Point don't shoot bill

[Hoov]

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.

Agreed. I am reminded of the video from Cleveland with the woman who pulls the gun on her son's barber because it "was taking too long."

 

[rawhide]

Agreed. I am reminded of the video from Cleveland with the woman who pulls the gun on her son's barber because it "was taking too long."

That scenario would be decriminalized by the new law?

 

[SMS]

That scenario would be decriminalized by the new law?

No, but it would sure muddy the waters even more.

 

[rawhide]

Muddy the waters more than a person charged with a felony because they presented a firearm in self defense?

No, but it would sure muddy the waters even more.

 

[SMS]

Muddy the waters more than a person charged with a felony because they presented a firearm in self defense?

Can you cite a single case where someone presented a firearm in a legitimate self defense situation where they would have been found justified if they had shot someone and were charged with brandishing instead?

I can't find one, but there are tons of cases of folks jerking pistols on people for any number of reasons beyond self defense. We don't need to give them an excuse.

 

[MacFromOK]

Can you cite a single case where someone presented a firearm in a legitimate self defense situation where they would have been found justified if they had shot someone and were charged with brandishing instead?

I can't find one, but there are tons of cases of folks jerking pistols on people for any number of reasons beyond self defense. We don't need to give them an excuse.

This is the reason I see no advantage to this legislation. A threat must be established for a legitimate "self-defense" defense, with or without the bill.

Otherwise yer gonna do time for brandishing/threatening or whatever Oklahoma calls it. And again, with or without the bill.

 

[Dave70968]

No, but it would sure muddy the waters even more.

How do you figure? The bill allows her to draw a firearm to prevent a crime. Unless you're suggesting that somebody might think a slow haircut is a crime, it doesn't muddy anything.

 

[Dave70968]

No, but it would sure muddy the waters even more.

The bill allows her to draw to prevent a crime. Unless you're suggesting that a slow haircut is a crime, it doesn't muddy anything...and if you are suggesting that, please cite to the appropriate statute.

 

[okie362]

I'm not a lawyer but I have found over the years that a little common sense goes a long way. Also remember that with or without the change, you still have the "reasonable person" element to prove. The bill does take away the BS rhetoric of "If you pull it someone better get shot." but in reality changes nothing other than legislating common sense IMHO.

 

[SMS]

How do you figure? The bill allows her to draw a firearm to prevent a crime. Unless you're suggesting that somebody might think a slow haircut is a crime, it doesn't muddy anything.

A firearm should only be drawn, and fired, to answer a clear and imminent threat of deadly force, not merely to "stop a crime" or because "that guy over there looks scary".

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.