Skip to comments.
Gun-toting citizen halts apparent robbery
south bend tribune ^
| 11/04/02
| LINDA MULLEN
Posted on 11/04/2002 12:01:55 PM PST by hoosierboy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 last
To: GovernmentShrinker
Duty to retreat is a legal doctine going back a long way. It works well and serves to prevent unwarranted decisions being made by ordinary citizens in circumstances that the citizen usually has no training to deal with in the first place. If your life, or the life of another is in
imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, you are empowered to use deadly force....duty to retreat or not.
The "duty" is merely a device to weed out those individuals who are unsure of how to react to a potential deadly force situation. Notice that in your own home (hotel rooms are included in the definition of "home") the castle doctrine replaces the duty to retreat. But on the street, duty to retreat is just another safeguard in an unsafe and litigious world.
To: ExSoldier
Does "Duty to retreat" override common sense? ie bunch of breaking glass, obvious robber walking through broken glass with armload of store goods... no flame but how are you tying in duty to retreat (which I understand and also take seriously.. it prevents stupid mistakes) with a guy walking out of a store with a armload of merchandise after breaking in? Would it not be the suspects duty to halt and explaine the situation?
TLI
42
posted on
11/04/2002 8:20:28 PM PST
by
TLI
To: ExSoldier
Actually, the current law varies a great deal from state to state, and is most corrupted in Great Britain where our legal system has its roots -- over there, you're screwed if you use deadly force no matter how much imminent danger you're in.
To: tje
The story is pretty good, except for the 'Barney' comparison. Implying that an armed citizen is like Barney is a little insulting. Agreed. Great story about bravery and responsibility, and the Fife comment was uncalled for.
To: chuknospam
This is a very true fact cited in Dave Kopel's reports, the fact is that many people get a "free ride" on the backs of those who take the responsibility of being armed.Couldn't say it better myself.
To: Don Carlos
Not a fan of their 3-safety system?(semi-sarcasm)
Blackhawk Down: "This is my safety" holds trigger finger in the air and mimicks trigger squeeze.
To: Blood of Tyrants
What do you carry? A zip gun? What gives you the idea that your firearm will AD when dropped? Have you race tuned it or something? I'd seriously like to know.
To: hoosierboy
It's a commendable story, but I have a hard time believing the cops were actually so nice. I have had the fortune of being pulled over in a license check, and when asked if I had a firearm, I did the honest thing and said "yes". My honorable Alabama state-trooper did indeed look like Barney Fife (literally jumped), and gave me a lot of grief too(permitted, concealed Sig 229). No harm done, but a lot of hassle.
Phil
To: Squantos
And the pizza guy stopped for that ???? Gheeeesh ! Awesome story....You know the old saying: call for a cop, call for an ambulance, call for a pizza... and see which one arrives first!!!
To: Lion Den Dan
I get the impression he put the holster on just for the photo. There's no way he can sit down where he placed the holster on his belt. Verticle holsters can be placed just behind the seam and butt forward canted holsters can be placed on the seam of the pants.
To: john in missouri
LOL !......True !
Stay Safe , Stay Armed !!
51
posted on
11/04/2002 10:08:03 PM PST
by
Squantos
Comment #52 Removed by Moderator
To: Freemeorkillme
Ruger KP-94, .40 S&W, DA on first shot, SA on second, no safety, decocker lever. (Carry with one in the chamber and hammer down). Remember, the scenario is one shot fired, ready with second.
Now, tell me, would you drop a gun with the hammer back and no safety and take your chances or would you set it down carefully? Do you REALLY trust the mfr that blindly?
To: Squantos
Who knows - the pizza man was probably packing too. (If he's smart)!
Great story. I'd like to see more of this.
54
posted on
11/05/2002 3:11:11 PM PST
by
pocat
To: TLI
Citizens arrest is perhaps one of the weakest doctrines in law....with the excepton of that strange critter federally sanctioned and known as the "Bounty Hunter" LOL! And even those guys are often poorly treated by the cops.
You can't use a citizen's arrest where the crime is a property crime to justify using deadly force. The doctrine is pretty similar nationwide with Louisiana being a notable exception...generally speaking...you cannont KILL for property. That being the case, and stipulating that even displaying a gun is using deadly force, it is unreasonable to expect a private citizen to interfere in a property crime. The difference would come, if the citizen stumbled across a rape in progress or witnessed an act of first degree murder. THEN, I think, a valid argument can be made for intervening with a firearm.
"Common Sense?" Also known as "Horse Sense" is what keeps horses from betting on people! Sorry, but one man's "common sense" is another man's LUNACY. The law has to be the trump card. Now, I admit...in some cases, the law is bad. Bad law can be modified. STUPID people are forever.
To: ExSoldier
"you can not KILL for property."Perfectly legal in Texas, don't know about Louisiana.. Texas allows personal use of deadly force for the protection of life and property.
56
posted on
11/06/2002 8:29:13 AM PST
by
TLI
To: hoosierboy
"After they sorted it out, police were very appreciative and said every citizen should be like me," he said. By which they meant: compliant, unarmed, facedown on the pavement and handcuffed.
57
posted on
11/06/2002 8:34:18 AM PST
by
Sloth
To: hoosierboy
"After they sorted it out, police were very appreciative and said every citizen should be like me," he said. "They were totally respectful; they weren't intimidating at all." Then they should tell their Chief of Police to issue more pistol permits. Duh.
To: ExSoldier
"If your life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, you are empowered to use deadly force....duty to retreat or not."
Actually, that's not true. The Modal Penal Code has rephrased it. It's not longer imminent danger, it's PRESENT danger, which gives victims more leeway.
To: TLI
"Perfectly legal in Texas, don't know about Louisiana...Ahhhh but I'm in Florida and that's NOT the case here....but I do have kin in Louisiana....and they're cops. That's what they tell me.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson