Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"When Gun Community Itself Spreads Bad Legal Info"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "When Gun Community Itself Spreads Bad Legal Info"

    More on the Wal Mart Shooting

    Get your legal advise from an Attorney and not a gun guy

    "So, please, don’t simply rely on anybody’s representation of what the law of self-defense is. Educate yourself on the relevant legal principles, so you’re equipped to understand the law you’re reading, then go read the actual law."

    "And read it in its entirety, not merely cherry-picking a paragraph here and a paragraph there. If you don’t understand the exceptions to the law you’ve read (as here), and even the exceptions to the exceptions, you don’t really understand the law and how it is likely to be applied."



    https://lawofselfdefense.com/when-gu...ad-legal-info/
    "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

    "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

  • #2
    Since this forum opened I've always tried to post the actual law. IANAL and can't give a legal opinion.
    The SD law is full of interpretive words... reasonable force, fear, reasonable man/person.

    General rules
    Never alter a crime scene to make it look "better" for you. That indicates you didn't/weren't really in fear of your life and /or great bodily harm and are trying to justify after the fact. Do it right and give "name, rank and serial number." In other words don't lie but after a saying.."Name,.. I was afraid I was going to die. My lawyer/Judge has told me to not try to explain every action until I have a lawyer present."
    Last edited by Jim Macklin; 07-13-2019, 13:57.
    The people think the Constitution protects their rights; But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
    If your religion says suicide and murder are wrong; Aren't you doing both if you are not prepared to defend your life and the lives of others?
    I am not a lawyer, but I have personal opinions.

    Comment


    • #3
      Excellent article, ricco. Thanks for posting it.

      As a general rule, I will retreat if I can safely do so, even if there is no legal requirement for it. In the long run, it's easier and cheaper..
      Taceant colloquia. Effugiat risus. Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae.
      The Pale Horse available on Amazon for your digital reader.
      I don't know why I'm better with revolvers, keat so please stop asking.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gerhard1 View Post
        Excellent article, ricco. Thanks for posting it.

        As a general rule, I will retreat if I can safely do so, even if there is no legal requirement for it. In the long run, it's easier and cheaper..
        It is easier and cheaper isn't it

        "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

        "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm basically in agreement with the spirit of what the OP is posting.

          From what I have read, the woman shot in anger at fleeing attackers.

          That is as clear cut as it gets in the gray murkiness that is the rights of self defense and manner thereof.

          This isn't even a gun issue at it's core. She could have chased them down with a knife or brutalized them with a bat and received the same incriminations; and rightly so.

          USA Carry is another blog, and as such, is prone to dissemination of bad information. Poor citing practices (if they exist at all), anecdotes salted with a little bit of truth taken out of context, embellishment, another self-proclaimed "expert", etc. You get what you pay for. Pony up a little $ and see an attorney if you're legitimately interested in learning what has not only been cited but also what precedence has been set. And; for at least the dozenth time, in YOUR STATE.

          I have stated before and I will own it today; that I will defend myself with a firearm in the face of a man attacking me with what appears to be bare fists. I will add the caveat that this is when the possiblity of retreat is depleted; but nonetheless the statement is true. I do not state this this lightly or arrogantly. I will not bring up my past experiences and the "WHY" of it because that is tired.

          There is another issue that is in the spirit of this topic that is not being addressed here but causes a great deal of confusion among law interpretation: Weighing Federal ruling over State. That is not how the law works. You will be subject to State laws and in many cases are afforded more rights at the state level (here in Kansas) that you are afforded by federal law. In some cases it is the opposite and you are subject to less rights at the state level; (which is why the Circuit Court of Appeals and Supreme Court exists in it's current form}.

          State>Circuit>Federal.

          States; by their very definition of shared sovereignty, are allowed to adopt and reject federal laws. Case in point: Marijuana. At the federal level it is illegal to sell (aka dispense), posses or use. Go to Colorado and smoke out, no problem. Bring it here and you'll be tossed in the slammer. Not to steer off topic because this is just an easy example of how the fifty States and Territories are allowed to self-govern and not another moralistic attention grab.

          Are all blogs garbage? No, that's an unfair statement. It is however; a very simple mentality to adopt to avoid misinformation in today's world of the always-connected (for better or worse) social media driven generation. I feel that this is getting long winded, so I'll catch ya'll later. Have a good night (or morning).
          For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
          And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed;
          And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
          And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!
          -Lord Byron (=5 lines)

          Comment


          • #6
            IF you're attacked with bare hands what is the likelyhood that a knife will appear in that first blow? You never know what weapon might be present and available to an attaker until t is used. Then it might be too late. If you're on crutches, bound to a wheelchair or just old having a black belt in several hand to hand disciplines might do you no good at all.
            Detection of a threat before it materializes and "getting out f Dodge" before TSHIF is always best.

            Kansas changed the SD laws several years ago to read more on a defenders side. Most other states have not yet done so.

            KANSAS LAW https://ag.ks.gov/docs/documents/sel...rsn=516a2f2b_4

            KANSAS’ SELF-DEFENSE & DEFENSE OF OTHERS STATUTES
            K.S.A. 2011 Supp. §§ 21-5220 through 21-5231
            21-5220. Use of force; construction and application. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3220]
            The provisions of this act are to be construed and applied retroactively.
            History: L. 2010, ch. 124, § 1; April 29.
            21-5221. Use of force; definitions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3221]
            (a) As used in article 32 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments
            thereto:
            (1) "Use of force" means any or all of the following directed at or upon another person or
            thing:
            (A) Words or actions that reasonably convey the threat of force, including threats to
            cause death or great bodily harm to a person;

            (B) the presentation or display of the means of force; or
            (C) the application of physical force, including by a weapon or through the actions of
            another.
            (2) "Use of deadly force" means the application of any physical force described in
            paragraph (1) which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to a person.Any threat to cause
            death or great bodily harm, including, but not limited to, by the display or production of a
            weapon, shall not constitute use of deadly force, so long as the actor’s purpose is limited to
            creating an apprehension that the actor will, if necessary, use deadly force in defense of such
            actor or another or to affect a lawful arrest.

            (b) An actor who threatens deadly force as described in subsection (a)(1) shall be subject
            to the determination in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 21- 5222, and amendments thereto, and not to
            the determination in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 21-5222, and amendments thereto.
            History: L. 2010, ch. 124, § 1; April 29.
            21-5222. Use of force in defense of a person. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3211]
            (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it
            appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to
            defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
            (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in
            subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to
            prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
            (c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to
            protect such person or a third person.
            History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3211; L. 2006, ch. 194, § 3; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 4; L. 2010, ch.
            136, § 21; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 7, July 1.
            21-5223. Use of force in defense of dwelling. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3212]
            (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it
            appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to
            prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon such person’s dwelling,
            place of work or occupied vehicle.
            2
            (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry
            into or attack upon any dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably
            believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily
            harm to such person or another.
            (c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to
            protect such person’s dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle.
            History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3212; L. 2006, ch. 194, § 4; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 5; L. 2010, ch.
            136, § 22; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 8, July 1.
            21-5224. Use of force; presumptions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3212a]
            (a) For the purposes of K.S.A. 21-5222 and 21-5223, and amendments thereto, a person
            is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death
            or great bodily harm to such person or another person if:
            (1) The person against whom the force is used, at the time the force is used:
            (A) Is unlawfully or forcefully entering, or has unlawfully or forcefully entered, and is
            present within, the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using force; or
            (B) has removed or is attempting to remove another person against such other person’s
            will from the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using force; and
            (2) the person using force knows or has reason to believe that any of the conditions set
            forth in paragraph (1) is occurring or has occurred.

            (b) The presumption set forth in subsection (a) does not apply if, at the time the force is
            used:
            (1) The person against whom the force is used has a right to be in, or is a lawful resident
            of, the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using force, and is not subject
            to any order listed in K.S.A. 21-5924, and amendments thereto, that would prohibit such
            person’s presence in the property;
            (2) the person sought to be removed is a child, grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful
            custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the force is used;
            (3) the person using force is engaged in the commission of a crime, attempting to escape
            from a location where a crime has been committed, or is using the dwelling, place of work or
            occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime; or
            (4) the person against whom the force is used is a law enforcement officer who has
            entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle in the lawful
            performance of such officer’s lawful duties, and the person using force knows or reasonably
            should know that the person who has entered or is attempting to enter is a law enforcement
            officer.
            History: L. 2010, ch. 124, § 3; April 29.
            21-5225. Use of force in defense of property other than a dwelling. [Amends K.S.A. 2010
            Supp. 21-3213]
            A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling, place of work
            or occupied vehicleis justified in the use of force against another for the purpose of preventing or
            terminating an unlawful interference with such property. Only such use of force as a reasonable
            person would deem necessary to prevent or terminate the interference may intentionally be used.
            History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3213; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 6; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 23; L. 2011, ch.
            30, § 9, July 1.
            3
            21-5226. Use of force by an aggressor. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3214]
            The justification described in sections K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 and 21-3213, prior to
            their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5222, 21-5223, and 21-5225, and amendments thereto, is not available
            to a person who:
            (a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping from the commission of a forcible
            felony; or
            (b) Initially provokes the use of any force against himself such person or another, with
            intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
            (c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of any force against himself such person or
            another, unless:
            (1) Such person has reasonable grounds to believe that such person is in imminent danger
            of death or great bodily harm, and such person has exhausted every reasonable means to escape
            such danger other than the use of deadly force, or
            (2) In good faith, such person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and
            indicates clearly to the assailant that such person desires to withdraw and terminate the use of
            such force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of such force.
            History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3214; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 7; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 24; L. 2011, ch.
            30, § 10, July 1.
            21-5227. Law enforcement officer's use of force in making arrest. [Amends K.S.A. 2010
            Supp. § 21-3215]
            (a) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom such officer has summoned or
            directed to assist in making a lawful arrest, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a
            lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. Such officer is justified
            in the use of any force which such officer reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest
            and of the use of any force which such officer reasonably believes to be necessary to defend the
            officer’s self or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, such officer is
            justified in using deadly force only when such officer reasonably believes that such force is
            necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to such officer or another person, or when such
            officer reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated
            by resistance or escape and such officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be
            arrested has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving death or great bodily harm or
            is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that such person will
            endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
            (b) A law enforcement officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified
            in the use of any force which such officer would be justified in using if the warrant were valid,
            unless such officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
            History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3215; L. 1990, ch. 98, § 1; L. 1993, ch. 69, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 124,
            § 8; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 25; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 11, July 1.
            21-5228. Private person's use of force in making arrest. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-
            3216
            (a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful
            arrest is justified in the use of any force which such person would be justified in using if such
            person were summoned or directed by a law enforcement officer to make such arrest, except that
            such person is justified in the use of deadly force only when such person reasonably believes that
            such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.
            4
            (b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a law enforcement officer to assist
            in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which such person
            would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful.
            History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3216; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 9; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 26; L. 2011, ch.
            30, § 12, July 1.
            21-5229. Use of force in resisting arrest. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3217]
            A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which such person knows is
            being made either by a law enforcement officer or by a private person summoned and directed by
            a law enforcement officer to make the arrest, even if the person arrested believes that the arrest is
            unlawful.
            History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3217; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 10; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 27; July 1,
            2011.
            21-5230. No Duty to Retreat; exceptions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3218]
            (a) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place
            where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand such person’s
            ground and use any force which such person would be justified in using under article 32 of
            chapter 21 of the Kansas Statute Annotated, prior to their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5202 through 21-
            5208 and K.S.A. 21-5222 through 21-5228 and K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-3212a, 21-3220 and 21-
            3221, and amendments thereto.
            History: L. 2006, ch. 194, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 10; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 28; L. 2011, ch. 30, ?
            13, July 1.
            21-5231. Use of force; immunity from prosecution or liability; investigation. [Amends
            K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3219]
            (a) A person who uses force which, subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 21-5226, and
            amendments thereto, is justified pursuant to K.S.A. 21-5222, 21-5223 or 21-5225, and
            amendments thereto, is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such
            force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was
            acting in the performance of such officer’s official duties and the officer identified the officer’s
            self in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should
            have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, "criminal
            prosecution" includes arrest, detention in custody and charging or prosecution of the defendant.
            (b) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of
            force as described in subsection (a), but the agency shall not arrest the person for using force
            unless it determines that there is probable cause for the arrest.
            (c) A county or district attorney or other prosecutor may commence a criminal
            prosecution upon a determination of probable cause.
            History: L. 2006, ch. 194, § 2; L. 2007, ch. 169, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 29; July 1, 2011.
            As I recall these changes stem from court/DA interpretations that if a gun was drawn but not fired you were not in imminent danger and drawing the gun was agg assault. The legislature wanted to be sure that threatening force was SD and if the attack stopped it ws successful w/o having to actually discharge the wepon.

            IANAL, if you wnt legal advice call a criminal attorny and read the laws again.
            Last edited by Jim Macklin; 07-14-2019, 10:15.
            The people think the Constitution protects their rights; But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
            If your religion says suicide and murder are wrong; Aren't you doing both if you are not prepared to defend your life and the lives of others?
            I am not a lawyer, but I have personal opinions.

            Comment


            • #7
              I have read several times in the last few weeks about GG's (non LEO's) chasing BG's and the results were only mixed in that they ranged from bad to very bad, some because the BG got the best of them or as in Wal Mart incident there were severe legal problems

              From the reading I've done it seems if we follow Farnam's "Stupid Rule" don't do stupid things with stupid people in stupid places and don't chase BG's we can avoid nearly all the problems with not only BG's but the legal system as well

              For those times when we can't avoid BG's, well.......that's why get training and pay attention to the training and then practice, yes practice, if Hackathorn's estimate is correct only 15-20% practice what they learn is class, so why bother with the class

              I don't see training and practicing as about being the toughest kid on the block but rather being able defend yourself as quickly and cleanly as possible

              Almost always the longer a fight goes the messier it get's, especially legally

              If we look at the Wal Mart fight, had the lady drawn her pistol and fired while she was still in contact with her attackers she very likely would still have been charged but a least a case of self defense could have been made to a possibly sympathetic jury

              As it stands it will be very difficult for even a skilled lawyer to concoct a plausible self defense scenario


              "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

              "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

              Comment


              • #8
                Amazing that anyone would pick and choose parts of a document to further their agenda. Wait, not really amazed.
                Originally posted by kscardsfan
                Grain of salt hell, I'm taking it with a salt block from the feed store. Thats a big bunch of crap there.




                QUOTE=mjkeat;n1101496]****ing stupid.[/QUOTE]

                Comment


                • #9
                  I presume you mean "me" since I applied BOLD to certain key words and the title of each section. I didn't pick and choose or edit any words or punctuation. I also posted the link to the AGs web site.

                  Maybe you should read the law and not just some "trainer's opinion."
                  Last edited by Jim Macklin; 07-15-2019, 04:03.
                  The people think the Constitution protects their rights; But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
                  If your religion says suicide and murder are wrong; Aren't you doing both if you are not prepared to defend your life and the lives of others?
                  I am not a lawyer, but I have personal opinions.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You presume wrong.
                    Originally posted by kscardsfan
                    Grain of salt hell, I'm taking it with a salt block from the feed store. Thats a big bunch of crap there.




                    QUOTE=mjkeat;n1101496]****ing stupid.[/QUOTE]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Not so big Tom View Post
                      You presume wrong.
                      You seemed to often disagree with me. Hence my assumption.
                      The people think the Constitution protects their rights; But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
                      If your religion says suicide and murder are wrong; Aren't you doing both if you are not prepared to defend your life and the lives of others?
                      I am not a lawyer, but I have personal opinions.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Bad info seems to be in short supply. Just kidding. It's everywhere and way to many people have no problem spreading it.
                        Last edited by mjkeat; 07-16-2019, 05:29.
                        Failure is an opportunity to learn.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jim Macklin View Post

                          You seemed to often disagree with me. Hence my assumption.
                          Pay him no attention, he thinks being cryptic is being sly
                          "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

                          "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You’re the target
                            Originally posted by kscardsfan
                            Grain of salt hell, I'm taking it with a salt block from the feed store. Thats a big bunch of crap there.




                            QUOTE=mjkeat;n1101496]****ing stupid.[/QUOTE]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Not so big Tom View Post
                              You’re the target
                              You are calling me a target, that sounds rather ominous
                              "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

                              "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X