XD40scinNC
New member
You know that 'dirt naps' are forever.
What would you do?
- Thread starter DGeorge
- Start date
You know that 'dirt naps' are forever.
And you're going to take one at some point anyway
I'm glad I live in Washington state where I can use deadly force to simply prevent a felony from being committed against me...
RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
XD40scinNC
New member
As will you, so why do you even bother carrying a gun to protect your life?
Choot 'em!
Personally, I'd let them steal my **** and hope the cops recover it. My life isn't in danger, no one elses was. Why take all the headache of shooting one or two people over what $37 and a cell phone? I'm good on that. Especially where Ohio CCW Laws make it pretty clear on the matter. You better be able to justify taking someone elses life.
Deanimator
New member
And after all, if you can't trust in the good judgment and basic human decency of strongarm robbers, what CAN you trust in?
I mean, if you'd think they might kill you to keep you quiet... or just for fun, you'd have to believe that a couple of guys would break into a doctor's house in suburban Connecticut, beat him half to death, rape his wife and daughters, then beat the wife to death and set the daughters on fire...
Lest there be ANY doubt, Ohio laws on self-defense and deadly force impose upon the victim NO duty to submit... NONE AT ALL.
Is this information of any help?:
A person may not display or brandish a pistol in his or her hand in a public place or inside a private business. A person violates 13A-11-7(a)(1) of the Disorderly Conduct statute if he possess a loaded or unloaded pistol in a public place or private business. A person must have the pistol holstered or secured to be within the confinements of the law. A pistol is not secured in a person's hand. A person forfeits their defense if their pistol is not holstered or secured.
Furthermore, a person may also be charged under Section 13A-6-23 with the Crime of Menacing if the person's actions are placing a another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.
Same reason you do.
It's been my experience that using that "Better to be tried by 12" line is generally a justification for carrying and possibly using a gun when a gun really shouldn't be used
BluesStringer
Les Brers
You're obviously not citing the actual code. The top part is someone's erroneous interpretation of 13A-11-7(a)(1), which reads in whole:
The second part is quite obviously not code, and since it doesn't apply in any respect to the kind of "brandishing" that DGeorge erroneously brought up more than two weeks ago, I'm not going on a wild goose chase trying to find out what's wrong with that analysis, but if it came from the same place, it is almost certainly wrong.
You're the one always making noise about links. Don't see any above, and can't find the verbiage you claim is an AL statute at the main site for repository of AL laws, IIS Windows Server. Searching on the word "brandish," that you claim is in the code you claim you're citing, provides this result:
Looking at Findlaw, AL Code, we find the same thing - nothing.
Link Removed to search alisonb (instead of the first pic using StartPage) produces one instance of the word brandish, a commendation to a cop who arrested two suspects, one of which the legislator who authored the commendation used the word brandish in describing the cop's heroism. He did not, however, connect that word to any statute or code section because none exists.
Not that any of this matters anyhow, because the studies being discussed in this thread only studied legal uses of guns for legitimate self-defense purposes, and all but one that has been summarized in a link that I provided, included "uses" where no shots were fired from the gun that was "used." This necessarily means that the person threatening or attacking someone where it would be legal to shoot them, broke off from the threatening or attacking as soon as they became aware of a gun, whether in possession of the person being threatened or attacked, or a third party stepping in to stop the threat or attack on their behalf. That is not brandishing, menacing, disorderly conduct or any other crime that one might find in any criminal code in any state, and it sure as heck ain't a crime in Alabama. If it was a DGU event that was part of the ~1 million to ~2.5 million uses included in the various studies being discussed, it was legal to "use" the gun in that way.
Get over it already.
Blues
I actually was citing the page from the Clanton, Alabama Police Department.
Perhaps they interpreted it wrong, but if THEY think it's the law, then they will probably enforce what THEY think is the law, until an attorney proves otherwise in court.
I'm the type that would rather not be the guinea pig that corrects the law (i.e. I know I have a right to flip the bird to any cop I want. 'Doesn't mean I'm going to run out an DO it...)
Link Removed
The web page is large. Here's a quote from it:
SUMMARY:
To amend Section 13A-11-7, Code of Alabama 1975, to establish a rebuttable presumption that the carrying of a firearm under certain conditions does not constitute the crime of disorderly conduct;
EXPLANATION:
It shall be a rebuttable presumption that the mere carrying of a visible pistol, holstered or secured, in a public place, in and of itself, is not a violation of the Disorderly Conduct Law. A person cannot be charged with Disorderly Conduct for the Possession of A Firearm that is Openly Carried in a holster.
A person may not display or brandish a pistol in his or her hand in a public place or inside a private business. A person violates 13A-11-7(a)(1) of the Disorderly Conduct statute if he possess a loaded or unloaded pistol in a public place or private business. A person must have the pistol holstered or secured to be within the confinements of the law. A pistol is not secured in a person's hand. A person forfeits their defense if their pistol is not holstered or secured.
Furthermore, a person may also be charged under Section 13A-6-23 with the Crime of Menacing if the person's actions are placing a another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.
Perhaps they interpreted it wrong, but if THEY think it's the law, then they will probably enforce what THEY think is the law, until an attorney proves otherwise in court.
I'm the type that would rather not be the guinea pig that corrects the law (i.e. I know I have a right to flip the bird to any cop I want. 'Doesn't mean I'm going to run out an DO it...)
Link Removed
The web page is large. Here's a quote from it:
SUMMARY:
To amend Section 13A-11-7, Code of Alabama 1975, to establish a rebuttable presumption that the carrying of a firearm under certain conditions does not constitute the crime of disorderly conduct;
EXPLANATION:
It shall be a rebuttable presumption that the mere carrying of a visible pistol, holstered or secured, in a public place, in and of itself, is not a violation of the Disorderly Conduct Law. A person cannot be charged with Disorderly Conduct for the Possession of A Firearm that is Openly Carried in a holster.
A person may not display or brandish a pistol in his or her hand in a public place or inside a private business. A person violates 13A-11-7(a)(1) of the Disorderly Conduct statute if he possess a loaded or unloaded pistol in a public place or private business. A person must have the pistol holstered or secured to be within the confinements of the law. A pistol is not secured in a person's hand. A person forfeits their defense if their pistol is not holstered or secured.
Furthermore, a person may also be charged under Section 13A-6-23 with the Crime of Menacing if the person's actions are placing a another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I found your source, or at least one place where your source material is posted. Clanton, AL PD website. Man, you had to dig deep to find a government-owned and funded website that mentions the word "brandish," didn't you? Just look at the syntax in what you lifted from that site. "A person violates 13A-11-7(a)(1) of the Disorderly Conduct statute if he possess a loaded or unloaded pistol in a public place or private business..." If he possess? I thought it might be some kind of ebonics or a joke, but no, it's just apparently senility as this is the CoP of Clanton:
Link Removed
He, or his subordinate writer, contradicts himself in the very next sentence. "A person must have the pistol holstered or secured to be within the confinements of the law." The old coot says that you're committing Disorderly Conduct by simply "possess" a weapon in public, but if you do possess, you dang sure better keep it holstered to comply with the law!
Nevermind trying to find a code section to validate the idiocy of the Clanton PD's Chief and/or webmaster. It doesn't exist. And no, you were no help at all, and weren't trying to be by my estimation. You simply tried another obfuscatory trick.
Rant to follow in 5, 4, 3......
Blues
You are correct.
I created the website just to trick you and others into believing something exists that you VERY clearly stated did NOT exist.
Just wait until I redirect all of the traffic from this forum to the website of my choosing. The ad revenue will be HUGE!
It's all part of my nefarious plan to conquer the vorld...
By the way, you didn't have to "find" anything.
The link to the website was right in my post.
As far as "ranting", YOU'RE the one who is freaking out that proof you were wrong exists.
Why not just admit your error and move on (especially since the proof exists as plain as day)?
I created the website just to trick you and others into believing something exists that you VERY clearly stated did NOT exist.
Just wait until I redirect all of the traffic from this forum to the website of my choosing. The ad revenue will be HUGE!
It's all part of my nefarious plan to conquer the vorld...
By the way, you didn't have to "find" anything.
The link to the website was right in my post.
As far as "ranting", YOU'RE the one who is freaking out that proof you were wrong exists.
Why not just admit your error and move on (especially since the proof exists as plain as day)?
The definition of Brandishing is " Displaying a firearm in a RUDE, ANGRY or THREATENING manner. B.S claims that it is legal in Alabama to display a firearm in that manner. The post I submitted stated that all states have a Brandishing law, although some states have a different name for it. So, BS go into town and pull your gun, wave it around, it must be legal. LOL. You lost your "Blues" status.
'Cuz Blues would swear it was a "trick" tape measure...
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Not in the post I replied to. The post with the link was written while I was writing the one where I found the Clanton PD link. I got a phone call while I was writing it. Otherwise, it would've shown up either before yours or within a minute or two of yours, instead of the nine minutes between them now.
The "trick" to which I referred was you posting an excerpt from an information page from a local PD trying to pass it off as a "helpful" citation to actual law, law BTW, that doesn't exist as-stated on that information page.
Please link to that precise definition, and include any alternate definitions that would also apply. Dictionary.com's definition would seem to generally comport with wherever you got that one, except they also provide a usage which is much more in line with the type of displaying that the studies that you brought up (but obviously know very little about) contemplate in their underlying data-sets.
Show me where I said, or even implied, any such thing. When you can't, I suggest you apologize for lying on me as you retract it.
Providing the dictionary-definition for a word that doesn't appear anywhere in the Alabama Code, and therefore can never be charged under any definition of said word, does absolutely nothing to validate your positing that the studies that you brought up (but obviously know very little about) describe the crime of "brandishing" as happening in the hundreds of thousands to multiple millions of times per year that the studies were analyzing. Even if there were a "brandishing" law in AL, "displaying" while preparing to face a threat is not synonymous with "brandishing" in a "RUDE, ANGRY or THREATENING manner." In the studies, a display was only included if it was legal. In AL, what you describe with the all-caps (as if that somehow strengthens your mistaken argument) is known as "Menacing." Simple display without intent to threaten, as with intent to defend one's self for example, is not covered under that statute.
I don't dispute that that's what you claimed, but the subject of my participation in this "brandishing" nonsense is that you referenced studies whose underlying data don't include "brandishing" as-defined the way you have mistakenly discussed it. A display that starts out in the beginning moments of a legal armed confrontation, resulting in the threat stopping whatever activity made the legal use of a firearm legal in the first place, is contemplated within those studies as being a legal display and a legal "use" of a firearm for which no charge will ensue against the person who displayed the weapon, whether the charge be called brandishing, menacing, criminal threatening or whatever. And like it or not, as the definition of "brandish" that I provided above proves, brandishing and menacing are not synonymous. Menacing is never legal, but "Brandishing his gun, he prepared to face his attacker" most certainly is.
It's neither legal or brandishing under Alabama law.
Can't Lose What You Never Had.
LOL
Blues
You demand an apology from DGeorge; do you plan in turn to apologize for this statement, which was later proven incorrect?:
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Apologize for telling the truth? No, I won't be apologizing for that. BTW, the link he posted doesn't even contain the word (or abbreviation for) "Alabama," so if you're suggesting that some private individual posting his own (mistaken) opinion in a blog-post about "Almost all states and jurisdictions have laws about improper exhibition of a firearm or brandishing a weapon as some states refer to it" somehow "proves" that there's an anti-brandishing law in Alabama, that trick won't work with me either.
I personally don't believe in evolution, but if I did, I would have to conclude that it's going in reverse after reading your last couple or three "contributions."
Blues
