lol, she wont say a wordHas the Governor made any statement on this incident yet (I have not heard any) or is she too hung over?
lol, she wont say a wordHas the Governor made any statement on this incident yet (I have not heard any) or is she too hung over?
lol, she wont say a word
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to do force-on-force training with OKCPD SWAT; when OCU Law moved to the old Central High School, they did active-shooter training there, and I got to play. In the second round, I was given a functional AR with a blank adapter and a full magazine of blanks. So...I've been in a shootout with the SWAT team :-)I do not wish to into details, but I was super aware of everything that was happening.
Has the Governor made any statement on this incident yet (I have not heard any) or is she too hung over?
I would say that you should consider taking another class, a better class, or read the law.
The revisions to Stand you Ground are taking place almost yearly over the past 3-4 years IIRC. Are you fully aware of the law on that?
I'm quoting all three of these together for a reason. I'm not here to pick on anybody, but taken in mutual context, they illustrate a very important point: the law is in a constant state of flux. We've been very successful as a community in pushing for change in the law and getting our freedoms expanded; that's a good thing. With that success, though, comes a need to keep aware of the changes.Obviously I'm not. I thought I mentioned that.
If one was a RO, he wasn't "off-duty" so it doesn't matter. As far as the other guy goes, a person is justifiable in using defense to protect themselves and others if a reasonable person under those circumstances would have believed the threat was real, whether there was a threat or not. The man had a weapon, he could have been going back for more ammo, repositiong etc. My understanding is they also told the perp to drop the weapon multiple times with no compliance.
I'm quoting all three of these together for a reason. I'm not here to pick on anybody, but taken in mutual context, they illustrate a very important point: the law is in a constant state of flux. We've been very successful as a community in pushing for change in the law and getting our freedoms expanded; that's a good thing. With that success, though, comes a need to keep aware of the changes.
Y'all know I'm a lawyer by trade, and I'm obviously interested in firearms law, and even I have been caught flat-footed a couple of times right here in this forum. I've always admitted to it and thanked the people who educated me, but the point is that nobody is immune to being misinformed about something that changes regularly and can be fairly technical at times. That's a big part of why I go to the lengths I do to post details and references: we can all use a refresher from time-to-time, and doing the research is my refresher, as well as providing the information to others so we all have good information. Still, I'd second @Pokinfun's suggestion that you take "another class," not because your first one was bad, but because we can all use some recurrent training.
Enter your email address to join: