Are you in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death? 2. Are you an innocent party (you did not instigate the confrontation) 3. No lesser force would suffice to stop the threat. 4. Do you have a reasonable means of retreat? In the scenario you mentioned only one of the criteria is in question, were you in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death? If someone is pointing a gun at me, I would be in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death. I would agree. However, the argument the instructor made was that the mugger's demand for your wallet was #4 - a reasonable means of retreat; thus, he argued, lethal force was NOT justified. Certainly we can debate the feasibility of drawing and getting a shot off before the mugger does but I am wondering about the legal question - does a demand along the lines of "give me your wallet" equate to a reasonable means of retreat such that if a person used deadly force in the aforementioned hypothetical scenario they would NOT be justified. I am inclined toward skepticism but nonetheless interested. Has anyone heard of such an argument ever coming up in a prosecution? ETA: spelling and grammar 
|
|
Quoted:
I would agree. However, the argument the instructor made was that the mugger's demand for your wallet was #4 - a reasonable means of retreat; thus, he argued, lethal force was NOT justified. Certainly we can debate the feasibility of drawing and getting a shot off before the mugger does but I am wondering about the legal question - does a demand along the lines of "give me your wallet" equate to a reasonable means of retreat such that if a person used deadly force in the aforementioned hypothetical scenario they would NOT be justified. I am inclined toward skepticism but nonetheless interested. Has anyone heard of such an argument ever coming up in a prosecution? ETA: spelling and grammer
Quoted:
Quoted:
The truth is, none of us can say for certain how the law will be applied... especially in Minnesota. You need to answer 4 basic questions to know if lethal force is justified in MN (outside of the home). 1. Are you in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death? 2. Are you an innocent party (you did not instigate the confrontation) 3. No lesser force would suffice to stop the threat. 4. Do you have a reasonable means of retreat? In the scenario you mentioned only one of the criteria is in question, were you in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death? If someone is pointing a gun at me, I would be in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death. I would agree. However, the argument the instructor made was that the mugger's demand for your wallet was #4 - a reasonable means of retreat; thus, he argued, lethal force was NOT justified. Certainly we can debate the feasibility of drawing and getting a shot off before the mugger does but I am wondering about the legal question - does a demand along the lines of "give me your wallet" equate to a reasonable means of retreat such that if a person used deadly force in the aforementioned hypothetical scenario they would NOT be justified. I am inclined toward skepticism but nonetheless interested. Has anyone heard of such an argument ever coming up in a prosecution? ETA: spelling and grammer
Short answer... No. I have don't know of any case law that would back up that assertion. While you can't use lethal force to defend property in Minnesota (a wallet) the fact that the attacker has a weapon makes it irrelevant. He is infact threatening you with great bodily harm or death. The only way I can see the instructors line of logic holding up is if the attacker took the wallet and was retreating... Then use of deadly force would not be authorized under current law. |
|
While no scenario is easy, but some sound advice might be...
Always carry a money clip with a 10 on the outside and sandwich some ones in there to make it look fat. Toss it away from you and suspect so he has to fetch it. Create distance and if suspect still pushes the issue hopefully by now you have retreated or had and chance to unholster and perforate suspect. FWIW major news agencies in this state would have covered such scenarios because news agencies initially thought once shall issue passed it was going to be Dodge City on the streets. We all know what really happened. |
|
Quoted:
I took a carry permit class today so I can apply to renew my permit. The instructor told the class that in the instance of a mugging made with the threat of force a person is NOT justified in using deadly force. He gave this scenario: someone comes up to you, points a gun at you, and demands your wallet. In that scenario he said your use of deadly force (i.e. draw and shoot) would NOT be justified in MN. I was rather surprised to hear this. A few students pressed the instructor on this and the instructor made the argument that by making a demand for your wallet the mugger was offering what is essentially a reasonable means of retreat from the situation (his words not mine) and since MN requires individuals to retreat if a reasonable option to do so exists (not talking about in the home) your use of deadly force would NOT be justified. The instructor also said that he was aware of four individuals who had elected to use deadly force in just such a scenario and are now in prison (this being in MN), he did not provide names or any further information. Overall the instructor seemed very knowledgeable and competent and I think ran a great class. I just am wondering have any of you heard of this or something similar? Any caselaw citations? Thanks. your instructor is a moron. in the immortal words of Malcom Reynolds, "If someone trys to kill you, you try to kill them right back!". if someone points a gun at you, you are completely justified in shooting them if the opportunity presents itself. no, them offering to NOT kill you if you give them something is NOT a "reasonable means of retreat". |
|
Quoted:
I took a carry permit class today so I can apply to renew my permit. The instructor told the class that in the instance of a mugging made with the threat of force a person is NOT justified in using deadly force. He gave this scenario: someone comes up to you, points a gun at you, and demands your wallet. In that scenario he said your use of deadly force (i.e. draw and shoot) would NOT be justified in MN. I was rather surprised to hear this. A few students pressed the instructor on this and the instructor made the argument that by making a demand for your wallet the mugger was offering what is essentially a reasonable means of retreat from the situation (his words not mine) and since MN requires individuals to retreat if a reasonable option to do so exists (not talking about in the home) your use of deadly force would NOT be justified. The instructor also said that he was aware of four individuals who had elected to use deadly force in just such a scenario and are now in prison (this being in MN), he did not provide names or any further information. Bullshit. You're justified in using deadly force in that situation under MN state law and anyone who says differently isn't reading the same law. I'd ask for clarification on the four people in prison...the reality is people in MN carrying with a permit have used deadly force in similar situations without being charged (and at least one of them wasn't even arrested). Edit: as disappointed as I was when Castle Doctrine failed in MN, its opponents' claim that prosecutors have historically been very fair about applying the existing laws was true. That doesn't mean we should give up trying to get Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground here, but it's possible to go WAY overboard with the fear that if you kill someone in self defense you'll lose everything, even if you don't go to prison. Hopefully people aren't letting this idea prevent them from carrying. |
|
I don't want to cause any drama so I'm not going to list the instructor's name/location. If you want that info PM me and I will send it along privately.
Also, thanks for the responses; I couldn't find mention of any such incidents where an individual was successfully prosecuted in MN under these circumstances and it sounds like you all aren't aware of any either. |
|
Is complying one of the definitions of "Retreat"?
If the mugger say's " Give me your wallet and I won't hurt you" mean you have an option to retreat? Do you think the instructor thinks that if you give the mugger your wallet, then the confrontation will be 100% over with no harm done? |
| I am going to throw myself under the bus here, I was the instructor of this class. I will explain what I said and why I said it. I am in the process of finding the cases where people were prosecuted for not giving in to the ultimatum. (Massad and my lawyer were the source of the information) I did not say that you should give him your wallet and run away, The statement I gave was "I will be throwing my wallet with one hand and drawing my weapon with the other as I am creating distance between him and I." I would also like to clarify that I did not say that it would be not be justifiable, I said that a prosecutor could argue that you could have done something instead of shooting. Your were giving a way out of it. You would have a solid self-defense case if you did in fact give him what he wanted and still posed a threat to you. I think I am going to trust Massad's information and advise on this topic. Now if you read the laws verbatim technically you would be justified in shooting the person, remind you these are the same laws that state that if someone is committing a felony inside your home you are allowed to shoot and kill them. Well we know from many cases and rulings that that is not the case. According to my lawyer and Massad when someone gives you an ultimatum, they are giving you means of retreat. Here is a quote from Massad "Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force." I kinda (a lot really) take offense to the statement that I am an idiot. I teach a classes with people with many levels of understanding and I have to walk a very fine line in what I say. My classes are not the "shoot everyone" type of classes. I firmly believe we should avoid taking a human life at all cost possible with the exception of our life or a innocent persons life. There is nothing in my wallet that I am willing to kill over and if I can avoid shooting someone I will do what I need to to do so. Now I do feel like a fool that I did not save the names of the cases that I referenced but will call my lawyer tomorrow and ask for them. I have had many law enforcement (one was a police chief for 30 years) and lawyers in my classes and have received nothing but praise from them. Here is one review from one of them. "Chris, I've been a Firearms instructor for the Dept I worked for, I've taken all kinds of Firearms Trainings thru Law Enforcement as well as civilian instructors. Your class was outstanding. I really enjoyed it and have told others about the training you do. I was very impressed at hold you handle handguns in class and present the different aspects of them to the class. That is very important. Thank you for letting me be a part of your class." |
|
If you believe that line of BS, then you need to reflect on basic issues
#1 Without names and locations of said incidents they are WAR STORIES (wink, wink, nod, nod) without merit. All you have to ask yourself this one ? where were the vast majority of PTC instructors before the Carry Law Was Passed? Were they teaching firearms courses.....I think not. And most PTC instructors are there to fleece the sheep....with very few exceptions.....So they use Shock and Awe.... We all know any time the Red Star Tribune would have an opportunity to point out how the Carry Law is..... #2 A lethal weapon ie handgun is pointed at you... geez....let me think...what is that saying....never take a knife to a gun fight........that pretty much means you are in immanent danger..... #3 Any lesser level of force Mace, Taser, Baton, Knife is futile.....especially at spitting distance.... They all take the same amount of startle and reaction time! Then MACE can blow back into your face....incapacitating you at the same time! #4 Retreat....LOL that is a basically asinine...Your goal is go home safe to your family.....And, Geez is there a Libtard standing beside the low life counseling the low life to just wave the gun around and most sheep will comply? Wait let me find a copy of that dear departed's book about carrying in MN...Oh that's right...the last copy I saw was in trash can at a gun range right next to the AAFCI book! |
|
Let me start by saying I know Chris personally and he is a great instructor and a genuinely good guy.
