new Kansas law: you must shoot attacker or go to prison

[WrestlinganJudo]

I don't know if compassion is the right word.

If there is a serious threat you shoot. If what was a threat suddenly is no longer a threat before you have shot you don't shoot.

 

[Nonsense]

It's not paranoia. I would just like to be able to defend myself in a life or death situation. This kind of crime happens, even if it's very rare that it does. I'm not paranoid all day that I will be attacked, but I'm ready in case it does.

What are you missing here? The law isn't about your right to defend yourself. It is about FORCING everyone to defend themselves in one way.

 

[WrestlinganJudo]

thing is, the article is from 2010 and i've yet to hear of something that ridiculous out of kansas yet. i don't follow kansas politics and have not had one thought of moving there so i could be completely ignorant to those cases through.

I never looked at the date on it. I am not from Kansas but this seems rather odd that a court would do this. Kansas is safer than the average state though KS gives them a bit of trouble.

I wonder if there is anything that happened beyond the article.

 

[ZERO THEORY]

So much retardation so far in this thread.


You guys seem to think that the law is meant to encourage killing or "remove compassion". This is not at all the case. This law was upheld for the same reason many states will charge you for firing warning shots-people were putting their neighbors and family in danger by firing errant shots to "scare away" the attacker. The efficacy of this tactic is hit or miss, at best. More importantly, however, its danger to innocent non-participants is known. So by making the choice binary, citizens are going to have to ensure that they are on-target and completely dialed in to the situation.

The issue is this: the only reason your gun should ever come out is because you absolutely need it. It shouldn't clear the holster unless you are positive that it is the only recourse you have left to protect yourself or another from certain death or severe bodily harm. So if you're in a position where you can just pull it out and don't actually need it as a last line of defense, then it should still be holstered anyway.

This also discourages complacency. A LOT of people seem to think that they are safe merely by owning or carrying a gun. They don't practice nearly enough, and they aren't proficient with the weapon on the move or in an open environment. They shoot 50 rounds into a static paper target at the shooting range once every six weeks and think they can defend themselves in a high-stress situation. This law will likely help ensure that people take their skills a bit more seriously, as they will no longer have the subconscious naivete of thinking they can merely present the weapon or fire off warning shots (into the floor hitting a neighbor downstairs, or into the wall where it travels into the next house while little Johnny does his homework).

[size=+2]THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN'T TAKE NON-LETHAL ACTION TO DEFEND YOURSELF.[/SIZE]

It means that if you're going to utilize a firearm, you should only do so as the last line of defense, assuming you couldn't reasonably run away from the area, use hand-to-hand techniques, or employ a taser/stun gun/pepper spray. Don't draw your weapon unless you need it and intend to use it. Simple.

Also, for the love of God, please don't promote any of that "hit 'em in the leg/arm" bullshit. I can't even be bothered to explain how dangerous and impossible that is.

 

[nixkid]

So much retardation so far in this thread.


You guys seem to think that the law is meant to encourage killing or "remove compassion". This is not at all the case. This law was passed for the same reason many states will charge you for firing warning shots-people were putting their neighbors and family in danger by firing errant shots to "scare away" the attacker. The efficacy of this tactic is hit or miss, at best. More importantly, however, its danger to innocent non-participants is known. So by making the choice binary, citizens are going to have to ensure that they are on-target and completely dialed in to the situation.

The issue is this: the only reason your gun should ever come out is because you absolutely need it. It shouldn't clear the holster unless you are positive that it is the only recourse you have left to protect yourself or another from certain death or severe bodily harm. So if you're in a position where you can just pull it out and don't actually need it as a last line of defense, then it should still be holstered anyway.

This also discourages complacency. A LOT of people seem to think that they are safe merely by owning or carrying a gun. They don't practice nearly enough, and they aren't proficient with the weapon on the move or in an open environment. They shoot 50 rounds into a static paper target at the shooting range once every six weeks and think they can defend themselves in a high-stress situation. This law will likely help ensure that people take their skills a bit more seriously, as they will no longer have the subconscious naivete of thinking they can merely present the weapon or fire off warning shots (into the floor hitting a neighbor downstairs, or into the wall where it travels into the next house while little Johnny does his homework).

[size=+2]THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN'T TAKE NON-LETHAL ACTION TO DEFEND YOURSELF.[/SIZE]

It means that if you're going to utilize a firearm, you should only do so as the last line of defense, assuming you couldn't reasonably run away from the area, use hand-to-hand techniques, or employ a taser/stun gun/pepper spray. Don't draw your weapon unless you need it and intend to use it. Simple.

Also, for the love of God, please don't promote any of that "hit 'em in the leg/arm" bullshit. I can't even be bothered to explain how dangerous and impossible that is.

What if you pull your gun with intent to shoot but the guy runs away before you can fire. Are you supposed to shoot him in the back?

 

[ZERO THEORY]

If someone punches me in the face, I now have to shoot them to claim self defense? No. You can take them down and wait for police. You can floor 'em with a rear straight. You can introduce their lungs and eyes to CS spray. But if you pull out a gun, you will be charged, most likely for menacing.

Some frail junkie broke into my house and I wacked him with a baseball bat. He took off immediately. Am I now going to jail? No. If, however, you fire off a 3" slug into the wall next to him and scare him off that way, you're going to be charged, most likely for reckless endangerment. Your neighbors probably don't want to catch a stray slug to the sternum.

I was walking home from the bar and some guy 50 feet away flashed a knife and said I'd better find another way home. I pulled out my pistol and told him to clear the way. Why am I now facing charges? Because you were not in imminent danger, nor were you at immediate risk of severe injury. Your options for non-confrontation were presented at the outset, and you should've called the police after leaving the area. The other party was not in a reasonable range to use the knife he presented, and you had a reasonable ability to flee the scene.

Two thugs were milling around the train platform when I got off. They surrounded me, one of them pulled a knife, and told me, "Give it up or you're fucking dead." I presented my gun to scare them off. Will I be charged? No. You're dead. They were legitimate criminals and your lack of urgency, commitment to the situation, and training got you killed. Instead of folding, the one with the knife rushed you and emptied your spleen and liver. Turns out his partner was also carrying a J frame and he gave your brain stem a .380 for good measure once you were down. Fairwell.

 

[Like A Bas]

What if you pull your gun with intent to shoot but the guy runs away before you can fire. Are you supposed to shoot him in the back?

Or you realize they aren't as much of a threat as you had to assume when you pulled your gun.

Or you realize it's a kid.

Or a junkie.

Or you change your mind about killing a person.


Of course, this is all "retardation". Retardation is newly defined as any of the hundreds of real life examples that make paragraphs of babble very babbly.

 

[ZERO THEORY]

What if you pull your gun with intent to shoot but the guy runs away before you can fire. Are you supposed to shoot him in the back?

If you pull your gun with the intent to shoot, the pause between it leaving the holster and the first round being fired is going to be probably be

 

[Ippwnage]

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/...-then-waive-bye-bye-to-claiming-self-defense/



Summary: it's only self-defense if you try to kill your assailant. If you defend yourself with only the threat of force ("Back off or I'll shoot/cut/hit/etc. you!") you cannot claim self defense and will go to prison for assault or aggravated assault.

this is awesome!!! never point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them

 

[ZERO THEORY]

Or you realize they aren't as much of a threat as you had to assume when you pulled your gun.

Or you realize it's a kid.

Or a junkie.

Or you change your mind about killing a person.


Of course, this is all "retardation". Retardation is newly defined as any of the hundreds of real life examples that make paragraphs of babble very babbly.

Retardation is pulling your weapon out of the holster and not realizing it's a kid. Retardation is thinking that a drug addict is somehow incapable of killing or maiming an innocent person. Retardation is carrying a deadly weapon when you're not willing to use deadly force to protect a life.

If you haven't properly assessed the situation, are not 100% positive that you have no other option, and are not able or willing to use a firearm to end the life of someone committing a grievous felony, then you are indeed retarded in the context of self defense.

 

[Like A Bas]

Retardation is pulling your weapon out of the holster and not realizing it's a kid. Retardation is thinking that a drug addict is somehow incapable of killing or maiming an innocent person. Retardation is carrying a deadly weapon when you're not willing to use deadly force to protect a life.

If you haven't properly assessed the situation, are not 100% positive that you have no other option, and are not able or willing to use a firearm to end the life of someone committing a grievous felony, then you are indeed retarded in the context of self defense.

But I thought I already had to have my gun out to defend against a knife. Lemme lob your 21 foot rule back at you. How do I know if the person making sounds in my upstairs bathroom has a knife, or a gun? Your logic falls apart immediately. I must have my gun drawn and ready to fire when I peek around that corner to see what the hell is happening in there. If I go up there either without my gun drawn, or if I go up there intent on killing whatever I see, I am a fool or a psychopath. And by your ridiculous standards, going to jail. lol

 

[ZERO THEORY]

But I thought I already had to have my gun out to defend against a knife. Lemme lob your 21 foot rule back at you. How do I know if the person making sounds in my upstairs bathroom has a knife, or a gun? Your logic falls apart immediately. I must have my gun drawn and ready to fire when I peek around that corner to see what the hell is happening in there. If I go up there either without my gun drawn, or if I go up there intent on killing whatever I see, I am a fool or a psychopath. And by your ridiculous standards, going to jail. lol

If someone upstairs is making noise, you shouldn't be going up there anyway. Unless your children or another party are upstairs and they can't reasonable defend themselves, there's no reason for you to be trying to clear your house. Tactically, this is a nightmare and is one of the absolute biggest no-nos of home defense. Call the cops and hole up in whatever room you're in.

I would also note that you all seem to be taking this law as black and white. Firstly, your home is a completely different beast when it comes to judicial treatment of self defense. This law is meant to address concealed and open carry in public or private venues outside of your own property. Secondly, it's on the books as an option, just like any other law. There's not a checklist or a mandate to reference it or charge it. So it is almost certain that it is not going to be called into question unless you do something stupid like fire a warning shot.

Now then, back to your example. If you DO have a family member who doesn't have the means to defend themselves and you go upstairs, then yes your gun should be drawn. If the perpetrator is in the bathroom with a knife and you get the drop on him, tell him to put down his weapon, and secure him while the cops arrive, you're not going to be charged. It's becoming clear that you and many others didn't actually read the article TS posted. And you guys definitely haven't read up on the Kansas State Statutes its referring to. I will address that shortly.

 

[ZERO THEORY]

[size=+2]The article is about a man committing a crime and being charged for it. [/size]

If you take the time to read the laughable article TS posted, you'll see that the man charged in the Court of Appeals' decision committed a crime very clearly. He willingly participated in a verbal argument with two other men, went outside and engaged in a physical confrontation, then when his fiance was knocked over (unharmed and not in imminent danger), so he left the area (again, making it clear that this was not an imminent grievous threat), grabbed a firearm from the car, was able to return to the area without his fiance taking serious harm in the process, and present the gun in a non-immediate way to intentionally intimidate the two men.

Now, if you think you should be allowed to walk to your car, grab a gun, and point it at two unarmed men who are not in the process of killing, maiming, raping, or kidnapping (the legal precedents for deadly force) an innocent person, I can see why you're annoyed. However, the law discourages this kind of dangerous and unnecessary behavior. I'm not seeing the problem.

[size=+2]This is not a new law that's been passed.[/size]

The Court of Appeals upheld the language in the already established statutes. The language is clear in explaining the things I already have. Cliffs: don't pull a firearm unless you need to and are able to employ it effectively.

 

[Damien Karras]

1. Rapes and murder is a real possibility in a home invasion
2. you ever file an insurance claim?

They ask for receipts for everything, then they depreciate it, and hit you with a deductible. You'd be lucky to get 50 percent back of what was stolen.

1- they happen but are an extremely rare occurrence.

2- I'd rather do that than to kill people or have a Mexican standoff in my own home and put my loved ones at risk

 

[Heisenberg]

1- they happen but are an extremely rare occurrence.

2- I'd rather do that than to kill people or have a Mexican standoff in my own home and put my loved ones at risk

What do you mean by Mexican?

 

[Ippwnage]

1- they happen but are an extremely rare occurrence.

2- I'd rather do that than to kill people or have a Mexican standoff in my own home and put my loved ones at risk

so you would rather have your family raped and killed than shoot back? gtfo with that bullshit. if it happens, i am sure you would have a change of heart.

 

[ZERO THEORY]

I don't believe guns prevent crime and murder.

The evidence disproves your beliefs.

You'll want to open the image and view it full size. Sources for the stats are included (ATF, FBI, Department of Public Health, state investigative commissions, etc.)

 

[Thai Otoshi]

'Murica... 'MURICAAAAAAA....

We're not all that bad, Brother.

Look at the location and you'll find this article is referring to a 'Red State.'

Boom.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Wake me when something useful comes out of Kansas.

 

[livingdeadmoose]

What are you missing here? The law isn't about your right to defend yourself. It is about FORCING everyone to defend themselves in one way.

As I said, I don't agree with this law, but I'd rather live in gun but states like this over gun control states.

1- they happen but are an extremely rare occurrence.

2- I'd rather do that than to kill people or have a Mexican standoff in my own home and put my loved ones at risk

Yes, it is an extremely rare occurrence, but if it only happens once in your life time, wouldn't you rather be prepared? And having a standoff in your home is still safer than letting a criminal run loose in your home.