Not only does it stand in public, it stands in public if it happens defending someone else being attacked, as long as it's a good shoot (legal under the law). In Pa, you could always defend yourself in your home - this applies to carrying.
Post your Everyday Carry
- Thread starter tw33k2514
- Start date
Not only does it stand in public, it stands in public if it happens defending someone else being attacked, as long as it's a good shoot (legal under the law). In Pa, you could always defend yourself in your home - this applies to carrying.
TS656577
New member
- Nov 23, 2008
- 754
- 0
However, if someone is stealing a car from your driveway, you're not allowed to shoot the thief to keep your property. About 6 yrs ago, an older gentleman from my church (retired cop but an extremely nice guy) shot a guy who was stealing his car out of his driveway and killed him. I'm sure it wasn't his intent to kill him, but he still got a few years in jail for 3rd degree.
Well he did commit murder. I'm not quite sure why you would shoot someone who is stealing you car. If he has a gun I get it, but you can't take someone's life if your life isn't being threatened.
TS656577
New member
- Nov 23, 2008
- 754
- 0
I'm not saying I disagree. My point was that earlier, someone posted that you can shoot someone if they are in your house, even if they dont have a weapon. So I was basically trying to say that in your house may be one thing, but they can apparently steal your property if it's outside.
Gunslinger
Member
- Oct 13, 2008
- 291
- 0
The key to some of this...and it depends greatly on the jurisdiction and how the law is actually written...is whether a "reasonable and prudent" person would be in fear of their safety or the safety of another. Someone stealing your car from the driveway (with no apparent means or intent of doing you harm) doesn't necessarily meet that standard. A grand jury could always refuse to indict but that can't be counted on.
About fifteen years near where I used to live, two guys held up a jewelry store and ran out. The store owner ran out after them with a handgun and started shooting. The two bandits, already in their getaway car, were both hit fatally and their car, which was in motion, struck a parked car.
The grand jury refused to indict the store owner, which was applauded by the public. The store owner was in no further danger, the suspects were escaping with no apparent threat to anyone else (one can make a case they would be a danger behind the wheel by not wanting to get caught)...but legally the store owner had no right to fire on them. He was very fortunate the Grand Jury wanted to send a message, even though the State's Attorney was legally correct in seeking the indictment for manslaughter.
Now...in an alternate scenario...the store owner shooting the suspects in flight, and their car struck pedestrians or a vehicle carrying passengers and innocents were injured or killed, the Grand Jury may well have made a very different determination in their findings.
Shooting someone is not something to be taken lightly. I carried a sidearm for years as a law officer...on and off-duty. I was prepared to do whatever was necessary to defend my life, my family or the lives of others...but I certainly didn't relish the thought. I was present at shootings and saw the aftermath. I unholstered many times...and I'm happy I never had to actually drop the hammer on anyone. Anyone I shoved the muzzle of my service revolver or pistol into their ear or up their nose did exactly what I told them to do.
I was all about tactics...use of the proper tactics can keep a situation from escalating to the point where lethal force is necessary...it doesn't always work as some are determined to prove something, but it worked for me.
About fifteen years near where I used to live, two guys held up a jewelry store and ran out. The store owner ran out after them with a handgun and started shooting. The two bandits, already in their getaway car, were both hit fatally and their car, which was in motion, struck a parked car.
The grand jury refused to indict the store owner, which was applauded by the public. The store owner was in no further danger, the suspects were escaping with no apparent threat to anyone else (one can make a case they would be a danger behind the wheel by not wanting to get caught)...but legally the store owner had no right to fire on them. He was very fortunate the Grand Jury wanted to send a message, even though the State's Attorney was legally correct in seeking the indictment for manslaughter.
Now...in an alternate scenario...the store owner shooting the suspects in flight, and their car struck pedestrians or a vehicle carrying passengers and innocents were injured or killed, the Grand Jury may well have made a very different determination in their findings.
Shooting someone is not something to be taken lightly. I carried a sidearm for years as a law officer...on and off-duty. I was prepared to do whatever was necessary to defend my life, my family or the lives of others...but I certainly didn't relish the thought. I was present at shootings and saw the aftermath. I unholstered many times...and I'm happy I never had to actually drop the hammer on anyone. Anyone I shoved the muzzle of my service revolver or pistol into their ear or up their nose did exactly what I told them to do.
I was all about tactics...use of the proper tactics can keep a situation from escalating to the point where lethal force is necessary...it doesn't always work as some are determined to prove something, but it worked for me.
duck_commander
New member
- Dec 6, 2010
- 289
- 0
I agree with all of your comments above Gunslinger, except the part about pulling your weapon on someone... that works great as a police officer, however as a civilian, i would follow as Mr. Ayoob instructs "never pull your weapon, unless you plan on using it."
If a citizen reads that and says, i will pull my gun to use as a intimidator, and the 'bad guy' makes a move and the citizen hesitates on what to do, that citizen may whined up dead.
If a citizen reads that and says, i will pull my gun to use as a intimidator, and the 'bad guy' makes a move and the citizen hesitates on what to do, that citizen may whined up dead.
BobbyG
New member
- Dec 29, 2009
- 13,211
- 0
:iagree:
Joe citizen...me and you...are forced to play by different rules with it comes to guns. A Police Officer has a layer of protection that's not afforded to you and I; he's employed as a respected member of a law enforcement agency.
Now, I'm not implying not to brandish and use a weapon if the situation truly warrants such action. "You" must quickly assess this situation at hand and determine the course of action.
It's vitally important not to put oneself in jeopardy. Visiting a dangerous section of town, allowing yourself to be drawn into a situation because of the false sense of security slung under your arm does not cut it. If you walk into the lions den you're gonna get bit son..
Additionally, unless you've been trained or have been fired upon in a high stress situation you're truly not prepared. Drawing a firearm, aiming, and engaging your target takes less than 4 seconds. Prior to this you may only have a few more precious seconds to to make this decision.
Trust me, If I truly feel threatened for my life or a loved one enough to where I have to draw my weapon I WILL fire, I WILL be justified and I WILL NOT think about whether or not to allow the perpetrator to strike the first physical blow. If I allow a first strike before I take action, it will more than likely be too late and I would have already lost and possibly killed, and that my friend just isn't acceptable.
Case in point..
911 Tells Mom 'Do What You Have To Do': Okla. Mom Sarah McKinley Kills Intruder Justin Martin
Last edited:
mark mcguire
New member
- Apr 6, 2006
- 142
- 0
BobbyG, well said, I agree 100%.
duck_commander
New member
- Dec 6, 2010
- 289
- 0
great article bobby! I love reading the "armed citizen" section of the NRA magazine every time i get a new issue.
Gunslinger
Member
- Oct 13, 2008
- 291
- 0
I fully understand your point and agree...the point I was making was that self-defense involves where a "reasonable and prudent" person would feel he's in fear of his life...what I said about my experiences in law enforcement was not intended to mean civilians have the options I had when on duty.
What Mas Ayoob said about being ready to drop the hammer is true, and one of the best references on the subject is Ayoob's book "In the Gravest Extreme"...all who carry a firearm should read it and study it.
I will say Mas Ayoob's word is not gold in every case. I disagree with some of his teachings...but that's just me. He's a good guy, don't get me wrong. I think he sometimes over thinks some subjects and makes it more complicated than necessary.
Gunslinger
Member
- Oct 13, 2008
- 291
- 0
Quite true. When I was an instructor for both police and civilians, I stressed that any area you wouldn't go unarmed, then why would you go there armed? Police on-duty have an obligation to do so, but if off-duty or a civilian, it makes little sense. Simply trying to prove something is not a good reason. And in court, an argument might be made that you went there looking for trouble.
Dr Oldz
New member
- Aug 31, 2010
- 4,462
- 0
Agree 100% - I always carry when I can (not in Md for example), and even when armed I avoid potential danger as much as possible, including not going into bad areas unless absolutely necessary. Luckily, it's almost never necessary to go into those areas.
rops:I work in Baltimore however, and cannot arm myself there. The utility workers in the city advised me to maintain a scruffy, rough kind of look. Their slogan is "if you look like food, you will be eaten". First chance I get, I'm getting out of that work area. Luckily it isn't all that frequent that I have to be out there where it's bad, and pretty much never at night.
Defense of life is the only thing covered under Pa law I'm sure. However if someone comes barging into your home, even if they're unarmed, you are justified in shooting them.
Gunslinger
Member
- Oct 13, 2008
- 291
- 0
One thing I learned when working midnight shift in DC...I observed there were two types of people on the streets there at night...predators and prey.
crxman2010
New member
- Aug 25, 2011
- 295
- 0
I would not have expected that on a car detailing forum
.But to your point, how do you know if your life is threatened when you walk out of your garage and there is a guy breaking into your car? The person in question is already breaking one law, you can now identify him and he may not want to go to prison?
You would honestly allow a person to take your vehicle or a customers vehicle from your property with your knowledge and do nothing to stop him? I am sure someone will say use baseball bat, but now you are approaching a person with a 3 foot stick and he may be armed, bad odds. I also expect someone to say, shoot to stop or shoot to disable, try it before you recommend it. We do not get many shootings in this area, so maybe our police aren't the greatest under stress, but I find it amazing sometimes how many rounds can be fired in a shooting and no one is hit or the suspect was hit once..., and I would wager the police weren't aiming for a knee or hand when the guy was shooting back at them.
I do not believe that you should be allowed to commit a crime against another person and feel safe in doing it. To go that route would lead to what? Anarchy? Of course I also have trouble with the fact that someone can rob you at gun point and run and you can legally let them go to try someone else later or illegally stop them. Yes, I love the situation where a criminal can have more rights than you. At least states adopting castle doctrine in some form is a step in the right direction.
People have been sentenced for the use of deadly force with their hands; at what point do you determine a person is armed?
TS656577
New member
- Nov 23, 2008
- 754
- 0
While I don't think criminals should get away with crimes, the police will not see a person without as "armed" unless they were military. If what I hear is true, military members face more scrutiny in hand to hand altercations due to their training (don't hold me to this as the pure truth).
Gunslinger
Member
- Oct 13, 2008
- 291
- 0
NEVER EVER shoot to "disable"! Saying that is an admission of intent to maim and will open you to a lawsuit and you'll be supporting the suspect medically and financially for the rest of his life. It won't matter what crime he might be in the process of committing.
When in defense of your life or your family's, if you're in fear of your safety, you shoot to stop the suspect. Whether he lives or dies is immaterial to that end. The way to look at it is that he made you do it...you had no further options. Castle Doctrine notwithstanding, if you intentionally shoot to wound, you're trying to maim him, not stop him. A defense attorney can tear you up in court on that point.
In some jurisdictions, if you have any medical training of any kind, you may be legally obligated to try and save him after shooting him. Otherwise, you may be charged with a crime of omission.
If anyone ever has to drop the hammer on another person...for whatever reason, the second call you make (after 911 if you already haven't)...is to your attorney. While you have to talk to investigators after a shooting, they can't make you speak without your attorney present. Way too often in the heat of things, people make statements that can fry them legally. Have an attorney with you when answering questions...it will be money well spent.
ObsessiveAutoDetail
New member
- Nov 5, 2008
- 445
- 0
Yea!
I kinda meant more accurate to shoot after I zero'd it in after installing the laser! Compensated for wind a bit!
Using iron sights is just too slow now! Best thing I like about the laser is that one can virtually shoot in any position as long as one is compensating for the recoil!
Also the laser is green, so it 'paints' the target much better and is bright enough to see in full daylight and really awesome in complete darkness when iron sights are pretty much useless.
Only downside is that, the laser can be easily tracked to its source! lol
NEVER depend on anything other than traditional sights. What if the battery dies in that laser right when you need it...? Now you have handicapped yourself because you feel that target acquisition is "too slow" with iron sights. I'm not saying not to use a laser... but don't reply on it 100%.