Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Defense of property?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Stephen Cue" data-source="post: 1618527" data-attributes="member: 3008"><p>I'm your huckleberry...</p><p></p><p>The castle doctrine basically states that one can use deadly force to defend oneself & family against an intruder; no matter if we know the intruder has a deadly force weapon on them or not. The mere fact that they are attempting to break into your dwelling shows that they intend to cause harm to the occupants of said dwelling; so we can use pretty much any degree of force necessary to defend ourselves up to and including deadly force.</p><p></p><p>The carrying of firearms is not prohibited on private property. Now the use of firearms to protect your property outside of your dwelling is a different matter. We cannot USE deadly force to protect personal property, but IMHO that does not limit us from the THREAT of deadly force to protect our property while on our own land or private land that we have permission to have firearms on. Follow me? </p><p></p><p>Scenario1:</p><p></p><p>You're in your home and hear someone breaking into your car, you grab your gun, run outside to find someone burglarizing your car, vandalizing, or other universal mayhem. </p><p></p><p>Option 1. You shoot the perp on sight, no threat of sever bodily harm to you indicated.</p><p></p><p>Option 2. You intervene vocally with a threat of deadly force but do not shoot; the perp then runs freezes and/or runs away.</p><p></p><p>Option 3. You intervene vocally with a threat of deadly force, the perp then indicates imminent danger, you then shoot neutralizing the threat to you.</p><p></p><p>Which one is legal? Also tell me if I am even close to what you're asking.</p><p></p><p>IMHO, only options 2 & 3 are justified uses of deadly force in this given scenario with the info shown.</p><p></p><p>Now protecting your property while not on your own land or private and that you have permission to carry on is another scenario.</p><p></p><p>In relation to this setting, I believe that one cannot intervene with deadly force or even the threat of deadly force to protect property alone.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Scenario 2: You go to the Justin Beiber concert by yourself like you normally do, you're walking to your car after it just ended and you decide you are craving Cherry Berry or Fresh Berry. While walking out of the BOK center, you notice someone breaking into your 1979 Pinto station wagon with faux wood paneling. Now since the Bieber concert promoters are the ones that were directly dealing with the public at the BOK center and they did not have metal detectors at the door or signage stating that you could not have firearms, you happened to carry your deadly force tool.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Option1. You start blasting.</p><p></p><p>Option 2. You intervene with your Lorcin 9mm and tell the perp to stop. The perp then runs away or freezes.</p><p></p><p>Option 3. You intervene vocally without pulling your DFT, the perp then displays imminent danger to you and reveals a weapon that would lead a reasonable person to believe it would lead to severe bodily harm or death if used. Since the perp is not anywhere near the athlete to not only effectively execute the 21ft rule on you, he cannot even execute the 7 yard rule* on you, you neutralize the threat to sever bodily harm or death.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>IMHO, only option 3 is legal justified.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Stephen Cue, post: 1618527, member: 3008"] I'm your huckleberry... The castle doctrine basically states that one can use deadly force to defend oneself & family against an intruder; no matter if we know the intruder has a deadly force weapon on them or not. The mere fact that they are attempting to break into your dwelling shows that they intend to cause harm to the occupants of said dwelling; so we can use pretty much any degree of force necessary to defend ourselves up to and including deadly force. The carrying of firearms is not prohibited on private property. Now the use of firearms to protect your property outside of your dwelling is a different matter. We cannot USE deadly force to protect personal property, but IMHO that does not limit us from the THREAT of deadly force to protect our property while on our own land or private land that we have permission to have firearms on. Follow me? Scenario1: You're in your home and hear someone breaking into your car, you grab your gun, run outside to find someone burglarizing your car, vandalizing, or other universal mayhem. Option 1. You shoot the perp on sight, no threat of sever bodily harm to you indicated. Option 2. You intervene vocally with a threat of deadly force but do not shoot; the perp then runs freezes and/or runs away. Option 3. You intervene vocally with a threat of deadly force, the perp then indicates imminent danger, you then shoot neutralizing the threat to you. Which one is legal? Also tell me if I am even close to what you're asking. IMHO, only options 2 & 3 are justified uses of deadly force in this given scenario with the info shown. Now protecting your property while not on your own land or private and that you have permission to carry on is another scenario. In relation to this setting, I believe that one cannot intervene with deadly force or even the threat of deadly force to protect property alone. Scenario 2: You go to the Justin Beiber concert by yourself like you normally do, you're walking to your car after it just ended and you decide you are craving Cherry Berry or Fresh Berry. While walking out of the BOK center, you notice someone breaking into your 1979 Pinto station wagon with faux wood paneling. Now since the Bieber concert promoters are the ones that were directly dealing with the public at the BOK center and they did not have metal detectors at the door or signage stating that you could not have firearms, you happened to carry your deadly force tool. Option1. You start blasting. Option 2. You intervene with your Lorcin 9mm and tell the perp to stop. The perp then runs away or freezes. Option 3. You intervene vocally without pulling your DFT, the perp then displays imminent danger to you and reveals a weapon that would lead a reasonable person to believe it would lead to severe bodily harm or death if used. Since the perp is not anywhere near the athlete to not only effectively execute the 21ft rule on you, he cannot even execute the 7 yard rule* on you, you neutralize the threat to sever bodily harm or death. IMHO, only option 3 is legal justified. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Defense of property?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom