View Single Post
Old 07-09-2013, 07:30 AM
  #105  
CalHunter
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,482
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
I thought the CPL class was a good one. The suggested rules were an overview of how to handle yourself while armed. Of course there are exceptions to any general rule.

Outside of the regular instructor, we had three guest instructors. One was an assistant prosecutor, one a deputy sheriff, and one was a criminal defense lawyer. They were all, without exception, pro-second amendment and supporting the right of law-abiding citizens to carry.

It was made quite clear that carrying a gun doesn't make you a crime fighter. You may actually know more about the law than a police officer. But a police officer has a very substantial amount of training in being a crime fighter than the average citizen will ever have no matter how much TV you watch.
This is true. In the police officer's case, he/she is generally trying to prevent the assault, survive the encounter and apprehend the criminal which has more of a challenge per se. In the citizen's case, they are usually just trying to prevent an assault and survive the encounter which does not have as many components in its' goal.

If a police officer shoots someone in the line of duty, there will be an investigation. But, unless there are some very unusual circumstances it will start with the presumption that the shooting was justified. But that won't be the case if you shoot someone, even if the circumstances clearly indicate that it was justified.
There are some differences but many things are the same. As an officer, you still get read your rights, have an attorney present, go through an interview and get to sweat the results of the investigation and determination which usually take a few weeks although some take far longer. It's definitely not a walk in the park for the officer as his/her job and freedom are on the line too.

Here's an example of what I'm saying. Last winter, right here in our town, a homeowner shot a guy who broke into the house and killed him. There is no duty to retreat here if you are in your own home. In fact there is no duty to retreat if you are anywhere. And if you shoot someone and it's determined to be justified, there is no civil liability either. Okay, back to the story. The prosecutor "investigated' for three weeks before announcing that they would not bring charges. So the guy had to hire a lawyer, just in case, and sweat for three weeks while the prosecutor "investigated." Our county prosecutor is extremely anti-gun by the way.
That sounds about right and would be pretty much the same for an officer involved shooting also.

None of these debates has changed my mind. Zimmerman and Martin were both stupid. Yes, I agree that the media and assorted race pimps are probably responsible for the fact that Zimmerman is being prosecuted for murder. Still, what if Martin had been armed? What if he had stuck Zimmerman with a knife before he could get to his gun?

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
I agree with you on the race pimps opinion. And FWIW, I don't recall ever seeing any of the debates on HNI "change your mind." Shoulda, woulda, coulda applications are always possible with any situation. If either Zimmerman or Martin knew all of this would happen, I doubt that either of them would have made the same choices. But then, both were free to have made different choices and chose not to do so. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
CalHunter is offline