KOB
Forum Supporter
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 5,743
Thank you ! Very informative. Maybe it's a good thing California isn't on that list. The courts would be clogged with cases of "Stand against idiots".
Shooting at the park while detecting
- Thread starter halfstep
- Start date
- Status
davidlhyde63366
Forum Supporter
more information on stand your ground laws . https://www.southuniversity.edu/news-and-blogs/2016/08/castle-doctrine-from-state-to-state-46514 and http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/castle-doctrine-states/
FreeBirdTim
Elite Member
Stand your ground laws are flawed. Don't bet your freedom on them. This guy is now serving 20 years for shooting an unarmed man.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/stand-ground-killer-michael-dreka-sentenced-20-years/story?id=66182264
https://abcnews.go.com/US/stand-ground-killer-michael-dreka-sentenced-20-years/story?id=66182264
GKL
Forum Supporter
I guess parks in St. Louis are so bad the detecting clubs might need armored transport for group hunts …….seriously !
Well JT I have a LTC but it’s actually better to let yourself get mugged in this state than shoot someone in self defense ! I know a person who fired just a warning shot in a situation where she felt threatened her life was made miserable for several years, she had her license revoked, court costs, fines and attorney fees nearly destroyed her family financially and the worst was that the attacker and her family tried to sue her! She had her license reinstated after more attorneys fees and court time, but why would she carry again?This state never makes it easy.
this is very true! never, ever fire a "warning" shot! only use "deadly force" to protect, and preserve life!..period!...never,ever show a 'firearm" and "NOT" use it to protect your life! you open yourself up for all kinds of "litigation" as you so accurately pointed out!
(h.h.!)
j.t.
halfstep
Elite Member
That wasn't because the stand your ground law was flawed. The guy is serving 20 for acting outside of the law. He made a stupid decision and killed someone and now he is going to pay for it.
Scooterjim
Elite Member
It's a good thing you don't feel the need for a gun since felons can't have one anyway. All part of keeping "unstable" people from having guns.
beest
Elite Member
Not?
As no guns are allowed smaller criminals also hardly have guns. Shootings happen but are not usual. Bigger criminals do have guns, but don't wave them around all day and mostly shoot at each other "discreet".
Here (big) knifes are the biggest problem, lately. https://tinyurl.com/v2fernu
And further more. Doors shut. Alarms on houses and cars. Camera's.
And you need no gun to defend yourself wen attacked as that normally is also not with a gun. Or sometimes at most a fake gun. Gas propelled BB handguns looking like a real one.
At the end. I am not affraid that quick, but i never ever got affraid while out hunting. Not even in the "bad neighbourhoods" in my reach. And that is not because i didn't confront strange situations.
And i traveled a lot in my life and was in many big cities including bad hoods, also abroad, and i only confronted not even a hand full situations were i was highly allert, but not even scared. Really exciting twice.
So yes, i'm really happy not everyone carries a gun and bullets don't fly arround. No mather wether their fired by criminals or people defending themselves.
Last edited:
davidlhyde63366
Forum Supporter
St. Louis parks / with protection
With that around I might feel safe there St Louis said you can't have a gun in the parks but nothing about a tank like that . In December 2019, St. Louis passed an ordinance forbidding the carrying of firearms in city parks, athletic fields and facilities, and recreational facilities.
I guess parks in St. Louis are so bad the detecting clubs might need armored transport for group hunts …….seriously !
View attachment 459297
With that around I might feel safe there
St Louis said you can't have a gun in the parks but nothing about a tank like that . In December 2019, St. Louis passed an ordinance forbidding the carrying of firearms in city parks, athletic fields and facilities, and recreational facilities.
Last edited:
davidlhyde63366
Forum Supporter
felons and guns
Just because the law says felons can't have a gun sure doesn't stop them in St. Louis , Missouri .The majority felons and gang members that get arrested again have a illegal weapon on them. The majority of the guns on the street there are illegal , the criminals often have more fire power than the police. In December 2019, St. Louis passed an ordinance forbidding the carrying of firearms in city parks, athletic fields and facilities, and recreational facilities.
Just because the law says felons can't have a gun sure doesn't stop them in St. Louis , Missouri .The majority felons and gang members that get arrested again have a illegal weapon on them. The majority of the guns on the street there are illegal , the criminals often have more fire power than the police. In December 2019, St. Louis passed an ordinance forbidding the carrying of firearms in city parks, athletic fields and facilities, and recreational facilities.
GKL
Forum Supporter
Not?
Here (big) knifes are the biggest problem, lately.
……you need to find a detecting buddy like Crocodile Dundee
Scooterjim
Elite Member
I watched a fat cop chase a dude across the highway and tackle him into the gravely pavement right beside me turning the guys face to hamburger. It took the fight out of the guy quick the cop had him under control almost instantly but you could tell he was out of breath. I said if you need help just ask and the cop said he was fine but asked if I would stay until back up arrived and make a statement. After the other cops showed up they searched hamburger face and found a bullet. One of the cops knew his name and told him that bullet was going to send him to prison. According to that cop the fed court here counted a bullet the same as a gun for felons and that was the only thing that kept him from being another catch and release.
At a park in a town south of me I noticed a guy sitting on the picnic table next to the sign that said no alcohol, no firearms and a bunch of other rules. He had a gun on his hip, I asked if he had ever had any problems with the authorities about a gun in the park. Turns out he was a cop waiting for a busload of juvenile delinquents going on a canoe trip. He told me there was no law about guns in the park, just a sign
FreeBirdTim
Elite Member
Stupid comment. I've never owned a gun, never wanted one, but could have one tomorrow if I wanted one. That's the reality of living in a country with WAY too many unregistered firearms.
As for that moronic "unstable" comment, I doubt if many people think it's "unstable" to defend yourself and your family against a person threatening you in your own home.
halfstep
Elite Member
And way to many unregistered bats too.
Scooterjim
Elite Member
Doesn't matter if many people don't think it's unstable to defend yourself, if the prosecutor and judge thinks it is.
FreeBirdTim
Elite Member
We'll have to agree to disagree on this deal. Unfortunately, I live in a state that doesn't have castle laws. I could have shot him dead in Texas and wouldn't have been charged with anything. Seems odd that the U.S. allows individual states to dictate what's a crime and what isn't.
The latest statute in my state is to "red flag" someone. That means they can take your guns away even if you have never committed a crime or threatened anyone. I'm not a gun person, but this law is definitely over the top, in my opinion.
"The police may petition the Superior Court to issue an extreme risk protection order if they receive credible information of a significant and imminent risk. A judge may issue a temporary gun-removal order, but a hearing is required within 14 days to determine if a one-year ban on buying or possessing a firearm is warranted."
In other words, your ex-girlfriend can have your guns taken away if they go crying to the police and tell them you're danger to her. This is what happens when you have a woman running your state...
The latest statute in my state is to "red flag" someone. That means they can take your guns away even if you have never committed a crime or threatened anyone. I'm not a gun person, but this law is definitely over the top, in my opinion.
"The police may petition the Superior Court to issue an extreme risk protection order if they receive credible information of a significant and imminent risk. A judge may issue a temporary gun-removal order, but a hearing is required within 14 days to determine if a one-year ban on buying or possessing a firearm is warranted."
In other words, your ex-girlfriend can have your guns taken away if they go crying to the police and tell them you're danger to her. This is what happens when you have a woman running your state...
I've tried to stay out of the deeper end of this thread, but Tim said something here that I think should be pointed out, to his credit. At the risk of stepping too deeply into the political end of the pool, I proceed......
Not necessarily true, Tim. It would depend on how the LEO's and local prosecutor viewed the circumstances. You would have more latitude in how you dealt with the situation, but it's up to the prosecutor to determine if you broke any laws in doing so.
And that's the beauty of our governmental system, Tim. It's set up that way in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A "one size fits all" type of government doesn't really work when going from one geographical area to another, as the circumstances are as varied as the states. Common sense in California doesn't equal common sense in Alaska or the mountains of Tennessee.
I cannot know how old you are, or how much you were taught about our system in school, so I'll not berate you a lack of understanding concerning some of the previous statements you made in this thread.
Here's the statement that I give you credit for. You seemed, to me, to be anti-firearm with some of your previously posted statements, but this paragraph shows that there is some understanding on your part when it comes to firearms laws, and the dangers they can present to a law-abiding citizen. Kudos to you for that. Some of those "red flag" laws in other states are written more loosely than "yours", and can lead to neighbors that don't like you being able to have one "flagged", on the same order as having someone "swatted" by a local PD with a lying call to 911.
At least "yours" has the "credible information" inserted into it. Still, a major problem with many of them is that the accused is not advised of the complaint, is not invited to the hearing to defend themselves, and is blind-sided when the PD shows up in full gear, guns out, ready to shoot at the least provocation. This will, if it hasn't already, lead to innocent people getting killed by law enforcement due to lies from an anti-gunner that has no merit, and the "plaintiff" not being held accountable for the false complaint.
(Chuckle).....At the risk of being chastised for being politically incorrect.......This brings to mind a saying one of my Tuesday morning "breakfast club" members likes to use. "We should have never let them vote." (He's 80 this year, and has almost 20 years on my level of experience.)
Sheesh! I got a little windy with this response, didn't I?
Roger
Not necessarily true, Tim. It would depend on how the LEO's and local prosecutor viewed the circumstances. You would have more latitude in how you dealt with the situation, but it's up to the prosecutor to determine if you broke any laws in doing so.
And that's the beauty of our governmental system, Tim. It's set up that way in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A "one size fits all" type of government doesn't really work when going from one geographical area to another, as the circumstances are as varied as the states. Common sense in California doesn't equal common sense in Alaska or the mountains of Tennessee.
I cannot know how old you are, or how much you were taught about our system in school, so I'll not berate you a lack of understanding concerning some of the previous statements you made in this thread.
Here's the statement that I give you credit for. You seemed, to me, to be anti-firearm with some of your previously posted statements, but this paragraph shows that there is some understanding on your part when it comes to firearms laws, and the dangers they can present to a law-abiding citizen. Kudos to you for that. Some of those "red flag" laws in other states are written more loosely than "yours", and can lead to neighbors that don't like you being able to have one "flagged", on the same order as having someone "swatted" by a local PD with a lying call to 911.
At least "yours" has the "credible information" inserted into it. Still, a major problem with many of them is that the accused is not advised of the complaint, is not invited to the hearing to defend themselves, and is blind-sided when the PD shows up in full gear, guns out, ready to shoot at the least provocation. This will, if it hasn't already, lead to innocent people getting killed by law enforcement due to lies from an anti-gunner that has no merit, and the "plaintiff" not being held accountable for the false complaint.
(Chuckle).....At the risk of being chastised for being politically incorrect.......This brings to mind a saying one of my Tuesday morning "breakfast club" members likes to use. "We should have never let them vote." (He's 80 this year, and has almost 20 years on my level of experience.)
Sheesh! I got a little windy with this response, didn't I?
Roger
JWalker3
Forum Supporter
No one has said it yet so....
I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6
I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6
- Status
Similar threads
