OC causation of self defense

[jcabin]

Here is the scenario.

Walking down the street OCing and some guy/group of guys decides to just try and tackle you and disarm you. Perhaps they are unarmed, but at this point its multiple people trying to disarm you of your firearm. You break free but you know you can't outrun this young agile thugs, or perhaps you knock them back long enough to draw your firearm. If they keep coming at this point and you shoot one, or two of them, what is likely to happen to you? It's obvious to me this is a true and blue self defense situation and you should not be charged criminally. It's your second amendment right to carry a firearm and you chose to OC it which is legal in your state. Such as the first amendment allows you to speak what you feel in public. Neither of these amendments should be causation for harassment/assault/murder.

However, I could foresee an anti-gun DA saying that OC'ing in the first place alerted the young desperate attackers to the gun and it was basically like waiving a bleeding carcass infront of a bear. That being argued, it is infact, the OC'ers fault for the entire situation.

As I said, an american right is not a reason to be assaulted/murdered but this is what the DA is arguing here.

[axmdr40]

Well then the DA would be a fuggin moron piece of shit.....wouldn't be the first time.

It would be comparable to saying that a gay guy was at fault for his own murder because he wore a rainbow button.

[jcabin]

Well then the DA would be a fuggin moron piece of shit.....wouldn't be the first time.

It would be comparable to saying that a gay guy was at fault for his own murder because he wore a rainbow button.

Well i dont disagree with you.

however, 30-40 years ago, scarily enough in many places of the country even 10 years ago, if a gay man were to get killed because of his choice of attire the courts would probably let it go.

I'm worried in such an uninformed nation that a successful attempt to shit on the 2nd amendment might pass through. EDIT: at a local level.

[TonyF]

It's unlikely any D.A. could successfully argue you were at fault in the scenario you described. He might charge you anyway just for the publicity knowing full well the grand jury will not indict. And even if it did, the judge will dismiss the case.

[mjfletcher]

"Mr. Prosecutor, that ounds alot like saying a rape victim was asking for it because of how she was dressed."

The DAs gonna backpedal like hell while the judge smacks him down because they both know that womens groups will be all over the DA if he doesn't reconsider his position and on the judges ass if he doesn't lay the DA out on the spot. They're both elected and neither of them would in any way shape or form want to be associated with that line of thinking.

[msquaredserver]

This scenario sounds very familiar.... oh right, my derailment of the "Benefits of OC" thread

I have no clue what would come of that situation, but I definitely wouldn't put it past a vehemently anti-gun DA to at least try to turn the incident on you. In my eyes that wouldn't be your fault. But I doubt you'd get a jury of 12 me's.

[5711-Marine]

Take a walk down this street http://preview.tinyurl.com/9tryac


You have an anti mayor, a DA who may file charges. I could see the mayors office spin it in the media that this is a section of Philadelphia living in constant fear of gun violence, so when mr x walked down the street openly carrying a handgun, the residents of this neighborhood took action, confronting mr x...


Just imagine how the Philadelphia news media would run with that story, profiling the "honor student" (who's criminal record is sealed since he is just shy of 18 years old)

[imperialism2024]

If one is visibly carrying a gun, and is attacked by one or more seemingly unarmed individuals, I would make the following assumption: No one knowingly takes fists to a gunfight. Therefore, if you are OCing and attacked, one can reasonably infer that the attacker(s) is either crazy or armed, but concealing.

And your scenario fails to address the events leading up to the attack. One should go to condition orange before the attack begins. It would bolster your case if you attempt to cross the street or otherwise avoid a possible confrontation.



***From now on, I will refer to the suggestions that "you could get railroaded by an anti-gun DA" and "you could get your LTCF revoked by an anti-gun Sheriff" as Lang's Law. By invoking either of these suggestions, you have finally run out of all good arguments against a certain legal behavior and must resort to baseless fear mongering, therefore conceding defeat in the debate.***

[mjfletcher]

If one is visibly carrying a gun, and is attacked by one or more seemingly unarmed individuals, I would make the following assumption: No one knowingly takes fists to a gunfight. Therefore, if you are OCing and attacked, one can reasonably infer that the attacker(s) is either crazy or armed, but concealing.

And your scenario fails to address the events leading up to the attack. One should go to condition orange before the attack begins. It would bolster your case if you attempt to cross the street or otherwise avoid a possible confrontation.



***From now on, I will refer to the suggestions that "you could get railroaded by an anti-gun DA" and "you could get your LTCF revoked by an anti-gun Sheriff" as Lang's Law. By invoking either of these suggestions, you have finally run out of all good arguments against a certain legal behavior and must resort to baseless fear mongering, therefore conceding defeat in the debate.***

If you're trying to pass legislation here, then I second the motion to pass Langs Law.

[headcase]

While I agree with most of the posts so far here, the actual point would be, why did you shoot them? The answer would be, you felt you could not retreat with absolute safety and you absolutely felt that they were going to kill you. This would then meet the threshold for use of deadly force....