Five Rules for Concealed (or Open?) Carry

[mattfoley]

Its great that Indiana allows open carry. It needs to be exercised more to make sure we don't lose that right.

 

[dross]

I have an issue with the "disparity of force" argument. I understand that this is the reality, but why should my ability to defend myself be limited because I happen to be big. I'm a big guy, 6'2" and over 300 pounds. While much of that these days is fat, as an explanation, I'm in pretty good shape when I weight 265, and I ran a marathon four years ago when I weighed 285. I'm also told I have an intimidating presence (I was an Army sergeant in my past), but I promise you, I'm a pretty safe guy to be around unless you're trying to hurt my wife or daughter, or take something of mine by force.

Now, why should I have a different standard if some guy comes at me? There are some 150lb boxers or martial artists that could hurt me, plus I don't know what a guy's carrying in his pockets. If a guy moves aggressively towards me and I outweigh him by 100 pounds, isn't that a great reason to be in fear of my life, if he's not afraid from my appearance? I don't want to shoot anyone, but I also don't want to be rolling on the ground with some middleweight amateur UFC fighter who's trying to get my gun out of it's holster.

If I'm minding my own business and a guy moves at me aggressively, am I wrong to present my gun?

 

[cce1302]

I'm not sure about these:

1. the ability to inflict serious bodily injury (he is armed or reasonably appears to be armed with a deadly weapon),​
   
   [*]
   the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm (he is physically positioned to harm you with his weapon), and​
   
   [*]
   his intent (hostile actions or words) indicates that he means to place you in jeopardy -- to do you serious or fatal physical harm​
   
   
   Namely, that if he has the ability and intent, I don't see that it would make sense to wait until he has the opportunity. Anybody else think that's a good/bad idea?
   

 

[shooter521]

Namely, that if he has the ability and intent, I don't see that it would make sense to wait until he has the opportunity. Anybody else think that's a good/bad idea?

BAD idea. Joe Badguy has stated publicly that he wants and fully intends to kill you (intent). He is armed with a butcher knife (ability). He is 400 yards away. Does he have opportunity? Would you be justified in shooting him?

 

[SilentWarrior1]

BAD idea. Joe Badguy has stated publicly that he wants and fully intends to kill you. He is armed with a butcher knife. He is 400 yards away (i.e. he has no opportunity). Are you justified in shooting him?

Depends... what's the max effective range of the rifle in your trunk?

Kidding of course. I would define "opportunity" within half the distance of your effective range of your pistol.

Say, my effective range is 25 meters (75 ft), I would say about half of that. (32.5 ft). IANAL, but to me, that seems reasonable.

 

[shooter521]

Say, my effective range is 25 meters (75 ft), I would say about half of that. (32.5 ft). IANAL, but to me, that seems reasonable.

Doesn't matter what you (or I) think; it matters what the cops, prosecutor and jury think...

When all three of these "attack potential" elements are in place simultaneously, then you are facing a reasonably perceived deadly threat that can justify an emergency deadly force response.

I was taught these elements or conditions as "AOJP", meaning Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy (listed in the original post as "Intent"), and Preclusion - and that all four must be met before lethal force is justified. That last one is important... can you "preclude" the attack by doing something else other than employing lethal force? If so, you probably should (even though you may not be legally bound to do so).

 

[LS!&*DUBB]

Its great that Indiana allows open carry. It needs to be exercised more to make sure we don't lose that right.

I didn't know that Indiana allowed open carry. Recently I was at a local bar and saw someone brandishing their pistol on the hip. I thought to myself, 'Is that legal?'.

 

[shooter521]

Recently I was at a local bar and saw someone brandishing their pistol on the hip. I thought to myself, 'Is that legal?'.

Yes, as long as he's not drunk. And if it's on his hip, it's not "brandishing," which means to "wave menacingly or exhibit in an aggressive manner," per Webster's.

 

[SBG40]

five rules for concealed (or open ) carry

Have seen this a couple of places out on the web, thought I'd post 'em here and see what ya'll think. Not so sure about #4, but that's just me.

• Your concealed handgun is for protection of life only.

Draw it solely in preparation to protect yourself or an innocent third party from the wrongful and life-threatening criminal actions of another.​

​

• Know exactly when you can use your gun.

A criminal adversary must have, or reasonably appear to have:​

1. the ability to inflict serious bodily injury (he is armed or reasonably appears to be armed with a deadly weapon),
   
   [*]the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm (he is physically positioned to harm you with his weapon), and
   
   [*]his intent (hostile actions or words) indicates that he means to place you in jeopardy -- to do you serious or fatal physical harm.
   
   ​
   ​

When all three of these "attack potential" elements are in place simultaneously, then you are facing a reasonably perceived deadly threat that can justify an emergency deadly force response.

​

• 
  [*]If you can run away -- RUN!
  
  

Just because you’re armed doesn’t necessarily mean you must confront a bad guy at gunpoint. Develop your "situation awareness" skills so you can be alert to detect and avoid trouble altogether. Keep in mind that if you successfully evade a potential confrontation, the single negative consequence involved might be your bruised ego, which should heal with mature rationalization. But if you force a confrontation you risk the possibility of you or a family member being killed or suffering lifelong crippling/disfiguring physical injury, criminal liability and/or financial ruin from civil lawsuit. Flee if you can, fight only as a last resort.​

​

• 
  [*]Display your gun, go to jail.
  
  

You should expect to be arrested by police at gunpoint, and be charged with a crime anytime your concealed handgun is seen by another citizen in public, regardless of how unintentional or innocent or justified the situation might seem. Choose a method of carry that keeps your gun reliably hidden from public view at all times.​

You have no control over how a stranger will react to seeing (or learning about) your concealed handgun. He or she might become alarmed and report you to police as a "man or woman with a gun." Depending on his or her feelings about firearms, this person might be willing to maliciously embellish his or her story in attempt to have your gun seized by police or to get you arrested. An alarmed citizen who reports a "man with a gun" is going to be more credible to police than you when you're stopped because you match the suspect's description, and you're found to have a concealed handgun in your possession.​

Before you deliberately expose your gun in public, ask yourself: "Is this worth going to jail for?" The only time this question should warrant a "yes" response is when an adversary has at least, both ability and intent, and is actively seeking the opportunity to do you great harm.​

​

• 
  [*]Don't let your emotions get the best of you.
  
  
  ​
  ​

If, despite your best efforts to the contrary, you do get into some kind of heated dispute with another person while you’re armed, never mention, imply or exhibit your gun for the purpose of intimidation or one-upmanship. You’ll simply make a bad situation worse -- for yourself (see rule #4).

[SIZE=-1]Law is order, and good law is good order," Aristotle said. Without doubt, Florida's recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" law is good law, casting a common-sense light onto the debate over the right of self-defense. It reverses the pendulum that for too long has swung in the direction of protecting the rights of criminals over the rights of their victims. Despite predictable howling from the anti-gun media elite that Florida was taking an unprecedented and dangerous action, in truth it joined 24 other states that reject "duty-to-retreat" laws.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature--unanimously in the Senate and 94-20 in the House--;the new law removes the "duty to retreat" when citizens are outside of their homes and where they have legal right to be. It says that if a criminal breaks into your home or occupied vehicle or a place where you are camping overnight, for example, you may presume that he is there to do bodily harm and use any force, including deadly force, to protect yourself from a violent attack. Floridians who defend themselves from criminal attack are shielded by the new law from criminal prosecution and from civil suits brought by their attackers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In testifying for the bill, Marion P. Hammer, executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, said: "No one knows what is in the twisted mind of a violent criminal. You can't expect a victim to wait before taking action to protect herself and say: 'Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, did you drag me into this alley to rape and kill me or do you just want to beat me up and steal my purse?'"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.[/SIZE]
Posted: 2/6/2006 12:00:00 AMAnd " Display Your Gun, Go To Jail", is way off , here in the great state of INDIANA where we can carry concealed or open carry is a great thing, we are free to do both with our LTCH = " License To Carry Handgun State Of Indiana " which means you can carry any way you want , it is not a concealed carry license or permit, the state police will tell you that they would like for you to conceal your weapon, WHY ? , Because each and every time a leo see's you , you will be asked for your " License To Carry Handgun State Of Indiana " ,

 

[LS!&*DUBB]

I didn't know that Indiana allowed open carry. Recently I was at a local bar and saw someone brandishing their pistol on the hip. I thought to myself, 'Is that legal?'.

