Mindsets, many need to work on this.

4902 Views 51 Replies 14 Participants Last post by henryher, May 21, 2009

MPDC66

Discussion Starter · Apr 30, 2009 (Edited)

I have found it very interesting watching the questions, opinions and responses here regarding proper or improper actions and use of weapons in various situations.

One theme comes through, again and again, that some look for a loophole or way to justify discharging their weapon even though they clearly have reservations as to the legality of doing it.

One thing pounded into Police Cadets and Probationary Officers is the difference between Protection of Life and Property and the Execution of suspected miscreants. The Policeman is trained to always look for the least destructive means to preserve the peace and protect the lives of EVERYONE INVOLVED IN AN INCIDENT. There is too much room for error and mindset can have you misread a situation based on your anxiousness to act heroically in some dreamed of scenario where you save the day.

Many probationary Officers are terminated for what we used to call a "Cowboy Complex". That is, creating or escalating dangerous situations into tragic or catastrophic incidents. Challenging as opposed to reasoning, escalating as opposed to diffusing a tense situation.

It is even more dangerous for a Civilian CCW License holder. Our mindsets should be purely defensive and with a view to save our lives and those of innocents. That does NOT include the inclination to take the life of BGs. IT IS NOT OUR JOB OR MANDATE and can destroy YOUR LIFE if you make a bad judgement because you either don't understand the legal limitations of your right to use deadly force OR have an erroneous mindset about how the world should work. Your outlook may be popular and good for letting of steam about the injustices we see in our judicial system BUT you need to be aware you are in danger of feeling the full weight of that system IF you get overzealous and take matters into your own hands when you could avoid it without endangering your life or the lives of innocent people.

Don't get me wrong, I wish the world was different and safer and harbor no illusions about the "poor misunderstood" criminals. I would also like the courts to save tax dollars by eliminating some of these hardened , brutal predators. I am just more realistic about the possible consequences and the limitations the system places on our rights and abilities to dispense justice, as we see it. It well may NOT be how a jury sees it!

Educate yourself about the REAL LEGAL case law pertaining to shootings. Work on your mindset and establish a defensive attitude rather than a super-hero mindset that can turn a bad situation into disaster.

This Attorney and his book is recommended here by many and I would encourage anyone with questions or doubts about what is right or legal to consult the website or the book.

REMEMBER, Legal and Right are NOT THE SAME THING. Justice is, indeed, blind and being blind, often makes big mistakes. Protect yourself by preparing not just tactically but also mentally.

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/m...gal-Frequently-Asked-Questions&Store_Code=FFL

I should also point out that the more incidents of unjustified shootings (or justified ones on the edge that result in lots of publicity or prosecution of the CCW holder) , with the great increase in licensees, gives the opponents of our Second Amendment Right to Carry more ammunition to try and take away our Constitutional birthrights.

See less See more

Save

1 - 8 of 52 Posts

Glock23-4-Me

· #2 · Apr 30, 2009

1st off, I am not leo. They have certain things they do or should do that is not required of me. I dont have to tell someone to put there gun down when they break into my house in the middle of the night. In that situation, I would be in fear of my life and that of my family. I would shoot to stop the threat, I would not try to get him to comply with my demands or he may very well pull out a gun and shoot me before he could be stopped.

2nd. I agree that one should be prepared and in a way, this forum helps me and probably others do just that. I highly recommend that people be aware of the law. I hope to never have to discharge a firearm or to take someones life, but if it comes down to it, I will. I am sad to read that people claim to be so passionate about their 2a rights and they go through the troubles of getting a CCWL for the purposes of defending themselves and their family, and are willing to give up their rights. IMHO if a bad guy commits a forceable felony or puts me or my family in fear of great bodily harm then I am going to stop that threat period. If f.s. 776 authorizes me to use force to include deadly force, then I will use that force. If a bad guy is willing to ignore the law and put my family at risk, then he gets what he deserves.

stand up for your rights people or you wont have any left.

See less See more

Save

Glock23-4-Me

· #4 · Apr 30, 2009 (Edited)

MPDC66 said:
I totally agree with what you have said. It is the QUESTIONABLE uses, when life is not in danger or you are not inside your house or in a clearly authorized situation that I was referring to.

Maybe its just me but I see alot of enthusiam for dispensing justice in some of the threads. I was not suggesting you be timid about defending yourself, just that you know when that is justified and necessary.

I could be the wrong one here, but I dont think people want to do that, I know that I dont. I do enjoy running scenarios by people to see their thoughts. It gets the wheel in my brain turning to make sure that I was not looking at something incorrectly. Granted just because you get opinions here does not mean you can shoot someone and say someone of florida concealed carry told me it was okay. :rolf
When you have discussions about these types of things, one could draw the conclusion that you did because we are in deed talking about using deadly force, but I dont think people are walking around their neighborhood trying to find a situation in which they can shoot someone.

It is the questionable scenarios that people talk about to make sure they have a better understanding of the rules. It may be that a discussion on this forum may prevent a CCWL holder from making a bad choice in shooting when it was not justified but it was through conversation and discussion that they learned they were not justified. Just my .02

See less See more

Save

Glock23-4-Me

· #9 · Apr 30, 2009

Paladin, you always keep me in fear for my life :ak

Save

Glock23-4-Me

· #12 · Apr 30, 2009

Mac45 said:
It is really not too difficult to convince a jury that you were 'in fear for your life". Juries are instructed to apply the reasonable person test. But, in all cases of being justified in shooting another person [self defense is the only recognized justifcation] the evidence has to show that the subject who was shot had the means and opportunity to harm the shooter and that he had done something that would indicate his intention to harm the shooter and that, in the same circumstances, a reasonable person would have been in fear for his life.

