View Full Version : Oklahoma Governor vetos Constitutional Carry
Oklahoma's Governor Mary Fallin (R) vetoed a bill tonight that would have allowed for constitutional carry for adults over 21 and military members over 18.
Fallin claimed businesses and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation opposed the bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/11/oklahoma-governor-vetoes-gun-carry-bill-in-defeat-for-nra.html
Well, at least the OSBI Director is honest:
The bureau of investigation, which issues handgun licenses, had said the bill would cost the agency about $4.7 million annually and result in the loss of about 60 full-time positions.
"The impact on public safety is unquantifiable," bureau Director Bob Ricks said in a statement.
Now, that is a new spin:
Enacting more firearms regulations creates new jobs, relaxing regulations costs jobs.
Yep.
Gets rid of 60 jobs that was never needed and undue taxation without representation.
Brings new meaning to “freedom isn’t free.”
From what I read about this a few days ago it sounded like there was hand writing on the wall that this was going to happen. Hopefully there's time to override the veto. If that time is past then here's hoping they throw out another bum who won't listen to their constituents out of office during the next election.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-11-18, 23:59
Just don't consider that a similar thing would happen if they were to get people off of welfare.... how many govt jobs would they lose then...
From what I read about this a few days ago it sounded like there was hand writing on the wall that this was going to happen. Hopefully there's time to override the veto. If that time is past then here's hoping they throw out another bum who won't listen to their constituents out of office during the next election.
Were there enough original votes for a veto?
I read that it was vetoed because the bill didn't require a person to have any training or permit. I understand you shouldn't need a permit to carry, but I do think training or at least proving you have the ability to shoot a paper target without missing is a necessity.
Guess how many states don't have that requirement? It's something like 26 or so states. That includes Washington and Arizona both of which have populations that are almost double that of Oklahoma.
I read that it was vetoed because the bill didn't require a person to have any training or permit. I understand you shouldn't need a permit to carry, but I do think training or at least proving you have the ability to shoot a paper target without missing is a necessity.
titsonritz
05-12-18, 03:20
Well, at least the OSBI Director is honest:
The bureau of investigation, which issues handgun licenses, had said the bill would cost the agency about $4.7 million annually and result in the loss of about 60 full-time positions.
"The impact on public safety is unquantifiable," bureau Director Bob Ricks said in a statement.
Now, that is a new spin:
Enacting more firearms regulations creates new jobs, relaxing regulations costs jobs.
I was going to say the same thing. Damn it this pisses me off.
Guess how many states don't have that requirement? It's something like 26 or so states. That includes Washington and Arizona both of which have populations that are almost double that of Oklahoma.
Virginia is one as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I read that it was vetoed because the bill didn't require a person to have any training or permit. I understand you shouldn't need a permit to carry, but I do think training or at least proving you have the ability to shoot a paper target without missing is a necessity.
The state is in a state of emergency budget wise, there is no way she was going to let this get enacted when it’d cut revenue in the form of license fees.
The training aspect is laughable. There are “classes” where so long as you do not shoot yourself and shoot in the general direction of the target, you pass.
The simple fact was the OSBI needed the funding and the “law enforcement” she spoke with consisted of Chief’s and Sheriff’s who are playing the game. I’d say next time she need to go to the guys on the street but (1) she is termed out so it doesn’t matter and (2) last time she did that she had an affair with a Trooper on her security detail so should probably avoid LE in the future.
You know.. I don't know why this has me so pissed off right now. She was never going to pass this regardless of the states financial situation..
I called and emailed, and made friends and family do the same. It was worth a shot.
How she's made it this far, I honestly don't know. I've yet to meet an Oklahoman that likes her..
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Yep.
Gets rid of 60 jobs that was never needed and undue taxation without representation.
I read a statistic a while back that for every one job in a government regulatory agency nine jobs are eliminated in the private sector. Hence, if we eliminated the myriad of regulations the private job sector would grow almost ten fold, practically eliminating unemployment.
Republicans doing what they do best...stab you in the back.
You know.. I don't know why this has me so pissed off right now. She was never going to pass this regardless of the states financial situation..
I called and emailed, and made friends and family do the same. It was worth a shot.
How she's made it this far, I honestly don't know. I've yet to meet an Oklahoman that likes her..
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Worst governor Ok ever had. That’s saying something.
All about money. I’ve taken the Ok CC required training and it was an absolute joke.
I hope it’s overridden
South Dakota's Governor did the same thing, for the same reason given.
He was termed out also, and a Republican.
Guess how many states don't have that requirement? It's something like 26 or so states. That includes Washington and Arizona both of which have populations that are almost double that of Oklahoma.
And?? In Texas, The Greatest State in the US, has mandatory shooting with its mandatory class. Its not a bad thing. We learn what situations to use force or to use deadly force, where to and where not to carry a firearm and what steps are to be taken in the event you use deadly force with your firearm. You would be surprised how many people are serving 18-26 months for shooting an intruder in the back, or shooting a mugger too many times or using deadly force when they should of used force.
Plus the range portion of the class is good. In Texas, you have to qualify with at least a 9mm and qualify with either a revolver or semi-automatic. We had to shoot 5 rounds in under 5 seconds at a paper target 15 feet in front of us, 10 rounds in 5 seconds of a paper target 5 feet in front of us, 3 rounds in 5 seconds at a paper target 25 feet in front of us and 4 sets of 2 rounds in under 2 seconds at a paper target 20 feet in front of us. And you had to pass with flying colors. Cant shoot anywhere near the head- that will get you 20 years. There were at least 1/2 of our class that couldn't hit the paper target which is the same size as the range stall you are shooting out of.
The last thing you want is people carrying firearms who cant shoot and don't know the laws regarding when to use deadly force.
titsonritz
05-12-18, 15:58
The training aspect is laughable. There are “classes” where so long as you do not shoot yourself and shoot in the general direction of the target, you pass.
Thank you for calling that out, you are 100% correct. This crap is NOT training, it is an excuss to take your money.
Cant shoot anywhere near the head- that will get you 20 years.
Really???? Well then, Texas don't sound so great to me.
The last thing you want is people carrying firearms who cant shoot and don't know the laws regarding when to use deadly force.
No, the last thing I want is someone making that call for me.
You would be surprised how many people are serving 18-26 months for shooting an intruder in the back...
Color me surprised.
Why would anyone go to jail for shooting an intruder in the back?
Guess what I'm looking for here is the relevant Statute or an actual case.
Edit: Just to be clear I'm talking about TX, as I assume you are also.
Color me surprised.
Why would anyone go to jail for shooting an intruder in the back?
Guess what I'm looking for here is the relevant Statute or an actual case.
Edit: Just to be clear I'm talking about TX, as I assume you are also.
2 years ago, a man in Irving chased a robber out of his home and shot him in the back just a few feet off his property, he got 3 years- why? Because they way a jury saw it, the robber was not a threat anymore, he had left the home and preceded on foot to get away.
Like 10 years ago, a woman in Duncanville shot a man in broad daylight which she claimed, he was trying to enter her home, she shot him 5 times, she got 3 years but only served like 180 days and had to pay him family over $200k. If I remember right, she got jail time because she was inside a locked house and could have called 911. She opened the door and shot him and he was about 20 feet from her door.
If you remember just a year or so ago, a man in Tyler was approached by two men who attempted to steal his truck, one of the men started beating him, the victim shot both of the muggers and got cleared on one but got a slap on the writs for shooting and killing the other which a video shows was standing a full 10 feet away not involved in the incident. He had to pay that mans baby mamma like $100k in damages.
There are many stories like these. I know in Texas, if you shoot someone in the head and it appears that the head shot was on purpose, you can get 20 years for murder. If you shoot someone too many times, a jury may see that as excessive force. I personally know 2 people who have used there concealed firearm on another person, one was at a Shell gas station in Ft Worth, the other was outside a Macaroni Grill in Grapevine and both told me that using there weapon on another person ended up costing them about $50k in lawyer/court fees- both were cleared of any foul play, wrong doing and there actions were considered justified. Why do you think the NRA offers insurance and counsel for those who use there weapon in self defense? From what I have heard and read, its not a fun experience. You will spend the better part of 6-8 months being interviewed by police, going to court and wondering if your going to be prosecuted all while being sued by the other family for damages/wrongful death.
God forbid I ever have to use my gun against another person. Even if some death row inmate from Pelican Bay, broke into my house in the middle of the night and screamed "I am going to murder everyone in this house", and he was carrying an running chainsaw and suppose I had all this on video with audio, I would still be hesitant shooting him because a grand jury decides weather of not you should be prosecuted, and in most states, they treat all firearm related incidents like a crime. Now, if I was on a country back road somewhere and there were no witnesses and it was nighttime or I was somewhere where I could put roll the guy up in a tarp and put him in my trunk and dump his body in the Trinity River, yes- absolute. But that is hypothetical. In Texas, the protocol after using "justified" deadly force, is to call 911 immediately and report it. Wait for police to arrive and DO NOT approach the body, don't pick up brass, don't change clothes, have your weapon available for police somewhere other than on your person. There will be a report made, you will have your firearm put into a evidence bag and kept by police, you will have to go to the police station, get fingerprints and mug shot and will be questioned for up to 2 hours, you will have to appear before a grand jury, and they will make a decision on whether your use of deadly force was justified or not based on the evidence at that particular time.
I think its still a good idea to have a pair of latex gloves and some surgical hemostats close by if in the event you shoot someone, you can retrieve your bullet and get the hell out of there without anyone noticing.
The classroom portion of the training that is mandatory in Texas, goes over these kinds of scenarios. A good instructor, mine was a State Trooper, will literally give you like 100 scenarios and tell why each was either justified or not justified and that will give a person an idea of when to use deadly force. Like, if you use your weapon in a vehicle while it is in motion, its considered aggravated assault- or at least it was 8 years ago when I got my permit. Also, if you are found to have not verbally identified yourself as "armed" in a situation other than the suspect known to be armed or your life is in immediate loss of life danger, you could get jail time. Most of the laws follow the same laws, guidelines and protocols that our local police have to follow except we are not allowed to chase people or peruse them in any manner. The rule of thumb is that you should have no other option available to you, cannot run away, cannot hide, cannot convince suspect to walk away, cannot call for help, you have to prove that your life was in danger and that the use of deadly force was the last option available to you. Otherwise we would still be living in the 1800s.
The training and law portion of the training is really for your own benefit.
Averageman
05-12-18, 19:20
It's nice to know you can thumb the slide and keep the brass right in the chamber.
Not as nice as a revolver in such a situation, but revolvers are becoming more scarce every year.
Well holy wall of text batman.
OK you just added a whole lot of qualifications to your original "intruder" assessment here:
2 years ago, a man in Irving chased a robber out of his home and shot him in the back just a few feet off his property, he got 3 years- why? Because they way a jury saw it, the robber was not a threat anymore, he had left the home and preceded on foot to get away.
Like 10 years ago, a woman in Duncanville shot a man in broad daylight which she claimed, he was trying to enter her home, she shot him 5 times, she got 3 years but only served like 180 days and had to pay him family over $200k. If I remember right, she got jail time because she was inside a locked house and could have called 911. She opened the door and shot him and he was about 20 feet from her door.
If you remember just a year or so ago, a man in Tyler was approached by two men who attempted to steal his truck, one of the men started beating him, the victim shot both of the muggers and got cleared on one but got a slap on the writs for shooting and killing the other which a video shows was standing a full 10 feet away not involved in the incident. He had to pay that mans baby mamma like $100k in damages.
TX law is fairly simple: an intruder in your house is automatically assumed to be a threat. Which means you're justified to shoot.
Shooting someone that isn't a threat - considering the law - is dumb...regardless how much I may think they deserve it. I'll default my actions to the rule of law on that one.
I think its still a good idea to have a pair of latex gloves and some surgical hemostats close by if in the event you shoot someone, you can retrieve your bullet and get the hell out of there without anyone noticing.
------------
Also, if you are found to have not verbally identified yourself as "armed" in a situation other than the suspect known to be armed or your life is in immediate loss of life danger, you could get jail time.
And with that think I'll just slowly back away now.
But I gotta say these 2 things are not like the other:
Wait for police to arrive and DO NOT approach the body...
...in the event you shoot someone, you can retrieve your bullet...
Republicans doing what they do best...stab you in the back.
I can almost see how this went down: "Hey Gov, us Repubes are going to pass a Constitutional carry bill, wink wink, to show our constituents we are for them. Since you are in your last term all you have to do is, wink wink, let it die on your desk."
TX law is fairly simple: an intruder in your house is automatically assumed to be a threat. Which means you're justified to shoot:
That's not up to you! That's up to a grand jury. And assuming is NOT a justification to shoot. In fact, assumption is never allowed as a defense in court. The castle laws in Texas "Stand your Ground" has verbiage that sais that it is "not reasonable to assume that your life is in danger" when talking specifically about trespassers.
Texas has strict "castle laws." These statutes allow any resident to use force, deadly or otherwise, to protect oneself on his or her property, or "castle." The protection is applicable to both one's home and car.
Specifically, before 2010 the law said the use of force was justifiable when preventing an offense against one's personal safety or the safety of one's property, but only if the amount of forced used was "reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense."
The law also stated homicide was justifiable in similar cases: when committed in self-defense by one who "reasonably believes" he is in danger of great bodily harm or death and to prevent a forcible felony. - Says nothing about someone in your home.
There is a HUGE difference between use of force and threat of force.
Threat of force is when a person displays a weapon as a threat, showing that they will use deadly force to cause death or serious bodily injury if necessary. Texas Penal Code §9.04. Threat of Force is a precursor to the use of Deadly Force.
Self Defense will be a justifiable defense so long as the type of force used is reasonable and necessary in the moment to protect against an attacker. A person may use force against another when they reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to protect from another’s “use or attempted use of unlawful force.” A person may use deadly force in self defense under Section 9.31 of Texas Penal Code if he:
Knew the intruder unlawfully with force entered into his home, vehicle, or place of employment to inflict bodily harm or used threat of force; or
Was being kidnapped; or The intruder was attempting to sexually assault, rob, kidnap, or murder.
In Texas, you ARE NOT justified to use deadly force against someone who is suspicious. And the use of deadly force against a trespasser on your property is Not justified. There are laws in Texas that allow people to freely travel in Texas and use roads, land, trails and rail regardless if they own it or not. - That goes back to a time when Texas was a country. The use of deadly force to protect property is contained in Texas Penal Code §9.42. This section of the law lays out a couple of scenarios where you are justified in reasonably using deadly force to protect your property. The first is if someone is committing trespass or interference with your property and you must reasonably use deadly force to prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime. If someone is unlawfully on your property and attempting to commit any of these crimes, you will gain the legal justification for using deadly force.
I used to be naive and think that magical training and manditory this or that was a good idea. Then I got woke. Since we are imposing all those requirements maybe we should do the same thing when people buy a gun as well.
And?? In Texas, The Greatest State in the US, has mandatory shooting with its mandatory class. Its not a bad thing. We learn what situations to use force or to use deadly force, where to and where not to carry a firearm and what steps are to be taken in the event you use deadly force with your firearm. You would be surprised how many people are serving 18-26 months for shooting an intruder in the back, or shooting a mugger too many times or using deadly force when they should of used force.
Plus the range portion of the class is good. In Texas, you have to qualify with at least a 9mm and qualify with either a revolver or semi-automatic. We had to shoot 5 rounds in under 5 seconds at a paper target 15 feet in front of us, 10 rounds in 5 seconds of a paper target 5 feet in front of us, 3 rounds in 5 seconds at a paper target 25 feet in front of us and 4 sets of 2 rounds in under 2 seconds at a paper target 20 feet in front of us. And you had to pass with flying colors. Cant shoot anywhere near the head- that will get you 20 years. There were at least 1/2 of our class that couldn't hit the paper target which is the same size as the range stall you are shooting out of.
The last thing you want is people carrying firearms who cant shoot and don't know the laws regarding when to use deadly force.
titsonritz
05-12-18, 22:00
I used to be naive and think that magical training and manditory this or that was a good idea. Then I got woke. Since we are imposing all those requirements maybe we should do the same thing when people buy a gun as well.
Better yet, if we're going to mandate something let's do it right, require it in public schools, starting with Eddie Eagle in elementary school and a min of 4 semesters during the Jr. High and High school years along with optional team sports as PE electives and after school activities. Think of all the problems that would solve. <And then I woke up.>
Better yet, if we're going to mandate something let's do it right, require it in public schools, starting with Eddie Eagle in elementary school and a min of 4 semesters during the Jr. High and High school years along with optional team sports as PE electives and after school activities. Think of all the problems that would solve. <And then I woke up.>This!
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
I can almost see how this went down: "Hey Gov, us Repubes are going to pass a Constitutional carry bill, wink wink, to show our constituents we are for them. Since you are in your last term all you have to do is, wink wink, let it die on your desk."
Yeah, it's hard to believe that they didn't know she was going veto or maybe they were playing Mitch McConnell.
I can almost see how this went down: "Hey Gov, us Repubes are going to pass a Constitutional carry bill, wink wink, to show our constituents we are for them. Since you are in your last term all you have to do is, wink wink, let it die on your desk."
Yeah, it's hard to believe that they didn't know she was going veto or maybe they were playing Mitch McConnell.
I used to be naive and think that magical training and manditory this or that was a good idea. Then I got woke. Since we are imposing all those requirements maybe we should do the same thing when people buy a gun as well.
The training is not so much focused on shooting or gun safety, those skills should already be in place when purchasing a gun. The training is on the law. If more concealed carriers knew the laws regarding using deadly force as a means of self defense, there wouldn't be 20,000 a year getting charged with felonies, misdemeanors and serving jail time for shooting someone that they assumed had intentions to hurt them. Most of these people were just as "woke" as you and probably thought they knew everything there was to know. Ignorance is NEVER an excuse is a court of law.
I don't know if you know this but if you use deadly force as a means of self defense and a grand jury agrees that the use was justified, the police report and all testimony is still sent to the public prosecutors office for review. Depending on if your prosecutor is pro gun or anti gun, you could still find yourself being prosecuted and may be forced to pay damages. This happens a lot in the US. That doesn't include any civil charges that may or may not be charged against you.
titsonritz
05-12-18, 22:41
The training is not so much focused on shooting or gun safety, those skills should already be in place when purchasing a gun. The training is on the law. If more concealed carriers knew the laws regarding using deadly force as a means of self defense, there wouldn't be 20,000 a year getting charged with felonies, misdemeanors and serving jail time for shooting someone that they assumed had intentions to hurt them. Most of these people were just as "woke" as you and probably thought they knew everything there was to know. Ignorance is NEVER an excuse is a court of law.
The last person I'd listen to regrading the law is the dude I took my CCW "training" through. Talk about completely full shit. He was making statements like "if you shoot someone outside your door be sure to drag into the house so it looks better." Yeah ok buddy, just give me my peice of paper and I'm out of here.
As someone that trains to put holes in people, I believe it is prudent to learn/know how to plug holes, both physically (medical) and legally.
2 years ago, a man in Irving chased a robber out of his home and shot him in the back just a few feet off his property, he got 3 years- why? Because they way a jury saw it, the robber was not a threat anymore, he had left the home and preceded on foot to get away.
Like 10 years ago, a woman in Duncanville shot a man in broad daylight which she claimed, he was trying to enter her home, she shot him 5 times, she got 3 years but only served like 180 days and had to pay him family over $200k. If I remember right, she got jail time because she was inside a locked house and could have called 911. She opened the door and shot him and he was about 20 feet from her door.
If you remember just a year or so ago, a man in Tyler was approached by two men who attempted to steal his truck, one of the men started beating him, the victim shot both of the muggers and got cleared on one but got a slap on the writs for shooting and killing the other which a video shows was standing a full 10 feet away not involved in the incident. He had to pay that mans baby mamma like $100k in damages.
Those aren't real good examples. Or are you being sarcastic?
ETA: I just read the rest of your post, I see you weren't.
You do understand the differences between movies and real life correct? Shooting someone is going to cost you money no matter what, and you don't get to immediately leave the scene and go on to other adventures like the TV guys do.
Posting stuff about latex gloves and picking up shell casings is not something you want to post about, even in a joking matter.
I don't want to hijack this thread further. I'm not really interested in continuing this, but if you are, start another thread or something...maybe I'll be along.
FWIW I've had a CHL/LTC/spaceforthenexttitle for 20 yrs here in TX.
You're all over the map with your lecturing and terminology. I'm sticking with "intruder" as that's what started this conversation; not trespassers, "mischief at night," "theft at night" and/or whatever else you introduced.
That's not up to you! That's up to a grand jury. And assuming is NOT a justification to shoot. In fact, assumption is never allowed as a defense in court. The castle laws in Texas "Stand your Ground" has verbiage that sais that it is "not reasonable to assume that your life is in danger" when talking specifically about trespassers.
Yes, assumption IS a justification to shoot and as a defense.
"Your honor, he broke down my kitchen door, he had a knife in his hand, he ran toward me and I assumed he was he wanted to stab me."
Are old enough and/or prior military to remember ICO? Intent Capability and Opportunity?
Can you provide the paragraph that states "not reasonable to assume that your life is in danger?" I couldn't find it.
There really isn't a Code/Code section entitled "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand your ground" or any other title. It mostly all falls under 9.31 and 9.32.
Back to "intruder." An intruder illegally entering my "occupied habitation" (term from the Code) will get shot...and I'll walk.
Reference:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (437)(Text)
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (438)
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (439)
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (440)
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (441)
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (442)
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (443)
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (444)
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (445)
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (446)
The training is not so much focused on shooting or gun safety, those skills should already be in place when purchasing a gun. The training is on the law. If more concealed carriers knew the laws regarding using deadly force as a means of self defense, there wouldn't be 20,000 a year getting charged with felonies, misdemeanors and serving jail time for shooting someone that they assumed had intentions to hurt them. Most of these people were just as "woke" as you and probably thought they knew everything there was to know. Ignorance is NEVER an excuse is a court of law.
I don't know if you know this but if you use deadly force as a means of self defense and a grand jury agrees that the use was justified, the police report and all testimony is still sent to the public prosecutors office for review. Depending on if your prosecutor is pro gun or anti gun, you could still find yourself being prosecuted and may be forced to pay damages. This happens a lot in the US. That doesn't include any civil charges that may or may not be charged against you.
Do you carry a gun? Are you afraid to use it?
I'm not lecturing, I simply said that Oklahoma did Not pass the law because the bill didn't require any training associated with it. And people started saying "I teach how to put holes in paper targets","I'm woke", "I finished Call of Duty on Veteran" and "I don't need training because I know everything". I was just simply saying that having some type of background in the LAW regarding using a weapon for self defense is probably a good thing because of the number of people who are prosecuted each year using there firearm in self defense and they had the "I'll walk" mentality.
Do you carry a gun? Are you afraid to use it?
I carry everyday. Am I afraid to use it? No but try to understand that if I shot and killed someone in self defense tonight, if there family found out and they will, that I just received millions from my fathers life insurance policy and from the sale of his company, I could lose everything. I could lose my house, my lake house, my plane, my cars, everything. This isn't really talked about a lot, but it is a reality, good thing Texas has capped awarded damages at $5million. My 2 friends I mentioned earlier went broke in civil court. Sold there homes, tapped into there 401k and had to come up with about $50k each to pay the families damages and there attorney fees. Its nasty out there.
Best scenario is if someone breaks into your home, through the grace of God, hopefully they don't have any family, children, girlfriends, pets, relatives, friends, dependents, co workers or anyone for that matter.
MountainRaven
05-13-18, 00:25
Well this went downhill real fast.
There are many stories like these. I know in Texas, if you shoot someone in the head and it appears that the head shot was on purpose, you can get 20 years for murder.
Can you point to TX Penal Law or any cases of someone who shot someone in the head *in a justified shooting* who got 20 years for murder because he shot someone in the head? Can you point to me a specific case that illustrates this point where someone shot someone in justifiable self defense and got sentenced to 20 years because they shot the perpretrator in the head?
If you are justified in using deadly force you are justified in using deadly force, period. There is no limitation on the location on their body if you are justified in using deadly force, nor is there a duty to shoot to wound.
If you shoot someone too many times, a jury may see that as excessive force. I personally know 2 people who have used there concealed firearm on another person, one was at a Shell gas station in Ft Worth, the other was outside a Macaroni Grill in Grapevine and both told me that using there weapon on another person ended up costing them about $50k in lawyer/court fees- both were cleared of any foul play, wrong doing and there actions were considered justified. Why do you think the NRA offers insurance and counsel for those who use there weapon in self defense? From what I have heard and read, its not a fun experience. You will spend the better part of 6-8 months being interviewed by police, going to court and wondering if your going to be prosecuted all while being sued by the other family for damages/wrongful death.
Most justified shootings in TX that are straightforward are no-billed by the grand jury in a short period of time. Plus, under the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws you can not be sued civilly by any person you lawfully defended yourself against or their survivors.
If you look at police shootings, you will see many shootings where someone had to be shot multiple times to be stopped.
Now, if I was on a country back road somewhere and there were no witnesses and it was nighttime or I was somewhere where I could put roll the guy up in a tarp and put him in my trunk and dump his body in the Trinity River, yes- absolute.
I think its still a good idea to have a pair of latex gloves and some surgical hemostats close by if in the event you shoot someone, you can retrieve your bullet and get the hell out of there without anyone noticing.
What you are discussing above would be a great way to turn an otherwise justifiable shooting into a murder trial. Law abiding citizens are not expected to dispose of bodies but rather call the police and report that you were attacked and had to use deadly force and have them come on the scene and make a determination. There are cameras all over the place and prisons filled with lots of people who did not realize there were witnesses. If the body gets found and they trace it to you, good luck convincing anyone it was self defense. Hiding a body is not consistent with justifiable homicide, but with murder.
At the very least deliberately altering a crime scene like that would be considered obstruction of justice and could indeed cause an otherwise justifiable shooting to turn into a murder trial because the investigating police would be unsure of the facts that you presented.
That's not up to you! That's up to a grand jury. And assuming is NOT a justification to shoot. In fact, assumption is never allowed as a defense in court. The castle laws in Texas "Stand your Ground" has verbiage that sais that it is "not reasonable to assume that your life is in danger" when talking specifically about trespassers.
Trespassing is someone who is on your property outside of your home. This is not the same thing as a burglar or home invader which castle doctrine addresses.
I carry everyday. Am I afraid to use it? No but try to understand that if I shot and killed someone in self defense tonight, if there family found out and they will, that I just received millions from my fathers life insurance policy and from the sale of his company, I could lose everything. I could lose my house, my lake house, my plane, my cars, everything. This isn't really talked about a lot, but it is a reality, good thing Texas has capped awarded damages at $5million. My 2 friends I mentioned earlier went broke in civil court. Sold there homes, tapped into there 401k and had to come up with about $50k each to pay the families damages and there attorney fees. Its nasty out there.
Best scenario is if someone breaks into your home, through the grace of God, hopefully they don't have any family, children, girlfriends, pets, relatives, friends, dependents, co workers or anyone for that matter.
You are misinformed. TX Castle doctrine prevents law suits by against the defender by the perpetrator and their families.
Take a look at the Joe Horn shooting in TX from the perspective of castle doctrine and blocking civil suits (NOT an example of what to do in a defensive shooting as I feel he should have never stepped outside of his house. I can’t even call this a home defense shooting.).
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasadena-news/article/Joe-Horn-cleared-by-grand-jury-in-Pasadena-1587004.php
The guy left the safety of his house against the directions of the 911 operator he was on the phone with and shot two burglars who were escaping after burglarizing a neighbor’s house and killed both of them (again, something I would not suggest anyone do!). His lawyer successfully argued that he was in fear of his life and he was no-billed by a grand jury.
This is one of the most questionable uses of deadly force by a citizen that I can find. Definitely the most questionable one where the citizen didn’t go to trial. I could not think of a better case for a civil suit against a citizen who used deadly force.
But he was not civilly sued and the people who wanted to bring a civil suit complained because they could not under TX Castle Doctrine, which protected him from a civil suit.
I used to be naive and think that magical training and manditory this or that was a good idea. Then I got woke. Since we are imposing all those requirements maybe we should do the same thing when people buy a gun as well.
That is a very good point.
The training requirement for carry laws is similar to the driver's licensing requirement for motor vehicles in most states-you don't need a license to operate motor vehicle on your own property, only on public roads where you come into contact with other people. For that you need to pass a written and driving test.
That is the theory behind training requirements for carrying a firearm in public for self defense as opposed to keeping it in your house for self defense and transporting it to places to shoot it.
I would prefer that if someone is going to carry a gun in public that they attend some basic course that covers the legality of carrying a gun and the laws on when to use it and pass some type of basic shooting test that proves that they can safely operate their gun and keep their rounds in a human sized target at say 30 feet.
This is the way it is in TX regarding carry permits--though I believe the shooting goes out to 45 feet, the target is a huge silhouette, and I believe you need a 70% score to pass. The course in TX runs about 5-6 hours including the range portion. When they first introduced carry permits in TX in around 1994, I believe the course was around 14-16 hrs. The inclusion of the course was what they had to do to get enough votes to get the CCW legislation to pass the legislature.
I can see many ways that a course requirement could be misused by the state if they were so inclined. They could limit the number or availability of classes, or make the shooting test absurdly hard--like requiring all hits on a 6" target at 25 yards. In a state where there are limited places to take the course and limited range facilities it makes it harder for people to find a place to take the course and to complete the shooting portion.
Two other things to think about--if a constitutional carry state were to revert to requiring carry licenses, everyone who was carrying without a license would be required to get one. So if you already have a license it makes sense to keep renewing it. Also, having a license allows you to carry in many other states that do not have constitutional carry, but recognize out of state licenses.
Can you point to TX Penal Law or any cases of someone who shot someone in the head *in a justified shooting* who got 20 years for murder because he shot someone in the head? Can you point to me a specific case that illustrates this point where someone shot someone in justifiable self defense and got sentenced to 20 years because they shot the perpretrator in the head?
No, at the top of my head I cannot think of any case or cases where a suspect was shot in the head deliberately. When I took my concealed training coarse, I took it with 6 other people from a Texas State Trooper who was pretty adamant about NOT shooting people in the head for the reason that it would look awfully suspicious. The objective at that time which was in 2008 was not to "attempt to kill" but to "stop" someone from causing bodily harm to you.
If you are justified in using deadly force you are justified in using deadly force, period. There is no limitation on the location on their body if you are justified in using deadly force, nor is there a duty to shoot to wound.
From what I was told was that it was unlawful to fire a warning shot or to wound someone to the point of them not being a threat and then shooting them again. - this from what I have read is the "questionable shootings". I would think that if someone with a history or going to a range pulls out a Infinity 1911 with a C-more red dot and shoots someone square in the head in the first shot would be charged with murder. The laws may have changed since 2008. I would understand if someone shot a suspect multiple time in random places and one being somewhere in the head wouldn't be viewed as a "trying to kill". The range portion of the Texas concealed carry training only allows shots to be fired at center mass.
Most justified shootings in TX that are straightforward are no-billed by the grand jury in a short period of time. Plus, under the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws you can not be sued civilly by any person you lawfully defended yourself against or their survivors.
In 2008, deadly force was not considered justified in Texas if retreat was possible. Prosecutors would often point out in murder trials that a defendant claiming self-defense could have walked, run or driven away. You said "Most justified shooting that are straightforward are no billed", it should be "all justified shooting that are straightforward should be no-billed". Not all shooting are straight forward though, most like you said are but there are a few that are questionable and some that don't make sense or leave gaps in the story or timeline of events.
If you look at police shootings, you will see many shootings where someone had to be shot multiple times to be stopped.
I'm not a police officer, what I learned in my class, which I will say again was in 2008, the objective is not to shoot someone to the point of dying but to shoot to "stop" them from being a danger.
You are misinformed. TX Castle doctrine prevents law suits by against the defender by the perpetrator and their families.
§ 83.001 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code states that a person is immune from civil liability if they used force or deadly force that was justified under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. Thus, if a criminal court finds that a person was justified in using force or deadly force to defend themselves, their property, or another person, that person has a very good chance of defending a civil lawsuit filed by the person force was used against. It sounds good but this statute doesn’t prevent you from being sued, having to answer the lawsuit, and appear in court. It only prevents you from being held liable in money damages. So even if you were never charged with a crime, you had your case dismissed, or you were acquitted by a jury, you still have to answer that civil lawsuit and show the court that your use of deadly force was legally justified. Its then up to that court jury to decide if your use of deadly force was justified or not. By the language of the Practice and Remedies Code this immunity from having to pay money damages is only good for personal injury and death. The way around that is if a family member saw it unfold and claims emotional distress, property damage, loss of wages etc. - that is how my 2 friends got sued. My friend shot a would be mugger who was armed in front of his wife and children and they all suffered emotionally. My other friend shot a guy who was armed who was still sitting in his car, my friend shot through the car hitting the guy 2 times- didn't kill him but had to pay for damages to car.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
The US Justice system cannon serve 2 master and therefore cannot be on everyone's side at the same time.
Grand58742
05-13-18, 07:59
I'm surprised she had the guts to do this publicly. It wasn't surprising in the least she vetoed it, but I figured she'd use the pocket veto option.
I would prefer that if someone is going to carry a gun in public that they attend some basic course that covers the legality of carrying a gun and the laws on when to use it and pass some type of basic shooting test that proves that they can safely operate their gun and keep their rounds in a human sized target at say 30 feet.
I'm not really arguing with your point here as I understand it. But let me add:
If you're gonna do something, DO IT. I think the shooting standard is pretty cheesy. At my first class I saw people that IMO had no business handling a gun; they had trouble loading/unloading/clearing malfs, etc...yet they passed. Frankly I'm not sure if that was the instructor's fault, the crap course standards, or both.
What immediately comes to mind - and the targets I was shooting at yesterday - are the CSAT HR targets...the one where if you shoot the BG in one section of his head, the bullet might go through and hit the hostage. I believe that is an appropriate shooting standard for CHL.
So I look at .gov licensing regarding what impact it has on society. The argument by many was licensing would make people safer. OK...if the standard is there things should become safer, and when the standard is gone things should become more unsafe.
Kinda tough to gauge the good-shoot bad-shoot impact concealed carry had as there's no data prior to licensing because...you can't compare to a standard when there isn't a standard. But looking at states that now allow non-licensed carry, I don't see where bad-shoots are any more prevalent. It's kind of like that "blood will run in the streets" thing; it didn't pan out.
IMO a person would have to be dumber than a box of rocks to not practice with their gun and not know the CHL laws.
I gotta admit this is a tough one for me. I'm all for less government at every turn, and when I look at what impact licensing has on its intended purpose, I'm all in favor of no licensing. What's the point of doing/having something if it has no impact? But then that 1% Liberal, kumbaya, I want .gov to protect me surfaces in me, and I'm all for it.
