涉枪法律探讨：如果是你当时在NYC处在与白左Ryan Carson同样的险境。你是否可以合法用枪自卫？

[Topgolf118]

答案在第二贴。建议你先想一想，不要急着看答案。

[Topgolf118]

答案是肯定的。 即使在liberal的大烂苹果，理论上，在面临生死关头，你也可以用枪自卫。

Under the New York Penal Law Article 35, you may use deadly force when you reasonably believe the attacker is using or about to use deadly force. In most situations outside your own home, you have a limited duty to retreat.

https://documentedny.com/2023/07/27/new ... ur-ground/

[Topgolf118]

有必要了解一下纽约的 Duty to Retreat laws. 以及the “castle doctrine VS the concept of Stand Your Ground.

Duty to Retreat, the “Castle Doctrine” and “Stand Your Ground” laws

Let’s first understand the concept of Stand Your Ground. Stand Your Ground law, which is adopted in many states, says that when you are confronted with deadly physical force, you don’t have to retreat even if you can do so. According to an article by Criminal Justice Lawyer Cody Warner, if you are walking down the street and someone approaches you, pulls out a gun, and starts shooting at you, you don’t have to retreat. If you are armed, you can pull out a gun and shoot back so long as you reasonably think it’s necessary to defend yourself from the deadly physical force of the other person.

But New York generally imposes Duty to Retreat laws. So if you know that you can safely retreat with complete personal safety from a scenario described above, then you are obligated to do so and cannot use deadly physical force. So, the question isn’t whether you could in fact have retreated with complete personal safety, but whether you knew that you could safely retreat.

Although New York does not adopt stand your ground, it follows a similar doctrine called the “castle doctrine,” allowing individuals to use deadly force to defend their homes against intruders. The key distinction between these two is that the castle doctrine designates this justification for people in their homes, according to FindLaw. The rationale is that your home is “your castle” or safe refuge, and that you should not have to run away from your home when defending it against invaders.

[jhe123]

答案在第二贴。建议你先想一想，不要急着看答案。

在左逼当道的地方要特别小心。就算他有枪，像他这种自己主动上前干涉对方没有危及他人性命的犯罪，最后必须开枪自卫打死了对方的，很有可能法庭上有大麻烦。

上CCW课时教官就说过，深夜的城市你不走大路，而是为了抄近路，走back alley， 如果有人来抢你攻击你，不得不开枪打对方，你都可能会有麻烦。因为你明显违背正常普通人的避险规则，DA可以spin 你是在刻意寻找麻烦。

[Nameless]

多谢好帖和有意义的讨论。没钱了。不好意思啊。

[Topgolf118]

在左逼当道的地方要特别小心。就算他有枪，像他这种自己主动上前干涉对方没有危及他人性命的犯罪，最后必须开枪自卫打死了对方的，很有可能法庭上有大麻烦。

上CCW课时教官就说过，深夜的城市你不走大路，而是为了抄近路，走back alley， 如果有人来抢你攻击你，不得不开枪打对方，你都可能会有麻烦。因为你明显违背正常普通人的避险规则，DA可以spin 你是在刻意寻找麻烦。

同意你的这个观点：CCW并不是让我们去冒险。而且在NYC这样的地方，无论你怎么做，DA都会Spin。我想表达的是，即使左如NYC，遇到生死攸关的情况，你用枪自卫也是合法的。既然有法理基础，只要找个靠谱的律师，you will have a case.

[jhe123]

同意你的这个观点：CCW并不是让我们去冒险。而且在NYC这样的地方，无论你怎么做，DA都会Spin。我想表达的是，即使左如NYC，遇到生死攸关的情况，你用枪自卫也是合法的。既然有法理基础，只要找个靠谱的律师，you will have a case.

你关于法律部分说得完全正确，我是在你说的基础上补充一些实际操作中的考量。我带枪时的行为原则就是不带枪时不会干的事情不会去的地方，带枪时也不应该干和去。这个不光指不要去所谓见义勇为主动出击直面危险，也包括不要作前面说的那种看似没有风险但却和不带枪时不一样的行为。

[Jack12345]

不管合法不合法，我情愿 花钱出席法庭 打官司的，也不愿意 在太平间躺着

[Topgolf118]

不管合法不合法，我情愿 花钱出席法庭 打官司的，也不愿意 在太平间躺着

说得对！面临生死当然是首先要自保。即使后来打官司也比Ryan Carson被扎死在街头强多了。

[Bluesky]

不管合法不合法，我情愿 花钱出席法庭 打官司的，也不愿意 在太平间躺着

说得对。在危及生命关头，救自己命，活下来，怎么做都是对得。
以前有这么个说法和你讲的类似：
情愿面对XX人的陪审团，也不愿被8人抬棺。

从另外一个角度去讲，拥枪并不是让你去身涉险地的理由。

[malta]

答案是肯定的。 即使在liberal的大烂苹果，理论上，在面临生死关头，你也可以用枪自卫。

Under the New York Penal Law Article 35, you may use deadly force when you reasonably believe the attacker is using or about to use deadly force. In most situations outside your own home, you have a limited duty to retreat.

https://documentedny.com/2023/07/27/new ... ur-ground/

纽约市枪证不好办吧

[Sinner]

NYC 怎么才能合法持枪在街上溜达，先了解一下

[LiSheQiang]

还以为在叫我，lol