Simply snatching your wife's purse, or entering your home at night is usually not enough to justify homicide. You must identify a clear threat that any reasonable person would recognize as being sufficient to justify using deadly force against another person. And you have to be "in fear of your life". Not annoyed, not angry, not righteous, but justifiable in fear of your life.

This sir is where you are incorrect for a couple reasons.

1st is you dont have to be in fear of great bodily harm if a forceable felonly is being committed

776.012 Use of force in defense of person

a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

2nd in the case of someone breaking into your home

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle,

See less See more

Save

Glock23-4-Me

· #14 · May 1, 2009

Mac45 said:
Glock,
The stautes are a good starting point, but case law can not ony modify the meaning of statutory language, but can actually change it. In the case of 776.013, the operant wording is "unlawfully and forcefully entering". Confronting a subject in your livingroom does not give you an automatic right to shoot that person. If you do, and it turns out that it is your drunken neighbor who wandered into your home thinking it was his own because a member of your family forgot to lock the door, you are going to have problems, some criminal and some civil.

I agree 100% with that statement, but I can guarantee that my doors and windows are always locked 100% of the time also. This may not be the case for everyone but for me, I assure you it is. So if my neighbor is in my living room, its because he forcibly entered into my house.

Mac45 said:
Common sense has to prevail at all times. Shooting a fleeing burglar presents its own problems, as it can be diffucult to convince the authorities or a jury that a fleeing subject can reasonably be assumed to pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to you or another.

I agree with you here. Although you may be able to do so by law, if someone has left my front door on the way out, I dont plan on shooting at all.

Mac45 said:
If the person does not present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, then you might want to refrain from shhoting that person, until he does present such a threat.

I agree with the statute on this one

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself if The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence.

As I previously stated, if they are in my house, they have forcibly entered.

Save

Glock23-4-Me

· #21 · May 7, 2009

brownie said:
Regarding the bolded----- It's clear you don't have a background or clear understanding that LEO are under no obligation to tell someone to put their gun down when they have found someone has broken into their domicile any more than you are required to BY LAW.

After rereading my post, that is what it appears that I ment but in fact, I did not state if correctly. Let me try to give you a different example. There was a post on this forum about a BG who robbed a Burger King and a GG who tried to stop him. I belive BG died and GG was shot.
I believe that a leo would tell the BG to put the gun down and only if the BG pointed the weapon at the LEO would the LEO shoot. I on the other hand would not have to attempt to get the BG to comply. I would not have to tell the BG to put the gun down. The BG was committing a forcible felony and deadly force is authorized.

Regarding the underlined----- So would any person who found an intruder with a gun in their hand in the home unlawfully [ be in fear of one's life ].

I dont care about anyone else. I can not tell anyone that they are in fear for their life. That is for them to decide, but I would be.

If you find a person in your home unlawfully AND ARMED, you have the presumption of fear of great bodily harm or death.

The person does not need to be armed. You need to read the law again if you think it says you need to be armed, you do not.

Save

Glock23-4-Me

· #27 · May 7, 2009

brownie said:
The law dog may or may not command the BG to put the weapon down before he caps the BG, it will be situationally dependent on the particular set of circumstances at the time.

Those circumstances should also dictate whether the armed citizen NEEDS to cap the BG or not. A BG dropping his weapon at the first sign of confrontation may still be in the middle of a forcible felony, but he does not need to be shot at that moment in time. He can be shot legally, but he doesn't need to be shot, there's a difference both in the physical response and mindset [ which MPDC66 has attempted to get across here in this thread ].

Brownie

Thats your opinion. Maybe if the GG who tried to prevent the robbery in burger king just shot the BG w/o trying to get him to comply, the GG would not have been shot. Thankfully the GG lived, but had the bullet been a little bit one way or the other, the GG would have died also. Just because GG tried to get BG to comply and waited until he was in fear of his life (when BG pointed gun at GG).

To know the law is prudent. To sit around and question it, tear it apart, try to interpret it with what ifs and what will happen, or what some jury will say or how some lawyer will present it or interpret it is nothing more than mind numbing. It will paralyze you for fear of jail time, or even cause you not to carry for fear of the repercussions if you ever did have to use it

Thats exactly what I am trying to say. The law says you can use deadly force to prevent a forcible felonly, whether you or anyone reading this post decides to is up to them. But to say that you are not allowed to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony could very well get you dead. As other have said, it is better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6. Also IMHO it is easier to prove that someone was committing a forcible felony then it is to prove someone was in fear for there life. A forcible felony is black and white and is defined in the statute, someone being in fear for there life is open to interpretation.

See less See more

Save

Glock23-4-Me

· #32 · May 7, 2009

Brownie, thank you for sharing your opinion on this matter. You have yours and I have mine. I can no more convince you than you can me. I would not hesitate to defend my fellow man and would not wait until BG uses gun on person being robbed or another patron before I would be willing to put my life on the line for them.

I could swear that you did say that one can not use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony unless you were in fear of great bodily harm. If you did not then forgive me but I am not about to spend the time re-reading this thread to prove a point.

Save

1 - 8 of 52 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month