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.
BTW, Harold Fish made so many mistakes in addition to having a terrible lawyer. He was railroaded, but he assisted in the railroading.
It cost him all that jail time plus around a half million dollars and he wasn't breaking any laws when he shot the man in self defense.
We should remember that while we see something in our mind, what we see is going to be different than what each of 12 jurors see, and different from what the prosecutor tells them, and different from what the judge allows them to hear.
The prosecutor isn't interested in justice. S/he is interested in WINNING.
Shoot someone while violating the law (whether the letter or the spirit) and I think one can expect to spend a lot of money defending them selves. And may end up being convicted of murder.
I understand now, just lost touch with the tie in. I agree people need to be trained and respect a no carrying sign but it just sounded like you were assuming that most people are not. Most people I know practice on a regular basis. I've shot a gun my whole life and I'm really old, lol, I just recently started to carry it around in public. I am not going to carry it illegally into a mall which has signs that say you can't but not all do. I will probably just go to places that allow me to carry from now on. The ones that don't won't get my business.
It seems to me you'd like a few more laws regarding guns and training. Arizona has made itself clear on what it requires, but if you think there is more needed then join the plenty who do. I know there are new laws ready for the next ballot regarding the gun laws, you should vote for them, try and get what you'd like. I for one think most people take precautions and train nor would they purposely walk into a place that didn't want guns there. Those few who would won't listen to you anyway and their are the people who disagree and they should work to change it if they want to. But I agree with ya, you should try and get more laws if you really are worried about people and their gun manners. Maybe require anger management class along with a yearly permit or something? IDK, I think there are plenty of groups doing that right now, look em up.
I'm not to worried about it, I think the ones I worry about wouldn't follow any advice or laws any how, that is why I carry a gun around now. I also think 90% of gun owners are not going to blow their stack and most are decent folk only a few are idiots as usual. They usually aren't carrying legally anyway.
But good luck to ya. Didn't mean to use up your thread. Hope we are ok still as well. I like most of your posts.
I don't know all the laws now. I'm still trying to learn and understand them. so I'm not advocating that there be more laws. I just feel that if we carry guns we need to know the laws and also have sufficient training so we can defend ourselves without injuring innocent bystanders.
I am opposed to people skirting the laws and carrying where they are not supposed to carry. If enough people do that, then one day we'll have a shoot out like the ok corral at the local shopping center with all the "good" guys trying to shoot the "bad" guy, and accidentally shooting each other and innocent bystanders at the same time.
I don't carry all the time and have never felt the need to. It's mainly when I'm going to have to go into some vacant homes that I'll carry.
In my opinion, looking for ways to skirt the law is dangerous, and I hope some day it does not come back to haunt you. Defending a law suit is very expensive.
How in the world can you get sued for carrying in a place that doesn't want guns? They ask you to leave and you leave. They can do that whether you're armed or not. You won't even get a trespass cite either way. And to my knowledge, no one in AZ ever has, at least for carrying. How could a lawsuit happen as a result? I'm starting to think some folks here were the types to remind the substitute teacher that she forgot to assign homework.
It cost him all that jail time plus around a half million dollars and he wasn't breaking any laws when he shot the man in self defense.
We should remember that while we see something in our mind, what we see is going to be different than what each of 12 jurors see, and different from what the prosecutor tells them, and different from what the judge allows them to hear.
The prosecutor isn't interested in justice. S/he is interested in WINNING.
Shoot someone while violating the law (whether the letter or the spirit) and I think one can expect to spend a lot of money defending them selves. And may end up being convicted of murder.
I agree with most of this. Not to hijack, but Fish fired warning shots when the dogs rushed him. Warning shots are evidence (in a prosecutor's eyes) that you didn't fear for your life. Otherwise, you'd have shot to kill. I'd have killed those dogs or left my gun holstered. There's no in between and dogs don't stop charging because they see a gun. And besides, they can't tell their side of the story if they survive either. I won't go into the rest other to reiterate that he got railroaded, but he certainly climbed aboard that train.
How in the world can you get sued for carrying in a place that doesn't want guns? They ask you to leave and you leave. They can do that whether you're armed or not. You won't even get a trespass cite either way. And to my knowledge, no one in AZ ever has, at least for carrying. How could a lawsuit happen as a result?...
Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant is that if one carries into a place that prohibits guns, then they are criminally trespassing. (The owner can call the police before asking one to leave, and press charges if they wish. I don't know if it's been done, but I know they can.)
If while illegally carrying, they shoot someone in self defense, then things are complicated because it was illegal to possess a gun in that establishment.
The self defense defense of the shooter could very well get buried under the illegal weapon charge of the prosecutor.
It is a big question: How would the law, a prosecutor, a judge, and a jury, view that incident. I've searched some books because I'm curious, and still don't have that answer. Maybe this weekend I can get some more information.
If I planned to carry in places where guns are not allowed, I would go to a good self defense attorney and pay to get an opinion. But I don't have those plans so I'll save my money.
Well, again, the law and how it really works diverge a little here. The law says you can't be held civilly liable for a justified shoot. Basically, if you're not charged by the prosecutor, the dead guy' family isn't supposed to be able to sue you. But we all know there's no such thing as true immunity from civil liabilty. If the dead guy's family has enough money to hire a good lawyer, they might be able to pursue a lawsuit far enough to hurt you in the wallet. I doubt any lawyer would take such a case on a contingency basis, though. I do know of a case in Pima Co. where the shooter spent some time in jail, was eventually cleared and then still sued was sued by the two people he quite justifiably shot. His homeowner's policy paid the defendents off and they went away.
I think you missed the part about those signs not having the force of law. Got that? It's not a law. You're not breaking the law by ignoring the sign. You're breaking the law if they ask you to leave and you then refuse. But again, I've never heard of that happening and I certainly wouldn't stick around a place that wanted to me leave. It's a non issue, but keep looking for some drama.
Sheesh.....ignoring postings , raising a stink, getting a police escort out, riding open carry to get CA people going!! That sounds like drama to me.
I grew up with guns. Shot my first deer at 11. Still have many guns. For years every half ton up here had a couple rifles in the back window rack but no one I know would never do that today.
...The law says you can't be held civilly liable for a justified shoot. Basically, if you're not charged by the prosecutor, the dead guy' family isn't supposed to be able to sue you....
Rick, I think you're mistaken about not being able to be sued. You may want to check that out further.
Quote:
"Quote from page 40 of this document: One cannot be held liable for a civil wrong (tort) in Arizona if the conduct was justified under the law. (A.R.S. SS 13-413. However, being found legally justified in a criminal case does not protect against a civil suit. Pfeil v. Smith, 183 Ariz. 63, 900 P.2d 12 (App. 1995)"
If a person is illegally carrying a weapon in a prohibited area, then it may be very difficult to defend that a shooting was justified.
Also, any time a shooter fires a weapon, if s/he kills an innocent bystander, then that may be considered "negligent", and that family may sue the shooter.
If a shooter is carrying in a prohibited area and uses a gun in self defense, and accidentally injures or kills an innocent bystander, that shooter may be sued for "negligence" for not controlling the direction of the bullet, and the criminal trespass charge will certainly be pressed by the establishment to protect themselves against a claim that the establishment allowed the shooter to be there illegally with the weapon.
Quote:
If the dead guy's family has enough money to hire a good lawyer, they might be able to pursue a lawsuit far enough to hurt you in the wallet.
And they could win a multi-million dollar law suit and bankrupt the shooter. A civil suit only requires a "preponderance of the evidence". That's much less than "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal trial.
Quote:
...then still sued was sued by the two people he quite justifiably shot. His homeowner's policy paid the defendents off and they went away.
We're talking about carrying a weapon into a store/mall, etc., that prohibits weapons. Homeowners insurance will only pay if the shooting was justified self defense, and if the shooting occurred on the property that was insured.
Most of the time I'll only carry when I'm going into vacant houses.
I have never felt the need to carry a weapon otherwise.
I'm not concerned that I'll end up in a fight with a road rage guy. I will avoid that in the same manner as I have for years. It only takes being respectful of other drivers, and if one does start flipping me off, I ignore it. But it's only happened a couple times in my life.
I don't want to risk accidentally shooting someone
I don't want to risk being sued by someone and being bankrupted by legal fees
I don't want to risk spending the rest of my life in prison.
So I'll keep studying the laws, knowing that I am not capable of interpreting the laws, and that each attorney and judge will interpret the laws differently, and that each of 12 jurors will see the facts differently, I will err on the side of caution.
Also, I'll keep training as long as I do occasionally carry, so in the event I ever have to use the weapon in self defense, I'll hopefully be able to think straight, and shoot straight, and not injure any bystanders.
Going to the range twice a week is a diversion and stress reliever because it requires total concentration; and my accuracy and finger strength in my strong hand arthritic trigger finger is improving.
Then the classes definitely help. I"m looking forward to the MAG 40 class which is a 5-day intense 40 hour class with Massad Ayoob.
Rick, I think the difference between your thinking and mine is this:
I look to learn the laws to be sure that I'm complying with them.
You appear to look to find ways to skirt the laws so you can do what you wish to do.
If I'm correct in my thinking, then I hope it doesn't some day get you into serious trouble.
Rick, I think the difference between your thinking and mine is this:
I look to learn the laws to be sure that I'm complying with them.
You appear to look to find ways to skirt the laws so you can do what you wish to do.
No, I try to find out how the law really works and how every day cops enforce it. How it's written and how it works are two different things. Do you drive exactly the speed limit when the flow of traffic (including cops) is at least 10 mph faster?
Yes, ANYONE can file a lawsuit for ANY reason. And judges and juries ignore the law all the time. However, the law, as you posted, says you can't be held liable for a civil wrong IF the shooting was legally justified. It doesn't say you can't be bankrupted by attempts to sue you. I get that.
I follow this stuff pretty closely and am in regular contact with folks who teach classes and enforce the law. To my knowledge, no one, at least in my four years here, has ever been cited for illegally carrying past a gunbusters sign. And if you get involved in a justified shoot, regardless of where it happens, the "competing harms" clause will come into play.
Even when I worked in DC, there were occasional self-defensive shootings, long before the Heller decision. Cops almost never charged homeowners for that. They sometimes took the gun, but if it was a justified shoot, the homeowner wasn't charged. Not how the law is written, but that's how it works.
... And if you get involved in a justified shoot, regardless of where it happens, the "competing harms" clause will come into play...
.
This is a new one for me. Will you give me the ARS number for "competing harms" so I can learn what that's all about.
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.
But I agree with ya, you should try and get more laws if you really are worried about people and their gun manners. Maybe require anger management class along with a yearly permit or something? IDK, I think there are plenty of groups doing that right now, look em up. 
. I won't go into the rest other to reiterate that he got railroaded, but he certainly climbed aboard that train.
