CCW holder shoots robber, charged with murder

[NFRs2000NYC 7]

Can you offer wording for a theoretical law that would allow you the right to shoot someone under those circumstances, but would not make the following legal as well:

 

-Fatally shooting someone who charges you full price for an item you later learn to be a cheap immitation

-Fatally shooting someone after they pick up a quarter they saw you drop and put it in their pocket.

-Fatally shooting the manager of a towing company who has towed your legally parked car and is demanding you pay for the tow & storage fees before they will give it back to you.

-Fatally shooting a data entry clerk that used to work for Bernard Madoff because you are one of the people who lost their money in his Ponzi scheme

-Fatally shooting an uninsured motorist that damages your vehicle

 

?

 

None of the above are done with the threat of force, thus, completely meaningless. If a best buy employee put me in a headlock with a knife to my throat and forced me to buy a new washer dryer, yes, open season. Until then, your example is completely off base.

[NFRs2000NYC 7]

Point that Nick ismaking is that all valuables can be replaced, or, with some effort, be accounted for in whole.

To me, anybody who uses that as justification is honestly looking for an excuse to make an example out of someone using their brand of justice. The only case in which "valuables" are worth one's life is owned land-- but then of course that has nothing to do with CCW.

 

So, don't charade your argument in some excuse. If you want to honestly shoot someone and kill them because *you* believe they are an undesirable, just say that and while it is horrifying and an absolutely terrible representation of the firearms community-- I'll at least give you some respect for being upfront. (Not that I would agree with you. At all.)

 

 

Again not true. I might LOVE cars. I might bust my a** for 5 years, and save up every penny so I can buy my dream 57 Bel Air in cash. I can't afford another one. If you steal it from me, you cost me 5 years of my life, and for me to replace it, you might have cost me ANOTHER 5 years of my life, if ever. It is not up to YOU (you meaning anyone other than me) to decide what I can and can't replace. If I steal your grandfather's watch, or something you can't replace, then what? What if I steal a safe from your house, and you see me wheeling it down the street, and inside, is your life savings (because you are one of those people who doesn't trust banks)....your last 10 years of work are in that safe. Who is ANYONE to tell you that "money can be replaced." Things can be replaced AT YOUR expense, thus, it's easy to say "replace it."

[BadBul 0]

Note to self: shoot the sucker in the head before handing the money over...

[Zell959 40]

None of the above are done with the threat of force, thus, completely meaningless. If a best buy employee put me in a headlock with a knife to my throat and forced me to buy a new washer dryer, yes, open season. Until then, your example is completely off base.

 

You missed the point by a considerable margin. I was responding to someone that felt shooting someone when they're already running away with your money shouldn't be considered such a bad thing [which I presumed to mean he felt it should be allowable under the law]. I specifically used those examples because they are clearly instances where there is NOT A physical threat, yet someone is still taking your money in one form or another. They were INTENDED to be examples where lethal force would not be warranted because I was trying to demonstrate why it would be anything but simple [if not entirely more trouble that it's worth] to grant citizens the freedom/authority to do something like shoot a fleeing muggar without there being significant unintended consequences [i.e. people shooting the front desk worker of a towing company that unlawfully towed their car and demands money for its return].

[NFRs2000NYC 7]

You missed the point by a considerable margin. I was responding to someone that felt shooting someone when they're already running away with your money shouldn't be considered such a bad thing [which I presumed to mean he felt it should be allowable under the law]. I specifically used those examples because they are clearly instances where there is NOT A physical threat, yet someone is still taking your money in one form or another. They were INTENDED to be examples where lethal force would not be warranted because I was trying to demonstrate why it would be anything but simple [if not entirely more trouble that it's worth] to grant citizens the freedom/authority to do something like shoot a fleeing muggar without there being significant unintended consequences [i.e. people shooting the front desk worker of a towing company that unlawfully towed their car and demands money for its return].

 

 

Again, I can't find the point in your post. The desk worker and a mugger are NOT the same thing. The car was not towed under physical threat of force. Mugging is a threat of force. It is pretty cut and dry in terms of law. No crime has been committed with a car being towed. Hell, even if it was stolen on a towtruck, it was still NOT under threat of force. A carjacking IS, and many states allow you to kill the carjacker, and if he actually takes off in your car, you have the right to defend your property. Hell, if a mugger steals your wallet with $1000 in cash in it (along with your ID) who's to say he won't think...

 

"hey, this guy has a ton of cash, and lives in a nice area, he must have stuff worth stealing." Then, the mugger will break into your house while your kids are asleep. Defending property should be as part of our freedom as defending our body.

[Zell959 40]

Again, I can't find the point in your post.

 

I doubt you'd be particularly inclined to conceed otherwise, under any circumstances.

