Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with "tougher rules/regs/reqd. training for CCW holders" is that it can be used to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights. Far too often tragedies committed by criminals are used as an excuse to infringe upon law abiding citizens rights.
So just because this yahoo decides to ignore what is undoubtedly taught as part of her CCW licensing requirements (i.e. you are not a sworn LEO, and not authorized to get involved in anything but defense of life threating situations), does not mean any amount of tougher XYZ will make a difference to some of the brain-dead fools out there.
Fortunately in my state we don't have any training requirements to get your CCW.
Folks can Monday morning quarterback this lady but at least she had the guts to jump in there and take action under extreme pressure.
Yep, if one of her stray rounds had seriously injured someone she'd get to explain to her family why:
a) They just lost their house.
b) She'd be missing the next few Christmas gatherings.
Part 1 is not always true.....some states protect the homestead and usually the only way to lose it is foreclosure or unpaid taxes or HOA dues. FL is one such state which is why OJ moved there after Fred Goldman got that huge judgement against him. Once the house is homesteaded, you can't lose it.
There are plenty of people living in very nice homes and avoiding million dollar judgments in the process!
Funny, just as the other thread, I guess it's this lady must give up her CCW and yet the guy who stopped a robbery doing the exact same thing just a week or so earlier is just dandy?
Not sonething I woukd do but I don't see the issue here. A person tried to stop a criminal. The criminal should not have robbed the store.
One criminal tried stop another criminal.
The whackjob with the gun committed a felony:
Quote:
To use a concealed weapon in Michigan, a CPL holder needs to think that there is an imminent danger of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault, or think there is a similar danger to someone else, said Rick Ector, a firearms trainer who runs Legally Armed Detroit. He added that a gun is “truly a tool of last resort.â€
She's brain-dead if she thought as required by the law. She needs to be charged with a felony and convicted, to she'll no longer be able to legally carry. This isn't a judgment call, this isn't a matter of opinion - her actions were idiotic, and the only people who could possibly think otherwise are those that think Dirty Harry movies are instructional films.
The shoplifter, while a criminal that deserves to be apprehended, charged, and imprisoned, did not endanger anyone. The idiot with the gun did.
Anyone who actually cares about gun rights - yet justifies what this woman did - is as big a fool as she is.
Funny, just as the other thread, I guess it's this lady must give up her CCW and yet the guy who stopped a robbery doing the exact same thing just a week or so earlier is just dandy?
Did people read the OP?
The second guy was threatened by the robber, so he was within his rights. Did you read?
Funny, just as the other thread, I guess it's this lady must give up her CCW and yet the guy who stopped a robbery doing the exact same thing just a week or so earlier is just dandy?
Did people read the OP?
From what I read, the circumstances are different.
Fortunately in my state we don't have any training requirements to get your CCW.
Folks can Monday morning quarterback this lady but at least she had the guts to jump in there and take action under extreme pressure.
Yeah, real hero that one. Shoots at a vehicle with more than one person in it because someone.....stole something. Nope, that person didn't kill someone, didn't rob the place, didn't try to harm her or anyone else. They stole something. And she thought it was a grand idea to take out a gun & start shooting......in a freakin' parking lot.......at a shoplifter. Holy crap, anyone who thinks that's just fine & logical, "What? What's the problem?" is just as moronic as the shooter.
Funny, just as the other thread, I guess it's this lady must give up her CCW and yet the guy who stopped a robbery doing the exact same thing just a week or so earlier is just dandy?
Did people read the OP?
That guy was Threaten and then approached by the Perp during a bank robbery. All Bets are off in that type of situation.
The second guy was threatened by the robber, so he was within his rights. Did you read?
I live in Arizona and the actions of the woman in shooting at the shoplifter would have been illegal under AZ law. The situations where deadly force can be used are very clear under the law and they would not include this situation. Given that it would not be legal to use deadly force, the woman's actions would be contrary to the law and, at a minimum might attract a misconduct with weapons charge.
In the second case, Arizona law is very clear in that you are entitled to use deadly force in self defense or in defense of a third person.
Obviously every state is different but Arizona is not known as being 'anti-gun'.
By the looks of it, the woman has broken Michigan Law .....
SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006
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.
(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
