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
Kansas Happening
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="inactive" data-source="post: 789455" data-attributes="member: 7488"><p>Since 1987, last amended 2006:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=69782" target="_blank">http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=69782</a></p><p></p><p>Problem with Mr. Gumm is he was not in a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. In order to use deadly force outside of a dwelling, residence, or occupised vehicle, one must "meet force with force" and have a reasonable belief that severe bodily harm or death exists, which is difficult to substantiate with a (presumably) unarmed assailant. Despite the threats, no tangible disparity of force exists; meaning Mr. Turney did not have a weapon and reportedly made no mention of having a weapon he would use to dispatch Mr. Gumm. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his actions, but this is my understanding as to where the cause of action against Mr. Gumm existed. </p><p></p><p>The problem with the KS poster as he was the instigator, and it is diffuclt to prove one is "standing his or ground" when he or she sought out the other party involved to instigate a conflict. The totality of facts and circumstance must be considered, not simply a right to draw or shoot exists because someone illegaly entered an occupied vehicle.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inactive, post: 789455, member: 7488"] Since 1987, last amended 2006: [url]http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=69782[/url] Problem with Mr. Gumm is he was not in a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. In order to use deadly force outside of a dwelling, residence, or occupised vehicle, one must "meet force with force" and have a reasonable belief that severe bodily harm or death exists, which is difficult to substantiate with a (presumably) unarmed assailant. Despite the threats, no tangible disparity of force exists; meaning Mr. Turney did not have a weapon and reportedly made no mention of having a weapon he would use to dispatch Mr. Gumm. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his actions, but this is my understanding as to where the cause of action against Mr. Gumm existed. The problem with the KS poster as he was the instigator, and it is diffuclt to prove one is "standing his or ground" when he or she sought out the other party involved to instigate a conflict. The totality of facts and circumstance must be considered, not simply a right to draw or shoot exists because someone illegaly entered an occupied vehicle. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Kansas Happening
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom