Repeal the "Stand Your Ground" Laws

[Hoss]

"...to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forceable felony."

What it's going to hinge on is whether or not the investigators believe there was about to be a forceable felony or whether or not an assault with bare fists, feet, or a chair leg would cause great bodily harm.  I'm aware of people being killed with one blow to the head before.

But, yes, I'm reading that if I saw someone being assaulted by someone else with a knife, gun, or having a forceable felony committed on them (I'm guessing rape or armed robbery) I could intervene and shoot the newly-minted felon.  

http://guninstructor.net/CCC_Handout.pdf

Search for 'defense of another'.  This was part of the course.  This is a CLEET document.  I'm pretty sure this is cited from law.

Specifically 'Deadly Force - defense of another'

A note within the document plainly states:

NOTE: A citizen's use of deadly force to protect another is strictly limited under Oklahoma law. Before use of a
firearm can be threatened or used in defense of another,  the person protected must be the defender's spouse,
parent, child, employer, or employee. To display, point, threaten, or use a firearm in defense of anyone other
than a spouse, parent, child, employer, or employee, is unreasonable, unlawful, use of force.

[Conan71]

I'd have a hard time standing by and watching a woman get raped by some armed POS in a parking garage because I was unclear on the law.

[Hoss]

I'd have a hard time standing by and watching a woman get raped by some armed POS in a parking garage because I was unclear on the law.

And so would I.  That doesn't mean you can't use non-lethal force.  You just cannot pull a weapon on the perpetrator UNLESS HE WAS TO TURN YOUR WAY AND ADVANCE WITH A KNIFE OR A GUN.  Or that person is related to you in the manner I specified in my post above.  We asked a lot of hypothetical questions in this class.  Some our instructor was not so clear on and indicated he would contact the DA to find out what might happen in a case as such.  This however, was made crystal clear to us.  Keep in mind it excludes the castle doctrine part.  So if I fear for my life or someone else's life in my own home, even someone I don't know, I have a right to defend that person.  While you're away from home however, the rules change.

[heironymouspasparagus]

http://guninstructor.net/CCC_Handout.pdf

Search for 'defense of another'.  This was part of the course.  This is a CLEET document.  I'm pretty sure this is cited from law.

Specifically 'Deadly Force - defense of another'

A note within the document plainly states:

This is why I said earlier that it is somewhat ambiguous.

The CC document is not the law - it is someone's interpretation.  The actual text of the law says anywhere you have the legal right to be - "kill away" if you are defending yourself or another.  I think there will be court cases surrounding part D, and maybe other sections?  (Section D specifically contradicts your "Note" quote...)



This is and are where Zimmerman is getting his butt in a crack.  He had the legal right to be where he was - in his car - what is not so clear is whether he had the right to 'stalk' the kid, especially after the express direction of a police representative telling him not to.  And that could easily be argued that he was ignoring the directions at a scene where the police had jurisdiction and were in the process of investigating - even if they were still on the way - there rep was on the phone advising and overseeing.

[Teatownclown]

I'd have a hard time standing by and watching a woman get raped by some armed POS in a parking garage because I was unclear on the law.

Hero!!!!! And that's why we need SYG !!!!

Heir and Hoss, thank you for you insight and knowledge. No guessing with you two.

[TeeDub]

http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2011.pdf

Strange.   The OSBI says that this is the book that needs to be used in the CC classes.   It doesn't even address shooting an unarmed intruder or only being able to shoot in protection of a relative.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hero!!!!! And that's why we need SYG !!!!

Heir and Hoss, thank you for you insight and knowledge. No guessing with you two.

Nothing to guess about.  I have always been very clear and unambiguous about how I feel about this topic and the whole concept of self-defense and the personal right - "the right of the people" - embodied by the Second Amendment.


From the feeble attempt at sarcasm, sounds like you could learn something...or even a lot.  But at our advanced age, that gets harder and harder...luckily, I learned it correctly a few decades ago, and long term memory is always the last to go.  You got an excuse for waiting so long??

[Hoss]

http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2011.pdf

Strange.   The OSBI says that this is the book that needs to be used in the CC classes.   It doesn't even address shooting an unarmed intruder or only being able to shoot in protection of a relative.

This is the law as it pertains to the SDA.  There are other laws you have to be familiar with (SYG, etc).

[Conan71]

And so would I.  That doesn't mean you can't use non-lethal force.  You just cannot pull a weapon on the perpetrator UNLESS HE WAS TO TURN YOUR WAY AND ADVANCE WITH A KNIFE OR A GUN.  Or that person is related to you in the manner I specified in my post above.  We asked a lot of hypothetical questions in this class.  Some our instructor was not so clear on and indicated he would contact the DA to find out what might happen in a case as such.  This however, was made crystal clear to us.  Keep in mind it excludes the castle doctrine part.  So if I fear for my life or someone else's life in my own home, even someone I don't know, I have a right to defend that person.  While you're away from home however, the rules change.

I'm pretty sure all you would have to say is "Get off or you are done!" and they would point it your way.  Regardless, it's still going to boil down to whether or not the PD or the DA determine they pointed a weapon at you or advanced.  Without eyewitnesses, they really can't tell and I seriously doubt someone else whose life you just saved is going to tell the cops you just started shooting for no reason and no one was in danger.

The part I emboldened is one of the rubs to conceal carry or SYG: defend yourself at your own peril because cops and DA's from different districts all seem to disagree on what the law means and that was very carefully explained to me by my instructor who was a 40 year LEO veteran as a Sheriff, police chief, and someone who helped author much of what has been codified as the SDA and SYG statutes.

Not getting into a big you know what game on instructors just simply stating that your instructor is equally as clear on the laws as mine was or as most DA's and LEO's are.  It's all subject to interpretation and as well what they think the evidence at the crime scene indicates.

Personally, I hope I'm never in a situation where I need to worry about it.

Best advice of all is that you have a right to remain silent, I highly recommend you do that should you ever get in that situation until you have your own personal attorney present.

[heironymouspasparagus]

http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2011.pdf

Strange.   The OSBI says that this is the book that needs to be used in the CC classes.   It doesn't even address shooting an unarmed intruder or only being able to shoot in protection of a relative.

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make...  I think Hoss is coming from direction of what he was taught in class, which sounds like it took excerpts and inserted interpretations that are not exactly in the law.  That is the document I told everyone (addressed to Hoss) to look at.  That is the text of the law.  (Did you read some of it?)

See Title 21, section 1289.25 part D.

Section B says nothing about being armed or unarmed, because that is irrelevant in those circumstances - by the law's definition - it is presumed.

[Hoss]

I'm pretty sure all you would have to say is "Get off or you are done!" and they would point it your way.  Regardless, it's still going to boil down to whether or not the PD or the DA determine they pointed a weapon at you or advanced.  Without eyewitnesses, they really can't tell and I seriously doubt someone else whose life you just saved is going to tell the cops you just started shooting for no reason and no one was in danger.

The part I emboldened is one of the rubs to conceal carry or SYG: defend yourself at your own peril because cops and DA's from different districts all seem to disagree on what the law means and that was very carefully explained to me by my instructor who was a 40 year LEO veteran as a Sheriff, police chief, and someone who helped author much of what has been codified as the SDA and SYG statutes.

Not getting into a big you know what game on instructors just simply stating that your instructor is equally as clear on the laws as mine was or as most DA's and LEO's are.  It's all subject to interpretation and as well what they think the evidence at the crime scene indicates.

Personally, I hope I'm never in a situation where I need to worry about it.

Best advice of all is that you have a right to remain silent, I highly recommend you do that should you ever get in that situation until you have your own personal attorney present.

Which was another one of my instructor's points.  Call 911 RIGHT AWAY.  If the person you pointed at or shot should call them first and say some crazy man shot him/pulled a gun for no reason, it becomes a timeline of he said/he said.  My instructor was by no means a 40 y/o LEO, but he was VERY knowledgeable on the subject.

[Conan71]

Which was another one of my instructor's points.  Call 911 RIGHT AWAY.  If the person you pointed at or shot should call them first and say some crazy man shot him/pulled a gun for no reason, it becomes a timeline of he said/he said.  My instructor was by no means a 40 y/o LEO, but he was VERY knowledgeable on the subject.

I'm sure he was.  There is simply no telling how it's all going to play out due to different understandings of the law.  I'd sure as hell hate to wind up like Kenneth Gumm. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Which was another one of my instructor's points.  Call 911 RIGHT AWAY.  If the person you pointed at or shot should call them first and say some crazy man shot him/pulled a gun for no reason, it becomes a timeline of he said/he said.  My instructor was by no means a 40 y/o LEO, but he was VERY knowledgeable on the subject.

My FIRST response in any situation like this is always going to be "RUN AWAY", if at all possible.  I have no interest in angry physical confrontation at any level, so will always leave if I can.  I think that is a pretty good response for many if not most of these type situations.

[Hoss]

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make...  I think Hoss is coming from direction of what he was taught in class, which sounds like it took excerpts and inserted interpretations that are not exactly in the law.  That is the document I told everyone (addressed to Hoss) to look at.  That is the text of the law.  (Did you read some of it?)

See Title 21, section 1289.25 part D.

Section B says nothing about being armed or unarmed, because that is irrelevant in those circumstances - by the law's definition - it is presumed.

But we were also required to extensively cover the SDA and we all had copies on hand to read.  That took up the last half of the day.  Not to mention that in his introductory email to us to verify our attendance that he wanted us to read the law. The first half dealt with the SYG law and basic gun and range safety as well as discussing some theoretical situations.

[Hoss]

My FIRST response in any situation like this is always going to be "RUN AWAY", if at all possible.  I have no interest in angry physical confrontation at any level, so will always leave if I can.  I think that is a pretty good response for many if not most of these type situations.

That was also the response he gave.  I'm explaining what he told us to do if we had to use deadly force.  Extracting yourself from the situation peacefully is always the preferable result.