Posted on Sep 14, 2014
The Stand your Ground rules: What do you think that they should change so the home owner cannot get sued?
3.38K
35
24
0
0
0
The Stand your ground rules are supposed to make it so you can defend your family, property etc. The one thing that probably makes all CWP permit holders CRAZY is the fact that if we execute these rules, the person who gets the justice of the bullet, if they do not die, can turn around and hire some FAT cat Lawyer to Sue YOU! How can we eliminate this from happening to LAW ABIDING CITIZENS? RIDICULOUS LAWS that FAVOR the idiots who lose respect and break into our homes.....I am curious if anyone has any stories where they had to defend their home? Defend their property and whether or not they were sued? Stories with lots of DETAILS will result in getting voted UP for more Rally Point points!!!
Posted in these groups: 
Concealed Carry
Concealed Carry
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 12
2
2
0
Perhaps a JAG here can add to this. However, from the stories I have read, stating that you "shoot to kill" could imply that you wanted to murder the individual. I know from a security/ LE point of view, we're trained to "shoot to stop." The reason we are discharging our firearm is because there is a threat. We have an inherent right to self-defense. As long as that threat is still actively moving to cause kill or seriously injure me or someone else, I have a responsibility to stop said threat.
I think we could all agree that shooting to maim is, legally, an unstable argument.
I think we could all agree that shooting to maim is, legally, an unstable argument.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
PO1 (Join to see) , For civilians, the rules are pretty clear. You shoot center mass until the threat ends.
Saying you only shot to injure them opens you up to civil and criminal charges as it undermines the imminent danger argument. In the same vein, continuing to shoot after the actual threat is gone also opens you up to civil/criminal charges.
Here is a great article on the subject.
http://bearingarms.com/shoot-to-wound-vs-shoot-to-stop-vs-shoot-to-kill/
Saying you only shot to injure them opens you up to civil and criminal charges as it undermines the imminent danger argument. In the same vein, continuing to shoot after the actual threat is gone also opens you up to civil/criminal charges.
Here is a great article on the subject.
http://bearingarms.com/shoot-to-wound-vs-shoot-to-stop-vs-shoot-to-kill/
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Rule 1. When defending one's home - shoot to eliminate the threat. If the threat continues to move, continue to fire until the threat no longer moves.
Rule 2. For any other conditions defending one's home, refer to Rule 1.
Nuff said.
Rule 2. For any other conditions defending one's home, refer to Rule 1.
Nuff said.
(2)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
PO1 (Join to see) I think you forgot the drag the feet inside the door frame rule...
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Guns are designed for one purpose "To Kill". If a person who legally owns and carries a gun is not willing to end a life, then he or she shouldn't own a gun. You should still only attempt to "Stop the threat", but if the threat persist be willing end that life.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google