Firefighters Killed as Arsonist Ambushed Them...

Posted 727 day(s) ago by Irish_Sooner3583 Views 121 Replies
Results 51 to 100 of 122
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
  1. #51
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by suncoastsooner View Post
    The whole ****ing law abiding citizens should have their firearms taken away because a very minimal number of people committ a crime with a firearm (most of those obtained illegally in any case) is the retarded argument.

    All you ****wads who don't believe in the right to bear arms should have to hang a sign out in front of your homes and on your vehicles That way you don't have to worry about us law abiding gun owners shooting some "innocent" robber while protecting our life, liberty, and property.

    The laws you idiots wish to get implemented aren't going to remove firearms from dangerous people or people committing crime, they are only going to remove them from people who actually abide by the law.
    You *ARE* aware that the law pretty much everywhere doesn't condone the protection of property with deadly force, right?

  2. #52
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by suncoastsooner View Post
    First of all, who the hell doesn't have their doctorate framed?

    Secondly, that looks eerily like simple printing paper. Every doctorate I have ever seen from a major institution is printed on material such as lambskin or papyrus.
    You got served after being a little **** and trying to measure academic dicks on a messageboard. You fail at the internet. Don't make it worse by trying to insult someone's PhD! A P-H-****ing-D!

    I was starting to like you, too. But man, this thread shows what a **** you really are. Pathetic.
    The following users like this post: Yatahaze


  3. #53
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,495
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea

    Firefighters Killed as Arsonist Ambushed Them...

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    You *ARE* aware that the law pretty much everywhere doesn't condone the protection of property with deadly force, right?
    Why is money protected with deadly force?

  4. #54
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    Why is money protected with deadly force?
    In the most simple terms and scenario - it isn't allowed. EG- If you set your wallet out in front of your house with a trap gun trained on it, that would be generally unlawful. I think some states have some statutes that allow some instances of protection of property by deadly force, but they're pretty specific, such as someone must be on your property with a gun at night.

    I mean think about it: why do we not shoot every person shoplifting? Why doesn't Target have an armed guard, licensed to kill? How about used car lots shooting car thieves on sight? We don't, because we don't allow the protection of property with deadly force. Hell, you're not even allowed to defend YOUR OWN PERSON from harm with deadly force except in some situations.

    As far as armed guards in banks - I think if an unarmed person handed a bankteller a note that he was robbing the joint, the bank would incur liability if the guard shot and killed the guy in the back. The prospect of armed guards in banks using deadly force sort of relies on the assumption that a bank robber would have a deadly weapon and be threatening people.

  5. #55
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,495
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea

    Firefighters Killed as Arsonist Ambushed Them...

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    In the most simple terms and scenario - it isn't allowed. EG- If you set your wallet out in front of your house with a trap gun trained on it, that would be generally unlawful. I think some states have some statutes that allow some instances of protection of property by deadly force, but they're pretty specific, such as someone must be on your property with a gun at night.

    I mean think about it: why do we not shoot every person shoplifting? Why doesn't Target have an armed guard, licensed to kill? How about used car lots shooting car thieves on sight? We don't, because we don't allow the protection of property with deadly force. Hell, you're not even allowed to defend YOUR OWN PERSON from harm with deadly force except in some situations.

    As far as armed guards in banks - I think if an unarmed person handed a bankteller a note that he was robbing the joint, the bank would incur liability if the guard shot and killed the guy in the back. The prospect of armed guards in banks using deadly force sort of relies on the assumption that a bank robber would have a deadly weapon and be threatening people.
    I get what you're saying, but I'm more specifically wondering about armed guards in armored trucks that transports the bank's money. They are not federal employees. They are contracted civilians provided authority to meet attackers with deadly force. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. People attempting to take an armored truck are crazy.

    I'm just not aware what makes that legal compared to me rolling around in an armored truck armed to protect my iPod shuffle.

  6. #56
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    I get what you're saying, but I'm more specifically wondering about armed guards in armored trucks that transports the bank's money. They are not federal employees. They are contracted civilians provided authority to meet attackers with deadly force. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. People attempting to take an armored truck are crazy.

    I'm just not aware what makes that legal compared to me rolling around in an armored truck armed to protect my iPod shuffle.
    I think the idea is that the drivers are at high risk of bodily injury due to their cargo. They probably wouldn't be allowed to shoot, say, an unarmed person that tried to reach into the back of the truck to grab a gold bar.

  7. #57
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,938
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Originally Posted by suncoastsooner View Post
    First of all, who the hell doesn't have their doctorate framed?

    Secondly, that looks eerily like simple printing paper. Every doctorate I have ever seen from a major institution is printed on material such as lambskin or papyrus.
    lol seriously? I have three degrees from three different institutions and all are on paper. Don't be old. Congrats on having a friend get a degree from the University of Cairo in 1200 BC.

    My doctorate is kept in my filing cabinet. I had my BS framed but after that I stopped giving a damn since, unlike you, I don't feel the need to go about bragging about my academic credentials.
    2 users like Yatahaze's post: McRib, OUMallen


  8. #58
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,938
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Why would you blank out what your doctoral degree is in?
    Very small program and angry republicans with guns.

  9. #59
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,938
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    You got served after being a little **** and trying to measure academic dicks on a messageboard. You fail at the internet. Don't make it worse by trying to insult someone's PhD! A P-H-****ing-D!

    I was starting to like you, too. But man, this thread shows what a **** you really are. Pathetic.
    For clarity, it's a doctorate, not a PhD, subtle difference. Many professions that aren't research based have doctorates that aren't PhDs (doctor of philosophy) such as medical doctors (MD), doctor of education (Ed.d), lawyers (JD), doctor of business administration (DBA) etc. PhDs are typically reserved for programs based in academic and/or research settings.

    I hope I get the same 4:1 odds that his household income is bigger than mine. Hint: Obama ****ing LOVES me.

  10. #60
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    You *ARE* aware that the law pretty much everywhere doesn't condone the protection of property with deadly force, right?
    So while you're stuck in traffic and some looney is smashing up your car with a crowbar...you can only call the police.

  11. #61
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,938
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    So while you're stuck in traffic and some looney is smashing up your car with a crowbar...you can only call the police.
    And you'll shoot him and go to jail.

  12. #62
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by Yatahaze View Post
    And you'll shoot him and go to jail.
    Can't protect property...only yourself or others....so you must have him change his attack on the car to you. Glory ****ing hallelujah.

  13. #63
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    Can't protect property...only yourself or others....so you must have him change his attack on the car to you. Glory ****ing hallelujah.
    my cwl instructor must have said 2 dozen times....."if the situation changes......."

  14. #64
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Why would you blank out what your doctoral degree is in?
    If you look close enough it says Home Economics, not that there is anything wrong with that.

  15. #65
    jdmt37's Avatar
    Posts
    6,435
    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Originally Posted by PokeJ View Post
    The right to bear arms was written when the most powerful weapon was a musket. We should just be allowed to have muskets.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    I've got several of them. Wonder if hussein will want my blunderbuss, too?

  16. #66
    IcanzIIravor's Avatar
    Posts
    1,392
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia

    Originally Posted by jdmt37 View Post
    I've got several of them. Wonder if hussein will want my blunderbuss, too?
    He will eventually so you might as well stop clinging to it.

  17. #67
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    So while you're stuck in traffic and some looney is smashing up your car with a crowbar...you can only call the police.
    At that point, your own person is in physical danger. If that guy is bashing your car in the Walmart parking lot while you're inside, you wouldn't be allowed to walk outside and shoot him.

  18. #68
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    At that point, your own person is in physical danger. If that guy is bashing your car in the Walmart parking lot while you're inside, you wouldn't be allowed to walk outside and shoot him.
    If your car wasn't moving you'd have to prove you were physically being threatened. The vandal bashing your tailgate wouldn't suffice.

  19. #69
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    If your car wasn't moving you'd have to prove you were physically being threatened. The vandal bashing your tailgate wouldn't suffice.
    Now you're changing your story. If he gets out of his car, hits your back bumper one time, and gets back in his car - yeah, perhaps you're not going to get away with shooting him. (Because you're not allowed to protect property with deadly force.)

    But if someone is bashing your car with a crowbar in a rage, isn't stopping, and isn't all that far from your position in the car, you would arguably subjectively and objectively fear significant bodily harm. You might be justified in using deadly force to protect yourself.

    This concept really comes from centuries-old law. There will be some cases where statutes change what we're talking about a little bit, but generally: you can't protect property with deadly force.

  20. #70
    His Royal Highness the Honorable King of LandThieves Esq. III
    SoCaliSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    8,052
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    SoCal

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Now you're changing your story. If he gets out of his car, hits your back bumper one time, and gets back in his car - yeah, perhaps you're not going to get away with shooting him. (Because you're not allowed to protect property with deadly force.)

    But if someone is bashing your car with a crowbar in a rage, isn't stopping, and isn't all that far from your position in the car, you would arguably subjectively and objectively fear significant bodily harm. You might be justified in using deadly force to protect yourself.

    This concept really comes from centuries-old law. There will be some cases where statutes change what we're talking about a little bit, but generally: you can't protect property with deadly force.
    If you can get out of your car and have the opportunity to get away, but instead stay and shoot, you will probably be charged. If you try to get away and he follows, you can shoot him and (in the tradition of our family) enjoy a nice steak dinner.
    The following users like this post: OUMallen


  21. #71
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by SoCaliSooner View Post
    If you can get out of your car and have the opportunity to get away, but instead stay and shoot, you will probably be charged. If you try to get away and he follows, you can shoot him and (in the tradition of our family) enjoy a nice steak dinner.
    Yep. Unless there's a Stand Your Ground statute in your state.

  22. #72
    if you get out of your car....and attempt to stop him from bashing your car.....and he swings at you with the crowbar....you can shoot him...

  23. #73
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Now you're changing your story. If he gets out of his car, hits your back bumper one time, and gets back in his car - yeah, perhaps you're not going to get away with shooting him. (Because you're not allowed to protect property with deadly force.)

    But if someone is bashing your car with a crowbar in a rage, isn't stopping, and isn't all that far from your position in the car, you would arguably subjectively and objectively fear significant bodily harm. You might be justified in using deadly force to protect yourself.

    This concept really comes from centuries-old law. There will be some cases where statutes change what we're talking about a little bit, but generally: you can't protect property with deadly force.
    I said stuck in traffic, that was supposed to mean immobile. But lets go with your walmart parking lot scenario. I would have to watch the guy bash my car and be able to do virtually nothing to protect my property. No if I intervened to tell him to stop and then he came after me I could get off. Since we are stating deadly force I would assume my physical attempts to restrain him may be permitted but I honestly don't know. Of course I would be putting myself at risk then and should the vandal escalate the situation by attacking me I would assume I would be allowed to protect myself...maybe...

  24. #74
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    if you get out of your car....and attempt to stop him from bashing your car.....and he swings at you with the crowbar....you can shoot him...
    That would be the bait I would hope for assuming I was armed. Of course shoot him 6-9 (clip size) times just to make sure he was dead so you don't end up like Ersland.

  25. #75
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    if you get out of your car....and attempt to stop him from bashing your car.....and he swings at you with the crowbar....you can shoot him...
    Probably not. You can't willingly enter into a life-threatening situation and then claim that lethal force was needed to protect yourself.

  26. #76
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    That would be the bait I would hope for assuming I was armed.
    a cwl allows you to protect yourself....your wife...your kids....with deadly force......no one else....(unless the situation changes....)
    if you're walking thru the parking lot....and you see a woman being attacked with a knife....you are not allowed by law to shoot the attacker.....
    if you walk over.....confront him....he turns his attack on you.....you can shoot him

  27. #77
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Probably not. You can't willingly enter into a life-threatening situation and then claim that lethal force was needed to protect yourself.
    Can you ask him to quit bashing your car?

  28. #78
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Probably not. You can't willingly enter into a life-threatening situation and then claim that lethal force was needed to protect yourself.
    if someone is beating your car with a crowbar.....it is not a life threatening situation

  29. #79
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    I said stuck in traffic, that was supposed to mean immobile. But lets go with your walmart parking lot scenario. I would have to watch the guy bash my car and be able to do virtually nothing to protect my property. No if I intervened to tell him to stop and then he came after me I could get off. Since we are stating deadly force I would assume my physical attempts to restrain him may be permitted but I honestly don't know. Of course I would be putting myself at risk then and should the vandal escalate the situation by attacking me I would assume I would be allowed to protect myself...maybe...
    No, you still can't shoot him. If you tell at him to stop, that's fine. If you go and try to restrain him, you may be getting yourself into a dangerous legal area because you basically engaged him physically and if you killed him, you may find yourself without a viable legal defense.

    This is why we have cops. We're not supposed to try to police other civilians.

  30. #80
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    a cwl allows you to protect yourself....your wife...your kids....with deadly force......no one else....(unless the situation changes....)
    if you're walking thru the parking lot....and you see a woman being attacked with a knife....you are not allowed by law to shoot the attacker.....
    if you walk over.....confront him....he turns his attack on you.....you can shoot him
    Weird you can't help someone else. So you almost always need to make yourself the target.

  31. #81
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    if someone is beating your car with a crowbar.....it is not a life threatening situation
    Hahaha, OK man. Whatever you say. Enraged person is bashing your car to pieces with a deadly weapon, and you want to go fight him? You're not going to have a legal defense if you kill him. The law wants us to take opportunities to stay safe.

  32. #82
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    No, you still can't shoot him. If you tell at him to stop, that's fine. If you go and try to restrain him, you may be getting yourself into a dangerous legal area because you basically engaged him physically and if you killed him, you may find yourself without a viable legal defense.

    This is why we have cops. We're not supposed to try to police other civilians.
    So much for citizens arrest. But protecting your property by not INITIALLY using deadly force should be allowed. I won't say it is because of how wacky our laws are but merely trying to restrain someone from damaging your property seems reasonable even if it isn't lawful.

  33. #83
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    a cwl allows you to protect yourself....your wife...your kids....with deadly force......no one else....(unless the situation changes....)
    if you're walking thru the parking lot....and you see a woman being attacked with a knife....you are not allowed by law to shoot the attacker.....
    if you walk over.....confront him....he turns his attack on you.....you can shoot him
    CWL = weapons permit? I don't know the specific laws, but I kind of doubt the CWL defines the entire scope of legal liability for protecting a third party from lethal attack with your own weapon.

    IMO, if you intervene with deadly force to save someone else from deadly force, you're probably going to be OK. But you're going to assume a LOT of risk in doing so. (BTW, none of this is legal advice. This is just academic.)

  34. #84
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    So much for citizens arrest. But protecting your property by not INITIALLY using deadly force should be allowed. I won't say it is because of how wacky our laws are but merely trying to restrain someone from damaging your property seems reasonable even if it isn't lawful.
    I never said restraining someone from damaging your property is unlawful. I said you might not have a viable legal defense if you ended up killing someone after willingly entering into a dangerous situation.

    Philosophically, we put our bodies and health WAY WAY above property.

    I mean, if you can safely restrain someone that is damaging your property, that's probably just fine. But if it escalates and you end up killing someone, a jury might think you should have stayed away in the first place. That's why I'm using the obvious dangerous situation of enraged man with crowbar. If it's a small teenager with spray paint, you probably are fine in attempting to restrain because you probably won't need lethal force. (You'd want to be careful how long you restrain the kid, though. False imprisonment is a real deal, too.)

    But the main point is: you still can't use lethal force to protect property.

  35. #85
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Lets go with another scenario. Say you try to stop a thief from stealing your car. The thief is in the process of driving off with your car. You open the door and pull him out while the vehicle is moving and thief breaks his neck when he hits the ground...now he's paralyzed...are you liable?

  36. #86
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    Lets go with another scenario. Say you try to stop a thief from stealing your car. The thief is in the process of driving off with your car. You open the door and pull him out while the vehicle is moving and thief breaks his neck when he hits the ground...now he's paralyzed...are you liable?
    I'd expect at LEAST civil lawsuit, if not criminal charges. You may not have intended to kill/maim/paralyze the guy, but you did. You turned a theft into major bodily damage. What gives you the right to paralyze him? Once you enter into that situation and attempt to stop the guy physically, I believe the law says you owe him a duty of care.

    The law loves you and wants to encourage you to be safe. Not to play Cop. Think of it this way: if you get in a yelling match on the street with someone and you shove him, but he trips accidentally and hits his head and you put him in a coma...are you liable, even though you didn't mean to do that? I believe so.

  37. #87
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    CWL = weapons permit? I don't know the specific laws, but I kind of doubt the CWL defines the entire scope of legal liability for protecting a third party from lethal attack with your own weapon.

    IMO, if you intervene with deadly force to save someone else from deadly force, you're probably going to be OK. But you're going to assume a LOT of risk in doing so. (BTW, none of this is legal advice. This is just academic.)
    cwl = concealed weapon license

    i'm just telling you what my cwl instructor told me....wrt protecting others

  38. #88
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    cwl = concealed weapon license

    i'm just telling you what my cwl instructor told me....wrt protecting others
    He'd know more than I would, but he might also be teaching you to be extra safe.

    I don't see the legal difference in protecting your wife or another dame out on the street from lethal force.

  39. #89
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    I'd expect at LEAST civil lawsuit, if not criminal charges. You may not have intended to kill/maim/paralyze the guy, but you did. You turned a theft into major bodily damage. What gives you the right to paralyze him? Once you enter into that situation and attempt to stop the guy physically, I believe the law says you owe him a duty of care.

    The law loves you and wants to encourage you to be safe. Not to play Cop. Think of it this way: if you get in a yelling match on the street with someone and you shove him, but he trips accidentally and hits his head and you put him in a coma...are you liable, even though you didn't mean to do that? I believe so.
    Why does the law give him the "protected" right to steal my car? Why is there a duty placed upon "lawful" citizens to protect "unlawful" citizens during criminal acts? If a policeman had pulled the thief from the car and injured him would the policeman be liable?

  40. #90
    Originally Posted by 87sooner
    a cwl allows you to protect yourself....your wife...your kids....with deadly force......no one else....(unless the situation changes....)
    if you're walking thru the parking lot....and you see a woman being attacked with a knife....you are not allowed by law to shoot the attacker.....
    if you walk over.....confront him....he turns his attack on you.....you can shoot him
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    CWL = weapons permit? I don't know the specific laws, but I kind of doubt the CWL defines the entire scope of legal liability for protecting a third party from lethal attack with your own weapon.

    IMO, if you intervene with deadly force to save someone else from deadly force, you're probably going to be OK. But you're going to assume a LOT of risk in doing so. (BTW, none of this is legal advice. This is just academic.)

    Depends on where you are, you have to follow the laws of the state you are in....not sure what Oklahoma's statutes state, but in Kansas you can protect that woman with deadly force....


    21-5222. Same; defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (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.

  41. #91
    the cwl instructors don't teach you to be "overly safe".....they teach you the law...

    i will post the oklahoma statute when i find it....

  42. #92
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    Why does the law give him the "protected" right to steal my car? Why is there a duty placed upon "lawful" citizens to protect "unlawful" citizens during criminal acts? If a policeman had pulled the thief from the car and injured him would the policeman be liable?
    Policeman are specifically allowed to restrain people and stop crimes in progress. You and I are not so empowered.

    That being said, policemen still owe certain duties of care. We've all heard stories about policemen getting sued/fired for using too much force.

  43. #93
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    the cwl instructors don't teach you to be "overly safe".....they teach you the law...

    i will post the oklahoma statute when i find it....
    Sweet Baby Jesus, I hope they teach you to be overly safe!
    The following users like this post: Yatahaze


  44. #94
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    So much for citizens arrest. But protecting your property by not INITIALLY using deadly force should be allowed. I won't say it is because of how wacky our laws are but merely trying to restrain someone from damaging your property seems reasonable even if it isn't lawful.
    I am definitely going to have to read all the Oklahoma statutes on ccw before I carry there, as I would for any other state I would visit. But Kansas statute tells me I can use force on the mf'er attacking my car with a crowbar, if I am in the vehicle.

    21-5223. Same; defense of dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle; no duty to retreat. (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.

    (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.

  45. #95
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Policeman are specifically allowed to restrain people and stop crimes in progress. You and I are not so empowered.

    That being said, policemen still owe certain duties of care. We've all heard stories about policemen getting sued/fired for using too much force.
    So what may be a good arrest for a cop could be a legal nightmare for a citizen.
    The following users like this post: OUMallen


  46. #96
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,856
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by SoonerArtillery View Post
    I am definitely going to have to read all the Oklahoma statutes on ccw before I carry there, as I would for any other state I would visit. But Kansas statute tells me I can use force on the mf'er attacking my car with a crowbar, if I am in the vehicle.

    21-5223. Same; defense of dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle; no duty to retreat. (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.

    (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.
    I notice a difference in (a) and (b) being the use of force vs the use of deadly force.

  47. #97
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    So what may be a good arrest for a cop could be a legal nightmare for a citizen.
    Agreed. You put it much more succinctly than I did.

  48. #98
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    I notice a difference in (a) and (b) being the use of force vs the use of deadly force.
    I would take that as able to use force up until you feel deadly force would be necessary to prevent bodily harm or death....such as after beating the vehicle with the crowbar he starts striking the windshield and/or windows. I would feel he has intent to cause me or other persons great bodily harm.

  49. #99
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,137
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by SoonerArtillery View Post
    I would take that as able to use force up until you feel deadly force would be necessary to prevent bodily harm or death....such as after beating the vehicle with the crowbar he starts striking the windshield and/or windows. I would feel he has intent to cause me or other persons great bodily harm.
    Sounds about right to me. (It would be up to a jury to make that determination, though.)

    WTF is your avatar, BTW?

  50. #100
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post

    WTF is your avatar, BTW?
    It is a magna pinna squid we encountered at our work site about 1.5 miles deep in the Gulf of Mexico last month.

Similar Threads

  1. 18 firefighters dead in AZ
    By Sooner JK in forum O'Connell's
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2013, 01:55 AM
  2. Five firefighters taken hostage in Georgia
    By usaosooner in forum O'Connell's
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 10th, 2013, 10:12 PM
  3. Who really killed JFK
    By BadCompanyOU in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: March 28th, 2013, 12:32 PM
  4. socalisooner, do you firefighters
    By nocalsooner in forum O'Connell's
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 19th, 2013, 10:07 PM
  5. Replies: 34
    Last Post: December 26th, 2012, 05:25 PM