All good.100% agree with this.
Clearly I had misunderstood some of your earlier posts, because this doesn't match how I took those. My apologies for the confusion.
I jumped in and got lumped in with what some others were saying.
All good.100% agree with this.
Clearly I had misunderstood some of your earlier posts, because this doesn't match how I took those. My apologies for the confusion.
We're in a completely new thread now?
This is getting old.
Do whatever you want. I made a simple observation.If you take issue with a moderator action, I suggest you report a post and state your reasons.
I kind of set up the other thread in the effort to get folks over to off topic. No idea how hard it is to merge threads though.The OT posts in the preventing truck theft (para) were reported as such and moved from that thread to a new thread. That thread is still there for all to participate in but should remain on topic. Some replies may have gotten caught up in the fray.
Glad to merge this and the other OT Use of force thread if desired, but it would probably be a hot mess at this point.
If you take issue with a moderator action, I suggest you report a post and state your reasons.
Yes you are correct, they do have to respond. They can't assume the caller was mistaken or the report was unfounded. So when the snowflake calls they have to at least check it out.As for the police, not all of them are hunters to be able to understand. In this instance the "concerned caller" who reported the guy claimed he was being "suspicious" around a school. But there are elementary schools in almost every neighborhood. And since it was a 911 call, they have to respond.
I agree that engaging them with the weapon is not self defense if they're simply stealing the truck. And as I also mentioned before, if you have enough concern that you feel the need to take the gun, you shouldn't be going out to confront them.I'm still standing by my opinion that if you are taking a gun with you to confront a would be thief, the intimidation factor of having the gun visible is a factor in why you brought it with you, to deter them from escalating. Because unless you witness the thief having their own weapon, you can't really claim "self defense" if they aren't actively threatening you personally.
Engaging them and having a weapon on you, or engaging them and using the weapon?I agree that engaging them with the weapon is not self defense if they're simply stealing the truck.
I don't agree. If I called the sheriff out every time my motion lights turned on, they'd stop coming. Most of the time it's an animal (cat, fox, etc) but twice it's been someone checking door handles. I'm taking the firearm with me to be prepared, not necessarily because I feel like I'm going to need it.And as I also mentioned before, if you have enough concern that you feel the need to take the gun, you shouldn't be going out to confront them.
Engaging with the weapon, not engaging them with it on your person.Engaging them and having a weapon on you, or engaging them and using the weapon?
Fair point.I don't agree. If I called the sheriff out every time my motion lights turned on, they'd stop coming. Most of the time it's an animal (cat, fox, etc) but twice it's been someone checking door handles. I'm taking the firearm with me to be prepared, not necessarily because I feel like I'm going to need it.
Gotcha. Definitely not a justifiable use of force in that case...unless you live in Texas.Engaging with the weapon, not engaging them with it on your person.
ie rounds on target for simply stealing the truck
Problem is, unless there are cameras, it's your word against theirs. If the police are called and the other person says you were waving the gun at them, and they may actually feel you were if it's in your hands, the police will have to take that into consideration when doing interviews.Yes you are correct, they do have to respond. They can't assume the caller was mistaken or the report was unfounded. So when the snowflake calls they have to at least check it out.
That said, when police show up they aren't required to stop with the person. They can keep driving if there's no crime. They don't have to be a hunter, they just have to know the laws they are enforcing.
They may choose to stop and talk to you, but a consensual conversations is not being questioned or harassed. You could even ignore them and/or walk away. There's case law on that too. This "stop and talk" differs from a Terry stop where you are required to give some amount of compliance. Just because an officer talks to you, doesn't mean you are required to talk back. I would talk to them because I don't have an issue with police, but you don't always have to. Similarly they don't have to make contact with the reported person based on the call, and in fact can't insist on it unless there is reason to be believe a crime is being, has been or is about to be committed. In an open carry state, simply having a visible weapon is not evidence of a crime. If it's brandished, then yes a crime has been committed and they can require you to stop. If the weapon is possessed within a school safety zone, it's a crime and they can also require you to stop. Search and seizure laws and gun laws intertwine a lot and can get tricky if you only know bits and pieces of what can/can't be done.
I agree that engaging them with the weapon is not self defense if they're simply stealing the truck. And as I also mentioned before, if you have enough concern that you feel the need to take the gun, you shouldn't be going out to confront them.
It is a very fine line, which is what I think is causing the difference of opinions. That alone is enough for me to not confront the thief. If we are divided on whether it's justifiable, so will be a jury of your peers if things escalate and you have to use the weapon. Now you have to worry if 12 people will be convinced that you were or weren't doing something wrong by taking it. Not a chance I want to take over a truck that can be replaced.
I still agree with SnowBlaZR2 that taking the gun with you doesn't automatically mean you intend to use it though. Nor does having it in your hand constitute "brandishing" either.
As defined by Merriam-Webster: Brandish means: 1: to shake or wave menacingly, or 2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.
If the gun is pointed at them, yes it's brandished. If it's held up in an overt way so as to purposely make it's presence known, yes it's brandished. If it's in your hand (flat to the body or at your side) because you were watching tv and don't have a holster on your belt, no it's not brandished.
Visual references:
↓ Not brandished. ↓ This is a tactical position which allows you to get on target quickly. You're not waving it around, the muzzle is down, you're not pointing at the thief, and depending on the color of your cloths and gun it may be rather inconspicuous. This is not "ostentatious", overtly displayed or aggressive, and therefore not "brandished".
View attachment 129571
↓ This is brandished. ↓ This is an aggressive posture and you're likely pointing at the thief. Despite what tv shows you, this is NOT how you clear an area with your pistol, especially when you're turning a corner. The Army (and I assume every other branch) teaches you to corner with it tucked closer to the body so you shouldn't be walking around like this. In which case you're likely not brandishing it while you're checking your property unless you're clearing the area like you're on a tv show.
View attachment 129574
LOL I've seen photos of sailors shooting at open water, and always wondered what the point was. Now I know what's going on, they're disposing of expired ammo. Ha ha, must get boring at sea.
Gunpowder has a shelf life. It starts to degrade over time. Especially on a ship. Ammo isn't sealed so moisture can get in. Not sure how long the shelf life is, but it's use it or lose it when it gets closer so on shore they just set up range days. On the ship, when underway, you are limited to when you can shoot. Especially on an aircraft carrier.You navy guys killing water out there, what is "expired" ammo? I have surplus ammo from the 80s that shoots fine.
Gunpowder has a shelf life. It starts to degrade over time. Especially on a ship. Ammo isn't sealed so moisture can get in. Not sure how long the shelf life is, but it's use it or lose it when it gets closer so on shore they just set up range days. On the ship, when underway, you are limited to when you can shoot. Especially on an aircraft carrier.
Yeah, it happens all the time with people who base their decisions solely on unverified sources (ie "the internet")...... Good people with good intentions get in trouble all the time because they take bad advice.