In Ohio, where the state constitution declares that "the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security," supporters of that right waged a long battle to overturn an 1859 ban on carrying concealed firearms. A constitutional challenge was successful at the trial and appeals court levels but rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court. The state legislature finally enacted a nondiscretionary carry permit law in 2004. Since then anyone 21 or older with a clean record who passes a safety course has been eligible for a permit. A recent story in The Columbus Dispatch notes a fact that was widely overlooked during the debate over concealed carry in Ohio: Openly carrying a gun was never illegal in Ohio, and it does not require a permit, although people who tote rifles or strap pistols to their belts in public can expect "some unwanted attention from police officers":
Philip Turner, 30, discovered that in July when he walked from his Hilliard apartment to his parked truck wearing a gun on his belt. At the time, Turner worked protecting banks' ATMs as they were serviced and delivering diamonds to jewelry stores.
An undercover agent with the Ohio Investigative Unitthe police agency that enforces the state's alcohol, tobacco and food-stamp laws -- saw the gun and quickly ordered him against his truck with his hands on his head.
"He came up and treated me like a felon for absolutely no reason at all," Turner said. "There wasn't even a suspicious action on my part to warrant him taking this action against me. Had I been out waving a gun around the parking lot, (then) yeah."
After being detained for about 30 minutes, and after Hilliard police arrived at the agent's request, Turner was released without charges. An internal investigation that concluded this week found that neither Agent Timothy Gales, who had stopped Turner, nor his partner, Betty Ford, did anything wrong.
However, it also revealed that Gales did not know it was legal for Turner to carry a gun openly, said Lindsay Komlanc, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety. As a result, more than 100 agents in the unit are to attend a mandatory refresher course on Ohio's gun laws over the next couple of months, she said.
In addition to avoiding hassles from police officers who are ignorant of the law, concealed carry offers the advantages of not alarming passers-by and of keeping criminals uncertain about who is packing. The latter feature means that even the unarmed can benefit from the potential deterrent effect. Whether that effect has had a measurable impact on crime remains controversial in Ohio as elsewhere. The violent crime rate in Ohio, which had been declining pretty steadily since the early 1990s, continued the downward trend in 2004, the year concealed carry permits were first issued, went up slightly in 2005, then down slightly in 2006, the most recent year for which the Bureau of Justice Statistics has data.
[Thanks to Dan Gifford for the tip.]
As a result, more than 100 agents in the unit are to attend
a mandatory refresher course on Ohio's gun laws over the next
couple of months, she said.
The fact that something like this is happening as a result makes me
hopeful...
I'm pretty sure that most cops don't know that women can legal walk around topless here in Ohio, too.
Ok, I'm all in favor of gun-ownership. I own one and have CCW's in two states. But am I the only person here who finds people who insist upon open-carry when there's no self-evident reason for it just a little bit weird? I mean, it makes sense if you're a security guard (like the guy in the article), or a cowboy or something. But really, just because the store is called Target doesn't mean you need to carry a gun to go there.
The fact that somebody is walking around with a gun might
warrant a closer look by a cop. Does he have specks of spittle on
his chin? Odd red stains on his clothes? Is he sweating profusely?
Running? Panicky? How about the people in the building he just came
out of - are they running and panicky? Maybe - maybe - it would be
worthwhile to walk up to him and politely ask why he's wearing a
gun and if he has a firearms permit, depending on where and
when.
A reasonable cop walking the beat probably should observe things
like that, but putting him up against the car with his hands over
his head? C'mon.
But am I the only person here who finds people who insist
upon open-carry when there's no self-evident reason for it just a
little bit weird?
Yes. It's just you.
Several years ago a serial killer ways shooting people in a area I hunted and fished in Ohio.He only shot unarmed fishermen and bow hunters.This is a large area with many lakes and access roads.Our game warden suggested carrying a pistol openly since it was legal and he shot only those who couldn't shoot back.I fished with a 357 mag on my hip for years.
Abdul:
But really, just because the store is called Target doesn't
mean you need to carry a gun to go there.
You're conflating two issues: one is whether open carry is
justified for plebes...er, normal citizens from a practical
standpoint; the other is whether any form of carry is justified for
the same set of people.
Carrying a gun into Target is perfectly reasonable: you never know
when you might need a gun, so it's better to always have one and
not need it than to not have one and wish you had. Carrying a gun
openly in Target may be less reasonable.
I'm not going to pass judgment on open carry because I think it is
useful for different reasons than CCW (e.g., open carry by lots of
people has the potential to make bearing arms seem more "normal"
over time). I personally don't open carry because I live in MA and
doing so would get my "right" to bear arms shitcanned forever, but
if I lived in a place that allowed open carry I would consider
doing it occasionally for the aforementioned reason.
I am in favor of open carry and opposed to conceal carry. The
reason is, I'm afraid of people that feel the need to carry guns
around doing their day to day. I want to know who those people are
so I can avoid them.
I don't allow guns in my house. I hope we all agree It's my right
to dictate what goes on in my own home. So is their any sympathy
for my position? Or do I need to frisk everybody at the
threshold?
But really, just because the store is called Target doesn't
mean you need to carry a gun to go there.
Zing! You and Sinbad should go on tour.
Watch out for snipers!
I am in favor of open carry and opposed to conceal carry.
The reason is, I'm afraid of people that feel the need to carry
guns around doing their day to day. I want to know who those people
are so I can avoid them.
Thus guaranteeing that you'll take note of all the law abiding gun
owners unlikely to do you harm, and blissfully ignore all the
criminals who are not going to obey a CCW ban in the first
place.
Is there such a thing as a "feel good" fallacy?
So is their any sympathy for my position?
Sympathy? Not sure. I find it illogical. But understanding?
Sure.
Or do I need to frisk everybody at the threshold?
Yep.
The reason is, I'm afraid of people that feel the need to
carry guns around doing their day to day. I want to know who those
people are so I can avoid them.
Try not to wet your pants.
concealed carry offers the advantages of not alarming
passers-by and of keeping criminals uncertain about who is packing.
The latter feature means that even the unarmed can benefit from the
potential deterrent effect.
Sorry, but that is just so much bullshit.
Sure concealed carry has the advantage of not alarming passers by,
and it does mean that others (even criminals) don't know you have
the gun, but the deterrent effect is so much pixie dust.
Criminals tend to be risk takers.
If you want to deter them make it obvious you are packing and
dangerous.
You are talking about someone willing to risk jail time or death by
cop here...
I don't know about carp,but it worked well on copperheads and wild dogs.I even took a deer with it once.
However, it also revealed that Gales did not know it was
legal for Turner to carry a gun openly, said Lindsay Komlanc,
spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety. As a result,
more than 100 agents in the unit are to attend a mandatory
refresher course on Ohio's gun laws over the next couple of months,
she said.
I thought "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Or does that only
apply to those of us not in law enforcement (pun intended)?
Zing! You and Sinbad should go on tour.
That might be the cruellest thing ever said to an H&R
commenter.
@article
An internal investigation that concluded this week found that neither Agent Timothy Gales, who had stopped Turner, nor his partner, Betty Ford, did anything wrong.
However, it also revealed that Gales did not know it was legal for Turner to carry a gun openly, said Lindsay Komlanc, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety.
From which we conclude that in the Department of Public Safety,
walking around (with guns, none-the-less) not knowing your job is
not "doing anything wrong".
Glad we cleared that up.
But don't worry, folks. These men are highly trained
professionals.
It says so right on the package.
Warren,
If you don't want people in you home with a gun, just let people
know and they will not come into you home with a gun (of course
they also have the right not to come into your house at all),
becuase they are LAW ABIDING citizens. The problem you are going to
run into is that the burglar that visits your house will be happy
to know that he will not encounter an armed citizen. Good luck with
that.
Let's see... openly carrying a firearm where such a practice is
generally uncommon, even if legal, will get some unwanted attention
from the likes of cops. Well, duh!
Believe it or not, California allows open carry of fixed blade
knives, without restriction on the size of the knife. But it
strains reason to think one could stroll town about with a machete
hanging from one's belt and not gain unwanted attention.
People in this day and age still get unwanted attention just for
having dark skin. Is it really surprising that, even if legal, open
carry could draw similar attention?
Warren,
Concealed weapons do make it difficult to enforce your property
rights.
But your property rights do not supersede the rights of an
individual coming onto your property.
Finding a work around to that situation ain't
straightforward.
A community decision that concealed carry is wrong, however,
provides a (incomplete) practical solution.
But as has been pointed out, those that will ignore the law, are
likely the most dangerous in the first place.
I fished with a 357 mag on my hip for years
How's that work for carp?
Dynamite works best for carp.
How does a person's rights to come on my property trump my property rights?I have a no trespassing sigh at the foot of the drive.I don't think you have that right.
If Kerry Howley thinks the idea of women selling their eggs is
so great, why doesn't she try it herself?
Oh, never
mind.
But your property rights do not supersede the rights of an
individual coming onto your property.
An individual has no right to come onto Warren's property without
Warren's permission. He may condition that permission however he
darn well pleases.
Neu Mejican,
First, most criminals are lazy cowards. The only way they attack
armed individuals is if they have absolutely no choice or they are
going to get a lot more out of it than minor robbery or burglary
will get them.
Second, Colorado and Louisiana (the only two states I have studied,
allow any property owner (residential or business) to post signs
that state that guns are not allowed and any law abiding CCW permit
holder is NOT allowed to carry in that property. No, CCW rights do
not supercede property rights.
Please do not attack CCW with garbage like that just becuase you do
not agree with it.
So is their any sympathy for my position?
No.
As for this whole story, it is a bit of a replay of something that
happened at Champps in Reston, VA in 2004.
The Fairfax County police all had to go through reeducation after
they arrested several folks carrying open in a bar, days after the
VA law was changed to allow this. The proper solution, of course,
was for the management to ask the lawful patrons to leave or put up
a "no guns allowed" sign. Instead, they called cops who did not
know the law any better than they did and much sillieness ensued,
to include several unneeded arrests.
Folks, in "Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign" world of the Socialistic Left, we have no property rights. Thank goodness that utopia is not reality in America, yet.
From Neal Stephenson's Crytonomicon:
...They are having an energetic and very happy conversation --
though it looks a bit forced -- because, to a man, they are
carrying long weapons out in plain sight. One of them has a hunting
rifle, and each of the others is slinging a rudimentary-looking gun
with a banana clip sticking out the side.
This scene, not surprisingly, has caught the attention of the
police, who have surrounded these four with squad cars, and who are
standing at the ready with rifles and shotguns. It is an oddity of
the law in many jurisdictions that, while carrying (say) a
concealed one-shot .22 derringer requires a license, openly
carrying (e.g.) a big game rifle is perfectly legal. Concealed
weapons are outlawed or at least heavily regulated, and unconcealed
ones are not. So a lot of Secret Admirers -- who tend to be gun
nuts -- have taken to going around conspicuously armed as a way of
pointing out the absurdity of those rules. Their point is this: who
gives a shit about concealed weapons anyway, since they are only
useful for defending oneself against assaults by petty criminals,
which almost never happens? The real reason the Constitution
provides for the right to bear arms is defending oneself against
oppressive governments, and when it comes to that, your handgun is
close to useless. So (according to these guys) if you are going to
assert your right to keep and bear arms you should do it openly by
packing something really big.
Folks, in "Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign" world of the
Socialistic Left'
Just die already, Baby Boomer.
Get in the box! Get in the fucking box!!! Nobody gives a crap who
you hated on campus in 1970!
I also have to wonder aloud how an investigation can conclude an
officer did nothing wrong when an individual was apprehended for
something that is not a crime.
If this officer went around pulling his gun on people playing
frisbee in the park, and demanding that they put their hands up and
consent to search and detention, because he was under the
misapprehension that frisbees were illegal, would an investigation
find that he did nothing wrong?
Get in the box! Get in the fucking box!!! Nobody gives a
crap who you hated on campus in 1970!
I sometimes wonder if residual hatred of hippies is part of the
reason why we couldn't get more opposition to the war in Iraq.
Dr. T, that is a very valid question, to which the answer is probably at least partially "yes".
I sometimes wonder if residual hatred of hippies is part of
the reason why we couldn't get more opposition to the war in
Iraq.
Jonah Goldberg came out an admitted that his support for invading
Iraq was based on this.
It is also, beyond any reasonable doubt, the reason pot hasn't been
legalized.
I sometimes wonder if residual hatred of hippies is part of
the reason why we couldn't get more opposition to the war in
Iraq.
Probably has more to do with the vast majority of Americans
disagreeing with you (no matter what rigged questions are used in
the polls that you like) than anything else.
An individual has no right to come onto Warren's property
without Warren's permission. He may condition that permission
however he darn well pleases.
Unless he's smoking a cigarette...
*ducks*
Mmm.
Maybe those polls were all taken in the "Sign Sign Eveywhere a
Sign" world of the Socialist Left.
Guy-line Keal doesn't know a single person who opposed the Iraq
War.
When I moved from Iowa to Phoenix, it was a moderate shock the
first time I went to a grocery store and saw a guy with a big
pistol on his hip reaching into the cooler for a gallon of milk.
But I got used to it very quickly.
Open carry doesn't bother me in the slightest, cause I can see the
doofus and avoid him. With concealed carry, I am dependent on the
state to verify that I should be able to trust a stranger to have a
gun that I don't know about.
joe,
But your property rights do not supersede the rights of an
individual coming onto your property.
An individual has no right to come onto Warren's property without
Warren's permission. He may condition that permission however he
darn well pleases.
Sort of...property rights are not the most basic right. They are
derived from the right to life and liberty.
John West,
First, most criminals are lazy cowards...
Your point is tangential to my point, but supports the idea that
the best way to deter them is to carry openly.
No, CCW rights do not supercede property rights.
I never claimed so.
In fact, you would need to build a case for me that there is a
"right to concealed carry" (not that it couldn't be done) before we
could begin discussing whether the property rights of the homeowner
take precedent over the property rights of the gun owner (which is
what the right to carry is predicated upon whether you carry
concealed or openly).
It is a political error to make every issue about "rights" rather
than a discussion of the best policy.
joe-
So maybe the best campaign for sane drug policy would involve
somebody beating up a hippie while advocating for sane
policy.
OK, so the beating might not be exactly sane, but isn't that sort
of the point? Only Nixon can go to China, only somebody who's
insane in the membrane can advocate for sane policy, etc.
OK, maybe "insane in the membrane" brings its own credibility
problems on this issue. Hmm...
In otherwords folks, does Warren have a right to KNOW whether or
not I have a gun when I am on his property?
And before anyone gets worked up into a lather.
My position is that open carry is the best practice for
deterrence...I am not taking a position on whether or not you have
a right to hide your weapon.
I am not proposing a law.
I am not proposing repeal of a law.
OK, maybe "insane in the membrane" brings its own
credibility problems on this issue. Hmm...
Just have Cypress Hill beating up the hippie while advocating for
sane drug policy and it'll be fine.
I don't know...did you ever see one of those ads that are so
funny you can't remember what the product is?
But your suggestion does raise the question: is that guy from the
Young Ones still alive?
My position is that open carry is the best practice for
deterrence
At the micro-level (that is, deterring attacks near the guy with
the gun), probably true.
At a societal level, probably not. Concealed carry makes attacking
someone a potentially catastrophic risk, one that you have no way
of managing if you don't know who is carrying. Unmanageable
catastrophic risks tend to make people very risk averse, and hence
less likely to attack anyone.
joe,
An individual has no right to come onto Warren's property
without Warren's permission. He may condition that permission
however he darn well pleases.
What does this mean for the civil rights act? I am thinking title
II.
Kinnath- "Open carry doesn't bother me in the slightest, cause I
can see the doofus and avoid him. With concealed carry, I am
dependent on the state to verify that I should be able to trust a
stranger to have a gun that I don't know about."
Would he still be a doofus if some strange shit went down and he
saved your puss ass? Then you say your trusting of the STATE to
verify that a CCW holder is ok to be a CCW permit holder. This is
the same state that had employees not familiar with their own laws.
Yet this would make you feel safer?
Here in Louisiana we can open carry w/o a permit and concealed
carry w/permit. Regardless of whether my gun is inside my pants or
hanging off my belt so long as you don't do anything to myself or
anyone around me you are just as safe either way.
To all of you against gun rights and self defense first I say get
fucked. Second I can only hope that if the shit hits the fan the
lunatic with the gun shoots at you first so I have more time to
draw my weapon and defend myself. Why should I care if you get
gunned down anyway, when you didn't seem to care to begin with!
If this officer went around pulling his gun on people playing
frisbee in the park, and demanding that they put their hands up and
consent to search and detention, because he was under the
misapprehension that frisbees were illegal, would an investigation
find that he did nothing wrong?
Probably. In fact, I can think of very few circumstances where an
investigation would find the pigs every do anything wrong...except
maybe ticketing a clout heavy official?
RC Dean
Crime happens at the micro-level.
Attacking someone is always a potentially catastrophic risk.
Those who engage in the activity are risk takers in that
regard.
They think that they can manage that catastrophic risk, but may
think twice if they see the gun.
N.M., Taktix,
Places of public accommodation, of course, introduce a complicating
factor.
I agree with Dee.
If you aren't so consumed by the fear of violent death lurking
around every corner that you feel the need to carry a gun wherever
you go, it's because you are a puss.
Real men, who are brave, are convinced that the only thing between
them and certain, violent death is the continual posession of a
firearm.
For a visual example of what may happen to you in Ohio if you
carry a firearm lawfully, just watch the video of the arrest of Dan
Sayers in Oregon, OH:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LoXiZO6G6g
Would he still be a doofus if some strange shit went down
and he saved your puss ass?
The only story I saw during the 7 years I lived in Az where a
civilian used a hand gun during a robbery of a business, the good
citizen shot and killed an innocent bystander.
Then you say your trusting of the STATE to verify that a CCW
holder is ok to be a CCW permit holder. This is the same state that
had employees not familiar with their own laws. Yet this would make
you feel safer?
You misread my post. I implied that CCW as a problem, because I
could not, in fact, trust the state to correctly verify that the
individual applying for a permit was truly trustworthy.
I have no problem with open carry. I have mixed emotions about
concealed carry.
So is there like a service that links random websites whenever they mention a particular item, sort of like a Digg for single-issue crazies? Is that how Dee got here?
The most disturbing part of that story was the quotes by the CPD sergeant at the end.
Chris Potter nailed it. For us, ignorance would not spare us from a prosecution and conviction. For a police officer, ignorance spares him from even the minutest consequences of a false arrest.
If you aren't so consumed by the fear of violent death
lurking around every corner that you feel the need to carry a gun
wherever you go, it's because you are a puss.
I dunno, joe. Ted "consumed by fear" Turner made a pretty
convincing case for the need to carry guns around in the near
future.
Turner: Global Warming Will Cause Mass Cannibalism
The smart money's on Ted just finished reading McCarthy's The
Road. (Which, btw, is coming to a theater near you.)
Matt Welch 09/17/2001 08:12 PM
"The biggest question facing Americans and other decent people is
how the civilized world and its strongest country should respond to
this mass murder. I, for one, advocate a Global War to abolish
terrorism."
It is good to see Welch crap on McCain, but the people I trust to
think about foreign policy had a slightly different reaction to
9/11.
GG,
In a world of mass cannibalism will it be legal for women to sell
their eggs for food?
"some unwanted attention from police officers":
Yeah, the training on this is pretty bad. Maybe there should be
laws against harassing gun owners. Perhaps even a constitutional
amendment...
GG,
My favorite is Dr. James Lovelock:
China Secretly Preparing To Move To Africa
"So I think the Chinese will go to Africa. They are already there,
preparing a new continent - the Chinese industrialists who claim to
be out there mining minerals are just there on a pretext of
preparing for the big move. "
It's the good people at Rand McNally who will suffer the most.
Gimme an order of ovaries over easy, a side order of long pig bacon, and one of those St. Patrick's day Soylent Green shakes.
Yesterday, I was trolling that Africa's problems would go away if we replaced the black people with white or yellow people. Great to see that plan is already in the works.
The only story I remember from the 7 years
I lived in Az where a civilian used a hand gun during a robbery of
a business, the good citizen shot and killed an innocent
bystander.
FYP.
Besides, this is a pretty weak argument anyway: your reading about
them or not has zero impact on or correlation with the frequency of
defensive uses of a firearm. They occur, and are
well-documented.
Citizen Nothing - joe shouted out to "The Young Ones" is
actually "Rik". Notice how he always jumps in on poetry day?
Just kidding, joe. Maybe this will
make up for it.
As far as having a non-hippie spokesperson for NORML, that would be
a good idea. I always thought Kevin Zeese was pretty square
looking, but
R. Lee Ermey would be even better, especially if he appeared on
ORLY.
Attacking someone is always a potentially catastrophic
risk.
Not if you are sure no one who can intervene is carrying, and you
are bigger/stronger than your victim.
They think that they can manage that catastrophic risk, but may
think twice if they see the gun.
If they know they can see any gun that is likely to be used to
intervene, they "manage" the risk by choosing a different
victim.
If they know they can't see any gun that is likely to be used to
intervene, they just might manage the risk by picking a different
line of work.
Real men, who are brave, are convinced that the only thing
between them and certain, violent death is the continual posession
of a firearm.
Some of us think we have personal responsibility for our own
safety, and some responsibility for the safety of others. Some of
us would not like to be caught in a situation where we cannot meet
our responsibilities because we are unarmed.
Others prefer to trust in the minions of the State.
RCD,
You know, you are arguing with people whose objections amount to
fashion disagreements, don't you?
Dear square, please follow the thread.
I responded to Dee's rant:
"Would he still be a doofus if some strange shit went down and he
saved your puss ass?"
There are lots of people walking around Az with handguns in plain
sight. I have no problem with this. In fact, I do believe that
those people have some marginal improvement in their personal
safety.
However, there was only one case in the seven years (that I
remember) where one armed citizen intervened into the robbery of
business by a third party.
In that case, a jackass followed the criminal into the street and
emptied a clip at a fleeing vehicle. Net result, one dead citizen
on the street with no connection to the business.
I believe that every individual has a right to carry for personal
protection. I even buy the concept that concealed carry reduces
overall crime rates for the reasons indicated above.
But when it comes down to an average citizen carrying a gun and
coming to my resuce, it's just a coin toss.
Oh, please, RC.
Do you walk around with a heart defibrillator? Heart attacks are
several hundred times more common than violent crime.
Bandages? Splints? Anti-septics? No?
No. You sit around and wait for the minions of the state in those
threats to personal safety.
It's only the very rare threat posed by violent crime that
motivates your wonderful, self-reliant, individualist
altruism.
But Lord knows this has nothing to do with an irrational estimation
of threat levels.
In addition to avoiding hassles from police officers who are ignorant of the law, concealed carry offers the advantages of not alarming passers-by and of keeping criminals uncertain about who is packing. The latter feature means that even the unarmed can benefit from the potential deterrent effect.
Hey expecting cops, government employees or liberals to understand
the positive externality argument here is asking a Hell of a lot.
Might as well ask them to fly to the moon by flapping thier
arms.
"""Attacking someone is always a potentially catastrophic
risk.
Those who engage in the activity are risk takers in that
regard.
They think that they can manage that catastrophic risk, but may
think twice if they see the gun."""
I agree, and to manage their risk accordingly, they will go find
someone not wearing a firearm.
Just admit that you carry a gun because you think they're kewl.
Nothing wrong with that.
Spare us the Rambo fantasies about how would been all, like, Ka-POW
if you were on the Virginia Tech campus.
Fashion accessory is right. Like the guy who drives a Hummer from
the subdivision to the office park, then pats himself on the back
for being self-reliant and ready to help strangers.
Dude likes his Hummer, and the rest is just bullcrap.
joe feel manly by implying that others feel manly for carrying a
gun.
I guess joe is just extrapolating from his own feeling of manliness
through external action.
It's funny; there was exactly one post proclaiming superior
manliness on this thread; it was from a conservative.
Nothing from Episiarch.
Then, when I mock him for it, Episiarch is suddenly so concerned
about people posing as manly-men in the comment threads that
he...take a shot at me for mocking somebody for posing as a
manly-man in the comment threads.
Same as it ever was.
Second, Colorado and Louisiana (the only two states I have
studied, allow any property owner (residential or business) to post
signs that state that guns are not allowed and any law abiding CCW
permit holder is NOT allowed to carry in that property.
Same in Texas, with the unintentionally funny Penal Code Section
30.06
Check out Open Carry forum for
more stories of legal open carry silliness
"""But when it comes down to an average citizen carrying a gun
and coming to my resuce, it's just a coin toss."""
True, the same could be said about calling the cops. If the cop is
a better shot than your neighbor is a coin toss.
"""In that case, a jackass followed the criminal into the street
and emptied a clip at a fleeing vehicle. Net result, one dead
citizen on the street with no connection to the business."""
Jackass indeed. Citizens should follow deadly force rules. When the
guy was fleeing, the jackass was no longer in danger. Some states,
and cities do not allow their officers to fire while merely in
pursuit. In NYC the NYPD is not allowed to fire into a fleeing car,
but tell that to Sean Bell.
R C Dean | April 2, 2008, 3:33pm | #
I said: Attacking someone is always a potentially catastrophic
risk.
RC D: Not if you are sure no one who can intervene is carrying,
and you are bigger/stronger than your victim.
Jens Pulver is on line two for RC Dean.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1550225677/reasonmagazineA/
I have known many dangerous individuals that do not appear
dangerous. Some would snatch your gun and beat you senseless with
it if you drew on them. That risk is always there.
I said: They think that they can manage that catastrophic risk, but
may think twice if they see the gun.
RC D: If they know they can see any gun that is likely to be
used to intervene, they "manage" the risk by choosing a different
victim.
Exactly why I advocate open carry.
They will also choose not to attack is someone in the vicinity has
a gun. The deterrent shield of open-carry protects non-carriers
more effectively than the imagined pixie dust shield of concealed
carry.
If they know they can't see any gun that is likely to be used
to intervene, they just might manage the risk by picking a
different line of work.
Concealed carry laws, turning bad guys into good since 1993...that
one made me laugh outloud.
take a shot at me for mocking somebody for posing as a
manly-man in the comment threads
joe, just proclaim victory now, and make some comments using
"pwned", and you will have shown conclusively, to everyone, that
you mocking someone for posing as a manly-man/tuff gai isn't
ironic. Really.
Jackass indeed. Citizens should follow deadly force rules.
When the guy was fleeing, the jackass was no longer in
danger.
Said jackass was convicted and sentenced. Didn't go over well with
the general community.
Repeat after me...
Criminals respond to obvious signals, not subtle ones.
The "this car insured by Smith and Wesson" or "beware of dog"
effect on crime is well studied and well understood.
If I am a risk taker willing to risk jail or death by cop, I will
choose the less risky behavior, not the no-risk behavior.
If I am ballsy enough to use violence to get your wallet, and I
don't see a gun, I will risk the attack.
Here's some logic for you to try on.
A criminal who is used to pulling the gun and demanding the wallet
learns of the concealed carry law. Now he shoots first just in case
you have a gun he can't see.
AnonCowHerd,
Virginia allows that too. Not sure about Tennessee, but that might
be another one.
True, the same could be said about calling the cops. If the
cop is a better shot than your neighbor is a coin toss.
It is a rare case when the cops are actually present when the
criminal is brandishing a weapon at you. The cops are normally
there to clean up the mess afterwards.
Risk management for muggers.
In open carry state, look for the gun, choose the victim without
one.
In concealed carry states, use extreme force to incapacitate your
victim in case they have a hidden gun.
In concealed carry states, use extreme force to incapacitate
your victim in case they have a hidden gun.
Ah, so that is why I can't turn on the news in VA or TN without
endless coverage of people being beaten silly for $10 and if they
had a gun it was stolen! Maybe they need to add another half hour
to the local news to cover all the ones we don't hear about.
Same as it ever was.
joe must be listening to the Talking Heads today.
And you may ask yourself
How do I work this?
And you may ask yourself
Where is that large automobile?
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful house!
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful wife!
Word to gun haters: Hate is not a family value, unless you are in the Manson family.
Guy,
I didn't say that was how it worked out.
I was just providing the equivalently poor logic to counter the
pixie dust concealed carry is a deterrent argument.
Most studies of the issue seem to show no detectable impact on
crime...one way or the other. Similar to the gun control issue, the
overly simplified models don't pan out when the rubber hits the
road.
Ah, so that is why I can't turn on the news in VA or TN
without endless coverage of people being beaten silly for $10 and
if they had a gun it was stolen!
That cuts both ways. We're not innundated with stories about
widespread crime in states with strict gun laws, either.
The people talking about how we need to DO SOMETHING about gun laws
- on both sides - or the scary bad men with guns will surely
slaughter us all are either vastly overestimating the scope of the
problem they're proposing to solve, or scaremongering.
I've seen the estimate that, in concealed carry states, 1% of
the adult population will be walking around legally armed.
So, someone who sticks guns in people's faces and takes their
wallets so he can buy meth sees a man walking down a dark alley,
and he's supposed to be worrying about a 1% chance?
I don't think we're talking about rational actors here. We're
talking about muggers.
The reason the CCW laws have no deterrent effect is that the
crime rate is an aggregate of millions of interactions, each
embedded in a context that determines the logic of that
interaction.
Think of it as the invisible hand working a second job to save up
for that boat.
We're not innundated with stories about widespread crime in
states with strict gun laws, either.
I guess those stories of crime in DC, NYC, etc. are just collective
hallucinations.
Abdul wrote: "But am I the only person here who finds people who
insist upon open-carry when there's no self-evident reason for it
just a little bit weird?"
Well, Abdul, if you will tell me where I'm going to need my pistol
ahead of time, I'll only wear it when I go there. Maybe I WON'T go
there in the first place. If you can't tell me that, then what I
think is a "little bit weird" is people criticizing my choice to be
ready to defend myself.
Neu Mejican wrote: "does Warren have a right to KNOW whether or not
I have a gun when I am on his property?"
OF COURSE. It is HIS property, and he has the right to decide who
can and can't go there. He has decided that people carrying
concealed can't go there. While I can hope that he will seek
professional treatment for his hoplophobia, he is perfectly within
his rights to be hoplophobic.
joe wrote: "Heart attacks are several hundred times more common
than violent crime."
WHERE? I'll move there! According to the FBI, you are more likely
to be victim of a violent crime than be hospitalized for any
non-crime-related reason.
TrickyVic wrote: "If the cop is a better shot than your neighbor is
a coin toss."
Nope. NYPD brags that, in street shootings, their cops hit the
target 16% of the time. Non-police civilians have a hit rate of
52%. That's because people who pay to have a gun tend to practice
with it, while cops only have to shoot well enough to qualify
periodically at the range.
In a vain effort to get in the last post: remember, the
concealed/open carry pistol is only their to get you to your car
where you will have a belt-fed weapon FTW!
NEPUTs beware!
joe,
he's supposed to be worrying about a 1% chance?
I don't think we're talking about rational actors here. We're
talking about muggers.
Actually, a rational mugger would consider that 1% chance
rationally and conclude that he has a 99% chance of picking a
victim without a gun if he can't see the gun.
If he can see your gun he has a 0% chance.
J Golden Rockwell,
So if Warren has right to know that I a gun to help him exercise
his property rights, does he have a right to know that I have a gun
so that he can exercise his association rights?
I guess those stories of crime in DC, NYC, etc. are just
collective hallucinations.
Yes, Scooby, just like the stories about crime in St. Louis, New
Orleans, and Houston. NEXT!
According to the FBI, you are more likely to be victim of a
violent crime than be hospitalized for any non-crime-related
reason.
Link, please? Last year, there were over 300,000 deaths attributed
just to smoking-related illnesses, and approximately 30,000
homicides with guns.
As for the cause of injury/hospitalization being primarily
crime...that's just crazy talk.
Here is an older survey.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5307a1.htm
The distributions of mechanisms for unintentional and
violence-related injuries varied substantially by age group. For
unintentional injury deaths, mechanisms with the highest rates were
the MV-traffic occupant (26%), drowning (fatal and nonfatal) (17%),
suffocation/inhalation (14%), and pedestrian (12%) categories for
persons aged 65 years (Figure 16) (Tables 8 and 9). For nonfatal
unintentional injury, mechanisms with the highest rates were the
fall (36%) and struck by/against (22%) categories for persons aged
65 years (Figure 16) (Table 8 and 9).
For fatal assault-related injuries, the leading mechanisms of
injury for all age groups were the firearm gunshot (11,671),
terrorism (2,922), cut/pierce (1,971), suffocation/inhalation
(690), and struck by/against (341) categories (Tables 6 and 7).
Firearm gunshot injuries accounted for 80% of homicides among
persons aged 15--24 years (Figure 17) (Tables 10 and 11). The
leading mechanisms of nonfatal assault-related injury across all
age groups were the struck by/against (1,476,961) and cut/pierce
(138,839) categories (Tables 6 and 7). For suicide, the leading
mechanism of injury for all age groups was the firearm gunshot
(16,869) category, followed by the suffocation/inhalation (6,198)
and poisoning (5,191) categories (Tables 6 and 7); however,
suffocation/inhalation suicides (169) superseded firearm suicides
(90) for those persons aged 45 years (Figure 18) (Tables 10 and
11). Poisoning (215,814) and cutting/piercing (62,817) were the
leading mechanisms of injury for nonfatal self-harm--related
injuries (Tables 6 and 7).
From the same link:
Unintentional injury accounted for a majority of fatal (64.6%
overall) and nonfatal (92.7% overall) injuries across all age
groups; however, the percentage of violence-related fatal and
nonfatal injuries varied by age.
Notice that this was from 2004 looking at 2001 figures, which
include 9/11.
Have we (as a nation) lost the real reason for the right and
"privilege" to openly carry a weapon? I understand that reason for
the 2nd Amendment was because royalty and those in their employ
were the only persons allowed to be armed. People should be
encouraged to openly carry a weapon as a symbol of freedom.
/Han Solo & Malcom 'Mal' Reynolds agrees.
Neu Mejican wrote: "So if Warren has right to know that I a gun
to help him exercise his property rights, does he have a right to
know that I have a gun so that he can exercise his association
rights?"
Warren has the right to do a body-cavity search of anyone coming
onto his property, if he so chooses (and in fact, there are places
such as jewelry clearinghouses where anyone leaving might be given
such a search or even X-rayed). By the same token, you can choose
not to go there (which is the choice that I would probably
make).
J Golden Rockwell,
That was a dodge.
I was asking about association rights.
J Golden,
A dodge, because the question was premised on the fact that Warren
has the right to know if I have a gun to exercise his property
rights.
Laws against concealed carry are about convenience for law
enforcement and those wanting to enforce their property
rights.
No?
I don't understand all of the gun haters. I carry a gun on
occasion, and I don't go around in constant fear of being
assaulted.
Are you in constant fear of having a wreck when you put on your
seatbelt? No. They are both safety features that we hope we never
have to use.
Just relax, these good samaritans are doing us a favor. I wish one
had been there at Virgina Tech.
Remember, when seconds count, police are only minuets away.
Quoth joe: "Link, please? Last year, there were over 300,000
deaths attributed just to smoking-related illnesses, and
approximately 30,000 homicides with guns."
Actually, that's ~30,000 gun deaths; homicide, suicide,
and accidental, with suicide making up ~16,000 (over half). It is
also rather disingenuous of you to pretend that violent crime is
rare by poiting only to homicides.
According to
the BJS, in 2005, there were "5.2 million violent crimes (rapes
or sexual assaults, robberies, aggravated assaults and simple
assaults)." Note that homicide isn't included in that, though with
16,692
recorded homicides in 2005, it doesn't greatly affect the total
number of violent crimes.
By comparison, "in the United States,
approximately 1.5 million myocardial infarctions occur
annually."
So that's 5.2 million violent crimes to 1.5 million heart
attacks.
Do you walk around with a heart defibrillator? Heart attacks
are several hundred times more common than violent
crime.
Nope. They're still a little too pricey, plus being useless for
anything but treating heart attacks. Instead, I learned CPR.
Bandages? Splints? Anti-septics? No?
Walk around with? No. Carry in both cars? Yes. Is that close enough
for you, or am I supposed to take a trauma bag with me wherever I
go?
No. You sit around and wait for the minions of the state in
those threats to personal safety.
It's only the very rare threat posed by violent crime that
motivates your wonderful, self-reliant, individualist
altruism.
I also don't pay for a wrecker to follow me around just in case I
have a car accident, which is statistically more likely than either
a violent crime or a heart attack. I'm not entirely sure what your
point is, other than that you have a different risk assessment and
how to respond to it than some of us here.
NM, you are giving stats on injuries, not crime or
hospitalization.
FBI UCR: You have a 1.94% chance of having been victim of a
reported violent crime in 2005. Many violent crimes go unreported
for various reasons, but these can't be estimated so aren't
counted.
HHS ROH: You have a 1.91 chance of having been hospitalized in 2005
for treatment not related to crime. This figure is corrected for
the number of patients who are hospitalized more than one time,
transferred between facilities, or whose status is changed (each an
event resulting in a statistical "discharge"). Adding those people
back in gives you a 13% chance of hospitalization.
Do you walk around with a heart defibrillator? Heart attacks
are several hundred times more common than violent crime.
Bandages? Splints? Anti-septics? No?
No. You sit around and wait for the minions of the state in those
threats to personal safety.
joe, where I live there are no state-owned hospitals or ambulances
or state-employed physicians.
I have a cabinet full of first aid supplies, and a fairly serious
first aid kit in my vehicle. My (private) employer has
defibrillators scattered around (not to mention a full-blown ER,
several surgery suites, and a building full of doctors).
I provide for my own emergency medical care as best I can, and am
reliant on the private sector for the rest.
So I really don't see your point.
In concealed carry states, use extreme force to incapacitate
your victim in case they have a hidden gun.
Given the prevalence of CCW statutes these days, you'd think there
would be some data for this theory.
The bottom line is that I can think that I might need my pistol
today, and be wrong every day for the next 40 years.
Someone who thinks that he or she WON'T need a pistol today can
only be wrong ONCE.
Oops, correction to my earlier post: in 2005, there were 11,346 homicides committed with firearms.
So, someone who sticks guns in people's faces and takes their wallets so he can buy meth sees a man walking down a dark alley, and he's supposed to be worrying about a 1% chance?
I don't think we're talking about rational actors here. We're talking about muggers.
So they aren't rational becaue you think they aren't joe?
They may not have the same frame of reference when determining a
course of action that doesn't make them irrational or non-rational.
After all, they are doing something rational for getting the money
necessary for their drug habit quickly (mugging others).
And it isn't the simple probability that is the question but the
expected loss that is important. If the loss is very high,
and the probability small a person might still decide not to engage
in non-risky behavior.
J Golden,
NM, you are giving stats on injuries, not crime or
hospitalization.
Yes I was giving stats on injuries.
That seems to me like the more important metric.
Those guns are supposed to be protecting you from something.
RC Dean,
Given the prevalence of CCW statutes these days, you'd think
there would be some data for this theory.
It is a deliberately ridiculous theory that is exactly parallel to
yours regarding CCW's positive effect on crime.
There is data on that...results-no significant impact.
An interesting essay on the topic.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=john_donohue
I don't see why there should be a legal distinction between concealed and open carry. Both should be legal (although it should also be legal for property owners to ban people with guns from their businesses).
Jurjen S.
The word "homicide" is inclusive of murder, suicide, and
unintentional homicide (eg, some accidents).
So that's 5.2 million violent crimes to 1.5 million heart
attacks. That's nice, but the issue on the table is "guns
violence," not "violent crimes."
Also, see the figures provided by Neu Mejican.
T,
I'm not entirely sure what your point is, other than that you
have a different risk assessment and how to respond to it than some
of us here. Actually, that's exactly my point. Contrary to the
manly-man chest-beating of some, the choice to carry a gun is far
more a consequence of a warped risk assessment and an affection for
guns.
RC,
joe, where I live there are no state-owned hospitals or
ambulances or state-employed physicians. The gun-toting
equivalent would be those who live in extremely remote areas where
the police are not able to respond. I agree, such circumstances
change the equation considerably.
And just because we are playing with the statistics on
this...
1.94% chance of having been victim of a reported violent crime
in 2005.
Why are we looking at an annual rate rather than a lifetime
rate?
What are the chances that you will be hospitalized in your lifetime
for a non-crime related reason compared to the chances you will be
the victim of a violent crime?
I would think that to count as a victim of a violent crime,
violence would have to occur...otherwise you were the victim of a
potentially violent crime.
"Contrary to the manly-man chest-beating of some, the choice to
carry a gun is far more a consequence of a warped risk assessment
and an affection for guns."
I don't know about chest beating, sounds masochistic and I'm not
into that, but guns are just another tool. I don't think anyone who
has done a significant amount of carry has affection for it. That
hard chunk of steel do chafe a bit.
Warped risk assessment? Sounds like a value judgment to me. House
fires are damn rare, but I bet you have fire insurance. Is your
life worth as much as your house?
That being said, I only carry when I'm going to be far from the
"minions of state". I do weigh the risk of scaring someone with an
inadvertent reveal (low), vs. the risk of trouble (really low,
considering where I live).
One down side of spending the effort to get licensed and proficient
is knowing how pissed you'll be if you one day needed to have gun
in hand, and the only reason you didn't was apathy.
"You have a 1.94% chance of having been victim of a reported
violent crime in 2005."
Is that number also corrected for people who are victims of
multiple crimes and other possible repeated counts of single
incidents (for whatever reason), similar to the HHS correction? I
imagine there's a pretty long tail on that distribution. If it's
not, it seems like 1.94% vs. 13% is the more relevant
comparison.
I thought "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Or does that only
apply to those of us not in law enforcement (pun
intended)?
Of course it only applies to them. This protects them from being
knowledgeable of the very obvious fact that civilians actually
have rights.
Contrary to the manly-man chest-beating of some, the choice
to carry a gun is far more a consequence of a warped risk
assessment and an affection for guns.
Irrelevant. The choice of carrying a gun is your business if you
want to carry one, and my business ALONE if I want to carry one.
The important issue is to avoid trampling over other people's
rights.
Please, do not invoke the woefully UNprincipled "precautionary
principle", which is a logical fallacy in itself.
That cuts both ways. We're not inundated with stories about
widespread crime in states with strict gun laws, either.
Right.... D.C. being whisked out of existence by an unnatural
force....
There were a lot of comments splitting hairs on the anti-gun
side but (unless I missed something) no one refutes that carrying a
firearm deters crime.
Whether CC laws quantifiably reduce reported crime
rates is meaningless and irrelevant.
kinnath - I live in AZ, and when I was up in Phoenix I personally knew a store owner who avoided being robbed by a man with a gun by brandishing his own sidearm that he carried with him, so just because you can only remember the one story you read about private citizens defending themselves with a firearm is completely worthless. I believe it is documented that "the media" under-reports a lot of instances of self-defence with a firearm.
...the choice to carry a gun is far more a consequence of a
warped risk assessment and an affection for guns./
Your viewpoint, joe, which I think is wrong. And I do not, at this
time, even own a gun, although I have in the past and have
open-carried in the past, quite frequently. FWIW, I was usually in
a fairly rural area, if not downright wilderness.
That being said, I do plan to get my CCW and a new sidearm as soon
as reasonably possible.
Anyway, my only point is that I think you are "projecting" some
assumptions onto people which I do not think are fair or
accurate.
But your property rights do not supersede the rights of an individual coming onto your property.
Just putting out ideas for discussion.
Could you elaborate on why you think it is stupid.
Silly scenario about how basic rights are not superseded by
property rights.
I have a right to life.
This requires food.
I have food, an apple, but accidentally drop it.
It rolls onto Warren's property, past a sign that says "NO
TRESPASSING."
Do I have a right to go onto his property to retrieve my apple,
even if he says no?
Does my basic right to food (or my property, for that matter)
balance Warren's right to condition permission to go onto his
property "however he darn well pleases?"
Or is it that "an individual has no right to come onto Warren's
property without Warren's permission. He may condition that
permission however he darn well pleases" meaning that this right
supersedes my right to retrieve my property (an apple)?
Neu Mejican wrote:"Yes I was giving stats on injuries.
"That seems to me like the more important metric."
The problem is that those stats aren't a COMPLETE metric. You don't
have enough pieces to put the puzzle together.
"Why are we looking at an annual rate rather than a lifetime
rate?"
Because nobody has published a lifetime rate for victims of violent
crime. The best we can do is year to year, if we're going to use
real statistics.
Regarding you dropping your apple, no, your right to eat the apple
does not supersede his right to keep you off of his property. If
you throw your apple through the open window of his bedroom, that
doesn't give you the right to enter his house to get it.
Personal right: Abstaining from or Partaking in inhalation of
Tobacco smoke
Property right: Allowing or Prohibiting Smoking in My
Establishment.
If in conflict Property overrides Personal.
Personal Right: To Parley, to Create Numerous Copies of a Written
Word, to Gather with Friends for Dissemination of Ideas.
Property Right: Shut Up and Get Off My Lawn.
If in conflict, Property overrides personal
And per the context of the original comment:
Personal right: Possessing or Declining to Possess a Firearm.
Property right: Allowing, Prohibiting, or Requiring Possession of a
Firearm in my Home or Place of Business
If in conflict, Property overrides Personal
Sparky wrote:
"Is that number also corrected for people who are victims of
multiple crimes and other possible repeated counts of single
incidents (for whatever reason), similar to the HHS
correction?"
Yes. The FBI UCR stats count individuals whose names were on police
reports. Thus, one name might be on several reports, but only
counted as one victim.
Not moral, not something I agree with, and not something I would
do myself if in a position to decide such things, but is currently
illegal and shouldn't be
Personal right: Having Breakfast at Denny's
Property right: Not if your Black.
Has an internal investigation EVER found that a fucking cop did anything wrong?
One more wrote: "Personal right: Having Breakfast at
Denny's
"Property right: Not if your Black."
Actually, it's not a personal right, either. Whatever your color,
you are only able to have breakfast at Denny's if you have enough
money to pay for what you want to eat.
Private property rights override personal rights because one of the
property rights is Exclusion -- you may close off your land to
anyone you don't want there. This keeps people from wandering into
your bedroom while you're having sex.
If it's not to late to jump in on this thread, I would like to point out that many of the open carry laws are on the books to help protect CHL holder in the case that their carry gun were to "print" through clothing or inadvertantly be shown. There are states that would prosecute a CHL holder were they to, say, reach for something on a shelf in a grocery store and raise their jacket over their handgun, frightening the local soccer mom.
This keeps people from wandering into your bedroom while
you're having sex.
Unless you're into that.
Joe, if there is nothing to fear then why do politicians have so
many ARMED GUARDS? Not just a pistol mind you but FULL AUTO
guns?
You can not say where and when you might need to defend yourself
but it is safe to say the cops will not be there at that
moment.
If you don't care to defend yourself thats fine be a lemming. I for
one rather have at least a chance of coming out alive and not
another statistic.
As for letting cops shoot only, I can tell you know nothing of guns
and just because your a cop doesn't mean you can shoot worth a
damn. Many cops refuse to even practice believe it or not. I once
watched a SWAT officer get outshot by a Kindergarden School
Administrator. Now if you had to pick real quick who would take the
shot to save your pathetic ass you would assume SWAT over the
Kindergarden Cop right.
The only thing for sure is that if the event rises and you are
defenseless your fucked. But should you make it your resposibility
to ensure your own safety at all time you might just survive.
Personally people with your outlook on my safety aren't worth using
a bullet to save to begin with since according to you the cops will
be here any second, let them save you!
Quick responses to silly scenarios:
Property right: Allowing, Prohibiting, or Requiring Possession
of a Firearm in my Home or Place of Business
If in conflict, Property overrides Personal
Requiring Possession- Naw.
You can exclude certain behaviors, but requiring them is more
problematic.
Property Right: Shut Up and Get Off My Lawn.
You can demand I get off your lawn.
I don't have to shut up.
your right to eat the apple does not supersede his right to
keep you off of his property. If you throw your apple through the
open window of his bedroom, that doesn't give you the right to
enter his house to get it.
Not equivalent to the scenario I described.
If I retrieve my apple against Warren's wishes, he can sue me for
infringement of his rights. You think he'll win? Nope. He won't
even get it heard. A right that is not recognized by others and
that is not enforceable is not a right.
[steps out of range of the ensuing outrage at that last
sentence]
To elaborate on the enforceable rights concept.
"Shut up and get off my lawn."
You can call the cops.
They can use force to get me off your lawn.
They can't make me shut up.
Personal rights superseding property rights.
You can exclude me from your property.
You can't use force to get me off your property if I am not
endangering you.
My right to be secure in my person supersedes your right to be
secure in your property.
Of course, you can call the cops.
They can use force to remove me and enforce your right to exclude
people from your property.
[this is still, btw, posted in the spirit of discussing the
implications of peoples assertions that property rights are
absolute or nearly so.
I am walking down the street.
I stop to tie my shoes.
I sit on your lawn.
You yell.
Hey you, get the hell off my lawn.
I say...okay.
I continue to tie my shoes.
You yell again.
I say "fuck off- I'll be done in a second."
Do I have the right to my behavior?
Rights means "just or legal claim."
Am I justified in my decision to leave your property after
completing my act?
Are you justified in your decision to yell at me?
Would you be justified in calling the cops?
Would a cop be justified in arresting me if s/he saw the
exchange?
NM,
I dunno about the laws in your jurisdiction. I can only speak to
the laws in mine. If you are on my property after being told to
leave, I am justified in using force to make you move. In other
words, if you don't get off my lawn, I can drag/kick your ass off
it. Likewise, I can call the cops and have you dragged off it, and
charged with criminal trespass. Under the laws of the state of
Texas, these are all just and legal claims. You could try to fight
them, but you'd lose.
T,
I am justified in using force to make you move. In other words,
if you don't get off my lawn, I can drag/kick your ass off it.
Likewise, I can call the cops and have you dragged off it, and
charged with criminal trespass.
You sure about that?
This was the closest summary I could find:
When is a landowner allowed to shoot at a trespasser? According
to Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code, a landowner can shoot at
or use other deadly force against a trespasser if the landowner
reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means, or that the landowner himself would
be exposed to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury if
the landowner does not use deadly force. A landowner can also shoot
at or use other deadly force against a trespasser if the force is
immediately necessary to prevent the trespasser's imminent
commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft
during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
to prevent the trespasser who is fleeing immediately after
committing one of those acts from escaping with the property.
"Criminal mischief" includes "knowingly or intentionally damaging
or destroying, tampering with or marking, inscribing slogans,
drawing or painting on tangible property " of the property
owner.
Using potentially dangerous measures to protect your property is
not recommended in all cases, as it can expose a property owner to
possible physical harm and also criminal prosecution if too much
force is used. However, property owners should be aware of, and
exercise, their right to protect their property under the proper
circumstances.
T:
More complete
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§9.41. Protection of one's own property.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable
property is justified in using force against another when and to
the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's
trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the
property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other
when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property
if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after
the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force,
threat, or fraud against the actor.
I read that as saying you're wrong.
You will, perhaps, disagree.
For what it is worth, it supports my contention that I can go onto Warren's land to retrieve my property whether or not he wants me there.
Okay, you found the penal code. Good on ya.
So in your example, once you tell me to "fuck off" and refuse to
leave my yard, I would reasonably believe force was immediately
necessary to terminate your trespass, since lesser methods (verbal
persuasion) have failed. Additionally, you also became guilty of
criminal trespass.
We obviously differ on the interpretation of the statute. My gut
feel on Texas law is that once I tell you to leave and you don't,
no jury in the state will convict me of assault for trying to get
you to leave. This is the same state where you can shoot teenagers
in the back for trying to vandalize your car and not get
prosecuted. Texas is pretty generous with the defense of self and
property exceptions on a practical level.
For what it is worth, it supports my contention that I can
go onto Warren's land to retrieve my property whether or not he
wants me there.
Urr. I'm not so sure. There's a conflict here with respect to your
rights in your tangible property and Warren's real property rights.
I will have to consult with in-house counsel (aka the wife) and see
what she thinks. I don't see a statutory exception to trespass for
retrieving other tangible property, but that doesn't mean there
isn't relevant case law.
T: It is important to read the whole statement.
"fuck off- I'll be done in a second."
The "I'll be done in a second" clause would make your perception
that immediate force is needed seem pretty unreasonable to me. Even
in Texas I would be surprised in a ruling that said it was
reasonable to assume force was needed.
And that "even in Texas" is coming from a New Mexican. We've not
thought ya'll have a good grasp on property rights since the whole
invasion thing (both times, 1841 & 1861).
;^)
T:
I don't see a statutory exception to trespass for retrieving
other tangible property,
It is right there in the statue I cited.
the force is immediately necessary to ... recover the property
if the actor uses the force immediately
Trespassing is a very low level of force, it seems to me. Recovery
of my property can include more extreme levels of force, so
certainly trespassing is not prohibited here.
Any attempt by you to stop me from recovering my property would be,
in effect, a dispossession of my property. I could not only go onto
your land...I could kick your ass if you used force to try and keep
me from my property.
Your personal right to be secure in your person, however, would
protect you from any force by me as long as you did not use force
against my person.
Your property, however, is not so strongly protected, in this
particular case.
But I don't want you off in a second, I want you gone NOW. It's
not what you believe, it's what I (the actor) reasonably believe.
If you won't leave right goddamned now, I'll by god make you.
I do see your point in that by refusing you access to recover your
accidentally dropped property, I am unlawfully dispossessing you of
the property as long as you are solely trespassing to the minimum
extent required to recover.
And that "even in Texas" is coming from a New Mexican. We've
not thought ya'll have a good grasp on property rights since the
whole invasion thing (both times, 1841 & 1861).
What? Texans aren't universally loved by all? I'm shocked! Our
justifications may be shaky, but we've got the whole force thing
down, dammit. ;)
I'm not a native, so I find the place delightfully absurd
sometimes. Sometimes frightfully, as well...
But I don't want you off in a second, I want you gone NOW.
It's not what you believe, it's what I (the actor) reasonably
believe. If you won't leave right goddamned now, I'll by god make
you.
The reasonableness of your feeling is what matters. And you, the
individual who will have to justify (claim a right) is not the
arbiter of that reasonableness.
If you have a right to ask me to leave.
I have a right to ask me to leave, I have a right to be given just
time to comply.
Immediate is not reasonable, and you don't have a right to demand
it.
Like I said.
Just claim...not just a claim, a justifiable claim.
ooops that is
I have a right to ask me to leave, I have a right
to be given some time to comply.
Let me clarify...that was hopelessly muddled.
It doesn't matter whether you, the property owner, think it is
reasonable. It doesn't matter if I, the trespasser thinks it is
reasonable. When it comes down to deciding who was right (who has
the right, as it were) it is the arbiter's opinion that matters.
This would mean a judge or a jury of our peers. I don't think the
"immediately" claim would hold up for the scenario given. Even in
Texas.
I don't think the "immediately" claim would hold up for the
scenario given. Even in Texas.
After consulting with counsel, who no longer practices so take it
with a grain of salt, you're partially correct. You have to be
given time to comply. However, you have to begin complying
immediately. I have no obligation to care that your shoe is untied.
Once I tell you to get off the property, your next action should be
moving towards the property line. Anything other than that can be
considered a refusal to cease trespass. How it goes in court would
probably depend on the amount of force used.
I suppose I could find out by experiment. I have a constant supply
of teenagers that don't belong to me coming around the house these
days. Lemme wait until one pisses me off and then I'll try it and
get back to you. ;)
T:
Well, I believe that someone arguing the property owner's case
would argue what your counsel says.
How it goes in court would probably depend on the amount of
force used.
I would say it is unlikely you could justify any force greater than
yelling a second time, maybe louder and with more
explicatives.
Physically aggression ain't justified. Even in Texas.
;)
Nice talking with ya.
When I worked in S. Africa in the early 1980s (apartheid was
still in force) it was illegal for citizens to carry openly, but
carrying concealed was perfectly legal. Why should the "bad guys"
be able to know you're armed? IMHO "the right to buy weapons is the
right to be free."
C.F. "The Weapon Shops of Isher"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher
Just remember, "An unarmed man is a subject."
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22An+unarmed+man+is+a+subject.%22
The funny thing is, this newspaper once ignored stories just
like this and argued that since open carry was legal, there was no
need to pass a concealed carry law in Ohio.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5572
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245