Author Topic: Use of a firearm, ie Chatanooga TN  (Read 1709 times)

rednekok

  • Guest
Use of a firearm, ie Chatanooga TN
« on: July 22, 2015, 03:44:14 PM »
My question is purely hypothetical.  If a CCW permit holder had been in the parking lot, sitting in their own car and a person in another car opened fire on the Marines & Sailors in the building, would the permit holder be justified to fire upon the perpetrator?   The permit holder in this scenario is not down range from the perpetrator and the latter is not aware of the permit holder.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest »

TexasLawShield

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 991
    • View Profile
Re: Use of a firearm, ie Chatanooga TN
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2015, 10:38:06 AM »
rednekok,

The laws vary depending on what state you are in. We would like to know what state you are from so we can provide a more accurate answer.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest »

rednekok

  • Guest
Re: Use of a firearm, ie Chatanooga TN
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2015, 11:55:14 AM »
I am in Oklahoma.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest »

TexasLawShield

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 991
    • View Profile
Re: Use of a firearm, ie Chatanooga TN
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2015, 05:00:16 PM »
rednekok,

1.  It is not recommended that anyone, from the perspective of a third party who is not in personal danger of getting killed or grieviously injured, start shooting under the facts of the hypothetical.  Please ignore the soldier/sailor factoid.

2.  Unless the 3d party to the shooting sees people being shot in the drive by shooting, then the 3d party cannot claim he is relying on 21 O.S. section 733, when he uses his gun to shoot someone who for all practical purposes is shooting at a building which might be empty.,

3.  Coming to the aid of a stranger invites all sort of risk that the white knight is helping a victim of a shooting who is not a victim but a particpant in a staged or set up enactment/gag that a third party may crash because of poor information.

4.  According to the facts presented, a shooter does a drive by on a recruiting station, and a witness wants to know if it is okay to shoot the person conducting the drive by.  No, it is not okay until the witness sees people being shot, then it is okay to come to their aid by stopping the murder or attempted murder in progress.

5.  Under the limited facts presented, it is not justifiable homicide to use deadly force to stop a shooter from damaging a building by gunfire.  If the observer can see people in the line of fire, being killed or greviously injured, then the observer could be justified if the shooting is a real event.

6.  The castle doctrine does not help the observer, nor does stand your ground help.  Only section 733 of title 21 justify the actions of the observer.  The observer must see people getting killed or greviously injured before he would be safe in using deadly force to stop the drive by shooting.  21 O.S. section 1289.25 castle doctrine and stand your ground.  A commercial building is not a residence unless it is designed to have sleeping quarters, the observer  is not occupying the commercial building nor is he inside of the building resisting some attempting to come in.  The observer is in a place of personal safety and would be acting as a sniper with a very limited field of view.  The shooter would be shooting out a window or shooting at a building, both dangerous activities.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Guest »