Am I the only one who packs heat while detecting?

[JimmyT]

Always Sig. P230 legal. My problem is not people but mostly dogs. I used to walk about 4 miles every other day just to get out. The people around my neighborhood have to many vicious dogs without the proper fencing. After having one get to close I bought a treadmill just from having to use my weapon. It will need to be the only answer left for me to use it but it will always be there just in case.

Jim

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[jglunt]

Quote from Michigan law

CJI2d 7.16

"Duty to Retreat to Avoid Using Deadly Force

(1) By law, a person must avoid using deadly force if [he/she] can safely do so. If the defendant could have safely retreated but did not do so, you can consider that fact, along with all the other circumstances, when you decide whether [he/she] went farther in protecting [himself/herself] than [he/she] should have.

(2) However, if the defendant honestly and reasonably believed that it was immediately necessary to use deadly force to protect [himself/herself] from an imminent threat of [death/serious injury/forcible sexual penetration], the law does not require [him/her] to retreat. [He/She] may stand [his/her] ground and use the amount of force [he/she] believes necessary to protect [ himself/herself]."

The part that I have highlighted is the key phrase. When the law arrives you just keep repeating over and over...."I believed my life was in imminent danger."

Jim

 

[BioProfessor]

Just remember it will be up to you to prove/convince the court that your thought about your life being in real jeopardy was logical. Guy yelling at you with a stick? Not going to go well.

Daryl

 

[jglunt]

Just remember it will be up to you to prove/convince the court that your thought about your life being in real jeopardy was logical. Guy yelling at you with a stick? Not going to go well.

Daryl

By "court", I assume you are talking about a jury, in which case your are correct. But It is up to the prosecution to prove that your life was NOT in danger, not the other way around. Remember the "innocent til proven guilty" part of our justice system? Although I will admit that nowadays it seems to be as* backwards when the criminals have more rights than the victim and get more sympathy from the media because they had an abusive childhood or some other such nonsense.

Jim

 

[stoney56]

Just remember it will be up to you to prove/convince the court that your thought about your life being in real jeopardy was logical. Guy yelling at you with a stick? Not going to go well.

Daryl

By "court", I assume you are talking about a jury, in which case your are correct. But It is up to the prosecution to prove that your life was NOT in danger, not the other way around. Remember the "innocent til proven guilty" part of our justice system? Although I will admit that nowadays it seems to be as* backwards when the criminals have more rights than the victim and get more sympathy from the media because they had an abusive childhood or some other such nonsense.

Jim

Don't forget the civil court where a little grey haired old lady sues you for loss of her son's only means of supporting her.

 

[BioProfessor]

Oh yeah, you will get sued there is no doubt about that.

Yes I did mean "jury" as it refers to the court.

Here's some legal stuff about using the "Self-Defense" defense.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given he had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction.

So it seems is not always up to the prosecution to prove everything. In this case it is a mixed scenario.

Daryl

 

[Tubecity]

The Bio-Professor is 100% right about making sure you have no other way out before using deadly force. But really, if you are out in the woods and had to shoot a crack-head who is gonna know? If you can find a coin on edge 6" to 8" deep & retreive it, how hard could it be
to dig out a couple .45 slugs? Hey, I'm only kidding, I just couldn't
help thinking it .

 

[Stormtrooper154]

Just remember it will be up to you to prove/convince the court that your thought about your life being in real jeopardy was logical.  Guy yelling at you with a stick?  Not going to go well.

Daryl

By "court", I assume you are talking about a jury, in which case your are correct. But It is up to the prosecution to prove that your life was NOT in danger, not the other way around. Remember the "innocent til proven guilty" part of our justice system? Although I will admit that nowadays it seems to be as* backwards when the criminals have more rights than the victim and get more sympathy from the media because they had an abusive childhood or some other such nonsense.

Jim

Don't forget the civil court where a little grey haired old lady sues you for loss of her son's only means of supporting her.

And then you take his family to court for for slandering your name! When my father used deadly force while on duty, the suspect family were going to try a civil action against my father for the shooting. However, they didnt because he was already "cleared of any wrongful actions by the city" and the families lawyer advised them that my father would counter-file a lawsuit and win.

 

[Stormtrooper154]

Just remember it will be up to you to prove/convince the court that your thought about your life being in real jeopardy was logical. Guy yelling at you with a stick? Not going to go well.

Daryl

Yelling at me from a safe distance with a stick....Great, have fun!

Charging me with a stick...He is going to the ER room or ME's office.

 

[Stormtrooper154]

Oh yeah, you will get sued there is no doubt about that.

Yes I did mean "jury" as it refers to the court.

Here's some legal stuff about using the "Self-Defense" defense.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given he had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction.

So it seems is not always up to the prosecution to prove everything.  In this case it is a mixed scenario.

Daryl

"When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors"
That has nothing to do with defending yourself from an attack now does it!  Different topic!

 

[BioProfessor]

Actually it does. Sudden means quickly and without warning. Quarrel means - (quar·rel) (kwôrl, kwr-) n. 1. An angry dispute; an altercation. 2. A cause of a dispute or an argument. It is this altercation that is the act that leads one to believe one life is in danger. It is usually an attack, a fight, a brawl. If none of this happens, it will be hard to prove your life was in immediate danger.

Not trying to sneek anything in. Just telling you what I know.

Daryl

 

[Stormtrooper154]

Actually it does.  Sudden means quickly and without warning.  Quarrel means -  (quar·rel) (kwôrl, kwr-) n. 1. An angry dispute; an altercation. 2. A cause of a dispute or an argument.  It is this altercation that is the act that leads one to believe one life is in danger.  It is usually an attack, a fight, a brawl.  If none of this happens, it will be hard to prove your life was in immediate danger.

Not trying to sneek anything in.  Just telling you what I know.

Daryl

So, Let me get this straight.  Did the victims at the Virginia Tech Shooting have an argument with the shooter?  I don't think they did!  I think the got shot for being at the wrong place at the wrong time by a bad guy with a gun who was randomly firing the weapon at people.  I wish I had been there while this was going on...There would have been a lot less victims!

I understand what you are saying! If you give a guy the finger because he cuts you off going down the road and you start fighting with him at the stop light. Then you fire your weapon at him, good luck defending yourself. However, armed crimianls breaking into my house at night are not going to get shot over a "Quarrel means - (quar·rel) (kwôrl, kwr-) n. 1. An angry dispute; an altercation" He is going to get shot because I feel my life, or my families life is in danger and I have no problem firing my weapon at him before getting into an arguement about why he is in my home.

 

[Tin Nugget]

I only carry if I am in the woods. Never know what kind of critter you might run into.

 

[spez401]

Let me throw my knowledge into the "self-defense" topic. First and foremost, EVERY state's laws are different. As was previously mentioned, some states have a "retreat" rule, others don't. In all states, dealdy force is allowable in defense of people not property. The standard basically is that a reasonable person would justify your use of deadly force.

Once you claim self defense, the burdlen of proof shifts to you, and it is up to you to prove that a reasonable person in your position would have acted the same way. There is no definite answer... it always becomes a question for the jury. And, even if you're exonerated, criminally, you still face civil liability.

Anyone who carries a firearm, in any capacity, should already have considered the ramifications of using it. They should be well trained. If you are not prepared to shoot someone, then you should not be carrying a firearm. Drawing a weapon of any sort implies that you are ready, and intend to USE it. Carrying a firearm, thinking that it will just scare somebody away by drawing it is naieve at best. I'm sure that many of you who carry have considered exactly these types of scenarios. And i'm sure that most people who carry never have.

For self defense, if you aren't necessarily ready to shoot and kill somone to defend your life, then there are several less leathal means of defense. Pepper spray/mace is a great option. They also make upgraded versions for critters (bear spray and dog). The same rules apply however. If you carry it, be prepared to use it.
steve

 

[IndianaSmith]

For self defense, if you aren't necessarily ready to shoot and kill somone to defend your life, then there are several less leathal means of defense. Pepper spray/mace is a great option. They also make upgraded versions for critters (bear spray and dog). The same rules apply however. If you carry it, be prepared to use it.
steve

You (and everyone else) make valid points. Bottom-line, if you aren't comfortable with a sidearm, don't own/carry one. If you chose not to, and your life or life of a loved one, is ever threatened....I hope someone nearby did make the decision to carry.

In regards to your last line, thugs don't carry mace & fistfight anymore, they carry stolden weapons. Ever watch COPS when they mace or taze a crack or meth-head? It usually taked 5-6 of them to contain the guy.

Expect the worse, and be prepared for it.......

Smitty

 

[Rob66]

I'll just send my 11 pound killer on them.

 

[ivan salis]

bottom line would you rather be judged by 12 or carried by 6? the choice is yours ---do you choose to be able to possiblely defend your family from robbers ,rapist and murders or would you rather just hope and pray that it doesn't and then beg and plead for mercy from the criminals to "spare" them and you on your knees if it does?---(I've made my choice and I stand ready to do what is needed "to kill a rapist,robber or murder" if they threaten the safety and wellbeing of my loved ones my meself or other innocent folks------have you made your choice? not wanting to think that it "could" happen to you --is "not" making a "choice" which in itself is a "choice")

 

[BioProfessor]

We seem to be getting a little off topic here. We are talking about carrying and having to make the decision to use a gun in the woods, beach, park, etc. while metal detecting and using it there. Not in our homes, businesses, etc.

Daryl

 

[Ryan1979]

better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, those 12 can put you in jail for life.

Yep, they could. I'd rather live. That's a choice everyone has to make.

 

[teverly]

I carry a KelTec with .38 hollow points. It's small enough to fit in your pocket but can make a nice size hole. I also carry a Carry permit with me.

i agree with Daryl; once you are away from your house you better know the law and shoot to kill. That was stressed strongly in my Carry Permit class and it was also pointed out if you shoot someone (dead or wounded) you are going to get sued.

Given all that, if I get threatened and attacked, I at least want to go out giving it my all

Thats why we need a federal castle doctrine law instead of state by state.If someone attacks you or threatens your life,breaks into your home ect...you have the right to defend yourself and sorry about THERE bad choice.