|
Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
(Hypothetical) Shooting a non-existent threat by accident
Ok, please read this post before saying anything as I fear the title isn't totally descriptive.
Me and my wife were having a discussion on this one time that she was in a "Hostile Encounter" workshop. She said that during the middle of the class, a guy burst into the room with a fake gun, started waving it around, yelled at people, and took off. First, not only was she the only one that remembered all the relevant information about how to identify him, she also ripped into the teacher for doing what she did as part of the class. Also said that if she hadn't seen that not only was there no clip in the gun but also that it was a fake, she would have jumped him. With that said...I brought up the hypothetical scenario that someone that had a CCW might very well have pulled out and shot the person in question for his act. CCW holders are advised that they need to use very high judgement when pulling and discharging their firearm. However, in a situation such as what she described, you don't exactly wait to see if the "gunman" shoots someone before you pull out to stop the perceived threat; especially if that person could be you. Now, after the fact you do find out that it was fake, you have already shot and (we'll say for sake of argument), killed the person that you thought was an immediate threat. Basically a lot of back and forth, we were trying to figure out that if someone had actually done just that, what, if any laws would they be tried/convicted of? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Actually in this scenario there innocent bystanders , so legally you would want to wait until the perp has fired the first shot. Do not assume the gun is fake.
Elaborations: If a person with LTC was present, and fired the first shot. If any innocent people were to be hurt in the crossfire. LTC will be in trouble, LTCer engaged this fight. The LTC CAN/WILL be sued by the innocent victims that were injured or killed. If the perp fired the first shot from a real or pellet/airsoft/BB GUN at anyone especially the kids, then shot the perp. If any innocent people are hurt / injured the LTC will not be in trouble. Again you cannot assume the perp has a fake gun. For instance if someone raises a gun and points it at a LEO (Felony), you can bet the person will be shot and killed.This is legal. If the gun were to be only in the hand but never pointed at anyone, this is only considered brandishing a weapon (misdameanor). If you shot someone committing a misdameanor crime, and kill them, then you will be in a lot of legal trouble. Please discuss. Disclaimer: These are not legal advice, these are only my opinions. I am not liable for anything nor anyone. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
2. Whether or not you'd be criminally charged for injuring or killing someone when responding to a threat you thought was real posed by a guy with a pellet gun would depend on variables not specified. In general, it probably would not go well for such a person, but it's pointless to speculate because you can never address every variable in a discussion such as this. Quote:
__________________
Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences. Last edited by Old_Bald_Guy; 11-24-2013 at 5:52 AM.. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Both of you need to apply for a CCW, and if accepted, pay close attention during the class room section. A non-existent threat would be someone without a gun. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I used the term non-existent because someone coming in with a fake gun is just that, non-existent. HOWEVER, you're not knowing this until after the fact of you shooting and killing a person that you perceived was a threat even if he wasn't. As I stated in OP, are you suppose to wait for him to fire off a few rounds and kill some people before engaging? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of having a CCW in the first place? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Like the OP said this is all hypothetical and not a well descript event. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Needs a new title "Shooting a non-existent threat by accident"?
I've never shot anything by accident, accident implies a unintentional act. Non-existent means that you knew there was no threat, which does not jive with a decision to fire. Now finding out later that the treat was not real, is a bit different. At the time shots are fired, if the perceived threat was real enough to justify action. Just because the weapon turns out to be unloaded a replica or whatever really does not change the initial threatening action and response to that action. A competent instructor would insure that there are no live firearms present to begin with, negating the potential problem before it arises. Not to mention having a good feel for the students in the class and having complete control over the scenario. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I've seen two very good examples in the news, one was a guy standing on corner waving a RPG around in Arizona, another was a movie theater manager that sent several armed men in to the theater as a prank for Iron Man 3.
In both of these situations the threat seemed very real, then after the fact is was learned that it was fake. I will say that without a doubt I would have run over the guy with the RPG without hesitating. The group in the theater, it depends heavily on how the they entered and how they identified themselves, but the second a gun was pointed at someone and no identifying markings, I'd have probably identified myself as police and shot. Laws are different in California than in Louisiana, however I know that in Louisiana (and everywhere) you operate with the facts present at the time. So a perceived threat is a threat. Unfortunately I'm sure there are places out there that will judge you based on facts discovered later as well. http://www.guns.com/2013/05/10/misso...respond-video/ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1169360 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I remember a time when a stunt like this would have been considered an ignorant and unfortunate learning opportunity. For those demented enough to pull these stunts putting others in terrible positions. Seems after a few people of this thinking get shot by real guns, they will begin to understand the true value of common sense.
An NO I am absolutely not in favor of just shooting poeple, never have been, hope I never am. But I think it is time for society in general to regain its appreciation for common sense and use ignorance as teaching tools, not blaming points. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Well I'm just going off of what she had told me, which was pretty little to begin with. The point is putting yourself in her shoes, only with a CCW; you don't know what's going on, all you see is someone coming in and waving a gun around, not knowing that it's a fake.
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Sorry, I use magazine and clip interchangeably in my vocabulary.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
The scenario is similar to-
What happens when an unstoppable object hits an immovable object? Thoughts- Do you draw and issue a command? Do you draw and shoot to stop a threat? What building are you in? Your own home for a neighborhood how meeting? High school classroom? Church? Restaurant? If a 5'2" female shoots a 6 foot tall man with a gun? Will the DA prosecute? If a 6' man shoots a 5' man- will DA prosecute? You could see the results being from: Justifiable homicide Manslaughter 2nd degree murder Loss of job Inability to ever be hired by another large firm as you have an arrest for shooting someone. Multiple civil suits for PTSD from the other people in the room Suits from the dead persons family Now move the room from Bakersfield to San Francisco and ask the questions again? Will the local media and DA handle the event differently?
__________________
Rule 1- ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED Rule 2 -NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY (including your hands and legs) Rule 3 -KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET Rule 4 -BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT (thanks to Jeff Cooper) |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A threat is a threat. If there were no indications of the gun being fake, you take that to mean a real gun. Now , there are innocent bystanders so you would have to display one of the fundamental rules of firearms by knowing your target and what's behind it, but that's a given for anyone with brains. Bottom line is, if you fear for your life AND can articulate it so that a reasonable man, in the same situation, would fear for his life, then you are good to shoot. Remembering this makes so many "situations" much simpler with a little bit of thought. What you might be thinking of is the instigation issue, which wouldn't apply in this situation. If you instigate a "situation", you can no longer rely on ending a threat in self defense. But this has no relevance to the situation in the OP because there was a person that ran into a room with a gun and I think that qualifies as instigating a situation |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Just FYI, and I'm not intending this to come across rude but just the truth, you will continue to get crap here on calguns if you do not learn the difference between the two and then use them appropriately.
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
I think you just nailed both sides of the argument.
__________________
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun and Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor California DOJ Certified Fingerprint Roller Ventura County approved CCW Instructor Utah CCW Instructor Offering low cost multi state CCW, private basic shooting and reloading classes for calgunners. CCW SAFE MEMBERSHIPS HERE KM6WLV |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I can see your an emotional person but this doesn't justify hurting innocent people around you. I am responding to the OPs post, I am not talking about every situation known to mankind. Please read. The op said many innocent people are around. I said this :" "Actually in this scenario there innocent bystanders , so legally you would want to wait until the perp has fired the first shot"" I did NOT say this is the case for every scenario like you throwing in a random emotional knife scenario. We are not in a warzone and rules of engagement are different. We do not just shot first here in California. You are your own man, you can make your own choices, I am not telling you what you can or can not do. I am interpreting what the laws allows us to do here in California / America. Let me draw out a more clear scenario for you to comprehend. Scenario #1: You are at a restaurant full of people You are a LTCer and have a loaded concealed gun on your person. A robber enters this restaurant full of people with an gun in hand, and tells everyone to not make any sudden moves. He tells everyone he is here for the money and that everyone needs to empty their pockets. You pull out your gun and fire at the robber first. The robber returns fire. In this exchange innocent people are shot and or killed. Because you Initiated the shoot out and escalated the situation where it did not necessarily needed to go. You could have simply let the robber take everybody's money then leave. No one would be hurt / dead. But because you have the mentality to just "Shoot First" innocent people around you are now dead. And you can bet the innocent person(s) family will be angry and will come after you. What will you say to explain yourself saying that it was absolutely necessary to shoot at the robber and initiate your gun fight? Did you think about the innocent people before you shot? Is your life more important then all the innocent people around ? I'll say again, you are your own man, make your own decisions. Go ahead and shot first if you want. But be ready for the legal ramifications ahead. The laws you are only supposed to used the force necessary to stop the threat. At that time described where you just shot him first, was not the force necessary. So yes in your words: Yes this robber instigated the robbery, but you escalated the situation. I know what your thinking. There are a lot of What-If. Like say if the robber hits a guy in the head with the butt of the gun, or fired into air, or fired at a person.... then the law would say SHOOT TO STOP THE THREAT. But this is to clarify my point to User "Whatisthis?" Only. Last edited by GlockIPSEC; 11-24-2013 at 11:19 PM.. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
^^^ I'm not gonna waste my time arguing. My last post tells you where I stand. But I will say this: you are correct in that it is possible that the situation ends better when you do not pull your gun and shoot.
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Your hypothetical is identical to the terrorist threats on 9-11 They used box cutter as weapons. Everyone complied with their wishes and stayed calm. ONE PROBLEM the bad guy LIED. Now i have no way to eliminate the threat. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But to answer your question, do you remember the recent incident where law enforcement opened fire on a lady who had a toy gun? IMO they were justified because there was an imminent threat albeit perceived but it was there. If I do not know if the firearm is real or not and I had a chance to stop the perceived threat, I am drawing my weapon every single time. The qualifier is if the threat is about to cause an act of bodily harm unto another person, not whether or not the weapon is real. And no, I don't believe LEOs are trained to recognize if a weapon is loaded or not before firing their weapon. So why should I? Last edited by NytWolf; 11-25-2013 at 8:31 AM.. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
/thread
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|