How not to claim self defense when using a gun.

[TITAN308]

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/01...g-robbery.html

“I was in fear for my life, my co-workers’ lives, and I did what I thought was right,” she told the paper.

Three men ate at Burkinshaw-Stanley’s Waffle House early Thursday. Instead of paying for their meal, the men gave the cashier a note threatening to shoot everyone if their demand for money from the register wasn’t met, the paper reported.

Police said they left after another waitress gave them $200.

Burkinshaw-Stanley said her gun was in her car.

“I safely fired a round in the air in an attempt to scare the robbers who were in the process of getting in their vehicle, not knowing if they were retrieving their weapon to return to the Waffle House,” she said on GoFundMe. “My shot must have gotten their attention as they rapidly drove off.”

She needs to get some training and a better understanding of how the law works (for right or wrong).

There is no such thing as a "Warning Shot" - you either are justified in using your smoke wagon or you are not.

Also there is no such thing as "safely" firing a gun in the air outside of a shotgun using ammo specific for bird hunting. Science yo.

[TITAN308]

This is why I wish we could license firearms in a manner similar to driving.

I'm not sure I understand this request. When I was 15 I took a very brief test and got my license. Now at 35 I've had to prove my proficiency with my car zero times. All I do is every 5 years is send a payment to the DMV to renew my license.

I suspect by 70 years old the results will be no different unless medically I go blind or something.

[Xeones]

I don't even understand the thought process here...

[TITAN308]

It means people should be required to take a sufficiently thorough course in firearm safety before they're allowed to own and/or operate firearms lawfully, so that we don't have dumbasses who think firing shots into the air is OK or half the parents who leave their guns unsecured and wind up with dead children. I mean, I'm pretty sure it's plain illegal in a lot of places to aimlessly shoot your weapon skyward. It would also allow for the option of punishing reckless use of firearms without having to do anything crazy like sending a person to jail.

I mean I get your mindset, however I find the common comparison to a DL License a poor one.

Yes, in most places a warning shot is in fact illegal. If you are going to take a warning shot then tell the cops you just shot and missed. lol

[Mister Cheese]

Moron. At least shoot the car or something. So you know what you're hitting.

I don't even understand the thought process here...

What goes up, must come down. Bullets shot into the air can still kill people if they land on someone.

[TITAN308]

Do you? That is amusing, I always thought the US law found it unconstitutional for people to having to pay for an ID card.

While a drivers license is a form of ID, it is not an ID card.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Also its not very much money for a DL renewal. I'm assuming its to cover the cost of the materials, equipment to print, and admin cost.

Same reason my license to carry a gun cost $30 every 5 years. I can use it as a form of ID, but it is not an ID card. If that makes sense.

[I Push Buttons]

It means people should be required to take a sufficiently thorough course in firearm safety before they're allowed to own and/or operate firearms lawfully, so that we don't have dumbasses who think firing shots into the air is OK or half the parents who leave their guns unsecured and wind up with dead children. I mean, I'm pretty sure it's plain illegal in a lot of places to aimlessly shoot your weapon skyward. It would also allow for the option of punishing reckless use of firearms without having to do anything crazy like sending a person to jail.

In my state I had to take a class taught by a police officer to get a concealed carry permit. I don't carry, just got it to avoid any hassles taking my guns to shooting ranges and what not.

[Elba]

If you use any force against a person that is not an immediate physical threat to you or others it is not self defense. A person fleeing is not a threat.

If someone runs off with property and you shoot them you should go to jail for assault or murder. You were in no danger.

[nextormento]

I always thought the US law found it unconstitutional for people to having to pay for an ID card.

Far as I know, what they can't do is put the vote behind a paywall. Or something to the effect of burdening specific demographics.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Do you? That is amusing, I always thought the US law found it unconstitutional for people to having to pay for an ID card.

Why do I mention this? Because over here in the EU I'm forced to buy my new ID card every 5 years, while my driver's license is valid permanently for life. It seems in the US they just got you people paying the same we have to for our ID cards, but they pinned it on your driver's licenses instead.

1. No, it is a licence to operate a motor vehicle.
2. No, there is no constitutional law that says "ID cards" must be free (although most of North America will offer free/very low cost ID cards for the purposes of buying alcohol etc...)
3. Why is that amusing? Since you seem to have the exact same system except in reverse.

[TITAN308]

If you use any force against a person that is not an immediate physical threat to you or others it is not self defense. A person fleeing is not a threat.

If someone runs off with property and you shoot them you should go to jail for assault or murder. You were in no danger.

This is correct.

What is allowed is the use of a gun to halt someone who has committed a violent or forcible felony. (aka citizens arrest for example). Though I would not recommend it due to the complex nature of legal proceedings surrounding them. She would have been in her right to point it at them and demand they stop and even to shoot them if they responded back with deadly force of their own.

However shooting for the sake of shooting when they are egressing the location is a big no-no.

She should have done one of two things:

1. Locked the door when they left.
2. Retrieved her gun and then returned to the building

Those were her only two smart options based on this specific situation.

[Elba]

What is allowed is the use of a gun to halt someone who has committed a violent or forcible felony.

I even disagree with that. Leave that to the cops. Things like the castle doctrine in the US etc. are insane.

[Xeones]

Moron. At least shoot the car or something. So you know what you're hitting.



What goes up, must come down. Bullets shot into the air can still kill people if they land on someone.

Yea... I know. I've seen the stories of people who died from morons firing their guns into the air on holidays.

I mean I don't understand the process of the woman here. "I really want to fire my gun but know I'm not justified to do it in this situation so I'll just shot into the air and call it a "warning shot"."

Dumber than a box of bricks.

[Spectral]

I mean I get your mindset, however I find the common comparison to a DL License a poor one.

Yeah, I'm going to agree with this. Our licensing standards are incredibly loose, it's treated as though it's a right and you just need the most cursory level of competence. The number of people who plainly don't know where the edges of their vehicles are, can't be bothered to signal, and other basics is remarkable.

[PACOX]

Doesn't Waffle House have a super strict no guns policy? I'm sure the waitress was aware of this.

[Noogai131]

I even disagree with that. Leave that to the cops. Things like the castle doctrine in the US etc. are insane.

Castle Doctrine is literally just expanded self defense laws in regards to your home, and in some cases, your car. It is a way of making cases go smoother. If somebody had broken into your house, they have violated your rights, and you would rightfully assume they were armed and respond accordingly.

You might be thinking of Stand Your Ground laws instead, but I don't feel they're any worse either.

[Xeones]

Doesn't Waffle House have a super strict no guns policy? I'm sure the waitress was aware of this.

Basically everywhere has a no guns policy. People ignore it. When I worked at a toy store there were always jack asses who would come in with guns strapped to their waists. They were almost always looking for a fight too, because it's abundantly obvious it shouldn't be there.

- - - Updated - - -

Castle Doctrine is literally just expanded self defense laws in regards to your home, and in some cases, your car. It is a way of making cases go smoother. If somebody had broken into your house, they have violated your rights, and you would rightfully assume they were armed and respond accordingly.

You might be thinking of Stand Your Ground laws instead, but I don't feel they're any worse either.

Nothing wrong with "Go start a conflict, get scared, and murder someone in cold blood and get off on self defense" laws. Yea, oh wait stand your ground? I guess that is the other way to refer to it.

[Noogai131]

Basically everywhere has a no guns policy. People ignore it. When I worked at a toy store there were always jack asses who would come in with guns strapped to their waists. They were almost always looking for a fight too, because it's abundantly obvious it shouldn't be there.

- - - Updated - - -



Nothing wrong with "Go start a conflict, get scared, and murder someone in cold blood and get off on self defense" laws. Yea, oh wait stand your ground? I guess that is the other way to refer to it.

That's literally not how Stand Your Ground works.

Justification using stand-your-ground laws may be limited in that the justification cannot be used in some cases where defendant was engaged in other illegal conduct at the time, when "[the defendant] was engaged in illegal activities and not entitled to benefit from provisions of the 'stand your ground' law"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

All SYG does is remove a duty to retreat. If you are in a place you are lawfully allowed to be in, you have a reasonable expectation of safety, and are considered to be responsible for that safety, through means of self defense.

If you are the aggressor, you are no longer covered under the SYG defense.

[Xandrigity]

That's a big gamble I wouldn't take. Pulling out a gun and not using it to atleast incapacitate someone invites the offending person to pull out their weapon. If your gonna pull out a gun use it.


Also, if someone threatens your life with a note your reasonably in fear of your life and justified in defending yourself.

[Spiral Mage]

People like this are the reason we have problems with firearms in the U.S. Total lack of understanding of what safely using a gun means.