thinking of getting involved?

apvbguy

New member
many here advocate that since they have a concealed weapons license that they should be the defender of all from "evil"
here is an example of how easily things can go wrong
Link Removed
 
Unless you are a cop it's best to keep your firearm in it's holster.
Getting involved might seem like a great idea,but many times it can just get you a day in court.
Trust me there is a lot of strange things that can happen. Nothing other then a direct threat to myself or family,would have me today getting involved with my firearm.
Read your states criminal statutes also the firearm and blade statutes,and understand what you read.
 
Nobody hurt, nobody charged with any wrong-doing, nobody suing anybody else (at least not as-reported in the link), kid on the ground got his bike back (link doesn't say what happened to the thief/thieves that took it) -- I'm not sure I get what the hubbub is about? They call the gun-guy a "security guard" at the link. Was he a security guard for the property he was on when he confronted the knife-wielding (unknown) victim? If so, that puts more onus on him to act on his (admittedly mistaken) perceptions. If not, meh, it's kind of a nothing story since nothing really happened except an honest mistake that the aggressor's/victim's roles were reversed than what he perceived. If his perceptions had been right and he stopped a guy from knifing another guy, would people still think that gun-guy was out of line? Not sure what the moral of the story is here. Never make a mistake? Good luck imbuing human beings with that level of perfection. Otherwise, it's a big ho-hum non-story to me.

Blues
 
Does Utah Code allow "using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury against another" to stop a bicycle theft? The person wielding the knife was likely committing aggravated assault which is a third degree felony regardless if it was to stop the theft of his bicycle. I would imagine that theft of the bicycle was a misdemeanor, which I doubt that "using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury against another" is justified in stopping.

Apparently, in this case, two wrongs make everything right.
 
Like so many internet videos this does not show what initially happened. We are only seeing the aftermath.

Felony or misdemeanor theft is not pertinent here, but to get it out of the way, I will define it. Third degree felony theft in Utah involves money, goods, or services valued at $1500 or above; at $5000 it becomes a 2nd degree felony. A bicycle can cost $1500 and more at bike stores.
https://answers.justia.com/question/2011/05/29/utah-theft-felony-or-misdemeanor-what-la-18048

Whether or not the theft was a felony or misdemeanor is not pertinent to the man’s action. Based on the information in the article lethal force was allowed in order to prevent a knife attack.

“76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.

(b) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
Link Removed

The man was legal and prudent in keeping the gun out.
1 – The young man apparently still had a lethal weapon, the knife, was in range to use it.
2 – He was now confronted by an unpredictable crowd.

Notifying the police as soon as the situation was somewhat stabilized was also prudent.
 
I guess some of you missed the point, which was that when you stumble upon an altercation it is not always clear who is and isn't the bad guy.
 
I guess some of you missed the point, which was that when you stumble upon an altercation it is not always clear who is and isn't the bad guy.

I read it as the point being that gun-guy was basically the bad-guy, or an idiot, or whatever pejorative you would've used in place of just saying it was an honest mistake and you're glad that no one got hurt, The End.

If I read it wrong, so be it, but it's not the first time you've commented on the general subject, and my reading of your OP was influenced by past comments you've made. Like mistakes, taking past history into consideration is just human nature, so "Oops" if I owe you one, and "Meh" if I don't.
_shrug__or__dunno__by_crula.gif


Blues
 
I guess some of you missed the point, which was that when you stumble upon an altercation it is not always clear who is and isn't the bad guy.
Or even both could be bad guys. Do the sheepdogs consider they could be stepping in between two gang-bangers?
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining
Back
Top