Packing Heat...who does it?

[tdesanto]

When you draw your weapon, a long and painful legal process is begun.

This is certainly true. I heard this countless times from CHL instructors who have either personally been involved in incidents or who know students who were. All ended up costing a lot in terms of effort, time, grief, and money.

If someone is breaking into your car to steal the stereo, you are not authorized to draw your weapon or confront them. They are not posing a threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Well, I think that depends on the laws of the state in which the incident occurs.

According to Texas Penal Code 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43 it is justified if the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary. And this is the catch; I think you'd have to get the jury to agree that your decision was "reasonable" under the law.

Here's the excerpt from the TX law:

[FONT=Arial,Bold]Subch. D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Bold]PC §9.41. [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. [/FONT]
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:​

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.​

[FONT=Arial,Bold]PC §9.42. [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.[/FONT]
A person isjustified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:​

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.​

[FONT=Arial,Bold]PC §9.43. [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. [/FONT]

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and: ​

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:​

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or ​

deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.​

 

[buddha]

Things are a bit different in NC. We are never allowed to use deadly force to protect land, or other property. We are only allowed to use deadly force if in immediate threat of death, and a reasonable person would agree with that threat.

 

[kjp1969]

I suspect your opinion *might* be less one sided if you had the fortune of also knowing someone who legally killed someone in self defense.

I posted this up to invite anyone out there to say, "Yeah, it happened to me: I shot a guy who was attacking me and everything worked out great." It would only be a single anecdote, but everything else here is pure speculation.

 

[David_in_TX]

SIG SAUER® P220® Carry SIG Anti-Snag™ Pistol Chambered in .45ACP

In response to the Op's question, I am a Texan, and this is what I choose:

A SIG SAUER® P220® Carry SIG Anti-Snag™ Pistol Chambered in .45ACP with the fabulous DAK trigger! It's a beautiful thing! :drool:

Just wondering how many of you carry a gun when you go out on trips.

My little brother (who is a COP now) said I should purchase a hand gun for my trips.

He said I will probably never have any need to fire it but just having it can deter someone from pulling a "Hills Have Eyes" on me.

I checked with the BLM and they said as long as the gun is unloaded and not concealed you can carry it with you.

 

[Schattenjager]

Truth of the matter is anything can happen if you are put in front of a judge. The cops can say what they want, the lawyers can debate endlessly, you can be right or wrong as rain, but in the end it is the mood and perspective of a judge that will determine your fate.

There are many that would do what they had to do and leave the scene ASAP to avoid the hassle the law saddles you with in protecting yourself. Just like the fellow mentioned earlier that marks ARE YOU A FELLON 'differently' you have to decide if protecting your life or the life of another, is worth jail time or civil suites.

You see, you are the victim when the fellow is coming at you, gun, knife, pipe, bottle etc. in hand telling you he is going to kill you. Even if your back is against the wall, if you choose to defend yourself and are victorious, then you cease to be the victim and become the antagonist in the drama. And your would be killer is transformed into the victim. The milliseconds that can define life or death are forgotten once those with agendas and beliefs start to put a spin on the situation that may take them days to compose. Since you used a gun to defend yourself, they would have rather seen you dead on the street and the criminal at large than you safe and sound. All because of the tool that saved your bacon.

Just because it is the law does not mean it is right. Too often in these times law and conventual wisdom are synonymous. If you think I am being too hard on the judicial system, consider the differences once you cross a state line.

 

[dlbrunner]

I have never given much thought to the subject. I grew up in a household that was anti gun. My parents, who immigrated from the U.K. when I was a boy, never had the opportunity to own a gun. It is a different culture I guess.

Fast forward till last year. My dad is a geologist and was doing some work on a property out near Morenci, AZ. I have been out with him a couple times being the pack mule, carrying all the rocks he picks up etc... There was another guy he worked with that was out there too. Typically he works alone, and my dad is out there alone as well.

Well the other guy was telling my dad to watch out for kitty cats. He had walked up a wash one day doing his thing, the next day he went back to the same wash and was looking at his day old boot prints. Apparantly there were a large set of cat tracks over the top of his tracks. He does not know if he was being stalked, or the kitty was following his scent later that night.

My dad asked me if bear spray or a tazer would be a good idea to carry. My thoughts were no, you only get one shot with the tazer, and then what do you do, keep tazing the cat? That would be one angry mountain lion. Pepper spray: I highly doubt that would work. I told him to get a big revolver. But in reality, if a kitty is stalking you, you probably won't get a chance to unholster the weapon and shoot. If you spook said cat, you might have a chance if it does turn on you instead of running away.

I echo what a lot of others have said, Dogs are a great "passive" defense mechanism. Travelling with a group also provides a certain margin of safety.

The point about the responsibility of having a gun around is also a very good one. When I have had a gun, I was always thinking about where it was etc...That could be my relative inexperience though.

So bottom line, I don't carry now. That is not to say I will rule out the option if I think the situation warrants it.

Add in: I dated a lawyer for a while and she told me AZ is a "Like Force" State. Meaning if someone comes at you with a knife, you can't use a gun. That sounds wierd to me, but I thought I would throw that out there. Also, she told me AZ is to a Life and Livelyhood" state. meaning you can't defend property with deadly force. I do know there was some new provisions approved though to give gun owners rights to defend a vehicle with deadly force in the event of a carjacking.

I guess I should take the class and get info.

 

[buddha]

I guess I should take the class and get info.

