For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
  • of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
  • of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
  • of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
 
Robert_Sock said:
It’s based on common sense. What vigilante would not want a CCW permit so they could get away with bloody murder?
Click to expand...
What murderer would care enough to get a permission slip from the state to carry a weapon? :rolleyes:
 
fix said:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
  • of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
  • of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
  • of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Code: 
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
Click to expand...
I really don’t think 2477 and 2478 are meant for use to discern when one can use self-defense to stop an attack or a potential attack.
 
Robert_Sock said:
It’s based on common sense. What vigilante would not want a CCW permit so they could get away with bloody murder?
Click to expand...
So no data… just unsupported assumptions…

How does a CCW permit allow someone to get away with murder?
 
GaryTaylor said:
Oh, you mean real? That’s why people have the right to begin with, and in their business etc?
Click to expand...
Yes In concealed carry states is robbery alone with someone in your private home
reason enough to shoot someone.
 
Robert_Sock said:
It’s based on common sense. a CCW permit so they could get away with bloody murder?
Click to expand...
Robert compare this now the home invasion, business, various situations, and how do you make this leap? Is it of your thinking no-one should protect family, business etc? You have the good US citizens out here hunting innocent people in your stretch of the word vigilante.
 
MaryT777 said:
Yes In concealed carry states is robbery alone with someone in your private home
reason enough to shoot someone.
Click to expand...
the presence of someone in your home committing robbery is a violent act.and what does concealed carry have to do with being in your house?
 
lcburgundy said:
I really don’t think 2477 and 2478 are meant for use to discern when one can use self-defense to stop an attack or a potential attack.
Click to expand...
How does one discern a potential attack in a burglary situation.? I use that for that was the issue in the George Zimmerman neighborhood. If he was in his home and someone was stealing his stuff is that enough to shoot someone or do you need to be threatened first, or assaulted first? How does this work for those that carry a concealed weapon?

Does it matter if it’s concealed or not; what if the gun is not concealed but in your home then does that change the law?
 
MaryT777 said:
If he was in his home and someone was stealing his stuff is that enough to shoot someone or do you need to be threatened first, or assaulted first? How does this work for those that carry a concealed weapon?
Click to expand...
In brief, no, you don’t need to wait for an attack to engage in self-defense or defense of others.
MaryT777 said:
Does it matter if it’s concealed or not; what if the gun is not concealed but in your home then does that change the law?
Click to expand...
It depends. Go read up on your state’s statutes involving self-defense in the home. I’m not your lawyer and nothing I can say can change what your duties or rights are.
 
MaryT777 said:
Is someone stealing your TV now a good enough reason to shoot someone with your concealed weapon?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t shoot someone with a concealed weapon - it is very hard to aim and it might set your cloths on fire.
 
MaryT777 said:
How does one discern a potential attack in a burglary situation.?
Click to expand...
Hopefully long before it occurs and carefully thought out. Now you could argue people do not think out by large the 4-minutes, or moment by moment sequence as they randomly occur. That’s a plausible thought.
 
Robert_Sock said:
It’s based on common sense. What vigilante would not want a CCW permit so they could get away with bloody murder?
Click to expand...
How does having a CCW help a person get away with murder? It’s like saying you can get away with vehicular homicide because you have a driver’s license. :rolleyes:
 
SamH said:
How does having a CCW help a person get away with murder? It’s like saying you can get away with vehicular homicide because you have a driver’s license. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Has anyone here with a concealed weapon defended themselves successfully?
 
MaryT777 said:
Has anyone here with a concealed weapon defended themselves successfully?
Click to expand...
👍 👍

The fact is that guns are more likely to be used against oneself or a loved one. For example, a suicidal person, perhaps within one’s own family, will seek out the opportunity to gain access to the weapon.
 
MaryT777 said:
Yes In concealed carry states is robbery alone with someone in your private home
reason enough to shoot someone.
Click to expand...
Fair enough question, but some distinctions. Robbery in your home is distinct from CCW. Due to SCOTUS rulings in Heller and McDonald, the 2nd Amendment preserved an individual right pre-dating the constitution and has been incorporated as a limitation on state governments, and that right includes citizens have the right to firearms in their home for self-defense. Lower courts have made conflicting rulings on right to CCW.

However, self-defense laws vary widely from state to state. So, in some states you can use lethal force in defense of property. In one, you can use it to defend your neighbor’s property if you have an arrangement with him to do so. In most you can’t, you can only use lethal force in defense of your or others lives-- i.e. in imminent fear of serious bodily harm or death to yourself or others. (That definition of serious bodily harm varies as well- rape may not be included.)

And in some states, you have a duty to retreat if possible prior to using lethal force. This often became a judgement call and outcomes varied widely between juries about what constituted an ability to retreat. Out a top floor window, running away from an armed intruder towards a locked outside door exposing yourself to being stabbed/shot in the back etc. etc.

Others have instituted ‘castle doctrine’ and/or SYG which eliminate, or greatly reduce the duty to retreat under certain circumstances. For example, in CA a homeowner using lethal force is presumed to have acted in fear of serious bodily harm to themselves or others if an intruder is in their home, they have reason to believe the intruder broke in, and the intruder is not a member of the household. However, that presumption can be rebutted-- i.e. the intruder is shot in the back as he’s exiting the door with his hands full of your jewelry/TV.

Frankly, shooting someone even in defense of your life opens large cans of worms, I’m waving bye-bye to anybody ‘just’ stealing from me. I don’t think it’s moral. Even if I did, shoot someone over maybe $800 in property and risking losing everything to them or their survivors, even if I ‘win’ spend my life savings defending my actions? That’s one of the reasons I have a homeowner’s policy. Really dumb to get into all the legal hassles of a shoot, even a justifiable shoot, if you can avoid it. Goodbye TV or jewelry, hello-- insurance company, I’ve got a claim to file.
 
MaryT777 said:
Good advice, I wouldn’t want my cloths on fire. I need them.
Click to expand...
This site aggregates many reported self-defense uses of firearms.

I think asking people on a public forum to detail potentially traumatic memories to a partially hostile crowd is pretty presumptuous and rude, if you ask me.
 
lcburgundy said:
This site aggregates many reported self-defense uses of firearms.

I think asking people on a public forum to detail potentially traumatic memories to a partially hostile crowd is pretty presumptuous and rude, if you ask me.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t asking for details just wondered in generic terms yes or no.
Mary.
That said I understand your point and didn’t mean to bring up traumatic memories for anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top