Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General gun discussions This is a place to lounge and discuss firearm related topics with other forum members.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 01-30-2015, 5:38 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The DA can't get a conviction unless a crime was proven to have occurred. The facts of which will be evaluated and decided by a jury of his peers, the finders of fact. Again, an intelligent and responsible person would have avoided this situation altogether by dialing 9-1-1 while being chased/followed. All of this could have been avoided by doing what I have suggested. Not defending the other driver here, but damn, lose some of the gun toting machismo and think about it.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-30-2015, 5:46 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ☠ Outside my Southern Comfort Zone ☠
Posts: 11,218
iTrader: 128 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roostersgt View Post
This thread is not about LEO's and their powers /protections. I hope you have a lot of money and your affairs are in order, regardless of whether or not you have a CCW.
Are you going to troll every thread on this subject with the same tired song and dance?
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-30-2015, 5:47 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So you think both the DA, an elected official and attorney, and the Grand Jury are slime balls? Either probable cause exists, or it does not. Apparently it does in this case. As has been stated here by many, we are not in possession of all the facts, the cops, DA and certainly the Grand Jury are. You're swimming upstream in this state. Texas may have an entirely different look on shooting unarmed old guys on your property, I don't know, I don't live there and neither does the Dr.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-30-2015, 5:50 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky.Hawk View Post
Are you going to troll every thread on this subject with the same tired song and dance?
Yes, it's called having an informed discussion. Do you desire to name call again, or will you be joining this theoretical discussion like an adult?
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-30-2015, 5:50 PM
rgraham's Avatar
rgraham rgraham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just a couple of things regarding this case.

1. I have lived in Corte Madera for over 30 years, and Marin, over 60. Corte Madera at one time was a conservative town, but is no longer. Much like all of Marin was really. All that changed back in the late seventies and early eighties and never stopped. There are a few conservative families still scattered here and there, but it is not the norm.

2. The Dr. and his wife are what would be described as diminutive. Barely over five feet tall. The wife may not even be over five feet. Although the two people involved may have been similar in age, they are not physically. I for one could see the Dr. fearing for both his and his wife's welfare.

3. The police department here is very level headed and does not serve and protect with any kind of political agenda in mind. The current chief of police's father was once an officer in town, and the chief runs the department as if it were still a small town, with concern for those who live in the community.

4. All the DA is trying to do is milk some money out of the Dr. in order to satisfy those who hate guns, and those who own them.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-30-2015, 5:52 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Okay, another reason to assert that elections have consequences.im not sure I agree with those who believe
a DA can sway a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich though . That is an old wives tell started by a gangsters attorney. I asked my academy teaching partner of the past 12 years, a practicing deputy DA. what she thought about Grand Jury indictments and she told me she can't recall any unsuccessful prosecutions based upon their indictments to her recollection. She's been with the office 18 years and counting. Regardless, the Dr is going to be out a lot of money due to his poor choice of action. I don't make the laws and often am in disagreement in cases such as this, but the law is what it is and people make choices. Make informed choices, or be subjected to the consequences in this state.

Last edited by roostersgt; 01-30-2015 at 6:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-30-2015, 5:58 PM
Section 101 Section 101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 203
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roostersgt View Post
The DA can't get a conviction unless a crime was proven to have occurred. The facts of which will be evaluated and decided by a jury of his peers, the finders of fact. Again, an intelligent and responsible person would have avoided this situation altogether by dialing 9-1-1 while being chased/followed. All of this could have been avoided by doing what I have suggested. Not defending the other driver here, but damn, lose some of the gun toting machismo and think about it.
Your assuming he has a cell phone and knows how to use it. They also may follow the law and dont make calls while driving!
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-30-2015, 6:04 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Yes, but what doctor and wife don't have a cellular telephone nowadays? Only possible that one of them could have been driving at the time. Reasonablness is the key to this case.

Last edited by roostersgt; 01-30-2015 at 6:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-30-2015, 6:06 PM
Wolverine's Avatar
Wolverine Wolverine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 740
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roostersgt View Post
So you think both the DA, an elected official and attorney, and the Grand Jury are slime balls? Either probable cause exists, or it does not. Apparently it does in this case. As has been stated here by many, we are not in possession of all the facts, the cops, DA and certainly the Grand Jury are. You're swimming upstream in this state. Texas may have an entirely different look on shooting unarmed old guys on your property, I don't know, I don't live there and neither does the Dr.
Yes, we are not in possession of all of the facts. The people that do have those facts presented them in open court to a neutral magistrate. He found that the facts were insufficient to even bother a jury with and dismissed the charges.

Rather than sucking it up and taking this loss like a man, the DA gamed the system and did an end around. That is a slim ball move on his part (the Grand Jury are innocent - they can only go by what the DA tells them).

ETA: My cousin is an attorney and, for the past 20 years, an elected Superior Court Judge. That doesn't make him immune from being a slim ball at times

Last edited by Wolverine; 01-30-2015 at 6:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-30-2015, 6:14 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Grand Juries listen to the DAs case, but they are hardly told what to do. If there truly is no justification to prosecute, that will result in a not guilty verdict. DAs don't get to lie or fabricate facts to the Grand Jury. Would you feel differently if you were the one shot and (hypothetically) the appointed judge, your assailants golfing buddy, disagreed with both the cops and DAs offices findings of probable cause? This case is precisely why we have Grand Juries to decide whether or not a case is prosecuted. Not perfect, but supremely better than some appointed judge making his supreme decision without oversight. What happened happened and your assertion that the judge knows better than the police, detectives and several levels of deputy district attorney's makes little sense to me. Everyone involved,except the judge, doesn't know the law,or their jobs???

Last edited by roostersgt; 01-30-2015 at 6:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-30-2015, 6:51 PM
Wolverine's Avatar
Wolverine Wolverine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 740
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roostersgt View Post
Grand Juries listen to the DAs case, but they are hardly told what to do. If there truly is no justification to prosecute, that will result in a not guilty verdict. DAs don't get to lie or fabricate facts to the Grand Jury. Would you feel differently if you were the one shot and (hypothetically) the appointed judge, your assailants golfing buddy, disagreed with both the cops and DAs offices findings of probable cause? This case is precisely why we have Grand Juries to decide whether or not a case is prosecuted. Not perfect, but supremely better than some appointed judge making his supreme decision without oversight. What happened happened and your assertion that the judge knows better than the police, detectives and several levels of deputy district attorney's makes little sense to me.
You seem confused about the Grand Jury process. Grand Juries don't render verdicts - they issue a True Bill or not - and the DA is free to try again with a different Grand Jury at a later time if he strikes out. Before a Grand Jury the DA is allowed to present and omit facts without any repercussions. This is the origin of the term "indict a ham sandwich" I linked to earlier. It stems from the fact that a DA can get a Grand Jury to indict anyone he desires to. In this case, all the DA would have to do is tell the jury that the defendant admits to shooting at the victim and viola, indicted for ADW.

You are only assuming without evidence that the "police, detectives and several levels of deputy district attorneys" are on board with this. All we know is what the DA has decided to do. And talk about lack of oversight, the judges decision to dismiss the charges can be appealed to a 3 judge panel of the appeals court, and if that fails the California Supreme Court and if that fails the US Supreme Court. Or the DA can come up with new evidence that supports his theory and try again. What oversight is there on the DA? Campaign against him in the next election? That's it.

BTW. Probable cause only gets an arrest, going to trial requires evidence a jury could find proves the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case they need evidence that the defendant's fear of death or great bodily injury was UNreasonable. It sucks for the DA that the victim can't remember what happened.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-30-2015, 7:56 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
You seem confused about the Grand Jury process. Grand Juries don't render verdicts - they issue a True Bill or not - and the DA is free to try again with a different Grand Jury at a later time if he strikes out. Before a Grand Jury the DA is allowed to present and omit facts without any repercussions. This is the origin of the term "indict a ham sandwich" I linked to earlier. It stems from the fact that a DA can get a Grand Jury to indict anyone he desires to. In this case, all the DA would have to do is tell the jury that the defendant admits to shooting at the victim and viola, indicted for ADW.

You are only assuming without evidence that the "police, detectives and several levels of deputy district attorneys" are on board with this. All we know is what the DA has decided to do. And talk about lack of oversight, the judges decision to dismiss the charges can be appealed to a 3 judge panel of the appeals court, and if that fails the California Supreme Court and if that fails the US Supreme Court. Or the DA can come up with new evidence that supports his theory and try again. What oversight is there on the DA? Campaign against him in the next election? That's it.

BTW. Probable cause only gets an arrest, going to trial requires evidence a jury could find proves the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case they need evidence that the defendant's fear of death or great bodily injury was UNreasonable. It sucks for the DA that the victim can't remember what happened.
You're preaching to the choir with most of what you just stated, i don't think were really in disagreement. Never stated Grand Juries "render verdicts" and am unsure how you attribute that to me. My meaning was after the trial by jury. I'm pretty aware of what occurs and certainly capable of understanding what I read in the news article. You seem to think a single judge has more grasp of what happened and the totality of the circumstances than probably several levels of police officer and several level of deputy district attorneys, all of whom do this sort of thing for a living and probably most are deemed by the courts, both state and federal, to be court recognized "experts". Your position, correct me if I'm wrong, is that ALL of those peoples investigative work, regarding the shooting, was poo poo'd by a single lawyer in a black dress and you're okay with that. That's fine by me. I'm certain that every single entity involved was "on board" with the original filing of the charges, or they wouldn't have filed them. i''m also pretty certain they all **** themselves and scratched their heads when the judge tossed the original case. That has never happened that I am aware of in my jurisdiction. It's unheard of due to the many layers of scrutiny each case must go through. it;'s actually pretty mind boggling.

If you follow the news, you'll learn society is relying more and more on Grand Juries than they have in the past. It isn't illegal, or slimy, for a DA to go to a Grand Jury, versus some 3 judge panel (of which I am entirely unfamiliar as judges around here don't dismiss cases brought forth by the DA's office, and I've been in this business an awful long time) either process is entirely legal, or it wouldn't be done. Did you know DA's only file those cases they are certain to win? That's why they have such high conviction rates (~90+%). I doubt the DA wants to prosecute and lose a high profile case such as this, as it would make her look stupid and no politician wishes to lose and look stupid.

Last edited by roostersgt; 01-30-2015 at 8:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-30-2015, 8:00 PM
.45 ACP's Avatar
.45 ACP .45 ACP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,418
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I would have plugged that ******* 3 times. Glad I don't live in a libtard area where they punish lawful use of a weapon in self defense.
__________________
The Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. - The United States Supreme Court
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-30-2015, 8:10 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Avoidance is the most prudent and responsible course of action when involved in such an incident, unless of course, it's your intention to shoot unarmed people. Do your self and your family a favor and learn from this incident and discussion. Call 9-1-1 if you're ever confronted with a road rage incident involving some idiot driving crazy and following you. Playing "cop / cowboy" can be very expensive and life changing in some very negative ways. Stay safe and play it smart.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-30-2015, 8:30 PM
.45 ACP's Avatar
.45 ACP .45 ACP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,418
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Call 911 while some lunatic tries to beat the life out of me. No thanks dude.

I'll call 911 to pick up the corpse of the ****er who thought he was a tough guy.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
__________________
The Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. - The United States Supreme Court
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-30-2015, 8:39 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by .45 ACP View Post
Call 911 while some lunatic tries to beat the life out of me. No thanks dude.

I'll call 911 to pick up the corpse of the ****er who thought he was a tough guy.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
The Dr and his wife had plenty of time to call when the initial "road rage" incident was occurring. They were driving their car, not getting the "life beaten out of them" ala Geoerge Zimmerman. They chose not to call and drove into their garage before confronting the unarmed "tough guy" / 70 year old old man with deadly force. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that anyone was beating on anyone. Even at the conclusion, the only person suffering any injuries was the gunshot "victim". Yeehaw!! Exactly what the Dr was probably thinking too, probably after a few dinner glasses of wine and cocktails. Poor decision making led to this mess.

Last edited by roostersgt; 01-30-2015 at 8:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-30-2015, 8:46 PM
.45 ACP's Avatar
.45 ACP .45 ACP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,418
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I don't know about you but my impression and the impression of the judges who threw this worthless case out was that the tough guy wasn't trying to say hi when he followed the guy home and rammed his house, then got out of the car looking to beat some ***.

Play stupid games get stupid prizes. But that's what's great about this country. You and people like you are welcome to cower in fear waiting for the cops to save you, or maybe they find your battered corpse and have to drag what's left of you to the morgue. You bleeding hearts are always free to lay your life down for misunderstood psychopaths who follow you home after being cut off.

Just as I am free to stop their heart with .45 hollow points with 3 shots to the chest.
__________________
The Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. - The United States Supreme Court
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-30-2015, 8:54 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I am a cop, a deputy sheriff and i have never "cowered", but have been followed by two road rage crazies. i was armed and in my jurisdiction too. I called 9-1-1 on both occasions and CHP arrested both for DUI. CHP caught up to us within minutes of my calling. Amazing thing was after all that, I still went home with my "manhood" intact, along with my finances and freedom.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-30-2015, 9:01 PM
.45 ACP's Avatar
.45 ACP .45 ACP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,418
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Good for you. I served 3 years in Afghanistan. I have cowered in fear and sometimes felt that my life may pass. I have never been followed by a rager but I know of a man in Florida that was traveling to NYC to visit his father and was being chased by a road rager armed with a .44. He immediately got on the phone with 911 with the psychopath pursuing him. Later when the police found his car and bullet riddled corpse, they made a plea to the public to come up with any information they could to find the killer.

You want to keep trading stories that have nothing to do with this case and situation or are we done with story time now?

Not everyone can carry a gun on their person, especially in libtard areas like Marin, and not everyone can get on the radio and call their armed buddies for backup.
__________________
The Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. - The United States Supreme Court

Last edited by .45 ACP; 01-30-2015 at 9:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-30-2015, 11:14 PM
roostersgt roostersgt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 5200'
Posts: 1,731
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Easy there fella, I'm just offering some common sense, some very common sense advice on how to stay out of trouble in California, nowhere else and certainly not a war zone, but you keep doing whatever feels right for you, but please refrain from sharing those scary thoughts with others, they're likely to get one into trouble.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 01-30-2015, 11:25 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 5,133
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I don't know about this story about Dr Simon, but I can confim, Marin must be the most hyper-liberal hyper-elitist patch of dirt in the state, at least that I'm aware of, and I've probably lived in several of the most hyper-liberal hyper-elitist areas.

Someday if I'm rich, one of the things I'm going to do is go to Marin and establish a homeless shelter and the biggest refugee resettlement center I can create there. Marin is very segregated and un-diverse and I would like to help them out with that.
Already there. Plus lots of illegals, etc. There even used to be projects there, although someone told me they've been torn down.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-31-2015, 7:46 AM
The Tiger's Avatar
The Tiger The Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,173
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roostersgt View Post
Easy there fella, I'm just offering some common sense, some very common sense advice on how to stay out of trouble in California, nowhere else and certainly not a war zone, but you keep doing whatever feels right for you, but please refrain from sharing those scary thoughts with others, they're likely to get one into trouble.
You've made your point more times than I care to count. We get it.
__________________

NRA Benefactor
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-31-2015, 8:35 AM
.45 ACP's Avatar
.45 ACP .45 ACP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,418
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roostersgt View Post
Easy there fella, I'm just offering some common sense, some very common sense advice on how to stay out of trouble in California, nowhere else and certainly not a war zone, but you keep doing whatever feels right for you, but please refrain from sharing those scary thoughts with others, they're likely to get one into trouble.
Dude we know. We get that you think everyone will get in trouble for using their weapon legally in a defensive shooting. The thing is some people would rather face a court than chance getting brain damage from an attacker. How are you not getting this? It's easy to Monday quarterback and say oh he should have done this now he spent $100,000 in legal fees. It's even harder to fix brain damage even with $200,000 dollars. Ever think of that? And contrary to your belief that cops are superman and can save you in seconds, sometimes they simply cannot get there in time, this has been proven numerous times in history.

The fact that you think legal defensive gun use is "a scary thought" shows that you are part of the problem here in CA. Usng a gun can be scary for some but using it to save your life should not be something people are afraid to do. They were designed to do that task, so why do you think it's scary? Your line of thinking and people who think like you are the reason the Peruta decision is still being challenged even though a judge has ruled it's unconstitutional to prevent CCW. I'm glad you aren't a sheriff in OC where our honorable sheriff has decided to issue CCWs and follow the spirit of the U.S. constitution. Maybe you could learn a thing or two from that stance and what it means to be American.

It seems to me people in this thread think you should refrain from continually sharing your tired opinion which you've restated 20 times. You don't know how likely they are to get in trouble, you're just spreading FUD and FUD that could get people killed. You're not the judge. You're not the DA. I recommend you give it a rest fella.
__________________
The Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. - The United States Supreme Court

Last edited by .45 ACP; 01-31-2015 at 8:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-31-2015, 9:09 AM
suitcase suitcase is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 67
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The DA already had his case thrown out of court. Unless he's found new evidence, this seems like a waste of resources.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-31-2015, 9:22 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,748
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by .45 ACP View Post
And contrary to your belief that cops are superman and can save you in seconds, sometimes they simply cannot get there in time,
Not just sometimes. Almost never. Cops are not a security force. They are not peacekeepers. They have no legal duty to protect.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-31-2015, 9:33 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,520
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Criminals should always have more rights than victims in Marin County. That's the price of admission.

Now let's wait for the affirmative-action civil lawsuit jury's decision.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-31-2015, 9:40 AM
.45 ACP's Avatar
.45 ACP .45 ACP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,418
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I agree fully. Cops are almost always on the scene AFTER a crime has been committed. In the city I live in the police force is 25 cops for a population of 40,000. I'd say that only half of those guys are on the streets at any given time. It's simply impossible for them to be there in time to save everyone in the case of an attacker, armed or not. I'm not going to bet my life on some squad car getting to me with time to spare if some angry guy steps into my property ready to beat some ***. Self defense is an inalienable and constitutional right. The Marin DA would not have been a popular man during the time of Washington, And Jefferson.
__________________
The Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. - The United States Supreme Court

Last edited by .45 ACP; 01-31-2015 at 9:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-31-2015, 11:54 AM
Bake's Avatar
Bake Bake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: North Bay
Posts: 200
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

The Marin County DA is an anti-gun nut. Check out this ongoing case:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news...ase?source=rss

Unfortunately this dude is poor, so he gets to rot in jail while his attorney fights the charges.
__________________
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Ben Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-31-2015, 2:04 PM
GabeCA GabeCA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustaBlokeAnywhere View Post
My CCW instructor (who is a the local PD's Swat trainer and a 40 year veteran of the force) always emphasises

'NO WARNING SHOTS....YOU SHOOT, YOU SHOOT TO KILL....save that bull**** warning shoot, shooting a gun/knife stuff for the movies and put the perp down quick".
Not the best choice of words. I would not recommend anyone saying that their goal was to shoot to kill. In a self-defense scenario, you shoot center mass to stop the threat. "I was in fear for my life and used my firearm to stop the threat." If the attacker dies, that is an unfortunate side effect.

Last edited by GabeCA; 01-31-2015 at 2:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-31-2015, 6:09 PM
sfbay's Avatar
sfbay sfbay is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,646
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

.
.
.
71 year old victim & 70 year old suspect ?



Man, i hope i have that kind of spunk at that age.


Plus, they both drive mercedes?
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-31-2015, 7:20 PM
heidad01 heidad01 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

All who are quoting the definition of some PC and coming up with variety of reasons why the Doc should not have shot and should have called 911 or this and that, and especially if you are LEO;
You would not have said or felt this way so stongly if the old Doc and his wife were your mom and dad (wife and daughter, etc..) who took refuge in their house from a crazy bastard following them through the city. They did retreat to their home for safety and if some one follows, comes in/breaks in past the wall of the house, that is/should be taken as a treat to life. People do not carry law books under their arms or memorize the penal code. The perception of a regular and ordinary man is that he should be safe from harm, murder, and mayhem in his own house.


Quote:
Originally Posted by suitcase View Post
The DA already had his case thrown out of court. Unless he's found new evidence, this seems like a waste of resources.
^^^ Seems like he is digging into it to find a reason. People like this DA are as much of a menace to society as the gang bangers or any one who maliciously and aggresively follows an old couple home and rams his car into their their house. What kind of self serving, heartless lowlifer would ruin an old doctor's life for personal gain in votes or political popularity.?? That is just un-american as it gets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Not just sometimes. Almost never. Cops are not a security force. They are not peacekeepers. They have no legal duty to protect.
^^^ No kidding. They most certaily won't get into a fight let alone a gun fight or anything that is dangerous for them to save you. The usual SOP is to stay way way back and call back up. By which time you are dead if you can not defend yourself.
Amazingly, it is OK for the LEOs to shoot any innocent guy if he so much as reaches down to scratch the family jewels and the DAs will back them up, but it now such a big thing if a Doctor shot a crazed scumbag raming into his house fully capable of killing him and his old wife. Too bad the old doc did not hit the guy fatally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bake View Post
The Marin County DA is an anti-gun nut. Check out this ongoing case:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news...ase?source=rss

Unfortunately this dude is poor, so he gets to rot in jail while his attorney fights the charges.
^^^ What a disgrace for some one holding a public office. Any one breaking a door and entering someone's house shoud be shot let alone one with a knife breaking in and threatening the life of others. If we do not have a law that allows such self defense, then we certainly need to pass such a law as it well serves a society of the law obiding people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GabeCA View Post
Not the best choice of words. I would not recommend anyone saying that their goal was to shoot to kill. In a self-defense scenario, you shoot center mass to stop the threat. "I was in fear for my life and used my firearm to stop the threat." If the attacker dies, that is an unfortunate side effect.
^^^ The best advice I have seen on situations where one shoots a perp/intruder/scumbag in self defense is to say nothing, except for something to the effect that I had to shoot in defense of my life and do not want to answer any other questions without an attorney present. That is it. You have no obligation to answer any questions.
Just because you are the good guy does not mean didly squat. Any word you say may and will be used against you and especially with DA like this one. Police are not your buddies, and not there to help you. They are an investigative body and just take statements which more than likely will cost you down the line.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I like cops and have friends who are LEOs and tell them the same thing. The above stated is just an opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-31-2015, 7:59 PM
GabeCA GabeCA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heidad01 View Post
^^^ The best advice I have seen on situations where one shoots a perp/intruder/scumbag in self defense is to say nothing, except for something to the effect that I had to shoot in defense of my life and do not want to answer any other questions without an attorney present. That is it. You have no obligation to answer any questions.
Just because you are the good guy does not mean didly squat. Any word you say may and will be used against you and especially with DA like this one. Police are not your buddies, and not there to help you. They are an investigative body and just take statements which more than likely will cost you down the line.
Yes, I agree completely. You are only justified to use your firearm in self defense to stop the threat to your life. You do not have to explain yourself on the spot to the responding officers. You have worded your advice much better than I did
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-10-2015, 5:52 PM
JustaBlokeAnywhere JustaBlokeAnywhere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 734
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

You are very astute my friend.....my instructor follows up with saying "when later questioned, your first thing to respond back with is...."I a little shaken up right and now and would prefer not to answer anything without my lawyer present, and if pushed, the response is "I was in fear of my life and I shot until the threat stopped...not I shot to kill"

Quote:
Originally Posted by GabeCA View Post
Not the best choice of words. I would not recommend anyone saying that their goal was to shoot to kill. In a self-defense scenario, you shoot center mass to stop the threat. "I was in fear for my life and used my firearm to stop the threat." If the attacker dies, that is an unfortunate side effect.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 03-13-2015, 9:09 AM
whatmeworry's Avatar
whatmeworry whatmeworry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco North Bay
Posts: 589
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

BUMP BUMP

http://www.friendsofjimmysimon.org

Please sign the petition to have this 2nd case against Dr. Simon dropped.You do not have to be a resident of Marin to sign. We need to stop these power hungry political moves at the grass root level.

Disclaimer. I am not part of this commitee nor do I know or have anything to do with Dr. Simon or his family. I do attend the same gym as him and his wife but have never spoken to him.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 03-13-2015, 9:28 AM
Neanderthal Neanderthal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 642
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatmeworry View Post
BUMP BUMP

http://www.friendsofjimmysimon.org

Please sign the petition to have this 2nd case against Dr. Simon dropped.You do not have to be a resident of Marin to sign. We need to stop these power hungry political moves at the grass root level.

Disclaimer. I am not part of this commitee nor do I know or have anything to do with Dr. Simon or his family. I do attend the same gym as him and his wife but have never spoken to him.
Let them be unjust tyrants. The angry and JUST mob of citizens will fix the problem with a rope.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:49 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.