Had an AK47 pulled on me

[RP1911]

Back in 1976 during the civil war in Lebanon, while driving my brother's Mini, I got stopped by a one-person roadblock with an AK-47 pointed right at the car. He came around jumped in and stuck the AK muzzle in the direction of my waist.

Asked me to drive in the direction I was heading. About a mile later he asked me to stop. Somewhat deserted area. Thought that was the end of my days (as a Christian living in West Beirut) on this earth. He just stepped out, walked over to my side and said thank you. He was a Murabitoun.

I never forget that day and the one where two bullets whizzed just over my head (non-combat area - which leads me to believe either stray bullets or sniper).

[N6ATF]

how to win an AKM fight with Makarov:

start watching at 5:00 minutes in to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYrRF...eature=related

It's more of a "how to lose an AKM fight if you get shot in the foot" video since they dropped and exposed their vital organs rather than shoot down through the windows of the vehicle and hold themselves up with it.

[Wild Squid]

This is as close as it comes. How much more do you want?

There's a lot more I want. And that is not a Castle doctrine. I cannot protect myself when I get carjacked because I have no gun on me. I cannot protect my neighbor's home being robbed, and heck even if I do shoot an intruder in my home, I'm the one getting prosecuted. The DA will use all kinds of baloney ballistics "experts" to testify against me. So yes, there is a lot that can be added. There needs to clear stated law that if you attempt to jack someone and you get shot, too bad. There needs to be a 'Shall Not Prosecute' gun owner, and the thug that gets shot should not be allowed to show up in court in a suit and tie, but rather what he was wearing during the alleged incident.

[Max-the-Silent]

Don'cha think having an AK47 in your face might lead to one of the exceptions? This ain't Britain ya'll know!

What exceptions? You're driving along, carrying w/o a permit, you have the means at hand (a motor vehicle) to escape, and you choose to engage in a gunfight? I don't see anything there that would elicit sympathy from the feds or the S.F. DA's office.

[Max-the-Silent]

There's a lot more I want. And that is not a Castle doctrine. I cannot protect myself when I get carjacked because I have no gun on me. I cannot protect my neighbor's home being robbed, and heck even if I do shoot an intruder in my home, I'm the one getting prosecuted. The DA will use all kinds of baloney ballistics "experts" to testify against me. So yes, there is a lot that can be added. There needs to clear stated law that if you attempt to jack someone and you get shot, too bad. There needs to be a 'Shall Not Prosecute' gun owner, and the thug that gets shot should not be allowed to show up in court in a suit and tie, but rather what he was wearing during the alleged incident.

Please give us some examples. I don't know of any recent (as in the last 20 years) where an individual in their own home has been prosecuted for shooting a criminal intruder. The recent case up in Lake County:

http://lakeconews.com/content/view/5271/764/

where the guy shot the home invasion robbery perps outside the home didn't result in charges against the shooter, even in the face of evidence that the shooter was involved in selling marijuana.

[Glock22Fan]

What exceptions? You're driving along, carrying w/o a permit, you have the means at hand (a motor vehicle) to escape, and you choose to engage in a gunfight? I don't see anything there that would elicit sympathy from the feds or the S.F. DA's office.

Who said anything about without a permit (you wouldn't even need one if you had a lockable case within reach), and who said that you weren't stuck in traffic?

You've ALWAYS got the option of deadly force if a jury of your fellow men think that it is reasonable for you to be scared for your life, and an AK47 in one's face would convince me!

[Glock22Fan]

Originally Posted by Wild Squid
You do not have the right to self defense in this state. That is this states' politicians' opinion.

Grossly over simplified, grossly inaccurate. Total FUD. I refute you with penal code citations and you say they don't count at all because they don't go far enough.

You say " I cannot protect myself when I get carjacked because I have no gun on me." Rubbish. First you can protect yourself without a firearm using other methods, pepper spray, baseball bat, tire iron or whatever. Second, there's no outright ban on having a firearm, just regulations. You could carry using "Open Carry" methods, have a firearm in a previously locked case or maybe even (depending on where you live) get a permit. The law doesn't prevent self defense, it just regulates guns.

From your latest posts, you seem to think that you should be allowed to carry a gun everywhere (which I might agree with) and use it whenever you want without law enforcement being able to question whether it was necessary (which I don't).

As far as sometimes bad guys getting away with it; of course they sometimes do -- but that doesn't mean that you have no right to self defense, your original claim.

[sorensen440]

I cannot protect myself when I get carjacked because I have no gun on me.

So bring a gun
You can either have a locked pistol or an unlocked long gun

It takes me all of 20 seconds to grab the shotgun and slide some shells into it
probably the same to pop the lock in my case and drop a mag in

[yellowfin]

This is as close as it comes. How much more do you want?

Immunity from lawsuits afterwards, which most states that have the Castle Doctrine include. Personal penalties for LE for interfering with your right to self defense and "fishing" to nail you with something because they think they should, which is official oppression.

[Glock22Fan]

Immunity from lawsuits afterwards, which most states that have the Castle Doctrine include. Personal penalties for LE for interfering with your right to self defense and "fishing" to nail you with something because they think they should, which is official oppression.

I can agree with this, up to a point (I still think that law enforcement needs to assess whether it went down as you say or not), but lack of automatic immunity doesn't mean that you have absolutely no right to self defense.

Originally it was claimed "You do not have the right to self defense in this state", I say you do and prove it with penal code citations.

Then people start saying "It doesn't go far enough!"

I'm sorry. That might be true, but not going far enough doesn't totally wipe out your self-defense rights, and that's all I'm saying.

The crux of the matter is, can you rightously use lethal force in your home against a home intruder who broke in and is not a member of your family or household? The answer is "Yes." In this (limited) case, you do not even need to prove you were scared, it is assumed that you would be. Whether his family can sue you afterwards is a different issue. Whether an anti-gun D.A. can make your life a misery is also a different issue. By all means say that the right of self-defense doesn't go far enough in California but don't deny it exists.