Ya gotta love Arizona!

Ok guys, as a CCW Instructor, here in Arizona, it's time I made some sense of this. I just know all cool headed people, geniuses, grubbys and anyone else reading this post will bear with me and put some thought into this.
Deadly force is allowed to prevent "heinous crimes" child molestation etc. I don't care how "clean" the shooting is, if you revoke someones birth certificate, chances are you will be forced to spend a great deal of money to defend it. (I believe the national average now is around thirty three thousand dollars to legally defend a justified shooting) Keep in mind, how we get "averages" 2 people spent nothing, one guy took out a 2nd on his house and borrowed money and spent around $100,000.00 leaving the "average" at 33,000.
The law is the law, whether you like/dislike, agree/disagree. If you choose to violate it, no matter how justifed you may be in your mind/morals, intents or otherwise, be prepared to pay the consequences. Period.
Before we had the CCW in AZ, I carried openly, sometimes I still do.
As an insturctor, fellow shooter, believer in 2nd amendment rights, (like most everyone on this board) I wish to ASK all of you to do the following. If you want to carry concealed, get a permit. If you choose to carry openly, look decent, the looks alone will tell you if your scaring people or making them curious. I won't carry open unless I'm shaved, in clean clothes, and look half way presentable. On my side of the state (Western) we get lots of Californians. When your dressed nicely and look presentable they will approach you and ask, "Are you a cop?" and you get a chance to tell how right to carry prevents crimes in our state and maybe win some over to our way of thinking, this can and does happen. If your in a t-shirt, cut-offs, thongs, and buying a six pack, with your Roscoe hangin off your hip, you will hear comments (behind your back) like "that is why we need more gun control laws" Don't bitch, you handed them the argument, and I know you shouldn't judge a book by the cover but most people do, so act responsibly, PLEASE. My right to carry is very important to me, I don't want to lose it.
One final thought, Socrates the Philospher once said "An armed society is a polite society" Give it some thought.
This is more talking than I've done in 6 months, I'm through. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
That is some good stuff Blue! I agree with most of your points, however, would you consider lawyer fees if you happened upon a neighbor molseting your nephew? I mean, its nice to talk hypothetically about giving people a chance and calling for help and all that jazz.... but what would you really do?

I've got some kind of switch in the back of my head that gets thrown from time to time... I garuntee something like that would flip my switch. I'm as thoughtful, careful and polite as the next guy but my behavior would change in that situation. Unfortunatly it would probably be very hard to get a lawyer to take my case much less win it for me after I made it look like a hate crime!

Thats a shame in todays world but it is a fact, you can do the right thing and still lose your life's savings defending your actions. I know myself well enough to know that those thoughts won't register in such a horrible situation... I can't even say that " hopefully I'm never in that situation " because if its happening to a victim I really do hope I stumble upon it in their time of need. Oh well, Life's a Bitch - then ya die.
 
Lawyer fees won't ever be considered until after it's done jrbhunter, the human mind isn't generally built like that. Legal fees should be considered during your training, like in your shoot/don't shoot exercises. If you got the impression that I would not shoot in the child molestation scenario, I didn't mean too. I was non-commital and still am. I've arrested 3 child molesters in my career. I will tell you this from personal expierence to help stay out of court: DON'T PULL THE TRIGGER UNLESS YOU HAVE TOO! Cops are taught this from day one, and as civilians we are judged evem more critically. Food for thought. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
Discussions such as this one can be very usefull exercises. "You will fight the way you train". This is also true of the decisions you make. You will make them at the time in accordance with how you've trained to make them.

There are many circumstances under which it may be appropriate to shoot. Some you really won't have a choice, it's either shoot or die. Others aren't so clear cut. If it's my family, whatever risk I have to take to protect them is worth it. If it's a stranger, that's not necessarily true. If you interfere you are placing yourself at legal and financial risk. Even if a shoot is deemed justified and no charges are pressed by law enforcement, you may well be served one day with papers for a civil suit, and you will eat the costs for that defense. You have no right to an attorney in civil court, the expense is entirely yours to bear.

I have the habit of watching or reading news reports of crimes and trying to put myself in the situation. If I were there, and it played out exactly like that, what would/could I do?

If you can play what-if games and make the correct decisions when it's simply an intellectual exercise and you aren't at risk, it may well help you make the correct decision if you ever have to for real.
 
A lot of good points being made in this thread.

A lot of useless mud slinging too.

But my bottom line is this;

At the end of the day, a man's got to live with whatever decisions he's made.

Reading threads like this, and seeking formal training in the effective use of your weapon, maximizes the odds that they will be GOOD decisions.

BTW, do I look "grubby" in my video??? :eek:
 
Will I shoot? The real truth is that no two real life confrontations will be exactly the same. No reasonable man knows whether he will shoot or not until the time comes. Only thing I am sure of is that if I DO shoot, it will be shoot to kill. Not wound, KILL. If you have the right to shoot a man, you have the right to kill him. Once we pull the trigger, we can not call the bullet back.I would like to think that I will not kill another man except in defense of my own life or the life of someone else.
 
Charles Dickens once said, "The law is an ass." To some extent, that is true. When law no longer protects peoples' rights, the law becomes a tool of tyranny. Is self-defense a "right"? It is. It is also much beyond a right, for Nature has endowed us with the mind to create weapons.

At times when the "law" is no longer guided by moral compass or the safeguarding of human rights,it oft becomes necessary for some to break that law that they may act upon the courage of their convictions. Prior to the American Civil War, Abolitionists were breaking federal law (The Fugitive Slave Act) by harboring runaway slaves on the Underground Railroad. Was the Fugitive Slave Act a just and/or moral law? No, it was not. But at the time, it was federal law and there were substantial penalties for breaking that law. Today, the Underground Railroad and Abolitionists are seen as good, moral American heroes. But they were criminals during their time period. Further, the Founding Fathers of this nation were breaking English law, to which they were bound. When persons believe strongly in an ideal, they are willing to take those risks. Now, I can say in this vein that Daisycutter is acting upon his convictions by breaking the law where he sees it is depriving him of his right to self-defense. My only argument with him is consistancy. If you believe in the inherant right of self-defense, then that should include everyone legally able to carry a weapon. And should be regardless of how that weapon is carried.

The courage of convictions is taking the risk of loss of property or even life for that in which you believe. It's easy to "believe" in something. Quite another to put it into practice. If we are unwilling to assume those risks in defense of another life, for we may incur los of property, our moral character is not real high. For we are placing value of property above human life. If we believe in a strong, moral nation, then it takes persons of strong moral character who are willing to fight for that. Yes, a person may be sued if they act with deadly force and one should, of course, be prepared for it. But if fear of that drives our response, our fear of criminals and being victimized merely changes form into fear of being victimized by lawyers if we act in defense. It is fear that drives a lack of action. There was a famous incident in New York City in the 1970s where a woman was brutally killed while screaming for help. All kinds of people heard her but did not act out of fear of the criminal, even though there were more of them than there was of the criminal. What if armed people today refused to act out of fear of being sued? Then we merely change the form of the paralyzing fear. If armed citizens started showing up in every court case of a self-defense shooting and picketing outside, then certain people will start to give a little more thought to the insanity of punishing people for defending their (or others') lives. But, of course, some people will be "too busy" or "don't want to get involved". Hmmmm....that was what those New Yorkers said when the police asked them why they didn't call. It takes courage of convictions and acting upon them.
 
I didn't say that I wouldn't act. I said I wouldn't be as free about taking risks for a stranger as I would for my family.

Your lecture was real nice, but it falls a bit short of reality. If I make the wrong decision and shoot when I shouldn't, or if a prosecutor manages to conclude that and comes after me, I face all mannner of consequences. Time in jail -that means not working, no income.

With me being the sole income provider for a family, it isn't just me. Other people depend on my being a free man, working and supporting them. They could become homeless while I'm trying to get out of lockup, if things turn against me.

A legal defense, that means money to spend, in large amounts, that I may not even have. I don't, right now. And I don't have any family that has it, either. So I could get stuck with a public defender, whoopee.

Odds are good that this fight, even if I win, will force me into bankruptcy. Which means my family suffers.

If I lose that fight, I can lose my rights and will not only do time, I will then be unable to legally arm myself after, thus leaving my family vulnerable, so once again they suffer.

My primary responsibilities are to myself and my family. Saving the world comes in way down the list.

So while I will intervene to defend someone else, I'm damn well going to be careful about what I do. For myself and my family, I'll take any risk that seems necessary at the time and worry about it later. I can't do that for people I don't even know, because I don't have the right to make my family pay that price.

You really need to think some of these situations out in advance. The child molester example keeps being used here. Odds are pretty good that if you caught someone doing that, you could intervene and stop them without having to shoot them.

Shooting someone is the last thing you do, not the first. If you somehow think that standing up for your convictions means that you *have* to shoot someone, just because you can, it may be a good idea to reconsider carrying a gun.
 
Originally posted by jrbhunter:
[qb]3y? I'd have to use a resource thats not sitting on my shoulders to figure it out if you really intend to use 3y to solve that to 0.

[/qb]
Click to expand...
I intend for you to solve for "C", or whatever you decide to call the constant. I wuz just being a prick to the PM-spell gestapo. If someone asked me that question I wouldn't bother racking my brain trying to solve it. Tomorrow I'll whip out my magic TI-89 and post an answer.

Kevan-

I believe you feel I'm inconsistent because I don't think people should be able to carry openly to defend themselves. There is a misunderstanding here. I myself don't carry openly because I don't want intimidate others or portray that image to other people. This is a personal decision I made for myself, and I offered the reasons why over a couple of posts. I never said others shouldn't be able to carry their iron in plain view.

One primary reason I don't carry openly is because I'm severly paranoid of losing possesion of my firearm. I believe that concealed carry aids in gun retention. (I mentioned this earlier.) If I'm going into a potentially rowdy situation I don't carry the gun (drinking, concerts, etc.) In a restaurant, the only reason the gun would come out is if it's justified. I'll accept the consequences. The reason I carry into [hypothetically] Bank One ballpark isn't for safety inside the park, but for safety on the return trip to the car. Sometimes I carry concealed in California when visiting relatives. I always keep the gun-case and padlock handy in the car in case of a traffic stop. My brother-in-law is a LA county sherrif's deputy, he illegally carries concealed in AZ. He swore an oath to uphold the law and also routinely breaks it. BTW, he says that his "people" specifically target trucks with AZ plates b/c they frequently find guns (why I always have the case w/ me).

To me, my decisions were made carefully after much thought... They need not make sense to you so long as I believe that the benifits outweigh the risks. As far as I'm concerned the only thing that makes me inconsistent is too many banannas.

I won't lose any more sleep than you do fretting over DaisyCutter's carrying habits. Compared to other boards, the flaming on PM is pretty mellow and doesn't get me any more excited than soft-core porn.
 
Stu, that sounds like a very well thought out stance but I just can't completely agree with it. I understand the whole theory of bankruptsy and homelessness but I also understand my own instincts. Instinctually I could not resist using whatever force was necessary to help the person in need... that may costs me my family and my bank account but I guess I'm helpless.

I have a feeling that there are several people out there in my situation, understanding how horrible the consequences could be of doing the right thing decisivley but knowing no other course of action would result. I've been in enough (Non life-threatening) scuffles in my life to know about that little "Switch" in my head. Once I convince myself action is justified I react, plain and simple.

Example, I've seen several women verbally abused over the years, but only one physically abused. That one incident resulted in two broken fingers & a black eye for me and a broken rib for the "wife-beater". Who won? I did. You couldn't of convinced witnesses of that... but I feel like I did because I did what was right and what nobody else present had the balls to do. Could some of the larger guys standing around done a better job with him? Sure, and maybe they wished they had after police took him away and patted me on the back.

Also, I'd shoot to kill and I probably wouldn't shoot once. Like I said before, if I'm pumped up enough to shoot someone... I'll not stop until their dead.
 
Like I said before, if I'm pumped up enough to shoot someone... I'll not stop until their dead.

You might want to consider being very, very careful when & where you say that. It could one day come back to bite you.

It did for Brenard Getz. He was carrying illegally in NY in the subways and was attacked by several young men. I think it was 5 in all. He used his gun. He was prosecuted but his self-defense claim stood up and he was either acquitted or found not guilty of any criminal charges.

Once of the guys he shot was paralyzed. Bennie shot him more than once. The first shot was when the attack started. The 2nd shot, the man was lying on the ground, unarmed and posing no immediate threat. Bennie shot him again. If I recall correctly, this 2nd shot was what paralyzed him for life.

Now, his attackers were minorities, I think hispanic.

Years later, the survivors filed a civil suit against Getz. They charged that he had used excessive force (shot the man after he no longer posed an immediate threat) and did so with foresight. You see, Bennie had made a lot of racist remarks over the years, including a lot against hispanics. The attorney found out about this, collected witness statements and such to prove it, and managed to convince the jury that Bennie was prejudiced against hispanics and shot the guy again just because of that.

He won a multi-million dollar judgement against Bennie Getz. I think the amount was $10 million.

And that's only one case. It happens to be one that had national prominance, so you may have heard of it before.

Now, imagine for a minute that a couple of years from now something happens and you shoot some guy. Many times. Maybe you keep shooting after he drops his gun and spins around, so you end up shooting him in the back while he is now unarmed. And the DA's office has an agressive prosecutor that investigates you. A search warrant snags your home PC and they go & look at what web sites you hang out at. And they find things like:

"Like I said before, if I'm pumped up enough to shoot someone... I'll not stop until their dead."

Here, and maybe on other places. Now, he has your own words to use against you. A possibly justified shooting has crossed the line and become pre-meditated. It could turn out badly.

If you have justification to shoot, you should always shoot to kill. In most, if not all states, you are not legally permitted to use lethal force in a deliberate attempt to wound.

This does not mean that once you start you always shoot until they're dead. I met one guy who did 3 years in prison in AZ. Why? Because he took a knife away from a guy who forced his way into his home, and stabbed him (the attacker) 3 times. The court convicted him (the homeowner) of using excessive force, ruling that once he had disarmed the intruder the threat had been reduced and he wasn't justified in jumping on him and stabbing him repeatedly.

If a man has a gun and poses an imminent threat to you or another and you shoot him, fime. But if that causes him to drop the weapon and he no longer poses an imminent threat to someone, then you no longer have legal jsutification to shoot any more. If you keep shooting you run the risk of being prosectuted.

You shoot to stop the threat. Once you or any other person is no longer in immediate danger, that's it. Some jurisdictions can be very aggressive in pursuing such things.

I'm not going to do nothing about a child molester. Personally, I think the crime should carry the death penalty. But it doesn't. Unless such a person is armed at the time, the odds are good that I -who am habitually armed- can stop him and end the threat to the child without having to shoot him. In fact, if he's in the act it could be very problematic to shoot him, in terms of simply being able to do so without further endangering his victim with the shot.

If you hit the victim, or a bystander, even when the shoot is perfectly justified, you will still be held responsible for any harm done to any person other than the criminal you were justified in shooting.

Get that switch under control. A fist fight is one thing to go nuts on, but when bullets fly it's a different problem entirely.

Masaad Ayood has written extensively on such matters, both in books and monthly articles. Guns Magazine carries him, and most articles detail a real-world shooting and what happened legally as a result. Usually cases that he personally was involved in directly, as an expert witness if nothing else. He has heavily documented any number of cases where a perfectly good shoot ended up with the defender being convicted in court. Often not even really for what he did at the time, but for what he said afterwards. He also covers cases that turned out well for the defender.

One of his books I highly recommend is "In The Gravest Extreeme", you may wish to take a look at it.

Plus any other training you are able to get. Tactics and physical skills aren't enough. Like it or not, we're surrounded by a complex legal system, with laws that change from one state to the next. It's pretty important to have a deep understanding of what those laws allow you to do, what they don't, and seemingly small things that can blur the lines.
 
I guess that's what Bennie Getz!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Couldn't pass that one up! Good little debate ya'll got going, I think I'll stay out of it too. I will say it would be alot easier just to kick the perps a$$ though than risk possibly going to jail. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Originally posted by Heath Wegner:
[qb]I will say it would be alot easier just to kick the perps a$$ though than risk possibly going to jail. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif [/qb]
Click to expand...
Immensely more gratifying too. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Win or lose, I'd rather be in a fist-fight than a gun-fight.
 
I guess the same defense I'd use on the stand is the one I'll use here. I didn't qualify what actions it would take to get me to that point... I know the world is flooded of horror stories about people doing the right thing and that being the worst decision of their life but I'll take my chances. I'll do whats right and worry about the system screwing me later.

Don't get sidetracked by the story, we completely skipped from this being a child molestation to a situation that requires lethal force... we're obviously assuming that the perp is armed or dangerously aggresive to the victim & or me and was unresponsive to warnings and threats of force. We could play scinarios all day but just take for granted that this guy is 7'-11" 600 pounds and pure hate with a knife in his hands... its safe to say that I would then shoot.

I may get a little experience with this type of situation because I just found out a guy from my graduating class just shot an intruder the other night. He shot him twice in the back with a rifle. The first 911 call recieved was the wounded burglar from a neighbors house... the second was the shooter reporting the crime. Police responded and arrested the burglar and put him in an ambulance.

Still no arrest made on the shooter. I'm not sure of the details of the story but from the article I read it doesn't sound good for the homeowner.... no 911 call... shot him in the back? Maybe I'll learn a lesson from his story. It already looks like he's guilty until proven innocent.
 
I'd be interested in more details as they become available. Much depends on what state law says about defending your home.

AZ is a great state to be a gun owner in. Its law regarding the use of lethal force are complex, and do not automatically favor a homeowner.

TN in comparison is not quite so good on owning guns. Unless they've recently passed it, there is no open carry. Even if open carry is now legal, a CCW will be required, and a person carrying openly will likely experience a lot of hassle, simply because it's not part of the culture as it is in AZ.

However, TN law regarding home protection are much better for the resident. There is no requirement to retreat or abandon the premises if possible. An intruder does not have to be positively identified as being armed, nor does he have to actually enter the home. Someone attempting to forcibly enter your home may be shot through the door or window. "A man's home is his castle" is the basic approach there. While you can't shoot over simple tresspass, uninvited intruders are fair game. SC has similarly gone on record as declaring open season on home intruders. The state AG actually went on TV and in the papers and warned people considering such actions that if any homeowner shot them, that howmeowner would not be prosecuted for it. 365 days, 24 hours per day, no bag limit.

I'm not very familiar with IN laws in this regard, plus no idea of the details yet. Two shots in back, right from the start, sounds like something that's going to be very difficult to defend. There may be mitigating details to show it being justified, though. Let us know what you find out.
 
Here's the actual story. This is strait out of the paper and is a little different than my current understanding of the situation. I've talked to a few people and may have allowed the real story to get smudged by opinoins or theories. It was interesting to re-read this and see that the guy shot was an ex-tenant of the residence... sounds even worse for the home owner. Also the "shoulder" shot was the back of the shoulder... again implying the perp was facing away. The 26 year old shooter is the one I know from school... hard telling how this will turn out.
------------------------------------------------
A man who allegedly broke into a Corydon residence was shot early Saturday morning.

Timothy Fuson, 40, was in critical but stable condition Monday at University Hospital in Louisville after he was shot at a residence in the 4400 block of Brown Cunningham Road, according to Lt. Rolla Pirtle of the Harrison County Sheriff's Dept.

"He had one entrance wound in the back and another in the left shoulder," Pirtle said, from a bullet fired from a semi-automatic rifle.

Police were called about 12:15 a.m. Saturday after Fuson roused people at a residence in the 3400 block of Brown Cunningham Road, where he asked for help. Soon after that call, another 911 call was received, this one requesting an ambulance to the residence Fuson allegedly broke into earlier.

Eddie Wiseman, 26, was taken by ambulance to Harrison County Hospital in Corydon for injuries to his arm.

"He had lacerations due to broken glass," Pirtle said.

Fuson apparently used to live at the Wiseman residence, Pirtle said, and had recently returned from out-of-town.

"I didn't get to talk to (Fuson) a lot because of his injuries," Pirtle said.

A third person was at the Wiseman residence at the time of the shooting but Pirtle declined to provide any information on that person.

Crime scene technicians from the Indiana State Police were called to help process evidence, police said.

Harrison County Sheriff Mike Deatrick said ISP technicians were called to this crime scene, and later to the double homicide in Mauckport, because of lack of manpower in the sheriff's department.

"We can do all that," Deatrick. "We are doing all that. It's just that the state police have more resources available."

No charges had been filed yet. Pirtle said police are still investigating the case.
--------------------------------------------------
 
Doesn't sound good. In TN I could shoot him as he tried to enter. Which would imply the entrance wounds would be in the front. If he tried to enter and then turned and ran away, I would no longer be legally justified to shoot unless there was another reason. Say, he had a gun and was pointing it back towards me as he ran away, or was a serious threat to another person outside but had his back to me. Things like that.

If your buddy is smart at all, he won't say anything to the police until he's had a chance to go over it all privately with an attorney, and then make his statement and anwer any questions with the attorney present.

If I ever find myself in such a situation, my only statement to police will be "I was in fear for my life (or the life of another), and I will be happy to give a complete statement after I have consulted with my attorney and have my attorney peresent.", at which time I will shut up until I have access to a phone and can call an attorney.

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" is not just a catchy phrase. They mean it. Even if they seem to be sympathetic to you. It's their job to investigate and if you say something that they decide implicates you with a chargeable offense, they'll charge you and use those words.
 
Sounds like the laws of TN and IN are very similar. I understand them to be the same as you explained. This guy, the shooter, was about my age and attended the same school. That is all. If anything we would be considered enemies because my brother and I caught him tresspassing on our property during deer season.

I am friends with several officers here in the county, a couple are relation. I'll dig up some more info as it becomes available. Right now I'm working off the theory that there was a dispute about the man being evicted, he left, then came back and started an altercation that ended in gunfire.

I hope the criminal is prosecuted... whoever the criminal turns out to be. We don't need things like this happening, weather it be breaking and entering or a bad case of hiding a crime in self defense.

This case would usually be earthshattering news but another schoolmate of mine murdered his father, grandmother and shot his mother multiple times. That happened within hours of the story above, they just found him in Daytona Beach Florida and are waiting on extradition. That story is taking up the headlines and barbor shop gossip right now so it may be a while before any news breaks on this situation.
 
Back
Top