I don't think we agree in this case, but if cases that back him up can be provided, I will happily eat crow. I don't see this as an egregious error like an instructor telling students to throw down a "drop gun" or drag someone in the house after shooting them. I Chris thanks for stepping up, I am interested to hear what your lawyer says. |
| I would like to clarify that I would never suggest someone just trust that if you give the guy your money that he wouldn't hurt you. I am saying that as I give him the money I would be 1) drawing my weapon (tactically you're creating a distraction as you are going for your weapon) 2) I am giving the myself distance 3) I am closing any question on the last resort option. I am sorry but I do not want to kill someone over a little bit of money. |
|
Quoted:
I would like to clarify that I would never suggest someone just trust that if you give the guy your money that he wouldn't hurt you. I am saying that as I give him the money I would be 1) drawing my weapon (tactically you're creating a distraction as you are going for your weapon) 2) I am giving the myself distance 3) I am closing any question on the last resort option. I am sorry but I do not want to kill someone over a little bit of money. Chris, How does this jive with the four cases where your lawyer said people were prosecuted? I think this conversation brings up a larger problem with MN law... It isn't law, it is case law that defines 3/4 of our use of deadly force rules. That means the next court case could change all of it! States like Texas have figured out it is better to protect the good guys, even if it means a few more bad guys get killed int the commission of crimes. |
|
Quoted:
I am going to throw myself under the bus here, I was the instructor of this class. I will explain what I said and why I said it. I am in the process of finding the cases where people were prosecuted for not giving in to the ultimatum. (Massad and my lawyer were the source of the information) I did not say that you should give him your wallet and run away, The statement I gave was "I will be throwing my wallet with one hand and drawing my weapon with the other as I am creating distance between him and I." I would also like to clarify that I did not say that it would be not be justifiable, I said that a prosecutor could argue that you could have done something instead of shooting. Your were giving a way out of it. You would have a solid self-defense case if you did in fact give him what he wanted and still posed a threat to you. I think I am going to trust Massad's information and advise on this topic. Now if you read the laws verbatim technically you would be justified in shooting the person, remind you these are the same laws that state that if someone is committing a felony inside your home you are allowed to shoot and kill them. Well we know from many cases and rulings that that is not the case. According to my lawyer and Massad when someone gives you an ultimatum, they are giving you means of retreat. Here is a quote from Massad "Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force." I kinda (a lot really) take offense to the statement that I am an idiot. I teach a classes with people with many levels of understanding and I have to walk a very fine line in what I say. My classes are not the "shoot everyone" type of classes. I firmly believe we should avoid taking a human life at all cost possible with the exception of our life or a innocent persons life. There is nothing in my wallet that I am willing to kill over and if I can avoid shooting someone I will do what I need to to do so. Now I do feel like a fool that I did not save the names of the cases that I referenced but will call my lawyer tomorrow and ask for them. I have had many law enforcement (one was a police chief for 30 years) and lawyers in my classes and have received nothing but praise from them. Here is one review from one of them. "Chris, I've been a Firearms instructor for the Dept I worked for, I've taken all kinds of Firearms Trainings thru Law Enforcement as well as civilian instructors. Your class was outstanding. I really enjoyed it and have told others about the training you do. I was very impressed at hold you handle handguns in class and present the different aspects of them to the class. That is very important. Thank you for letting me be a part of your class." Prosecutors can always argue any idiotic thing; it doesn't mean they will or that a person should make life or death decisions based on the least likely option of what a prosecutor might claim. I'm not trying to be a know-it-all here; I'm sure PTC classes are extremely difficult to teach because you only have a few hours to teach black letter law and common sense CYA stuff to a group with a wide range of intelligence. Perhaps those cases involved people shooting muggers in the back after giving up their wallets. If someone gets a drop on me and has a gun pointed at me while my gun is in its holster...yeah the guys going to get my wallet because I'm not foolish enough to try a quick draw while I'm looking down the barrel of a gun, or any other trick that has me fighting my way out of a losing situation (if the safety of my wife is involved, different story). But that's more of a common sense thing to keep me breathing than a legal preservation strategy. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion and welcome to the site. |
|
Quoted:
Prosecutors can always argue any idiotic thing; it doesn't mean they will or that a person should make life or death decisions based on the least likely option of what a prosecutor might claim. I'm not trying to be a know-it-all here; I'm sure PTC classes are extremely difficult to teach because you only have a few hours to teach black letter law and common sense CYA stuff to a group with a wide range of intelligence. Perhaps those cases involved people shooting muggers in the back after giving up their wallets. If someone gets a drop on me and has a gun pointed at me while my gun is in its holster...yeah the guys going to get my wallet because I'm not foolish enough to try a quick draw while I'm looking down the barrel of a gun, or any other trick that has me fighting my way out of a losing situation (if the safety of my wife is involved, different story). But that's more of a common sense thing to keep me breathing than a legal preservation strategy. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion and welcome to the site. Stop making so much sense, this is ARFCOM, get out the pitch forks and torches.... 