Yes, as long as he's not drunk. And if it's on his hip, it's not "brandishing," which means to "wave menacingly or exhibit in an aggressive manner," per Webster's.

Yeah, poor choice of words. It was more like 'arrogantly displaying'. Young kid with all his friends. He had an arrogant swagger about him....... something like; 'look at me, I'm openly packing in a bar with susceptible youths and they eat it up'! I think it's great to have legal protections to open carry, I just don't see it 99.99% of the time around here.

 

[shooter521]

I think it's great to have legal protections to open carry, I just don't see it 99.99% of the time around here.

I am glad we have the option, but it's not one I normally choose to exercise, for a variety of practical and tactical reasons. I sure wouldn't open carry in a bar, whether I was drinking or not. It is nice, however, to be able to take a break from my gun shop job and run across the parking lot for a Coke without having to take the gun off or throw on a covering garment.

 

[cce1302]

BAD idea. Joe Badguy has stated publicly that he wants and fully intends to kill you (intent). He is armed with a butcher knife (ability). He is 400 yards away. Does he have opportunity? Would you be justified in shooting him?

I guess we have different definitions of the word "opportunity."
I was thinking more along the lines of him standing 30 feet away with a knife showing intent/ability. Would it be prudent to allow him the opportunity to come closer and stab me?
If he showed a gun tucked in his belt and said he was going to kill me, would it be better to give him the opportunity to remove said gun and point it in my direction before acting?

 

[IndyGunSafety]

That's a good point! In Florida, producing a firearm to gain leverage in an argument is an AUTOMATIC 3 YEARS IN PRISON! I would hope that would cut down on the road rage crap and kind of thin the heard a bit if needed. But then you look at the case in Ohio where the guy was drug from his car by cops after he carried open into a gas station and was reported. Laws like this can really be abused.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

I don't think I could get him at 400 yards with my .40 XD sub, lol!

 

[shooter521]

I was thinking more along the lines of him standing 30 feet away with a knife showing intent/ability. Would it be prudent to allow him the opportunity to come closer and stab me?

A man of average ability can cover those 30 feet in less than 3 seconds. He has the opportunity at that point.

If he showed a gun tucked in his belt and said he was going to kill me, would it be better to give him the opportunity to remove said gun and point it in my direction before acting?

AFAIK, displaying a weapon tucked in one's belt as a form of intimidation is NOT considered lethal force. Are you justified in shooting the guy? Depends. Has "AOJP" been met? Especially the "P" – can you avert the confrontation in some other way? Would a reasonable person be in fear of death or grievous bodily harm at that point? If you do choose a lethal force response, can you effectively articulate the reasons for that decision to a jury of your peers?

I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to have all the answers. None of this is as cut-and-dry as we would like it to be; how we respond in any given scenario is going to be a result of our training, our "gut feeling," and a slew of other mitigating circumstances that might be present at the time.

 

[cce1302]

These questions you have are why I don't think that opportunity is a necessary part of the equation. Here's the definition of opportunity (from dictionary.com)

1.an appropriate or favorable time or occasion: Their meeting afforded an opportunity to exchange views. 2.a situation or condition favorable for attainment of a goal.3.a good position, chance, or prospect, as for advancement or success.

Basically, why should I wait until conditions are favorable for my assailant to begin to take action?

 

[ElkhartGunner]

i see every situation as unique. no matter how much reading or scenario talking we do, if we ever end up in the situaton we have to draw or kill, just make sure your ready for any and all consequenses(probably spelled it wrong) of doing it.

 

[sporter]

6. Don't forget gun in restaurant bathroom stall.