While anyone, including law enforcement, is free to observe anyone in public, gun rights supporters will want to know what other questions might be warranted merely by attending a movie theater carrying a semi-automatic rifle.
Why do you need to get out of your car to read a street sign in your own neighborhood where you have appointed yourself the night watchman?
So much of your timeline is based solely on the testimony of a guy that was trying to avoid going to jail for murder. We don’t know what happened. All we know is that Zimmerman initiated the encounter by following the kid at night and was getting his ass kicked when he shot the kid. We know there wasn’t enough evidence to prove it wasn’t self defense but noone ever proved that it was self defense.
I stand by my statement that a gun will not enable you to defend yourself. What it will do is enable you to counterattack. The two are very different.
How do we know that treyvon started the fight? Oh yeah, Zimmerman (the guy trying to avoid going to jail for murder told us so).
[QUOTE=scabpicker]
The officer has a reason to begin asking questions of the person carrying the gun. If they don’t have a reasonable response, or refuse to respond: I’d expect them to persist in questioning the person, at the least.
[/QUOTE]
The officer can certainly ask if he likes. The person carrying the gun is entirely justified in responding “My name is so-and-so, I live at such-and-such an address, and my birthdate is whatever-it-is. Am I free to go?”
There is no legal obligation to answer any other question. Thus the answer to questions from a police officer like “Where are you going?” or “why are you carrying that gun?” is “that is none of your business, so I am not going to answer you”.
Exercising one of your Constitutional rights does not mean you can’t exercise the others.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
How do we know that treyvon started the fight? Oh yeah, Zimmerman (the guy trying to avoid going to jail for murder told us so).
[/QUOTE]
No, from the evidence which backed up what Zimmerman said. This includes physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and the testimony of disinterested witnesses like Dee Dee.
Regards,
Shodan
I think one NRA position is that a well armed society deters criminal behaviour generally. I’m not sure there is much you can do to deter the crazy. The NRA position AFAICT on the crazy is mostly about damage mitigation.
And despite all those things that you imagine would be likely to happen with concealed carriers, they don’t, not with any regularity.
Presumably deterrence via display is a form of defense.
Allow me to try and drag this back to its origin. In the OP Tom is wearing a windbreaker, so let’s say Jerry is too. Jerry proceeds to the counter and places an order (to the visible trepidation of the counter staff). Then, possibly searching for money under his windbreaker, Jerry grasps his rifle near the trigger guard with one hand, and swings it away from his body. His other hand is now hidden inside the windbreaker, fumbling for something (possibly his wallet, but nothing is visible). At this moment a child screams because his sister took his sippy cup and in retribution he slaps her McDrink onto the floor in a McSplash! Jerry turns toward the noise. Of course, the rifle in his hand now also swings around toward the seated patrons. At this moment Tom looks up, attracted by the same noises.
Does Tom now have grounds for “reasonable fear” and thus justification for ventilating Jerry’s forehead?
Neither do legitimate cases of self defense.
In my state they don’t even have to do any of that. Open carry of both hand and long guns is legal and it’s legality has been codified by statutes.
Unless there is some other factor that is a violation of law I cannot detain an OCer and they do not have to answer my questions or identify themselves or stop walking. Open carry of a weapon here is not PC or even RAS to detain someone.
I can ask them all the questions I want, but cannot do anything about it if they don’t stop or don’t answer. I can also observe them but for how long am I going to do that? My entire shift while they go about their business?
On my own time I open carry from time to time. I wouldn’t be too happy with someone, cop or not, that was bugging me about it and would consider them the dick, not me.
How do you figure? We just had an armed robbery this year where the robber was shot dead by his would-be victim.
Unless you suffer from Asperger’s Syndrome you have the ability to read people’s behavior and react to it. It won’t stop an attack from behind but it helps to deal with people who pose a threat.
OK, so now we’re back to the scenario with Tom and Jerry. Suppose that Tome reads Jerry’s behavior and reacts to it. But, being a fallible human, he reads it wrong. Does he have a defense?
No, we’re back to people can defend themselves if attacked.
Depends if the mistake was one that a reasonable person would have made.
Can someone tell me what the range of laws in states actually is for the use of deadly force (and relatedly, for the legal ability to threaten with deadly force) in response to a perceived threat? (Not sure if both get covered under “Stand Your Ground.”)
Is the typical state legal standard “what a reasonable person would perceive”? Or that the individual seems to have honestly felt there was an imminent threat to life or of great bodily harm, even if most “reasonable” people would not have perceived it as such?
The related bit came up in another recent thread, the drone shooter one. A man shot down a drone over his property. The owners came and asked him if he was “the S.O.B. who shot down their drone”? and approached his property line. To which he responded, as they approached the edge of his property, and showing his holstered open carry gun “Yup and if you cross that sidewalk they’ll be more shooting.” (Can’t promise that is the exact quote.)
If they continued to approach would he have been justified in some states to shoot them?
If one of them carried and they perceived things as a crazed man just shot down their drone and was now threatening to shoot them, thus as a threat and pulled first, shooting him, would that have been justified? If he was perceived as reaching for his gun wold it have been? Legally in most states with “Stand Your Ground” I mean. The ethics are a different debate: this is a factual question regarding the laws.
Yes, I do consider it a nuanced argument. And you asked what the NRA position was, and I told you. Going forward, you can no longer assert that you don’t know what it is.
Your bedpan is full.
If you are not offering to empty and clean it, this remark has no place in this discussion.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
In a lot of states he would be justified. They had already approached him in a confrontational manner. If they continued to approach, knowing that he was armed, there are very few scenarios in which a reasonable person would conclude something other than that they wished to do him harm.
Edit–I don’t know the specific standard in most states. But in most states with a Castle Doctrine, as long as you’re on your own property, you’re good in a legal sense.