When CCW saves peoples lives thread.

[einhander]

I know, I was responding to Parsies sarcastic comment!

No more sarcastic posts. Promise.

[ParsedOut]

I know, I was responding to Parsies sarcastic comment!

No more sarcastic posts. Promise.

There was no sarcasm in your post. It's just further proof that the only stance you have is the one that will stir up the most shit at the time. I have no respect for trolls, much less trolls without any sort of real beliefs... I have nothing further to say.

[einhander]

i have nothing further to say.

Hallelujah

[mrsleeve]

Well not really CCW but an EVIL AR-15 "SEAL ASSAULT GUN" was used by a home owner to defend his life and home after a man breaks in and shoots at him 1st.....

http://www.wral.com/homeowner-shoots-intruder-in-vance-county-break-in/13638825/

Henderson, N.C. — A Henderson homeowner defended himself against a home invasion Monday morning, shooting an intruder who kicked in his door.

Jonathan Haith said he was sleeping in his home at around 9:45 a.m. when he heard a light knock on his backdoor.

He ignored it at first. Then he heard a louder sound.

"I heard the loud bang in the laundry room area," he said.

Someone kicked in the door. Haith grabbed the AR-15 rifle he keeps under his bed.

"I crouched down, grabbed the firearm and was walking up the hallway," he said. "As soon as I poked my head around the corner I saw a tall male standing there with a gun."

Haith said he surprised the intruder.

"He shot first, I shot second," he said. "He missed and I reckon I connected."

The man was struck in the stomach. He ran out of the home, and collapsed across the street in a church parking lot.

Police were also able to apprehend a man who was waiting outside in a car.

"I guess I did the right thing," Haith said. "I just reacted the best way possible.

Vance County investigators have not released any information about the shooting, including the name of the intruder or his condition.

[DER E30]

Well not really CCW but an EVIL AR-15 "SEAL ASSAULT GUN" was used by a home owner to defend his life and home after a man breaks in and shoots at him 1st.....

http://www.wral.com/homeowner-shoots...k-in/13638825/

The homeowner was justified. Intruder with gun that shot first!

Edit: If I was shot at by the intruder and I had an AR, I'd shoot till he's down... WOW

[smooth]

Well not really CCW...a home owner [...] defend[s] his life and home after a man breaks in and shoots at him 1st.....

then why post the story? what relevance do you think this has about the debate on whether people should carry concealed weapons in public spaces?

[mrsleeve]

because its a lawful defense with a firearm and it fits best in here Vs all the other firearms debate threads, and why start another thread over semantics???

[smooth]

it's not semantics. there is a major difference between carrying firearms in public and home defense.

[mrsleeve]

yes its pure semantics. our rights to defend our selves dont stop at our property line or front door nor should it. Many states recognize this fact, yours does not, with its 1st duty to retreat clause in its self defense statutes including with in your own home....

Its not the job or duty of the police or the govt proxy to defend mine or my families lives form criminals

[smooth]

Many states recognize this fact, yours does not, with its 1st duty to retreat clause in its self defense statutes including with in your own home....

why do you parrot shit you hear somewhere without fact-checking?
it took me all of 3 seconds to google this for you...

California Penal Code Section 198.5

Legal Research Home > California Laws > Penal Code > California Penal Code Section 198.5

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

in public, not only is one justified in "standing ground" but also pursuit if necessary:

“A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf#page=289

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf#page=295

[mrsleeve]

It was something I read a long while back that has stuck in my brain I will retract that.

That said

California Castle law allows a home’s occupant to use deadly force, without retreating, if an intruder creates a “reasonable fear of imminent peril or death or great bodily injury.” But a simple burglary that doesn’t create fear of great bodily harm isn’t enough to justify deadly force. The court may have to decide what is “reasonable fear”.

http://www.elliottnkanter.com/2013/07/19/what-is-the-duty-to-retreat-rule-in-california/

This muddies the waters about home defense, it forces the occupant to ascertain the the intentions of the intruder. If you shoot an unarmed intruder in the back, there is no threat to your life or limb so there for your actions are not justified even in your own home. Unlike most castle doctrines that automatically assume an unwanted intruder in your home has malicious intent and allows you to act accordingly with out having to ascertain the intruders intentions 1st....

