Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Your thread is titled incorrectly. It should read, "Problems with Idiots". The two incidents you link really have nothing to do with gun ownership or carrying concealed. It does point out that some people with permits do not understand the term "defensive". Those of us who carry are not vigilantes or cop-wannabes. Responsible gun owners would have known better than to draw weapons in either situation.
And you better know your state and local laws. In my state, it is a felony to point a loaded gun at a person and yet it is legal to kill a person who presents "the imminent threat of bodily harm" to you or a third party in your company. The lesson? Don't draw unless your own safety is at risk and when you do, make sure you kill the perp.
This. We don't know even for sure they were carrying concealed at the time. Could have been open carry.
The guy in the first case did have a concealed permit. (Read the last sentence on page 2 of the article.) Depending on state ccw laws regarding "use of force", the shooting was likely justified (although this is in no way saying that it was smart). The store security lady claimed that she was in fear for her life because the suspect backed his car toward her in what she felt was an attempt to run her over. In ND, if her story stands, Martinez would be no-billed by a grand jury, if it even goes that far.
12.1-05-04. Defense of others.
A person is justified in using force upon another person in
order to defend anyone else if:
1. The person defended would be justified in defending himself; and
2. The person coming to the defense has not, by provocation or otherwise, forfeited the right of self-defense.
In the second case, it depends on state law. In ND, you are allowed to shoot at someone stealing your property, but only after you have "requested" them to stop. If he first yelled at the guy to stop, he might be OK in ND. Again, if he didn't have a permit and was carrying concealed, he has other problems.
12.10506. Use of force in defense of premises and proper
ty.
Force is justified if it is used to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass in or upon premises, or to prevent an unlawful carrying away or damaging of property, if the person using such force first requests the person against whom such force is to be used to desist from his interference with the premises or property, except that a request is not necessary if it would be useless or dangerous to make the request or substantial damage would be done to the property sought to be protected before the request could effectively be made.
Again, the above statements make no endorsement of the individuals' actions. I'm merely pointing out that they may indeed have been legally justified in their actions.