That's really the best thing anyone can do. You don't want to be wondering about the law if you ever are faced with such a difficult decision.

 

[Robthebrit]

My dad asked me if bear spray or a tazer would be a good idea to carry. My thoughts were no, you only get one shot with the tazer, and then what do you do, keep tazing the cat? That would be one angry mountain lion. Pepper spray: I highly doubt that would work. I told him to get a big revolver. But in reality, if a kitty is stalking you, you probably won't get a chance to unholster the weapon and shoot. If you spook said cat, you might have a chance if it does turn on you instead of running away.

I can see a gun being useful against a bear but far less useful against a cat unless you happen to stumble on it. You are probably better off shooting it in the air rather than shooting at it, you don't have to waste time aiming or getting a clear shot.

If a cat is hunting you, you got problems! It will stalk you in near silence and attack from behind, most lion kills are through a broken neck via a bite to the base of the neck. If it can break a deer or elks neck then it can most certainly do the same to you.

I am not sure on the pepper spray or tazer, you have to be remarkably close to use them. I have a feeling they might work, solitary wild animals tend not to fight as they really don't want to get hurt. However there is the catch, given the pain threshold of most animals I am not sure either pepper spray or a tazer will have the effect you expect.

 

[soenke]

Oh to see the world through other's eyes. I think the biggest problem with this board is most people tend to see others as they see themselves. You would feel the need to cause others harm if you had a gun so you naturally ascribe that tendency to those who do. This is where the problem arises. The people that do carry guns would never think to possibly shoot someone for looking at their car no matter their level of anger. They see that as irrational. Hence the disconnect.
.

have you ever been assaulted? didn´t sleep because of fear? thats the situation where misjugement occurs. I don´t shoot people looking at our car, but I could misunderstand the situation as beeing robed again! ... and a gun doesn´t help you....

 

[BigAl]

There seems to be a common thought among the antis in this thread that a gun would escalate a situation. I find that I'm far less likey to engage in a potential conflict when I'm carrying. I would be more likey to tell a drunk to shut his pie hole if I was unarmed. Armed, I'd walk away. I've carried for years, no one knows unless we start talking guns and I show them.

 

[soenke]

The most important thing in deciding to carry a handgun for self defense, aside from learning how to safely carry and accurately use it, is to know when to use it.
No, not to threaten. To shoot someone. A gun should not be drawn unless you are prepared to shoot. Sometimes the threat leaves when the gun is drawn, but one cannot count on that.

It can, but if one learns when to use it, the vast majority of times it won't.

Aura created for whom? I lean towards concealed carry, so if I were carrying, there would be no aura created for others. If I were carrying, the only aura created for me would be to know that I could defend myself or another. It's not an aura of shooting anyone who looks at me crosseyed.

If you carrying a gun would have automatically lead to escalation or shooting someone looking at your car, then I agree, you shouldn't carry a gun.

You don't think pepper-spray or a mag-light can lead to escalation? Particularly the pepper spray, considering that what is available for civilians is weak and many people are more or less impervious to it.

As for the people who speak of running in to meth labs in the middle of nowhere, who in their right mind would quickly pull out a gun when approaching a house with openly armed people greeting you? Even if you have a gun, why not just say you're lost, and ask for directions?
I suppose some might pull their weapon, but that's what Darwin awards are for, I think.

...good arguing :iagree:

 

[Antichrist]

However, I felt it was necessary, at least for me, to make sure the air was cleared and to stop the mis-characterization that I might be a meth-lab touring, quick-draw vigilante or something.
:sombrero:

That was not an intended characterization at all. One person mentioned approaching a house lost and being greeted by armed people, and deciding later it must have been a drug house.
In both of your situations, it sounds like you handled it well, you didn't jump out brandishing your weapon, which was the implication I got from some, that a person would automatically do if faced with a perceived threat.

I more than likely would have done the same as you did, if in the same situation.

 

[modelbuilder]

Good discussion but all I really wanted to know was who carried a gun, not if you didn't, and what you carried.

I didn't want a debate on carrying a gun.

 

[Antichrist]

I happen to know two people who used a gun to kill someone in what they thought was self defense.

There's really no way to comment on this without knowing the details of the shootings.
Some states you're not allowed to protect property with deadly force. Some states you must withdraw if possible even if you fear bodily harm in your own home (this may have been corrected recently). There are so many nuances to a self-defense shooting it hard to say. It could be because they didn't know the law, and shot when they shouldn't have, or it could be they got screwed by the system. People have gone to jail for legitimate use of deadly force, but then lying to the cops about something, or running away, giving the perception of guilt.
Even if you do legitimately use deadly force and have no criminal charges filed, that doesn't mean you won't have to spend tons of money in defense of civil charges brought by a family member. I'll warrant that most people who carry think about these things, and the other implications of the use of deadly force.

 

[Maximus Ram]

If you do not like this thread, I would urge you to read something else. 13 pages of civil discourse about this very topic illustrates many interesting and varied view points. Much like the fire side chats I have had over the years, opinions vary, but the fun is in the exchange of ideas. Not premature, unmerited, and obviously unwanted by the participants, censorship. This thread will die on the vine when the appropriate time comes from new interests etc.

I know of no other forum in which this topic can carry 13 pages without rudeness and low level intellectual input taking over.

Hmmm, went back through and it looks as if what I had read has been changed, because there was some "rudeness" starting to brew.:ylsmoke:
And never said i didn't like it, just stating an opinion.
GOD Bless AMERICA:victory: