Bad CCW incident in Philly

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    And then in cases where concealed carriers reported they didn't draw their weapons during a shooting event, liberals say, "They weren't helpful. See? This is why we shouldn't have concealed carry, because these guys aren't going to do anything anyway." And then if they do, they're told they should have "minded their own business." Can't have it both ways.
     

    terp91

    Active Member
    Mar 14, 2013
    204
    Halethorpe
    This is the real, modern world. There are no knights in shining armor anymore. The political and legal landscape has ensured their extinction.

    So: roll with it. Even if you see someone being beaten to death, or about to be shot, you're best off keeping you firearm holstered, and you might even be best off remaining silent about it -- because as far as society's concerned, it's none of your business. Modern society has ensured that people who actually give a crap about the well being of others in such situations have no place anymore.

    Helpless death at the hands of criminals is what these people want. I say we let them have it.


    On the other hand, just because the majority of society is morally and ethically depraved doesn't mean you should be as well.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    I don't believe that's true
    I think the guy's in deep chit.

    It is true. Legally speaking, you are under no obligation to "stay out of it." You can't physically provoke the confrontation. This was the argument people made against George Zimmerman, and not a single legal expert said it was right.
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    On the other hand, just because the majority of society is morally and ethically depraved doesn't mean you should be as well.

    That's true. On the gripping hand, you end up having to ask yourself if you're better off sacrificing your future ability to defend those you love in order to now defend someone who probably thinks you're not deserving of the right to effective self-defense in the first place.

    If you have good reason to believe that the person you're coming to the aid of is someone who supports your right to defend yourself and them, then by all means, go to it. If you don't, then you should assume that they're one of the very people who wish to see you disarmed. And in that case, they made their bed. Let them lie in it with the peace of the dead.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Let's just say hypothetically (and I want to be clear that I'm not saying this was the situation) that you witness a couple arguing and it's pretty apparent the guy is about to kick the shit out of a woman. Are you saying that you wouldn't try to help if you were carrying?

    it is specifically because you are carrying that you would need to be more careful about intervening. You could easily be the second victim and in fact the most grievously harmed victim say speeding 20 yeas in jail. keep your distance to one where you can protect yourself, and use your other EDC (your phone) to get the cops there

    domestic calls are the most dangerous type of calls for police. More are physically injured, including severely, and more go to jail for what they do in that kind of call than calls for armed bank robberies.

    and by the way it is very very likely the girlfriend you saved will say you over reacted. It is extremely common for wives, girlfriends and family members who are victims of domestic assault to, once in criminal -- or civil -- court to turn on the cops intervening as well, and you would be at the same risk

    now if there are other witnesses saying "he is killing her" that might be different.

    But really you would be much smarter to combat domestic assault by advocating longer sentences, contributing or volunteering at a domestic assault victim shelter, or advocating for more cops.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    It is true. Legally speaking, you are under no obligation to "stay out of it." You can't physically provoke the confrontation. This was the argument people made against George Zimmerman, and not a single legal expert said it was right.

    1) Actually plenty of legal experts thought Zimmerman committed a crime. for goodness sakes state prosecutors qualify as legal experts. They sure as heck charged him. And in a number of venues he might easily have been convicted.

    2) AS to what obligations you are under this depends on your state as well.

    3)
    You can't physically provoke the confrontation.
    It tis NOT limited to if you caused physical provocation. If you provoke with words, or show any intent with words, including things you may have said that show aggression a year before, they can be used against you.

    There are LOT of nuances that vary by both state and controlling district court rulings that create a LOT of variation in the law on any given use of deadly force. lots of acts legal in one state would put you in prison in another.

    Morevoer if you use deadly force it is you who must prove it was justified. Self defense/justified deadly force is almost always an "affirmative defense," meaning the defendant is the one who has to prove in a court that they were justified.

    BTW, even if you win you could be out huge amounts in criminal court legal fees, which you usually cannot recover -- and would still be at risk for civil action. Plenty of people are found innocent in criminal court and lose their home, their savings and everything in subsequent civil actions. Very large numbers of lethal force use by cops the cops are found to be in the right in both internal review, and found not guilty in court -- and the huge settlements or civil awards still end up being given to the family of the person shot. That would be your money.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,881
    Never say never . Somthing like another Kitty Genovese would require taking action.

    But it is almost never Wise to directly interfere in a Domestic or other mystery situation where you don't know the players, and whats going on.

    And being Armed, a greater degree of circumspection is incumbent upon you .

    ( An actual terrorist incident, or armed robbery will be fairly obvious .)
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    1) Actually plenty of legal experts thought Zimmerman committed a crime. for goodness sakes state prosecutors qualify as legal experts. They sure as heck charged him. And in a number of venues he might easily have been convicted.

    2) AS to what obligations you are under this depends on your state as well.

    3)
    It tis NOT limited to if you caused physical provocation. If you provoke with words, or show any intent with words, including things you may have said that show aggression a year before, they can be used against you.

    There are LOT of nuances that vary by both state and controlling district court rulings that create a LOT of variation in the law on any given use of deadly force. lots of acts legal in one state would put you in prison in another.

    Morevoer if you use deadly force it is you who must prove it was justified. Self defense/justified deadly force is almost always an "affirmative defense," meaning the defendant is the one who has to prove in a court that they were justified.

    BTW, even if you win you could be out huge amounts in criminal court legal fees, which you usually cannot recover -- and would still be at risk for civil action. Plenty of people are found innocent in criminal court and lose their home, their savings and everything in subsequent civil actions. Very large numbers of lethal force use by cops the cops are found to be in the right in both internal review, and found not guilty in court -- and the huge settlements or civil awards still end up being given to the family of the person shot. That would be your money.

    I don't even know how to respond to this. First, no, it's not true that many legal experts thought he committed a crime. A prosecutor in a particular case is obviously self-interested, in that his goal is to get a conviction. All independent experts who were asked about the case (like Alan Dershowitz) said that there was no probable cause to even bring charges.

    Second, in nearly all states, the provocation has to be physical. Even in places where it isn't, yelling at someone to not hit someone doesn't qualify.

    Third, no, outside of Ohio, self defense is NOT an affirmative defense, but a defense that the state must disprove.

    I'm not disagreeing that an innocent person who uses deadly force will get put through a lot of emotional and financial hell. That doesn't mean, however, that merely intervening in a fight means that you lose the right to use deadly force.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    I don't even know how to respond to this. First, no, it's not true that many legal experts thought he committed a crime. A prosecutor in a particular case is obviously self-interested, in that his goal is to get a conviction. All independent experts who were asked about the case (like Alan Dershowitz) said that there was no probable cause to even bring charges.

    Second, in nearly all states, the provocation has to be physical. Even in places where it isn't, yelling at someone to not hit someone doesn't qualify.

    Third, no, outside of Ohio, self defense is NOT an affirmative defense, but a defense that the state must disprove.

    I'm not disagreeing that an innocent person who uses deadly force will get put through a lot of emotional and financial hell. That doesn't mean, however, that merely intervening in a fight means that you lose the right to use deadly force.

    look, I am sure you and I are on the same page of what should be -- but I think you are making substantive errors on what the law is.

    You stated all legal experts thought Zimmerman was not guilty. guilty of what? Murder? Maybe. manslaughter? Oh a lot of legal experts thought he was. As far as Alan Dershowitz, I like him, you like him, but he is very strong conservative and hardly representative. And he is more o a celebrity commentator than a legal scholar. To say no legal scholar supported prosecution of Zimmermann is not factual.
    What the consensus is that Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter or assault. Those are still charges, and would have attached a lot of jeopardy and would have put Zimmerman at much higher risk of being convicted.

    The point being: if an overzealous prosecutor charges the carrier with murder instead of manslaughter, does not mean that manslaughter is not going to ruin your life. The fact that Zimmerman was overcharged, and that the prosecution was unable to refocus to the option of manslaughter conviction instead, does not mean in other cases a manslaughter charge from the beginning would not have very possibly worked


    AS far as provocation, it certainly does NOT have to be physical to harm the self defense/justified use of lethal force by the concealed carrier. Anything you say prior (including way prior), during or after the innocent that may impugn your motive can be used by the prosecution -- or in a civil case -- to show you contributed, escalated, did not match force with proportional force. Anything showing your intent and state of mind in a negative light is evidence.

    And self defense or justifiable out on the street as in this case is in fact an affirmative defense. Probative burdens vary by state, but it is nationally an affirmative defense. Some states have low burdons for establishing that affirmative defense. In Maryland for example there is a (low)burden of "production" in invoking the affirmative defense. So there, the defense in a criminal case must "produce the issue", introduce some proof and argument it is justifiable, and it is up to the prosecution to disprove it (that is still an affirmative defense). but in civil cases in Maryland the defendant (the concealed carrier who intervened) has the burden and must prove that the act was justified.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Getting involved in ANY third party incidents, including domestic assaults, is INFINITELY more dangerous for those who possess a firearm.

