Way to go homeowner!

[The B]

Well maybe it ought to be.

Once you make the decision to be armed, any encounter you find yourself in now has the potential to be LETHAL. Once you make the decision to be armed, any encounter you find yourself in has the potential to send you to PRISON for the rest of your life instead of just a few hours or a day in county lockup for a simple fistfight. You have raised the stakes exponentially by choosing to be armed with a lethal weapon, so your legal and moral responsibilities got raised also.

Any encounter I have can turn LETHAL whether I'm armed or not, dude. Any fistfight you get into can send you to prison. The stakes aren't raised one iota, unless you draw that weapon when you shouldn't.

Yes it does.

If you kill someone with that piece of steel and claim it was in self defense, you have a legal obligation to show that you were an UNWILLING PARTICIPANT in the encounter. Its not about being a "pantywaist", or a wimp, or whether or not one has gonads. Its about whether or not you want to spend the rest of your life in prison. When I carry a gun, I DO take it seriously.

There's no requirement to be an unwilling participant. If I'm very deliberately chasing someone down to arrest them, I can still shoot the bubblegum out of them if, when I get to them, they use lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest, for instance. Furthermore, if I'm in the middle of a fair fistfight with somebody, and THEY pull a lethal weapon and come at me with it, I have every right to pull my pistol and drop 'em like an 80lb bag of concrete. I'll probably be charged with something, but not unlawful homicide.

All the answers are in your copy of the Oregon Criminal Code, gentlemen. None of this is magic, or mystery, or unknowable. I don't repeat BS I heard from my CCW instructor- everything I preach is straight out of the ORS.

 

[iusmc2002]

One of the justifications for the use of deadly force is "in defense of property inherently dangerous to others". Be it guns, knives, weed eaters or CARS (remember, they kill nearly as many people as cancer). If the person is dangerous enough to steal your car, WITH YOU IN IT, they're dangerous enough to use it to harm/kill someone else. Ta-da! Justified. "Well officer, I felt my life was in danger and was also worried what this individual might do with my car once he took it".
Someone also touched on the "Butterfly Effect", what happens when Jammer's car ISN'T recovered and its used in a spree of bank robberies where people are killed? I would hope someone would track him down and kick him in the junk for not stopping the problem when he had a chance. I know, I know, wishful thinking, but that's my hope none the less.
What if, what if, what if.

 

[soberups]

There's no requirement to be an unwilling participant. If I'm very deliberately chasing someone down to arrest them, I can still shoot the bubblegum out of them if, when I get to them, they use lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest, for instance. Furthermore, if I'm in the middle of a fair fistfight with somebody, and THEY pull a lethal weapon and come at me with it, I have every right to pull my pistol and drop 'em like an 80lb bag of concrete. I'll probably be charged with something, but not unlawful homicide.

For your sake, I hope you are right. For your sake, I hope the D.A. and/or the jury sees it that way. And for your sake, I really hope you have $20K on hand for the attorney you are going to need should any of the scenarios you describe come to pass.

I, on the other hand, have no desire or intention to ever engage in a fistfight, fair or otherwise. Nor do I have the intention (or the ability) to chase someone down with gun in hand to make a citizens arrest. And I sure as heck dont have $20K lying around to pay an attorney. So I will check my ego and pride at the door when some idiot tries to verbally provoke me, and instead of fighting him I will walk away. And, I will call 911 and let the cops chase the bad guy down instead of risking injury, death or imprisonment trying to do it myself. I hope your choices work for you, I know mine will work for me.

 

[soberups]

Any encounter I have can turn LETHAL whether I'm armed or not, dude. Any fistfight you get into can send you to prison. The stakes aren't raised one iota, unless you draw that weapon when you shouldn't.

Then why get into one in the first place?

What if you are "duking it out" with the guy and your weapon comes unholstered and he or one of his buddies grabs it? Or what if you find out the hard way that the guy is a black belt and he starts beating the snot out of you? If you draw and use that weapon on an unarmed man whom you willingly chose to fight, you are facing some serious legal issues.

By choosing to engage in fisticuffs while armed, you risk having to use your weapon and you risk losing control of that weapon. Neither outcome is likely to be pleasant for you.

 

[tlfreek]

You find it refreshing to see that some think cowardice is acceptable?

ha ha ha cowardice. I call it smart. i will get my property back and wont have to go to court to defend myself for shooting someone. so yeah. it's acceptable in this context.

 

[tlfreek]

Just so you understand that societally, this is a two edged sword. You have biased the risk-benefit equation of theft in favor of the thief. The laws that support (or coerce) your decision to not defend property do the same. As a result, we have more theft. Weigh that as you will.

As a side observation, I notice that government isn't hindered by such niceties. Don't pay your taxes? Resist long enough and they will kill you. Over a few dollars. For the encouragement of the rest of us. Obviously they know something some of us don't like to admit.

You are missing the point. I am not in favor of theft; however I am in favor not having to do something stoopid for something that only has $$ value. I am not so sure that's the reason why I own a gun, but if you think that best fits your approach for things like this more power to yeah. I just look at a $$ vs me going to court and fingered as a murderer because some person stole something from me. It aint worth it. Of course this all changes when it becomes life and death and trust my someone stealing my playstation III as painful as it might be is not worthy of capital punishment.

 

[soberups]

One of the justifications for the use of deadly force is "in defense of property inherently dangerous to others". Be it guns, knives, weed eaters or CARS (remember, they kill nearly as many people as cancer). If the person is dangerous enough to steal your car, WITH YOU IN IT, they're dangerous enough to use it to harm/kill someone else. Ta-da! Justified. "Well officer, I felt my life was in danger and was also worried what this individual might do with my car once he took it".
Someone also touched on the "Butterfly Effect", what happens when Jammer's car ISN'T recovered and its used in a spree of bank robberies where people are killed? I would hope someone would track him down and kick him in the junk for not stopping the problem when he had a chance. I know, I know, wishful thinking, but that's my hope none the less.
What if, what if, what if.

Jammer had every legal right to use deadly force in order to protect his life when carjacked.

Having the legal right does not mean having a legal obligation. He made a decision that, in that time and place and under those particular circumstances, he was better off not to pull the trigger. The only point that I am trying to make....is that making that choice does not make him a coward, or any "less of a man."

 

[iusmc2002]

Jammer had every legal right to use deadly force in order to protect his life when carjacked.

Having the legal right does not mean having a legal obligation. He made a decision that, in that time and place and under those particular circumstances, he was better off not to pull the trigger. The only point that I am trying to make....is that making that choice does not make him a coward, or any "less of a man."

He straight up STATED he is a coward. So how does his not employing his weapon when faced with a threat, NOT make him a coward? He sure as bubblegum isn't a genius, since the perp go arrested and gets 3 hots and a cot, plus cable and internet access and porn and anything else he deems is his "right", courtesy of us taxpayers. Had he put the perp down, and it was justified, I'm pretty sure there are laws covering legal fees when .gov pushes for charges and the defendant is found not guilty. Would have been cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run.

 

[soberups]

He straight up STATED he is a coward. So how does his not employing his weapon when faced with a threat, NOT make him a coward? He sure as bubblegum isn't a genius, since the perp go arrested and gets 3 hots and a cot, plus cable and internet access and porn and anything else he deems is his "right", courtesy of us taxpayers. Had he put the perp down, and it was justified, I'm pretty sure there are laws covering legal fees when .gov pushes for charges and the defendant is found not guilty. Would have been cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about the government reimbursing an acquitted defendant for his legal fees. I hope for your sake you never find that out the hard way.

And, if you take the time to really read his post, his statement about being a "coward" was sarcastic and satirical, not literal.

 

[Jammer Six]

Soberups, I appreciate the defense, and I appreciate your sentiment. To clear this up, and prevent further mayhem in this thread, I'll just point out that I meant what I said, and, unfortunately, none of it was sarcastic or satirical.

Life is much simpler once you know yourself. Watching other people, it strikes me quite often that they're fighting two battles, one, whatever battle they're engaged in, and two, a much tougher battle with themselves, with who they really are fighting who they think they want to be.

For the record, and speaking for the group of us, cowards go home a lot more often than heroes, and we go home much earlier. You'll never find me engaged in "good ole fisticuffs", you'll never find me in a confrontation after I flipped someone off. I treat everyone with respect, I treat everyone as if they had a weapon, because carrying one has taught me that I have no idea who has one and who doesn't, and there's no way to tell whether this tiny little woman puts 500 rounds of lead downrange a week or not.

What I taught my son is that it takes a lot more balls to be who you are than it does to bray about who you think you are.

Carrying a weapon changed my life. There is no more gray. There is polite, gracious conversation, and there is gunfire, with nothing in between.

If you're a hero, you have my sympathy. I would suggest that you be careful, because you can't recognize one of us by looking at us or talking to us.

And we're going to go home on the night you don't.

 

[The B]

You sure do talk a lot.

 

[orygun]

Recently I've seen a bunch of crap on this website. It's a shame. This used to be a good site. Not so many sheep and such trying to spread their views.

This thread should be moved over to craigslist "rants and raves".

 

[rolandson]

Undergoing a series of Defensive Handgun training sessions following a CHL course drove home a couple of concepts that I refresh every time I carry a weapon.

The First is an understanding of Oregon Statute relating to the use of force: While I may encounter a circumstance where the use of force is justified, I am not required to do so.
The second is: If I shoot someone, justified as I undoubtedly would be, I will be sued and I will have to fund my own defense.

 

[The B]

The second is: If I shoot someone, justified as I undoubtedly would be, I will be sued and I will have to fund my own defense.

Aside from the fact that it's the status quo thing to say while instructing a firearms class, why do you think this? 'Cause I've also heard the same thing said by various instructors a hundred time, but I haven't ever seen any evidence of this outside of a class. Seems to be the opposite, in fact- most of these guys getting themselves shot have already burned the bridge between themselves and their families, and their families generally seem to think the perp got what he deserved.

I don't have any sources I can site, though- like I said, this is just how it seems to me, based on interviews I've seen and things I've read.

 

[rolandson]

Aside from the fact that it's the status quo thing to say while instructing a firearms class, why do you think this? 'Cause I've also heard the same thing said by various instructors a hundred time, but I haven't ever seen any evidence of this outside of a class. Seems to be the opposite, in fact- most of these guys getting themselves shot have already burned the bridge between themselves and their families, and their families generally seem to think the perp got what he deserved.

I don't have any sources I can site, though- like I said, this is just how it seems to me, based on interviews I've seen and things I've read.

Easy enough to put to rest if one wants to do the work really, just compare the names of shooters and those shot against lawsuits filed...if you have access to OJIN it should be pretty straight forward. From my point of view it costs me nothing to heed the admonishment, and it could cost me everything to ignore it.

I keep in mind that 82nd Avenue and Canyon Road in Beaverton are loaded with ambulance chasers who will happily accept a contingency arrangement with just about anybody; they lose nothing if their case falls apart...as the client covers all of the expenses, what have they got to lose?

Then I ask myself what incentive all of these instructors have in spreading a lie? Recalling that a civil lawsuit is not the same as a criminal prosecution and thus won't generate the same degree of media interest, if any at all...why would anyone not involved hear about it? Unless they go looking.

No, I have not gone down to the Multnomah County Courthouse and compared lawsuits and shooters, and I don't have access to OJIN...so to answer you directly:
I trust the guy I paid to train me.

 

[Jammer Six]

Huh. I get paid to train people.

As a result, I'm pretty careful what I say, and I make certain I can back up what I say. And, as a result of that, I don't teach that you will be sued, because I've never seen any evidence of such a claim.

I don't have access to any of the services that would compare shooters to lawsuits filed, but there have been a couple shootings right here in Seattle recently, including one that was pretty clearly self defense, with a trained shooter. At least, I think he was trained, he told the cops he wasn't trying to kill the bad guy, he was trying to stop him.

I'd be very interested if someone can follow up on shooters and lawsuits.

 

[Ownerus]

You are missing the point. I am not in favor of theft; however I am in favor not having to do something stoopid for something that only has $$ value. I am not so sure that's the reason why I own a gun, but if you think that best fits your approach for things like this more power to yeah. I just look at a $$ vs me going to court and fingered as a murderer because some person stole something from me. It aint worth it. Of course this all changes when it becomes life and death and trust my someone stealing my playstation III as painful as it might be is not worthy of capital punishment.

No, YOU are missing the point. Under current circumstances and laws, one should almost NEVER pull a gun. I'm just pointing out the unintended consequences societallyof reducing the number of factors that might inhibit a thief. You can never only do one thing.

 

[Jammer Six]

Several people have brought up "what if..." scenarios.

The short answer is that a victim is no more responsible for what a 'jacker, a thief or any other bad guy does with his/her car-gun-purse-knife than a gun manufacturer is for the guns he sells.

What a bad guy does with a 'jacked car is on him, not on the person he took it from. If you believe otherwise, then it follows that the antis are right, and gun manufacturers are responsible for the shootings bad guys do. It's the same "logic". And it's false.

I teach that a civilian shooter doesn't owe any legal or moral debt to anyone else, and that their only duty is to themselves, to survive the encounter, however they see fit.

 

[Tbucket]

Wow, this thread is pure bubblegum. Every situation is different and while I would not shoot a guy if I came out and he was driving off in my car it would be totally different if he pulled a pistol and told me to get out of my car. It all comes down to is it a deadly threat, and the only person to know that is the one in the situation. Why one would call himself a coward I have no comment. I know if it comes down to me being shot I know what I would do.

 

[osterr1999]

I think the below sums it all up.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.