I think legally using a weapon as a deterrent would be against the law. A CCW holder is not part of law enforcement. By definition all state laws on use of force state you can only use your weapon if your life is in danger or think it's in danger. I was told if you pull your weapon you had better prepared to fire it.
By definition all state laws on use of force state you can only use your weapon if your life is in danger or think it's in danger.
I think that depends. Since most states only allow deadly force to be used in defense of one's life, and not in the defense of property, if I wanted to stop someone who's about to mug me, and I brandish my weapon, and that stops him, it would not be against the law, because in this case, the criminal did not commit the crime and I did not use deadly force in defense of property. While deadly force in defense of property is illegal, non lethal force in defense of it isn't. Got it?
This claim is FALSE. Defense against a mugging isn't about retaining your property, it's about retaining your LIFE. Muggers routinely kill people who don't have enough money to satisfy them, or who don't want to give up their property (which actually is your right, since there is no law that requires you to comply with a mugger!).
The law requires you to be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. A mugging satisfies these requirements because it is reasonable to believe that the mugger will use deadly force if you do not comply. That's why mugging is a FORCIBLE felony. They don't have to verbalize any threat to harm you, the threat is implicit in their actions.
I don't want to flame you man, but please don't tell people they can't defend themselves against muggers. It's false and it's dangerous.
Obviously, it's debatable whether shooting a mugger is the result of defending property or life so I'll use another example. If I'm a clerk in a convenience and I see a shoplifter and shoot him after he has stolen some merchandise, without him ever having threatened me directly, I would not be justified. If, however, I brandished my weapon in order to prevent him from doing it, or threatened to shoot him, then that would be justified, because deadly force would not have been employed (Yes, it might seem extreme to threaten to shoot a petty thief, but the burden of proof would be on him to prove that I made the threat; furthermore, my property would still be intact).
I carry with no round chambered and safety off. I worry about the consequences of response time and failing to properly rack the slide, but I feel safer.
Obviously, it's debatable whether shooting a mugger is the result of defending property or life so I'll use another example. If I'm a clerk in a convenience and I see a shoplifter and shoot him after he has stolen some merchandise, without him ever having threatened me directly, I would not be justified. If, however, I brandished my weapon in order to prevent him from doing it, or threatened to shoot him, then that would be justified, because deadly force would not have been employed (Yes, it might seem extreme to threaten to shoot a petty thief, but the burden of proof would be on him to prove that I made the threat; furthermore, my property would still be intact).
Tat, just want to first clarify that, we are not busting your chops but bro the shoplifter example is worse than the first. These days in retail, shoplifters often times are more violent and likely to have armories in their pockets more than you may know. More retailing employees are injured every year by shoplifters than by in your face armed robberies. So much so that, most of America's largest retailers have adopted a policy prohibiting employees (other than Loss Prevention officers) from stopping shoplifters, for the safety of their employees and customers.
I have a friend that works for Lowe's in Texas and he has personally had a gun jammed in his face by a shoplifter he tried to stop from stealing merchandise worth less than $30.00. Shoplifters in the act of a their crime have often made the commitent that they are going to steal and that means that they also realize they may be caught. So the armed shoplifter also understands that if they get caught, they will increase their chances of getting away.
O... If, however, I brandished my weapon in order to prevent him from doing it, or threatened to shoot him, then that would be justified, because deadly force would not have been employed (Yes, it might seem extreme to threaten to shoot a petty thief, but the burden of proof would be on him to prove that I made the threat; furthermore, my property would still be intact).
I've got to say, it's become outright offensive the number of people implying, or stating, that someone who doesn't carry with a round in the chamber is "afraid" of their gun. It's a matter of personal choice and the circumstance under which one feels the need to carry. It has nothing to do with training, practice, comfort with the weapon or the ability to use it if necessary.
The fact that some people have a different opinion than you about what is necessary doesn't mean you have to be an a$$hole about it. And what condition it is appropriate to carry in is a matter of circumstance and opinion.
+1 I agree completely! I carry a Kel-Tec so there is never a safety on. Sometimes I carry loaded, most of the time not. I have been around guns my entire life, and because I choose to not always carry hot doesn't mean I am afraid or inept. I guess my chances of regretting not carrying loaded are probably about the same as someones elses chance of regretting that they DO carried loaded.....
-PW
Please let's not get into the game of me laying out a scenario and you telling me why it's a bad example. My so-called "bad examples" are taking place every day, and law abiding gun owners have only a few precious moments to decide whether to fire their weapons, brandish them, do nothing, or call the police.
What is so bad about this example? It is my experience that most shoplifters are unarmed petty thieves, primarily schoolkids. Also, please don't dismiss my scenario as if it is impossible, because it is actually quite probable and realistic. Why shouldn't a storeowner or clerk prepare themselves for this type of scenario?
Please let's not get into the game of me laying out a scenario and you telling me why it's a bad example. My so-called "bad examples" are taking place every day, and law abiding gun owners have only a few precious moments to decide whether to fire their weapons, brandish them, do nothing, or call the police.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?