[smooth]

It was something I read a long while back that has stuck in my brain I will retract that.

That said

http://www.elliottnkanter.com/2013/07/19/what-is-the-duty-to-retreat-rule-in-california/

This muddies the waters about home defense, it forces the occupant to ascertain the the intentions of the intruder. If you shoot an unarmed intruder in the back, there is no threat to your life or limb so there for your actions are not justified even in your own home. Unlike most castle doctrines that automatically assume an unwanted intruder in your home has malicious intent and allows you to act accordingly with out having to ascertain the intruders intentions 1st....

even though laws are written with precision you can't really conclude that people are prosecuted for protecting their homes. For that, you need to look at actual cases like this one last week:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/05/two-teenage-boys-shot-dead-in-california-during-burglary-attempt/?intcmp=latestnews

we also have laws that say criminals must have mens era to be culpable but as everyone knows, "ignorance is no defense" of the law.

warrantless searches and seizures are bounded by constraints like officers must have "probable cause" and that "reasonable suspicion" is not sufficient...yet in practice there is no such barrier unless an officer stupidly testifies that he or she did *not* have probable cause.

so unless a homeowner argued that he or she was not in danger of his or her life yet shot to kill anyway there would be no issue. unless you want legislation that protects defendants like Pistorious and allows them to shoot at their ex girlfriends who locked themselves in the bathroom.

it's not like rocket science. the jury is instructed about the relevant protections and the judge decides whether a reasonable person would be in fear. not the defendant, not the jury, not the judge...any "reasonable" person under the law. and given that our state's self defense and castle doctrines have been on the books for over a hundred years it's not like some newfangled notion. it's well established case law that goes back hundreds of years in common law doctrine.

don't eat up all the horseshit from political blogs without fact checking.

but again, this isn't relevant to CCW. not one bit. the only people who disagree with home defense are pacifists and theirs is ethical objection not legal objection.

[frankenbeemer]

but again, this isn't relevant to CCW. not one bit. the only people who disagree with home defense are pacifists and theirs is ethical objection not legal objection.

Interested in your distinctions between self defense "in the home" as opposed to "in public".

[smooth]

your home is your property. I'm not interested in telling you what to do in your home. I don't think it's safe for you to keep a gun in the home, statistics are clear that gun owners present more of a danger to themselves than invading strangers present to them, and I wouldn't have one in my house if I had children. That's my personal choice but I'm still not going to get in the way of your choices as to how you choose to defend yourself and family in the confines of your own property.

The only caveat is I think there needs to be some level of discussion about how to make sure you remain a responsible gun owner--how to keep it out of the hands of children and criminals. I don't even care, from a legal standpoint, if you choose to shoot yourself in the face.

Some people, like pacifists, think that guns are bad or evil or whatever, and that you shouldn't have a weapon or harm someone over property on principle. So they might make an argument against you possessing a weapon even in your own home.


I don't have anything to do with any of that. My concern is when I'm out in public. I have a right to lobby my politicians and support laws that limit your ability to carry and brandish weapons in public. I don't want that shit around my kids, I don't want people who think they're dimestore cowboys trying to save my life, I don't want vigilantes trying to take matters into their own hands. When I'm in public spaces I have a right to limit your behavior because it's both of our space--not yours and not mine. We, as a society, limit what people do in public that we don't limit when they are on private property for a whole range of behaviors.

The point is that home invasion stories are for another thread. Carrying a concealed weapon in public is an issue totally separate from possessing a firearm in one's home. So stories about saving lives while defending one's home is not relevant to this thread--demonstrating that carrying hidden weapons in public actually makes people more safe.

The only reason he posted that story is because the thread has run its course. After the initial spate of stories the well has run dry. There should be hundreds of thousands of stories of saved lives if the numbers are to be believed, but so far there hasn't been any such evidence despite how long this thread has lived.

[frankenbeemer]

That's completely understandable. I share your concern about irresponsible toters and vigilantes, but I am responsible and proficient. I don't want my right of self defense limited.