I had a talk with a guard who works at my complex

[CCS]

This guys is no libertarian.

He says the only reason we don't have cameras is "pot smokers and other criminals who want to do stuff they know they should not be doing do not want to be caught on tape."
I think cameras would be good for catching violent criminals, but I don't think anyone should be allowed to see the films unless a judge gives them permission after seeing the habius corpus of a violent crime.

He also says if I have a gun and see a gun man shooting many people in a school room, I am not legally allowed to shoot unless I know I won't hit anyone else. If I miss and hit one of the other students, I will go to prison for hitting them, even though he might have killed them anyway had I not killed the gun man.
I agree I have no right to endanger someone who is not in danger by that guy, but if the innocent person behind him is in just as much danger as everyone else getting shot, I think I should have the right to take the shot and get a medal for saving the day, not go to prison for not doing a perfect job.

He also says if someone wants to beat me up, I do not have a right to shoot to kill. But I may shoot him in the leg. However, it will be my word vs his of whether he planned to attack me, and I can still go to prison. He says some people might shoot to kill just so they don't have to deal with the other person's word.

His final advice for me is to not get a gun, and keep doing what I'm doing to avoid confrontation, and get a collapsable batan. Obviously it is not a perfect defense, but the point is to be less of an easy target so the other person does not attack. Attackers usually just want easy targets.
OK, this advice I agree with him on. I actually think a taser might be a better defense if I don't use it, but just threaten to use it.

 

[CCS]

I think a gun is kind of useless since only in rare cases will you actually have it when you need it and be able to draw it in time. And if you do use it, you then have to prove your innocents. I still think law abiding people should be allowed to have guns. Guns are the only way to guarantee we don't get taken over by tyranny again, or rather that we have a way to get back out of it.

I think having one might be nice, but still 4 attacks out of 5 you won't have the ability to use it. And sometimes trying to be a hero will get others killed. Still, it is better that one person die while killing the criminal that for the criminal to tie everyone up one at a time and then have total control over everyone. I'd rather die fighting.

 

[PersonGuy]

He also says if I have a gun and see a gun man shooting many people in a school room, I am not legally allowed to shoot unless I know I won't hit anyone else. If I miss and hit one of the other students, I will go to prison for hitting them, even though he might have killed them anyway had I not killed the gun man.

He's wrong. The criminality within any act is defined by intent, recklessness, or negligence. These were circumstances in which deadly physical force was being used against you or another and you had a chance to prevent it. If there were an unfortunate incident such as this you wouldn't be found criminally liable, however it may still be that you'd lose a civil suit depending on the person or persons deciding the case.

He also says if someone wants to beat me up, I do not have a right to shoot to kill. But I may shoot him in the leg. However, it will be my word vs his of whether he planned to attack me, and I can still go to prison. He says some people might shoot to kill just so they don't have to deal with the other person's word.

When you go to court on something like this it's all a matter of articulating your actions. The bottom line is, if you have the ability to retreat and you do not then you may be criminally charged. The only time you do NOT have the duty to retreat is if you're in your dwelling (the place where you live and sleep) or if you're assisting a police officer or peace officer at their direction (although you still must be careful with this, if a police or peace officer directs you to take a specific action and you're violating a persons civil rights by doing so you will still be criminally liable. You are justified in using deadly physical force if you are preventing the following: Murder, Robbery, Manslaughter 1st Deg., or a forcible Rape. Can you articulate in court that the guy who was trying to beat you up was trying to rob you? Of course. If you spell it out as a robbery then yes. Just be smart about it. If you CAN avoid the confrontation then do so, if you can't then be aware you are legally justified in defending yourself.

Your guard friend is a f*****g moron. First off anytime you pull a pistol on someone else you're threatening deadly physical force whether it be justified or not. Shooting someone in the leg is not considered by the courts to be any less force than shooting them in the head. Even if it were, this is not the movies. When your adrenaline levels are running as high as they are and the tunnel vision kicks in, I'd love to see a person effectively aim and shoot someone in the leg. There is no way you'd hit the shot. For argument's sake let's say you do hit them in the leg. You run the risk of hitting the femoral artery and having them bleed out abnormally quickly, so please tell me how this isn't deadly physical force. Bottom line, any time you shoot, it's always shooting to kill. There is no such thing as shooting to wound.

The only person who can advise you whether or not to get a gun, or any weapon for that matter is you. You are the only one who knows how you're going to use it. A taser is a very effective weapon within a 15 foot range, or at contact distance with a hand held stun gun, and might be a good alternative. However if you do feel a gun is necessary for your purposes then by all means why not? In the right hands when properly used and guarded it can be an instrument of justice.

And remember, that particular guard is a moron who has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[oni]

He says the only reason we don't have cameras is "pot smokers and other criminals who want to do stuff they know they should not be doing do not want to be caught on tape."
I think cameras would be good for catching violent criminals, but I don't think anyone should be allowed to see the films unless a judge gives them permission after seeing the habius corpus of a violent crime.

:uglylol: Come to the UK to see if CCTV helps....................... :uglylol:

I guess it makes for a few more brain dead tv series........... :gay:

 

[Petchsky]

True, CCTV cameras every where in UK, especially London, but they always seem to be looking the wrong way whenever any crime goes down, f*****g joke.

CS spray would make a good defence weapon, that or a old dog with bad breath.

 

[yvakin]

I will take an old dog with bad breath. unk:

 

[chore boy]

"Duty to retreat/stand your ground" laws vary from state to state. Florida, for example, you're allowed to stand your ground wherever you have a right to be.

Under no circumstances are you allowed to shoot to wound... ever!

 

[PersonGuy]

"Duty to retreat/stand your ground" laws vary from state to state. Florida, for example, you're allowed to stand your ground wherever you have a right to be.

Under no circumstances are you allowed to shoot to wound... ever!

True, which I should have said. Check for the specific law regarding the state in which you reside.

I like the FL law, I wish it were that way in NY. Although even in NY it's just a matter of saying that you were in fear for your life and he was attempting to rob you, in order to make sure the courts find you justified. People shouldn't have to live in fear of defending themselves.

 

[Old Baldy]

CCS: Let me put it bluntly. The guard in your OP, relative to gun usage laws, is an IDIOT!! :thumbdown2:

Maybe have him look at the various State Castle Doctrine laws sweeping the country. Of course, the libtard States like California, New York, Illinois, etc., don't those laws strongly in place.............yet.

Texas has one of the broadest Castle Doctrine statutes in the USA IIRC. Look it up and give that idiot a copy.

Here's a link to part of the statute in Texas:

http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/200 ... nd_20.html

Here's an excerpt of the most important part of Michigan's Castle Doctrine statute:

Sec. 2. (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

 

[PersonGuy]

I really like this "anywhere you have the legal right to be" idea.

 

[oni]

CCS, you need a gun, like you need an a**hole in your elbow

An a**hole in your elbow does not sound too bad an idea. I can see how that could be quite fun, shitting in someones drink at a bar would be funny! uke: