Springfield XD Forum banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,350 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A variety of videos on this web page.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,743 Posts
The law abiding citizens, black and white, aren't sitting back waiting on the government to come stop it either.

I wonder what the press would say if, last year, the law abiding citizens in many of our democratic controlled cities would have take the same steps to restore order, or at least provide quick punishment to the rioters/looters as is happening in Durban, SA?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
22,422 Posts
Wow. That is crazy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
I wonder what the press would say if, last year, the law abiding citizens in many of our democratic controlled cities would have take the same steps to restore order, or at least provide quick punishment to the rioters/looters as is happening in Durban, SA?
You don't have to look any further than what happened to the St. Louis couple who tried to defend their own home, and never fired a shot. They were charged and had their guns confiscated.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,162 Posts
That's because nobody was threatening their home and brandishing or menacing is a crime in every state. Gun owners ought to know the difference between self defense and menacing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cuda66

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
That's because nobody was threatening their home and brandishing or menacing is a crime in every state. Gun owners ought to know the difference between self defense and menacing.
well, let’s see…an unruly mob breaks down a gate to a private residential area, and comes on your property. Maybe the homeowner should have waited until he or his wife was killed or injured?
 
  • Like
Reactions: .45fan and billt460

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,857 Posts
well, let’s see…an unruly mob breaks down a gate to a private residential area, and comes on your property. Maybe the homeowner should have waited until he or his wife was killed or injured?
I’m pretty much all states, use of lethal force (which includes pointing a weapon at someone) isn’t allowed until there is an immediate and unavoidable threat of death/severe harm.

People standing in the street are not an immediate, or even unavoidable threat.

So, yeah, those morons deserve everything they got and more, imho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
That's because nobody was threatening their home and brandishing or menacing is a crime in every state. Gun owners ought to know the difference between self defense and menacing.
The woman pled guilty to a minor misdemeanor charge and a couple dollar fine. The husband had a slightly harsher misdemeanor charge he pled guilty to and had a slightly higher fine. The two guns involved were also confiscated.

The man said he would do the same thing in the same situation if it happened again.

The governor said if they were convicted of a real crime he would pardon them.

At the end of the day, they got their hand slapped because a lot of people would do the same thing.

I guarantee if a group of a couple hundred undesirables came through my neighborhood, I wouldn't be the only one sitting on the stoop with an AR slung across my chest. Just keep the cameras on so when they lie about what you are doing, you're covered.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
well, let’s see…an unruly mob breaks down a gate to a private residential area, and comes on your property. Maybe the homeowner should have waited until he or his wife was killed or injured?
I believe you mean to say "a violent mob".

Listening to the media describe Jan 6th, if you pass a locked door or gate it is violent.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,162 Posts
well, let’s see…an unruly mob breaks down a gate to a private residential area, and comes on your property. Maybe the homeowner should have waited until he or his wife was killed or injured?
No, they should have waited until there was an actual cause for self defense. They were walking by their home, going to the governor, who has plenty of security. They were not "after them". The coue was not targeted. Standing around, when your life is not in an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm, pointing guns at people and showing them to intimidate is called brandishing. It's a general charge of menacing in every other state. The litteraly legal definitions.

They committed a crime, they plead guilty. They are lawyers... If they had a snow balls chance in hades, they would have went to trial... But they knew they would be found guilty of more serious charges... So they took the plea. Really simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChefDuck

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,162 Posts
The woman pled guilty to a minor misdemeanor charge and a couple dollar fine. The husband had a slightly harsher misdemeanor charge he pled guilty to and had a slightly higher fine. The two guns involved were also confiscated.

The man said he would do the same thing in the same situation if it happened again.

The governor said if they were convicted of a real crime he would pardon them.

At the end of the day, they got their hand slapped because a lot of people would do the same thing.

I guarantee if a group of a couple hundred undesirables came through my neighborhood, I wouldn't be the only one sitting on the stoop with an AR slung across my chest. Just keep the cameras on so when they lie about what you are doing, you're covered.


No, a lot of people would not do the same. In most states, you have the right to defend your home, but you do not have the right to defend property or a line. When there is an imminent threat of entry or great harm, now you have a right to point a muzzle at some one because then you have the right to pull the trigger. If they would have pulled a trigger because it was a mob standing there, they would be in prison... Because they did not have the right to use deadly force... Which means they were brandishing, plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChefDuck

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
No, a lot of people would not do the same. In most states, you have the right to defend your home, but you do not have the right to defend property or a line. When there is an eminent threat of entry or great harm, now you have a right to pint a muzzle at some one because then you have the right to pull the trigger. If they would have pulled a trigger because it was a mob standing there, they would be in prison... Because they did not have the right to use deadly force... Which means they were brandishing, plain and simple.
If they pointed the muzzle at someone yes, they were at fault. I wasn't there and didn't follow the story, but the results of the case tells me it was a non issue. If the governor said he would make the conviction go away if they were convicted of a real crime, should've a clue that it wasn't a big deal.

In my state I can sit on the stoop with every arm I own and the liberals can't do a thing about it, once I'm in fear of life or great bodily harm then the lead starts flying.

Guess what a couple hundred undesirable people that violently broke into the neighborhood would cause. Yep at minimum a fear of great bodily harm.

What I just described is not brandishing in my state, how do I know? Because a group I belonged to, changed that definition in Michigan law.

So at least in my area, yes a lot of people would do the same.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,162 Posts
If they pointed the muzzle at someone yes, they were at fault. I wasn't there and didn't follow the story, but the results of the case tells me it was a non issue. If the governor said he would make the conviction go away if they were convicted of a real crime, should've a clue that it wasn't a big deal.

In my state I can sit on the stoop with every arm I own and the liberals can't do a thing about it, once I'm in fear of life or great bodily harm then the lead starts flying.

Guess what a couple hundred undesirable people that violently broke into the neighborhood would cause. Yep at minimum a fear of great bodily harm.

What I just described is not brandishing in my state, how do I know? Because a group I belonged to, changed that definition in Michigan law.

So at least in my area, yes a lot of people would do the same.
Or it's a clue the governor was pandering when it costs nothing. Amazes me how selective we are when all politicians lie except when we say they are speaking the truth.

So what you are saying is.... When they break down the gate of your gates community... Then you will shoot them down the street?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,907 Posts
Or it's a clue the governor was pandering when it costs nothing. Amazes me how selective we are when all pitivians lie except when we say they are speaking the truth.

So what you are saying is.... When they break down the gate of your gates community... Then you will shoot them down the street?
You better go back and reread that last two posts. I believe I was clear.
I didn't say a damn thing about shooting people in the street.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,162 Posts
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not willfully and knowingly brandish a firearm in public.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to either of the following:
(a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.

(b) A person lawfully acting in self-defense or defense of another under the self-defense act, 2006 PA 309, MCL 780.971 to 780.974.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.


780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions. Sec. 2. (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.


They violated MI law to because they were not in imminent danger.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,162 Posts
You better go back and reread that last two posts. I believe I was clear.
I didn't say a damn thing about shooting people in the street.
Right... Because a mob in the street... Even one that went through a gate, is not a imminent threat to you just simply because of those actions. So, the mere mob is not enough to meet the burden of threat. They have to do some thing to you. They did not do anything to the couple, they were brandishing. Even by MI law.

In fact, other states have same language... I assume you voted to exclude self-defense from brandishing. The law for deadly force says as long as you are not committing a crime... There are many cases that committing crimes negates a self defense claim... The couple was committing crimes. If they started shooting, chances are self defence would not apply... At least in MI.

The real point is... If you are going to rely on self defense claim to keep you out of prison... You better be real sure you meet the letter of the law... And not committing crimes getting there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZanderMan

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
I’m pretty much all states, use of lethal force (which includes pointing a weapon at someone) isn’t allowed until there is an immediate and unavoidable threat of death/severe harm. People standing in the street are not an immediate, or even unavoidable threat. So, yeah, those morons deserve everything they got and more, imho.
Opinions are not legal law. Last Summer we had "BLM protesters" come through our town. All total they had about 30 of them. (They claimed 100+ were coming). We had citizens standing alongside our cops on the sidewalk with loaded AR's. The "protesters" never touched or damaged a thing. So yes, it's legal, and no, no one went to jail. All that happened was what was intended. It changed the attitude of the people, who were only there to make trouble in the first place.

Those people in St. Louis had their home surrounded by a locked iron gate. Which those "demonstrators" broke down in order to trespass on their private property. Which they had zero business on in the first place. They had every right to do what they did. Those idiots are lucky they didn't do more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,857 Posts
Opinions are not legal law. Last Summer we had "BLM protesters" come through our town. All total they had about 30 of them. (They claimed 100+ were coming). We had citizens standing alongside our cops on the sidewalk with loaded AR's. The "protesters" never touched or damaged a thing. So yes, it's legal, and no, no one went to jail. All that happened was what was intended. It changed the attitude of the people, who were only there to make trouble in the first place.

Those people in St. Louis had their home surrounded by a locked iron gate. Which those "demonstrators" broke down in order to trespass on their private property. Which they had zero business on in the first place. They had every right to do what they did. Those idiots are lucky they didn't do more.
No, they didn’t break down the gate to their home—they broke down the gate into the community; big difference between the two.

And a group standing across the distance of the yard is not an immediate threat, unless they were armed and pointing weapons—and I’ve seen no proof of that.

Just because you’re scared doesn’t give you the right to use lethal force.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top