No. See below me
"and who is attacked"
So unless you're attacked, you don't have the justification to meet force with force under that provision.
"and who is attacked"
So unless you're attacked, you don't have the justification to meet force with force under that provision.
ok, so what is the definition of attacked? is a gun in your face, an attack? no, not really. after all, they arent even touching you. but when a gun is pulled, its considered deadly force. so basically, dont fire until you take fire? sorry, not me.
Okay. This is a good discussion and all. Thought provoking. But, anyone that has not had an extensive amount of training would likely be better off to error on the side of conservatism. In this OT no one is professional LE and their actions will be viewed with a very skeptical eye. It would take an extremely cool hand to play through this situation with total control.
I don't think there is any question but what a person would be legal to aggressively defend - as long as it ended up right! But, if it goes all wrong, you will likely be grilled beyond recognition. Truth is, you won't know until it's over.
This is kinda a hokie comparison, but I can't help but think about the story of Wild Bill shooting his best friend because he got a little rattled in a gun fight. He supposedly was one of the coolest hands there ever was when taking fire.
I don't think there is any question but what a person would be legal to aggressively defend - as long as it ended up right! But, if it goes all wrong, you will likely be grilled beyond recognition. Truth is, you won't know until it's over.
This is kinda a hokie comparison, but I can't help but think about the story of Wild Bill shooting his best friend because he got a little rattled in a gun fight. He supposedly was one of the coolest hands there ever was when taking fire.
So according to you its either have your guns a blazin' or not be in the position to draw it quickly?
hmmm
and hoddy im only responding to the OP, i skimmed and skipped through the pages so i didnt read anyone else's "what if's".
But YES my hand would be on my holstered weapon assuming that im on a random aisle and the gunmen are at the register demanding cash. I dont want to draw my weapon when there is a chance that the robber may take the money and be on his way. But if it escalates to where life is threatened i would act accordingly.
But YES my hand would be on my holstered weapon assuming that im on a random aisle and the gunmen are at the register demanding cash. I dont want to draw my weapon when there is a chance that the robber may take the money and be on his way. But if it escalates to where life is threatened i would act accordingly.
That's a rock solid truth if there ever was one.
A few things to remember:
Current going-on's in the legislature make bring some new statutes to the table that will impact SDA permit holders (and perhaps others). Let watch to see what happens, as well as pay close attention to the effective date of any new legislation.
- The SDA curriculum specifically warns that a carry permit does not give police powers to the holder.
- The permit is authorized under Oklahoma's SELF defense act. "Self" should be a not-so-subtle hint of its intent.
- The SDA class curriculum states that deadly force may be used to protect "spouse, parent, child, employer or employees". No one else is mentioned.
- The SDA curriculum strongly warns about "stepping into the shoes" of someone else for defensive purposes.
Current going-on's in the legislature make bring some new statutes to the table that will impact SDA permit holders (and perhaps others). Let watch to see what happens, as well as pay close attention to the effective date of any new legislation.
I was looking for what percentage of robberies result in shootings and I did not find anything worth mentioning. I remember the number to be very small.
The examples sometimes mention QT. QT management and employees have adapted certain measures to safeguard business and employees. They keep a minimum amount of cash, CCTV and have trained the employee
to just give that small amount of money. Any robber that goes to a place like that knows that there is only so much money available, no more. If they decide it is worth their trouble, they'll grab the money and some beer and get lost, no big harm done.
Before somebody says that it is wrong to let the bum get away, consider that while you are on their property and you are not directly threatened, it is not up to you to decide what happens in there. No you don't shoot him on the hip or anywhere else.
The examples sometimes mention QT. QT management and employees have adapted certain measures to safeguard business and employees. They keep a minimum amount of cash, CCTV and have trained the employee
to just give that small amount of money. Any robber that goes to a place like that knows that there is only so much money available, no more. If they decide it is worth their trouble, they'll grab the money and some beer and get lost, no big harm done.
Before somebody says that it is wrong to let the bum get away, consider that while you are on their property and you are not directly threatened, it is not up to you to decide what happens in there. No you don't shoot him on the hip or anywhere else.
The bold text is my added. Pretty well sums up what a private individual can legally do.
"Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" are two doctrines which may coexist as they do in Oklahoma.
Castle Doctrine only relieves you of a duty to retreat in your own home.
Stand Your Ground relieves you of a duty to retreat anywhere you "[have] the right to be." Beard v. U.S., 158 U.S. 550, at 564 (1895)
Oklahoma is a Stand Your Ground state. 21 O.S. § 1289.25(D)
Oklahoma also has a Castle Doctrine provision so that no duty to retreat within the home is specifically understood. 21 O.S. § 1289.25(B)
Similar threads
