Thread: New gun!

The general rule is: "To use deadly force you must be in imminent and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm."

There is one glaring difference between defending yourself in your home and on the street.

• Outside your home you are required to retreat if you can do so without putting yourself, or other innocents, at greater risk.
• In your home, there is no requirement to attempt any retreat (Castle Law).

If you read it closely: if you are in imminent and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm, any retreat attempt would put you at greater risk. (i.e. if the risk is unavoidable, then retreat isn't an option anyway, by definition.) I think the "unavoidable" part of the guideline is to prevent armed citizens from attempting to chase criminals down after the crime has been committed.

I think it comes down to what a "reasonable" person would do. Generally a reasonable person faced with danger would try and avoid the danger. Not being able to avoid the danger, a reasonable person would not be expected to die if they had other means to deal with the danger.



Scott

Gotta love that reasonable person!

That would be 'mythical reasonable person', although a standard, who is to say what is reasonable reaction to a threat while judging another's actions from a nice safe location?

Here in texas, there is a new law that considers your vehicle as part of your castle now. Same laws apply to transporting firearms to and from your vehicle and your home. If you want to see the laws for texas, you can find them on the department of public safety website. Look for the concealed handgun book, or something of that nature. The laws are kind of funny, though. There are so many laws on the books that they could take our guns away if they wanted to. You really have to look at how the courts have decided on different things to get a feel of how they are enforced.

Why I love to live in Colorado.

Colorado Journal; 'Make My Day': More Than a Threat - New York Times

The "make my day" law is GREAT!!

Matt

Edit: Use of physical force while you are are in your house:


"18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
Statute text

(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force."

let me state that I like guns... but I don't feel much for everybody carrying concealed weapons on the streets.

Originally Posted by chief

let me state that I like guns... but I don't feel much for everybody carrying concealed weapons on the streets.

The only people that don't are the law abiding. Those that intend on doing harm will carry conceled. if they are already intent on using a gun to rob you, assault your person, or kill you, do you think a law against concealed carry is going to pursuade them to not carry concealed?

Matt

P.S. I understand there are vast cultural differences between Europe and the US. European history is filed with only the governing power having weapons, and limiting access to such weapons to those that served the governming power, and that is your history, and what is normal, and accepted. It is a little different here.

having a job in law enforcement myself, I'm not tempted by the tought of everyone walking around armed.Maybe it adds up to your personal perception of feeling safe, but IMHO it doesn't provide a truely safer environment.
For the record, I'm all in favour for legal self-defence, but I do not like the vigilante attitude that often surrounds it. I'm not eyeballing anyone in particular, but things like these are inevitable.

Originally Posted by chief

having a job in law enforcement myself, I'm not tempted by the tought of everyone walking around armed.Maybe it adds up to your personal perception of feeling safe, but IMHO it doesn't provide a truely safer environment.
For the record, I'm all in favour for legal self-defence, but I do not like the vigilante attitude that often surrounds it. I'm not eyeballing anyone in particular, but things like these are inevitable.

Fair enough. However, I wonder, do you already have the ability/privilege to carry a weapon on your person given that you are in a law enforcement position? If so, would your opinion change if you were not one of the privileged allowed to carry a weapon, and you were foced rely upon law enforcement for the defense of your person? I don't want to start an argument, but I am really curious. If you were just a citizen, would you be so willing to forgo such a viable and effective means of self-defense?

Matt