    Well trained permit holders should thoroughly understand this fact.

    Agree. there are a number of comments here that show a poor understanding of the actual law, and also an poor understanding of how this could unfold.

    It is because you have a firearm that you should keep your distance.

    Lots of people here probably have no idea that the women in abusive relationships are often in a "Stockholm-Syndrome" like state, and may very well bear the "white knight' animus for killing her boyfriend/partner no matter what he was doing. She could easily claim they were just wrestling, or she could say she smacked the dead guy and he smacked her back, whatever.

    On top of that, the prospect of a nice fat civil case with $100k, $500K or way more as a payout, she may have a an even better motive to say, with professional coaxing from an ambulance chaser, that the white knight was a vigilante and at fault.

    jurors may well believe the person exercising lethal force will have needed to have seen the whole event to have a reasonable fear she was going to be killed or that the boyfriend was not responding himself to her force.
     

    jhcrab

    Active Member
    Jun 28, 2012
    499
    Howard Co.
    Since murder by hands, fists, feet etc. is a category within the FBI's murder report for every year, wouldn't the shooter be justified fearing for his life, assuming that the victim was threatening the shooter?
     

    trickg

    Guns 'n Drums
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 22, 2008
    14,598
    Glen Burnie
    Just last night I was walking into the package goods store of a local watering hole/liquor store, and there was an altercation beginning out front between a man and a woman. She kept screaming, "give me my KEYS!" I didn't know the people, the context or anything. Do you think I was going to step in?

    HELL NO!

    I wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole. If fists started flying I'd probably call 911, but otherwise? That's a big, cool, tall glass of nope. Nope nope nope.

    Years ago a guy I know came across a couple in an altercation in a convenience store parking lot, and he decided to intervene. The next thing he knew he was picking himself up off the pavement with a brand new broken and crooked nose.

    It's just not worth it - let the people who get paid to deal with that kind of crap handle it.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    look, I am sure you and I are on the same page of what should be -- but I think you are making substantive errors on what the law is.

    You stated all legal experts thought Zimmerman was not guilty. guilty of what? Murder? Maybe. manslaughter? Oh a lot of legal experts thought he was. As far as Alan Dershowitz, I like him, you like him, but he is very strong conservative and hardly representative. And he is more o a celebrity commentator than a legal scholar. To say no legal scholar supported prosecution of Zimmermann is not factual.
    What the consensus is that Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter or assault. Those are still charges, and would have attached a lot of jeopardy and would have put Zimmerman at much higher risk of being convicted.

    The point being: if an overzealous prosecutor charges the carrier with murder instead of manslaughter, does not mean that manslaughter is not going to ruin your life. The fact that Zimmerman was overcharged, and that the prosecution was unable to refocus to the option of manslaughter conviction instead, does not mean in other cases a manslaughter charge from the beginning would not have very possibly worked


    AS far as provocation, it certainly does NOT have to be physical to harm the self defense/justified use of lethal force by the concealed carrier. Anything you say prior (including way prior), during or after the innocent that may impugn your motive can be used by the prosecution -- or in a civil case -- to show you contributed, escalated, did not match force with proportional force. Anything showing your intent and state of mind in a negative light is evidence.

    And self defense or justifiable out on the street as in this case is in fact an affirmative defense. Probative burdens vary by state, but it is nationally an affirmative defense. Some states have low burdons for establishing that affirmative defense. In Maryland for example there is a (low)burden of "production" in invoking the affirmative defense. So there, the defense in a criminal case must "produce the issue", introduce some proof and argument it is justifiable, and it is up to the prosecution to disprove it (that is still an affirmative defense). but in civil cases in Maryland the defendant (the concealed carrier who intervened) has the burden and must prove that the act was justified.


    This is really good advice!
     

    woodstock

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jun 28, 2009
    4,172
    Getting involved in ANY third party incidents, including domestic assaults, is INFINITELY more dangerous for those who possess a firearm.

    Well trained permit holders should thoroughly understand this fact.

    so um, should "WELL TRAINED" be mandatory? :smoke:
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,881
    Drawing my usual distinction:

    Well trained is Wise .

    Useful knowledge and meaningful skills are always better to have than not.

    But should not be mandatory for Fundamental Rights.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,132
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom