Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Gun Rights - right to bear arms

Gun Rights - right to bear arms (Page 3)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 12:55 PM
 
Case 1: The guy swung a bottle a the store owner several times. Not a very smart thing to do to a guy holding a gun on you. I would call that "self defense" .... definitely not "murder".

OAW
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post

I'm no expert on this topic, but my impression was that even the most aggressive self-defense laws (stand your ground) don't allow you to pursue a fleeing former-assailant, not after they are already running away. I want the defender to win the confrontation, but he shouldn't have chased them.
I can actually agree with chasing to the door and if it stops there and he becomes a guard to the door until the police arrive that's fine by me and seems very reasonable to me. I think its a mistake to react the way he did because of the potential of so many people being hurt. But I can't fault him. It would have been considered self defense in this country.

Something we have in Canada that I am not sure you have in the US is something called a citizens arrest. This is way more powerful then self defense laws and is better to use in situations like that store owner situation.

In Canada if you use a weapon in self defense the chances of charges being laid against you by the crown is high. Those kind of altercations usually end up with both people before the courts. But if you scream out to the person they are under a citizens arrest any action you take including the use of a weapon as long as its reasonable force is allowed and you get a special protection against prosecution because you where conducting a arrest. You are then legally allowed to detain the person and use reasonable force to capture the person as long as you turn them over to chartered police. This can be used in witnessing any kind of crime by any citizen. If I see a kid shop lifting I can arrest him, hold him and turn him over with minimal risk of repercussion.

I once witnessed a tenant get into a altercation with another tenant. The guy had assaulted his girlfriend in the hall way and the other tenant stepped in, was actually kinda stupid but it ended up in a fight. The police had them both in handcuffs while talking to the guy who interviewed which was outside my door the cop suggested that he basically was arresting the other guy for a assault he witnessed. He didn't get it the first time and the cop repeated it in a slightly slower and different tone and he figured out what the cop was saying and said yes I was arresting him. Technically he never did tell the guy he was arresting him but once he told the cop that the cop let him go. The citizen arrest powers are much better then claiming just self defense in this country.


Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Case 1: The guy swung a bottle a the store owner several times. Not a very smart thing to do to a guy holding a gun on you. I would call that "self defense" .... definitely not "murder".

OAW
The store owner put himself in that position, can easily argue the shoplifter was defending himself from a mad man with a gun. In Canada the shop owner would have seen jail time for that one. Its hard to argue that at any point the store owner was under enough risk of threat to condone shooting at the suspect. If one of our cops shot a suspect running away who's unarmed in a similar situation like that one that cop would face criminal charges.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The store owner put himself in that position, can easily argue the shoplifter was defending himself from a mad man with a gun. In Canada the shop owner would have seen jail time for that one. Its hard to argue that at any point the store owner was under enough risk of threat to condone shooting at the suspect. If one of our cops shot a suspect running away who's unarmed in a similar situation like that one that cop would face criminal charges.
True. He was detaining the guy until the cops arrived. That "citizen's arrest" thing you were mentioning above. That being said I will retract what I said earlier about it definitely not being murder. I looked at the video again and it appears that the guy ran away after he swung the bottle at the store owner. I'm not 100% certain of what happened because he was off camera. But the narration said he ran to the cab and tried to drive off. What I am 100% certain of is that the store owner PURSUED the fleeing suspect and started shooting AFTER that had taken place. Given the circumstances I wouldn't personally consider that "murder" ... more like "manslaughter". But from a legal standpoint the line between the two may not be where I think it is or should be.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
True. He was detaining the guy until the cops arrived. That "citizen's arrest" thing you were mentioning above. That being said I will retract what I said earlier about it definitely not being murder. I looked at the video again and it appears that the guy ran away after he swung the bottle at the store owner. I'm not 100% certain of what happened because he was off camera. But the narration said he ran to the cab and tried to drive off. What I am 100% certain of is that the store owner PURSUED the fleeing suspect and started shooting AFTER that had taken place. Given the circumstances I wouldn't personally consider that "murder" ... more like "manslaughter". But from a legal standpoint the line between the two may not be where I think it is or should be.

OAW
To me its neither. If you don't want to die, don't commit a violent felony
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 07:45 PM
 
Shoplifting is hardly a violent felony...

The man died of his gunshot wounds.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Shoplifting is hardly a violent felony...

The man died of his gunshot wounds.
No but attacking the clerk/owner turns it from shoplifting to robbery, even if it was just a bottle it shows violent intent.


I can't grasp how you can defend a robber. If you don't want to get shot, don't commit crimes in which you are likely to do so. Not rocket science.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I can't grasp how you can defend a robber. If you don't want to get shot, don't commit crimes in which you are likely to do so. Not rocket science.
I think the general idea here is committing a crime where a gun is present shouldn't open the door to citizens doling out the death penalty as they see fit, without evaluation.. I imagine gun rights advocates see this as 'deterrence' and gun control advocates as 'chaos'.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No but attacking the clerk/owner turns it from shoplifting to robbery, even if it was just a bottle it shows violent intent.
Even if that violent intent only surfaces after the other party draws a gun, AND physically blocks non-violent flight? That's a stretch. How can you attribute violent intent to someone who first attempted the non-violent route (running away) and was blocked, with the threat of violence no less?

I can't grasp how you can defend a robber. If you don't want to get shot, don't commit crimes in which you are likely to do so. Not rocket science.
There can be blame on both sides. I don't think anyone has defended the robber, we're merely exploring whether there is blame on both sides, or only on the robber's side.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 02:08 PM
 
Im not defending the robber. And im not going to defend a private citizen using excessive force resulting in death either. Its inexcusable to use that level of force against a shop lifter that appears unarmed. And its out right murder when a person is being shot at from behind who is fleeing posing no threat of harm. No property is worth a human life. I can't grasp how you are ok with killing some one over theft. Yet I bet you are totally opposed to abortion at the same time
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Even if that violent intent only surfaces after the other party draws a gun, AND physically blocks non-violent flight? That's a stretch. How can you attribute violent intent to someone who first attempted the non-violent route (running away) and was blocked, with the threat of violence no less?
The violent intent can be inferred from their willingness to commit and crime in the first place. The assumption of "law-biding" citizen disappears during the commission of a crime, and as such I believe the store owner should be reasonably expected to take actions to protect himself and his property. The store owner has no way of knowing what this person is willing to do, besides their disregard for the law.

Its not rocket science. If you don't want to run into people using force to defend themselves and their livelihoods, don't commit a crime.

There can be blame on both sides. I don't think anyone has defended the robber, we're merely exploring whether there is blame on both sides, or only on the robber's side.
By faulting the store owner at all, you are de facto supporting a robber's ability to rob without fear of employees trying to stop them. How about with armed robbery, and in that situation, do you believe you could reasonably tell the difference between an armed robber and an unarmed one in that split second? I don't think that burden should be placed on the law-abiding citizen.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 01:22 AM
 


This is illegal in some states. Guess we should shoot them dead too. You know its even illegal in some places to not cut the grass. Guess we should shoot those mofo's too.

You def have that black and white view on things. Its either one way or the other. No scale. Moral of the story, before you rob the store shoot the owner dead first. Oh hey I think we figured out why there seems to be that extra bit of violence in the US compared to other western countries in crimes.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The violent intent can be inferred from their willingness to commit and crime in the first place. The assumption of "law-biding" citizen disappears during the commission of a crime, and as such I believe the store owner should be reasonably expected to take actions to protect himself and his property. The store owner has no way of knowing what this person is willing to do, besides their disregard for the law.
If you have no way of knowing, then your best bet is to try to put distance between this potentially dangerous robber and you/your store. As soon as you decide to take control and keep him there, you broadcast that you think you do know what is what, and what to do about it. It's not self-defense once you prevent them from leaving. Everything changes once you do that.


Its not rocket science. If you don't want to run into people using force to defend themselves and their livelihoods, don't commit a crime.
Exactly, if the owner didn't want to run into the robber using force (throwing the bottle) to defend himself, he shouldn't have backed him into a corner by preventing him from running away. The fault for the bottle being thrown was at least partly on the store owner, because he was in control, he was the one who wouldn't let the robber leave.


By faulting the store owner at all, you are de facto supporting a robber's ability to rob without fear of employees trying to stop them.
That's ridiculous. We can never fault the police at all, even when they use illegal or disproportionate methods in pursuit of criminals? I know I've seen you fault the police before.

The store owner is perfectly free to stop the robber by using his gun to interrupt the robber's crime. But going further by stopping the robber from fleeing is both disproportionate and illogical, because it backs the robber into a corner and forces him to fight back. Now instead of defending a pack of cigarettes, he's defending his life. That is not a smart trade for the store owner.


How about with armed robbery, and in that situation, do you believe you could reasonably tell the difference between an armed robber and an unarmed one in that split second? I don't think that burden should be placed on the law-abiding citizen.
You would be stupid to prevent an armed robber from running away too. Them running away is the best outcome. You running away is second-best. A shoot out is worst. Not because you might shoot the robber, but because you might get shot.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 12:45 PM
 
Majority of stores in this country will fire employees for fighting back. Its required to cooperate in robberies for the safety of employees and customers. Its a good policy, the majority of deaths I can think of in this city during robberies are all people that fought back.

One of the more recent ones

http://www.cspnet.com/news/fuels/art...ent-grants-law

This dude tried to stop a gas and run by running in front of the car to stop it. Well it didn't stop and he was dragged to his death and for what, $12.00 freaking dollars of gas. Because of this idiots attempt to be a hero we all have to pre-pay for gas now.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If you have no way of knowing, then your best bet is to try to put distance between this potentially dangerous robber and you/your store. As soon as you decide to take control and keep him there, you broadcast that you think you do know what is what, and what to do about it. It's not self-defense once you prevent them from leaving. Everything changes once you do that.



Exactly, if the owner didn't want to run into the robber using force (throwing the bottle) to defend himself, he shouldn't have backed him into a corner by preventing him from running away. The fault for the bottle being thrown was at least partly on the store owner, because he was in control, he was the one who wouldn't let the robber leave.
IMO, the robber has no right to defend himself once he's committed the crime. Perhaps you and I differ on this, but I'm absolutely in favor of the store owner making a citizens arrest until authorities can arrive, so long as the authorities are called promptly. I would put the CA squarely in the category of the store owner defending his livelihood. The police aren't going to replace stolen and/or damaged goods, nor prevent the criminal from returning armed to finish his score.


That's ridiculous. We can never fault the police at all, even when they use illegal or disproportionate methods in pursuit of criminals? I know I've seen you fault the police before.
Absolutely, but the public trust and private establishments are very different IMO. Do I think the store owner can summarily execute the offender? No. Beat him? No. Make a reasonable attempt to detain then defend himself against force? Yes.

The store owner is perfectly free to stop the robber by using his gun to interrupt the robber's crime. But going further by stopping the robber from fleeing is both disproportionate and illogical, because it backs the robber into a corner and forces him to fight back. Now instead of defending a pack of cigarettes, he's defending his life. That is not a smart trade for the store owner.
Perhaps, but thats for the store owner to decide. I am in favor of the right to defend your life and livelihood. The store owner doesn't have to do anything but to me its ridiculous to prosecute a store owner for attempting to detain a robber in the confines of his store. Chasing him down the street? No, but inside the property. Yes.


You would be stupid to prevent an armed robber from running away too. Them running away is the best outcome. You running away is second-best. A shoot out is worst. Not because you might shoot the robber, but because you might get shot.
The best outcome, IMO, is the robbery never taking place because the perpetrator knows that the store is fully capable of defending themselves and the store. The next best outcome is the robber being brought to justice by detainment until police arrive. Then the two you listed. It is up the the store owner, IMO, if they want to take that risk. Perhaps its just a difference in ideology.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Feb 21, 2013 at 02:22 PM. )
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Majority of stores in this country will fire employees for fighting back. Its required to cooperate in robberies for the safety of employees and customers. Its a good policy, the majority of deaths I can think of in this city during robberies are all people that fought back.
Really? I read the press releases from my local PD almost every week, and more often than not the murders are on unarmed store clerks/owners working graveyard. It's so frequent it doesn't even make the news. IMO, its up to the store owner to set policy and the employees to make the call. I live in a nice area, too.

That "policy" you speak of is a corporate policy to keep the company from being sued because the 17 year old "LP specialists" they hire for $8 an hour are more of liability with regards to the law than anything else. Its just a business decision, one that every store owner should have the right to make. They are absolutely within their rights to detain someone during the commission of a crime and many have done so, and continue to do so to this day.

One of the more recent ones
B.C. to Implement "Grant's Law"

This dude tried to stop a gas and run by running in front of the car to stop it. Well it didn't stop and he was dragged to his death and for what, $12.00 freaking dollars of gas. Because of this idiots attempt to be a hero we all have to pre-pay for gas now.
You cannot outlaw stupidity. Most would probably have made a different decision however taking away the right to defend yourself and your store because someone exercised that right and lost is absurd. The store owner should be able to set his policy and act without fear of prosecution so long as he is reasonably trying to interrupt the crime in progress and detain the offender.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 02:23 PM
 
Citizen's Arrest - FindLaw

Reasonable Force
Despite the fact that citizens arrests do not carry the same constitutional requirements as a typical arrest, individuals must only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary to make the arrest. Just what exactly constitutes the reasonable and necessary amount of force depends on the facts surrounding each arrest. Juries will usually examine the facts surrounding a citizens arrest and make the determination of whether it involved excessive force.

The use of excessive force can open up the arresting individual to civil and criminal liability, and this is especially true when individuals use deadly force to apprehend criminals. States have different rules about the use of deadly force during a citizens arrest, and failure to comply with the law in this area can result in serious consequences.

Some states prohibit the use of deadly force except in circumstances where the person making the arrest or someone else is faced with the threat of serious bodily injury or immediate use of deadly physical force. In these situations, the person making the arrest may use deadly force in order to prevent harm to themselves or others.

Other states allow people making a citizens arrest to use deadly force to stop a fleeing arrestee as long as the person making the arrest used reasonable methods in order to make the arrest. Some states go further and require that the person using deadly force first attempt to restrain the subject of the arrest, and other states require pursuit and an explicitly stated intent to arrest before using deadly force.

Any use of deadly force during a citizens arrest that does not comply with the applicable state law could result in manslaughter or murder charges against the arresting individual, as well as a wrongful death lawsuit from the family of the suspected criminal.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Ty Dakar. Its state by state, as it should be. And i have no problems with the conditions outlined in your excerpt.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The police aren't going to replace stolen and/or damaged goods, nor prevent the criminal from returning armed to finish his score.
Thats what insurance is for

Absolutely, but the public trust and private establishments are very different IMO. Do I think the store owner can summarily execute the offender? No. Beat him? No. Make a reasonable attempt to detain then defend himself against force? Yes.
If cops cant shoot a person in the back running away why should a citizen be allowed to.

The best outcome, IMO, is the robbery never taking place because the perpetrator knows that the store is fully capable of defending themselves and the store. The next best outcome is the robber being brought to justice by detainment until police arrive. Then the two you listed. It is up the the store owner, IMO, if they want to take that risk. Perhaps its just a difference in ideology.
Crazy talk... people don't steal for sport as a game. They steal out of desperation for money and goods to sustain ones life or drugs. The thought, oh this place might be armed does not prevent them from robbing it. Instead it makes them think "hum perhaps I should shoot first then rob it"
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Really? I read the press releases from my local PD almost every week, and more often than not the murders are on unarmed store clerks/owners working graveyard. It's so frequent it doesn't even make the news. IMO, its up to the store owner to set policy and the employees to make the call. I live in a nice area, too.

That "policy" you speak of is a corporate policy to keep the company from being sued because the 17 year old "LP specialists" they hire for $8 an hour are more of liability with regards to the law than anything else. Its just a business decision, one that every store owner should have the right to make. They are absolutely within their rights to detain someone during the commission of a crime and many have done so, and continue to do so to this day.
That's your countries problem. I said my country. It's not for lawsuits its for safety. We are not lawsuit crazy in my country either.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Thats what insurance is for
And what drives the price of insurance?


If cops cant shoot a person in the back running away why should a citizen be allowed to.
The cops will open fire if someone they are attempting to detain uses force against them.


Crazy talk... people don't steal for sport as a game. They steal out of desperation for money and goods to sustain ones life or drugs. The thought, oh this place might be armed does not prevent them from robbing it. Instead it makes them think "hum perhaps I should shoot first then rob it"
Okay, how does that fly in the face of a store owners right to defend their store? If anything, thats even more a reason to give leeway to the store owner. What you're suggesting means any criminal can walk into a store and steal with impunity. Who's going to stop them?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
That's your countries problem. I said my country. It's not for lawsuits its for safety. We are not lawsuit crazy in my country either.
Well there you go. What you're suggesting won't work here, then.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The thought, oh this place might be armed does not prevent them from robbing it. Instead it makes them think "hum perhaps I should shoot first then rob it"
BS. Criminals intent on robbing a place are for the most part not interested in dying in the process. If a criminal KNOWS a place has an armed guard and/or armed employees I'm pretty certain he/she will try to find somewhere else to rob that they know is unarmed.

This is kind of the point the NRA is trying to make - criminals will be reluctant to commit crimes in places they know have armed employees/customers present.

Think of these recent mass shootings. How many lives would have possibly been saved if someone in the crowd was armed? What if multiple people were armed and the shooter knew it. Would he still pick that place to commit his mass shooting? Doubtful.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Okay, how does that fly in the face of a store owners right to defend their store? If anything, thats even more a reason to give leeway to the store owner. What you're suggesting means any criminal can walk into a store and steal with impunity. Who's going to stop them?
Store owners do NOT have the right to "defend their store" with LETHAL force. Just like a cop can't shoot an unarmed criminal that they just watched rob a store and run out the door, neither can anyone else use lethal force to take down an unarmed criminal.

The law is VERY clear on when lethal force may be used. Stopping an unarmed man who robbed you is not one of them.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Store owners do NOT have the right to "defend their store" with LETHAL force. Just like a cop can't shoot an unarmed criminal that they just watched rob a store and run out the door, neither can anyone else use lethal force to take down an unarmed criminal.

The law is VERY clear on when lethal force may be used. Stopping an unarmed man who robbed you is not one of them.
It varies from state to state, but in most places you do have that authority as outlined by Dakar's citation. It's only 5 posts up, give it a read.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Absolutely, but the public trust and private establishments are very different IMO. Do I think the store owner can summarily execute the offender? No. Beat him? No. Make a reasonable attempt to detain then defend himself against force? Yes.
He can't execute the offender, but he can back him into a corner and give him no choice but to defend himself (which you say he has no right to do but will do anyway given no other choice), at which point you can execute him? That's an egregious loophole in the rule against summary execution.

I agree that a defender is allowed to take control of their own defense, but by taking control you also take responsibility for what happens, that's what responsible gun ownership is. You can't choose to take that control and then blame everyone else for the consequences.


Perhaps, but thats for the store owner to decide. I am in favor of the right to defend your life and livelihood. The store owner doesn't have to do anything but to me its ridiculous to prosecute a store owner for attempting to detain a robber in the confines of his store.
Don't pretend this is about the detention. It's about killing him as part of the detention.


The best outcome, IMO, is the robbery never taking place because the perpetrator knows that the store is fully capable of defending themselves and the store.
You don't think that happened as soon as the gun appeared?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
He can't execute the offender, but he can back him into a corner and give him no choice but to defend himself (which you say he has no right to do but will do anyway given no other choice), at which point you can execute him? That's an egregious loophole in the rule against summary execution.
The offender could, you know, give up? It's not a loophole, it's a response to a crime against you. Should the offender use force against the store owner attempting to detain him and/or interrupt the crime, I have no issue with the store owner responding reasonably to that force. The minute you show a willingness to bring harm against the store owner acting within his rights, all bets are off.

Lets remember who the good guys here are. The police would absolutely respond with deadly force against a cornered criminal who brings force upon them. Why should a property owner be afforded less of a right to protect themselves?

Again, it goes back to this. If the would-be criminals don't want to gamble with their lives, Don't rob stores. It's pretty simple in my book and goes a long way towards preventing crime.

I agree that a defender is allowed to take control of their own defense, but by taking control you also take responsibility for what happens, that's what responsible gun ownership is. You can't choose to take that control and then blame everyone else for the consequences.
"You can't choose to take that control and then blame everyone else for the consequences." Exactly. You choose to rob a store...

Don't pretend this is about the detention. It's about killing him as part of the detention.
Once the criminal uses force against the detainer, it is no longer a detention but an act of self defense. Just like it would be during a police administered arrest.

Edited to add: How is the shopkeeper supposed to know he isn't just rounding the corner to pull out a hand cannon?


You don't think that happened as soon as the gun appeared?
The robbery took place, the criminal underestimated what he was up against and chose to use force as a means of avoiding consequences. He could have given himself up and avoided harm, and taken responsibility for his choice to perpetrate a crime against a law-abiding citizen. Unfortunately that didn't happen, and he gambled his life to escape justice and lost.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Feb 21, 2013 at 03:48 PM. )
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The cops will open fire if someone they are attempting to detain uses force against them.
Not here, not unless the cop wants to go to jail.

RCMP officer found guilty of aggravated assault for shooting man in driveway

Okay, how does that fly in the face of a store owners right to defend their store? If anything, thats even more a reason to give leeway to the store owner. What you're suggesting means any criminal can walk into a store and steal with impunity. Who's going to stop them?
Something called the Poooo'lice also known as the cops, law enforcement, piggies, men in blue and so on and the legal system, courts and prisons.

The way it works in a sane place is the police capture the individual accused of a crime. Courts convict him/her if they did the crime and lock them away out of society for a period of years and attempt to correct the person before releasing. That is what stops them. Mean while insurance pays out damages to the poor victims until his/her capture. The purpose of insurance with that coverage. No crime means no need for insurance. See how they kinda go hand and hand. No crime no insurance. Crime = insurance. Insurance by definition is for situations that "might occur"
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It varies from state to state, but in most places you do have that authority as outlined by Dakar's citation. It's only 5 posts up, give it a read.
Yeah, I can quote stuff too. And no, not in "most places" do you have the right to use deadly force against an unarmed person. Even when you do, you only have that right if the person committed a felony, not stole some Slim Jims from a 7-11.

When deadly force is used by a private citizen, the reasonableness rule does not apply. The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.

This was demonstrated in the Michigan case of People v. Couch, 436 Mich. 414, 461 N.W.2d 683 (1990), where the defendant shot and killed a suspected felon who was fleeing the scene of the crime. The Michigan supreme court ruled that Archie L. Couch did not have the right to use deadly force against the suspected felon because the suspect did not pose a threat of injury or death to Couch.
If someone just stole from your store and they’re running, can you use deadly force? The answer is generally no. Just like a police officer, a person is prohibited from using deadly force to stop a fleeing felon if the felon poses no immediate threat to the citizen or to others. In fact, many courts won’t allow a private person to ever use deadly force on a fleeing felon, regardless of the level of danger the felon poses. These same rules will go for a person trying to prevent the escape of an already arrested felon. For example, if a felon is arrested for a misdemeanor, the arresting person (whether police or private) cannot use deadly force.
Private citizens who are trying to make arrests are also allowed to use force, but their right to use force is much more limited than the right to use force available to police officers. A private citizen is only allowed to use deadly force when trying to make an arrest if the suspect, in fact, committed a felony. Unlike police officers, who can act upon a reasonable belief and whose actions based on a reasonable belief will be vindicated even if those beliefs turn out to be wrong, a private citizen must actually be right about the suspect he is trying to arrest. If a private citizen uses deadly force on a suspect and it turns out that the suspect did not commit a felony, the private citizen’s actions will not be justified no matter how reasonable his belief might have been that the suspect actually did commit a felony.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Yeah, I can quote stuff too. And no, not in "most places" do you have the right to use deadly force against an unarmed person. Even when you do, you only have that right if the person committed a felony, not stole some Slim Jims from a 7-11.
And you don't think assault during a robbery is a felony? He attacked the storekeeper.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
BS. Criminals intent on robbing a place are for the most part not interested in dying in the process. If a criminal KNOWS a place has an armed guard and/or armed employees I'm pretty certain he/she will try to find somewhere else to rob that they know is unarmed.

This is kind of the point the NRA is trying to make - criminals will be reluctant to commit crimes in places they know have armed employees/customers present.

Think of these recent mass shootings. How many lives would have possibly been saved if someone in the crowd was armed? What if multiple people were armed and the shooter knew it. Would he still pick that place to commit his mass shooting? Doubtful.
Only a American could ever think of such crazy ideas.....

Jesse Woodson James (September 5, 1847 – April 3, 1882) was an American outlaw, gang leader, bank robber, train robber, and murderer from the state of Missouri and the most famous member of the James-Younger Gang.

Here is a list of additional outlaws List of Old West gunfighters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most important, every one had guns. All stores, almost all the citizens. The wild west had frontier law. Funny thing is crime still occurred. Didn't stop it. What you had instead was shoot outs between criminals and store keeps. By your flawed logic this should never have happened because it was toooo dangerous to get into armed confrontation. So explain to me why it would work now when it didn't work then. And take into account we have much bigger and more powerful guns today. Criminals have access to insane weapons.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Not here, not unless the cop wants to go to jail.

RCMP officer found guilty of aggravated assault for shooting man in driveway
Athens, can you stop citing canadian law in a thread specifically about gun rights in America?

Something called the Poooo'lice also known as the cops, law enforcement, piggies, men in blue and so on and the legal system, courts and prisons.

The way it works in a sane place is the police capture the individual accused of a crime. Courts convict him/her if they did the crime and lock them away out of society for a period of years and attempt to correct the person before releasing. That is what stops them. Mean while insurance pays out damages to the poor victims until his/her capture. The purpose of insurance with that coverage. No crime means no need for insurance. See how they kinda go hand and hand. No crime no insurance. Crime = insurance. Insurance by definition is for situations that "might occur"
Thank you for your lesson on Canadian criminal justice, but it has no place here. That would be great if that was the way it worked here, but its not, so....

What you're basically saying is that Shopkeepers should finance the crime via insurance.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 04:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Only a American could ever think of such crazy ideas.....

Jesse Woodson James (September 5, 1847 – April 3, 1882) was an American outlaw, gang leader, bank robber, train robber, and murderer from the state of Missouri and the most famous member of the James-Younger Gang.

Here is a list of additional outlaws List of Old West gunfighters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most important, every one had guns. All stores, almost all the citizens. The wild west had frontier law. Funny thing is crime still occurred. Didn't stop it. What you had instead was shoot outs between criminals and store keeps. By your flawed logic this should never have happened because it was toooo dangerous to get into armed confrontation. So explain to me why it would work now when it didn't work then. And take into account we have much bigger and more powerful guns today. Criminals have access to insane weapons.
It did work then. Contrary to what you might believe, America is still the only superpower, is it not? Also, those "crazy gunfights" were few and far between, and sensationalized by modern filmmaking. Did the police ever catch those outlaws? I thought you said thats how it works. Why didn't they just arrest them and bring them to court?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The police would absolutely respond with deadly force against a cornered criminal who brings force upon them.
No they wouldn't, not unless the criminal was brandishing a deadly weapon. Throwing objects that happen to be nearby does not count.


Again, it goes back to this. If the would-be criminals don't want to gamble with their lives, Don't rob stores.
Shoplifting is not a violent crime. Deadly force is a disproportionate response to shoplifting.

Throwing a bottle is not a disproportionate response to being detained at gunpoint. The only person who escalated violence in this story was the store owner. The things the robber did were not legal, but they were also not an escalation of violence at any point.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No they wouldn't, not unless the criminal was brandishing a deadly weapon. Throwing objects that happen to be nearby does not count.
Actually, turning into a driveway with your headlights off is plenty reason for the police to open fire on you.


Shoplifting is not a violent crime. Deadly force is a disproportionate response to shoplifting.
The deadly force was administered in response to assault, not shoplifting. The storekeeping was attempting a CA on shoplifting, completely within his rights. Once the bottle was thrown, i.e. felonious assault, deadly force was within his rights.

Throwing a bottle is not a disproportionate response to being detained at gunpoint. The only person who escalated violence in this story was the store owner. The things the robber did were not legal, but they were also not an escalation of violence at any point.
Throwing a bottle is absolutely an escalation of violence. The shopkeeper was within the law up to and after that point. Why didn't the criminal give himself up? Is that unreasonable in your opinion?
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Lets remember who the good guys here are. The police would absolutely respond with deadly force against a cornered criminal who brings force upon them. Why should a property owner be afforded less of a right to protect themselves?
No they wouldn't... they would use batons or teasers or other non lethal methods like rubber bullets or just overwhelm in numbers....

Again, it goes back to this. If the would-be criminals don't want to gamble with their lives, Don't rob stores. It's pretty simple in my book and goes a long way towards preventing crime.
In my book just means best practice is to kill every one then take what you want, you protect your life from a armed store owner. South Africa any one...
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Athens, can you stop citing canadian law in a thread specifically about gun rights in America?



Thank you for your lesson on Canadian criminal justice, but it has no place here. That would be great if that was the way it worked here, but its not, so....

What you're basically saying is that Shopkeepers should finance the crime via insurance.
Its my thread, if you don't like it piss off.

At the very start of the thread the theme was the value of the second amendment and its ability and its place under all current situations such as are the rights of criminals and mentally insane people violated if they are not allowed guns. I have referenced Canadian laws many time in this thread for multiple reasons

1) We are not as far apart on our laws as you would think
2) Some of our stuff would apply nicely to gun control in the US with out affecting second amendment rights
3) Our societies are the most closely matched to compare against. No other country except maybe Australia comes close to the US as Canada both in the Urban environment, suburban environment, rural life and back country when it comes to guns. You can't compare the US with the UK or any European country at all. We actually have a pretty similar gun culture when it comes to sporting and hunting and recreational use. The one area that separates us vastly is the violence in crimes which includes the use of guns. Take that out the US and Canada are mostly the same.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2013, 07:20 PM
 
Which begs the question is US crime violence so high and so different because of attitudes like yours, using violence to protect against violence or is it because your justice system is so much more strict and the general view is more black and white in the US.... Or is it the difference in wealth distribution, social services and safety nets between our two great nations that causes such a difference in violence.

I think gun control for the control of crime is a useless endeavor. Guns are not the cause of the crime they are a end result of the crime. Poverty, access to help, social safety networks prevent the crimes. A strong background check system, access to medical records, criminal records and a licensing system along with better resources for the sick would go a long way at preventing the mass shootings that occur. Not more guns or less guns. Not more extreme gun control or less. Some tweaking would def help.

The only good control is the kind that law abiding citizens follow which prevent accidents and heat of the moment uses.

The pro gun nuts and the anti gun nuts are so far off on each direction nothing is getting done to actually fix any problems or worse creating new problems.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2013, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I think gun control for the control of crime is a useless endeavor. Guns are not the cause of the crime they are a end result of the crime. Poverty, access to help, social safety networks prevent the crimes. A strong background check system, access to medical records, criminal records and a licensing system along with better resources for the sick would go a long way at preventing the mass shootings that occur. Not more guns or less guns. Not more extreme gun control or less. Some tweaking would def help.

