Get involved or mind your own? - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Get involved or mind your own?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomsAdvocate View Post
    Well, according to Gutmacher:

    .

    Page 187:
    Page 225 under the use and display of a weapon:

    BUT, you have to get a jury to say you acted 'reasonably'. If you are facing a mandatory 3 year prison sentence for aggravated assault the jury determination of 'reasonable' is critical (or you automatically go to prison.)

    Aggravated assault (FS 775.087(2)) is simply a normal assault that includes a 'deadly weapon'. Pointing a gun at someone is by definition aggravated assault, and is punishable by a mandatory 3 year sentence.

    So, I guess it all depends on the jury...if you want to chance it. It would also depend on if the person(s) you pointed it at presses charges.
    From your first quote, the key word is IMPROPER. Brandishing to stop a threat can hardly be considered improper display of a firearm.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,096

    Exclamation If your case goes in front of the "wrong" judge...

    If your case goes in front of a liberal hug a thug judge, You may be in deep doodoo. You see lately the trend has been to legislate from the bench and it ain't pretty. Utah HAD a female judge that hated guns, hunters and did not think much of God fearing Christians. It took an election to remove her from her throne. By then several people were charged with contempt of court simply because she did not like them or their values. Never mind the fact that the other folks were within the law.

    Similar cases have come out of California, Illinios and Colorado that I know of.
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  4. #13
    In Georgia if you or someone else is in imminent danger then it is legal to use deadly force as shown in the following:

    a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    In Georgia if you or someone else is in imminent danger then it is legal to use deadly force as shown in the following:

    a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    The code seems to justify deadly force but is silent on brandishing.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    The code seems to justify deadly force but is silent on brandishing.
    In the Ga. code , i feel the section "a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force" would cover brandishing as it would fall under threatening.

    It all depends on the defination of brandishing and why you were doing it.

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    The code seems to justify deadly force but is silent on brandishing.
    If you're talking about someone displaying a weapon as a threat against you, as long as you did not provoke the incident (i.e. trespassing, threatening to kick his but, etc.) this can be seen as a deadly threat. Of course I'm not a lawyer and there's always the chance you may be required to prove you were in imminent danger. This is the chance you take and the reason deadly force should be a last resort.

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    From your first quote, the key word is IMPROPER. Brandishing to stop a threat can hardly be considered improper display of a firearm.
    IMPROPER was part of the title of the section in the book, too. I don't know that one can depend on that to justify as to its legality: after all, 'shall not be infringed' has been legally ignored and misinterpreted for a while. ;-)

    'rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner' is what legally defines 'improper' and is the real criteria by which its legality judged.
    Last edited by FreedomsAdvocate; 01-07-2009 at 11:45 PM.
    - FreedomsAdvocate
    Citizenship ought to be reserved for those who carry arms. - Aristotle
    My latest article on Associated Content

  9. #18
    tattendupboy:

    After I re-read my reply, I thought it could be taken wrong. Just so that doesn't happen, your statement:

    you may be required to prove you were in imminent danger. This is the chance you take and the reason deadly force should be a last resort.
    is right on target. I agree completely.
    - FreedomsAdvocate
    Citizenship ought to be reserved for those who carry arms. - Aristotle
    My latest article on Associated Content

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    If your case goes in front of a liberal hug a thug judge, You may be in deep doodoo.
    .
    I think it's more so the wrong jury than the wrong judge that could do someone in in a situation like this, which is why picking a sympathetic jury is just half the battle.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    20
    This is just one man's opinion but "carrying" a concealed weapon offers us no protection at all. It is the understanding that we may be placed in the terrible situation where the taking of another's life can occur and our willingness to do so if it does get to that point. Hopefully that burden has been considered by everyone who carries a weapon. I carry a weapon because I've accepted the burden of being willing, if necessary, to use it.

    We are not LEO's and we have no obligation to stop a crime in progress but California law allows use of deadly force and homicide (literally the killing of a human) in several instances. Since a holstered weapon worn on the body can't "reasonably" be used in the situations originally posted, drawing the weapon would not be brandishing but would be a logical step between observing and intervening.


    CA Penal Code 197

    Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
    any of the following cases:
    1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
    felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
    2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
    against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
    surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
    and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
    the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
    person therein
    ; or,
    3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
    wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
    person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
    commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
    danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
    person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
    or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
    endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
    committed; or,
    4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
    means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
    lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
    the peace.

    "The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right." ~ Mark Twain

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast