oldngray
nowhere special
Samaritan laws vary between states and if that article had gone into those details it would have been much better at clarifying. Instead it was more of a slanted piece against concealed carry.
Regal Cinema's new "security policy"
- Thread starter soberups
- Start date
Samaritan laws vary between states and if that article had gone into those details it would have been much better at clarifying. Instead it was more of a slanted piece against concealed carry.
I grew up with guns in the house. If you teach a child properly, and store the guns properly, then there is little danger.
I knew it would be my
if I we've touched a gun without permission. It's the idiots who leave guns in a nightstand drawer where any preschooler can reach it who cause the majority of issues you hear about.It all falls back on whether the parent is responsible in their ownership.
"Thetruthaboutguns" is some liberal hack job publication?
oldngray
nowhere special
Did I say that? My comment was about the tone and wording of that specific article you quoted.
Well I challenge you to find something you believe suggests a more comprehensive protection given by such laws with respect to firearm usage.
oldngray
nowhere special
more comprehensive than what?
Than the article's suggestion that "it depends". All this came about because sober said I should Google "Good Samaritan laws". He seemed to suggest a kind.of blanket protection for firearm usage where the intentions were just. It's obvious to me that such laws rarely if ever protect the use of such weaponry by the general public. If you can find where these laws are protective of the gun owner, I would be interested in seeing it.
oldngray
nowhere special
Some states (only a few I think) have Provocative Act Doctrine where the criminal is responsible for everything even if someone else shoots an innocent bystander trying to stop the criminal.
A recent example of this occurred on March 3, 2013 in Hayward, California when a drunk driver sped away from a police officer who was trying to stop him. The drunk driver then proceeded to ram his car into the side of the officer's police cruiser. The officer opened fire against him to stop him from doing so and inadvertently killed the driver's friend, a passenger who was sitting in the front seat. Under the provocative act doctrine, the drunk driver was charged with murder in the killing of his friend.
http://www.findacriminaldefenseatto...cles/California-Provocative-Act-Doctrine.aspx
Again, LEO with deadly force guidelines. Not civilian-hero-wannabe. I assume you must see the difference.
oldngray
nowhere special
Same laws apply to civilians.
As you said before, in some places, some places not.
Indecisi0n
Well-Known Member
So a 16 year old ticket taker making minimum wage is in control of my familie safety? Oh joy.
oldngray
nowhere special
Exactly. As I said before - it depends. You asked for an example and I gave you one.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Will I still be able to sneak my box of Hot Tamales past "security"?
Future
Victory Ride
About the same level of security at The UPS entrance
Can you find one where that law is employed covering a non-LEO? I'm curious because your example is leading me to believe more and more that there are not many cases with armed civilians killing an innocent and walking away with no repercussions. Even a LEO may not be that lucky depending on the length and expense of court proceedings.
oldngray
nowhere special
Can you google what you are looking for since you aren't satisfied when I do it for you?
Similar threads