The only good control is the kind that law abiding citizens follow which prevent accidents and heat of the moment uses.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2013, 10:44 AM
 
Perhaps NOT being a former outpost of the British Empire has something to do with being American?
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2013, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Perhaps NOT being a former outpost of the British Empire has something to do with being American?
You lost me....
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2013, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It did work then. Contrary to what you might believe, America is still the only superpower, is it not? Also, those "crazy gunfights" were few and far between, and sensationalized by modern filmmaking. Did the police ever catch those outlaws? I thought you said thats how it works. Why didn't they just arrest them and bring them to court?
Some were caught. Some escaped after being caught. And some overpowered the law. You have a big enough gang and what's the law going to do. Law in those days was a Sheriff and maybe a deputy or two. Today's police are more organized, it's alot harder to escape them.
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2013, 07:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Athens, can you stop citing canadian law in a thread specifically about gun rights in America?
Do not stir the ire of our Canadian Nationalists.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2013, 09:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Do not stir the ire of our Canadian Nationalists.
The thought of a mild-mannered, apologetic revolt keeps me up at night.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2013, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The thought of a mild-mannered, apologetic revolt keeps me up at night.
The thought has occurred to me that you may just be the only American on this forum who is on the "more control" side of this debate, as all the rest are either Canucks, Brits, or EU. Not to say that's a bad thing, in fact it makes your dissenting opinion that much more valuable.


Edit: Oh, wait, there's OAW. Never-mind.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2013, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The thought has occurred to me that you may just be the only American on this forum who is on the "more control" side of this debate, as all the rest are either Canucks, Brits, or EU. Not to say that's a bad thing, in fact it makes your dissenting opinion that much more valuable.


Edit: Oh, wait, there's OAW. Never-mind.
That depends on what you propose, of course. I think on this forum more than OAW and myself are ok with the idea of universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole, though maybe there are less since LaPierre decided to backpedal furiously.

Conversely, I'm sure there's probably posters that are glad there a lot of the laws we already have on the books that aren't being enforced.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2013, 05:00 PM
 
My state already closed those loopholes, and it's the most gun-friendly in the country (with the possible exception of Vermont). I don't even see that as an issue, it's simply due diligence AFAIC.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2013, 08:30 PM
 
The "gun show loophole" is often portrayed as massive gun buying and selling within the confines of a gun show, with the buying and selling being done by "questionable" individuals. I have sold a gun at a gun show - to a dealer who purchased several tables for that show. I've seen a few face-to-face purchases too, and in those cases it's been "OK, lemme see your drivers license and I'll write up a bill of sale" rather than "let's do this where nobody can see." It is widely believed that gun shows are essentially crawling with ATF agents anyway, so why would someone looking for an illicit purchase go there for that purchase?

A national universal background check system CANNOT work at this time, because NICS is not complete and correct. The National Instant background Check System, run by the FBI, does not receive complete information from (according to some reports) 2/3 of the states, and there is a large number of states that is either very far behind in notifying NICS of important data (felony convictions, etc.) or not reporting much at all. A background check system for all over-the-counter and individual sales would be a consideration if NICS actually worked nationwide, but it still wouldn't do anything about illicit gun sales, which is where most guns used in crimes get into the hands of the perpetrators anyway.

Before we burden law abiding citizens who just want to knock cans off of fence rails, why not start by funding NICS - it is an unfunded mandate at the state level. Why not fund and staff BATFE so that they can do random, thorough inventories of gun dealers in "high interest" areas so they can identify problem areas (like frequent paperwork "errors" that might just be hiding prohibited sales)? What about prosecuting people who attempt to buy guns over the counter but are denied through NICS - there aren't many prosecutors who bother with these actually serious crimes because they don't get headlines (I don't know why they don't).

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2013, 11:52 PM
 
As I've mentioned before, even before any legislation was passed, I saw most sales at gun shows go through a background check. Every time I've bought a firearm at a show, I went through a check.

Edit: Actually, in a private sale at a show, I once purchased a Beretta 92SB-C on a handshake, but it was from a fellow CCW holder.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2013, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I don't even see that as an issue, it's simply due diligence AFAIC.
Your personal thoughts aside, if it helps restrict access to firearms, that counts as gun control, right?


Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Before we burden law abiding citizens who just want to knock cans off of fence rails, why not start by funding NICS - it is an unfunded mandate at the state level. Why not fund and staff BATFE so that they can do random, thorough inventories of gun dealers in "high interest" areas so they can identify problem areas (like frequent paperwork "errors" that might just be hiding prohibited sales)? What about prosecuting people who attempt to buy guns over the counter but are denied through NICS - there aren't many prosecutors who bother with these actually serious crimes because they don't get headlines (I don't know why they don't).
The simple answer is politics. I mean, why would congress give itself the power to confirm the ATF Director and then refuse to confirm one for the next six years?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2013, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Your personal thoughts aside, if it helps restrict access to firearms, that counts as gun control, right?
But it isn't a restriction to those who should lawfully have them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:11 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2