Of course not. When the cops show up, they have a dead (or wounded) attacker and you are standing there with a gun. Upon arrival, the cops have no way of knowing whether it was concealed or being carried in the open, and so they would have no reliable factual proof to give to the ADA. The ADA wouldn’t have enough proof to convict, even if the AFA was dumb enough to try and convict a person who just successfully defended himself from an assailant, which I wouldn’t think he would be.
[/quote]
They’d know if you did it right. Say you carry a shotgun… :o)
The idea with a concealed carry is that you are being stealthy and therefore it will be easier for you to be up to no good – hence the need for permits. If you want to carry a firearm for its deterrent capability, let 'em know about it early. While you might get the sociopath who targets you because you are armed (and this is likely going to be the most case discussed in this forum, if we stay true to T-Nation standards), chances are 99.999% of every other potential attacker will avoid you at all costs. Predatory behavior is based on the safety to the attacker. The lion does not attack the Alpha Male bull but picks off the newborn straggler. Same with human predators. They will determine if you are an easy mark well beforehand and only act if their safety is pretty much a done deal. Corollary: if they are attacking you, its because they have a trump card. There is no such thing as a fair fight except in entertainment (which includes things like the UFC).
Upshot: Enunciate what your security concerns are and how you intend to address them. Otherwise you are just preparing for that Zombie Apocalypse (which is really good armchair fun).
And as always, I might just be full of shit…
– jj
Edit: NO I’m not advocating running around with a gun – just pointing out that if deterrence from your weapon is the goal (which I suspect it is) concealed carry is at odds with it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Gordon Liddy said better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. I don’t carry a gun but if I felt it nessasary I would reguardless of any law[/quote]
That’s an awful saying that only wanna-be tough guys go around with.[/quote]
x2. Srsly, x2.
(For one thing, G. Gordon Liddy (known as “superklutz” during his time at the FBI for his ability to trip over his own dick) got off on being the tough guy but really was just another stuffed shirt. This phrase pre-supposes that the jury will always understand just how righteous your rage was against those nasty people. Most of the people I hear throw it around use it as a soundbite to excuse any damn thing they come up with in the name of self-defense. Very little of what most people think is self-defense will fly with a jury, so this is pretty much a straight ticket to jail if you take it to heart.)
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Gordon Liddy said better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. I don’t carry a gun but if I felt it nessasary I would reguardless of any law[/quote]
That’s an awful saying that only wanna-be tough guys go around with.[/quote]
x2. Srsly, x2.
(For one thing, G. Gordon Liddy (known as “superklutz” during his time at the FBI for his ability to trip over his own dick) got off on being the tough guy but really was just another stuffed shirt. This phrase pre-supposes that the jury will always understand just how righteous your rage was against those nasty people. Most of the people I hear throw it around use it as a soundbite to excuse any damn thing they come up with in the name of self-defense. Very little of what most people think is self-defense will fly with a jury, so this is pretty much a straight ticket to jail if you take it to heart.)
– jj[/quote]
Again you are entitled to your opinion , I never heard of Liddy being a Super Klutz , I do not understand why you think I would want to argue about anything , I could give a fuck on how you deem to defend yourself
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Gordon Liddy said better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. I don’t carry a gun but if I felt it nessasary I would reguardless of any law[/quote]
That’s an awful saying that only wanna-be tough guys go around with.[/quote]
x2. Srsly, x2.
(For one thing, G. Gordon Liddy (known as “superklutz” during his time at the FBI for his ability to trip over his own dick) got off on being the tough guy but really was just another stuffed shirt. This phrase pre-supposes that the jury will always understand just how righteous your rage was against those nasty people. Most of the people I hear throw it around use it as a soundbite to excuse any damn thing they come up with in the name of self-defense. Very little of what most people think is self-defense will fly with a jury, so this is pretty much a straight ticket to jail if you take it to heart.)
– jj[/quote]
Exactly. Marc Macyoung has said that he doesn’t like it because, as I recall, it diminishes the significance of what’s going on. It’s an easy thing to say, but as you said, “Self-defense” is probably the most misunderstood phrase in the world.
Every cat that gets locked up is always saying the shit was self defense. Of course it was. Right.
As for the open carry part, if you have a certain style holster, it’s easy to determine that. Inside the pants, ankle holsters etc will say concealed. Outside the waist on the belt would be a more open carry type of holster.
The problem with this thread is that it took a turn from defending ones self to the definition of self defense . Probably I would agree with most the posters on the definition. As far as Gordon Liddy I could give a flying fuck what any of these kids think of him. He is the same age as my father would have been . He was controversial and plenty of people have reason to dislike him .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Gordon Liddy said better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. I don’t carry a gun but if I felt it nessasary I would reguardless of any law[/quote]
In Arizona they have constitutional carry so you dont need a license to carry concealed or openly which is the way it should be.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Marc Macyoung , sounds like a true bad ass, but i could not find his age ? any body know ?[/quote]
Macyoung is 49.
He is one of the best as far as realistic self-defense- and not just fighting either, the whole thing. His website and books are excellent, and I highly recommend them to anyone interested in the topic of self-defense.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Marc Macyoung , sounds like a true bad ass, but i could not find his age ? any body know ?[/quote]
Macyoung is 49.
He is one of the best as far as realistic self-defense- and not just fighting either, the whole thing. His website and books are excellent, and I highly recommend them to anyone interested in the topic of self-defense. [/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Gordon Liddy said better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. I don’t carry a gun but if I felt it nessasary I would reguardless of any law[/quote]
In Arizona they have constitutional carry so you dont need a license to carry concealed or openly which is the way it should be.[/quote]
I don’t carry or have I ever , but if I felt the need I would carry if the consequenses were life [/quote]
The problem with this philosphy is if you get caught you now have a criminal record so that whenever you apply for a job and they ask you “have you ever committed a crime?” you have to answer “yes I committed a felony with a firearm”. Then because of all the sheer paranoia that people have been conditioned to associate with guns you will be denied employment.
Then if you get caught again you are really fucked.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Lets say someone has a pistol in public and is attacked. They shoot the person in self defense. The police come and find the defender doesnt have a cpl, and they charge him with carrying a concealed pistol. How will the law be able to prove that you were concealed carrying instead of open carrying? [/quote]
Cops will charge you with whatever they want to. Whether it will stick is another thing. How do they prove the charge? The same way they prove anything. Witnesses and physical evidence.
Did anyone witness you carrying openly? How were you carrying? Were you wearing a holster? Were you wearing baggy jeans and a t-shirt to your knees? Were you wearing a coat?
The prosecution isn’t limited to your testimony alone.
I hear a lot about “self-defense” but what does the law have to say about defending others? Is it legal to shoot someone attacking your family members? Does “self-defense” mean literally only yourself?
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
May I ask a tangiential question?
I hear a lot about “self-defense” but what does the law have to say about defending others? Is it legal to shoot someone attacking your family members? Does “self-defense” mean literally only yourself?[/quote]
I am not a lawyer so don’t consider this information definitive. However many years ago I did have a lawyer explain the self defense laws to me.
In Michigan the law says that if you are being assaulted the amount of force you can use has to be in proportion to the percieved threat. If you are a third party rendering assistance to someone else the standards that would apply are the same that it would be if you were the one being assaulted and in proportion to what is being done to the person you are helping.
So if you came to the assistance of some one being attacked with a deadly weapon like a gun or a knife you could use deadly force against them. On the other hand say your Emo brother is getting the snot smacked out of him by his skinny ex girlfriend, shooting her is going to get you into trouble. So you would be better if you kicked her butt or just restrained her…
Now say your Emo brother is getting crushed by his ex boyfriend who is built like Brock Lesnar, and he is not stopping so you think he is going to kill him. In that case you could shoot. But lets suppose you are nice enough to give him a chance by pointing out you have a gun and he should stop and he does stop. But then he gets off your brother, says he’s going to beat you down and comes at you. You are small, a woman and he is a huge man, in that case you could say you were in fear for your life when you shot him and it most likely would be accepted.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
May I ask a tangiential question?
I hear a lot about “self-defense” but what does the law have to say about defending others? Is it legal to shoot someone attacking your family members? Does “self-defense” mean literally only yourself?[/quote]
I am not a lawyer so don’t consider this information definitive. However many years ago I did have a lawyer explain the self defense laws to me.
In Michigan the law says that if you are being assaulted the amount of force you can use has to be in proportion to the percieved threat. If you are a third party rendering assistance to someone else the standards that would apply are the same that it would be if you were the one being assaulted and in proportion to what is being done to the person you are helping.
So if you came to the assistance of some one being attacked with a deadly weapon like a gun or a knife you could use deadly force against them. On the other hand say your Emo brother is getting the snot smacked out of him by his skinny ex girlfriend, shooting her is going to get you into trouble. So you would be better if you kicked her butt or just restrained her…
Now say your Emo brother is getting crushed by his ex boyfriend who is built like Brock Lesnar, and he is not stopping so you think he is going to kill him. In that case you could shoot. But lets suppose you are nice enough to give him a chance by pointing out you have a gun and he should stop and he does stop. But then he gets off your brother, says he’s going to beat you down and comes at you. You are small, a woman and he is a huge man, in that case you could say you were in fear for your life when you shot him and it most likely would be accepted.
[/quote]
Right.
Although it could go terribly wrong and end up badly just as well, even if you do everything right.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Gordon Liddy said better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. I don’t carry a gun but if I felt it nessasary I would reguardless of any law[/quote]
In Arizona they have constitutional carry so you dont need a license to carry concealed or openly which is the way it should be.[/quote]
I don’t carry or have I ever , but if I felt the need I would carry if the consequenses were life [/quote]
The problem with this philosphy is if you get caught you now have a criminal record so that whenever you apply for a job and they ask you “have you ever committed a crime?” you have to answer “yes I committed a felony with a firearm”. Then because of all the sheer paranoia that people have been conditioned to associate with guns you will be denied employment.
Then if you get caught again you are really fucked. [/quote]
I think we are back to definition, If I felt compelled to carry a gun, and were caught with out one I may have no oportunity to not have a productive job interveiw. I think if the average person practices the Golden Rule , they will have no NEED to carry a gun
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
May I ask a tangiential question?
I hear a lot about “self-defense” but what does the law have to say about defending others? Is it legal to shoot someone attacking your family members? Does “self-defense” mean literally only yourself?[/quote]
I am not a lawyer so don’t consider this information definitive. However many years ago I did have a lawyer explain the self defense laws to me.
In Michigan the law says that if you are being assaulted the amount of force you can use has to be in proportion to the percieved threat. If you are a third party rendering assistance to someone else the standards that would apply are the same that it would be if you were the one being assaulted and in proportion to what is being done to the person you are helping.
So if you came to the assistance of some one being attacked with a deadly weapon like a gun or a knife you could use deadly force against them. On the other hand say your Emo brother is getting the snot smacked out of him by his skinny ex girlfriend, shooting her is going to get you into trouble. So you would be better if you kicked her butt or just restrained her…
Now say your Emo brother is getting crushed by his ex boyfriend who is built like Brock Lesnar, and he is not stopping so you think he is going to kill him. In that case you could shoot. But lets suppose you are nice enough to give him a chance by pointing out you have a gun and he should stop and he does stop. But then he gets off your brother, says he’s going to beat you down and comes at you. You are small, a woman and he is a huge man, in that case you could say you were in fear for your life when you shot him and it most likely would be accepted.
[/quote]
What if you are facing multiple unarmed opponents? I had a friend who went to the bar and got into an argument with a guy inside. When he left the bar the guy he argued with came out the bar with a gang of other guys and jumped him. Now if my friend had a pistol and opened fire on the group could that be self defense?
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Lets say someone has a pistol in public and is attacked. They shoot the person in self defense. The police come and find the defender doesnt have a cpl, and they charge him with carrying a concealed pistol. How will the law be able to prove that you were concealed carrying instead of open carrying? [/quote]
Cops will charge you with whatever they want to. Whether it will stick is another thing. How do they prove the charge? The same way they prove anything. Witnesses and physical evidence.
Did anyone witness you carrying openly? How were you carrying? Were you wearing a holster? Were you wearing baggy jeans and a t-shirt to your knees? Were you wearing a coat?
The prosecution isn’t limited to your testimony alone.[/quote]
This.
What the cops do, and how you spend the next 24 hours after killing someone in (legit) self-defense, has very little to do with what charges may or may not actually be filed.
I think even if you were 100% in the right, both morally and within the law, if you kill someone with a gun, you can probably expect it to be taken as evidence, and to be in a cell until you can be seen by a judge.
What if you are facing multiple unarmed opponents? I had a friend who went to the bar and got into an argument with a guy inside. When he left the bar the guy he argued with came out the bar with a gang of other guys and jumped him. Now if my friend had a pistol and opened fire on the group could that be self defense?[/quote]
No. You can’t shoot people because a group looks threatening. Your life (or another’s) has to be in immediate danger, not “this could escalate into real danger.” Your friend in that situation would have a duty to retread. Only when the potential becomes actual can you use deadly force.
Another way to think about it is, if showing the group you have a weapon could be used as an effective deterrent (and legally it can’t, that’s call brandishing a weapon), then you’re not in a position to use deadly force. Deadly force can only be used after that point, once the other party is actively trying to cause bodily harm. And it has to be in proportion.
So your friend has a gun, and there are six guys. He has a duty to retreat. He either can’t or decides not to. If one of the six guys comes at him whilst the others cheer him on, a man shooting an unarmed man doesn’t cut it for self-defense. Even if his five bros are cheering him and adding to the intimidation factor.
What if you are facing multiple unarmed opponents? I had a friend who went to the bar and got into an argument with a guy inside. When he left the bar the guy he argued with came out the bar with a gang of other guys and jumped him. Now if my friend had a pistol and opened fire on the group could that be self defense?[/quote]
No. You can’t shoot people because a group looks threatening. Your life (or another’s) has to be in immediate danger, not “this could escalate into real danger.” Your friend in that situation would have a duty to retread. Only when the potential becomes actual can you use deadly force.
Another way to think about it is, if showing the group you have a weapon could be used as an effective deterrent (and legally it can’t, that’s call brandishing a weapon), then you’re not in a position to use deadly force. Deadly force can only be used after that point, once the other party is actively trying to cause bodily harm. And it has to be in proportion.
So your friend has a gun, and there are six guys. He has a duty to retreat. He either can’t or decides not to. If one of the six guys comes at him whilst the others cheer him on, a man shooting an unarmed man doesn’t cut it for self-defense. Even if his five bros are cheering him and adding to the intimidation factor. [/quote]
I disagree with this in part- while you’re right that he has a duty to retreat, if you are faced with multiple attackers and cannot retreat- i.e. they’ve cornered you or surrounded you, the court case will decide what goes, because it won’t be clear cut one way or another. If a gang of people are coming after you, deadly force may be justified.