This Will Make For An Interesting Gun Rights Case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
I can't say that I would not react the same way he did, but he broke a couple huge rules for firearms self defense. You are to never leave your home with the gun, and you do not shoot someone again when they are on the ground. You are to neutralize the threat, no more.


You can NEVER trust someone who you have just shot to the ground to stay there, and/or to not pull out a concealed weapon and shoot YOU with it. Neutralizing a threat doesn't necessarily mean killing the person, though it may mean that.
 
There should be no different way in running a society than the way it's done in New Zealand and in the US:

1. you have a right to defend yourself.
2. you have a right to own firearms, which are the means by which you exercise the right above.

Without the means by which to defend yourself, your right becomes irrelevant. It's effectively denied. Remember the poll tax? A few dollars to exercise your right to vote deprived a lot of people of that right because they didn't have the means...if only the politicians and activists that defended the right to vote considered all the other rights as important as the right to vote...

Now, on to the use of lethal force. I've posted on this before, but here's the essence:

Your use of force must be both necessary and proportional to the threat you face. To use lethal force, then, you must be facing a lethal threat (or near-lethal, the threat of serious bodily harm). A threat consists of three elements: ability, opportunity, and intent. Without all three elements, there isn't a threat, and the use of lethal force in response to the situation becomes a crime in itself.

The ability to harm you, as represented by superior size, strength, numbers, or a weapon. The opportunity to harm you, as represented by proximity. The intent to harm you, as stated verbally by your assailant, or demonstrated by their actions (harming you, presenting a weapon pointed at you, etc.).

And, this is critical, in determining the presence of the above factors, only the knowledge that was available to the person at the time can be used. E.G. if the gun that was presented looked real, and the defender reasonably believed it to be real, then a weapon, a lethal ability, was present, even if it was later shown that the weapon presented was an Airsoft gun...not a real one...

Those are the criteria by which this homeowner will be judged.

It's as true in New Zealand as it is here...interesting that you chose New Zealand as your "alternative" because, frankly, things are closer to the US there than nearly anywhere else in the world. Many nations so restrict the right to firearms that the right of self defense ceases to exist. In those nations, it is presumed that the police will stop crimes...when we all know that the police can't be everywhere, and generally solve the crime after the fact, fulfilling their civic duty in deterrence, but doing little for the direct benefit of the victim.
 
Last edited:
Quite a bit of misinformation here.

1) Every state has different laws concerning the use and discharge of firearms. Please get to know the laws that apply to you.

2) You do not have to be in "imminent danger" to use your firearm.
 
As of October 1, 2005, Florida became a "Stand-your-ground" state. Florida law establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder. This law also applies in any other place where a person “has a right to be”. That person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony".[21]

A person who uses force within the parameters of the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune under the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
 
Last edited:
What about these guns?

images...;h=420&q=75
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top