testtest

EDC for three years now

Bassbob said:
That's the same as saying if someone is ransacking your garage you are not allowed to go out and try to stop them. That's ridiculous and absolutely you going to protect YOUR property does NOT invalidate your use of deadly force, should your life be threatened.
Click to expand...
I’m not a lawyer, but what I think a lawyer would tell you is that if you’re safe inside your home, you call the cops and wait inside your home. If the bad guys try to enter your home, then you have the right to defend yourself.

But the minute you leave that position of safety to engage the bad guys, you no longer have the claim to self defense. That’s how the law is explicitly written here in Georgia.

Let them ransack the garage. They’re not a deadly threat at that point.
 
neil0311 said:
I’m not a lawyer, but what I think a lawyer would tell you is that if you’re safe inside your home, you call the cops and wait inside your home. If the bad guys try to enter your home, then you have the right to defend yourself.

But the minute you leave that position of safety to engage the bad guys, you no longer have the claim to self defense. That’s how the law is explicitly written here in Georgia.

Let them ransack the garage. They’re not a deadly threat at that point.
Click to expand...
In fact this is why the Ahmaud Arbery case ended in convictions. Regardless of whether the defendants had good or bad intentions, they went looking for a fight. That automatically invalidates your claim to self defense in Georgia at least.
 
MAL said:
A relevant article about "warning shots"

ccwsafe.com

A Warning About Warning Shots - CCW Safe

Shawn Vincent talks with Steve Moses, Don West and Gary Eastridge about warning shots and why they're a bad idea. Find out more at CCW Safe.
ccwsafe.com ccwsafe.com
Click to expand...
We were taught in our CCW class, no warning shots……plus Ohio has a stand your ground law……

Senate Bill 175​

The Bill in question is technically called Senate Bill 175 (SB175) or “Grant Civil Immunity- Injury, Death, Loss from Carrying Handguns” (as well as the longer name, which is not necessary here). This bill takes away the duty for Ohioans to try to retreat in certain situations before using force in self defense, as long as they have a legal right to be where they are (and as long as the aggression was sufficient to warrant self defense, which is another legal issue). As always, it is important to note that the law still specifies the use of force “in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of one’s residence.(ORC 2901.09(B))” In most cases, using force for any other reason is not allowed.

The main change to the law is in regards an individual’s duty to retreat; that is, whether or not you are required to attempt to escape to a safer location before using force in a defensive manner. Ohioans now have no duty to retreat if they are anywhere they have a legal right to be. If you attack another person or threaten their safety, the law will usually be on their side if they choose to deflect your aggression with force. As long as they have a legal right to be where they are, they will no longer have the duty to try to escape beforehand. The new law allows Ohioans to “stand their ground.” Not simply protect their home, not simply protect their vehicle, but defend themselves on any ground they can legally claim to occupy at the moment.

Not only does the law change the status quo, even previous versions of the same law would have been different from the law as it ended up going into effect. The Ohio Legislature discussed removing the duty to retreat from places of worship in addition to personal residences and vehicles. However, by the time the bill was signed into law, “a place in which the person lawfully has a right to be” replaced all previous propositions.
 
Last edited:
Old_Me said:
i wish all US states would have the same laws regarding ccw, or open carry, self defense/home defense, stand your ground, etc,etc.

would make many of our lives easier, to go from one state to another.

but NOOOooooooo too many dang Blue states gotta be "baby butt wipes"
Click to expand...
You got that right. In NE we have a duty to retreat except in your castle and you absolutely can't use deadly force to protect property. I will give you a prime example that they used in a seminar I attended hosted by U.S. Law. You are shopping and returning to your vehicle. Someone is in your car hot wiring it. You approach and demand that he gets out of your car. They refuse and are unarmed as far as you can tell. If you pull your weapon to emphasize your point to get out of your vehicle you have just violated Nebraska Law and can be arrested and charged. One of the attendees asked the question "so if they get it started, even though you are armed you have to just watch them drive away?" The host answered "Yes"...
 
