Point don't shoot bill

[CBarCRanch]

Thank you Dave. Seems to prove we don't need the new law, like some say we need.

 

[druryj]

Well, in post #50, Dave seems to have clearly explained the subject matter for us, and in a very understandable and well written way. So yes, thanks for that post. The part about ones actions being "justified" and being able to pass the "reasonable man" test seems to really be the question here. I don't know what kind of law Dave practices, but I do
hope that he is on my side if I ever find myself in this situation.

 

[CBarCRanch]

Druryj, most attornies will be on your side for a fee. Lol. I agree with you, I appreciate the great detail Dave put into his response.

 

[white92coupe]

The gun is the last ditch effort. This puts the gun up a notch in the use of force continuum.
Im all pro gun and **** no doubt. But they give ccw licenses away like drivers licenses...and have you seen all the jackoffs driving around town.


I can't think of one scenario where this is useful. If you're gonna pull your gun to stop a threat, do it if it's your last option. If you pull a gun to show a dominant force, you better hope you understand the ****ing law inside and out because the DA is about to tear that ass up.

This law was created by a Norman Democrat. That alone is enough to trash it

Just out of curiosity, where are you finding that info at. Looking at the SB40 and it's authors, not a single one of them has a D next to their name.

 

[Dave70968]

Thank you Dave. Seems to prove we don't need the new law, like some say we need.

I agree that the changes are minor (though it does seem to add a little bit of room to prevent a forcible felony, such as detaining Joe Critter before he manages to break open your door), but I think the fact that we've been having this argument here on OSA for as long as I've been here (nearly seven years under this name) shows that we do need the clarification.

 

[tomthebaker]

I agree that the changes are minor (though it does seem to add a little bit of room to prevent a forcible felony, such as detaining Joe Critter before he manages to break open your door), but I think the fact that we've been having this argument here on OSA for as long as I've been here (nearly seven years under this name) shows that we do need the clarification.

Thank you for your thoughtful input.

 

[Sanford]

I agree that the changes are minor (though it does seem to add a little bit of room to prevent a forcible felony, such as detaining Joe Critter before he manages to break open your door), but I think the fact that we've been having this argument here on OSA for as long as I've been here (nearly seven years under this name) shows that we do need the clarification.

On the face of it I tend to agree. I can still imagine all sorts of scenarios where it could become a negative, though. Politically it would seem to be one step toward "duty to retreat" for instance.

 

[Dave70968]

On the face of it I tend to agree. I can still imagine all sorts of scenarios where it could become a negative, though. Politically it would seem to be one step toward "duty to retreat" for instance.

I don't see that at all, and with "stand your ground" still on the books, the explicit and directly-on-point law will override any implied duty from a somewhat-related law.

 

[SMS]

Horrible idea for a law. Lawfully carried firearms aren't meant to be talismans to ward off evil...they are deadly tools that should be put to work when said work is warranted.

If deadly force is justified, skin it and get to work. If it's not justified then leave it in the holster and take other courses of action...lest ye be the one accused of injecting deadly force into the equation.

 

[tomthebaker]

Horrible idea for a law. Lawfully carried firearms aren't meant to be talismans to ward off evil...they are deadly tools that should be put to work when said work is warranted.

If deadly force is justified, skin it and get to work. If it's not justified then leave it in the holster and take other courses of action...lest ye be the one accused of injecting deadly force into the equation.

Great.
So, as you draw your weapon, the bad guy throws his hands up and yells "don't shoot!"

So you shoot him.

Makes perfect sense.