http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR 8-2
Read the Notes of Use and Committee Comments.
http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR 8-2
Read the Notes of Use and Committee Comments.
Which of these is the store clerk:
husband/wife/parent/child/master/mistress/servant
?
Maybe you posted the wrong link
OK here's my last post of the night. Show me case law that proves your point. You argue that SDA won't protect a CC from defending another person unless the CC is being attacked. Show me any Oklahoma case where the CC wasn't breaking the law (unlike Dawkins v State), was in a place he had a right to be, then defended someone (when he wasn't under personal attack) and was found guilty of murder/manslaughter. Bet you don't find one.....ever. If you find one....I'll happily agree that your interpretation of the SDA is correct. If you can't find one....you prove my case. Otherwise, I'm done beating this dead horse with ya.
how did the horse die? one to the hip?
This guy was a felon with an illegal sawed offo shotgun also making it double illegal being in his posession. Got another example?
If you look at the video posted in this thread, the guy who shot the robber wasnt in "immediate" danger according to some of you yahoos. The clerk w/ the ccw was actually the farthest person away from the robber yet he was easily in just as much danger as anyone in that lobby.
A robber doesnt endanger life on a person by person basis. When they occupy a space with the intent to harm anyone in their path, individuals in that space have reason to be in fear of their life and thus protect it.
A robber doesnt endanger life on a person by person basis. When they occupy a space with the intent to harm anyone in their path, individuals in that space have reason to be in fear of their life and thus protect it.
Is there case law that proves your point? I've shown you Dawkins. CCW isn't even a point of discussion here, how do you feel that it relates to the discussion at hand? The SDA isn't even what's being discussed here. We've been discussing the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 (Title 21 § 1289). How do you think your comment relates to Sec 1289?
and Fritz Pierce was just a country bumpkin with a pistol shoved down his pants, but it has set precedent for almost one hundred years. Heller v DC was just about a guy wanting a pistol.
Even a felon can commit justifiable homicide... yet in this case the jurors didn't feel Dawkins was justified, even though he claimed was defending another who he claimed was in imminent peril. Why do you suppose that is? How do those circumstances differ from shooting a convenience store robber in the back?
ETA:
You might think I'm going on a bit, but I really want to explore the whole issue. I don't want to hear later that someone shot somebody in the back solely because Herp McDerp on OSA said you wouldn't go to jail for it. To be sure, I'd rather not have someone in a position where they need to shoot someone at all, but it would be nice if they do end up in such a position, they have previously considered the legal ramifications.
Last edited:
I have a few more family members on the list, but I agree with you.
The Dawkins case was BS (he was carrying an illegal gun)....try again. Your the one that was saying it's illegal to defend an innocent person from a deadly attack (other than yourself....and to do so YOU must be under attack). I still don't buy your version and never will unless you can show case law that backs it up. Nuff said.
Similar threads
