warning or bullet?

[beast1989]

I agree with you HMCS(FMF)Ret.

FYI if a convenience store is being robbed at gun point every customer in the store is in mortal danger. Just b/c the gun isnt actively trained in your direction, it doesnt mean you arent being attacked. He has more than one bullet and each one can have a different persons name on it. Some of you are acting like one gun can only take one life.

I know its a bit cliche but using you guy's same logic, then everyone in the presence of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had no right to draw their weapons because she was Loughner's target?.... nope it doesnt work that way.

 

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

Nope, it's really plain.


Not under the SYG act.



This doesn't actually paint any rights here, it only establishes a legal presumption.

Let's just say I disagree with your interpretation of the law. Or we can just agree that I'm right and you're wrong.

 

[OKIE-CARBINE]

i know an easy fix here. just dont go to convenience stores. lol

 

[OKIE-CARBINE]

and if you did get caught up in a situation like this, and you did fire your weapon...expect a lengthy and costly legal battle if you dont kill the perp; or his family comes after you.

some things from a prosecuting attorney might be: well, mister, WHY did you strap that gun on that morning? were you out for a fight? you must have been wanting to kill somebody since you had a gun on you that day. they will try to spin it to make you the bad guy. and the jury doesn't know any better. you shot somebody and all he was trying to do was scare the clerk into giving him some money so he could feed his hungry baby at home.

 

[LightningCrash]

I agree with you HMCS(FMF)Ret.

FYI if a convenience store is being robbed at gun point every customer in the store is in mortal danger. Just b/c the gun isnt actively trained in your direction, it doesnt mean you arent being attacked. He has more than one bullet and each one can have a different persons name on it. Some of you are acting like one gun can only take one life.

I know its a bit cliche but using you guy's same logic, then everyone in the presence of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had no right to draw their weapons because she was Loughner's target?.... nope it doesnt work that way.

Nobody has said being next to Giffords being SHOT AT is the same as safely drawing our weapon and shooting a robber who has not attacked you and is attacking someone else. Even if every customer in the store could be in danger, every customer in the store has not been attacked. The SYG Act requires the attack for the blessing of its clauses.

Let's just say I disagree with your interpretation of the law. Or we can just agree that I'm right and you're wrong.

If you can create a compelling argument that section D of the SYG Act does not intend for all three of its predicates to be fulfilled, I am all ears.

 

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

Nope, it's really plain.


Not under the SYG act.



This doesn't actually paint any rights here, it only establishes a legal presumption.

Nobody has said being next to Giffords being SHOT AT is the same as safely drawing our weapon and shooting a robber who has not attacked you and is attacking someone else. Even if every customer in the store could be in danger, every customer in the store has not been attacked. The SYG Act requires the attack for the blessing of its clauses.



If you can create a compelling argument that section D of the SYG Act does not intend for all three of its predicates to be fulfilled, I am all ears.

That's exactly it...I think the way you're reading the section is assuming that all three "predicates" must be met. I'm saying that the attack portion applies to the fact that you don't have to run or give up ground. That doesn't change the portion that states you can defend yourself or others if they are in danger of being killed/danger of serious bodily harm or to prevent a forcible felony. This section doesn't specifically say that all items must be met or you can't defend yourself or another. It states that if attacked you don't have to give up ground and can defend yourself or others with lethal force to keep from being injured. By your logic, if someone pulls a gun on a clerk, a CC must stand by and watch everyone in the store get killed before they defend themselves. Come on, you can't believe that baloney. You're over-reading the article.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the SYG law:

In Oklahoma (according to the Oklahoma State Courts Network), the amendment changes a number of other aspects of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, the statutes concerning justifiable homicide. As 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1289.25 now lists circumstances in which it is presumed that a person who uses deadly force "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." In addition, it helps to protect law-abiding citizens from arrest when using deadly force. Law enforcement agencies must now have probable cause to believe that the use of deadly force was unlawful before an arrest can be made.

 

[owassopilot]

Section F of the same Statue addresses that issue:

F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term

Only thing this does is insure you win the case if you were justified. It does nothing to STOP the perp from filing a lawsuit against you. There is a HUGE difference. If you shoot someone, you need to be prepared for a civil case no matter what.

 

[owassopilot]

You are justified in using deadly force if you are threatened with death or serious harm. If the guy never points the gun at you or threatens you ,you may not be justified in using deadly force. If I could get the drop on him ,I would order him to drop the gun and get his hands in the air . At that point if he turned toward me with gun in hand I'd drop him. If he ran out the door ,let him go call police. The only way I'd shoot him in the back was if he started shooting at the clerk or someone else in the store. You shoot him in the back you may or may not get charged. You shoot him in the back and his family sues you, you may loose. I hope I never have to shoot anyone. I would if I had to but ,it not something you want to live with. I have a friend that did and it's not something that's easy to live with for most people. Read "On Killing" by Lt.Col. Dave Grossman.

How long does it really take for the perp to point his gun at you?? 1 second?? 2 seconds?? 1/2 a second?? And you really think your life is NOT in danger just because the gun is NOT pointed at you????

 

[LightningCrash]

That's exactly it...I think the way you're reading the section is assuming that all three "predicates" must be met. I'm saying that the attack portion applies to the fact that you don't have to run or give up ground.

But yet the sentence isn't constructed that way. If we were to accept your viewpoint as true, then the preceding predicate "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity" is also not a requirement for the protections of Section D, which isn't the case (they have upheld that predicate multiple times, see Dawkins vs State, 2011). It doesn't have to hold your hand and Wikipedia bullet-point with historical examples... the way it's written says everything there is.
And I never said a CC must stand by for anything. Now you are the one over-reading what is written. I just said it's not protected by Section D of the SYG Act... not that it wouldn't be justifiable homicide to shoot the robber.

The Oklahoma Jury instructions again iterate both items as a predicate for Section D:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=454361

OUJI-CR 8-15A

DEFENSE OF PERSON -

RIGHT TO STAND YOUR GROUND

A person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his/her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he/she is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is attacked in any place where he/she has a right to be, if he/she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent (death/(great bodily harm) to himself/herself/ another)/(the commission of a forcible felony).

 

[Skiluvr03]

Only thing this does is insure you win the case if you were justified. It does nothing to STOP the perp from filing a lawsuit against you. There is a HUGE difference. If you shoot someone, you need to be prepared for a civil case no matter what.

Yep, and I read, in this forum I believe, that you might as well have 50 grand for attorney fees for a Civil Suit of this nature, which is worth it if you're life is at stake.