Way to go homeowner!

[JGRuby]

Nothing you wrote had anything to do with what I wrote. I gave an example of black-and-white legal conduct- your "reply";



reads as though responding to someone who suggested the things you state in your reply.

---

Let's break it down:



If you'd read what I said, I specifically stated:



So how does your above comment address mine?

---

Next sentence:



Once again, I said:



So where does "shoot someone in the back" come into the conversation? Only where you inserted it.

---

Continuing:



Once again, what I actually said was:



Given my statement regarding the perpetrator using lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest, what exactly, is it that I believe "differently?"

---

Continuing:



I'm afraid I don't accept your premise- I don't believe I must be a "battle zone" to have a "place in gun ownership." I believe, as a free, well-intending, law-abiding citizen, that any lawful act I commit needs no justification from you. The law provides a mechanism for citizens to take care of business, and we're perfectly justified in using that mechanism.

---

Rather than bother to read and comprehend what I wrote, you took some imagined "macho stuff" pretense and ran with it. What you need to do is just STFU, and read more/post less.

You sir will write something and do not stand behind what you wrote - maybe a split personality - either way get help before you hurt yourself or others.

James Ruby

 

[Crispy]

Just for giggles, and because it will help weed things out, what would you do, stud, if I pointed a weapon at you and told you I was placing you under a "lawful citizen's arrest", and to lay down, right now?

Wait for the river card before answering this question guys! Its probably a "loaded" question/scenario.

 

[Crispy]

One of the things they miss is that a lot of folks carry weapons.

And it would be a bad idea to try to hold them at gunpoint, and the other thing they miss is that when a cop holds someone at gunpoint, there's an end in sight. He gets them handcuffed, in his car, and that'll do.

There's no such end for a civilian.

I never take anyone who talks about citizen's arrests seriously.

I think that I just quoted you talking about making a citizen arrest....:nuts:

 

[soberups]

You've just put your finger on something I've read often that has never made sense to me from otherwise seemingly logical authors who blithely toss out scenarios in which one holds an offender at gunpoint until the police arrive. So if the offender chooses to simply walk (or run) away, what is one to do, murder them?

Perhaps the intention is to give holding them at gunpoint a shot, and perhaps the offender's evaluation in the moment is that you shooting them down is just likely enough despite the consequences for you that in some cases the offender will acquiesce, I dunno. What am I missing?

I dont think you are missing anything.

If I had somebody down on the ground at gunpoint and they decided to get up and walk away, I would probably have to let them. I cant think of any justification for shooting an unarmed person in the back. My #1 priority is my own well being and that of my loved ones, not to play wannabe cop.

It might be different if they were still armed and I had observed them committing a violent act with the weapon.

 

[The B]

You sir will write something and do not stand behind what you wrote - maybe a split personality - either way get help before you hurt yourself or others.

James Ruby

How have I not stood behind what I wrote? I very deliberately emphasized what I wrote.

What I wrote was:

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.

And that is 100% true, accurate, and represents my continuing belief.

Nothing you've said has addressed what I wrote, let alone refuted it.

 

[The B]

Just for giggles, and because it will help weed things out, what would you do, stud, if I pointed a weapon at you and told you I was placing you under a "lawful citizen's arrest", and to lay down, right now?

If I have committed a crime, I would probably comply, so's not to be shot. If I have not, and this person is in error or malice, I may comply, or I may draw and fire myself, depending on the dynamic of the event.

Pretty simple.

But when did I suggest pointing a gun at somebody while arresting them is legal or appropriate? My example was very specific, and did not make this suggestion. The ORS says a citizen effecting a citizen's arrest can only use force necessary to subdue a resistor, and that deadly force is only justified for self-defense. You cannot point a gun at somebody to arrest someone unless it's in self-defense. As in,

they use lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest

.

 

[JGRuby]

You cannot shoot the sh?? out of anyone - just because you are chasing them down - you have no right unless the perp has threatened you with a weapon.
You cannot legally shoot at them unless you have beeen threatened first - you start firing first unless you feel your life is at threat you are going to jail especailly if the perp is running away from you. If the perp has a weapon and is either threatening to use or is using it that is a different situation. Even carrying out a citizens arrest does not give you persmission to start shooting first unless you are being threatened. This is not what you stated. It is even possible that the perp felt that you threatened him and required him to use lethat force to protect himeslf.

What you state is that you chase someone down and in the progress use lethal force. You have caused the situation by chasing someone with a lethal weapon. Let the police do thier job you to my knowledge are not a police officer. If you chase someone down where lethat force is used you had the opportunity to prevent the use of that lethal force by not giving chase good luck in front of your peers. You have just shown in this thread your desire to use lethal force instead of trying to prevent its use.

I will state up front that the only time that I feel lethal force should be used is in the protection of life ( namely my family and mine ). Protection of property under todays laws does not justify the use of deadly force. If someone steals my truck, though I have worked hard for it I do not have the right to blow that individual away. If my family is in that truck when it being stolen regardless of right or wrong I will use all means at hand to prevent my family from being hurt.

I will also state that my fondest wish is to never be confronted with a situtation where I must hurt or kill someone - however my family and my well beng requires that I must always be on guard. Hence I am.

James Ruby

James Ruby

 

[Jammer Six]

Yup, that's pretty much what I expected.

This thread is highly amusing. It reminds me of my son describing what he was going to do when he got old enough to join the army.

 

[Riot]

When I pointed out the contradiction, she said "let me clear that up for you. When I wish to be a Barking Moonbat, anti-gun, ultra-liberal, the Ruger is yours. When I wish to be gun owner, it's mine. You may use it whenever you wish. Any questions?"

You see nothing wrong with this? This is a typical, liberal hypocrite mindset. She wants to have it when it suits her...but she wasn't nothing to do it when she's on her high, moral horse of liberalism.

*snip*...[she] said "wow! I love to shoot, but I don't think I should be allowed to!"

I, personally, wouldn't let her touch a gun unless she agreed (outloud) that it should be a fundamental right for everyone to defend themselves.

Seriously...get her a rape whistle next time she says that people shouldn't own guns and see if she changes her tune.

 

[Jammer Six]

Riot, I don't see anything wrong with her.

You, on the other hand, have serious problems with your views.

I'm just glad that they're your problem, and not mine.

 

[The Duck]

Look up "Strict liability" and take that into regards of your own ability to protect your interest and finances. I am guessing (lightly used) that most people on this forum DO NOT have arrest authority derived from their positions, and in so; Do not have the backing to protect yourself while carrying out the duties which are sworn upon you...

 

[The B]

If the perp has a weapon and is either threatening to use or is using it that is a different situation. Even carrying out a citizens arrest does not give you persmission to start shooting first unless you are being threatened. This is not what you stated.

they use lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest

Right.

Dude, it's all in the ORS. I'm not inventing law- this bubblegum's on the books. You obviously have never actually read the statutes related to the topic and are just making it up.

Fact: I can effect a citizen's arrest if I'm witness to a crime
Fact: I can do so while armed
Fact: I can use force against an individual to citizen's-arrest him/her
Fact: I can use deadly force if met with deadly force while effecting said arrest

This is all in the ORS. Don't add or subtract from my argument to make your own point- if you're going to dispute what I've said, you must dispute WHAT I said, not what you could have twisted it into.

 

[Jammer Six]

You're confused, because you've only looked at the code, and not the rest of the law.

 

[JGRuby]

I have quoted your words previously - I have stated that you do not have right to shoot the sh?* out of anyone unless you have been threatened first. You cannot use deadly force against a individual until you feel that you have been threatened and by thinking you can without being threatened you are a bigger menace than the inidivudal committing the crime. You sir are not a police officer - quit trying to act like one. If you pull a gun on someone with out being threatened the other individual has the right to defend himself and you are the cause of the escalation. The only time you can use deadly force or threaten with deadly force is to protect somone from harm or death. If you ever draw even on perpetrator for doing something like destruction of property and or theft you will be the poster child of not what do with a firearm. Dont believe me, you doint have to, the court room will prove the point. I do not necessarily want to lose something i worked for but I more importantly I dont want to be sued or spend time behind bars for something ignorant. I wish you luck in the future you will need it with your attitude.

James Ruby

 

[bikejunkie]

^ you shouldn't try to argue with keyboard commandos, it's like arm wrestling a girl- you can't win

 

[Jammer Six]

^ you shouldn't try to argue with keyboard commandos, it's like arm wrestling a girl- you can't win

Oh, man, you're going about it all wrong...

When a girl asks you to arm wrestle, there's a few ways you can both win.

 

[jbett98]

^ you shouldn't try to argue with keyboard commandos, it's like arm wrestling a girl- you can't win

I believe the quote goes something like this;

"Arguing with a keyboard commando, is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After awhile, you realize they enjoy it."

 

[Crispy]

This whole thread has turned into a joke

*Ok it has been a joke for awhile.

 

[Jammer Six]

Now I want to arm wrestle with a girl. A pretty girl. Preferably a brunette.

 

[bikejunkie]

I'm partial to redheads myself...