 

The desk worker and a mugger are NOT the same thing. The car was not towed under physical threat of force. Mugging is a threat of force. It is pretty cut and dry in terms of law.

 

The scenarios accompanied the following question: "Can you offer wording for a THEORETICAL law that would allow you the right to shoot someone under those circumstances, but would not make the following legal as well...", so you're still not getting it if you think I need to have the difference between the actions of a mugger & a towing company's clerical assistant under the law explained to me.

 

Someone seemed to feel the law should allow for the shooting of muggers even after they no longer pose an immediate physical threat to them. I feel the precendent of legally considering such an act to be entirely acceptable is a flood gate that can't be condoned on a blanket basis without significant unintended consequences.

[bulpup 98]

Before using deadly physical force, the citizen must be correct in his/her reasonable belief that the person he/she is seeking to arrest committed an enumerated felony and that such person is in immediate flight from the commission of the enumerated felony.

 

Given that the police and peace officer is specially trained, inter alia, in the responsible use of firearms under trying circumstances, and that he/she was being authorized to use that deadly physical force on a much broader scale than the citizen, the Legislature wanted some statutory incentive for the police to act responsibly in the use of their broad power to use deadly physical force by holding them responsible for reckless conduct.

 

In fact, those who opposed the legislation did so on the grounds that the legislation accorded too much authority to the police to use force. (See, 1968 Bill Jacket, Senate Bill S 4104-A.)

 

For the citizen who could not be presumed to have had training in the use of deadly physical force, and who would be acting often under stress, on the spur of the moment, in response to the commission of an enumerated felony and while the felon was in immediate flight from that felony, and who would often otherwise be a responsible member of the community, the Legislature chose not to hold that citizen accountable for an otherwise justifiable use of force that resulted in injury or death to the wrong person.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

So by law we should be able to shoot anyone who takes our money with out permission? you can count half the government dead on that one. Any one who defaults on a loan...Dead. Cant pay that credit card... You Dead... Im sure we can get a mob squad together for every person who's been able to get away with stealing... but i dunno how many people would be left. Cant pay your taxes, dead... the people making you pay those taxes...dead. Threat of force has nothing to do with it, all of these people threaten you one way or another using various modes of force.... when it comes down to it, the only time worth taking someones life is when someone's life is in jeopardy.

[john q publik 10]

Again, I can't find the point in your post. The desk worker and a mugger are NOT the same thing. The car was not towed under physical threat of force. Mugging is a threat of force. It is pretty cut and dry in terms of law. No crime has been committed with a car being towed. Hell, even if it was stolen on a towtruck, it was still NOT under threat of force. A carjacking IS, and many states allow you to kill the carjacker, and if he actually takes off in your car, you have the right to defend your property. Hell, if a mugger steals your wallet with $1000 in cash in it (along with your ID) who's to say he won't think...

 

"hey, this guy has a ton of cash, and lives in a nice area, he must have stuff worth stealing." Then, the mugger will break into your house while your kids are asleep. Defending property should be as part of our freedom as defending our body.

 

This is precisely the reason it has been recommended to carry a decoy wallet, filled with nothing more than those annoying cardboard "credit cards" you get with those incessant offers for credit that come in the mail. This way, not only do they not get any of your money and/or credit cards, they also have no information on you, where you live, what you drive, family members(anyone keep family pics in their wallet?), etc.

[vladtepes 1,060]

This is precisely the reason it has been recommended to carry a decoy wallet, filled with nothing more than those annoying cardboard "credit cards" you get with those incessant offers for credit that come in the mail. This way, not only do they not get any of your money and/or credit cards, they also have no information on you, where you live, what you drive, family members(anyone keep family pics in their wallet?), etc.

 

I carry one of those when i go into really bad areas... I keep like 20 bucks in 1s and 5s and a few old cards that have been long canceled....

 

As far as the rest... I fail to see the logic in disallowing use of force in regards to protecting your property... If you support laws that prevent citizens from engaging criminals when protecting themselves OR property you essentially write a blank check payable to any criminal who wants to take your stuff without threatening you... In a world that disallows force to protect your property a criminal could smash your door... Walk in... And take everything you own... As long as you can run away force is not an option? Come on.. That is no way to live...

[NFRs2000NYC 7]

I doubt you'd be particularly inclined to conceed otherwise, under any circumstances.

 

 

 

The scenarios accompanied the following question: "Can you offer wording for a THEORETICAL law that would allow you the right to shoot someone under those circumstances, but would not make the following legal as well...", so you're still not getting it if you think I need to have the difference between the actions of a mugger & a towing company's clerical assistant under the law explained to me.

 

Someone seemed to feel the law should allow for the shooting of muggers even after they no longer pose an immediate physical threat to them. I feel the precendent of legally considering such an act to be entirely acceptable is a flood gate that can't be condoned on a blanket basis without significant unintended consequences.