I have a couple other TX licenses and some licenses from other states (all non-gun related) that I maintain. And almost without fail they really don't do much except create revenue and cost me money and time. I'm not saying there's no benefit, but I think the systems need rebuilding.
FWIW Bad shoot = shooting an innocent bystander instead of the bad guy, shooting when it's not legally allowed, etc.
When they first introduced carry permits in TX in around 1994, I believe the course was around 14-16 hrs.
I believe you are correct. What I remember from 20yrs ago is a 2 day course: Day 1 in the classroom, Day 2 at the range.
I can say with absolute certainty, as others have already mentioned, that the test for your CCP in Oklahoma is a joke.
When I took mine the required eight hour course was condensed to three hours including the qualification portion of the test (if you want to even call it that). Basically "Don't shoot em' in the back, mmmkayyy?" was the curriculum. At least three people in the class couldn't keep their rounds on the silhouette, and barely on paper at all. Everyone in the class was passed though.
The "training" requirement means nothing.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
From a Constitutional perspective, I’m a big fan of Constitutional Carry. However, from a practical standpoint, I’m also a big fan of CCW classes and take them every time I move to a new state, to get an idea of the state’s legal environment. I have not yet had one of the circus sideshow classes described in this thread. I don’t view the class as serious training on shooting. I’m also aware that the dudes teaching the classes are not lawyers, and I may have to seek more information elswhere. But its a good start.
Without going to a class I might not have known that my permit is not valid in a bar in NC. While that may seem like common sense, it is legal to carry in a bar in some other states, provided you are not drinking. Another example is how you must stow your weapon when entering an area you cannot carry, such as picking up your kid from school. There’s plenty of little regulatory things that even someone “switched on” might not think of until they find themselves in a situation that has potential to get them into hot water. And then, we’ve all heard the bs legal advice that gets pitched at gunstores. A CCW class is like an episode of Mythbusters for some people.
Edit: I’ve been informed that the NC bar carry thing is no longer true. Which is why I’ll do the class again if I move back.
Well this went downhill real fast.
Hell, I thought it was pretty entertaining. Lol
I can say with absolute certainty, as others have already mentioned, that the test for your CCP in Oklahoma is a joke.
When I took mine the required eight hour course was condensed to three hours including the qualification portion of the test (if you want to even call it that). Basically "Don't shoot em' in the back, mmmkayyy?" was the curriculum. At least three people in the class couldn't keep their rounds on the silhouette, and barely on paper at all. Everyone in the class was passed though.
The "training" requirement means nothing.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
We got lots of tactical “advice” as well, from a guy who was a competition shooter.
And the “qualification” portion mirrored everyone else’s experience.
J.O.K.E.
Well, at least the OSBI Director is honest:
The bureau of investigation, which issues handgun licenses, had said the bill would cost the agency about $4.7 million annually and result in the loss of about 60 full-time positions.
"The impact on public safety is unquantifiable," bureau Director Bob Ricks said in a statement.
Now, that is a new spin:
Enacting more firearms regulations creates new jobs, relaxing regulations costs jobs.
I figure that's the true reason every time CC fails to pass. Tennessee got around it with the Lifetime permit so if you're young enough they can get pretty much the full amount out of you.
Hell, I thought it was pretty entertaining. Lol
I did too. Especially since I practice criminal law in TX. The amount of fail going on in this thread is reason why I can't stand the "bubba" led LTC courses...its breeds this level of epic nonsense.
But i got a good chuckle.
titsonritz
05-13-18, 14:48
I did too. Especially since I practice criminal law in TX. The amount of fail going on in this thread is reason why I can't stand the "bubba" led LTC courses...its breeds this level of epic nonsense. :haha:
But i got a good chuckle.
Yep :thank_you2: That is all.
I don't know if it is still like this but in Texas back in 2008, you could qualify with either a revolver or a semi-auto pistol. If you qualified with a revolver, you were limited to only carrying a revolver, however, if you qualified with a semi-auto, you could carry either.
The range portion was simple, the maximum points given were 300 and you had to score a minimum of 250 to pass. The range portion came first and then the classroom portion. My classroom portion had only 6 people, something like 8 people failed the range portion and couldn't progress to the classroom portion. The State Trooper that gave the class did the range first and if you passed, you continued to the next phase. If you failed, you were gone. That was the rule, you had to pass both and your range/classroom classes had to be taken together as 1 class. Those 8 people lost $140 bucks each because they couldn't hit a life size target 10 feet in front of them. That happened a lot from what I heard at the time. The instructor encouraged students to have been to a range at least 2 times within a 10 day period prior to taking a class.
Especially since I practice criminal law in TX. The amount of fail going on in this thread is reason why I can't stand the "bubba" led LTC courses...its breeds this level of epic nonsense.
I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion re: my explanations. Info from varied sources is always valuable.
While probably not perfect, my understanding was enough a few years ago.
I'm not really arguing with your point here as I understand it. But let me add:
If you're gonna do something, DO IT. I think the shooting standard is pretty cheesy. At my first class I saw people that IMO had no business handling a gun; they had trouble loading/unloading/clearing malfs, etc...yet they passed. Frankly I'm not sure if that was the instructor's fault, the crap course standards, or both.
I agree. This makes me the devil in some people's eyes but I like to see that if someone is going to carry a gun in public that they be given a basic knowledge of the laws and when they can and cannot legally shoot, as well as have some level of shooting skills. I am not expecting them to shoot targets with hostages next to them at 50 feet.
But I live in TX which is a relatively pro-gun state with a pro-gun population and lots of gun ranges and stores and places that offer CCW classes.
As I have said, I can see a problem with some states that could abuse it to make harder for people to get carry permits.
As I have said, I can see a problem with some states that could abuse it to make harder for people to get carry permits.
That's a good bit of what motivates me also; give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
It's another conundrum for me and I just can't formulate a concrete answer.
I don't know if it is still like this but in Texas back in 2008, you could qualify with either a revolver or a semi-auto pistol. If you qualified with a revolver, you were limited to only carrying a revolver, however, if you qualified with a semi-auto, you could carry either.
TX did away with the designation. When I got my new LTC I immediately called because I thought they screwed up and forgot to put it on my license.
HB 3142 https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB03142F.pdf#navpanes=0
Can you point to TX Penal Law or any cases of someone who shot someone in the head *in a justified shooting* who got 20 years for murder because he shot someone in the head? Can you point to me a specific case that illustrates this point where someone shot someone in justifiable self defense and got sentenced to 20 years because they shot the perpretrator in the head?
No, at the top of my head I cannot think of any case or cases where a suspect was shot in the head deliberately. When I took my concealed training coarse, I took it with 6 other people from a Texas State Trooper who was pretty adamant about NOT shooting people in the head for the reason that it would look awfully suspicious. The objective at that time which was in 2008 was not to "attempt to kill" but to "stop" someone from causing bodily harm to you.
You may have misunderstood your teacher or your teacher may not have had a good instructor. Even some police officers say some stupid things.
Shooting to stop a common euphemism of sorts used by the police and others to make themselves sound less aggressive. You are trying to make them stop, but you are employing lethal force which may lead to their death. The truth is if you are sending bullets into someone's body into places that will make them stop, you run the risk of killing them. They often teach to shoot "center mass" (which includes vital organs like the heart and lungs that can lead to death). Aiming at center mass also gives you the best chance of hitting someone someplace under the stress of a shooting. But the police also teach things like a "failure drill", where you fire two shots to the body followed by a quick shot to the head if the body shots did not put them down. The attacker may be wearing body armor or on drugs and not respond to being shot in the body.
Find me a case where someone was in an otherwise legitimate self defense shooting and got prosecuted because they shot the attacker in the head.
From what I was told was that it was unlawful to fire a warning shot or to wound someone to the point of them not being a threat and then shooting them again. - this from what I have read is the "questionable shootings". I would think that if someone with a history or going to a range pulls out a Infinity 1911 with a C-more red dot and shoots someone square in the head in the first shot would be charged with murder. The laws may have changed since 2008. I would understand if someone shot a suspect multiple time in random places and one being somewhere in the head wouldn't be viewed as a "trying to kill". The range portion of the Texas concealed carry training only allows shots to be fired at center mass.
The range portion of the TX CHL does not only allow shots fired at center mass. Here is the target that is used and notice that the head is included in the A-zone--the zone that counts the most. Below is a picture of the TX CHL target. Notice that the head is not off limits.
51952
Complete unsubstantiated conjecture. By practicing headshots or more precise shooting at the range you do not give up your right to defensively use your handgun. Criminals have gone on after being shot multiple times in the body including rounds that may later prove fatal. If shot in the head
I'm not a police officer, what I learned in my class, which I will say again was in 2008, the objective is not to shoot someone to the point of dying but to shoot to "stop" them from being a danger.
Shooting to "stop someone from being a danger" involves inflicting lethal force on them which can often lead to serious injury or death, Study some police and civilian shootings where criminals had to be shot multiple times and even killed.
§ 83.001 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code states that a person is immune from civil liability if they used force or deadly force that was justified under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. Thus, if a criminal court finds that a person was justified in using force or deadly force to defend themselves, their property, or another person, that person has a very good chance of defending a civil lawsuit filed by the person force was used against. It sounds good but this statute doesn’t prevent you from being sued, having to answer the lawsuit, and appear in court. It only prevents you from being held liable in money damages. So even if you were never charged with a crime, you had your case dismissed, or you were acquitted by a jury, you still have to answer that civil lawsuit and show the court that your use of deadly force was legally justified. Its then up to that court jury to decide if your use of deadly force was justified or not. By the language of the Practice and Remedies Code this immunity from having to pay money damages is only good for personal injury and death. The way around that is if a family member saw it unfold and claims emotional distress, property damage, loss of wages etc. - that is how my 2 friends got sued. My friend shot a would be mugger who was armed in front of his wife and children and they all suffered emotionally. My other friend shot a guy who was armed who was still sitting in his car, my friend shot through the car hitting the guy 2 times- didn't kill him but had to pay for damages to car.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
If it were possible to sue someone after a defensive shooting, Joe Horn would certainly have been sued.
Can you provide some links to the shootings with your friends that you are referencing so we can examine the facts? It sounds awfully suspicious or if something is amiss.
Here is another thing to keep in mind is that a mugger or attacker who is even shot in the heart does not necessarily stop right away and can still live long enough to kill you.
Police and snipers have something known as a hostage rescue shot--where they typically shoot a hostage holder in the head to save the life of a hostage or hostages.
In a situation where you are facing an armed assailant--you are the hostage in that your life is in danger.
Therefore you would be justified in shooting them in the head to instantaneously stop them and eliminate the threat to yourself--assuming that you could pull that shot off--depending on the distance and your skill level and ability to shoot that well under life and death stress.
Diamondback
05-13-18, 21:29
Gov. FAILin's decision just goes to show that while the supermajority of Democraps are our enemies (there are a few notable exceptions like Betsy Johnson in Oregon, but not many), that does not automatically make Repukeagains our friends--some are to be sure, but many others are fair-weather friends at best, still others are just "enemies of our enemies" and some are openly our enemies and collude with Team Blue.
Here are a couple of stories I found doing a quick google news search -"prosecuted shooting intruder in head". There are over 9 pages or search results.
1. Self defense shooter shoots 3 men, 1 shot in head- charged with murder
http://wgntv.com/2017/08/13/3-intruders-shot-and-killed-by-homeowner-police-say/
2. 12 years for leaving an intruder brain dead from shooting him in head
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/article209357584.html
Here are a few doing a google news search - "prosecuted for shooting intruder".
1. Shot a man through the door who was breaking into his house- charged with murder
http://news3lv.com/news/local/suspect-arrested-after-fatal-shooting-originally-believed-to-be-in-self-defense
2. 80 year old Army Veteran with prior weapons conviction charged and jailed for shooting intruder
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-elderly-man-shoots-burglar-in-englewood-both-charged-20120326-story.html
3. Charged with 2nd degree murder for shooting intruder taking shower in his home:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/homeowner-arrested-fatally-shooting-intruder-found-shower-police/story?id=46536513
I'm sure the results will very state to state and are not typical. We live in a country where you have to prove that your actions were justified and not obsessive to a jury of 12 randomly selected people. I'm very well aware that putting any object at 900+ FPS into a another persons body causes significant amount of trauma, life threating complications and/or death. There are many stories that I have read where a shooter was justified and in compliance with laws regarding a shooting, and a jury felt otherwise. But then again there are stories of triumph and hope like the story of George Zimmerman who was acquitted by a shill jury knowing full well that protesters would riot and burn the city down to the ground and would cause nationwide civil unrest as a result. Especially when the President of the Unites States in calling Treyvon his "son".
I would think any criminal defense attorney would advise NOT to shoot someone in the head as a first line of defense. I could be wrong though.
Dude your first two examples don’t fit your claim. The firstdoesnt say what the man was charged with or even if he was charged with anything. And your second one, the guys that got shot was the home owner and the people who robbed him were on trial.
Then your next examples:
1. The guys claim of self defense didn’t match up to the evidence.
2. He wasn’t charged because he shot the guy. He was charged because he was a prohibited possessor with a gun.
3. The guy left the scene. Didn’t call the cops. Grabbed a gun. Returned to the scene and shot the guy who was taking a shower the whole time.
Your examples, again, are not backing your claims.
titsonritz
05-13-18, 22:41
It is a foregone conclusion the most rapid way to shut a combative human being is to destroy the central nervous system, that means the brain and spinal column, it is easier to hit the brain than the spinal column in particular if body armor is involved. A legit shoot is a legit shoot, it doesn't matter where the holes end up. I call bullshit.
C-grunt debunked your articles pretty well. But for the heck of it, let's take a look at one:
Here are a couple of stories I found doing a quick google news search -"prosecuted shooting intruder in head". There are over 9 pages or search results.
1. Shot a man through the door who was breaking into his house- charged with murder
http://news3lv.com/news/local/suspect-arrested-after-fatal-shooting-originally-believed-to-be-in-self-defense
You can't shoot someone through your door who because they scare you unless they are in process of breaking the door down. From the article you quoted:
"Officers initially thought it was a case of self-defense, but after further investigation, police say there was no sign of forced entry. They say Hoskins fired his gun in the hallway. The 26-year-old has now been arrested for murder."
I'm sure the results will very state to state and are not typical. We live in a country where you have to prove that your actions were justified and not obsessive to a jury of 12 randomly selected people.
And that's just the thing. Most of justified shootings and even killings don't go to trial. If they do wind up in court, in almost all cases, the defender did something incredibly stupid or wrong or the shooting was not justified as some of the cases you posted. Elephant, you are absolutely right in that laws and results do vary from state to state and people should know their laws and act accordingly.
I'm very well aware that putting any object at 900+ FPS into a another persons body causes significant amount of trauma, life threating complications and/or death. There are many stories that I have read where a shooter was justified and in compliance with laws regarding a shooting, and a jury felt otherwise. But then again there are stories of triumph and hope like the story of George Zimmerman who was acquitted by a shill jury knowing full well that protesters would riot and burn the city down to the ground and would cause nationwide civil unrest as a result. Especially when the President of the Unites States in calling Treyvon his "son".
Zimmerman is a perfect example of a stupid person doing a stupid thing. If you think there is a suspicious person in your neighborhood it is bad idea to leave the safety of your car and go looking for them. If Zimmerman had stayed in his damn car, he would never have wound up in a shooting. It looked like he was going out looking for trouble and he found it.
There is a saying coined by firearms trainer John Farnham: "Avoid stupid people, stupid places, and stupid things." You can also interpret it to mean "Avoid dangerous people, dangerous places, and dangerous things." Zimmerman 's act of leaving the safety of his car and going looking for a potentially dangerous person was a stupid thing to do, and he suffered for it. If the story had been different and Martin had jumped Zimmerman outside his house and been pounding his head into the pavement when Zimmerman had shot him the case would have been a local one, never gone to trial, or gained national attention. Remember, initially Zimmerman was interviewed by the police and allowed to go home by the police.
I would think any criminal defense attorney would advise NOT to shoot someone in the head as a first line of defense. I could be wrong though.
I guess it would be better to shoot the attacker in a place that is less likely to cause an instant stop so that maybe he can shoot you a few times.
Elephant, you talk about your concealed carry class in 2008 with reverence. Have you ever taken any training classes with any other qualified instructors?
Averageman
05-13-18, 22:54
It is a foregone conclusion the most rapid way to shut a combative human being is to destroy the central nervous system, that means the brain and spinal column, it is easier to hit the brain than the spinal column in particular if body armor is involved. At legit shoot is a legit shoot, it doesn't matter where the holes end up. I call bullshit.
Perhaps if your Attorney can't explain that to a jury of your peers, well, you might need a new Attorney.
When a boxers wants to end a fight immediately, he usually doesn't choose punches to the torso's center mass. He punches the head to immediately end the fight.
See how easy that is?
They might have been debunked but I provided what I could find. We don't know the whole story either. He said she said gets old when reading the news. And how do the police know what happened?
The reality is, is that once you use deadly force for self defense, your at the mercy of a judge, jury, prosecutor and attorney general. And not all are pro gun NRA members who will high five you and give you an "attaboy". From what I know, if just one little thing doesn't add up, or if the responding police officers have a hunch or perhaps the jury needs more information, you will quickly need to get together around $25k to retain a lawyer.
I haven't taken any classes that pertain to concealed carry law since 2008, but I remain pretty proficient with a firearm. As long as there are other people out there that get to decide whether or not my use of deadly force was justified or not or weather there may or may not have been a 1% chance a avoiding conflict all together, I will stick to the basics.
They might have been debunked but I provided what I could find. We don't know the whole story either. He said she said gets old when reading the news. And how do the police know what happened?
I previously wrote:
Find me a case where someone was in an otherwise legitimate self defense shooting and got prosecuted because they shot the attacker in the head.
You proved that you could find stories where people made incredibly bad decisions that could take things out of the justifiable self defense realm and got them charged or they wound up in court.
For example: "The homeowner said he arrived at the home, one of at least two that he owns in the Belfair, Washington, area, around 8 a.m. and noticed that a door had been kicked in, according to police.
The homeowner went inside and exchanged words with Rosa, who was in the shower at the time, police said. The homeowner left the premises without calling the police and returned with a firearm, police said.
"He returned home, retrieved a firearm, came back over to the residence and fired multiple rounds into the shower ... killing the intruder," Mason County Sheriff's Lt. Travis Adams told ABC affiliate KOMO."
A stranger taking a shower isn't exactly a threat. And once the homeowner safely left the house, any possible threat to him was over. He needed to call the police and be done with it. Him grabbing a gun and returning to the scene to shoot a burglar taking a shower makes him the aggressor. There was no unavoidable threat to human life.
I haven't taken any classes that pertain to concealed carry law since 2008, but I remain pretty proficient with a firearm. As long as there are other people out there that get to decide whether or not my use of deadly force was justified or not or weather there may or may not have been a 1% chance a avoiding conflict all together, I will stick to the basics.
Classes don't only teach you to shoot or make you a better shot. Classes cover things like better tactics-including things like the applicability of headshots and failure drills, recognizing criminals and their subtrifuges and ploys, more in-depth training and better training in legalities than you get in a short state required class or by reading internet forums. Some instructors that fit the bill who I have trained with are http://www.hardwiredtacticalshooting.com/--both instructors are retired police officers with heavy street experience who have done lethal force investigations in the line of duty and even used lethal force. They are giving a 2-day class north of Dallas in late June: https://www.eventbrite.com/o/hardwired-tactical-shooting-darryl-bolke-and-wayne-dobbs-17221904323
http://rangemaster.com/ Tom Givens is a retired cop who ran one of the biggest shooting and training facilities in Memphis. When he was a cop one of his long term assignments was as a detective investigating crimes against people--so he definitely has a strong background. The facility he ran for over 15 years was an indoor range that provided training to tens of thousands of people in TN required Concealed carry classes and more advanced classes. TN allows instructors latitude in designing the state required CCW class, so he made it a point to put together the best class he could for the 6-8 hours that the state required. He no longer operates the facility and now travels around teaching classes. Over the years he has had about 64 of his students get in shootings with criminals and come out ahead--sometimes killing the criminals.
Exactly one of those students in the 64 shooting wound up in court afterwards because he did something stupid. He was waiting in a friend's very expensive car at 1:30 am while the friend who owned it went into a convenience store for something. There were about 8 guys in the parking lot hanging out and sitting on a wall who began pointing at the car and then got off the wall and were milling around in the parking lot. Tom's student got out of the car and approached them and ordered them to leave. They took offense and wound up chasing him across a street. He fell and twisted his ankle and could not run any more. He wound up drawing his gun and shooting two of them and the others took off. The problem was by him leaving the car to confront them he was seen as initiating the confrontation.
It goes back to avoiding stupid people, stupid places. and stupid things. This guy managed to hit all three of these multiple times. Stopping in a convenience store parking lot at 1:30 AM with a sport scar that sells for well over $100k in Memphis, which has about twice the crime rate of LA, counted as a stupid thing at a stupid place. Getting out of the car to confront people and order them to leave counts an incredibly stupid thing when dealing with stupid/potentially dangerous people. Ordering them to leave was another incredibly stupid thing.
Here is a link to an article written by Tom, along with some stills from a video of one of his students shooting someone robbing her convenience store: https://americanhandgunner.com/when-citizens-fight-back/. She stepped to the side, drew and shot him.
A stranger taking a shower isn't exactly a threat. And once he left the house any possible threat to him was over. He needed to call the police and be done with it. Him grabbing a gun and returning to the scene to shoot a burglar taking a shower makes him the aggressor. There was no unavoidable threat to human life.
This is exactly my point! Others in this thread have suggested that anyone in your home is a threat and you are justified to shoot them, anyone that you "assume" is a threat can be shot. I have been saying otherwise this whole time pointing back to what my instructor taught us.
The point is, those who take action, don't get to determine weather or not our use of deadly force is justified or not. Those who take action don't get to determine weather the person shot was a threat or not.
So apparently if someone breaks into your house, takes a shower, you cannot not stand your ground, you must not take any action other than leaving your home and then calling 911? Is that right? Does that seem legit? Someone broke into your home and they are "not" a threat? Does that only pertain to an intruder who is taking a shower? What if the intruder is making a sandwich? What if the intruder was doing laundry? I guess an intruder has to fit certain criteria to be considered a threat and depending on what an intruder is doing, breaking into your home is not a legitimate threat. Why do we have castle laws again?
You cant fire your gun through a door at a person who is trying to break in. The police say there was no sign of forced entry but that doesn't mean the guy wasn't trying to get in. How else did the shooter know there was someone outside? Did the intruder ring the doorbell or knock? Maybe he called first? The shooter was in the hallway, what did they expect? To find him sitting on the couch watching TV? Where else is he suppose to go? Jump out of a window with his 10 year old? Climb up the chimney? Hide under the bed? Does an intruder have to use a department approved method of forced entry to be considered a threat? It appears so.
This is why I stand by my claim because the law in this country in not on anyone's side! The law in this country is meaningless when it can be interpreted by our own government. Like I said, if your use of deadly force doesn't fit the police, prosecutors or judges criteria, you will either go to jail or lose everything you have.
I think you and I think a lot a like but in different ways.
Here are a couple of stories I found doing a quick google news search -"prosecuted shooting intruder in head". There are over 9 pages or search results.
1. Self defense shooter shoots 3 men, 1 shot in head- charged with murder
http://wgntv.com/2017/08/13/3-intruders-shot-and-killed-by-homeowner-police-say/
2. 12 years for leaving an intruder brain dead from shooting him in head
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/article209357584.html
Here are a few doing a google news search - "prosecuted for shooting intruder".
1. Shot a man through the door who was breaking into his house- charged with murder
http://news3lv.com/news/local/suspect-arrested-after-fatal-shooting-originally-believed-to-be-in-self-defense
2. 80 year old Army Veteran with prior weapons conviction charged and jailed for shooting intruder
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-elderly-man-shoots-burglar-in-englewood-both-charged-20120326-story.html
3. Charged with 2nd degree murder for shooting intruder taking shower in his home:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/homeowner-arrested-fatally-shooting-intruder-found-shower-police/story?id=46536513
I'm sure the results will very state to state and are not typical. We live in a country where you have to prove that your actions were justified and not obsessive to a jury of 12 randomly selected people. I'm very well aware that putting any object at 900+ FPS into a another persons body causes significant amount of trauma, life threating complications and/or death. There are many stories that I have read where a shooter was justified and in compliance with laws regarding a shooting, and a jury felt otherwise. But then again there are stories of triumph and hope like the story of George Zimmerman who was acquitted by a shill jury knowing full well that protesters would riot and burn the city down to the ground and would cause nationwide civil unrest as a result. Especially when the President of the Unites States in calling Treyvon his "son".
I would think any criminal defense attorney would advise NOT to shoot someone in the head as a first line of defense. I could be wrong though.
Did you even read the stories? Non of them back up your claim. In the second to last one the shooter was a prohibited person because of a prior gun charge. WTF.
I do believe you're talking about me here as I think I'm the only one that touched on this:
This is exactly my point! Others in this thread have suggested that anyone in your home is a threat and you are justified to shoot them, anyone that you "assume" is a threat can be shot. I have been saying otherwise this whole time pointing back to what my instructor taught us..
I do believe you're a bit lacking in the reading comprehension department. I've maintained this from the beginning:
"unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment"
I highlighted words to help you. Maybe this is an indication of why you thought it was OK to give the advice to bring surg gloves, forceps and remove the bullet.
You mentioned you had 2 friends that after shooting someone they got hammered by the legal system. Not sure why you still haven't given specifics about those cases.
After some of the hinkyness in this thread I now fully understand why people like me confine their posts to websites that require vetting. At least there I know who I'm talking to and I'll get specific answers to questions...and get my butt stomped when I need it.
M4C is a good site; I've read here for a long time for the tech info. It's available without having to weed through 50 posts from JR high kids to find info.
Here's my experience with the legal system...as much as I'm willing to share.
I'm retired military - 20 yrs - and worked for the gov a few years after that. You know that internet deal of "you really don't know who you're talking to." Sometimes it's true.
A staff member on a forum accused me of doing something illegal. I contacted my attorney and it didn't go well for them. Turns out that accusation was completely false. I didn't want any money from them, just wanted them to STFU about it.
Things get a bit shakey here as people were lying to cover their butts...but the bottom line is: bunch of folks got together, drank a bunch of beer, talked a bunch of smack saying they were going to pay me a visit in retaliation for my attorney handing them their asses. Three of those geniuses actually decided to visit me.
One staff member of the site got my address from the online store and to my house they went. Problem was, I was in the middle of selling and moving, so the only thing I bought from them was shipped to my parents' house. Luckily my parents were not home at the time. All they did there was ring the doorbell, take a picture and then the geniuses told me they'd be back.
They did in fact come back. And it didn't end well for 2 of the 3.
I was awarded all kinds of money. I don't need and sure didn't want any of their tainted money, so the court ordered them to pay all my legal fees and donate the rest to a charity I named.
Outside the court building that last day, the site owner wanted to shake my hand and apologize. I'm pretty laid back until... I told him what he could do and that if he ever came anywhere near me again I'd...redacted. He took a swing at me, and I deflected it...right into my girlfriend's ear.
Back to court we went. He went to jail for 180 days. Think he served about half of it.
All in all it cost me some aggravation, time and $650.00 as I had 2 Contempt fines levied against me. I can get a bit riled up.
"Backstop" left the internet after all that...except for here. Think it's about time.
Edit: guess I best add for those slow on the uptake: No I wasn't charged with anything, didn't do any jail time, they only had my AR for about a week and I got it back in exactly the same condition, no one tried to sue me in civil court, etc.
My parents never stayed another night in that house and obviously have since moved.
I read that it was vetoed because the bill didn't require a person to have any training or permit. I understand you shouldn't need a permit to carry, but I do think training or at least proving you have the ability to shoot a paper target without missing is a necessity.
Guess how many states don't have that requirement? It's something like 26 or so states. That includes Washington and Arizona both of which have populations that are almost double that of Oklahoma.Pa as well. $50, and depending on the county, you'll have the permit that day or in a few weeks mailed to you
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Whiskey_Bravo
05-14-18, 12:18
I was going to ignore all of this but I just couldn't help myself.
A You would be surprised how many people are serving 18-26 months for shooting an intruder in the back, or shooting a mugger too many times or using deadly force when they should of used force.
.
What? Probably not very many people are serving sentences for shooting an intruder in the back because that doesn't happen very often. Shooting an intruder too many times? What does that mean? Should have used force and not deadly force? Uhhh ok.
There are many stories like these. I know in Texas, if you shoot someone in the head and it appears that the head shot was on purpose, you can get 20 years for murder. If you shoot someone too many times, a jury may see that as excessive force. I personally know 2 people who have used there concealed firearm on another person, one was at a Shell gas station in Ft Worth, the other was outside a Macaroni Grill in Grapevine and both told me that using there weapon on another person ended up costing them about $50k in lawyer/court fees- both were cleared of any foul play, wrong doing and there actions were considered justified. Why do you think the NRA offers insurance and counsel for those who use there weapon in self defense? From what I have heard and read, its not a fun experience. You will spend the better part of 6-8 months being interviewed by police, going to court and wondering if your going to be prosecuted all while being sued by the other family for damages/wrongful death.
I have no idea where to start here. 20 years for hitting them in the head? Excessive force for shooting them more than once? And you personally know two people involved in a self defense shooting? :eek:
I think its still a good idea to have a pair of latex gloves and some surgical hemostats close by if in the event you shoot someone, you can retrieve your bullet and get the hell out of there without anyone noticing.
This takes the cake. I have to assume you are trolling now. If not.....
The training is not so much focused on shooting or gun safety, those skills should already be in place when purchasing a gun. The training is on the law. If more concealed carriers knew the laws regarding using deadly force as a means of self defense, there wouldn't be 20,000 a year getting charged with felonies, misdemeanors and serving jail time for shooting someone that they assumed had intentions to hurt them. .
20,000 CHL/LTC holders are charged every year in self defense shootings? Source please, and no not some random article from a Chicago newspaper that doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
I don't know if it is still like this but in Texas back in 2008, you could qualify with either a revolver or a semi-auto pistol. If you qualified with a revolver, you were limited to only carrying a revolver, however, if you qualified with a semi-auto, you could carry either.
The classroom portion of the training that is mandatory in Texas, goes over these kinds of scenarios. A good instructor, mine was a State Trooper, will literally give you like 100 scenarios and tell why each was either justified or not justified and that will give a person an idea of when to use deadly force. Like, if you use your weapon in a vehicle while it is in motion, its considered aggravated assault- or at least it was 8 years ago when I got my permit. Also, if you are found to have not verbally identified yourself as "armed" in a situation other than the suspect known to be armed or your life is in immediate loss of life danger, you could get jail time. Most of the laws follow the same laws, guidelines and protocols that our local police have to follow except we are not allowed to chase people or peruse them in any manner. The rule of thumb is that you should have no other option available to you, cannot run away, cannot hide, cannot convince suspect to walk away, cannot call for help, you have to prove that your life was in danger and that the use of deadly force was the last option available to you. Otherwise we would still be living in the 1800s.
You say you carry every day but keep referencing the class you took from a fud back in 2008? Have you not renewed, because if you have you would know the changes. Wait, did you take the class in 2008 or 8 years ago?
The range portion was simple, the maximum points given were 300 and you had to score a minimum of 250 to pass. The range portion came first and then the classroom portion. My classroom portion had only 6 people, something like 8 people failed the range portion and couldn't progress to the classroom portion. The State Trooper that gave the class did the range first and if you passed, you continued to the next phase. If you failed, you were gone. That was the rule, you had to pass both and your range/classroom classes had to be taken together as 1 class. Those 8 people lost $140 bucks each because they couldn't hit a life size target 10 feet in front of them. That happened a lot from what I heard at the time. The instructor encouraged students to have been to a range at least 2 times within a 10 day period prior to taking a class.
What? Your class did the range portion before the classroom section? WTF kind of instructor did you have? Eff going over safety , best practices, etc first. Lets start shottin guys.
Remember, just because they can instruct a LTC class doesn't mean they know the law, or are an expert on firearms or shooting. Just like the LTC class, all you have to do is pass. The dumb shit I have seen in my original class way back when and subsequent renewals was scary. Instills a lot of confidence when you are in a renewal class and the person in the bay next to you doesn't know how to load his gun, shoot for shit, actually missed the paper multiple times but yet still passed.
Why do some accept (or complain the standard is too low) being forced to pay for a class in order to enjoy our Right to be armed?
How would that be viewed if we applied it to voting?
Averageman
05-14-18, 12:50
Why do some accept (or complain the standard is too low) being forced to pay for a class in order to enjoy our Right to be armed?
How would that be viewed if we applied it to voting?
There was someone here a couple of years ago that was advocating raising the price, raising the standards and making it more difficult to obtain.
When the rubber hit the road, what he was actually advocating was keeping the "riff raff" from concealed carry. This would have just simply made it cost prohibitive for most people.
That didn't go over well.
Every day you drive your vehicle you notice some clueless individual who is a hazard to all those who share the road with them.
If you really ever wanted to perform a regulative miracle that would save lives you would make the driving standards a little more stringent.
Voting? I've given up, it is too late.
Why do some accept (or complain the standard is too low) being forced to pay for a class in order to enjoy our Right to be armed?
How would that be viewed if we applied it to voting?
I've always taken it as a balancing act -
1) There are many folks who believe that constitutional concealed carry should be the way it is throughout the Nation.
2) There are also some who believe that concealed carry should only be for the well-trained, dedicated person. Most often they seek accomplish this by high qualification standards and high licensing fees.
3) Then there are folks who are concerned with creating barriers which prevent the lower income person from being able to CCW in an area where it may be needed more than in the suburbs or gated communities.
4) Then there are those who don't approve of CCW no way, no how.
I've always felt that low fees and minimum qualification standards were a compromise which gave some degree of lip service to all viewpoints. #1 and #4 are never going to be happy until they get their way.
As far as voting, pretty much everyone is happy as long as their side is winning. Folks that want to abrogate voting rights do so because they feel the impact will primarily benefit their side/party.
If you understand the concept of 'caging voters' ask yourself if you've every heard of a party caging it's own rolls. Didn't think so.
Look, I'm not a troll and I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right or another member is wrong. I'm not calling anyone out. I actually see a lot of members points and I agree with the underlying reasoning of the points they made. My comments about the gloves were not to be taken literal. Any use of deadly force regardless of the situation is treated as a crime at first.
I'm simply pointing out that I felt that training at least in the laws regarding concealed carrying were a good thing. And yes, I feel a person should be proficient enough to put a few rounds in center mass. The popular consensus says otherwise. By the fact that over half of the states in this country don't require any form of training, ill take that as training is unnecessary.
My links to news sites might be invalid from your point of view but does indicate that not all uses of deadly force are justified in the eyes of the law and that more and more people each year are getting charged for what they believed was an act of "self defense". And like I have said before, "self defense" and "justification" is NOT determined by you. Its determined by people who were not there and didn't see the events unfold. They make that decision based on the police statements and the testimony from witnesses if there is any.
The CCW class I took really did open my eyes to when to and when not to use deadly force. You don't have to agree with my understanding or my beliefs on how the law works but I have my reasons. We live in a world that is just not the same as it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago or even 30 years ago. Guns are a big issue right now and the right to own those guns are a bigger issue. I refuse to believe that there is any laws out there right now that really protects me or my rights. Hell, I barley believe our rights are literal rights from the way our own government interprets them. And I refuse to believe that the use of a firearm in any manner including self defense is a quick and painless experience and it a simple "tell your side of the story and your free to go home and your immune from further actions from another party".
I wont contribute to this thread anymore, but I am sticking to my original claim which is training of the law is necessary to some degree. After all, its your job to know the laws, and ignorance of the law is never allowed as a defense in court.
titsonritz
05-14-18, 15:12
Here's my experience with the legal system...as much as I'm willing to share.
I'm retired military - 20 yrs - and worked for the gov a few years after that. You know that internet deal of "you really don't know who you're talking to." Sometimes it's true.
A staff member on a forum accused me of doing something illegal. I contacted my attorney and it didn't go well for them. Turns out that accusation was completely false. I didn't want any money from them, just wanted them to STFU about it.
Things get a bit shakey here as people were lying to cover their butts...but the bottom line is: bunch of folks got together, drank a bunch of beer, talked a bunch of smack saying they were going to pay me a visit in retaliation for my attorney handing them their asses. Three of those geniuses actually decided to visit me.
One staff member of the site got my address from the online store and to my house they went. Problem was, I was in the middle of selling and moving, so the only thing I bought from them was shipped to my parents' house. Luckily my parents were not home at the time. All they did there was ring the doorbell, take a picture and then the geniuses told me they'd be back.
They did in fact come back. And it didn't end well for 2 of the 3.
Damn, rough forum.
This is exactly my point! Others in this thread have suggested that anyone in your home is a threat and you are justified to shoot them, anyone that you "assume" is a threat can be shot. I have been saying otherwise this whole time pointing back to what my instructor taught us.
The point is, those who take action, don't get to determine weather or not our use of deadly force is justified or not. Those who take action don't get to determine weather the person shot was a threat or not.
The point is you posted a bunch of stupid and unjustified shootings, and one where the person was arrested as a felon who was in possession of a firearm.
In TX you can use deadly physical force to prevent or terminate a burglary of an occupied dwelling--that includes a house, car, or place of business, hotel room. The theory is, if someone has broken into your dwelling, their criminal act and their presence has put you in fear of your life. They may have a hidden weapon or a burglary tool like a screwdriver that they can use with lethal effect. Google Tueller drills. Someone with a hand weapon can cover 21 feet in less than 2 seconds at a rush. Also, you could be dealing with someone who is on drugs and has superhuman strength and is impervious to pain and not in his right mind. You could be dealing with someone who spent 20 years in prison and is used to beating the shit out of people. You have no idea who the intruder is, his presence puts you in fear of your life. Therefore you are justified in using lethal force to terminate the situation.
The situation you presented was an anomaly. First, the person was in Washington state, not TX, which have their own rules. Secondly, the person who kicked down the door was naked and in a shower at the time. Unless he had a knife or screwdriver hidden up his ass, he was unarmed. He was naked in a shower, not advancing on the homeowner.
Once the homeowner left, any threat to him was gone. The threatening situation was over. He should have called the police and let them handle it. Instead he retrieved a weapon from elsewhere and returned and shot the person to death. Him returning to the situation made him the aggressor in an otherwise avoidable shooting. The only thing that might have justified it is if he had children in the home and feared that the intruder was some type of pervert who was a threat to their safety.
A generic national description of when you can uses deadly force is against "an otherwise unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily injury." The shower shooter had avoided the situation by leaving. Once you leave such a situation the threat is gone. In most circumstances you cannot go back and confront the threat after you have safely left because that makes you the aggressor.
You cant fire your gun through a door at a person who is trying to break in. The police say there was no sign of forced entry but that doesn't mean the guy wasn't trying to get in. How else did the shooter know there was someone outside? Did the intruder ring the doorbell or knock? Maybe he called first? The shooter was in the hallway, what did they expect? To find him sitting on the couch watching TV? Where else is he suppose to go? Jump out of a window with his 10 year old? Climb up the chimney? Hide under the bed? Does an intruder have to use a department approved method of forced entry to be considered a threat? It appears so.
The shooter fired the shot from the hallway. From the description of what the police found there was no signs of forced entry. Maybe the guy outside banged on the door aggressively or yelled curses--I don't know. That's not justification for shooting someone through a door. Also, that shooting happened in Nevada, which is a different state and has different laws than TX.
Here is a famous shooting that happened in Dallas in a similar situation. A drunken musician on drugs tried to break down his neighbors door. The neighbor fired one shot through the door, killing him. No charges were filed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Albrecht. The home defender got off lucky because his story was that he fired a warning shot through the door that just happened to hit the 6'5" intruder in the head. Warning shots are generally regarded as a no-no. If the defender said that from the pounding the door was taking it looked like it was going to be battered down and he feared for his life and fired in an attempt to terminate an attempted burglary it would have been a different story.
My links to news sites might be invalid from your point of view but does indicate that not all uses of deadly force are justified in the eyes of the law and that more and more people each year are getting charged for what they believed was an act of "self defense". And like I have said before, "self defense" and "justification" is NOT determined by you. Its determined by people who were not there and didn't see the events unfold. They make that decision based on the police statements and the testimony from witnesses if there is any.
You posted a bunch of links to people who did stupid things and shot in situations when lethal force was not justified in states other than Texas and suffered the legal consequences.
I wont contribute to this thread anymore, but I am sticking to my original claim which is training of the law is necessary to some degree. After all, its your job to know the laws, and ignorance of the law is never allowed as a defense in court.
And I agree with this. This is the reason that I hesitantly support the requirement for a class that covers the laws of self defense before granting someone a permit to carry a concealed (or open handgun) in public.
My reservations, as I noted before, is that the state may somehow use this to make it difficult for an average person to get the permit by doing things such as limiting the number of classes offered in a year, making the shooting test too difficult, etc.
You posted a bunch of links to people who did stupid things and shot in situations when lethal force was not justified in states other than Texas and suffered the legal consequences.
And I agree with this. This is the reason that I hesitantly support the requirement for a class that covers the laws of self defense before granting someone a permit to carry a concealed (or open handgun) in public.
My reservations, as I noted before, is that the state may somehow use this to make it difficult for an average person to get the permit by doing things such as limiting the number of classes offered in a year, making the shooting test too difficult, etc.
My biggest reservation is that with an issued "permit" the government has a readily accessible database of (probable) gun owners.
Permission slips and required classes for rights is BS. Period.
I posit that such "minimum required training" actually does more harm than good. Tell someone all you need is X for this and the vast majority never go beyond that point of training or knowledge as it has been deemed sufficient.
Just like with the driving test to get a license, it's a joke and most folks never take actual defensive or offensive driving classes or further their driving training/education. What is required to get a drivers license- a troglodyte could navigate and pass.
CCW licenses and training don't do shit for making anyone safer. Just like drivers licenses and drivers ed doesn't do shit.
It's a laugh.
I believe in training and mastering skills, but minimum requirements in order to have a Right is wrong and does absolutely nothing for keeping anyone "safer".
If the liberals really want better trained people, reintroduce firearms safety classes as mandatory in public schools for all age groups. Don't even have to do live fire training. Just teach and imprint coopers rules into people's heads and it would do vastly more than any 2 hour long 20 shots fired at 10' CCW class.
ETA:
Screw the governor of OK! It's so infuriating that our elected officials who swore an oath will so easily defy that same oath to office and defile the Constitution.
Hell, this was a bill to restore a Right bestowed upon us by our birth and codified in our founding document and supreme law of the land. And it got vetoed.
Bunch of effing cucks!
As a street cop in Phoenix I’m just not seeing this glaring issue of untrained armed people making horrible decisions and having bad shoots. The blood has not been flowing in the streets like the democrats here predicted.
How about we start teaching gun safety, marsksmanship, and the law in our schools. When everyone knows how to shoot and when it’s legal to shoot, none of this is necessary.
As a street cop in Phoenix I’m just not seeing this glaring issue of untrained armed people making horrible decisions and having bad shoots. The blood has not been flowing in the streets like the democrats here predicted.
When Kansas was discussing CHL'ing, one of my concerns was that they would price it out of the range of some single mom living in a bad neighborhood who might actually have need more often than someone living in the suburbs. IMO that objective was met, it really isn't out of the reach of the vast majority of our citizens.
A second concern was that we would have incidents of folks getting in arguments over parking spaces or who cut who off and going to guns. The really never materialized, in Kansas or Nationally.
How about we start teaching gun safety, marsksmanship, and the law in our schools. When everyone knows how to shoot and when it’s legal to shoot, none of this is necessary.
I think that very often it is easy to lose track of the fact that not everyone is as passionate about firearms and the Second Amendment as many of us are.
The other thing is, there are very few people who are actually competent to teach use-of-force to concealed carry practitioners. Just because you are an attorney doesn't mean you are qualified, just because you are, or were, a police officer doesn't mean you are qualified.
If the schools were required to teach this, you'd end up with Coach Smith teaching it when he isn't teaching Driver's Ed or recruiting out-of-district kids for the football team.
As kind of an off-shoot of this: I think that very often it is easy to lose track of the fact that not everyone is as passionate about firearms and the Second Amendment as many of us are I began to wonder how many people actually have CHL licenses? Here's what I found:
According to the Kansas Attorney General, since January 2007 Kansas has issued 83,543 concealed carry licenses. With a population of 2,350,345 that figures to just 3.6% of folks 21 or over holding concealed carry permits.
http://ag.ks.gov/docs/default-source/documents/licenses-issued-by-county.pdf?sfvrsn=e992c11a_32
https://suburbanstats.org/population/how-many-people-live-in-kansas
How does that compare to other states? This website gives you an idea (Note: the Kansas numbers did not jive with the Kansas AG's website): https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/
Using that site and 2010 census statistics, this is what I came up with:
U.S. population 21 or older: 220,958,853 https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
Concealed carry permits in the United States: 16,358,844
This equals about 7.4% /1 in 13.5 Americans age 21 or over with concealed carry permits.
Do those numbers surprise you?
As kind of an off-shoot of this: I think that very often it is easy to lose track of the fact that not everyone is as passionate about firearms and the Second Amendment as many of us are I began to wonder how many people actually have CHL licenses? Here's what I found:
According to the Kansas Attorney General, since January 2007 Kansas has issued 83,543 concealed carry licenses. With a population of 2,350,345 that figures to just 3.6% of folks 21 or over holding concealed carry permits.
http://ag.ks.gov/docs/default-source/documents/licenses-issued-by-county.pdf?sfvrsn=e992c11a_32
https://suburbanstats.org/population/how-many-people-live-in-kansas
How does that compare to other states? This website gives you an idea (Note: the Kansas numbers did not jive with the Kansas AG's website): https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/
Using that site and 2010 census statistics, this is what I came up with:
U.S. population 21 or older: 220,958,853 https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
Concealed carry permits in the United States: 16,358,844
This equals about 7.4% /1 in 13.5 Americans age 21 or over with concealed carry permits.