|
| For the people that have spoken up about me and the classes that I teach, I thank you. I would like it to be known that I take what ever training I can (last year alone I took over 200 hrs of training to become a better instructor, this year I am signed up for 10 classes with national instructors, another 200+ hours) and I also pay my lawyer tons of money to sit down with me and answer all of my questions. (So I am not one of those instructors that get my NRA credentials and start teaching self-defense. I have tailored my classes to give the most logical, tactical and safest information I could to the widest group of people) I posed this question to him once and was given the answer that there has been 4 cases where people have been prosecuted for not giving in to the demands. As you know the law is not black and white and people have gotten away with questionable things while others are in prison for something that fit completely within the laws of self-defense. This question came up at my last class and I gave the advice that you should go for your wallet with one hand and weapon with the other while backing up, creating distance. If he grabs your wallet and runs so be it, I go home to my family, now if he continues the threat to me then I am left with no choice but to shoot. I no way would recommend that you give them your wallet and trust them not to hurt you. I did not say that it would not be legal to shoot him without giving him your wallet, I stated that a prosecutor could argue that you had a way out of that situation and you choose to just shoot over your wallet (protecting property). I look at self-defense as defense from bad guys and jail time. It to me is all encompassing. I might survive the mugging/shooting but if I end up in jail I will fail my family as I will not be there to protect them and provide for them. So yes I think beforehand about the legal defense I might have to encounter after the threat is over. I do feel like a fool that I did not write down (or lost it) what cases he said. I know one was a lady in CT. You know "lawful" self-defense has 4 prongs, all must apply. Not just one or two. My recommendation on what to do is based off of training I received, you will not be able to present your weapon and use it without that distraction if you already have a gun pointed at your chest. I also based my response to the question on what Massad Ayoob teaches, and I trust what he told me is sound as no one can really argue that he doesn't know what he is talking about. BTW I am not a liberal, that hurt. haha |
|
Quoted:
I kinda (a lot really) take offense to the statement that I am an idiot. I teach a classes with people with many levels of understanding and I have to walk a very fine line in what I say. I didn't call you any names, but what the OP said you stated in your class and what you are saying you stated in your class are very different. 4 cases of people being prosecuted for not giving in to demands and using deadly force, it begs the question. How many have been killed after they gave in to their attacker's demands? |
| The guy that taught the class I took a few year back said seeing a gun isn't enough to justify pulling yours, but seeing a gun pointed at you or someone else is about as clear of a threat as you can get. I always thought that sounded reasonable. Take that for what it's worth though neither I nor he is a lawyer so that is in no way legal advise. First thing you learn on the first day of the gun safety class you had to take when you where 12 to be able to hunt was never point your gun at something you don't intend to destroy, if the gun is aimed at me that's a threat plain and simple. |
|
In approx 2005, there was a mugger that pointed his pistol at a young man and his two parents just near 31st and Hennepin Ave. S. in the alleyway right behind my old office space. This happened right in Uptown. The man and his parents gave them their wallets and the mugger shot the man and killed him.
That's the only case law I would need to demonstrate I will not hesitate to use my pistol if one is pointed at me. Welcome to the forum, Instructor! |
|
Quoted:
While you can't use lethal force to defend property in Minnesota (a wallet) the fact that the attacker has a weapon makes it irrelevant. And we have a winner!!! Intent is understood (pointing a gun at you is pretty much all you need) Proximity is established (this is somewhat assumed, but, don't ignore it) Means/method of harm that would be severe or deadly (a gun in the hand presents this) You have no "duty to retreat" when someone has escalated to deadly force already. So getting shot in the back is preferable to getting shot in the front? |
|
FACT: Judges are not wearing a robe because they know more than everyone else. They are elected based on voters who couldn't be bothered to do a simple background search on who is running. FACT: DA/prosecutors have one goal... convictions. They are not where they are today because they believe you have a right to self defense or to protect your family. They represent da gubmint. REALIZE THIS NOW!!! Every prosecutor in the 7 county metro area were on record AGAINST CCW/PTC laws in MN. |
|
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode. They can try to prosecute you for anything, doesn't mean they will succeed. There are obviously many variables but if some attempts to rob you especially with a weapon you are under no obligation to comply. It doesn't get much of a cleaner shoot than that, assuming you weren't there buy drugs from the guy or something else stupid. |
|
Quoted:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE. The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode. They can try to prosecute you for anything, doesn't mean they will succeed. There are obviously many variables but if some attempts to rob you especially with a weapon you are under no obligation to comply. It doesn't get much of a cleaner shoot than that, assuming you weren't there buy drugs from the guy or something else stupid. All it takes is one judge or over zealous prosecutor to yell "RACIST" or "ZIMMERMAN" and your toast. Prosecutors are not your friend. They are not there for your well being, ever. They are there to represent the gubmint and you are in their way. Not saying they are the "enemy", but, they sure as shit are not a friend to the PTC/2A. This is why we MUST have a castle doctrine ON THE BOOKS and not just "left to interpretation" as some arm-chair lawyers would have us believe. |
|
Quoted:
This is why we MUST have a castle doctrine ON THE BOOKS and not just "left to interpretation" as some arm-chair lawyers would have us believe. Was that directed at me? I'm not an arm-chair lawyer but I am a real one. Of course I want Castle Doctrine. But I don't see the legal railroadings you're describing actually occurring here. Know the law and your rights, act in accordance with the law, and get a lawyer if you're involved in a shooting. Or just complain about how the legal system is broken...and if it's really that bad I personally would consider moving to a free state. |
| The fact is that if there is a prosecutor out there pushing hard enough or has enough backing, they can make your life miserable. Didn't Florida have a castle doctrine during the Zimmerman shoot? Didn't seem to do him much good as he ended up being dragged through the mud for several months anyway which is what the castle doctrine is supposedly there to prevent. For me, I'm working with the understanding that if I have to shoot, it's going to be a legal nightmare whether it was a clean shoot or not. |
|
Quoted:
The fact is that if there is a prosecutor out there pushing hard enough or has enough backing, they can make your life miserable. Didn't Florida have a castle doctrine during the Zimmerman shoot? Didn't seem to do him much good as he ended up being dragged through the mud for several months anyway which is what the castle doctrine is supposedly there to prevent. For me, I'm working with the understanding that if I have to shoot, it's going to be a legal nightmare whether it was a clean shoot or not. There are no guarantees in life. A number of bad things can result from a CCW encounter; you can take a bullet in your midsection and end up with a colostomy bag for the rest of your life, or you might kill the worst criminal in the state and still have depression issues over taking a life (don't laugh-this sort of thing happens), or yeah you might end up charged with something. Know the law and your rights, act in accordance with the law, and get a lawyer if you're involved in a shooting. |
|
Quoted:
There are no guarantees in life. A number of bad things can result from a CCW encounter; you can take a bullet in your midsection and end up with a colostomy bag for the rest of your life, or you might kill the worst criminal in the state and still have depression issues over taking a life (don't laugh-this sort of thing happens), or yeah you might end up charged with something. Know the law and your rights, act in accordance with the law, and get a lawyer if you're involved in a shooting. Quoted:
Quoted:
The fact is that if there is a prosecutor out there pushing hard enough or has enough backing, they can make your life miserable. Didn't Florida have a castle doctrine during the Zimmerman shoot? Didn't seem to do him much good as he ended up being dragged through the mud for several months anyway which is what the castle doctrine is supposedly there to prevent. For me, I'm working with the understanding that if I have to shoot, it's going to be a legal nightmare whether it was a clean shoot or not. There are no guarantees in life. A number of bad things can result from a CCW encounter; you can take a bullet in your midsection and end up with a colostomy bag for the rest of your life, or you might kill the worst criminal in the state and still have depression issues over taking a life (don't laugh-this sort of thing happens), or yeah you might end up charged with something. Know the law and your rights, act in accordance with the law, and get a lawyer if you're involved in a shooting. I agree |
|
Quoted:
Was that directed at me? I'm not an arm-chair lawyer but I am a real one. Of course I want Castle Doctrine. But I don't see the legal railroadings you're describing actually occurring here. Know the law and your rights, act in accordance with the law, and get a lawyer if you're involved in a shooting. Or just complain about how the legal system is broken...and if it's really that bad I personally would consider moving to a free state. Quoted:
Quoted:
This is why we MUST have a castle doctrine ON THE BOOKS and not just "left to interpretation" as some arm-chair lawyers would have us believe. Was that directed at me? I'm not an arm-chair lawyer but I am a real one. Of course I want Castle Doctrine. But I don't see the legal railroadings you're describing actually occurring here. Know the law and your rights, act in accordance with the law, and get a lawyer if you're involved in a shooting. Or just complain about how the legal system is broken...and if it's really that bad I personally would consider moving to a free state. Not directed at any one person... just pointing out a pretty obvious issue. Armchair lawyer or not, saying to others to leave it up to someone else's interpretation is foolhardy at best. We both agree on this. Acting in accordance of the law is one thing. Defending yourself and having to hand over the keys to your house (2nd mortgage) to defend yourself in a court of law after defending your life is just adding insult to injury. We should have "loser pays", and that includes the state. |
|
Quoted: The fact is that if there is a prosecutor out there pushing hard enough or has enough backing, they can make your life miserable. Didn't Florida have a castle doctrine during the Zimmerman shoot? Didn't seem to do him much good as he ended up being dragged through the mud for several months anyway which is what the castle doctrine is supposedly there to prevent. For me, I'm working with the understanding that if I have to shoot, it's going to be a legal nightmare whether it was a clean shoot or not. Two words <comment removed.........dpmmn> |
|
Quoted:
Two words <comment removed.........dpmmn> Quoted:
Quoted:
The fact is that if there is a prosecutor out there pushing hard enough or has enough backing, they can make your life miserable. Didn't Florida have a castle doctrine during the Zimmerman shoot? Didn't seem to do him much good as he ended up being dragged through the mud for several months anyway which is what the castle doctrine is supposedly there to prevent. For me, I'm working with the understanding that if I have to shoot, it's going to be a legal nightmare whether it was a clean shoot or not. Two words <comment removed.........dpmmn> I'm interested what the two words were norseman |
| In all honesty, I think common sense would dictate that you simply give up the wallet in this situation. Especially if loved ones are near. To me, nothing in that fold of leather is worth starting a firefight, especially when the perp already has a gun drawn. I would not even reveal that I have a firearm unless I was certain that I couldn't survive any other way. |
| I understand where the instructor is coming from. remember the best defense is avoiding the situation. I would like to say that i wouldn't hesitate taking this guys class because of this post. keep up the hard work instructor. I and I'm sure a lot of other conceal carry holders appreciate greatly the hrs you put in for us. |
|
Quoted:
FACT: Judges are not wearing a robe because they know more than everyone else. They are elected based on voters who couldn't be bothered to do a simple background search on who is running. FACT: DA/prosecutors have one goal... convictions. They are not where they are today because they believe you have a right to self defense or to protect your family. They represent da gubmint. REALIZE THIS NOW!!! Every prosecutor in the 7 county metro area were on record AGAINST CCW/PTC laws in MN. I think you mean to say "persecutor". When I was in court once, I actually referred to them as that. And lived to tell about it. |
|
After reading this thread I had a very candid conversation with my CLEO.
In this conversation he pointed out the difference to a prosecutor considering cases of defense as a matter of training the individual would posses & the given circumstances. That being said, he was absolutely adamant that if a gun was pointed at him it was an eminent threat & he would react according to his training given the circumstances. |
|
Quoted:
After reading this thread I had a very candid conversation with my CLEO. In this conversation he pointed out the difference to a prosecutor considering cases of defense as a matter of training the individual would posses & the given circumstances. That being said, he was absolutely adamant that if a gun was pointed at him it was an eminent threat & he would react according to his training given the circumstances. BRAVO! And this is a perfect example of what our founding fathers refer to as "Natural Rights". It is simply against the most basic laws of nature to deny the defense of your own life in a deadly force situation. |