So he thinks there is a body under the car and is about to run over him again? If the guy does not stop Rose better have the inclination to pull the trigger IMO.

What ever opinions people may have I think we all can agree that when we accept that, only we, are responsible for our personal protection and carry we have taken on a great responsibility. There are many lens in which we must look at these situations i.e. moral, legal, practical and more. They all play a part in our compass and decision making. Keeps life interesting.

Now I get the warm feeling that I can pull over speeding drivers at the point of a gun. What a rush! I guess that would also apply to illegal parkers. Double parkers might even warrant a warning shot in the air.

As I stated previously: The permit does not convey police authority. Let the car go. Call the police. Get the license number. Give the tree first aid. Arrange for a transfusion for the electrical/telephone box. Caution others to stay away from the car and to stay out of any danger.

Mr. Rose still isn't out of the woods as far as charges go. I, for one, would like to see the entire thing played out in court.

My priorities are:
1. What is legal and what is my exposure for "helping"?
2. What is the moral thing to do?

If I cant get past #1 I am not even going to consider #2 unless it is my wife, brother or parents that are in danger.

My point is that his statement is not defend able if he was not willing to use deadly force once he has drawn his weapon. He should not have drawn unless he felt absolutely necessary for the protection of himself or others. If he did believe that I will not challenge him as I was not there and do not know all the facts.

I'm sorry, I simply don't buy that.

First, there's nothing in the law that I'm aware of that makes it illegal for a permit holder to carry a gun in his hand. Holding a gun in your hand does not necessarily imply a threat of any sort, let alone a deadly threat. Your statement is broad enough to suggest that a gun should only be unholstered when you intend to fire it immediately, and that's tactically unsound.

Second, more often than not pointing a gun at someone changes the circumstances rather dramatically. If someone did pose an immediate threat at the moment you started to draw the gun, by the time you aimed it he may well no longer do so. That you were willing to use deadly force, or even justified in using deadly force, when you drew the weapon, does not mean that you are willing to use deadly force, or are justified in doing so, after you had.

Third, the law allows the use of reasonable force in making a citizens arrest. It does not allow the use of deadly force in the absence of an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm. But I'm not sure that threatening someone with a gun is implicitly a use of deadly force. Certainly you can't shoot someone absent an immediate threat, but there's nothing in the law that I'm aware of that requires you to tell the truth to the guy you're pointing a gun at.

I am not a lawyer, but I know the legal risks involved in citizens arrests are significant, even when you did not pull a gun, and the liability someone might face if he did scares the willy out of me. But I'm not at all sure that it's slam-dunk illegal.

So we get back to where we've been. What he did was risky, legally stupid. But what he did was not necessarily illegal.

My own rule of thumb on instances of this sort is simple - I operate under the assumption that I will be convicted of a crime, should I pull a gun on someone. If the circumstances are not so grave that I'd rather be in jail, than to allow to happen what I believe would happen should I not pull a gun, I won't pull it. You've probably heard Suzanna Gratia Hupp say she'd rather be in prison serving a felony sentence than to have her parents dead.

Anytime you pull a gun on someone, you're risking that. My take is that if you don't think you can sit there in your cell, after having failed to convince the prosecutor, judge, and jury that you behaved reasonably, and still know that you did the right thing under the circumstances, choose some other option.

+1
I think we can all agree on that statement, it is the determination of how grave of a situation is where we are at odds.

I agree with you completely; I was being a bit facetious.

For me personally, the situation would have to be pretty grave to threaten someone with my pistol.

+1

When we carry, we bear the burden of judging not only the legal right, but also the moral right to defend ourselves and/or others.

[quote="Traveler"]Now I get the warm feeling that I can pull over speeding drivers at the point of a gun. What a rush! I guess that would also apply to illegal parkers. Double parkers might even warrant a warning shot in the air.

As I stated previously: The permit does not convey police authority. Let the car go. Call the police. Get the license number. Give the tree first aid. Arrange for a transfusion for the electrical/telephone box. Caution others to stay away from the car and to stay out of any danger.

I agree here, its ridiculous to even think to pull your weapon in a situation like this, also what happens if after a weapon is drawn and he tries running him over to get away? He can't shoot because that would not make him a reluctant participant so he obviously puts himself in a bad situation.

It bothers me that so many are throwing rose under a truck.



I am going to take a fellow permit holders first statement at face value, with no subplots. He thought the guy had run over people, and was getting ready to do it again.


HOW many times on this forum and every other pro RKBA website have we talked about "well if a Permitted person had been there, they could have stopped (pick one)

a shooter at a school

a shooter at a mall.

a shooter at a church

a person driving thru a little league game

a person trying to kill his baby's momma over custody stuff.

etc.

OK so here we have a guy, who when confronted with what he considered already to be a major tragedy in the flesh. Did what we all say a permitted person should do. He interrupted a crime, and tried to keep it from getting worse.

Screw this "he should only use his cell phone", for all we know, the first things out of his mouth to his buddy/wife/companion was "Call 911" If not, he saw at least twenty people in the park pulling out phones, If the driver had nearly hit people on his first venture into the park, hearing screams was quite probable, is that a scream from a little girl laying there with her legs crushed, or is just some soccer mom who spilt Iced tea on her new dress? Hard to say, but it conveys the image that GBH just happened.

I am sorry, but until the permit holder is CLEARLY shown to have tried to be Rambo or something, I am 100% in his corner. second guessing him is only feeding the ANTI's ammunition.

Couldn't agree more.

+1

Dang straight! That is what his lawyer should take into court. I can't imagine a jury wanting to say, "no, he should have allowed the driver he had every reason to believe had intent to use his car as a deadly weapon, to go on about his business of potentially killing people".

For all the dude in question knew, it coulda been a terrorist intent on mowing down as many people as possible. It was a national holiday and suicide bombers have taken out smaller targets than a park full of fireworks spectators. No evidence to the contrary til hindsight.

My feelings exactly

AND ON ANOTHER NOTE: DISMISS THE CHARGES AGAINST TREPTOW

+3