For more recent information about Area 51, see the new Area 51 Research Center maintained by Don Emory.
|
From: nclayton@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:50:46 -0800 |
The signs at the military border of Groom Lake mention that the use of
deadly force is authorized. This certainly invites further inquiry. I
have a permit which allows me to carry a loaded, concealed firearm in
certain western states (not, unfortunately, including Nevada). I've
undergone approximately 60 hours of formal training in defensive
pistolcraft, primarily under the tutelage of off-duty police officers.
A significant portion of this training has been devoted to the issue of
when it is and isn't legal to brandish a weapon, point it at someone, or
shoot someone with it. Sadly, most people (including many gun owners)
have a very poor understanding of proper gun use, from both a practical
standpoint (i.e. how to safely handle a gun and how to use it
effectively) and a legal standpoint (as discussed in the previous
sentence). This is because most people's exposure to these issues comes
solely in the form of Hollywood-produced movies and TV shows, which are
terribly inaccurate in their representation of such matters. Thus,
while I am shocked by the alleged actions of the Cammo Dudes as
represented in Kevin Vogt's testimonial (see
http://www.ufomind.com/area51/testimonials/vogt.txt), I am not
particularly surprised that nobody seems to have thought through the
bizarre implications of those actions, if they indeed occurred as
described by Mr. Vogt.
Basically, Mr. Vogt claims to have been ambushed by two Cammo Dudes
while he was just outside the military border, having previously spent
some time inadvertently wandering around inside the border at night
after his car broke down. He states that they immediately pointed their
guns at him, threatened to shoot him if he deviated in the slightest
from obeying their instructions, and held him at gunpoint for quite some
time until the Sheriff's deputy arrived. This brings up some
interesting legal questions, and I would very much like to know if
anyone else has had guns pointed at them by Cammo Dudes outside the
border, or, for that matter, inside the border.
Although I am not totally familiar with Nevada's laws regarding the use
or threatened use of deadly force, we can safely assume that they differ
little from those of surrounding states when it comes to defining the
narrow set of circumstances under which a civilian may legally point a
gun at another human being. Laws don't vary a whole lot on this issue
from one state to the next, except that some states are more lenient
than others when it comes to using a gun against someone who has broken
into your home.
NOTE: BEFORE YOU READ FURTHER, PLEASE REFER TO THE IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
AT THE END OF THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH.
Basically, if you are not a deputized law enforcement officer and you
are not inside your home, the only time you may legally fire a gun at
someone or even deliberately brandish or point a gun at someone is if
that individual initiates an immediate, believable, and deliberate
threat to your life or the life of another innocent person. The threat
must be deadly (specifically, a reasonable person in your shoes would
have to believe that if the assailant were to carry through with his
threat, it would likely result in death or great bodily injury to you or
another innocent person). A person threatening to throw a ping-pong
ball at you is not posing a deadly threat. On the other hand, someone
pointing a firearm at you definitely poses a deadly threat. We should
especially point out, in this context, that simple trespassing does not
consitute a deadly threat. The classic hillbilly approach of
brandishing a shotgun at someone who has wandered onto your property
might not only land you in jail, but it could, quite possibly, entitle
the trespasser to legally shoot you in self-defense. In additional to
being deadly, the threat must be immediate (i.e. it has to be happening
NOW). Note that an unarmed individual who verbally threatens to go
fetch a gun so he can come back and shoot you is NOT posing an immediate
threat. The threat must also be credible; you have to believe that your
assailant has the means, the ability, and the intention to follow
through with the threat. When it comes to credibility, deception
intended to make you believe that your assailant is armed can count.
Thus, for example, a thug who confronts you on the street with his hand
placed in his coat pocket with a finger extended (so as to convincingly
create the outward appearance of a concealed gun being pointed at you)
and who then demands your wallet, is, in fact, creating a believable
deadly threat, even though he isn't actually armed. On the other hand,
if your best friend comes up to you during a backyard barbecue, slaps
you on the back in a good-natured fashion, and says, ìHey, Bob, I'm
gonna kick your ass for taking the last beer that was in the cooler,î he
is not posing a credible deadly threat and, therefore, you are not
entitled to shoot him. Furthermore, the threat must be deliberate (i.e.
you should have good reason to believe that you assailant's threatening
actions are intentional rather than inadvertent). If a little old lady
is backing her Cadillac out of the driveway, oblivious to the toddler
playing on the sidewalk directly behind her, you are not entitled to
shoot her. Finally, the threat must have been initiated by your
assailant in the absence of any such threat from you.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO OBTAIN A COPY OF ALL THE LAWS IN YOUR
STATE REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE. IN PARTICULAR, YOU SHOULD NOTE THAT LAWS
REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST AN INTRUDER WHO HAS ILLEGALLY BORKEN INTO
YOUR HOME VARY WIDELY FROM ONE STATE TO THE NEXT. THE LAWS REGARDING
SELF-DEFENSE OUTSIDE YOUR HOME VARY LESS DRAMATICALLY FROM STATE TO
STATE, BUT YOU SHOULD STILL LEARN THE DETAILS OF THOSE LAWS AND ABIDE BY
THEM. I DO NOT ADVOCATE BREAKING ANY LAWS RELATING TO THE USE OR
THREATENED USE OF DEADLY FORCE, NOR DO I CLAIM THAT THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH
CONSTITUTES A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE LAWS OF ANY
GIVEN STATE.
We should note here that in most states, duly deputized law enforcement
officers who are on active duty have broader power to brandish weapons
than do civilians. A uniformed cop can point his gun at a suspect to
affect an arrest under certain well-defined circumstances (such as
during the apprehension of a fleeing bank robbery suspect), even if that
suspect is not posing an immediate threat to anyone. Similarly,
military police can do the same on military property. However, in these
cases, the policeman with the gun in his hand has to make it very clear
to the suspect that he is, in fact, a policeman. A peace officer's
badge or appropriate military police insignia will generally suffice for
this purpose.
Well, now that we've had a very rudimentary primer in the laws
reagrding the use or threatened use of deadly force, we are prepared to
ask a crucial question: What business does a Cammo Dude have pointing a
gun at someone who is merely suspected of having trespassed and who is
not posing an immediate threat to anyone's physical safety? This
question is especially interesting if the encounter occurs on BLM land,
as Mr. Vogt claims happened in his case. According to Mr. Vogt's
account, even though he tells us that he had a gun in his pack (a fact
which he eventually revealed to the Cammo Dudes under questioning from
them, even though he was not legally required to do so), he was posing
no immediate physical threat to anyone at any time during the
encounter. Apparently the Cammo Dudes did not offer any proof that they
were either military policemen or deputized law enforcement officers.
If Mr. Vogt, instead of raising his hands, had pulled out his pistol and
immediately shot both Dudes dead (which, contrary to popular belief, is
quite possible to do even when your assailants are armed with machine
guns, although I do not recommend that anyone test this hypothesis on
the Cammo Dudes), the criminal justice system would have probably
declared his action to be legitimate self-defense (assuming other Cammo
Dudes didn't chase him down and shoot him before he could escape, then
come up with a false story about how he pulled his gun first). More
specifically, if a grand jury or a panel of prosecuting attorneys had
been hiding in the bushes watching the whole incident, they would most
likely state unanimously that the Cammo Dudes had, in pointing their
guns at the lone hiker, committed some flavor of assault with a deadly
weapon and that the hiker had fired justifiably in self-defense. If
this incident occurred during the brief period when Cammo Dudes were
deputized by the Lincoln County Sheriff, this still wouldn't let them
off the hook, as it does not appear from Mr. Vogt's account that they
showed him their sheriff's badges, and, in any event, a sheriff's deputy
is not generally authorized to point a gun at someone merely for
trespassing. For all Mr. Vogt knew, these guys could have just been a
couple of civilian yahoos in a jeep wearing cammo fatigues and night
vision goggles and carrying mean-looking guns. He was under no legal
obligation to assume that these individuals had any authority to point
their weapons at him or detain him.
I am less familiar with the laws governing the behavior of private
security guards on military land. However, I suspect that even had the
encounter occurred inside the border, the Cammo Dudes should have been
requried to show police badges of some sort before detaining a
non-violent trespasser at gunpoint. Otherwise they would simply be the
equivalent of a bunch of hillbillies pointing shotguns at someone who
had wandered onto their land, and would thus be guilty of aggravated
assault and could, conceiveably, be legally shot by the trespasser.
This matter is worth further discussion.
Nelson Clayton
e-mail address: nclayton@ix.netcom.com
|
Created: