I will never help a stranger again...life lesson inside

Originally Posted by JonJon

Those two are up there with "disorderly conduct"
Blanket charges for anything

Interesting post from another forum....care to pick it apart...I believe he is from PA....

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001
A couple more thoughts:

Pointing a gun at someone is legally distinguishable from drawing and displaying without aiming it at someone. Aiming a loaded gun at a person, without justification, is automatically "reckless endangerment", while drawing a gun and pointing it straight down at the ground is not.

Displaying a gun, muzzle-down, with the implicit message that you are prepared to shoot the other person, is a crime (assault, terroristic threats, whatever), in the absence of justification. But pointing it at them is an ADDITIONAL crime. And shooting at them is ANOTHER crime. And hitting them is ANOTHER crime. So if you don't aim it, shoot it, or hit them, you have not committed those crimes. You only need to justify the crimes you commit, not the ones that you don't commit.

"Justification" means that the harm you cause with your criminal act is less than the wrongful harm that you seek to prevent. So shooting someone is only justified by your goal of preventing the wrongful killing of yourself or another, or the severe unprovoked injuring of yourself or another. But scaring someone can be justified with a much lower standard; if you scare the perp so that he doesn't punch you in the face, it's arguable that the harm you prevented (being punched in the face wrongfully) would have been worse than the harm you caused (scaring a thug who was about to punch you in the face.) Bleeding is worse than pissing yourself.

That's the argument that I would make in defense of an innocent person who brandished a firearm to prevent some sort of non-lethal harm. It's not the current thinking of a lot of cops; for example, if somebody in a 5-ton vehicle is tailgating you as you motorcycle your way home, swerving around, trying to force you off the road, and you display a firearm so that they cease their efforts to kill you, the police will likely arrest you. The person with the gun is the "road rager". Apparently, getting killed in a crash is just good clean fun, but guns are bad. But compare the kinetic energy of a truck at 70 MPH to the modest energy of a .45 slug at 1100 FPS, or just look at the annual road deaths compared to gun homicides, and see which is deadlier.

Bottom line, "using" is not the same as "displaying the ability to use". The rules on the use of deadly force are not the same as the rules on threatening the use of deadly force. Otherwise, simply drawing your pistol would be chargeable as "murder".

Originally Posted by JonJon

nor is it in PA. Actually, no such law as brandishing even exists.

While the law is no longer called "brandishing" it is commonly referred to it and is essentially the same. At least in NC it is. IN NC it is now referred to as simply a criminal assault since it bears the same principles as an assault (obviously not a battery however).



Threatened with deadly force is not the only reason. Could be rape, kidnapping, bodily harm or even simply being in my home.

You are legally justified in using deadly force (i.e., your handgun) against another person, when and only when (this only applies in NC of course):

1) You actually believe deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and
2) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and
3) You were not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and
4) The force used was not excessive, i.e., the force used was not greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor.

NC does have the castle doctrine, but you can only "enforce" it when the aggressor is breaking into your home to commit a felony or threatens you with deadly force, as stated above.

If the aggressor breaks into your home IN NC to steal less than $500 in material or breaks in to...say sleep becuase he is homeless, deadly force would not be allowed and you would at a minimum be charged with manslaughter, more likely 2nd degree murder.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Interesting post from another forum....care to pick it apart...I believe he is from PA....

He is...

I know Phil very well.

Originally Posted by ryanwhite74115

You are legally justified in using deadly force (i.e., your handgun) against another person, when and only when:

1) You actually believe deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and
2) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and
3) You were not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and
4) The force used was not excessive, i.e., the force used was not greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor.

NC does have the castle doctrine, but you can only "enforce" it when the aggressor is breaking into your home to commit a felony or threatens you with deadly force, as stated above.

Taking the OPs example....

3) Demanding to get your phone back can be construed as voluntarily provoked. If the guy took his phone and was going to leave, him asking for the phone back CAN be taken as he is the escalator (though I doubt any cop, jury, or DA would think so.....which would lead to

1) Trying to get your phone back can lead to a fight, which you might lose and face great bodily harm...

So knowing that, it is reasonable to believe that confronting a thief can/often will escalate the situation, where you would face bodily harm, and the legal odds are in your favor to draw.

Like I said, this is a very case by case, situation by situation scenario, so armchair quarterbacking isn't really practical, but generally speaking, when a threat is clearly made, you are in the realm of self defense...it is up to you to decide what is warranted in any given situation.

Originally Posted by JonJon

He is...

I know Phil very well.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Taking the OPs example....

3) Demanding to get your phone back can be construed as voluntarily provoked. If the guy took his phone and was going to leave, him asking for the phone back CAN be taken as he is the escalator (though I doubt any cop, jury, or DA would think so.....which would lead to

1) Trying to get your phone back can lead to a fight, which you might lose and face great bodily harm...

So knowing that, it is reasonable to believe that confronting a thief can/often will escalate the situation, where you would face bodily harm, and the legal odds are in your favor to draw.

Like I said, this is a very case by case, situation by situation scenario, so armchair quarterbacking isn't really practical, but generally speaking, when a threat is clearly made, you are in the realm of self defense...it is up to you to decide what is warranted in any given situation.

My point is every state is VERY different (ergo my qualifier for NC in every "gun" post). NC however does EXTREMELY ODD gun laws/self defense laws. It's a hybrid between common law/MPC and nutjobs idiots law.

Everyone here is getting so defensive, where's the love?

Originally Posted by UDM-E46 Enthusiast

Everyone here is getting so defensive, where's the love?

Did you forget what kind of car we drive?

Originally Posted by ryanwhite74115

My point is every state is VERY different (ergo my qualifier for NC in every "gun" post). NC however does EXTREMELY ODD gun laws/self defense laws. It's a hybrid between common law/MPC and nutjobs idiots law.

From what I have read in regards to NC law, they are very cloudy. They are not very clear cut. When they are not (as you called them....hybrid) they leave a heap of room for interpretation by police, DAs, etc. As a result, in a state where gun laws aren't clear, I would be weary to do certain things, opening my jacket would be one of them, but again, its a personal choice, and for me, it isn't worth the risk.

Would it help if I said the guy deserved a huge, my phone and wallet? Lol.

Huge hug*

Originally Posted by kuksul08

You could have made your own battery out of some nuts/bolts/washers and sponges.

Hahaha, best show on tv man.

Would've buttfuked him with the jumper cables....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Bimmer App

Like others have said, it is a shame our society is so F'ed up. I'm very mechanically savy with cars. The good samaritan me is initially inclined to help a stranded motorist change a tire or help out. Saw this scenario this morning on my commute. 22 degrees out...middle aged man in a stranded Taurus with a flat tire on the side of the highway. Thought about pulling over to help considering only 14 people in the country know how to change a tire. But screw it, for the above reason, it is not worth it.