Do those numbers surprise you?
I’m actually surprised it’s that high.
It does that national number take into account multiple permits held by the same person?
As kind of an off-shoot of this: I think that very often it is easy to lose track of the fact that not everyone is as passionate about firearms and the Second Amendment as many of us are I began to wonder how many people actually have CHL licenses? Here's what I found:
According to the Kansas Attorney General, since January 2007 Kansas has issued 83,543 concealed carry licenses. With a population of 2,350,345 that figures to just 3.6% of folks 21 or over holding concealed carry permits.
http://ag.ks.gov/docs/default-source/documents/licenses-issued-by-county.pdf?sfvrsn=e992c11a_32
https://suburbanstats.org/population/how-many-people-live-in-kansas
How does that compare to other states? This website gives you an idea (Note: the Kansas numbers did not jive with the Kansas AG's website): https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/
Using that site and 2010 census statistics, this is what I came up with:
U.S. population 21 or older: 220,958,853 https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
Concealed carry permits in the United States: 16,358,844
This equals about 7.4% /1 in 13.5 Americans age 21 or over with concealed carry permits.
Do those numbers surprise you?
No. Sounds about right. Venture to guess the #/% of people in the USA who carry concealed regardless of "the law" and don't get CCW permission slips? I'd bet that number and percentage is higher than most might think.
I am a big fan of playing the grown up game. When someone makes the decision to purchase a firearm for home defense or to carry daily, it is incumbent on them to to seek out training and learn the laws. If they fail to do so, that is on them.
titsonritz
05-15-18, 01:40
I am a big fan of playing the grown up game. When someone makes the decision to purchase a firearm for home defense or to carry daily, it is incumbent on them to to seek out training and learn the laws. If they fail to do so, that is on them.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Not a difficult concept.
I am a big fan of playing the grown up game. When someone makes the decision to purchase a firearm for home defense or to carry daily, it is incumbent on them to to seek out training and learn the laws. If they fail to do so, that is on them.
Stop being logical and all that Jazz. Logic, common sense all went to the moon base with Elvis and Marylin.
Look, I'm not a troll and I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right or another member is wrong. I'm not calling anyone out. I actually see a lot of members points and I agree with the underlying reasoning of the points they made. My comments about the gloves were not to be taken literal. Any use of deadly force regardless of the situation is treated as a crime at first.
I'm simply pointing out that I felt that training at least in the laws regarding concealed carrying were a good thing. And yes, I feel a person should be proficient enough to put a few rounds in center mass. The popular consensus says otherwise. By the fact that over half of the states in this country don't require any form of training, ill take that as training is unnecessary.
My links to news sites might be invalid from your point of view but does indicate that not all uses of deadly force are justified in the eyes of the law and that more and more people each year are getting charged for what they believed was an act of "self defense". And like I have said before, "self defense" and "justification" is NOT determined by you. Its determined by people who were not there and didn't see the events unfold. They make that decision based on the police statements and the testimony from witnesses if there is any.
The CCW class I took really did open my eyes to when to and when not to use deadly force. You don't have to agree with my understanding or my beliefs on how the law works but I have my reasons. We live in a world that is just not the same as it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago or even 30 years ago. Guns are a big issue right now and the right to own those guns are a bigger issue. I refuse to believe that there is any laws out there right now that really protects me or my rights. Hell, I barley believe our rights are literal rights from the way our own government interprets them. And I refuse to believe that the use of a firearm in any manner including self defense is a quick and painless experience and it a simple "tell your side of the story and your free to go home and your immune from further actions from another party".
I wont contribute to this thread anymore, but I am sticking to my original claim which is training of the law is necessary to some degree. After all, its your job to know the laws, and ignorance of the law is never allowed as a defense in court.
This statement is why you have received such negative pushback. Your understanding of the laws in Texas is simply incorrect. Furthermore, what you believe the law is means absolutely nothing. The law does not care what you think it is, because it simply is what it is. If anything, I would suggest you drop in on another class, hopefully a better one, and get a little more current. There are lots of stupid people out there, and you don't want to accidentally misinform them based of your incorrect information.
Good call on walking away from the keyboard.
Stay Safe.
Had an armed suspect waltz into a restaurant firing this evening in OKC. As the suspect left, was confronted by armed citizen and a gunfight ensued leaving the suspect dead.
Good job Mary... next time there might not be a licensed holder nearby. Same for Chief Citty for supporting her veto.
http://m.news9.com/Story.aspx?story=38274025&catId=112032
platoonDaddy
05-24-18, 20:48
Another plus for an armed citizen!
Man opens fire inside Oklahoma restaurant before 'armed citizen' shoots, kills him, police say
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/24/man-opens-fire-inside-oklahoma-restaurant-before-armed-citizen-shoots-kills-him-police-say.html
BuzzinSATX
05-24-18, 22:12
And?? In Texas, The Greatest State in the US, has mandatory shooting with its mandatory class. Its not a bad thing. We learn what situations to use force or to use deadly force, where to and where not to carry a firearm and what steps are to be taken in the event you use deadly force with your firearm. You would be surprised how many people are serving 18-26 months for shooting an intruder in the back, or shooting a mugger too many times or using deadly force when they should of used force.
Plus the range portion of the class is good. In Texas, you have to qualify with at least a 9mm and qualify with either a revolver or semi-automatic. We had to shoot 5 rounds in under 5 seconds at a paper target 15 feet in front of us, 10 rounds in 5 seconds of a paper target 5 feet in front of us, 3 rounds in 5 seconds at a paper target 25 feet in front of us and 4 sets of 2 rounds in under 2 seconds at a paper target 20 feet in front of us. And you had to pass with flying colors. Cant shoot anywhere near the head- that will get you 20 years. There were at least 1/2 of our class that couldn't hit the paper target which is the same size as the range stall you are shooting out of.
The last thing you want is people carrying firearms who cant shoot and don't know the laws regarding when to use deadly force.
....
When it comes to 2A rights, TX is far from best. AZ has us beat, as does WY, AK, NH, ME, VT, and others.
TX CHL class is good for legal info, but that could all be provided for free from TX via web class or You Tube type video. Shooting portion is a joke that shouldn’t be necessary
Again, $ is the issue I think...both for state and the folks who teach the class.
We don’t need a class to exercise 1A rights...why 2A?
Update this morning from OCPD; of note, was engaged and stopped by not one, but two citizens.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180525/bbfa6f9a58f9452b86539a5e74a8114a.jpg
Out of curiosity, were the two citizens who intervened outside when this occurred or did they follow the shooter out?
Out of curiosity, were the two citizens who intervened outside when this occurred or did they follow the shooter out?
Nothing solidified but have heard they retrieved their pistols from their cars then engaged the suspect as he tried to flee.
OCPD commended them during a press conference for acting “valiantly”.
Nothing solidified but have heard they retrieved their pistols from their cars then engaged the suspect as he tried to flee.
OCPD commended them during a press conference for acting “valiantly”.
Thanks. I agree with OCPD.
platoonDaddy
05-26-18, 12:52
Also heard that the shooter had a carry permit, to my knowledge, this is the 1st case of a permit holder in a mass shooting. Frig libs are going to play this up.
This guy appeared to be bent on shooting someone regardless of carry status. Cop said he was wearing ear and eye protection similar to what a person would wear at a range. Would be interesting to know his motive, if he had one.
Dionysusigma
05-26-18, 14:56
Would be interesting to know his motive, if he had one.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCDYWxRa6pGAq-al2R4GEOAw/videos#
Link to the perp's YouTube channel. Schizophrenia.
Well, at least the OSBI Director is honest:
The bureau of investigation, which issues handgun licenses, had said the bill would cost the agency about $4.7 million annually and result in the loss of about 60 full-time positions.
"The impact on public safety is unquantifiable," bureau Director Bob Ricks said in a statement.
Now, that is a new spin:
Enacting more firearms regulations creates new jobs, relaxing regulations costs jobs.
And any local businesses that object could simply put up those "no guns" signs which would simply require people to carry concealed as before. The loss of jobs thing is bullshit, we don't need commissars anyway.
Also heard that the shooter had a carry permit, to my knowledge, this is the 1st case of a permit holder in a mass shooting. Frig libs are going to play this up.
This guy appeared to be bent on shooting someone regardless of carry status. Cop said he was wearing ear and eye protection similar to what a person would wear at a range. Would be interesting to know his motive, if he had one.
He was certified as an Armed Security Guard by CLEET (our version of POST). CLEET is in such disarray as an organization there is discussion of disbanding it or transferring responsibilities to the Department of Public Safety (Highway Patrol).
Things have gotten so bad; at the state academy they no longer teach driving and no longer shoot and qualify with any long guns, pistols only. The place is a joke.
(Very blessed we have our own in-house academy!)
So to hear he was carded is not surprising.
He was certified as an Armed Security Guard by CLEET (our version of POST). CLEET is in such disarray as an organization there is discussion of disbanding it or transferring responsibilities to the Department of Public Safety (Highway Patrol).
Things have gotten so bad; at the state academy they no longer teach driving and no longer shoot and qualify with any long guns, pistols only. The place is a joke.
(Very blessed we have our own in-house academy!)
So to hear he was carded is not surprising.
I'm sorry to hear that CLEET is in such disarray.
I don't want to get into a peeing match about agencies, that isn't my intent.
I've been around training since 1979. In that time I've visited states that had the State Police or Highway Patrol running training.
Not saying this would be the case in Oklahoma, but in most of the examples I've seen the local LEO's get short shrift.
It's danged if you do and danged if you don't - if you intermix classes (which none that I know of currently do) you get more emphasis on highway patrol stuff (not just traffic - but agency specific stuff) that isn't relevant to the local LEO.
If you run separate classes then I believe there is a tendency for the staff to not give their best effort, or constantly remind the recruits they ain't HP. I've heard this from Troops who work at those Academies.
I think the best thing would be to run everyone through the same initial, say 9 weeks of training as a group, that way your Troopers, your Deputies, and your City Officers all have something in common. Maybe have an assigned basic class number and a graduation for 'Law Enforcement Core Competency Class #101.' Once again, this would give all officers in the state commonality and hopefully collegiality.
Then let the Troopers go on to their Agency's training and the other officers finish the State Academy's training. Then the final graduation and certification as LEO's.
I think one of CLEET's problems was funding, wasn't it? Probably politics was another, huh?
I'm sorry to hear that CLEET is in such disarray.
I don't want to get into a peeing match about agencies, that isn't my intent.
I've been around training since 1979. In that time I've visited states that had the State Police or Highway Patrol running training.
Not saying this would be the case in Oklahoma, but in most of the examples I've seen the local LEO's get short shrift.
It's danged if you do and danged if you don't - if you intermix classes (which none that I know of currently do) you get more emphasis on highway patrol stuff (not just traffic - but agency specific stuff) that isn't relevant to the local LEO.
If you run separate classes then I believe there is a tendency for the staff to not give their best effort, or constantly remind the recruits they ain't HP. I've heard this from Troops who work at those Academies.
I think the best thing would be to run everyone through the same initial, say 9 weeks of training as a group, that way your Troopers, your Deputies, and your City Officers all have something in common. Maybe have an assigned basic class number and a graduation for 'Law Enforcement Core Competency Class #101.' Once again, this would give all officers in the state commonality and hopefully collegiality.
Then let the Troopers go on to their Agency's training and the other officers finish the State Academy's training. Then the final graduation and certification as LEO's.
I think one of CLEET's problems was funding, wasn't it? Probably politics was another, huh?
Finding was one issue. It’s always been somewhat of a joke and certainly was when I attended in 2005. It’s really been designed for “no officer left behind” and it only got worse when they opened their new facility.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.