The law is written this way, in most states; You may not use deadly force unless you are in fear for your life or someone else's. If you have a legal fire arm, you may not use it to defend property, and you may not "shoot to wound or incapacitate". If you are in fear for your life you must "shoot to kill" or the law will determine that you were not in enough danger to warrant shooting at all.
So, it would be exactly the same scenario for someone who is "registered as a deadly weapon"; if you do not kill your attacker, then you weren't in enough danger to warrant attacking him at all.
I believe it is set up to force people with a CWP to judge the seriousness of a situation and not just go popping off rounds at some vague target, for a suspected offense. You can't set lethal booby traps, to protect our home and property either.
It makes some sense in the fact that perhaps you wouldn't really want to shoot some 12 year old kid for stealing a bike out of your garage. Or, at least the law doesn't want you to.
Yes but even if you state you are defending yourself people have still tried to sue over it. People have sued since they broken a leg in someones yard trying to rob them. This is stupid case but some have won. Some people have sued the person for getting attacked by the dog when they broke into the yard and they put down the dog. Just because laws says you are not suppose to do something does not mean a lawyer cant find some stupid way around it.
My CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit) is reciprocated by some states and not others, so it is my assumption that the rules governing the use of deadly force are the same or similar in reciprocating states and different in those that don't.
Entering into or trespassing on your property does not necessarily constitute a "fear for your life situation"; someone pointing a weapon at you does.
Stealing from you without a threat is not necessarily life threatening.
A guy walks up to you and your lady on the street and pulls a gun; you have every right to shoot him dead. The same guy steals a bike from your garage and you confront him as he rides down the driveway; you have no right to shoot him.
Is it normal I think it should be legal to defend yourself?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
The law is written this way, in most states; You may not use deadly force unless you are in fear for your life or someone else's. If you have a legal fire arm, you may not use it to defend property, and you may not "shoot to wound or incapacitate". If you are in fear for your life you must "shoot to kill" or the law will determine that you were not in enough danger to warrant shooting at all.
So, it would be exactly the same scenario for someone who is "registered as a deadly weapon"; if you do not kill your attacker, then you weren't in enough danger to warrant attacking him at all.
I believe it is set up to force people with a CWP to judge the seriousness of a situation and not just go popping off rounds at some vague target, for a suspected offense. You can't set lethal booby traps, to protect our home and property either.
It makes some sense in the fact that perhaps you wouldn't really want to shoot some 12 year old kid for stealing a bike out of your garage. Or, at least the law doesn't want you to.
--
Anonymous Post Author
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
dickwashington
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes but even if you state you are defending yourself people have still tried to sue over it. People have sued since they broken a leg in someones yard trying to rob them. This is stupid case but some have won. Some people have sued the person for getting attacked by the dog when they broke into the yard and they put down the dog. Just because laws says you are not suppose to do something does not mean a lawyer cant find some stupid way around it.
--
CozmoWank
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
You can sue someone over practically anything. It does not mean you are going to win.
--
Anonymous Post Author
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, and I never said you always win.
--
CozmoWank
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
So I guess you have nothing to gripe about.
couple questions if you dont mind
1. what states is the law diffrent in and how is it diffrent?
2. whats a CWP?
3. now by defending property do you mean someone entering your property with out invitation or some one stealing from you?
--
thegypsysailor
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit) is reciprocated by some states and not others, so it is my assumption that the rules governing the use of deadly force are the same or similar in reciprocating states and different in those that don't.
Entering into or trespassing on your property does not necessarily constitute a "fear for your life situation"; someone pointing a weapon at you does.
Stealing from you without a threat is not necessarily life threatening.
A guy walks up to you and your lady on the street and pulls a gun; you have every right to shoot him dead. The same guy steals a bike from your garage and you confront him as he rides down the driveway; you have no right to shoot him.