Serious what if question.

[Jrod]

(BTW, there's at least one exception to the "reasonable belief" standard, which applies to you rescuing someone from others. If you see some guy screaming that he's being kidnapped by 2 armed guys with a van, so you shoot the 2 guys, and they turn out to be cops making an arrest, then you're screwed. It's a strict liability standard, your reasonable mistake is not an excuse.)


I think rather than strict liability, the rule is that the rescurer is held to the same level of knowledge as the alleged victim. So, because the perp yelling help while being carted away by LEO was not, in fact, being threatened with serious bodily harm, you as the rescurer did not have grounds to shoot.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by Jrod

(BTW, there's at least one exception to the "reasonable belief" standard, which applies to you rescuing someone from others. If you see some guy screaming that he's being kidnapped by 2 armed guys with a van, so you shoot the 2 guys, and they turn out to be cops making an arrest, then you're screwed. It's a strict liability standard, your reasonable mistake is not an excuse.)


I think rather than strict liability, the rule is that the rescurer is held to the same level of knowledge as the alleged victim. So, because the perp yelling help while being carted away by LEO was not, in fact, being threatened with serious bodily harm, you as the rescurer did not have grounds to shoot.

That may be correct, but it's also true that there's no scienter, even if you didn't know and there's know way that you should have known that the "kidnapper" was a cop, you're still liable if you intervene.

On a related note, I think that we as a society will have to revisit the whole concept that when anyone claims to be a police officer, we have to meekly hand over our weapons, allow ourselves to be cuffed, and quietly get into their unmarked van. There are far too many instances of really bad guys claiming to be cops, who then rape, maim and/or kill the helpless yet compliant citizen.

[Mtbkski]

Originally Posted by 38SnubFan

As much as I respect him for his public service, I find that on many occasions he's being paid to tell the general public what those paying him want the general public to hear. I used to read his articles and stories and listen to his speeches about being sued and how you had better have the best attorney possible in court or you'll go to jail or lose everything you own to a defensive shooting.

38SnubFan

Aren't all writers paid. First, this book was written 20 some years ago. So, maybe he wasn't just into it for the $$ yet. 2nd. It isn't popular because it does tell you the bad stuff. He tells you that a lot of gun owners don't like this book for that reason. But it is something we need to hear.

When have we ever discussed this on this sight. I've never seen a thread on it. It is a side we never talk about. We don't want to. But it needs looked at.

Will all these terrible things happen to everyone of us after a shooting. Probably not. But you should know that they are a possibility. That is the point. The news doesn't cover what happens after the trail is over. We don't hear about this side of the incident unless your OJ. Even he lost the CIVIL TRIAL afterwords. And he was found innocent.

Most of us have never thought about a CIVIL TRAIL that could happen. Never imagined that the BAD GUYS FAMILY HAS A RIGHT TO SUE YOU if you killed their son, even if you were 100% right in what you did. I know I never did. I never gave a thought that a JUSTIFIABLE shooting could be changed around to make you look bad.

In the preface, he tells you that this is what this book is about. The side no one wants to or usually talks about. Is it a sure thing to happen. NO. But is it a possibility. Most of us have no idea what really could happen. And this book opens your eyes to all that. And as a responsible gun owner and carrier. You should be aware of all possible situations before they happen.

That is the point of the book. And it does it very well.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by 38SnubFan

.......As much as I respect him for his public service, I find that on many occasions he's being paid to tell the general public what those paying him want the general public to hear. I used to read his articles and stories and listen to his speeches about being sued and how you had better have the best attorney possible in court or you'll go to jail or lose everything you own to a defensive shooting.

After all that reading, I wonder if he's not being paid by attorneys to make some of the statements he makes and unnecessarily striking unwarranted fear into those who carry for self-defense. ........

Just as a practical matter, the criminal defense bar is huge, and lawyers are pretty tight with money. I can't think of any individual lawyer or group of lawyers who would even consider paying a national writer anything to encourage Americans to hire lawyers. It would be like your local bookstore paying Tom Clancey to encourage people to buy books; how much of a return on investment would they get back on the fraction of a percent of potential clients in their area, who could each choose among hundreds of firms?

[glock27owner]

no warnings...but if u can give him $$ and have it go away...that might be better than being sued

[38SnubFan]

Originally Posted by Mtbkski

Aren't all writers paid. First, this book was written 20 some years ago. So, maybe he wasn't just into it for the $$ yet. 2nd. It isn't popular because it does tell you the bad stuff. He tells you that a lot of gun owners don't like this book for that reason. But it is something we need to hear.

When have we ever discussed this on this sight. I've never seen a thread on it. It is a side we never talk about. We don't want to. But it needs looked at.

Will all these terrible things happen to everyone of us after a shooting. Probably not. But you should know that they are a possibility. That is the point. The news doesn't cover what happens after the trail is over. We don't hear about this side of the incident unless your OJ. Even he lost the CIVIL TRIAL afterwords. And he was found innocent.

Most of us have never thought about a CIVIL TRAIL that could happen. Never imagined that the BAD GUYS FAMILY HAS A RIGHT TO SUE YOU if you killed their son, even if you were 100% right in what you did. I know I never did. I never gave a thought that a JUSTIFIABLE shooting could be changed around to make you look bad.

In the preface, he tells you that this is what this book is about. The side no one wants to or usually talks about. Is it a sure thing to happen. NO. But is it a possibility. Most of us have no idea what really could happen. And this book opens your eyes to all that. And as a responsible gun owner and carrier. You should be aware of all possible situations before they happen.

That is the point of the book. And it does it very well.

Like I said in the previous post, I'm not saying IT COULDN'T HAPPEN, because it CAN and DOES. I was just stating my opinion; that opinion being I don't care for the tone of his writing. I feel he tends to teach those of us who carry for self-defense to consider legal ramifications before saving your own life.

Again.....just my opinion.

GunLawyer: Thanks for your rebuttal. Interesting analogy. I never thought of it in that perspective before.

-38SnubFan

[adymond]

I would have to answer one question before I drew and fired. Can I live with the outcome. If I draw and fire he may still shoot my friend. I may go to jail (innocent people are punished and guilty people do go free). I may loose everything. If I don't do anything except give in my friend and I could also still be dead. If the guy is spooked a car door closing might make him shoot. I think the distraction of my friend offering his walet and watch would be enough for me to draw and drop the BG. Because the cost of action outweighs the possible cost of inaction in that situation for me.