Paladin said:In light of the "Castle Doctrine" laws now in place in Florida, Texas, and ARIZONA the above statement is quite frankly incorrect. Could you kindly provide a single verifiable example where a mounted light being shined on a suspect resulted in a criminal conviction? How, exactly, in a he said/she said scenario, would a prosecutor prove beyond reasonable doubt that your weapon was not pointed slightly to the side of the subject, as it should have been in reality.
Paladin
Actually Paladin, I can't provide a single verifiable example where a mounted light being shined on a suspect resulted in a criminal conviction because I don't have easy access to court records. But let's forget about convictions or jail time and come to the understanding that lives are turned upside down everday in this country because of one having to defend himself in a court of law. Let's suppose a person heard some noises in his front yard and went outside to investigate with his Surefire 618 mounted on an 870 shotgun. It's pitch black so he lights off his 618 to see what going on and it's a group of teenagers TPing his front yard. They see the shotgun pointed in their direction, freak out, then jump in the back of their buddies truck and take off. They go home to their dad and explain that they were just having some fun with one of their high school buddies and then their buddie's dad comes out with a shotgun pointing it at them. The police show up at teenagers, friend's / dad's house with hands on their sidearms, ask some questions and then arrest the dad for brandishing a firearm and possible assault.
Do you really think that this isn't a serious situation Paladin? You're saying that his defense should be "well, I pointed it slightly to the side of them." That's nearly laughable if it wasn't such a serious subject. You believe that if his actions don't result in a conviction, all is hunky dorry. If three or four teenagers say that the shotgun was pointing at them it isn't going to matter if it was pointed slightly to the side of them or not. For you to say that my original statment is "quite frankly incorrect" you'd have to be under the assumption that it's ok to point firearms at people in order to ascertain a situation at night time, just because your light just happened to be attached to a firearm. How about the next time you're pulled over for speeding, the officer points his Glock .40 at you because he's trying to get a look inside of you car or at the passenger seat or to see if anything is in your lap. Then, he proceeds to read your drivers license and proof on insurance with the weaponlight but the whole time it's ok because it's pointed slightly to ths side of you.
I'm quite familar with the Castle Doctrine, especially in ARIZONA and know because of your comments that you have very little understanding of how it applies to an armed individual. I also know that all laws pertaining to the use of deadly force still apply. The law still requires citizens to articulate the ability, opportunity and intent of an attacker to do grave bodily harm to a person exercising his or her right to self-defense. You don't investigate unknown noises with weapon pointed anywhere near another person unless you believe they mean you grave bodily harm. That's what flashlights are for. It's as simple as that.
If you don't believe what I'm saying, consider walking to your parked vehicle at the mall at night time with a drawn pistol with attached weapon light. Then when you're arrested you can just claim Castle Doctrine. Since you didn't hurt anyone you might not be convicted and of course you won't mind the $30,000 in legal fees either.
Last edited: