Kimber Talk Forums banner
1 - 20 of 195 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After another shooting in Santa Barbara on Friday I thought to myself "if only someone had a permit to carry had been there to stop this guy".

My question is, if someone is going on a rampage and shooting anyone in sight, do we have the right to defend ourselves and others even though that person isn't pointing the weapon at me at that moment???

Maybe one of the LEO on the forum can clear this up....Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,761 Posts
Depends on the state law.

In Georgia we have the right to defend ourselves and others from attack. These rights will be strengthened on July 1 when the latest new laws go into effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roketdoc

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
Arizona
13-404. Justification; self-defense
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or
2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or
3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.


13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

13-406. Justification; defense of a third person
A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Retreat.

In some states, human life is held more sacred than the ordinary categories where self-defense, including deadly force, may be justified if the victim of the crime can retreat or and fails to retreat to the wall. What this means is if there is a safe way to leave or flee the crime, the victim must do so until he “hits a wall” or barrier where he or she can no longer safely do so. It is only at “the wall” that the justification to use deadly force becomes valid.

This is why I wondered if I am not specifically the target but maybe a random target and I have the option to retreat would this be a justified cause for me to protect someone else from bodily harm??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,761 Posts
Down here we have NO obligation to retreat.


Bottom line, if a person(s) threatens violence against me or another person, they my end the day with a cap in their ass, to use the vernacular. Conceal carry is very popular around here, so the perp will never know where the defender may come from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck66

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,178 Posts
OK in Florida. You can use deadly force to stop any forcible felony, including rape and treason.

I really doubt, though, that an armed citizen would have been very effective in the California shooting. You have a guy driving a car and shooting, and it is a very difficult situation.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,430 Posts
Illinois Law on the Use of Deadly Force

Illinois law allows a person to use deadly force ONLY under the following circumstances:

IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON

A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony. 720 ILCS 5/7-1

OR

IN DEFENSE OF A DWELLING

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:


(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling. 720 ILCS 5/7-2(a)(1) & (2)


OR

IN DEFENSE OF OTHER PROPERTY
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
720 ILCS 5/7-3

"Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. 720 ILCS 5/2-8
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
OK in Florida. You can use deadly force to stop any forcible felony, including rape and treason.

I really doubt, though, that an armed citizen would have been very effective in the California shooting. You have a guy driving a car and shooting, and it is a very difficult situation.
This guy shot 3 girls outside of a sorority house when he couldn't get inside.
If I'm walking or driving by I wouldn't have the stones "not" to help but wondered if then would I be in trouble since I wasn't involved from the start..?
I guess that would be a damned if you do damned if you don't moment but I would have to just face the music because I would have to help..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,178 Posts
This guy shot 3 girls outside of a sorority house when he couldn't get inside.
If I'm walking or driving by I wouldn't have the stones "not" to help but wondered if then would I be in trouble since I wasn't involved from the start..?
I guess that would be a damned if you do damned if you don't moment but I would have to just face the music because I would have to help..
I don't think you would be in trouble anywhere,
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,430 Posts
As much as I envy the guys that live in states where they only have to apply for a carry permit and if they have a clear background they are issued I feel that it should be mandatory for them to know the law that goes along with it. No offense intended towards Jeff or anyone else but having a carry permit and not knowing when or under what circumstances the gun can be used to defend a life is just wrong. As much as I dislike the mandatory classroom hours required to get a permit in Illinois it has it's upside you are taught exactly what the law says you can or can't do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I can sit here for hours and read all about Missouri laws and it's put in such legal terms that the normal person can't interpret what it means.
That being said, I would hate to get a anti-gun prosecutor that wants to make a name for himself and make an example out of someone who helped defuse a situation with bodily force..
Now back to reading our state carry laws..
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,430 Posts
I can sit here for hours and read all about Missouri laws and it's put in such legal terms that the normal person can't interpret what it means.
That being said, I would hate to get a anti-gun prosecutor that wants to make a name for himself and make an example out of someone who helped defuse a situation with bodily force..
Now back to reading our state carry laws..
The better licensed training centers for concealed carry in Illinois have a lawyer come in and put those confusing terms and statements into everyday language that the average Joe can understand.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,430 Posts
The main reason I didn't jump on the bandwagon the day the law went into effect was because I knew there would be crooked schools and law changes. With the credentials I have I qualify for an 8 hour credit on the classroom but I'm opting for the full 16 hours. It took almost 3 full months for the first permits to be issued but now that the initial rush is over and the bugs have been worked out it's taking about 30 days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
Retreat.

In some states, human life is held more sacred than the ordinary categories where self-defense, including deadly force, may be justified if the victim of the crime can retreat or and fails to retreat to the wall. What this means is if there is a safe way to leave or flee the crime, the victim must do so until he "hits a wall" or barrier where he or she can no longer safely do so. It is only at "the wall" that the justification to use deadly force becomes valid.

This is why I wondered if I am not specifically the target but maybe a random target and I have the option to retreat would this be a justified cause for me to protect someone else from bodily harm??
Not that one may not exist, but I cannot think of any state that require you to stand idly by watching others be slain waiting till you are personally threatened to take action. In fact I would rather act in the defense of a third party than myself. It is easier since the suspects attention is focused on another it would be to my tactical advantage to flank and kill him under such circumstances.

Since we acting in defense mode not offense are generally reactive not proactive, gaining back an advantage can be difficult without good training and a range that allows such training.

I feel sorry for those whose only accessible range facilities are those stalls and lanes that require shooting from a table, one direction, only one target at a time and slow fire etc etc etc. hardly preparation for a real world conflict.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,430 Posts
I feel sorry for those whose only accessible range facilities are those stalls and lanes that require shooting from a table, one direction, only one target at a time and slow fire etc etc etc. hardly preparation for a real world conflict.
That's my world, every range within an hours driving time is like that, they say it's because of insurance but it's a money maker for them on real busy days. You break a rule and you're gone for the day, they take the next guys money and move him in your place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,761 Posts
Get some pointers from Dr. Mike. :D

BTW, I discovered our table range will allow semi-rapid fire of handguns, approx. 1 per second. This is helpful when trying to learn recoil control. Still, no holster draw unless it's part of a class they are teaching. Too much risk of shooting next stall or possibly observers behind the line (if you're really bad.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
You boys should come to Az for a week of fun!
Actually I was rather serious about it.

Now back to reloading. The shop is to hot right now to finish the guns on my bench. It's 94 outside and hotter in the garage. But the re loaders are in the air conditioned den!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
Generally speaking, all of our criminal laws are based upon the "reasonable man theorem".

That is: would a reasonable man conclude, or come to the same conclusion as, the actions taken.
The problem with offering hypotheticals is that there really is no answer.

My personal feeling is this, if one assumes the responsibility of carrying a weapon, then they also assume the responsibility of being reasonable with it's use. Part of that reasoning is the question that must be asked. "If necessary, could I shoot someone?" If your answer to that question is, "I don't know!". Leave your weapon at home.
 
1 - 20 of 195 Posts
Top