I do not believe in the logical fallacy of the "if/then" argument. Nothing is ever cut and dry.johnson0317 wrote: If we are not willing to pull our weapon, and use it, when the proper time comes, we need to just leave it at home.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Purse snatch at Wal-Mart. What would you have done?”
- Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:55 am
- Forum: Never Again!!
- Topic: Purse snatch at Wal-Mart. What would you have done?
- Replies: 127
- Views: 20612
Re: Purse snatch at Wal-Mart. What would you have done?
- Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:30 am
- Forum: Never Again!!
- Topic: Purse snatch at Wal-Mart. What would you have done?
- Replies: 127
- Views: 20612
Re: Purse snatch at Wal-Mart. What would you have done?
Sorry, let me clarify. I don't consider levelling a weapon at anyone the use of "ordinary force". I consider it deadly. That is why I refrain from it whenever possible.Jumping Frog wrote:Here:Purplehood wrote:I don't recall ever hearing anything about holding someone at gunpoint being defined as "ordinary" force.Jumping Frog wrote:I forget the various conditions spelled out in the CHL course regarding the use of ordinary force (i.e., not deadly force). I recall that holding someone at gunpoint is ordinary force, not deadly force.Keith B wrote:You would NOT have the legal right to pursue and use deadly force once the threat to the woman was gone. It would become a gray area REAL quick for you and the lines of justified pulling your gun would be fuzzy. So, you could end up having to defend yourself against an unjustified use of the gun and trying to scramble to prove what you did was legal.
However, if that lady had $20 in her purse, I don't think ordinary civilians have the right to use force to detain someone for a misdemeanor. Can anyone chime in with what the law says about conditions for use of force?Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
I wasn't making the remark in a legal context.
- Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:04 am
- Forum: Never Again!!
- Topic: Purse snatch at Wal-Mart. What would you have done?
- Replies: 127
- Views: 20612
Re: Purse snatch at Wal-Mart. What would you have done?
I don't recall ever hearing anything about holding someone at gunpoint being defined as "ordinary" force.Jumping Frog wrote:I forget the various conditions spelled out in the CHL course regarding the use of ordinary force (i.e., not deadly force). I recall that holding someone at gunpoint is ordinary force, not deadly force.Keith B wrote:You would NOT have the legal right to pursue and use deadly force once the threat to the woman was gone. It would become a gray area REAL quick for you and the lines of justified pulling your gun would be fuzzy. So, you could end up having to defend yourself against an unjustified use of the gun and trying to scramble to prove what you did was legal.
However, if that lady had $20 in her purse, I don't think ordinary civilians have the right to use force to detain someone for a misdemeanor. Can anyone chime in with what the law says about conditions for use of force?