BreakingWind said:
You got that right. In NE we have a duty to retreat except in your castle and you absolutely can't use deadly force to protect property. I will give you a prime example that they used in a seminar I attended hosted by U.S. Law. You are shopping and returning to your vehicle. Someone is in your car hot wiring it. You approach and demand that he gets out of your car. They refuse and are unarmed as far as you can tell. If you pull your weapon to emphasize your point to get out of your vehicle you have just violated Nebraska Law and can be arrested and charged. One of the attendees asked the question "so if they get it started, even though you are armed you have to just watch them drive away?" The host answered "Yes"...
Click to expand...
so in effect, "crime pays" in some states.

until there is a "blanket" law covering all U.S. States, regarding how we can carry, or defend ourselves, or protect our property, the thugs will continue to got bolder and brazen, and in "broad daylight".

another thing too, is that in some states, the DA's office is not even prosecuting some crimes, and now too i have been hearing that there is "no bail" required....

my personal opinion is that if one has a rather large "root cellar" or basement, or hide-a-away out into the woods..?

"take care of business"
 
BreakingWind said:
You got that right. In NE we have a duty to retreat except in your castle and you absolutely can't use deadly force to protect property. I will give you a prime example that they used in a seminar I attended hosted by U.S. Law. You are shopping and returning to your vehicle. Someone is in your car hot wiring it. You approach and demand that he gets out of your car. They refuse and are unarmed as far as you can tell. If you pull your weapon to emphasize your point to get out of your vehicle you have just violated Nebraska Law and can be arrested and charged. One of the attendees asked the question "so if they get it started, even though you are armed you have to just watch them drive away?" The host answered "Yes"...
Click to expand...
It is however not against the law to have your hand on your holstered weapon while you confront them and/ or physically remove them from your car. If they go for a weapon, you are now justified to use yours to defend your life.

However, you probably have car insurance. Your time would be better spent memorizing details about the car thief so you can give a better description to the police.

Property like a car is really not worth shooting someone. That’s a different thing entirely than property like your home.
 
I am late to this discussion but from the standpoint of Florida law, here is the nut. I am just going to address the law, not the wisdom of the OP challenging the suspects outside the home.

The "castle doctrine", even though the term is not in the law, does not apply here. If someone is breaking into your dwelling or occupied vehicle, you are presumed under the law to be in fear of death or great bodily harm, and that the person breaking in is doing so with the intent to commit a violent crime. You are also justified in using non-lethal force to remove trespassers and in defense of your property.

In Florida you are justified in using deadly force, or threatening to use deadly force, to defend yourself, or others, from the imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Additionally, you are justified in using or threatening to use deadly force to stop the imminent commission of a forcible felony. Burglary is one of the enumerated forcible felonies. In Florida you have the right to stand your ground and do not have to retreat before using force. Of course all use of force cases are viewed through the reasonable man standard.

In the OP's scenario, the person committing the burglary approaching the homeowner with a pry bar when challenged would place a reasonable person in fear of death or great bodily harm. Secondly, the fact that they were in the process of committing a forcible felony (burglary) may also provide justification for the use of deadly force. You cannot use deadly force to stop a property crime alone, but burglary is listed in the statute. The justification for threatening to use deadly force (firing shots into the ground) is the same as for actually using deadly force against the person. In other words, if you can shoot them, you can fire warning shots. In Florida you are also immune from prosecution or lawsuit if your use of force is justified under chapter 776.

Florida law also specifically allows firing shots in a residential area when it becomes necessary for self defense.

So based upon the information I have from OP's post, he was legally justified and not subject to any legal action. Just because you could, does not mean you should, which is a judgment call.
 
Old_Me said:
so in effect, "crime pays" in some states.

until there is a "blanket" law covering all U.S. States, regarding how we can carry, or defend ourselves, or protect our property, the thugs will continue to got bolder and brazen, and in "broad daylight".

another thing too, is that in some states, the DA's office is not even prosecuting some crimes, and now too i have been hearing that there is "no bail" required....

my personal opinion is that if one has a rather large "root cellar" or basement, or hide-a-away out into the woods..?

"take care of business"
Click to expand...
That's exactly what is happening in Chicago and after Jan. 1st governor flintstone will install his Safe-T-Act.

illinoisfamilyaction.org

SAFE-T Act, Illinois Democrats Must Be Repealed

Big Tech and deceptive media are running cover for Illinois Democrats. Their anti-police, “equity”-for-criminals agenda is already partially in effect and will be fully enacted in Janua…
illinoisfamilyaction.org illinoisfamilyaction.org
 
Wirenut said:
That's exactly what is happening in Chicago and after Jan. 1st governor flintstone will install his Safe-T-Act.

illinoisfamilyaction.org

SAFE-T Act, Illinois Democrats Must Be Repealed

Big Tech and deceptive media are running cover for Illinois Democrats. Their anti-police, “equity”-for-criminals agenda is already partially in effect and will be fully enacted in Janua…
illinoisfamilyaction.org illinoisfamilyaction.org
Click to expand...
Yeah so the entire state can enjoy the great success of Chicago. :rolleyes:
:mad:
 
Bassbob said:
Incorrect. In Florida. And all the free states. Like the one in this article.
Click to expand...
Not incorrect. My family lives in FL and has for 30 years. I carry in FL when I’m there visiting.

You cannot go looking for a confrontation. When you do, that’s not self defense.

Standing your ground means you don’t have a duty to retreat, but that’s not the same thing as being the aggressor.
 
neil0311 said:
Not incorrect. My family lives in FL and has for 30 years. I carry in FL when I’m there visiting.

You cannot go looking for a confrontation. When you do, that’s not self defense.

Standing your ground means you don’t have a duty to retreat, but that’s not the same thing as being the aggressor.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that the OP and his wife were aggressors? If the facts are correct, the way I read it they confronted burglars on their own property, where they have every right to be. The shots were fired after they felt threatened by the guy with the prybar. Chapter 776 gives justification for use of non deadly force to defend your property, or to remove a trespasser. The trouble is, using non-deadly force against a thief or to remove a trespasser can very quickly escalate into a deadly force situation.
 
I don’t know what the laws are in the OP’s home state, and honestly It doesn’t really matter to me. His actions lacked good judgment all around. Why put yourself in danger when you’re locked behind closed doors? I don’t carry a weapon to win a gun fight, I carry to give me a better chance at surviving an unavoidable violent confrontation. If you can avoid the confrontation that’s where your best chances of surviving are. As far as firing warning shots, wow! Someone’s watched to many movies! This is a BAD idea! Once you “send it” it ain’t coming back?
 
Dside said:
I don’t know what the laws are in the OP’s home state, and honestly It doesn’t really matter to me. His actions lacked good judgment all around. Why put yourself in danger when you’re locked behind closed doors? I don’t carry a weapon to win a gun fight, I carry to give me a better chance at surviving an unavoidable violent confrontation. If you can avoid the confrontation that’s where your best chances of surviving are. As far as firing warning shots, wow! Someone’s watched to many movies! This is a BAD idea! Once you “send it” it ain’t coming back?
Click to expand...
I agree that warning shots are not a good idea but Florida law allows it in cases where you would otherwise have been justified in using deadly force. The law was changed a few years ago in response to a woman domestic violence victim being prosecuted for firing shots into the ground to warn off an ex where she would have been justified in killing him. My analysis is based upon the law, not on any judgment calls. Just because you can does not mean you should. Greetings from the Gunshine State
 
HayesGreener said:
I agree that warning shots are not a good idea but Florida law allows it in cases where you would otherwise have been justified in using deadly force. The law was changed a few years ago in response to a woman domestic violence victim being prosecuted for firing shots into the ground to warn off an ex where she would have been justified in killing him. My analysis is based upon the law, not on any judgment calls. Just because you can does not mean you should. Greetings from the Gunshine State
Click to expand...
Legality and good judgement are not always in alignment, this is a perfect example.
 
Bassbob said:
No I did not. I merely said it was legal.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. In Florida, it IS legal to fire warning shots and it IS legal to go outside your home. Trouble is ... I think some are confusing 'legal' with 'smart'. No matter - the OP is in Deland. Even if his warning shots WERE against the law, I don't see 'anyone', local or county, making a fuss.
 
HayesGreener said:
Are you suggesting that the OP and his wife were aggressors? If the facts are correct, the way I read it they confronted burglars on their own property, where they have every right to be. The shots were fired after they felt threatened by the guy with the prybar. Chapter 776 gives justification for use of non deadly force to defend your property, or to remove a trespasser. The trouble is, using non-deadly force against a thief or to remove a trespasser can very quickly escalate into a deadly force situation.
Click to expand...
I’m suggesting if there are burglars in the garage and they are safely in the house, and they go out to the garage and use deadly force…yes…they would be the aggressor at that point.

Standing your ground is NOT the same thing as looking for a fight or using deadly force when your life is not threatened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top