Armed Citizen stops crime

[Vroom_C14]

I know this will just get scoffed at by the "one stones" aka - Lefties on this board but it needs to be noted:

Armed citizen breaks up Marion robbery; suspect facing charges
Burlington man was caught in the act of robbing two people in Marion by an armed citizen.

According to the Linn County attorney’s Office, 66-year-old John R. Barnett assaulted two people outside an apartment building in the 1400 block of Grand Avenue in Marion on Tuesday. An accomplice was with Barnett at the time of the assault, police said. A wallet was taken from one victim.

Authorities said that during the robbery, a witness intervened and held Barnett at gunpoint until officers arrived. The accomplice was able to flee with the victim’s wallet.

The Marion Police Department said if a person feels threatened, they have the right to use force. Barnett was arrested and has been charged with two counts of second-degree robbery.

“A person has a right to defend themselves, they have a right to defend their property, and if you’re carrying a firearm and you feel threatened and the circumstance dictates, then you certainly have the right to utilize that firearm,” police Sgt. Lance Miller said. “We’re frequently asked, ‘Do I have the right to pull a gun when x, y, and z happens?’

“It’s really hard for law enforcement to answer those questions because there’s an infinite number of possibilities that can take place and at the end of the day its whether or not the person with the firearm feels that their life was threatened,” Miller said.

http://www.kcrg.com/subject/news/pu...arion-robbery-suspect-facing-charges-20150902

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

I was pleasantly surprised that this story got some positive coverage in the local media. Good outcome!

 

[OILCHECKER]

The police officers statement didn't really seem to address what actually happened.

 

[Vroom_C14]

In case you were interested in CC "saves" - here is a link that shows how it works:

http://www.stickyholsters.com/blogs...-heroes-of-2014-concealed-carry-saves-the-day

 

[ANYCHawk]

The police officers statement didn't really seem to address what actually happened.

This.

The witness had the gun, not the robber and he wasn't the target he was the witness. So how did he feel threatened enough to the point to utilize the weapon?

 

[Vroom_C14]

This.

The witness had the gun, not the robber and he wasn't the target he was the witness. So how did he feel threatened enough to the point to utilize the weapon?

And the one nuts appear... It's called doing the right thing (no not the "R" thing, the right thing).

If it were you being robbed and a guy (off the street) pulls his weapon and stops what is happening to you - are you going to bitch and tell the person to go away because "they" weren't threatened?

 

[lucas80]

In case you were interested in CC "saves" - here is a link that shows how it works:

http://www.stickyholsters.com/blogs...-heroes-of-2014-concealed-carry-saves-the-day

Thanks. Do you have any links showing that you are more likely to utilize a handgun in protecting yourself versus being killed by a deranged co-worker or family member?

 

[Vroom_C14]

Thanks. Do you have any links showing that you are more likely to utilize a handgun in protecting yourself versus being killed by a deranged co-worker or family member?

 

[ANYCHawk]

If it were you being robbed and a guy (off the street) pulls his weapon and stops what is happening to you - are you going to bitch and tell the person to go away because "they" weren't threatened?

That's not really the point, and of course not.

It's that this guy doesn't seem to meet the definition the cops gave for when its OK to pull out your gun. There is a reason why you don't want citizens pulling gun if they see/or think they see a crime. Guns rarely deescalate the situation. Let me ask you a hypothetical in return. Would you be applauding this guy if he pulls his gun, turns out the robber has one so he pulls his, they start shooting like its the OK Corral and three kids end up getting killed?

 

[Vroom_C14]

That's not really the point, and of course not.

It's that this guy doesn't seem to meet the definition the cops gave for when its OK to pull out your gun. There is a reason why you don't want citizens pulling gun if they see/or think they see a crime. Guns rarely deescalate the situation. Let me ask you a hypothetical in return. Would you be applauding this guy if he pulls his gun, turns out the robber has one so he pulls his, they start shooting like its the OK Corral and three kids end up getting killed?

Of course I wouldn't want innocent lives lost - we can lay out scenarios all day long that strengthen or weaken the situation. Coulda, Woulda,Shoulda....

From the article -
Police Sgt. Lance Miller said. “We’re frequently asked, ‘Do I have the right to pull a gun when x, y, and z happens?’ “It’s really hard for law enforcement to answer those questions because there’s an infinite number of possibilities that can take place and at the end of the day its whether or not the person with the firearm feels that their life was threatened,” Miller said.

Officer states "it's hard to answer that" meaning "X,Y,Z" - and pointed to the fact that here are an infinite number of possibilities (using a broad brush stroke) AND at the EOD if you feel threatened you can defend yourself.

 

[OILCHECKER]

Of course I wouldn't want innocent lives lost - we can lay out scenarios all day long that strengthen or weaken the situation. Coulda, Woulda,Shoulda....

From the article -
Police Sgt. Lance Miller said. “We’re frequently asked, ‘Do I have the right to pull a gun when x, y, and z happens?’ “It’s really hard for law enforcement to answer those questions because there’s an infinite number of possibilities that can take place and at the end of the day its whether or not the person with the firearm feels that their life was threatened,” Miller said.

Officer states "it's hard to answer that" meaning "X,Y,Z" - and pointed to the fact that here are an infinite number of possibilities (using a broad brush stroke) AND at the EOD if you feel threatened you can defend yourself.

Right, if YOU feel threatened you can defend YOURSELF or YOUR property. That isn't what happened here .

 

[Derekd3408]

Guy does something good, certain people bitch about it because it hurts their agenda. BAU For HROT. Carry on.

 

[The_Joker13]

JFC, you guys just can't accept the fact that a conceal carry potentially saved someone's life and definitely put a criminal behind bars. Let it go.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Right, if YOU feel threatened you can defend YOURSELF or YOUR property. That isn't what happened here .

"YOU" was not stated until the final statement for EOD. Prior to that, if you read it - states "INFINITE" possibilities... to use.

 

[Vroom_C14]

JFC, you guys just can't accept the fact that a conceal carry potentially saved someone's life and definitely put a criminal behind bars. Let it go.

And I knew there were some that were going be this way - always. They won't appreciate it until it saves them (if even then).

 

[Titanhawk2]

This.

The witness had the gun, not the robber and he wasn't the target he was the witness. So how did he feel threatened enough to the point to utilize the weapon?

Next time you are assaulted, we'll all gather round and watch

 

[OILCHECKER]

"YOU" was not stated until the final statement for EOD. Prior to that, if you read it - states "INFINITE" possibilities... to use.

If someone breaks into my home and I am a gun owner (which I am), I can shoot him to defend myself or my property. But if someone breaks into my neighbors home, I do not believe I am able to shoot them as I am not personally threatened nor is my property. And I am not saying that if you are a law abiding conceal carry person that comes across someone getting assaulted that you cannot draw and/or use your weapon. What I am saying is that the officers statement was about individuals protecting themselves and their property, not about the right to protect others or their property.

 

[theIowaHawk]

This.

The witness had the gun, not the robber and he wasn't the target he was the witness. So how did he feel threatened enough to the point to utilize the weapon?

I'm confused by the distinction you are trying to draw, can you elaborate?

 

[theIowaHawk]

If someone breaks into my home and I am a gun owner (which I am), I can shoot him to defend myself or my property. But if someone breaks into my neighbors home, I do not believe I am able to shoot them as I am not personally threatened nor is my property. And I am not saying that if you are a law abiding conceal carry person that comes across someone getting assaulted that you cannot draw and/or use your weapon. What I am saying is that the officers statement was about individuals protecting themselves and their property, not about the right to protect others or their property.

Sure you can, it is "Defense of Others", gets the same protection, technically, as self.

 

[Vroom_C14]

If someone breaks into my home and I am a gun owner (which I am), I can shoot him to defend myself or my property. But if someone breaks into my neighbors home, I do not believe I am able to shoot them as I am not personally threatened nor is my property. And I am not saying that if you are a law abiding conceal carry person that comes across someone getting assaulted that you cannot draw and/or use your weapon. What I am saying is that the officers statement was about individuals protecting themselves and their property, not about the right to protect others or their property.

his final statement was about your person, yes - the "infinite scenarios" covers what you describe though. You are reading it with blinders - to get clarification, go ask a LEO (my neighbors that are LEO are all for those of us who carry to help if able).

Does this help?


704.3 Defense of self or another.
A person is justified in the use of reasonable force when the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend oneself or another from any imminent use of unlawful force.

704.5 AIDING ANOTHER IN THE DEFENSE OF PROPERTY. A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to aid another in the lawful defense of the other person's rights in property or in any public property.

704.1 REASONABLE FORCE. "Reasonable force" is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one's life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one's dwelling or place of business or employment.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

Sure you can, it is "Defense of Others", gets the same protection, technically, as self.

How do you know this? The cop didn't say this.
Look what the guy did was great. I think those that are questioning this are questioning how what the witness did matches what the police said was ok. They appear to be two different things.

 

[Vroom_C14]

How do you know this? The cop didn't say this.
Look what the guy did was great. I think those that are questioning this are questioning how what the witness did matches what the police said was ok. They appear to be two different things.

I guess my dealings with LEO (as neighbors and all) is what drives it.

 

[theIowaHawk]

How do you know this? The cop didn't say this.
Look what the guy did was great. I think those that are questioning this are questioning how what the witness did matches what the police said was ok. They appear to be two different things.

Well, first, I don't rely on "cops" to tell me what the law is.

Let's look to self defense:

Iowa code chapter 704 - Use of Force:

704.3 DEFENSE OF SELF OR ANOTHER.
A person is justified in the use of reasonable force when the
person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend
oneself or another from any imminent use of unlawful force.


It puts it right there next to self.

Also:

704.4 DEFENSE OF PROPERTY.
A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or
terminate criminal interference with the person's possession or other
right in property. Nothing in this section authorizes the use of any
spring gun or trap which is left unattended and unsupervised and
which is placed for the purpose of preventing or terminating criminal
interference with the possession of or other right in property.

704.5 AIDING ANOTHER IN THE DEFENSE OF PROPERTY.
A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to aid
another in the lawful defense of the other person's rights in
property or in any public property.

There are regulations and a lot of precedent on the issue, but from the statute:

704.6 WHEN DEFENSE NOT AVAILABLE.
The defense of justification is not available to the following:
1. One who is participating in a forcible felony, or riot, or a
duel.
2. One who initially provokes the use of force against oneself,
with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict injury on
the assailant.
3. One who initially provokes the use of force against oneself by
one's unlawful acts, unless:
a. Such force is grossly disproportionate to the provocation,
and is so great that the person reasonably believes that the person
is in imminent danger of death or serious injury or
b. The person withdraws from physical contact with the other
and indicates clearly to the other that the person desires to
terminate the conflict but the other continues or resumes the use of
force.

Edit to add: I see that Vroom beat me to it.

 

[ANYCHawk]

How do you know this? The cop didn't say this.
Look what the guy did was great. I think those that are questioning this are questioning how what the witness did matches what the police said was ok. They appear to be two different things.

Yep that is all. We aren't saying take all the guns. We aren't saying that we would like everyone to stand around why we get are butt kicked. We aren't saying this guy should be criminally charged. Only that the actions don't match what the police say is OK.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Read the Iowa laws...

 

[theIowaHawk]

Or, really, any self defense law. Iowa isn't unique. Of course you can protect another, it is all (always is) about reasonableness. What is reasonable? Well shit, we'll always argue about that.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Yep that is all. We aren't saying take all the guns. We aren't saying that we would like everyone to stand around why we get are butt kicked. We aren't saying this guy should be criminally charged. Only that the actions don't match what the police say is OK.

So what? You're making a strong effort at a futile defense here.

It's pretty clear from the law that a legally armed person can use his/her weapon to defend the wellbeing or property of another.

 

[FranklinHawk]

Yep that is all. We aren't saying take all the guns. We aren't saying that we would like everyone to stand around why we get are butt kicked. We aren't saying this guy should be criminally charged. Only that the actions don't match what the police say is OK.

The law has been posted. How about we just say what this guy did was perfectly legal and the LEO didn't do a great job of tying his statement directly to the situation?