This is why I carry on my person, not mounted in my truck

The lifesaving tool is highly unlikely to do anything for me unless I'm preemptive. It's a completely different attitude that I'd need to adopt; wary, looking for threats, ready to get the jump on anybody who looks or acts like they might be a threat. I don't want to live that way. And if somebody is armed and they want my shit, they can have it. If that was something that happened to me on a regular basis I'd need to reassess, but it hasn't yet. House was ransacked and robbed once though... and they stole my gun of course.

 

What you said was just, fair, and accurate.

 

Why on earth would someone want to kill me? And how would I know they wanted to kill me before they pulled a gun on me? What is the actual scenario you are proposing and how common is it?

 

I don't think that's correct.

California is a “Castle Doctrine” state. You are under no duty to retreat if an intruder comes into your home.

Under Penal Code 198.5 PC, a home intruder automatically creates a situation of “reasonable fear of imminent harm.” This means you are justified in using deadly force to defend your home against an intruder.

 

Been in LE for almost 25 years. There is an uncomfortable amount of misinformation in this thread.

I carry. If you choose to or not is up to you.

#1 question before you choose to fire, are you in fear of death or serious bodily harm from the aggessor(s) to you or someone else?

 

I didn't say they had to know me, I think you misread that. If I came across someone trying to kill or rape another person, I would try to stop it, and then that would be a good time to have a gun... but a very fringe situation that neither myself nor anyone I know has ever encountered. We have to play the odds here or at least I do. The situations where a gun would be useful are very rare unless I'm preemptive. I could carry a gun for those fringe situations, but it isn't worth the hassle to me.

What do you mean "worked in them", are you a cop?

 

Like I said, I’m not a lawyer, that’s just how it was explained to me by one. Funnily, that same phrase of “reasonable fear of imminent harm” came up in the discussion; seems to be a double edged sword and the attacker has to verbalize as much as the threat of a weapon could be a bluff. Or some such nonsense.

 

I repeat, the amount of misinformation is very uncomfortable. The attacker is not required to verbalize intent.

 

If you want to boil this down to basics, does the attacker have the apparent

1. Intent
2. Opportunity
3. Ability

Intent does not have to be verbalized. It is based on the totality of the circumstances.

Opportunity- are they in a proximity to inflict death or serious bodily harm?

Ability - do they have a weapon or other physical means to inflict death or serious bodily harm?

I’m not a lawyer and I stayed in a shitty quality inn this weekend. Read the law, understand it, and don’t rely on internet heresy, including mine.

 

I was not saying that he had to; but doing so would be an example of it becoming clear.

Also, the intent of the post was not to debate California law or its politics. That’s a good way to get a thread shut down. I relayed information that was presented to me, which I tried to verify with a lawyer practicing law in California. I in no way mean for this to be legal advice. If those were not clear, perhaps re-reading for comprehension would be helpful. I understand it can be easy to skim through my wall of text and key on a singular point that you disagree with. If you are lawyer, please advise those who might be in need of such direction.

 

I certainly agree with you there.

 

I’m not debating California law or politics. Show me where I did.

My reading comprehension is just fine. I didn’t say it was YOUR information, just that it was incorrect.

Carry on.

 

Yes and no. Cops are required to understand use of lethal force inside and out. As a general rule, cops are held to a higher standard than Joe Public when it comes to using lethal force.

A private citizen will likely be looking at showing they had reason to believe themselves or some one else was likely to experience death or serious bodily harm if they didn’t use lethal force.

 

I see what you did there. Very clever. ‘Carry on’… cuz it’s a thread about carrying… I like puns. Gold star

 

What is it the cops call it? Escalation of force? Where you step up the level of threat? They got fists? I have a club. They have a knife? I've got a gun. They have a flashlight? I have IR. They have a gun? I have a neat trick with a rubberband... i dont look like someone worth effin' with, and usually look more homeless than not. But god help the poor soul doing the wrong thing in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Survival of the fittest, and it dont fit to fuck around near me.

feed em to the pigs.

 

As a cautionary note, posting statements of badassery on the interwebz could be a net negative during a civil suit.

 

Give it another decade or so...

 

A somewhat silly (and mildly absurd) hypothetical is if you had to be in a room with a mountain lion, what weapon would you choose to defend yourself? I bet 10/10 times people would choose a firearm over a sword or bow and arrow. I get that this is 1,000 miles away from what we’re talking about, but it points out that when confronted with a threat on your life, whether you’re anti-gun or not, you’re choosing a gun. It is the most lethal weapon a person can have.

If you want to carry, carry. Learn the laws and train, just like others have said in this post. If you don’t want to carry, then don’t. Carrying or not both have risks, just choose the risks you want to deal with, if (God forbid) any one of us end up in a life-or-death situation.

Either way, stay safe and take care of yourself and your loved ones no matter your stance on gun ownership.

 

neigh. It cost nothing to be aware of your surroundings, you just have to do it. It sticks, then you cant help it, then the average person is slightly more annoying, because you notice the pitfalls all around you, and you lose the sense of wonder for humanity, and replace it with a judgemental humor. Because people are dumb and do dumb things, by accident. You'll catch yourself in the middle of a effup, curse yourself & move on. But a robbery is rarely an accident.

 

Really no different than driving or riding a motorcycle. I drive defensively. !

 

If a person has a weapon and is trying to rob you/hurt you, your family, or someone else, the smart person naturally assumes that they have the means and the ability to do it. To fall back on your powers of persuasion to lose nothing but your material items isn't realistic. In Arkansas, when you go to school to get your concealed carry permit, you are taught that you are within your right to use deadly force if the perp has the means (gun, knife, physical size, club, etc.), the ability to do you harm (again, could be size or proximity), and you or someone else is being threatened (this one should be obvious). Feeling threatened is the only subjective part of the equation in my book and it may be different for every individual. You obviously have a high threshold for feeling threatened. I hope your luck continues; sincerely.

 

https://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

 

Love that scene ha

 

I was thinking the same thing. "Members of the jury, the defendant wasn't defending himself, he had already run away! He was defending his ego. He successfully ran away, got his gun, then came back! People that are afraid of being killed don't run towards the killer. He came back to murder the actual victim."

I think those words would seal a conviction.

I know a lot of people that "keep a gun in the car." It's a convenient way to "be armed" while avoiding the discomfort and responsibility of actually being armed. It's also a great way to arm a thief.

A great car holster......

Carjacker Crossdraw Holster Inside A Vehicle Demo With Sam Andrews

 

Digging deep tonight responding to a 2 year old post...

 

I was expecting that reply. Site is getting predictable.....

 

So are you..
Gun thread and there you are..
Enjoy your Sunday..

 

Great minds think alike!