entering gun free zone to save lives

[KnightWolf09]

Does anyone know how the courts would treat a situation where a person carries into a gun-free zone (i.e. school) to defend others who were being attacked (shot at)? Let's assume its before police arrive and you were driving by the scene , got out, and returned fire.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Does anyone know how the courts would treat a situation where a person carries into a gun-free zone (i.e. school) to defend others who were being attacked (shot at)? Let's assume its before police arrive and you were driving by the scene , got out, and returned fire.

Seriously???????????


No one knows how the courts would treat any situation. but this would make for some good speculation.

 

[KnightWolf09]

I'm just wondering. Because its usually the courts that have the final word as far as interpreting the law. Wondering if there's been anything similar in the past.

 

[aroundlsu]

So in this hypothetical situation you are outside a school zone, hear shots fired, you run towards the shots fired (several hundred yards at least), see a bad guy, draw and shoot him dead before campus police arrive?

If you are that badass you shouldn't be afraid of prison or the courts.

it's not the CCW holders job to be a hero. Your job is to protect you and your family.

 

[CloudStrife]

So in this hypothetical situation you are outside a school zone, hear shots fired, you run towards the shots fired (several hundred yards at least), see a bad guy, draw and shoot him dead before campus police arrive?

If you are that badass you shouldn't be afraid of prison or the courts.

it's not the CCW holders job to be a hero. Your job is to protect you and your family.

Technically, it's no more his "job" than it is a cop's. A cop chooses to be a cop and gets paid to do it fiull time. Anyone else can choose to defend others just the same even if they aren't paid for it.
That's the moral stand point. Legally, I don't know how it would be seen.

I don't think a badass wants to spend time in prison.

As for how the court would rule, a jury can vote however it wants. If I was on the jury, I'd say not guilty because it's a stupid law.

 

[zonblitz]

In that situation I'd like to believe that I would react and not think much about the consequences. Armchair qb response would be he hell yeah stop the shooter from hurting people as quickly as possible.

I don't think any court would rule against a good samaritan in this case.

If they did then I guess I'd go to jail with a clear conscience.

 

[aroundlsu]

In that situation I'd like to believe that I would react and not think much about the consequences. Armchair qb response would be he hell yeah stop the shooter from hurting people as quickly as possible.

I don't think any court would rule against a good samaritan in this case.

If they did then I guess I'd go to jail with a clear conscience.

The problem is you don't really know what's happening 1/4 mile away. When Battle of LA was filming it was common to hear automatic weapons fire all over Baton Rouge at all times of the day and night. Imagine you hear gunshots, people screaming, you run 400 yards, see a guy with a gun, you have tunnel vision, out of breath, freaking out, draw your gun, shoot, then hear the director yell CUT. You are totally screwed.

Sure, if the guy next to you pulls a gun and starts plugging people then shoot him. But something hundreds of yards away is not your problem and you are living in fantasy land if you think it's going to go down like that.

 

[Tulse Luper]

I'd like to hear a lawmakers' response if a few CCW'ers were standing just outside the 1000ft mark and told the media they would have loved to intervene; however, the law is very clear that, as legally carrying citizens, they were not allowed in the gun free zone.

"It was very difficult watching that man execute so many children on the playground, but it's a gun free zone, sorry."


The 1000ft law is THE most silly, unintelligent, dopey soccer mommy pleasing, piece of stupidity every conceived by legislators.

 

[KnightWolf09]

Well, I'm talking about driving through the zone. My school entrance is on an open street and you would be able to see such an event if you were driving by.

 

[paddle007]

Some guns save lives!

This happened and I always wondered about about the legal implications. Remember the Pearl MS school shooting where the vice principal retrieved his firearm from his truck in the school parking lot?
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm
I'm very thankful we have people like Joel Myrick in this country

 

[oleheat]

If you are driving through and see someone shooting people at random, IMHO the question at that moment to involve yourself would probably be more moral than legal- but the legal issue would come up after the smoke cleared.

I believe we all can remember of at least one scenario where assistance from an armed citizen was not only appropriate, but downright necessary for saving a life. The George Temple incident comes to mind.

Having said that, anyone who legally carries a gun- civilian or LEO- should carry along with it the understanding that if it has to be used for lethal force, there will very likely be "complications" involved- legal & otherwise. It's not an easy decision to make- and sometimes it must be made in an instant. That just ain't fair- but that's life. Of course, you also know the old saying about what happens "when good men do nothing"....

 

[4sooth]

If the shooting is justified then you should be protected by the doctrine of competing harms.

 

[Tulse Luper]

If the shooting is justified then you should be protected by the doctrine of competing harms.

Interesting. Can you explain more?

 

[fastmover]

do what you think you should do to sleep well for the rest of your life.

you save a school full of kids from a guy firing a AK, me would say go.

you running the same way as the cops...prolly should stop.

when i hear questions like this makes me think or worry about; well this...and this is probably not the case, but...

the samurai say you must have courage to do the correct thing and face the consequences. they call this: Yu; heroic courage, but it is better defined as courage tinged with heroism. tinged with heroism is key, someone willing to become a hero is a good thing and may even be necessary for a person facing hardship, life and death, but someone with the need to be a hero is just dangerous. hero is one of the archetypes of human identification without heroes we would be less than we are, but the need, the NEED to be a hero...it can be close to a disorder. you have to have the courage to do the right thing even if doing the right thing is staying where you are, most heroes as we all know will go unrecognized. well that's my .02, i feel, not in this case but some open ended questions, i feel a person wanting or seemingly needing to become a hero, just a worry of mine carry on.

keep in mind; superman had a mental disorder called Zoological Altruism (at least that's my diagnoses).

 

[Yrdawg]

If the shooting is justified then you should be protected by the doctrine of competing harms.

Read that somewhere, what I understood was as example :

The Duke wanna be is carryn in a bar, armed robbery goes down and instead of being hered into the store room he DRT's the BG

No charge would be made for the gun in a bar crime

???????

 

[Sin-ster]

I've always wondered in cases like these what the risk was, and not just in legal terms.

Suppose you are in the building when the police arrive. Maybe you're even trading shots with the guy, keeping him isolated to one area so that he can't continue roving and shooting. Now the police arrive and find you blasting away in a place where you shouldn't be. I'm not familiar with the procedure for this type of incident, but even if a verbal warning is called for... that's a lot of adrenaline and emotion at work.

I've always told the people I'm likely to be around if I ever have to defend myself... "When you call the police, make sure to tell them that I'm armed and what I'm wearing." I think in the aftermath of a home invasion or street crime, you would be fine. However, in this particular case, it seems like a risk.

Now, all of that said, I'd rather be mistaken for the shooter and killed than stand idly by while someone was shooting innocents. I don't think I could live with wondering if I could have done something more. By the same token, as Nolacop pointed out, this isn't something that's likely to happen, even if you drive through a school zone multiple times per day. And that's something we should all hope for.

 

[Quickdraw22]

I have discussed this with a very pro-gun teacher. We both agreed on one outcome.

Situation -

You're in the library, hear bang bang bang, you pull a handgun out of your backpack, and shoot the bad guy. You save countless lives, but still committed a very serious crime.

Outcome -

The public would commend you as a hero, but the school would show no mercy. You would be banned from that college for a year, and be lucky to get accepted to another one any time after that. "Zero Tolerance" goes both ways . You would also need to be prepared to pay a rapeload of court costs.

Either way, it will suck. Let your morals decide your future.

-DAVE

 

[charliepapa]

Does anyone know how the courts would treat a situation where a person carries into a gun-free zone (i.e. school) to defend others who were being attacked (shot at)? Let's assume its before police arrive and you were driving by the scene, got out, and returned fire.

WHO CARES? What DA would be foolish enough with taxpayers dollars to bring charges against the person who tried to defend the innocent? What jury would convict that person? Now, what difference would it make?

I think it could / should almost be considered negligent that someone who was armed and had the proper training would become aware of such a situation and NOT intervene.

The laws simply can NOT address absolutely every possible or potential scenario. I think this is why God gave us free will, firearms and testicles.

 

[CloudStrife]

WHO CARES? What DA would be foolish enough with taxpayers dollars to bring charges against the person who tried to defend the innocent? What jury would convict that person? Now, what difference would it make?

I think it could / should almost be considered negligent that someone who was armed and had the proper training would become aware of such a situation and NOT intervene.

The laws simply can NOT address absolutely every possible or potential scenario. I think this is why God gave us free will, firearms and testicles.

What if a woman intervenes? What body part measures her resolve?

 

[captain-03]

I'm just wondering. Because its usually the courts that have the final word as far as interpreting the law. Wondering if there's been anything similar in the past.

Criminal case -- Jury has the final word .... I would not vote to convict ... Now go off shooting recklessly and kill a couple innocents - another story with a different ending!!