 

Laws don't allow you to do anything. Laws PROHIBIT you from doing something. If you want to play semantics...if I was just mugged for my wallet, I have a credible FEAR of the mugger coming after me to my house, and killing the rest of my family. Prove that I don't have that fear.

[NFRs2000NYC 7]

So by law we should be able to shoot anyone who takes our money with out permission? you can count half the government dead on that one. Any one who defaults on a loan...Dead. Cant pay that credit card... You Dead... Im sure we can get a mob squad together for every person who's been able to get away with stealing... but i dunno how many people would be left. Cant pay your taxes, dead... the people making you pay those taxes...dead. Threat of force has nothing to do with it, all of these people threaten you one way or another using various modes of force.... when it comes down to it, the only time worth taking someones life is when someone's life is in jeopardy.

 

 

Again, BY THREAT OR ACTIONS OF PHYSICAL FORCE. None of the above are done with physical force.

[Zell959 40]

Prove that I don't have that fear.

 

Why? I don't care

[NFRs2000NYC 7]

Why? I don't care

 

Well, you asked me to "stay within the confines of "a law." Lethal force is allowed if one has a credible fear of bodily harm. After a mugging, I may still have that fear. Just because the guy is running away with my wallet, it does not mean I no longer fear for my life, as a matter of fact, plenty of psychological studies show that people are still in fear for their life DAYS after an event of violence. A rape victim can be in fear for the rest of their lives, after an attack. Hell, some violence victims get seriously mentally scarred for life, fearing dark hallways, night time, etc etc etc. It has also been proven that DIRECT action (either shooting, or seeing police shoot a threat) provides "closure" and eases the victim's mind. Knowing that their attacker "is still out there" can mess with a human brain more than you know. How would you feel if your wife was attacked at her job's parking structure? I bet you would worry every single night and make sure she gets to her car safely. How do you think she would feel?

[djg0770 481]

I carry one of those when i go into really bad areas... I keep like 20 bucks in 1s and 5s and a few old cards that have been long canceled....

 

Yeah - not recommended for those of us who don't have a "John Smith" name. I'm the only person with my name in the entire USA and I know that I'm not the only one on this forum that this applies to. Do a people search for free on the internet and you find out my address... No thanks, not to mention I wouldn't hand over a card no matter how old with the signature on the back.

[Zell959 40]

Well, you asked me to "stay within the confines of "a law."

 

I did? When was that?

[john q publik 10]

Yeah - not recommended for those of us who don't have a "John Smith" name. I'm the only person with my name in the entire USA and I know that I'm not the only one on this forum that this applies to. Do a people search for free on the internet and you find out my address... No thanks, not to mention I wouldn't hand over a card no matter how old with the signature on the back.

 

Just one more reason to never sign the back of your card. This also requires cashiers to request to see your ID to verify you are the person who's name is on the card. So if it gets stolen, there is no signature to forge, and they won't have matching info on their ID to ba able to use the card.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Just one more reason to never sign the back of your card. This also requires cashiers to request to see your ID to verify you are the person who's name is on the card. So if it gets stolen, there is no signature to forge, and they won't have matching info on their ID to ba able to use the card.

Not really, if you don't sign the back of the card then they can use their own signature....

I have NEVER had a cashier validate a CC using a license in NJ.

and they barely ever check the signature.

It is retarded that they do this.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Not really, if you don't sign the back of the card then they can use their own signature....

I have NEVER had a cashier validate a CC using a license in NJ.

and they barely ever check the signature.

It is retarded that they do this.

 

I have to admit I never used to ask.. but then the store got burnt once. and that was all it took..

after that.. I always asked....

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Not really, if you don't sign the back of the card then they can use their own signature....

I have NEVER had a cashier validate a CC using a license in NJ.

and they barely ever check the signature.

It is retarded that they do this.

 

I have. Supermarkets don't check. However, Best Buy does.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Not really, if you don't sign the back of the card then they can use their own signature....

I have NEVER had a cashier validate a CC using a license in NJ.

and they barely ever check the signature.

It is retarded that they do this.

 

Not signing it yes they can just write there own signature, however you can sign the card with, Ask for Photo ID or something similar and have a little more protection, but in real life 9 times out of 10 I'll have a cashier flip the card over and see what I wrote and never ask me for my ID or anything so the only real way to avoid this is to cancel all your cards if lost.

 

Here is a good time to mention that you should take all of your cards scan them or photo copy them on 1 sheet of paper as well as you other important items in your wallet (or purse) and keep them someplace safe at home. This way if you ever do loose you stuff you will have all the account numbers as well as phone numbers to call.

 

Harry