PDA

View Full Version : Parking lot incident


Microgunner
August 6, 2009, 10:35 AM
First, let me preface with the fact that Florida is a strong stand your ground state and we are not required to retreat in any fashion. That said, last Monday, while circling the very crowded parking lot for a handicap space (I get to park close, that's what makes me so popular:D) a space was finally opening up. I pulled up close and waited for the elderly woman to vacate the space. A gold Toyota behind me quickly became impatient and began tooting his horn. I felt bad for blocking the isle but I needed that space. The woman was moving very slow and after the third toot I looked in my driver's side view mirror just in time to see an incredibly irate man, face fire engine red, teeth gritted stomping toward my door. I drew my KetTec P3AT in anticipation, but kept it unseen, and as he passed the rear door of my car he slammed the glass with the side of his right fist very hard. He stopped at my window and began screaming at the top of his lungs to move my %$#*&^ car or he was going to kick my %$#*)(^$#*^% a$$. So...I pointed my pistol at him. He began screaming "shoot me shoot me" over and over. I was trapped at this point with the little old lady backing out and the assailant's car parked behind me. I lowered my window a little and firmly advised him to back up, that I would defend myself. Thankfully the road cleared and I pulled into the space. They called the police and I waited. Every deputy in the county showed up. They were all very cordial, asked a few questions, had me and him fill out a statement, ran the serial# of my KelTec as well as the Colt M4 OPS .22 in the trunk. Neither of us pressed charges against the other, my pistol was returned and I and he went about our separate ways, me to a different WalMart. I've thought about it a lot since.

NWPilgrim
August 6, 2009, 10:47 AM
Glad it turned out well for you! 99% of firearms self defense do not involve shooting. Pretty amazing the guy did not back off when looking down the barrel of a gun.

Sounds like the guy had a few too many shots of java or just lost his job/house/wife/dog/Wii.

You exhibited good self discipline under pressure. Bet the adrenaline dump got you going. :)

Microgunner
August 6, 2009, 10:57 AM
Bet the adrenaline dump got you going.

Very much so. Afterward I became nauseas from the adrenaline rush.

Fremmer
August 6, 2009, 11:06 AM
So what did pointing your pistol accomplish?

Dave P
August 6, 2009, 11:15 AM
Did the deps give you the impression he had a valid complaint against you?

He showed intent (verbally threatening you and slapping the window), he may have had the opportunity , etc etc.

What county was this?

pendennis
August 6, 2009, 11:45 AM
Didn't the driver of the truck commit assault by striking the vehicle and the window with his fist? He was clearly the aggressor, and Microgunner was in a clearly defensive position.

The moron was lucky he wasn't shot.

Microgunner
August 6, 2009, 11:52 AM
So what did pointing your pistol accomplish?

Well, it did stop him cold in his tracks and lowered his fists. But I found the whole situation very unpleasant.

Did the deps give you the impression he had a valid complaint against you?

What county was this?

No, just the opposite. Hernando County.

Fremmer
August 6, 2009, 11:59 AM
What about just driving on to another parking space (moving out of his way)?
Sounds like you had an encounter with a real jerk. That stinks. :(

Microgunner
August 6, 2009, 12:21 PM
What about just driving on to another parking space (moving out of his way)?


By the time it had escalated to the point of confrontation the elderly woman, whose space I'd been waiting on, had begun backing out, trapping me between her and the assailant's car. I couldn't go anywhere.

Sounds like you had an encounter with a real jerk. That stinks.

Yeah, I thought he was going to pop a gasket.

Uncle Buck
August 6, 2009, 12:23 PM
Well, it did stop him cold in his tracks and lowered his fists. But I found the whole situation very unpleasant.

When you do not find it at all unpleasant, then you need to seek help. I do not think any normal person likes being put in this situation. Good Job.

Brian Pfleuger
August 6, 2009, 12:29 PM
I have to admit to being somewhat hesitant about the use of your gun being justified....

I wasn't there, so your own judgement overrules my internet conjecture but based solely on my interpretation of your story, and personal experiences with irate people, I would probably have ignored him... so long as he was unarmed.

oneounceload
August 6, 2009, 12:35 PM
I've had folks do that before - block everyone waiting for a close spot - some will be kind enough to use their signal to indicate the are waiting - I just go around.

It's the ones that double park in front in the fire zone and block two lanes that I mutter epithets to myself about.

Glad it turned out OK. Next time, don't open the window and give him a chance to try and gain entry. Stay calm, call 911 saying you're being attacked in the parking lot

Microgunner
August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM
I wasn't there, so your own judgement overrules my internet conjecture but based solely on my interpretation of your story, and personal experiences with irate people, I would probably have ignored him... so long as he was unarmed.

Truth be told, I wish it had gone that way as well. But before I had time to think it through my survival instinct required me to act. Hindsight is 20/20. As far as legalities are concerned, Florida statutes say I was in the right. God bless the retirees who instrumented these strong self defense laws.

Vanya
August 6, 2009, 12:42 PM
Truth be told, I wish it had gone that way as well. But before I had time to think it through my survival instinct required me to act. Hindsight is 20/20.
The very cliché I almost used in this post. :)

Parking lots do seem to bring out the worst in some people. Twice, recently, I've had another driver, going way too fast though a parking lot, cut me off and then gesture rudely and cuss me out for almost being in their way. I shrugged it off, but it's still unpleasant when this stuff happens.

For me, the lesson from your story is that I'll be a bit quicker just to move on and make another circle rather than get blocked in, if someone behind me is that irate. It's only a parking space...

Composer_1777
August 6, 2009, 12:43 PM
Glad it turned out well for you! 99% of firearms self defense do not involve shooting. Pretty amazing the guy did not back off when looking down the barrel of a gun.

He called the OPs bluff... When you point a gun at someone you better not be bluffing... I might have shot the guy, he was assaulting you, and your property.

Fremmer
August 6, 2009, 12:58 PM
Over a parking spot? Come on, now.

I wouldn't have parked there at all. Why, so that you can be parked next to some angry jerk? What if he'd walked back to get a gun in his car? I know the 'what if's' are endless, and I wasn't there, but it doesn't make much sense to me to get scared enough to have to point a gun at someone, and then to park yourself and stay in a bad situation.

hamr56
August 6, 2009, 01:18 PM
We can sit here all day and throw out what ifs, its called "monday morning quarterbacking". If you feel your in danger, I have no problem with a person pulling their pistol, just be ready for the results. If you have it in your mind to be someones biatch your entire life that is your decision. Whos to say you didnt prevent him from hurting you?

I for one am glad your fine. No one can say what they would do in that situation until they are in it themselves.

Microgunner
August 6, 2009, 01:23 PM
Over a parking spot? Come on, now.

I wouldn't have parked there at all. Why, so that you can be parked next to some angry jerk? What if he'd walked back to get a gun in his car? I know the 'what if's' are endless, and I wasn't there, but it doesn't make much sense to me to get scared enough to have to point a gun at someone, and then to park yourself and stay in a bad situation.


Couldn't move on at that point. I parked so that the police could be summoned because fleeing didn't seem like the thing to do. I had no intention of remaining after that, and left as soon as the Sheriff's Deputies were finished.

Dannyl
August 6, 2009, 01:28 PM
HI,
I say well done.
Here ( and possibly in the US, from what you are telling us) road-rage is a serious problem, a couple of years back a guy forced someone off the road, dragged him out of his car and beat him to death with a hockey stick.

Your gun, and the fact that you were decisive played a part in changing your agressor's mind and maybe keeping you from harm.

Brgds,

Danny

Dr. Strangelove
August 6, 2009, 01:57 PM
You had obviously decided that deadly force was justified when you pointed your pistol at the other party involved. If you feared major bodily harm or death, why would you not press charges against the man? If nothing else, at least he would think twice about doing that again, though you probably cured him...

Sounds like a bad situation to be in, but not one where a firearm needed to be involved.

KLRANGL
August 6, 2009, 02:19 PM
Sounds like a bad situation to be in, but not one where a firearm needed to be involved.
Really?
If that doesn't sound like a situation where a firearm should be involved, I don't know what is... No place to flee to as your car is blocked from both ends. Keeping the windows up was a good idea, but that gun better have been out because there is no telling if he'll bash the windows to get to you, draw a gun of his own, or just walk away.
Sounds like microgunner did well by me, but I would have pressed charges for sure.

And it sounds like the cops agreed with you too. That says something right there...

Microgunner
August 6, 2009, 02:25 PM
Sounds like a bad situation to be in, but not one where a firearm needed to be involved.


Very possibly true. But I made a decision long ago that if/when threatened with bodily injury to believe the aggressor. To not take him at his word seems unwise considering the potential. As far as pressing charges, I was just glad to be rid of the whole distasteful situation as soon as possible.

Wildalaska
August 6, 2009, 02:38 PM
MMQB...better choice would have been to keep the window closed, the gun hidden and call 911 right in front of him. You were safe inside the car and had no need to draw down until he took further action.

WildandthenhavetheguyprosecutedforbeingaviolentjerkAlaska ™

By the way under the facts as given if you would have shot him you would be prosecuted.

AirForceShooter
August 6, 2009, 02:41 PM
Respectfully:

You pull a gun you pull the trigger.

If you have no intention of shooting, then keep the gun in it's holster.

AFS

carguychris
August 6, 2009, 02:56 PM
MMQB...better choice would have been to keep the window closed, the gun hidden and call 911 right in front of him. You were safe inside the car and had no need to draw down until he took further action.
+1; I would not have drawn unless (a) it was evident that he had a weapon capable of penetrating the glass, or (b) there was more than one assailant.

If the parking lot was crowded, there's no doubt that there were multiple witnesses watching the loud confrontation, which would make it really easy to prosecute the knucklehead for threatening you and/or sue him for damage to your vehicle.

MMQB, yes, but I would be concerned that if I drew first, he would produce a weapon, and the situation would seriously escalate. :eek:

NWPilgrim
August 6, 2009, 02:57 PM
While it is easy to Monday morning quarterback and say "should have moved on", there is the other side. Should we be tucking tail every time someone blows up at us? Sure, as CCW we should avoid situations and be more prudent.

But as our society becomes less civil, more rude, and more violent, I think at SOME times we need to say, "No, I should not have to change my plans just because you want to accost me." The OP was doing nothing rude or illegal. He did not respond with anger or insults. He is handicap for goodness sake, that is why the parking spaces are where they are.

Any jerk that accosts a handicap person for waiting for a handicap spot deserves being put his place. I think this is one instance that standing your ground is appropriate.

Ultimately the OP was the man on the spot and his actions turned out well for everyone. Good experience to feed our own consideration of CCW.

Wildalaska
August 6, 2009, 03:03 PM
Should we be tucking tail every time someone blows up at us?

yes. especially as an armed citizen.

Any jerk that accosts a handicap person for waiting for a handicap spot deserves being put his place.

Yeah, thats what gun owners need to do, put folks in their place:rolleyes:

Dude, what do you do some jerk off walks up to you and SPITS a loogie in your face and challenges you while you are wearing a gun?

Me...I run and call 911.

Carrying a gun doesn't make you Ms manners or the Politeness Police.

WildsometimesyouguysscaremeAlaska TM

NWPilgrim
August 6, 2009, 03:25 PM
I knew someone would jump in an accuse me of being a shoot first rabid gun owner. Thanks, Wild!

Watch out for gun owners they are soooo irresponsible. Only interwebs experts should be allowed to carry guns. I guess all those notches I hacked into my pistol grip aren't cool, huh?

Quentin2
August 6, 2009, 03:27 PM
Very bad situation but it sounds like a gun shouldn't have been displayed. But we weren't there. I'm glad it turned out ok and we all should learn from this event. A gun is to be displayed when you fear for your life but then a handicapped person will interpret things differently than a guy with a black belt.

P95loser
August 6, 2009, 03:40 PM
Could you have just explained you were waiting for the parking space and you have some physical limitation that requires you to park up close?

I would think that approach through a cracked window with my gun in hand under my thigh might have reduced the escalation of force used and have had a much better outcome.

But then again I wasn't there so this might not have been an option.

noelf2
August 6, 2009, 03:42 PM
Someone hits my car and threatens me with bodily harm? I'm drawing down on him, finger on the trigger, before he can smash my window and start punching / choking. That's the safest bet in that situation. Doing otherwise could get you hurt or killed.

I'll bet that the angry idiot is still thinking about the situation too! And he's probably counting his lucky stars.

bababooey32
August 6, 2009, 03:49 PM
The OP was doing nothing rude or illegal.

One might argue that brandishing a weapon and pointing it at someone with no intent to use it is "rude" and perhaps "illegal". After all, at that point, only heated words were exchanged. Slapping a car window is hardly justification for deadly force. Here in TX, the only justification for pointing your weapon at someone is "fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm" (Same as justification for pulling the trigger). Based on the OP's description, that threshold was not met (I know he is in FL - please adjust law as necessary).

Pilgrim, I think WA is suggesting that pulling your gun and pointing it at someone should be reserved for last resort scenarios. A guy yelling at you is not a last resort scenario, as much as you may want to "correct" jerks in the world, being a gun owner/CCW means being held to a bit higher standard. If you want to correct people, do it without a gun.

KLRANGL
August 6, 2009, 03:54 PM
Someone hits my car and threatens me with bodily harm? I'm drawing down on him, finger on the trigger, before he can smash my window and start punching / choking. That's the safest bet in that situation. Doing otherwise could get you hurt or killed.
Thank you noelf... someone with sense finally...

Pilgrim, I think WA is suggesting that pulling your gun and pointing it at someone should be reserved for last resort scenarios. A guy yelling at you is not a last resort scenario
A guy yelling at you, no... A guy yelling that he is going to kick your *** and is in a position to do so, most definitely...

I'm all for running away and calling 911, and I'm all about avoiding or escalating a situation, but it seems like some people here are waiting for a memo on letterhead paper saying "I'm going to kill you! draw your weapon!" A person with no where to flee and someone blatantly threatening them with bodily harm needs to be drawn down on.

It kind of amazes me I'm on this side of the argument because I'm usually the flee not flight person... :confused:

spacemanspiff
August 6, 2009, 03:56 PM
We can go back and forth over this.
What if the parking-lot-rager had smashed the window?
What if the old lady was purposely in on it, so they could mug the innocent driver caught between them?
What if
What if
What if


WA, the shop sells those handheld instruments that can be used to smash a window, correct? Its quite possible for a roadrager to hold one of those and have it not noticed by anyone, until he gives the window one good hard hit and *smash* the window is gone.


What charges could the assailant have brought against you, if FL is a 'stand your ground' state? Brandishing?


This type of incident would be ideal for the use of pepper spray. Or a taser.

KLRANGL
August 6, 2009, 03:59 PM
This type of incident would be ideal for the use of pepper spray. Or a taser.
Both would require rolling down your window, which we can all agree is a bad idea correct?

bababooey32
August 6, 2009, 04:00 PM
A guy yelling that he is going to kick your *** and is in a position to do

I would submit that being on the other side of a car door is not in a position to do so. Breaking a car window with one's fist is unlikely at best. Were he brandishing a tire iron inhis off-hand...OK. Were he kicking your car door/window in a blatant attempt to enter...OK. But Yelling "I'm going to kick your @$$" is not justification for use of deadly force, IMHO. The fact that having a gun pointed at him didn't make him immediately back down and that the OP did not then shoot the assailant tells me that even OP was not truly in "reasonable fear of life or limb".

It kind of amazes me I'm on this side of the argument because I'm usually the flee not flight person...

I'm usually on the other! Funny how the same scenario is viewed so many different ways by seemingly like-minded folks! :)

Wildalaska
August 6, 2009, 04:05 PM
Its quite possible for a roadrager to hold one of those and have it not noticed by anyone, until he gives the window one good hard hit and *smash* the window is gone.


And then you are justified in pulling your gun out and probably even popping the guy.

Watch out for gun owners they are soooo irresponsible.

Based on some of the posts on the web, sadly, thats true

A person with no where to flee and someone blatantly threatening them with bodily harm needs to be drawn down on.

Verbal threats? Posturing? Against a person behind a car door....

WildithoughtweweresupposedtolearnfromthesescenariosnotglorifythegunasequalizerAlaska ™

KLRANGL
August 6, 2009, 04:09 PM
WildithoughtweweresupposedtolearnfromthesescenariosnotglorifythegunasequalizerAlaska
I see it more as a what constitutes a viable threat to ones life...

Verbal threats? Posturing? Against a person behind a car door....

The car door definitly gives you something to pause and think about. I've had many people yell and threaten from inside their car. Whatever, you ignore them. Never had someone come up to my door while doing the same. To me that is a legitimate threat

Brian Pfleuger
August 6, 2009, 04:22 PM
If the trigger had been pulled would it have been justified?

Remember the rules of firearms safety?

Never point a gun at something you are not willing to DESTROY.

Was the OP willing to DESTROY that man? Not in the endless "what-if" scenarios, but right at that moment, was the OP willing to DESTROY that man? Would any of the rest of the contributors to this thread be willing to DESTROY that man at that moment?

If not, you don't point your gun at him. Period.

Wildalaska
August 6, 2009, 04:25 PM
To me that is a legitimate threat

SO I come up to your door while you are stuck in traffic, whack your window with my fist and tell you you are a nogood *&^*&^*&^(*^%.

You can then, without more, shoot me?

WildifnotthenshouldyoubepullingagunAlaska ™

oneounceload
August 6, 2009, 04:36 PM
Did the schmuck ever say why he didn't just go around you, OP? I've been behind folks doing that, I just go around and find myself a spot

KLRANGL
August 6, 2009, 04:36 PM
SO I come up to your door while you are stuck in traffic, whack your window with my fist and tell you you are a nogood *&^*&^*&^(*^%.

You can then, without more, shoot me?

Well you would have to replace "nogood...." with "im going to kill you" (intent). And I would have to consider your ability to get into my car and do me harm. Opportunity is certainly there (im stuck in traffic). If those three conditions were met, then yes I would shoot you unless you backed off when I drew down. I read those three conditions in the OP, but if you did not I can see why you would choose not to get the firearm involved. The written word being what it is, it is possible we are all reading the same story differently... But I still stand by what I said. I beleive a firearm was justified in this situation. And like I mentioned earlier, apparently the cops did too...

cracked91
August 6, 2009, 04:46 PM
First I am going to say I agree with what you did, pulling gun and all. I find this site to have a very restricting view on gun holders. Say you didn't draw on him, he decided to use a knife, etc, to smash your window, then end situation you are probably going to have to shoot him.

Brian Pfleuger
August 6, 2009, 04:52 PM
Say you didn't draw on him, he decided to use a knife, etc, to smash your window, then end situation you are probably going to have to shoot him.

Which means you draw and shoot.... or even draw when the OP did and keep the gun out of sight until needed.

NEVER point a gun at ANYTHING you are not willing to DESTROY.

Wildalaska
August 6, 2009, 04:53 PM
Say you didn't draw on him, he decided to use a knife, etc, to smash your window, then end situation you are probably going to have to shoot him.

And that is justified

I find this site to have a very restricting view on gun holders.

probably 'cuz it's mission is to promote responsible gun onwership:p

WildraaaaaaaamboprawnsAlaska ™

C Philip
August 6, 2009, 05:00 PM
Glad you got out of the situation OK, but personally my motto is "don't draw it unless you're going to shoot it." If you draw your pistol it should only be in response to a threat of immediate harm or death to yourself or others, and that draw should be immediately followed by shots. An unarmed man banging on your window is certainly frightening and disturbing, but not life threatening at that instant. If it was life threatening, I would argue that your first action should be to attempt to ram through the traffic block to get away. A damaged car is less of an issue than shooting someone, because stand-your-ground laws aside, shooting someone will incur a lot more legal expenses than replacing your car. You could have been charged with brandishing.

Edit: I wanted to add a suggestion. Whenever you are driving, leave at least one car length between you and the car/object in front of you. If you are stopped at a traffic light, stop sign, or in a parking lot, having space in front of you allows you to have turning room to escape should someone run up to your car. Also remember to always lock your doors when you get into your car if they don't lock automatically.

Dragon55
August 6, 2009, 05:04 PM
Micro.... man just chill. You can't go whipping it out just cuz' some idiot is screaming at you.

Yes, maybe secure it as Peetza suggested but don't point it. I understand your anxiety as it sounds like you were blocked in but as WA sez this site desperately tries to promote responsible use.

Secure firearm, dial 911, leave as soon as unblocked. Now..... if the glass your looking out gets broke.... all bets are off.

Dr. Strangelove
August 6, 2009, 05:19 PM
"No duty to retreat" doesn't mean "No duty to use common sense", folks. I find it hard to believe someone beating on your car with their fists in a Wal-mart parking lot makes anyone fear for their life or great bodily harm. Just because someone makes a poor decision doesn't mean you need to follow it up with a worse decision.

If being a jackass was sufficient grounds to shoot someone, there would be a lot less people in the world right now. The 2nd guy was in the wrong, clearly, but the OP was in the wrong to have pointed a firearm at him. He's lucky he didn't get charged with assault himself.

By the way, if some you guys were here in Athens for a football game at the University of Georgia, I shudder to think of the numbers of deaths that would occur in the various parking lots...:cool:

orionengnr
August 6, 2009, 05:27 PM
Pretty amazing the guy did not back off when looking down the barrel of a gun.
Well, it was only a Kel-Tec :)
NEVER point a gun at ANYTHING you are not willing to DESTROY.
Willing to destroy? Yes.
Intending to destroy? In this instance, not quite yet, but maybe very soon.
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is...

Wildalaska
August 6, 2009, 05:40 PM
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is...

Why do I think of Bill Clinton :)

WildworkslavesworkoimsorryithoughtiwasdealingwiththestaffAlaska ™

Microgunner
August 6, 2009, 06:15 PM
Was the OP willing to DESTROY that man?
Absolutely. Thank God it didn't come to that but I do not posture idly.

Brian Pfleuger
August 6, 2009, 06:16 PM
Willing to destroy? Yes.
Intending to destroy? In this instance, not quite yet, but maybe very soon.
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is...

You're not "willing to destroy" unless "willing" is present tense. If "willing" is present tense then you are NOT willing and therefore should not be pointing a gun at something that you are NOT willing to destroy.

What might be in 10 seconds or 10 minutes or 1 second is not relevant. Not willing to destroy it, don't point a gun at it.


Absolutely. Thank God it didn't come to that but I do not posture idly.

I think you miss the point though. The question is not "would you be willing if..." it is RIGHT AT THAT EXACT SECOND, no further actions required by the aggressor. Were you willing to destroy that man right then, right at that second?

Drawing your gun and being willing if it comes to that is different than willing to kill at that moment. If you weren't willing to kill right at that moment then you should not point the gun at that person.


One more thing. The actions you took were the actions you took. I can't say absolutely what I would have done, it's a tough situation. Don''t think I'm attacking you. My original statement stands. Your judgement at that moment overrides my internet conjecture. I'm just walking through the process for yours and my future reference.

Jofaba
August 6, 2009, 06:19 PM
First, don't take any of this as criticism. I wasn't there or in your position so I can't really criticize you. But I can form an opinion! heh.

Okay, so this is a perfect example of displaying your gun not always solving the problem. I'm curious, were you ready to use it if things escalated?

Why didn't you press charges? I would have. The guys obviously a hair trigger away from being a real danger to someone down the road.

I think about scenarios like this and how I'd react. I really appreciate threads like this, especially the ones (not like this one) where the poster admits to doing things wrong. (Not saying you did ANYTHING wrong). It's very educational.

From my armchair soapbox, I think that I would have made the gun accessible though unseen. I don't think that I'd display it until the guy actually broke my window and tried to attack me physically. As soon as he hit my car I'd have dialed 911 (if a phone was available). I'd let the guy know that I was dialing 911 and he should go back to his car and leave. Id he went back to his vehicle and "got something", I'd let 911 know that he appears to be getting something, possibly a weapon, and that i was armed and although I had not yet shown the person my gun I would do so if he came back with a weapon, and shoot him if he posed a threat to my life.

In the end, we really can't put ourselves in your shoes. No one got hurt, no one got in trouble, so the ends justify the means. Right? No harm no foul. I suppose.

maestro pistolero
August 6, 2009, 06:21 PM
Respectfully:

You pull a gun you pull the trigger.

If you have no intention of shooting, then keep the gun in it's holster.

AFS

With all due respect, this is a dangerous mindset to instill. There are a multitude of scenarios where there is sufficient threat to draw a weapon, but not yet enough to fire. Self-defense situations are, by their very nature, rapidly changing, dynamic events.

A threat level can increase or decrease within milliseconds. In the half-second or so it takes to draw a weapon, a threat may escalate, or de-escalate. If you have trained to shoot every time you draw no matter what, you may find yourself with an unexpected and unwanted change of address.

Judging only from what the OP has written, it seems that pepper spray may have been a better match for the level of threat present. BTW, don't 'brandish' pepper spay. It is best deployed in as stealthy a manner as possible to avoid the assailant an opportunity to block the stream. JMHO

Microgunner
August 6, 2009, 06:23 PM
SO I come up to your door while you are stuck in traffic, whack your window with my fist and tell you you are a nogood *&^*&^*&^(*^%.

You can then, without more, shoot me?


Why do you insist on trivializing this situation? I've been in confrontations before, same as you, but this was far and beyond anything I've been party to as an adult. Visualize absolute rage to the point I thought he was going to stroke out. This was not a normal person.

spacemanspiff
August 6, 2009, 06:27 PM
with "im going to kill you" (intent).
The OP's incident had the roadrager saying "Move the car or I'll kick you in the buttocks", where was the threat to kill?
ability to get into my car and do me harm.
The OP's account doesn't say the roadrager had anything visible with which to break the glass, nor does it say if the doors were locked/unlocked, nor does it say if the roadrager was 6'6" with fists of steel. It may as well have been a 5'2" 140 lb geek wearing a shirt that says "I'm training to become a cagefighter".
So far, KLRANGL, (nice handle, is it short for Killer Angel?) you have only met one out of three criteria, that of being boxed in between roadragers car and old ladys car that was backing out.

spacemanspiff
August 6, 2009, 06:43 PM
This: As far as legalities are concerned, Florida statutes say I was in the right does not match up with this: Neither of us pressed charges against the other,

If you were in the right, the other guy would not have had the option to press charges against you. I am guessing that the cops told each of you that you could either press charges of assault on one another, or just drop it.

Nnobby45
August 6, 2009, 07:16 PM
Well, I wasn't there, but I'd have liked the story better if you'd told us how you'd verbally defused things without getting the gun involved. Potential deadly force incident that's parking space related? He was yelling and gesturing while standing outside your car without attempting to physiclly contact you or your car? Maybe the gun in hand, but out of sight ready if needed, would have been more prudent.

Yes, I know, it's easy for me to talk when it's not my adrenaline elevated with fear.


If you were in the right, the other guy would not have had the option to press charges against you. I am guessing that the cops told each of you that you could either press charges of assault on one another, or just drop it

Not necessarily true, since the cops at the scene may figure the courts can decide the issue and arrest both parties, or accept complaints from both. Hey, don't you ever watch Cops?:D

Tucker 1371
August 6, 2009, 07:21 PM
Sounds like you handled it right to me, I hope I'm never faced with this kind of a jerk who can't check his testosterone but if I am I hope I handle it as well.

The whole "shoot me shoot me" thing is really surprising to me. I don't think I've ever been mad enough to not back down when looking down the barrel of a gun. If this guy has a shred of common sense he probably went home, sat down and thought "man that was stupid". He had no way of knowing your level of restraint.

Spiff:The OP's incident had the roadrager saying "Move the car or I'll kick you in the buttocks", where was the threat to kill?

The OP's account doesn't say the roadrager had anything visible with which to break the glass, nor does it say if the doors were locked/unlocked, nor does it say if the roadrager was 6'6" with fists of steel. It may as well have been a 5'2" 140 lb geek wearing a shirt that says "I'm training to become a cagefighter".


Kill? no. Threat of great bodily harm or personal injury yes, and most states (and people I know for that matter) consider the threat of that to be justification for the use of deadly force. There have been plenty of brawls that have gotten out of hand and someone has wound up paralyzed or worse.

Also, I know how thick auto glass is and how bad it will cut but it isn't a stretch, especially if someone has a lot of adrenaline or testosterone pumping through them, for someone to break through a window with their fist/elbow and keep on dishing it out. About 2 years ago I fell asleep whill driving my '88 K5 Blazer (RIP :() and ran off the road, through some small trees and into a creek. The guy behind me stopped and elbowed out my back window and I crawled out. He may have had a towel wrapped around his elbow but I don't recall, he also may have had some cuts but if so they weren't too serious.

The points I am trying to make with all of this are A) It wasn't a stretch to believe this guy could have smashed his window and proceeded to beat the OP to a pulp, and B) given his verbal threats and his threatening demeanor the OP was clearly justified in employing his CCW the way he did.

Jofaba
August 6, 2009, 08:01 PM
"shoot me shoot me" is entirely a reaction you should expect as a possibility. You can't just go around thinking that producing a gun as if it were a prop will make every perp drop to their knees and beg forgiveness.

If you pull your gun, you should be prepared to use it. That's not to say you shouldn't display unless you will actually pull the trigger. But it is, essentially, a bluff. You're upping the ante of your ability to stop their attack. If they call your bluff, you have to be prepared to showing that it wasn't actually a bluff, but a warning.

So, the lesson is: Don't bluff; warn.

NWPilgrim
August 6, 2009, 08:19 PM
Since 99% of the 1 million - 2 million instances of firearm self-defense end with no shots fired, by some of your accounts those were all irresponsible uses of firearms.

There are a lot of armchair critics who have no clue, if they think every time you draw a a firearm you should be shooting. And if you don't shoot then you had no business drawing.

MG sounds more mature and thoughtful than most of his critics. That's the beauty of the interwebz, no matter what you say someone will jump to criticize.

The fact that the responding deputies saw no problem with his response ought to give his critics some pause.

Wildalaska
August 6, 2009, 08:25 PM
The fact that the responding deputies saw no problem with his response ought to give his critics some pause.

Legal is not always smart

WildthankgodsomefolksanalyzethewholescenarioAlaska ™

Al Norris
August 6, 2009, 08:46 PM
Moving this one to Tactics and Training ... hold on!

NWPilgrim
August 6, 2009, 08:49 PM
Legal is not always smart


Critical is not always smarter.

Dr. Strangelove
August 6, 2009, 08:50 PM
Quote:
The fact that the responding deputies saw no problem with his response ought to give his critics some pause.

Legal is not always smart

Those deputies aren't the ones who would have been trying the case either. Wal-marts all have security cameras facing the parking lot, think about what that would have looked like. One car stops, second car stops, man gets out, hits/touches other car, possibly is shot.

kazanski612
August 6, 2009, 09:06 PM
Any day you don't have to shoot someone = a good day.

But I think I'm with Wildalaska on this one.

NightSight
August 6, 2009, 09:29 PM
At what point do you draw the gun?? Most of us would agree that trying to draw on someone who has already drawn is a losing proposition. Who's to say he wouldn't have pulled a gun of his own first?


There are those that would say, "At that point shoot him!" Great idea. But chances are you won't be fast enough if you react when they are already in the process of drawing.

Maybe you should do as PeetzaKilla says and draw but keep hidden. I think that gives you a better chance than not having drawn, but who knows if you would be able to pull up your gun and orient (remember we are in a car and not many people practice their presentation from a car) before he would be able to get to a gun and shoot.

I find it very hard to criticize someone's actions without having been there and seen it. Interesting thread though.

wally626
August 6, 2009, 09:37 PM
I think my first response would be to comely say. I am waiting for the handicap parking spot, it should just be a minute. The other key point is the OP was waiting for the handicap spot, it is possible he is really not able to defend himself physically. Unless the guy showed a knife or gun, he could not hurt me too bad, but a small women or a handicap person may not be in the same situation.

pacerdude
August 6, 2009, 09:59 PM
Wildalaska: I loved the Bill Clinton thing.
Dr. Strangelove: I go to UGA, and am glad the football games dont turn to armed battles. We would all be screwed, or Kevlar sales would go up :D.

Microgunner: Im glad no one was hurt, sorry you were put in that crappy situation. I gather, you were in fear for your life, and Im sorry for that and extremely happy everything turned out well.

Mello2u
August 6, 2009, 10:05 PM
If there is this much difference of opinion here on a pro-gun/pro-2nd Amendment forum, imagine if there had been charges brought by the state on both parties.

The makeup of any jury is most likely to be less informed and biased towards the concept of self-defense as we are. What do you think a jury would decide if the charge of aggravated assault was brought against Microgunner? An Aggravated Assault is "an assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill." This is a felony in Florida.

My intent in raising this aspect of the use of force and carrying a weapon is that there can be severe consequences even without a shooting.

You have to consider that in carrying a lethal weapon you must have as much control as possible over your emotions and make rational decisions in a split second under highly stressful conditions. You must control your fear, anger and desire for revenge.

These postings can be helpful in doing mental "what ifs" that can help us set parameters for which actions we decide are justified in the cool, calm safety of our homes and with the luxury of time to mull it all over.

Wildalaska
August 6, 2009, 10:32 PM
Critical is not always smarter.

Unless it comes from me:p

WildnyahnyahgotyaAlaska TM

Trashcan-man
August 6, 2009, 11:29 PM
I think there are pro's and con's to both sides and truthfully I cannot make an accurate judgement without being put in that situation myself. As a MMQB I think I would have had the gun out, maybe under my shirt or my right thigh, and ready to go. Just remember when a BG "does something" you may or may not have the time to react to save yourself.

Donn_N
August 6, 2009, 11:36 PM
Did the schmuck ever say why he didn't just go around you, OP? I've been behind folks doing that, I just go around and find myself a spot

He probably didn't go around because someone who thought their time was more important than his decided to block the aisle while waiting for a parking space. Having a handicapped permit does not give one carte blanche to inconvenience other folks.

Sevens
August 7, 2009, 12:08 AM
He probably didn't go around because someone who thought their time was more important than his decided to block the aisle while waiting for a parking space. Having a handicapped permit does not give one carte blanche to inconvenience other folks.
Are you serious? If someone doesn't want to get inconvenienced, someone ought to stay home. There's no right or wrong to a guy waiting on an old lady to pull out no matter who is behind him unless it's an ambulance with lights & siren going.

"Convenience" is exactly that... if it's not convenient, get over it. If you are sitting behind a stopped car in a parking lot and it's not making you happy and polluting your day then check your mirrors and shift in to reverse.

If waiting & stopped in a parking lot is not convenient, is it more convenient to scream, act like a nutbar, physically pound on someone's car while screaming belligerently and then beg the guy to shoot you at close range? When did the idiot's convenience stop being the motivating factor and his range become the priority?

I don't agree with the OP's draw in this situation, but anyone who thinks this incident is the OP's fault (given the info we have here) is delusional.

It's not legal to stop your car on a public street for no reason or to sit stopped at a green light. This was a parking like for crying out loud. If you are inconvenienced, welcome to the free world-- the same world that doesn't revolve around YOU.

maestro pistolero
August 7, 2009, 03:01 AM
I doubt that I would have sat in the car while the guy was raging, hitting my car window and threatening me, because you are a sitting duck in a car if the guy were to escalate. There is nowhere to take cover sitting in a car if the guy produced a weapon.

If you can't drive away quickly, get out of the car (take your keys) and move away from the assailant, if possible. Don't turn your back on him.

If he attempts to strike you, soak his face with pepper spray (I always have it with me, especially if I am armed) move to safety ASAP and call the police.

Constantly monitor his hand movements. If they disappear in a furtive move as if for a weapon, yell STOP while you draw to the low ready, seeking cover at the same time. If he produces a weapon you may have no further choice in the matter.

At all times attempt to plot an escape route that provides cover. If you are able to move to safety without endangering yourself or anyone else, do it. But do not turn your back on the assailant until you are free of danger.

The rule of thumb is that the resistance has to fit the threat. There are a lot of variables, including age, physical condition of the parties, the number of assailants, and the type of threat.

In the OP's case, I'm not sure that drawing a weapon was entirely called for, nor were any of the other tactics that I suggested here employed. I wasn't there, of course, so I will curtail any further armchair analysis. My best advise is to have at least one non-lethal option available to you, especially when you are armed.

My two cents.

GojuBrian
August 7, 2009, 04:01 AM
First, let me preface with the fact that Florida is a strong stand your ground state and we are not required to retreat in any fashion. That said, last Monday, while circling the very crowded parking lot for a handicap space (I get to park close, that's what makes me so popular) a space was finally opening up. I pulled up close and waited for the elderly woman to vacate the space. A gold Toyota behind me quickly became impatient and began tooting his horn. I felt bad for blocking the isle but I needed that space. The woman was moving very slow and after the third toot I looked in my driver's side view mirror just in time to see an incredibly irate man, face fire engine red, teeth gritted stomping toward my door. I drew my KetTec P3AT in anticipation, but kept it unseen, and as he passed the rear door of my car he slammed the glass with the side of his right fist very hard. He stopped at my window and began screaming at the top of his lungs to move my %$#*&^ car or he was going to kick my %$#*)(^$#*^% a$$. So...I pointed my pistol at him. He began screaming "shoot me shoot me" over and over. I was trapped at this point with the little old lady backing out and the assailant's car parked behind me. I lowered my window a little and firmly advised him to back up, that I would defend myself. Thankfully the road cleared and I pulled into the space. They called the police and I waited. Every deputy in the county showed up. They were all very cordial, asked a few questions, had me and him fill out a statement, ran the serial# of my KelTec as well as the Colt M4 OPS .22 in the trunk. Neither of us pressed charges against the other, my pistol was returned and I and he went about our separate ways, me to a different WalMart. I've thought about it a lot since.


Well, you encountered a lunatic on a bad day.

I wouldn't pull a gun unless they were armed. How would it look in court? 'W guy shoots unarmed man.' Lawyers would eat your lunch.

I don't think people really find kel-tecs too intimidating either. Perhaps if you pointed a .45 or .44 at him he would have been nicer. :D

I wasn't there and everything turned out ok, so all's well that ends well...unless he tracks you down!!! :eek:

scottaschultz
August 7, 2009, 06:19 AM
GojuBrian brings up a good point. As I replied on another forum where you posted this situation...

I would keep your weapon very close at hand! If this guy has your license plate number and he is that unstable, his random act of aggression in the parking lot could become personal. I'm just saying...

Scott

Microgunner
August 7, 2009, 07:40 AM
I wouldn't pull a gun unless they were armed. How would it look in court? 'W guy shoots unarmed man.' Lawyers would eat your lunch.


Lawyers & courtrooms absolutely never entered my mind during those brief and startling seconds. What I was actually thinking was "Oh s**t, I'm gonna have to shoot this guy". Then relief when I was able to pull forward away from his raging. He never backed down. As I pulled ahead he stood rigid, fists clinched at his side, teeth gritted, shaking. I truly thought he was going to seize.

KLRANGL
August 7, 2009, 08:23 AM
So far, KLRANGL, (nice handle, is it short for Killer Angel?) you have only met one out of three criteria, that of being boxed in between roadragers car and old ladys car that was backing out.
It is actually ;) Favorite book of all time, but they wouldn't let me put KillerAngel as my handle, so I had to change it...

I do think I met all three criteria though. Intent: threatened great bodily injury. Ability: this is a bit of an assumption, but it goes back to what I said about reading into situations. He could have been 5'3" 120lbs, but I think not. Opportunity: you're stuck...

Lawyers & courtrooms absolutely never entered my mind during those brief and startling seconds.
Nor will it at that moment. You did what you thought was best, and I cant disagree with you...

bababooey32
August 7, 2009, 08:40 AM
There are a multitude of scenarios where there is sufficient threat to draw a weapon, but not yet enough to fire.

For me in Texas, that is not the case. The threshold for justification to draw my weapon is no leass than the threshold for justification for pulling the trigger. I must be in reasonable fear of death or grave sever bodily injury to present my weapon - the same standard I must meet to fire upon someone.

Could be different in other states, but if you pull and don't shoot you better make sure you r were willing to shoot at that same instant.

verti89
August 7, 2009, 08:42 AM
1. Really enjoyed this thread and others like it because if nothing else it offers us all an opportunity to 'what if' for our selves so that we might be better prepared if it does happen to us.

2. My favorite solution was smashing through the old lady in her car that was trapping you...definitely the most reasonable and responsible thing to do.

3. I personally would definitely have drawn, and probably wouldn't have tried TOO terribly hard to hide it, but I doubt I would have actually pointed it at him unless he tried to enter the car in anyway. I would not have waited for the window to actually break, or for his potential weapon to be drawn, because doing so would be foolish and probably end poorly for me.

4. From what I have read on here it would appear that the only time Wild does condone the use, or even display, of your gun would be if you are already dead.

bababooey32
August 7, 2009, 08:49 AM
Having a handicapped permit does not give one carte blanche to inconvenience other folks.

And likewise, simply "being" does not exempt the rest of us from having to be patient sometimes. Even my 5yr old knows that.

Wildalaska
August 7, 2009, 08:51 AM
From what I have read on here it would appear that the only time Wild does condone the use, or even display, of your gun would be if you are already dead.

Then you need lessons in reading comprehension. May I suggest a search, which is something that less experienced members here should perform before pontificating

WildandifyoureadcarefullyyoumaylearnmorethanyouwilleveradmitAlaska TM

verti89
August 7, 2009, 09:07 AM
Actually I said 'from what I have read' not 'after reading every post Wild has ever put on here'. I am assuming that because you are on the forum, and from what I gather are somehow in the business of firearms in some manner, that you do in fact support the responsible ownership and usage of firearms. But I do only seem to remember the critical remarks in real life situations that always seem to be along the lines of 'keep it in your pants, for all our sakes'. Although that is probably because they stick out more than just another 'you did pretty good' comments, and the fact that I enjoy trying to figure out what you have inserted between Wild & Alaska in your signatures.

TailGator
August 7, 2009, 10:01 AM
This is not a situation unique to handicapped parking spots. Any of us could be confronted with the same situation if we are waiting on a parking spot or even just showing a little extra courtesy to someone who is backing out. The only ingredient missing in most parking lots is a person behind us who is rude to the point of belligerence. The fact that the assailant in this situation is incredibly self centered is like the information you get from Microsoft Support - true, but not useful.

Not a lawyer, but it seems intuitive that one would have a difficult time defending the shooting of a person not visibly armed while you are still inside your car and it has not been breached. That is not to say that it is not a dangerous situation, just one for which deadly force is not justified. So then, if the deadly force is not justified, might one be subject to a charge of brandishing? I would rather not go the expense and trouble of finding out. But unholstering and having the weapon in hand at my side would seem to be a prudent move, because this could escalate very quickly.

I am personally not comfortable with solicitors, beggars, and windshield washers approaching my car without my invitation because of the risk of car jacking. I crack the window just a frog's hair and shout, "No! Get away from the car, please." Then the window goes right back up and I put the cell phone to my ear, in sight of the person approaching, so that I can call 911 if they take another step in my direction. (I am not heartless to the needs of others - I give fairly generously through recognized charities and I do not feel obligated to entail the risk of rolling down my window to hand out more cash to people who will do whatever they want with the money.)

So in this situation, perhaps we should use the same line and place that 911 call. If he damages my car, he will have charges of vandalism and I have insurance. My auto deductible is WAY cheaper than a criminal defense lawyer. If he breaches my car, he has me trapped and has more clearly demonstrated intent and ability to cause me bodily harm, and my gun is in my hand. He escalated the situation after a warning, and unless he backs off the instant the gun appears, I have gone far enough and am forced to defend myself. I'm still out the money for a lawyer, but I am alive to go back to work to pay the attorney's bills. But backing up and hollering, "shoot me, shoot me," is still backing up, and I am no more obligated or justified by his words than I am without them.

Like some other posts, I will add that this is in no way a criticism of OP. I have not had a person beat on my window after I issued my warning, and adrenaline is powerful. OP basically followed what I would consider an ideal course, with the slight (but potentially complicating) factor of pointing the gun. I am glad you are safe and I commend you for getting out of a rather dangerous situation without bloodshed. That is a complement to your skills, thoughtfulness, and preparation, and you should consider this incident to have been successfully handled, IMO.

Microgunner
August 7, 2009, 10:02 AM
4. From what I have read on here it would appear that the only time Wild does condone the use, or even display, of your gun would be if you are already dead.

LOL

Fremmer
August 7, 2009, 10:19 AM
But I do only seem to remember the critical remarks in real life situations that always seem to be along the lines of 'keep it in your pants, for all our sakes'.

Wild's right about that. Especially when you're in a stupid argument about a stupid parking space. Because it's not worth shooting someone over a stupid parking space. Not to some of us, anyway.

So what you're telling us is that when you pointed your pistol at this guy, he started telling you to go ahead and shoot him. You didn't shoot him, though. Instead, you simply proceeded to pull into the vacant parking space and park your car, just as you would have done if you had not pulled out a handgun and pointed it at the guy. So pointing a handgun at the guy acccomplished nothing. Because if you had genuinely been in fear for your life, you would not have pulled into that parking space and waited for the guy to walk up to your car. You would have driven away from the threat, and gotten away from the guy. Sorry, but it doesn't sound like you were in fear of being hurt or killed. It sounds like you were willing to escalate a bad situation and make it worse with a firearm, and for what?

A parking space at Walmart. :confused:

Wildalaska
August 7, 2009, 10:24 AM
A parking space at Walmart.

Yet the OP laughs at me:rolleyes:

WilditseasierthanthinkingAlaska TM

scottaschultz
August 7, 2009, 10:31 AM
It sounds like you were willing to escalate a bad situation and make it worse with a firearm, and for what?

A parking space at Walmart.

As posted by Microgunner on another firearm forum on the topic of the ammunition shortage:
Whenever I go into any Wal-Mart I buy all the common handgun ammo they have on hand or at least all they'll sell me. We re-sell it.

Maybe the guy in the parking lot was one of Microgunner's pawn shop customers???

Scott

Microgunner
August 7, 2009, 10:33 AM
Wild's right about that. Especially when you're in a stupid argument about a stupid parking space. Because it's not worth shooting someone over a stupid parking space. Not to some of us, anyway.


I was not, repeat NOT preparing to shoot someone over a parking space. I WAS preparing to defend myself. Why do some continue attempts to paint this picture as an armed conflict over a parking space? The parking space is academic.

Kyo
August 7, 2009, 10:39 AM
hats off to you. it was your call to make and not anyone on this forum. if he's slamming his fist into your window, I don't think you had a choice. I wouldn't even have opened my window to talk to him.

EDIT- lets remind everyone that its not really micro's fault some guy came up to his window and freaked out. doesn't really matter if he was 140 or 250. I don't need to be 250 to break a window. Especially if I have something in my hand, like a flashlight, or even my keys. not everyone shares the mentality of pull the gun when the window is broken. that is idiotic. little late at that point.
You gonna wait for me to break down a door at your house to pull out a gun? Or are you gonna have it ready when you hear the banging? But of course the answer to that is going to be go hide and call the cops cause thats the BEST thing to do ALWAYS. :rolleyes: thats called the "if you don't do it the way I would have you are wrong" attitude. :barf:

NWPilgrim
August 7, 2009, 11:03 AM
Yet the OP laughs at me

Cheap shot. He has not laughed at anyone but has taken a lot of second-guessing shots and misrepresentations. Some of you seem to get off on criticizing for its own sake.

Some are sounding a lot like liberals in your argumentive style of demonizing and deflecting (Wal-Mart, parking space, etc.), and totally dismiss the relevant factors of OP being handicapped, trapped between two cars, raging aggressor that punches his car and yells he is going to kick his ass and continues toward him.

I think the suggestion to get on the phone is a good one, as just being on the phone with 911 might give the guy pause. But I would be ready to defend as well in case he did try to break the window. Ask Reginald Denny how much time you have to react after the window is busted out.

verti89
August 7, 2009, 11:10 AM
I am glad the OP said what he did about the parking space being academic. The parking space is what he was waiting on, the gun was dawn BECAUSE THE GUY BEHIND HIM WENT NUTS. He may have gone nuts because of the OP was waiting on the parking space but once he went nuts, and acted on said nutting :eek: , THAT was the reason for the gun not the parking space.

Kyo
August 7, 2009, 11:17 AM
hey pilgrim i just read about the Denny case and I have to agree that a gun in that situation would have saved him

Wildalaska
August 7, 2009, 11:19 AM
not everyone shares the mentality of pull the gun when the window is broken. that is idiotic. little late at that point.

The gun was pulled. it was ready for action in his hand. It cold have stayed down by his leg

its the pointing that is the issue here.

Cheap shot. He has not laughed at anyone but has taken a lot of second-guessing shots and misrepresentations. Some of you seem to get off on criticizing for its own sake.

Dude I take more heat on this Board than anyone simply because i ask folks to think. Go read the first few pages of the Pharmacist thread.

As to this thread, the OP should not have pointed that gun. Period. He was in his car prepared to take further action, yet chose to point a deadly weapon without a nedd to do so.He lucked out in not getting arrested IMHO and was irresponsible in handling his firearm.

Read Fremmers post again.

Hell of a lot of interesting psychology here. Way too much testosterone...again.

Wildithinkiwillopencarrya210todaysofolkslookatmeAlaska TM

danbrew
August 7, 2009, 11:28 AM
You know, some people might have thought about lowering the window a bit and then letting the big dumbass reach through the window and then clamping down on his arm and taking him for a ride through the parking lot.

He'd be lucky to escape with a broken arm. If he's not so lucky, he'd find out what it's like to be a ford pancake.

The dofus behind you is going to catch up to somebody one day that either doesn't care, is crazy, or has a bunch of money and can pay off the resulting damages.

It's pretty easy to Monday morning quarterback, yet I think what I would have done in this situation is to simply call 911 - all the more better if this clown can be heard screaming and yelling in the background. He scratches the paint? He breaks the window? He goes to jail. Pretty simple. He gets to me? He's going for a ride through the parking lot. Maybe his car gets banged up a bit too.

:D

Kyo
August 7, 2009, 11:36 AM
Alright Wild, I will humor you. How many times does a guy have to pound on your window with a fist, before you decide to point a gun at him? Im asking seriously here. OP could have had mental time distortion(psychotachia??? not sure) and we don't even know it. by that I mean the lady in front could have moved at a different time than he thought.
Idk man, what do you do when a guy is slamming his fist into your window and you are stuck from the front and the back? Go to your passenger side?
Calling 911 takes a free hand. I guess if you aren't moving you can do that as the OP said he was stuck. phone in one hand gun in the other? You can do that yes. From what I can read, the pointing of the gun is what made the other man put his hands down. I would call that effective use of your gun. Just showing it is bluffing. I believe there is a difference, where pointing is pointing, and showing is putting it out there for him to see sideways or something.

This really isn't over a parking spot. This is about a guy who obviously thinks he's so important that its worth coming to the OP's car and attacking him. That is what it was, an attack. I will agree with the testosterone statement. Im not 40 or 50 or even 30 yet. I have plenty of it, but it doesn't mean that I don't think because of it. It just means my body will handle the adrenaline in a different way.

Sixer
August 7, 2009, 12:04 PM
Why do you insist on trivializing this situation? I've been in confrontations before, same as you, but this was far and beyond anything I've been party to as an adult. Visualize absolute rage to the point I thought he was going to stroke out. This was not a normal person.

Well there ya go. If you say you had reason to believe your life was is danger or threat of physical harm... who am I to second guess? No one here on the interwebz can tell YOU that YOU weren't afraid of for your life...

Job well done! That guy will think twice before he blows up in a parking lot again. Heck, you might have even saved his hide by showing him the business end of your piece. If he would have acosted you and got away with it, chances are he would have done it to someone else down line.... and maybe that someone would have ben a bit quicker to pull the trigger.

You know, deserved or not... you go around bullying, being a hot head or a jerk, banging on strangers cars, making threats of bodily harm... you should probably expect to get shot at eventually. :(

Sixer
August 7, 2009, 12:11 PM
As to this thread, the OP should not have pointed that gun. Period. He was in his car prepared to take further action, yet chose to point a deadly weapon without a nedd to do so.He lucked out in not getting arrested IMHO and was irresponsible in handling his firearm.

IMHO... The OP did the right thing. Why?.... because everyone walked away unharmed. No one got shot and no one got beat up. I would have done the same thing and I think alot would have as well.

Vanya
August 7, 2009, 12:33 PM
The OP did the right thing. Why?.... because everyone walked away unharmed.
Nope. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It's equally possible to argue, as some have, that the OP did the wrong thing and was lucky things didn't escalate further. I wasn't there, I don't know, and I don't see much point in second-guessing.

However, this was basically over a parking space: before the person whose car was in the space pulled out, the OP could have chosen to move on when he saw an irate driver in the car behind him. Waiting for the space to be free was more important to him than avoiding a potential confrontation by moving his car. Was he obliged to move his car? Of course not. Would it have been smart? I'd say yes... but I do get that this all happened in less time than the telling of it.

Wildalaska
August 7, 2009, 12:42 PM
Alright Wild, I will humor you. How many times does a guy have to pound on your window with a fist, before you decide to point a gun at him? Im asking seriously here.

Well the last time it happened to me I let the jerkoff pound away while my HP sat under my thigh and the cell phone with 911 in the other hand. He got the hint when I yelled to him the cops were on the way.

The window breaks and you are trapped? Deadly force is authorized IMHO and I doubt any jury will disagree. And you wont hear me questioning.

WildihavbenothingtoprovepouindawayAlaska ™

Sixer
August 7, 2009, 03:27 PM
However, this was basically over a parking space: before the person whose car was in the space pulled out, the OP could have chosen to move on when he saw an irate driver in the car behind him. Waiting for the space to be free was more important to him than avoiding a potential confrontation by moving his car. Was he obliged to move his car? Of course not. Would it have been smart? I'd say yes

Maybe I misunderstood, but I was under the impression that by the time the angry guy approached the OP's car, he was blocked from the front by the lady slowly pulling out and blocked from behind by the angry dude's car. If so, I could see how that might be a pretty threatening situation.

Brian Pfleuger
August 7, 2009, 03:32 PM
Yeah, if we're going to voice an opinion about this, at least get the facts right folks.

1)The OP's car was trapped at the time of the incident. The person leaving the parking spot was directly in front and the irate person's car was directly behind.

2)He did not start the altercation.

TailGator
August 7, 2009, 03:48 PM
What peetzakiller said, PLUS the OP said he pulled into the parking place to wait for LE to arrive, so that he didn't give the appearance of fleeing LE.

This was NOT over a parking place, at least by the words of the OP. (Who knows what the other guy was thinking?) If someone is backing out of a space in a parking lot, you can't safely get by, you have to wait on them whether you want their spot or not. The other guy was a flaming, um, jerk because he thought himself too important to wait on anyone else.

I am not certain that pointing the gun was good, but I am not entirely certain it was the wrong move, either. Results count, whether you know Latin or not. OP ended the confrontation without bloodshed. Maybe there were intangible aspects to the situation that led him to think a display was right. Legally he could have caused himself trouble, perhaps, but it worked and he wasn't charged. (Although I have to remind you, Microgunner, that the jerk could change his mind about filing a complaint about it for a while yet.)

cracked91
August 7, 2009, 03:54 PM
Alright, im going to state a fact that I have not seen posted so far

It is nearly impossible to break safety glass with your hands. And by nearly I mean maybe the hulk could do it. I have never seen a case where someone was able to just smash through with their fist. It take a sharp edge to shatter it, and then it can be smashed away.

That said, I am not really leaning toward either way on this one.

Brian Pfleuger
August 7, 2009, 03:56 PM
Results count, whether you know Latin or not.

That's funny right there.:D

Sorry Vanya.;)

Vanya
August 7, 2009, 05:41 PM
From Microgunner's original post:
Toyota behind me quickly became impatient and began tooting his horn. I felt bad for blocking the isle but I needed that space. The woman was moving very slow and after the third toot I looked in my driver's side view mirror just in time to see an incredibly irate man, face fire engine red, teeth gritted stomping toward my door.
(My emphasis)
I stand by what I said in the earlier post. No, it didn't end up being about the parking space... but that was how it started, as an avoidable confrontation. Was Mr. Red-faced Toyota-head being an aggressive idiot? Of course... but if someone's honking at me persistently, I tend to think there may be a reason for me to move.


Results count, whether you know Latin or not.
That's funny right there.

Sorry Vanya.
No problem... :)

Just saying that to claim that pointing a gun was the right thing to do because everyone walked away unharmed is a really common form of faulty reasoning... Another name for it is "magical thinking," which is all too common when it comes to guns and self-defense...

mskdgunman
August 7, 2009, 06:13 PM
I've run into a fair number of people who are just not impressed when you point a gun at them. Some people just aren't going to be indimidated by the simple presentation of a gun. Most criminals who have spent any time in the system can feel whether or not you're going to use it and once it's in play, you've limited yourself to a couple options. You can either shoot it, put it up or possibly have it taken from you and used against you. While I hate to armchair quarter back, the OP was asking for opinions so, for what it's worth, I vote for locking the door, drawing the weapon but keeping it out of view, calling the cops and looking for an out. If it meant losing the parking space, then so be it. If the guy breaks the window and reaches into the car, you take the next step. If an opening presents itself, you take it and leave. Just becasue you CAN stand your ground legally, doesn't always mean it's a good idea.

maestro pistolero
August 7, 2009, 06:33 PM
I tend to think there may be a reason for me to move.
ONCE AGAIN, the OP was blocked from the front and the rear, according to the post.

Vanya
August 7, 2009, 06:47 PM
ONCE AGAIN, the OP was blocked from the front and the rear, according to the post.
Not to start with. From one of Microgunner's later posts:
By the time it had escalated to the point of confrontation the elderly woman, whose space I'd been waiting on, had begun backing out, trapping me between her and the assailant's car.
(My emphasis)
It seems clear to me from this that it would have been possible for him to drive on when the assailant was still in the horn-tooting stage, before the confrontation occurred. Also (yes, with hindsight) desirable, IMO. I'm not so much trying to second-guess what he should have done, but to point out that -- in general -- it makes sense to avoid having things "escalat[e] to the point of confrontation."

maestro pistolero
August 7, 2009, 07:01 PM
By the time it had escalated to the point of confrontation

OK, but that still doesn't tell us the exact timing of when the gun was drawn, vs when the car was blocked. Not that it changes my opinion that the OP should have employed other tactics prior to reponding with his pistol. He apparently had no other plan but to threaten with the gun, which in my view, was premature.

Vanya
August 7, 2009, 07:10 PM
OK, but that still doesn't tell us the exact timing of when the gun was drawn, vs when the car was blocked. Not that it changes my opinion that the OP should have employed other tactics prior to reponding with his pistol. He apparently had no other plan but to threaten with the gun, which in my view, was premature.
Yes, absolutely.

choicesmade24
August 7, 2009, 07:39 PM
I am pretty sure that wildalaska is one of the people that are thinking about the end consequences of shooting a man that is simply unarmed. I am with wildalaska all the way but then again my wife is an attorney and I think about courtrooms and jurors and such. Many of people have ruined their lives because they have shot someone or beat someone for less than this. To me it is not a deadly force situation. I would be dead or in jail right now if I drew a gun on every person that ever wanted to fight me or "kick my as" or threatened me in this way.

Stevie-Ray
August 7, 2009, 07:41 PM
Respectfully:

You pull a gun you pull the trigger.

If you have no intention of shooting, then keep the gun in it's holster.Am I reading this right? Or was some of the intent lost in the edit? You pull a gun you pull the trigger. This of itself is totally and completely ridiculous.:rolleyes:

If you have no intention of shooting, then keep the gun in it's holster. On that we can agree as long as you also realize intentions can change.

Microgunner
August 7, 2009, 07:58 PM
OK, but that still doesn't tell us the exact timing of when the gun was drawn, vs when the car was blocked.

Here is how I remember it. I spot the old lady loading her trunk in the next aisle. I was pleased to find I was the first to pull in behind her. I stop, she's now getting in her car which is parked askew because she came down the aisle the wrong way when she parked. Almost immediately the gold Toyota behind me honks his horn. I look back and think "should I move on or wait?" By this time the elderly woman iis settling into the seat of her dark red Ford Focus. I decide to wait even though I felt sheepish about blocking the aisle. Toyota beeps several more times impatiently. Red Focus begins backing out but since she is askew it requires some maneuvering on her part along with a lot of head swiveling. I'm now blocked in. The Toyota driver now lays on the horn and I look in my driver's side view mirror in time to see the angry guy, who is actually the passenger in the Toyota being driven by another guy, come around between our vehicles in the described rage. I drew my pistol upon seeing this but kept it unseen until he hit my window with the side of his fist and began screaming the things he was planning to do to me. And you know, I believed him and prepared by pointing the KelTec at him. This all took maybe 60-90 seconds. The Toyota could have gone down 2 aisles at any time he wanted. Yes I aggravated him and I knew I was doing so, but he took it to a whole other level that surprised the s**t out of me, both in severity & swiftness.

noelf2
August 7, 2009, 10:48 PM
Since 99% of the 1 million - 2 million instances of firearm self-defense end with no shots fired, by some of your accounts those were all irresponsible uses of firearms.

Best thing I've read in this whole thread.


Here's the dumbest, basically because of the implied superiority and arrogance:

Dude I take more heat on this Board than anyone simply because i ask folks to think.

Op, I'm with you 100% on this one brother. You sound like a peaceful man and know how to make a bad situation end peacefully. I would have done the exact same thing, with my KelTec. ;)

Wildalaska
August 7, 2009, 11:14 PM
You sound like a peaceful man and know how to make a bad situation end peacefully. I would have done the exact same thing, with my KelTec.

LOL.....

Here's the dumbest, basically because of the implied superiority and arrogance:

In relation to your input, its not implied:rolleyes:

WildcanyoujestfeelthetestosteroneAlaska TM

Lavid2002
August 7, 2009, 11:29 PM
call 911, keep your gun holstered....as you can see you accomplished nothing by whipping it out. Dont pull the pistol unless you are going to shoot him then and there. Besides...if you feared for your life that bad you could have drove away as he got out of his car and approached you. Sounds like you used your concealed carry to get a parking spot. : )

Sixer
August 8, 2009, 03:35 AM
Sounds like you used your concealed carry to get a parking spot. : )

Really? I mean c'mon... even with the smiley face at the end... that's just an insulting, pointless comment.

He used his gun to try and deter a REALLY angry guy that was banging on his car and threatening him... Right or wrong, saying that his actions were an abuse of his CCW is a matter of opinion. Saying that he used his CCW to get a parking space... that's just not right.

scottaschultz
August 8, 2009, 07:14 AM
This may be somewhere in the last 119 posts, so if it is, please forgive me.

I used to have handicapped plates on our vehicles because of my late wife's disability so I appreciate the fact that these spaces exist.

So when this guy starts honking at you and you looked in your mirror, did you see handicapped plates or one of those mirror tags (we have them in MO, not sure if you have them in FL)? If not, why not just continue down the aisle and let the guy in the truck find a spot? Sure, you take your chances that the handicapped spot might be taken, but most Wal-Marts have quite a few designated spots. I find it hard to believe, unless it was a Saturday afternoon perhaps, that all of the handicapped spaces would be taken.

Sure, you could stand your ground like you did and risk having an "incident", or you could have just just moved on and looked for another spot or driven around and positioned yourself in a better spot so as not to block other cars from coming down the aisle while waiting for the spot you just had to have became available. This whole mess could have easily been avoided.

Scott

Microgunner
August 8, 2009, 07:28 AM
call 911, keep your gun holstered....as you can see you accomplished nothing by whipping it out. Dont pull the pistol unless you are going to shoot him then and there. Besides...if you feared for your life that bad you could have drove away as he got out of his car and approached you. Sounds like you used your concealed carry to get a parking spot. : )


You didn't read the thread, did you?

eclipsetactical
August 8, 2009, 07:45 AM
I think the whole situation is a very grey area. In FL, as he was saying and I know cause I have several friends that live there, they have one of the most liberal laws about being able to draw your gun on somebody. As well they have one of the most liberal laws about being able to fire on a perp. Under FL law he would have legally been able to shoot that gentleman that got out and pounded his fist against his window. The gentleman showed agression, and threatened the starter of this thread. Another factor that comes into play is the handicap situation, being handicapped obviously provides a much greater chance had a physical confrontation happened that the handicapped person would be hurt and most likely in a sever way.

Seeing as all CCDW laws are different in each state as well as use of deadly force in such a situation I can see where in FL this would be permitted. I can also see where in KY with the handicapped circumstances that this would have been permitted. I can also see where in some other states this would not be permitted. I sit in on classes with some of the instructors here in KY and I remember one of the points they always make is that if you are traveling to a different state and want to carry your weapon concealed you need to call ahead and check the laws.

The only reason I go through all this is to say honestly only people in FL with a CCDW from there, or people familiar with FL law inparticular can really make an educated statement about the situation at hand. Everyone else can have an opinion but it is just that an opinion that holds no legal bearing on what actually happened.

I know that this gentleman was just in pulling his gun and pointing it at the person under FL law. Thinking logically and not by law it also served a purpose of the situation not escalating and froze the perp. in his tracks although it could have went the other way and the perp. could have kept coming and forced a shot to be fired. So I go back to my original statement of this is such a grey area. More grey in the philisophical area then in the actual area of law.

Wildalaska
August 8, 2009, 09:24 AM
Under FL law he would have legally been able to shoot that gentleman that got out and pounded his fist against his window

Really? You sure about that? :rolleyes:

WildisayyouarewrongAlaska TM

eclipsetactical
August 8, 2009, 10:50 AM
As I understand it under FL law all you have to do is be threatened or feel threatened with bodily harm. KY law reads a little different as you have to be threatened with bodily harm that will cause injuries which could affect your well being for a prolonged time. I.E. Broken bones, etc. or of course feel threatened to the point you think you are going to be shot or stabbed. Or if you see a gun (whether it be real or not) and you assume it is and are going to be fired at you are able to use deadly force. Basically in KY as long as you can say you FEEL threatened by these perameters you are within your right to use deadly force no matter that if later it is found out that the gun pointed at you was fake. Been through my CCDW and sat in on many classes taught by instructors. I have been thinking about becoming an instructor myself so I am pretty up on the KY law part of it. Also pretty up on the FL law part of it from friends from FL and other vendors at gun shows we work from FL talking about it.

Also in KY there are laws as follows:

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Dr. Strangelove
August 8, 2009, 11:40 AM
Here are some of the Florida laws which deal with this situation, as well as some info from Charles Bronson, FL State Agricultural Commissioner. (No joke, that's his real name)

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Here's the definition of forcible felony:

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

As I understand it under FL law all you have to do is be threatened or feel threatened with bodily harm.

Not entirely true. You are only able to respond with deadly force to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony". (See definition of forcible felony above)

Under FL law he would have legally been able to shoot that gentleman that got out and pounded his fist against his window.

Possibly, if he can convince a grand jury that there was imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, or that a forcible felony was taking place. Are you willing to bet your freedom that your case is that clear cut? I'm not.
Sitting in a closed automobile with the windows up while an unarmed man screams at you and strikes the car a couple of times would be a hard sell to me as a juror as justification for use of deadly force, or even pointing a firearm at someone.

Vanya
August 8, 2009, 11:51 AM
As I understand it under FL law all you have to do is be threatened or feel threatened with bodily harm.

Umm, no. The "feeling," or belief, has to be a reasonable one.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Dr. Strangelove beat me to this, but I've reposted the most relevant part of the Florida statute in order to emphasize one word: reasonably.

It is not enough just to "feel threatened." There has to be a reasonable basis for the feeling.

Sitting in a closed automobile with the windows up while an unarmed man screams at you and strikes the car a couple of times would be a hard sell to me as a juror as justification for use of deadly force, or even pointing a firearm at someone.
Just so...

Wildalaska
August 8, 2009, 12:06 PM
Been through my CCDW and sat in on many classes taught by instructors.

Yea well I have taught the classes...you are wrong

[deleted section]

WildofftotheofficeAlaska TM

eclipsetactical
August 8, 2009, 12:32 PM
Like I said it was my understanding through what others had said about FL law that it was more leaneant than KY law. Sounds like it is just like KY law though because that is how it reads here as well. You have to be faced with "imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself" or have a reasonable belief of such.

Alaska just cause you have taught classes up in Alaska does not mean you know jack about KY law or FL law. Just like I obviously didn't know as much as I thought I did about FL law. [deleted section]

I will be the first to admit when I am wrong and love to be more educated about things by people who can actually state thier sources like Strangelove. Who taught me something after reading his post that I can now take with me as actual law and fact about FL laws.

I still hold the opinion that with the guy being handicapped that would hold some bearing in the court room had the perp say broke through his driver window or grabbed him or as you all were talking about had the "reasonable belief" that he was going to do so. Which with the guy already striking a window and telling him he was going to kick the @#@$ out of him, I can see how reasonable belief of serious bodily harm could be obtained. You can hurt some one with a disablity alot worse than you can one that is completely healthy.

Vanya
August 8, 2009, 12:41 PM
I will be the first to admit when I am wrong and love to be more educated about things by people who can actually state thier sources like Strangelove. Who taught me something after reading his post that I can now take with me as actual law and fact about FL laws.
Eclipse, it's a fine thing to be able to admit when you're wrong about something.

As to stating sources, it's not hard -- you just have to want to be accurate. Google is your friend. It took me about 45 seconds to find the statute above on the Florida govt. website.

You can hurt some one with a disablity alot worse than you can one that is completely healthy.
I hope you're not speaking from experience...

Just kidding. ;)

eclipsetactical
August 8, 2009, 12:49 PM
Just common sence that you could hurt a disabled person more seriously than a completely healthy one. I do have experience with disabled vets which also gives me an informed perspective of how injury prone a disabled person is as oppossed to a healthy one.

scottaschultz
August 8, 2009, 01:52 PM
Someone is going to have to explain this one to me because I just don't get it. To me, being "injury prone" means that you are more likely to sustain an injury than someone who is not, but you said that "you could hurt a disabled person more seriously than a completely healthy one."

I am pretty sure that if I took a 33" solid maple Louisville Slugger and whacked you on the back of the head and a disabled person on the back of the head, both of you stand and fairly equal chance of sustaining the same level of injury.

Now I will grant you that a physically disabled person may not have as many options in terms of their response to a threatening situtation, but an injury is an injury no matter what! Maybe you're just not expressing yourself well.

Scott

eclipsetactical
August 8, 2009, 02:47 PM
Well a disabled person's body is usually not able to take as much abuse. Your Louisville slugger thing for instance. If you hit a disabled person who has already had head trauma as oposed to someone who has not, you are much more likely to cause a much more serious injury to that disabled person. As far as a fight in general if you are fighting a disabled person who has sustained injuries to thier body in some sort of way you are more likely to agrivate those already sustained injuries as opposed to a healthy person you may cause new injuries but they are not going to be as severe as what you would do to a person physically disabled. Lets give a for instance, my friend Master Sergent Raferty has a partial prostetic leg and just doesnt get around that well. If you hit him with a bat it is going to cause serious life threatening injury with a definate slow recovery time as compared to you hitting me with that same bat with the same force. Yes you are going to hurt me but I do not have already weakened bone structure or a partial prostetic therefore my injuries would not be as severe and most likely not life threatening.

Did I explain it better that time?

Sixer
August 8, 2009, 03:05 PM
I agree. Although I don't recall reading WHY the OP needs to park in a handicap spot, it really does not matter, nor is it any of our business. Regardless, in most instances it would be safe to say that disabled person has a higher risk of sustaining crtical bodily harm compared to an otherwise healthy, non-disabled person.

That in itself could give a disabled person more of a REASONABLE fear of great bodily harm. Thus giving him the legal right to use deadly force.

Bottom line is that the situation likely happened in a matter of a minute or two. It escalated quickly and the OP was NOT the aggressor. You can sit here and say "should have" done this or that all day... But when it came down to a man stuck between two cars, with some jerk making physical threats, I still side with the OP's judgement in doing what he did out of fear for his safety.

noelf2
August 8, 2009, 05:11 PM
Everyone's probably going to have to agree to disagree. There's no way to end this argument, and I don't see where anyone has changed their position (of those who participated anyway), but this was an educational conversation for sure... :)

Trashcan-man
August 8, 2009, 05:25 PM
Ok I went to the FL State Senate website (http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes) and re-read the statutes that apply here. Here is what I found.

Brandishing - as I read the statute below he was not brandishing the firearm because he was doing so in defense of himself, weather that defense was justified has nothing to do with the brandishing. The fact is that it says that you can show the weapon in self-defense and be cleared of any wrongdoing...legally that is.
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.--If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083

Use of deadly force/Crimes committed - I do think that the BG was guilty of Simple Assault, but not aggrivated assault. The guy was threatening to harm the OP and was showing that he was capable of hurting the OP by poinding on the glass with his fists. All he needed was a metal object such as a key or a carabiener(sp?) to get through the glass and he would have upped the charge to agg battery.
784.011 Assault.-- (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
784.021 Aggravated assault.--
(1) An "aggravated assault" is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
So, as I read the statutes(I'm not a lawyer or a judge so I won't say for absolutely) legally speaking the OP was justified in showing the handgun but would not have been justified in shooting the BG. It would have been very unlikely for the State Atty General to have prosecuted him even if the police had arrested him...IMO. That being said I personally would have kept the handgun hidden from sight but still had my hand on or very very close to it.

Tennessee Gentleman
August 8, 2009, 05:56 PM
Have to go with Ken (Wildalaska) on this one. Does Harold Fish ring a bell with anyone? If you shoot an unarmed person you are behind the eight ball from the get-go with any jury. You may get off but you will have to really show the jury something to justify it.

In the OP the nutcase was separated by the car door and window and therefore could not do anything. I liked Ken's tactic of keeping the gun ready and if and only if the nutcase breaks the window then fire away and no jury would convict. Brandishing the gun just escalates the situation. You were safe in the car, so stay there, call the cops, and have your firearm ready.

If you had shot him from your car without the window being broken I think you would have been prosecuted.

Zilmo
August 8, 2009, 06:58 PM
Alright, im going to state a fact that I have not seen posted so far

It is nearly impossible to break safety glass with your hands. And by nearly I mean maybe the hulk could do it. I have never seen a case where someone was able to just smash through with their fist. It take a sharp edge to shatter it, and then it can be smashed away.

That said, I am not really leaning toward either way on this one.

Not so. I punched out a side window in an 85 Monte Carlo once. Shattered to hell and back. Cut my hand up pretty well, but it popped wide open. They don't have a sheet of plastic in them like windshields do.

Kyo
August 8, 2009, 08:12 PM
I don't think it would be a hard sell for a jury. Some laws in states say that if you get out of your car to confront another it is AUTO road rage. Road rage=rage. Rage=danger. Danger=self defense.
I am not saying shoot the guy, I am saying point the gun. The third bang on the window could have broken it. Never know till it happens

Wildalaska
August 8, 2009, 08:53 PM
Some laws in states say that if you get out of your car to confront another it is AUTO road rage. Road rage=rage. Rage=danger. Danger=self defense.

Citation please?

WildithinkyourewrongAlaska TM

Kyo
August 8, 2009, 09:53 PM
http://www.roadragers.com/what-is-road-rage.htm

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/curriculum/Unit%202.pdf

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13210.htm

The handbook specifically says trying to get someone to pull over to settle a dispute. Old boy came to his car to settle it. In cali thats 6 months no license.

Wildalaska
August 8, 2009, 10:09 PM
No one disputes road rage is an assault, where is the citation that allows one to threaten or utilize deadly physical force against a road rager absent normal self defense standards?:confused:

WildorwereyouengedinhyperboleAlaska TM

Kyo
August 9, 2009, 12:45 AM
assault is assault. there is no special thing that says "if you road rage I can shoot you" point is Cali and other states have equalized it as assault. so, when SD applies to assault, this is included in assault.
that is what happened. Guy came out to bang on window. Assault. Legal self defense allowed. When do you determine if assault is life threatening?

Wildalaska
August 9, 2009, 01:06 AM
When do you determine if assault is life threatening?

When it crosses the line to the imminent use of deadly physical force against you, objectively and subjectively.

The OP was not in imminent danger of having deadly physical force used against him and therefore had no business in threatening the use of deadly physical force. His actions were irresponsible (on the facts given) and he lucked out in not being prosecuted.

WildyoucarryagunyouassumetheriskofmakingaboobooandifonepersonlearnswhatnottodofromthisdebateIaccomplishedsomethingAlaska TM

PS...you (generically) aren't safe because of your gun. your gun is as dangerous to you as to the person who threatens you. your weapon is your brain.

Dr. Strangelove
August 9, 2009, 01:09 AM
The Florida Department of Agriculture, which issues concealed carry permits in Florida has a lot of good info here:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

I posted this link in this thread already, but I think it's important information, so here it is again. Please do read it. Here is the most relevant info for those who won't bother to click on the link:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?

A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.

Example: In a 1987 case, a woman refused to pay an automobile mechanic who she thought did a poor job repairing her car. They argued about it, and the mechanic removed the radiator hose from the car so she couldn't drive it away. She reached into her purse, pulled out an unloaded gun, and threatened to kill the mechanic if he touched her car again. The mechanic grabbed the gun and called the police.

The woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to serve a mandatory three-year prison term. The fact that the gun was not loaded was irrelevant. Even though she was the mother of three dependent children and had no prior criminal record, the statute does not allow for parole. Her only recourse was to seek clemency from the Governor.



Here for your reading pleasure is the summary of that Florida State web page, cut and pasted. Bolds and underlines are mine to emphasize what is most relevant to our discussion.


Summary

1. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument, even if it isn't loaded or you never intend to use it

2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.
3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."

4. Never carry your concealed weapon into any place where the statute prohibits carrying it.

This is not a complete summary of all the statutes and court opinions on the use of deadly force. Because the concealed weapons statute specifies that concealed weapons are to be used for lawful self-defense, we have not attempted to summarize the body of law on lawful defense of property. This information is not intended as legal advice. Every self-defense case has its own unique set of facts, and it is unwise to try to predict how a particular case would be decided. It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.

The Florida law reads "reasonably believe" and that doesn't mean one can just say "Eeek. I'm scared. Bang." It means would a reasonable person in that situation have cause to believe they were in imminent peril of loss of life or great physical harm.

This incident never went to grand jury or trial, and we certainly won't be deciding it here on The Firing Line. I believe the lesson to be taken to heart here, no matter what our personal opinion of the actions taken in this specific situation, is that if a bunch of pro-gun folks on a web forum can't agree on a relatively simple issue (was the OP justified in drawing his pistol) what would have happened had this actually gone to trial with twelve strangers who may not be gun enthusiasts deciding the issue?

Learn the law. Follow the law. Don't depend on what you hear from a friend or see on a web forum. Or pay the consequences for breaking the law.

Wildalaska
August 9, 2009, 01:57 AM
It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.

Last clear chance boys and girls, last clear chance. Aint just the perps life on the line, it be yours to.

Word. G.

WildhomestyleAlaska TM

cracked91
August 9, 2009, 02:16 AM
Wrong thread

scottaschultz
August 9, 2009, 05:56 AM
Save your breath cracked91. I made a similar comment and was pretty much ignored. People here don't want to hear things like that. People on these forums don't really post things looking for advice. All they are really looking for is someone to confirm that they made the correct decision. If you disagree with what they did, then clearly you didn't fully understand the circumstances or appreciate the OP's situation.

As much as Microgunner insists it is not the case, this whole incident is over a parking space. My advice was to just drive around and let this nut case in the truck go by. He was obviously agitated and in a bigger hurry to get into the store than the OP. In the time it would have taken to drive around, that would have:
a) given the person more time to load up their car
b) allowed the OP to position himself better so as not to block the aisle
c) find a different handicapped space
Doing any one of those three things would have avoided this situation.

I am glad to see the comments from the Florida website. Something I have also said here that people don't like to hear is the fact that having a gun can indeed affect the way some people react to a situation. Having a gun is supposed to empower you. Empower you to know that you can protect your life or that of someone else in the event you find yourself in imminent danger. Obviously it also empowers people to do dumb things as well.

Yes, this was over a parking spot. While Microgunner is certainly entitled to park in A handicapped spot, it was because of his insistance over having that particular spot and refusing to move to let this other guy go by that contributed to this situation. Yeah, the guy in the truck was highly agitated, but what do most rational people do when confronted with someone like that? My vote would be to avoid the situation.

I have been going to Wal-Mart for probably close to 30 years. For 10 of those years, I drove vehicles with handicapped plates and not once have I ever had to pull a gun over a parking space... ever!

Scott

Sixer
August 9, 2009, 06:25 AM
Well... I would have pulled the trigger on that fool. If he looked like a dirty hippy... I would have pulled it twice.

eta.... THUMP THUMP THUMP.... BANG! :)

eclipsetactical
August 9, 2009, 06:59 AM
I think getting a bigger gun might help too as far as scare factor. Also when you point it at them put your war face on like you aren't playing. Refer to picture below.....This lady points a gun at me I am running for cover and so would any man in thier right mind.

http://i558.photobucket.com/albums/ss26/eclipsetactical/granny-gun1.jpg

OldMarksman
August 9, 2009, 08:30 AM
By my count there are about twenty replies on here that support the OP's action. One poster said he "might have shot the guy."

Almost all of these were posted before Dr. Strangelove's Post #144.

I strongly recommend that everyone go back and read it slowly and carefully.

Here's a "Cliff Notes" version.

Originally Posted by Florida Dept of AG website
Summary

1. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument, even if it isn't loaded or you never intend to use it

2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured; Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force; If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.
3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."

....

This is not a complete summary of all the statutes and court opinions on the use of deadly force. Because the concealed weapons statute specifies that concealed weapons are to be used for lawful self-defense, we have not attempted to summarize the body of law on lawful defense of property. This information is not intended as legal advice. Every self-defense case has its own unique set of facts, and it is unwise to try to predict how a particular case would be decided. It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.

.....

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.



Laws vary by state, but it isn't a good idea for any lay person, untrained in legal theory, unaware of how each statute fits into the context of the entire body of law, and not knowledgeable of the case law, to try to ascertain the limits of how one might justify the use of deadly force.

eclipsetactical
August 9, 2009, 08:45 AM
After the dude getting out of the car and beating on the window and telling the OP that he was going to hurt him "reasonable belief" could be derived that the OP could get seriously injured or worse. Giving him the right to pull the gun in self defense.

Really this whole post is an opinion thing because none of us that I know are lawyers in FL. Correct me if I am wrong. I always heard opinions are like a-holes, everyone's got one.

Also think we have heard plenty of opinions from each side and we should wrap this thread up. It was a very good discussion though, everyone involved for the most part made some very good points on both sides.

So I applaud everyone for expressing thier veiws, its great when you get a group of people together that all have different points of veiw. Gives you the ability to look at things from a perspective that maybe you do not have. That is what a post like this is all about is learning. I for one learned a lot from all the posters so it was a winning situation for me.

Thanks Guys and Gals,
Ben

Wildalaska
August 9, 2009, 10:29 AM
Also think we have heard plenty of opinions from each side and we should wrap this thread up. It was a very good discussion though, everyone involved for the most part made some very good points on both sides.

Nobody who believes the OP had the "right" to pull his gun has made a good point.

Those of you who think that pulling ones firearm in this scenario is a good idea do so in the future at your own risk. My best suggestion for you is to stop buying ammo for a year and put the money onto an account for legal fees.

Sooner or later you will be using it.

Last clear chance boys and girls, last clear chance. Maybe CCws for men should come with estrogen pills:p

WildtonedowntheaggressionabitAlaska TM

OldMarksman
August 9, 2009, 10:38 AM
After the dude getting out of the car and beating on the window and telling the OP that he was going to hurt him "reasonable belief" could be derived that the OP could get seriously injured or worse. Giving him the right to pull the gun in self defense.


Lay opinion: I seriously doubt it.

...reasonable belief that the OP "could get" seriously injured or worse?--the mere possibility does not constitute imminent peril.

Telling the OP that he was going to hurt him?--verbal threat, doesn't cut it.

Beating on the window? Was that simply to give emphasis to the verbal threat, or was the guy "in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering...the occupied vehicle"? (Florida statutes, 776.013). The charging authority, grand jury, and/or trial court jury would have to believe that it was the latter.

Would reasonable people conclude that beating on a car window constitutes unlawfully and forcefully entering the car? I wouldn't.

OldMarksman
August 9, 2009, 11:02 AM
Those of you who think that pulling ones firearm in this scenario is a good idea do so in the future at your own risk.

My thoughts exactly...

My best suggestion for you is to stop buying ammo for a year and put the money onto an account for legal fees. Sooner or later you will be using it.

Ken, what do you think about the idea of consulting a local, experienced trial attorney with actual knowledge of the deadly force laws and case law now?

A couple of hours of consultation might be a good investment.

Kyo
August 9, 2009, 11:48 AM
Those who don't believe that the window should be broken first. That is a risk for you to take.

noelf2
August 9, 2009, 12:09 PM
Nobody who believes the OP had the "right" to pull his gun has made a good point.

That's your opinion, and is shared by those who think as you do. Lots of us don't share that opinion. Does that make us wrong? Does it make you wrong? None of us are qualified to make that judgment, no matter much smarter we think we are than others. We all appreciate the right to self defense, and I think we will all have to make the decision of when to draw, or when not to draw, based on the circumstances we find ourselves in. I, like most others here, hope I'm never in a situation where I feel I have to draw my gun. But if I am in that situation, there are two things that I'm happy about. 1. I know my state laws. 2. You are in Alaska and wouldn't be on the jury. :):D:D

NOamitheonlyonethatinsntimpressedbythisELF2

OldMarksman
August 9, 2009, 12:20 PM
Those who don't believe that the window should be broken first. That is a risk for you to take.

?

You've lost me.

Florida law, and that what counts here, seems to provide a presumption (rebuttable, of course) that a reasonable fear of imminent peril exists if a forceful and unlawful entry is "in process." What have the courts said about what that means? I do not know, and I sure would not want to be the one to find out.

I would sure hate to try to answer questions from a prosecutor about why it was reasonable for anyone to think that someone banging on my window was in the process of breaking in.

But again, someone else may have travelled that road. Of course, unless there has been an appellate ruling on the subject, the result might well not be the same the next time.

IZZY
August 9, 2009, 12:31 PM
(NW pilgrim) Pretty amazing the guy did not back off when looking down the barrel of a gun.

That is my #2 concern with a Kill-Tech...small guns get no respect.

My #1 concern is in using it...( eg will it "stop" the fight/ attacker, and will it work under SD conditions).

Next time report this to the Security detail in the store, even with a bigger gun, I would not want to go through hell over a parking spot.

At least get an all steel MK9, walther PPS, or a Glock 30.

Wildalaska
August 9, 2009, 01:20 PM
Does that make us wrong?

Yes.

The OP was not in fear of imminent serious pyhsical injury. The OP risked arrest. The OP escalated the situation. The OP acted foolishly in this scenario.


None of us are qualified to make that judgment, no matter much smarter we think we are than others.

No. Any body who knows his state law and knows how the Court system works as well as the principles of justification and the use of deadly physical force are qualified to make that judgement. Thats why there are "instructors" (FWIW) out there.

Ken, what do you think about the idea of consulting a local, experienced trial attorney with actual knowledge of the deadly force laws and case law now?

A couple of hours of consultation might be a good investment.

It should probably be mandatory.

WildlearnfromitAlaska TM

TailGator
August 9, 2009, 02:07 PM
The OP was not in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

Are you certain of that, WA? He has enough of a disability to get a handicapped parking pass, and there was a man acting irrationally, shouting threats and beating on his car window, physically attacking his car even though not (yet) his person, while he was blocked from escaping fore and aft. It seems like a pretty dicey situation to me - I'm not sure that whatever amount of fear he felt was irrational. That fear is contained in the parenthetical word. If his fear is found to be "reasonable" your succeeding sentences don't hold up. We all know that going to court has its own risks, but I wouldn't bet the mortgage money that OP would lose in a Florida court. (This from a lifelong Florida resident who has his CCW permit, read the laws and rules, and reviewed them again today.)

And to those who are trying to make a case that OP was being a jerk about a parking place: please read his posts again. He was showing some courtesy to the older lady at the same time he was waiting on a space for himself. There was room for the other guy to go around him until the old lady backed out, but the other driver chose not to do so until they were both blocked by the woman's attempts to back out. In other words, by the time it was clear that a dangerous situation had developed, the opportunity to escape it was gone. The rage exhibited by the other driver is simply not justified. Who goes to the parking lot of Wal-Mart (or a mall or a movie theater) and expects everyone to just get out of the way and give them the best spot available. If you criticize OP for not passing by the space, do you go around the same parking lot until you find an already cleared spot with no one near it and no one behind you who might want it? The guy beating on the window is the one who is a threat to peace and order, not a guy minding his own business waiting on a parking spot. I rather imagine that Microgunner felt a little impatience waiting on the old lady to load her car and back out, but he dealt with it much more appropriately. He probably erred in pointing the gun rather than keeping it ready at his side, but let's not demonize the guy.

MLeake
August 9, 2009, 02:14 PM
is not with the readying of the weapon, but with the pointing of the weapon.

The weapon can be readied, and kept out of sight by the thigh, without real risk of assault charges (IE it's not being brandished, just readied as a precaution).

I believe WA indicated he's had a case where he kept his own pistol ready, but below line of sight. I've had one of those, myself.

There was a case last year in south Florida where a driver did shoot a road-rager, and was not charged; however, in that case there were two potential assailants; I believe one had a bludgeoning weapon of some sort; and, a real attempt to open the man's door was made. Witness statements supported the shooter's version of events.

The OP's physical condition would be a factor to consider as far as charging and verdict go, for anything from its effect on his ability to avoid the threat to his ability to sustain damage. Even so, he'd probably need to show more cause for perceiving a threat of serious bodily harm than a fist banging on a window.

Now, if it were a bat or a hammer banging on the window, that would change things up. A firearm, and nobody here would have a question.

scottaschultz
August 9, 2009, 02:29 PM
UPDATE!!!
I just came back from my local Wal-Mart and I am still alive to talk about it! Somehow, by the grace of god, I did not feel threatened nor did I feel the need to draw my weapon. I am sure this is just an isolated incident since Wal-Mart appears to be such a hotbed of violent activities. I will harder next to try and find some reason to draw my weapon on someone the next time I go.

Scott

maestro pistolero
August 9, 2009, 02:40 PM
I think the issue some of us have...
is not with the readying of the weapon, but with the pointing of the weapon.

The weapon can be readied, and kept out of sight by the thigh, without real risk of assault charges (IE it's not being brandished, just readied as a precaution).
Ready, for me, is cocked and locked in my holster, possibly with my hand on the holstered gun. Next level of readiness would be the "low ready", cocked, unlocked, and pointed downward. I don't like the idea of an unsecured pistol. It's either in my hand, in the holster, or both.

It would take very little scuffling or fast driving for that gun to end up on the floor or wedged between seat and console.

eclipsetactical
August 9, 2009, 03:51 PM
Those were some of the points I was trying to make to these guys about him being handicapped and his fear of being seriously hurt was very reasonable after having the perp hit his car and threaten him. But never the less they fell on def ears. I think you made a great point that i have been trying to make. As well you did it in a well thought out and easy to understand manner. I applaud you but I will say none on the other side are going to listen. They are stuck in thier way and would not listen to anything anyone else has to say that does not conform to thier veiw. I think a lot of people need to learn to listen to people more and take in the information and possibly change thier oppinion as things are revealed to them. You can't just take your first opinion and be gun ho on it no matter what is said to explain things to you. You must learn to listen, learn, and sometimes adapt your opinion based upon presented facts. Alot of older people expecially get the attitude that when they have an opinion they are sticking by it no matter what come hell or high water. We as a country and as people in general need to listen and learn more from others, not just block them out because we are set in our ways and not going to back down from our first statement. Sometimes you have to learn to swallow that pride and admit hey I might be wrong or at least partially wrong.

Just the way it is on these forums. Like I said before opinions are like a-holes, everyone's got one and I will add most of them stink. LOLZ :D

noelf2
August 9, 2009, 05:28 PM
Thats why there are "instructors" (FWIW) out there.

LOL... If an instructor says it, it's a fact...!!?? I've known all kinds of instructors that were all kinds of wrong.

I just came back from my local Wal-Mart and I am still alive to talk about it! Somehow, by the grace of god, I did not feel threatened nor did I feel the need to draw my weapon. I am sure this is just an isolated incident since Wal-Mart appears to be such a hotbed of violent activities. I will harder next to try and find some reason to draw my weapon on someone the next time I go.

Was that supposed to be funny? or sarcastic? Kind of belittles the ops situation I think. Not very mature, but, we're all different. :rolleyes:

MLeake
August 9, 2009, 06:23 PM
Did you read the original post?

He wasn't "driving". He was blocked between the aggressor's car and an old lady's car. I, too, would advocate leaving the weapon holstered if the OP (or anybody else) were driving. In fact, I'd say that the best option, in a moving vehicle, is to move that vehicle rapidly toward a police station.

However, his car was effectively immobilized, ergo the gun wasn't going to get flung about in a collision, and he also could not drive to a safe refuge.

For that matter, did you read my post? Where did I ever say I'd put the gun on the seat? I said, "readied, and kept out of sight by the thigh." Apparently, you've interpreted that to mean dumped on the seat and held in place by the leg ... that is not my idea of "readied." To clarify, I meant "weapon in hand, held alongside the thigh to keep it ready but out of sight." IE a low ready, but modified to keep it out of view in hopes of avoiding escalation.

I'm doing my best to remind myself that you were probably being sincere, and that I probably could have been clearer, but I am having to battle the sarcasm gods...

Cheers,

M

Wildalaska
August 9, 2009, 06:59 PM
Are you certain of that, WA?

yeah OBJECTIVELY I am. And bet you can find a jury that could agree with me. And if he would have shot, he would have been indicted. And the introduction of the gun into the equation made it more likely he would have had to shoot.

And there goes life for the OP as he knows it.

WildbehindglassAlaska TM

Wildalaska
August 9, 2009, 07:08 PM
Alot of older people expecially get the attitude that when they have an opinion they are sticking by it no matter what come hell or high water.

Thats because we "old folks" have seen more of life, are generally more educated, have read more and are less susceptible to thinking with the wrong head.

Those were some of the points I was trying to make to these guys about him being handicapped and his fear of being seriously hurt was very reasonable after having the perp hit his car and threaten him. But never the less they fell on def ears. I think you made a great point that i have been trying to make.

Ever tried a self defense case? Ever seen one presented to a Grand Jury? Ever read an appellate decision of a self defense case? Familiar with the Model penal Code provisions on justification? Read the commentaries to the law of self defense in Florida? ever have a Florida carry permit? You have a carry permit anywhere? Ever taught a course on the law of self defense?

The points about him being handicapped and in "fear" are irrelevant to the scenario as presented and the point some of us are trying to make. The OP acted irresponsibly, and if you think he didnt, then there will come a time when you may act irresponsibly too.

Your nickel, like I said earlier, get some $$ in the bank for your lawyer.

Perhaps a bit more listening to folks who know a bit more will help you.

WildbeentheredonethatgotthetshirtAlaska TM

dev_null
August 9, 2009, 08:28 PM
http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/56952889/3344222

noelf2
August 9, 2009, 08:59 PM
Perhaps a bit more listening to folks who know a bit more will help you.

Please point me to someone like that. Or, is that supposed to be you?? :rolleyes:

Op wasn't irresponsible. Anyone who thinks he was should save their $$. You might need them for medical expenses (deductibles, etc) if you ever take a couple of punches before you decide to stop an attack. Might even come in handy for a coffin.

OldMarksman
August 9, 2009, 09:21 PM
Op wasn't irresponsible. Anyone who thinks he was should save their $$. You might need them for medical expenses (deductibles, etc) if you ever take a couple of punches before you decide to stop an attack. Might even come in handy for a coffin.

????

"Stop an attack"? No attack had occurred. Nothing to stop. Yes, there were words. Yes, someone banged on a window. Do you think that constituted an attack? If so, why?

Do you think one could lawfully point a gun in anticipation of an attack?

Now, in Florida, had the glass been broken, the display of a weapon, and even it's use, might well have been justified. Lay opinion.

Now, being prepared would be very prudent indeed, but actually pointing the gun without the existence of imminent peril could buy a one way ticket to "downtown."

Perhaps you have an objective reason to argue otherwise, and perhaps you have reason to believe you could convince a Florida charging authority, grand jury, and/or trial jury otherwise, but you haven't provided it here.

Wildalaska
August 9, 2009, 09:29 PM
Now, in Florida, had the glass been broken, the display of a weapon, and even it's use, might well have been justified. Lay opinion.

Under the facts as exactly related by the OP, glass breaks, use of weapon justified.

WildlegalopinionAlaska TM

PS....
Or, is that supposed to be you??

Among others, yep.

Kyo
August 9, 2009, 09:31 PM
an attack did occur. the attack scared the OP enough to pull the gun. no one else was there, how do you know if it was an attack or not?
Like I said, he got out of the car and started banging on the window. assault. period. the cops even agreed, so who are you to say there was no attack? :confused:
This is ridiculous. Scream that he's wrong all day, it makes no difference that you are wrong. None. He's not in jail, the cops said he's fine, and obviously the guy in the other car started this idiocy. But please ignore all that and still claim you are right for no other reason except to argue and annoy. Good job. Guess what? OP was right, law says so. Deal with it. :barf:

MLeake
August 9, 2009, 09:36 PM
That doesn't mean a DA won't take a different view after reviewing the case.

And if it turns out in his favor, in that particular jurisdiction, it doesn't mean it would turn out so favorably in Coral Gables, or St Augustine, or other "blue" areas of Florida.

It's better not to point a weapon unless one really has to. A fist that doesn't break the glass (side windows aren't all that tough, you can push through one with minimal effort with a center punch), probably is being used for dramatic effect and not for actual attack.

The weapon can be readied without being pointed, in case the fist does become more intent.

MLeake
August 9, 2009, 09:39 PM
... and am very surprised it turned out so well.

The belligerent pounded his fist on the rear window glass as he walked past the back door.

He commenced yelling outside the driver's door. No further mention of pounding on glass was made by the OP from this point, just screaming and general idiocy by the belligerent.

I am amazed the police didn't take a more unfavorable view on the pointing of the firearm in response to verbal antics and an angry posture.

OldMarksman
August 9, 2009, 09:46 PM
Like I said, he got out of the car and started banging on the window. assault. period.

You apparently believe that an assault justifies the use of deadly force for self defense--which, by the way, is the requirement in Florida for producing the weapon.

Where do you get the idea that the fact of an assault constitutes the existence of imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm?

the cops even agreed, so who are you to say there was no attack?
This is ridiculous. Scream that he's wrong all day, it makes no difference that you are wrong. None. He's not in jail, the cops said he's fine,

Actually, he's not "fine" until he is tried and acquitted, or until the statute of limitations applies.

The fact that he has not yet been charged is irrelevant.

noelf2
August 9, 2009, 10:16 PM
Do you think that constituted an attack? If so, why?

Yes, I believe that pounding on a car and THREATENING TO CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM (the part people seem to forget about, or try to belittle by saying things like "words were spoken" :rolleyes:) constitutes an attack and a warrants drawing and pointing. We've been through this already. Read earlier posts for definitions of an attack and try to remember all of the criteria regarding the op's experience.

Now, in Florida, had the glass been broken, the display of a weapon, and even it's use, might well have been justified. Lay opinion.

Exactly, a "lay opinion" just like mine. I doubt the Florida law needs glass broken before it could be called an attack. That seems only to be a requirement in the minds of some people and not based on any law or definition of an attack.

Do you think one could lawfully point a gun in anticipation of an attack?

For God sakes man, YES. If my dog starts barking (doesn't like prowlers, good doggie :cool:), and I see someone moving around outside, I'll draw and point, and I'll be prepared to take lethal action if he breaks my window and starts climbing in. Point is, I draw and point before the glass is broken. I didn't take lethal action yet. Do you think it's appropriate for a police officer to draw and point his/her gun in anticipation of an attack? What's the difference? If you go up to a police car and bang on his window and threaten to kick his butt, do you think he'll draw his weapon or patiently wait for you to break the glass? :rolleyes:

Now, being prepared would be very prudent indeed, but actually pointing the gun without the existence of imminent peril could buy a one way ticket to "downtown."


OP believed he was in imminent peril. Who are you to say otherwise? You weren't there and neither was I. I'll base my opinions on what the OP said, not what I want to think.

Perhaps you have an objective reason to argue otherwise, and perhaps you have reason to believe you could convince a Florida charging authority, grand jury, and/or trial jury otherwise, but you haven't provided it here.

And you haven't proven that any of that would have to transpire. Facts (as OP said) are that police were called to the scene. The OP had pointed his gun and he WASN'T ARRESTED, because he WAS ATTACKED. Remember, I agree with him drawing and pointing, not shooting (yet) but being prepared to. Some think that drawing means you must shoot. I find that idea to be pure BS.

Zilmo
August 9, 2009, 10:24 PM
UPDATE!!!

I just came back from my local Wal-Mart and I am still alive to talk about it! Somehow, by the grace of god, I did not feel threatened nor did I feel the need to draw my weapon. I am sure this is just an isolated incident since Wal-Mart appears to be such a hotbed of violent activities. I will harder next to try and find some reason to draw my weapon on someone the next time I go.

Scott

Gosh. That's really funny.:rolleyes:

MLeake
August 9, 2009, 10:25 PM
So, if you point a weapon at somebody, you have to have an affirmative defense.

If you can't justify the use of the weapon, it's an assault charge, so you'd better be able to justify that action.

Just because the police didn't arrest the OP in this instance, doesn't mean that a DA couldn't decide to charge him later.

noelf2
August 9, 2009, 10:26 PM
Where do you get the idea that the fact of an assault constitutes the existence of imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm?

Read this after my last post. You can't be serious! :eek: You make me smile...:)

Just because the police didn't arrest the OP in this instance, doesn't mean that a DA couldn't decide to charge him later.

Well that's a stretch. Highly unlikely to the point of being kinda silly. Can you give an example of such a thing?

scottaschultz
August 9, 2009, 10:33 PM
Yes, MG got out safe... this time!

Something that hasn't been mentioned in the last 180 posts is what could have happened after MG drew his .380. What if, upon seeing a gun pointed at him, this bully had reached around and pulled out his .45? Here is MG sitting in the driver's seat with this bully standing at the door. MG has a clear COM shot with his .380. OTOH, the other guy had an easy head shot at MG through the window.

I have seen a few posts here where the "Good Guy" is the first one to draw. Of course I believe they felt threatened enough to do so, but please, for the sake of your own life, remember that carrying a concealed weapon is not the sole domain of us level-headed, honest, law-abiding citizens. This guy has already proven himself to be unstable and irrational. If this other guy in the parking lot had a gun and used it, MG's widow or heirs would now own a chain of pawn shops! MG didn't get away unscathed because he was smart. He got away because he was lucky. Sooner or later, luck runs out!

If you are going to draw first against someone who appears to be unarmed, you better be right!

Scott

MLeake
August 9, 2009, 10:33 PM
... and generally speaking, they did not result in great bodily harm to either side. Black eyes, bloody noses, cut lips, etc, yes, but no serious bodily harm and no death.

If weapons are not brought into play, it's hard to argue that you felt your life was at risk. Use of a gun to prevent a butt-whipping might be hard to justify.

Depending on the degree of the OP's physical handicap, the officers could have decided the potential force disparity constituted a seriously elevated threat. However, by the OP's account, they didn't arrest the road rager, either.

I'm frankly amazed that an event that led up to a firearm being pointed at a person didn't result in at least one arrest, either the road rager for posing a threat that justified a firearm presentation in SD, or the OP for pointing a firearm at a human without justification.

Something here just does not compute.

MLeake
August 9, 2009, 10:52 PM
Quoting me:
Just because the police didn't arrest the OP in this instance, doesn't mean that a DA couldn't decide to charge him later.

Well that's a stretch. Highly unlikely to the point of being kinda silly. Can you give an example of such a thing?

Yeah, we haven't had any recent examples of DA's opting for charges after the police originally made no arrest (cough) Oklahoma pharmacist (cough)....

noelf2
August 9, 2009, 10:55 PM
what could have happened after MG drew his .380

Are we sure it was a 380? Or are we guessing? Seriously, I thought I read this whole thread and didn't see that it was a 380. Darn, if he only had a 380 then he certainly shouldn't have drawn it when he was threatened. I mean, people only carry 380s because they feel good in the pocket and give them a good reason to wear a cool belt, not that it should ever be used in any situation, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

or the OP for pointing a firearm at a human without justification.

Here we go again.... Another one that wasn't there but knows it wasn't justified. You aren't qualified to make that judgment. Neither am I.

MLeake
August 9, 2009, 10:57 PM
Which you either failed to comprehend, or intentionally chose to disregard.

The point was, either the OP was justified, in which case the road rager should have been arrested, or else the OP was not justified, in which case he should have been arrested.

The fact that the cops made no arrests after the incident escalated to a weapon drawn and direct threat made just does not make sense.

scottaschultz
August 9, 2009, 11:03 PM
From noelf2: Are we sure it was a 380? Or are we guessing?

From the very first post:
From Microgunner: I drew my KetTec P3AT...

Does this gun come in any other caliber than .380?

Scott

noelf2
August 9, 2009, 11:04 PM
Yeah, we haven't had any recent examples of DA's opting for charges after the police originally made no arrest (cough) Oklahoma pharmacist (cough)....

OK, from a literal sense, you got me. Really looking for something more relevant to the OP's situation though, i.e. pointing a gun, not arrested, then DA goes after him anyway.

noelf2
August 9, 2009, 11:08 PM
Does this gun come in any other caliber than .380?

You didn't get it. I'll help you. I was poking fun at your irrelevant assertion that a 380, versus another caliber, somehow changes things. :rolleyes:

scottaschultz
August 9, 2009, 11:27 PM
From noelf2: Seriously, I thought I read this whole thread and didn't see that it was a 380.Then I guess you jumped in some time after the initial posting!

Scott

noelf2
August 10, 2009, 05:55 AM
Nope, been here since the very beginning of this thread. The details of his gun were so irrelevant to me given his situation, that it didn't even register. Didn't (still don't) see how the caliber is important. All I remembered about that detail was "keltec". He could have a 9mm and the other guy pulls a 50GI. Irrelevant! Since his gun was already trained on the aggressor, then the aggressor would be sort of stupid to reach back and pull his gun too (well, the aggressor was kind of stupid or he wouldn't be an aggressor, I digress, all the more reason to ensure you train your gun on an aggressor before he can do harm). At that point, the aggressor must be willing to take a couple in the chest/neck/head region first. Didn't seem likely that the scenario could reach your imagined conclusion given the OPs description.

Does anyone here actually think that they'll not pull their weapon when they need it (just picture a situation that you feel you would need to pull your weapon), and would have second thoughts because of the caliber you carry versus the caliber the BG "might" be carrying (I mean, besides scotta)? :confused::rolleyes:

eclipsetactical
August 10, 2009, 06:41 AM
If we can get this thread to stretch 100 pages long......lolz

alloy
August 10, 2009, 06:52 AM
If we can get this thread to stretch 100 pages long

Will throw in my .02 for the 100 page cause:)

Seems like some pepper spray would have been ideal. I don't like relying on a gun for protection in all unforeseen situations since most might not require a gun. It's as if it's the gun or nothing with some scenarios I see posted here, but I usually have a hammer/crescent wrench(yeah I'm a mechanic so it's not outside the realm of possible) etc in the car since there aren't too many intrusive laws against hammers/wrenches. Maybe an intermediate level of self-preservation might be a reasonable alternative for next time?
Mace for the console or something along those lines?

eclipsetactical
August 10, 2009, 06:56 AM
Tear gas gernade out the window then roll up the window. Fox Labs makes tear gas gernades we can get from our vendor, says law enforcement use only though lol.

Master Blaster
August 10, 2009, 06:58 AM
He has enough of a disability to get a handicapped parking pass, and there was a man acting irrationally, shouting threats and beating on his car window, physically attacking his car even though not (yet) his person, while he was blocked from escaping fore and aft. It seems like a pretty dicey situation to me - I'm not sure that whatever amount of fear he felt was irrational. That fear is contained in the parenthetical word. If his fear is found to be "reasonable" your succeeding sentences don't hold up. We all know that going to court has its own risks, but I wouldn't bet the mortgage money that OP would lose in a Florida court. (This from a lifelong Florida resident who has his CCW permit, read the laws and rules, and reviewed them again today.)


My state Delaware has a very similar law to the Florida stand your ground law regarding the use of deadly force. A few years ago an older gent was looking out his back window heard breaking glass, and saw some one climb into his neighbors house back window. The neighbor was out of town for a week. This gent went outside gun in hand and waited, a few minutes later he saw some one climb out and yelled halt or I will shoot. The 14 year old burgler hands filled with a computer, turned around and our hero shot him 2x in the chest dead. When the police arrived the gent claimed he thought the boy had a gun. The police arrested him, BUT the Attorney General later declined to procede to trial and charges were dropped.

To me this was cold blooded murder. The AG didnt see it that way, that was Jane Brady a conservative republican. Today we have a liberal democrat named Biden in charge...... I wouldnt want to bet on the same outcome... even though the law is still the same.

alloy
August 10, 2009, 07:06 AM
Tear gas gernade out the window then roll up the window

Ok now it's .04 cents toward the 100 page goal.

Be sure to flip the air conditioner over to the recirculate setting.

noelf2
August 10, 2009, 08:27 AM
Seems like some pepper spray would have been ideal.

He would have to roll down his window, well enough to ensure that some of it didn't hit him as well. Rolling down the window wouldn't be a smart move. However, it would be entertaining to see something like that happen. Guy rolls down window a little to pepper spray an aggressor, and they both end up coughing and crying...:D:D:D

OldMarksman
August 10, 2009, 08:29 AM
I doubt the Florida law needs glass broken before it could be called an attack. That seems only to be a requirement in the minds of some people and not based on any law or definition of an attack.

What the law does say is that... ...a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if ... the person ... was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.

I surmised that breaking the glass would meet the threshold. Does any reasonable person really beleive that merely pounding on the back widow without an implement would qualify as having started the process of forcefully entering the car?

Point is, I draw and point before the glass is broken.

At that point what we have is an argument. Here's what it says on the Florida state website about that:

Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.

Do you think it's appropriate for a police officer to draw and point his/her gun in anticipation of an attack? What's the difference?

Police officers operate under different sections of the code. They are permitted to carry openly, and they may point guns under circumstances in which citizens may not.

OP believed he was in imminent peril.

Necessary, but not at all sufficient. The litmus test also includes the determination of whether a reasonable person, knowing what the OP knew at the time and under the same circumstances, would have held that belief. Simply believing it doesn't cut it.

To help people like the OP, the Florida Legislature saw fit to help the invesigators and jurors make that determination when they amended the law to say that a person is presumed to have that reasonable belief if an assailant is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully breaking in to his car. You can bet your boots they wouldn't have seen the need to do so had there not been issues with people having had there cars broken into and still having trouble convincing jurors that their fear had been reasonable.

The OP had pointed his gun and he WASN'T ARRESTED, because he WAS ATTACKED.

Actually, we do not know why he hasn't been arrested. I'm happy that he hasn't, but he could have been and could still be.

Some think that drawing means you must shoot. I find that idea to be pure BS.

We agree on that.

In most states, the law and case law hold that one may not produce, exhibit in a threatening manner, point, draw, display---however they happen to phrase it--- a gun unless one is engaged in an act of lawful self defense. That certainly does not mean that one can fire if the threat dissipates. It also does not qualify as having used deadly force, in most places.

People have gotten into a lot of trouble about this in the past in a lot of places--so much so that the Texas legislature amended the law to specify that pointing a gun does not constitute the use of deadly force and to permit it under some circumstances when force is justified. In Arizona, pulling a gun on someone who was actually pushing you around could, until recently, get you locked up for aggravated assault, and the legislature decided to change that. Then governor Napolitano vetoed the bill, but governor Brewer has signed it into law.


__________________

scottaschultz
August 10, 2009, 08:29 AM
Posted by noelf2: Didn't seem likely that the scenario could reach your imagined conclusion given the OPs description.Why do most of us chose to carry a concealed weapon? It is precisely because we never know who is carrying a weapon or how they intend to use it. BG's don't walk around with T-shirts saying, "I have a gun! Don't make me angry or I will use it on you!"

We already know the guy is a bully. He has demonstrated that he is definitely irate and probably a wee bit unstable. Why on earth would you NOT consider him to be armed? You know what they say, "NEVER ASSUME!"

Scott

noelf2
August 10, 2009, 09:12 AM
The 14 year old burgler hands filled with a computer, turned around and our hero shot him 2x in the chest dead. When the police arrived the gent claimed he thought the boy had a gun. The police arrested him, BUT the Attorney General later declined to procede to trial and charges were dropped.

What if it read like this:

"The 28 year old burgler hands filled with a computer, turned around and our hero shot him 2x in the chest dead. When the police arrived the gent claimed he thought the boy had a gun. The police arrested him, BUT the Attorney General later declined to procede to trial and charges were dropped."

Would that still be cold blooded murder? Just trying to figure out if your emotions help to shape your opinion. The AG didn't see it your way, maybe because there's more to the details than we're all privy to..? Maybe the shooter DID think he saw a gun. Jumping to conclusions without all of the facts doesn't help anyone, and opinions are just opinions.

To me this was cold blooded murder. The AG didnt see it that way, that was Jane Brady a conservative republican. Today we have a liberal democrat named Biden in charge...... I wouldnt want to bet on the same outcome... even though the law is still the same.

I think you are vilifying the wrong person here. I tend to dislike a robber more than the robbee that shoots him. I doubt there would be a different outcome when only facts considered, versus emotions (but that's my opinion which is of equal standing to yours and anyone else's).

noelf2
August 10, 2009, 09:21 AM
Why on earth would you NOT consider him to be armed? You know what they say, "NEVER ASSUME!"

Wow, I don't know where that came from. I would never assume that the nutjob wasn't armed, nor did I intend to imply that in any of my posts. I assume the worst in a situation like that, which is why I had better point my gun before he does. What I don't assume to do is worry about the caliber of his gun. That's something that you do.

noelf2
August 10, 2009, 09:41 AM
Wow, I think we are almost at agreement on a couple of things.

I surmised that breaking the glass would meet the threshold.

So would I. I wouldn't shoot unless he did just that.

Quote:
Point is, I draw and point before the glass is broken.

At that point what we have is an argument.

Incorrect. The situation became more than an argument when he smacked the vehicle and made threats of severe bodily harm. That's not something your average sane person does. At that point I am in fear of my safety and need to prepare myself.

Police officers operate under different sections of the code. They are permitted to carry openly, and they may point guns under circumstances in which citizens may not.

Maybe not in Florida, but I can also openly carry in my state. So can any law abiding Virginian 21 or over, but I don't see how open carrying is relevant here. So cops and citizens have different codes which allow them to draw and point in different situations, but they can both draw and point when they are being attacked (we just disagree on whether the op was attacked or not).

Necessary, but not at all sufficient. The litmus test also includes the determination of whether a reasonable person, knowing what the OP knew at the time and under the same circumstances, would have held that belief. Simply believing it doesn't cut it.

Obviously the Cop on scene believed it cut it because the OP wasn't arrested! I assume the Cop was a reasonable person, don't you? Let me know if you find out that he has been arrested afterwards (won't happen, I'll wager money on it).

Hey Microgunner, let us know if you get arrested... ;):rolleyes:

scottaschultz
August 10, 2009, 10:15 AM
I will sum it up for you noelf2...

I said:
Something that hasn't been mentioned in the last 180 posts is what could have happened after MG drew his .380. What if, upon seeing a gun pointed at him, this bully had reached around and pulled out his .45?

To which you responded:
Didn't seem likely that the scenario could reach your imagined conclusion given the OPs description.

And I replied:
Why on earth would you NOT consider him to be armed? You know what they say, "NEVER ASSUME!"

Then you replied with:
Wow, I don't know where that came from. I would never assume that the nutjob wasn't armed, nor did I intend to imply that in any of my posts.

I have now officially made my point on ths topic more than once. You can nitpick this to death if you want, but I am done. I will just wait for the next story/scenario... and there will be another one!

Scott

OldMarksman
August 10, 2009, 10:40 AM
The situation became more than an argument when he smacked the vehicle and made threats of severe bodily harm.

Even the Texas Penal Code states explicitly that mere threats do not constitute imminent danger. So does case law in most if not all other jurisdictions (goes back centuries, by the way), but in Texas there was a perceived need to actually write that into the law.

That's not something your average sane person does.

Completely irrelevant, I'm afraid.

At that point I am in fear of my safety and need to prepare myself.


I agree with that (preparing yourself), but that doesn't mean you are permitted to actually point or display your gun.

In Florida, Missouri. Virginia, and a lot of other places, you can't do that until imminent danger exists and the use of the gun would be justified in lawful self defense.

In Florida, if a person is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering the car--that provides a presumption of justification (the presumption is rebuttable).

In Missouri, an unlawful attempt at entry would suffice, but no one I know would ever recommend interpreting someone's banging on the back window as an attempt at unlawful entry.

And "fear"? In Virginia, the “bare fear” of serious bodily injury, or even death, however well grounded, does not justify the taking of human life, and it is unlawful to point, hold or brandish any firearm in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another unless one is engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.

Preparation, yes. Pointing the gun? Foolhardy, and in most places unlawful.

Consequences vary a great deal. Misdemeanor in Missouri and Virginia, much more serious in Florida where it counts here.

Prepare yourself? Good idea. Buy a newspaper and put it in your lap. Have your weapon ready in case you need it. But do not let the fellow see it.

Obviously the Cop on scene believed it cut it because the OP wasn't arrested!

We do not know the peace officer's motivation. Maybe he didn't want the aggravation of filing two arrest reports and having to testify. Maybe he sympathized with both participants and hoped that doing nothing would not endanger his career. But in any case, he is not the decision authority.

Let me know if you find out that he has been arrested afterwards (won't happen, I'll wager money on it).

I seriously doubt it will happen.

But we should all understand one thing very well. We've probably all heard that one should not discuss anything with the police about an incident without the benefit of counsel. Anyone who has listened to Mas Ayoob on the subject also knows to not say anything to the media.

Those warnings do not evaporate when one hears that he will not be charged. They remain valid until there has been a trial and acquittal, a pardon, the expiration of the statute of limitations, or the actor's death, whichever comes first.

Let's hope that the OP's having put this out for public consumption doesn't come around and bite him--or the "cop".

FireForged
August 10, 2009, 11:06 AM
I am no expert but just a common joe citizen.. This is just my small opinion and observation. I am glad everything worked out OK and I am passing no specific judgement since I was not there.


Threat: (1) Angry bad guy making threats, smacking window once, no visible weapon)

Ability to cause harm? Yes

Opportunity to cause harm? Not Yet
(threshold of vehicle not breached)

Jeopardy exist? Not Yet

Brian Pfleuger
August 10, 2009, 11:18 AM
I am no expert but just a common joe citizen..

and the non-expert common joe citizen gets it right.:)


Also, don't forget preclusion.

A vehicle being blocked in does not always mean that there is no escape. For example, if you're driving a hummer and the "BG" is behind you in a Prius then you may very well be able to, uh, "extricate" yourself without using lethal force. Yes, pushing someone's car out of the way is going to cause you all manner of trouble. Shooting someone is going to be worse.

noelf2
August 10, 2009, 02:09 PM
We're just going over the same things, over and over again. Hard to prove anyone right or wrong for obvious reasons. Anyway, I think this is played out, at least for me. Was a great debate and I learned a lot.

No hard feelings. Be safe.

OldMarksman
August 10, 2009, 04:10 PM
Was a great debate and I learned a lot.

That's good, and I think that's one of the great things about TFL.

I've been a gun guy since 1956 (.22's at the range, advocacy for gun rights), and on more than one occasion over the years the presence of my gun has saved the day.

But I'm here to tell you, that when I took the required CCW class in Missouri about a year ago, I learned an awful lot that I had not known--A,O, J, P, ADEE, Tueller drill, castle law, let the threat come to you, duty to retreat outside, do not detain, let 'em flee, risks of intervening for third person, forget using deadly force to protect property, how to pass though Illinois :mad:, to name a few things--some of these being peculiar to Missouri.

Through this and other fora and through books, I've tried to learn more--the principles of and requirements for an affirmative defense, liability to third persons, what to expect if there is a shooting, importance of the admissibility of forensic evidence, situational awareness, preparedness (frankly, I would never have even considered carrying a gun in the house before), tactics, don't draw unless justified, risks inherent in making a citizen's arrest, and other things. There is a tremendous amount of responsibility thrust upon an armed citizen.

Oh, and I am now smart enough to keep the doors locked. We didn't do that before until bed time.

So, why might I try to be slightly conversant in the laws of Colorado, Arizona, Kansas, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Virginia, and so forth? Well, our permit is honored in a number of states, but I am bound by the laws of the states I am in when I travel through them.

By the way, it was in a prior life, working for and with attorneys for a couple of decades, that I learned the importance of not trying to interpret the meaning of the law from a lay reading and dictionary definitions, out of context.

If you haven't read them, here are some things worth bookmarking and studying when you can:

http://www.useofforce.us/

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

http://www.corneredcat.com/

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

There's a lot there, far too much to paste, but I believe that you will find that it is all worth your while.

By the way, I've also learned that many of the people who post here really know what they are talking about.

45Gunner
August 10, 2009, 04:14 PM
I am a Florida Resident and a former Govt. Agent. I'd like to add my two cents worth. I'm not taking sides here as I have seen more morons in Florida than I have any place else. The right to stand your ground has nothing to do with some jerkoff banging against the window in your car. I think pulling a weapon on him was excessive and uncalled for. If, indeed, he was coming at you and your life was in danger, then you are justified in presenting your weapon. From what you relate, he made no attempt to pull you from your vehicle...he just looked mad. I think the correct response would be to call the police from your cell phone and tell them someone has road rage in the parking lot and is acting in a threatening manner. You are lucky that the officers that responded did not press charges.

Several years ago, my wife and I were returning from an out of the country vacation and as such, I did not have my weapon with me. We were stopped at a traffic light when a couple of kids exited their vehicle which was stopped next to mine and started pounding on the window of my car. My wife was terrified and I realized that the only weapon I had was my fist. I jumped from my car, chased those kids back into their car, only to watch them peel out thru the red light. It was a lucky day for them. Had I been armed, there may have been a dead kid. I was outnumbered and in this particular instance, we were in fear of our lives as they were definitely attempting entry into our vehicle. As a highly trained Govt. Agent, I didn't need a weapon to take down an assailant and again these kids were lucky they ran faster than me.

My point here is that Stand Your Ground only applies to protecting your life and property if it is at risk. Some ****** off guy in the parking lot is only threatening your life if he comes at you with a weapon of any kind or attempts to pull you out of your vehicle. Otherwise, you may put your own freedom or right to bear arms at risk.

45Gunner
August 10, 2009, 04:24 PM
One last comment...one that was mentioned in a previous post. When carrying a concealed weapon, your mantra for survival should be, "Pull the weapon, pull the trigger." Never, ever use a firearm as a threatening tool. It is not meant for that and again as mentioned, could cause serious escalation of what could have been just a minor irritation. Your weapon out of it's holster means you are either going to clean it or you are going to shoot it. And damn, if you're shooting it, make it a center mass shot to bring down the assailant that is threatening to take your life. If he is not threatening to take your life, your firearm belongs in your holster and is not to be used as an extension of your tongue. No one, to my knowledge, ever went to prison for failure to draw a weapon during a disagreement.

Trashcan-man
August 10, 2009, 04:35 PM
I just spoke with a police officer that I know about this situation. I explained the situation and yes, he is a currently employed sworn LEO in the state of FL. He said that this is one of those grey areas that he would have had to have been on scene to make a real decision. He also said that the OP being handicapped would have had some effect on his decision. HOWEVER, he also said that in this instance based on the facts given he would have arrested both parties, thw OP for brandishing and the second party for assault. He said the OP would have been justified had the second party gone through the window but not before.
This is fefinately not a clear cut case of right and wrong but there you have a LEO's perspective.

Stevie-Ray
August 10, 2009, 05:47 PM
Now, in Florida, had the glass been broken, the display of a weapon, and even it's use, might well have been justified. Lay opinion.

Under the facts as exactly related by the OP, glass breaks, use of weapon justified.Seriously? But not simply pounding on it in an attempt to break it? Guys, Herculite is not that hard to break. Unfortunately, I'm 2 for 2 in trying it for strength with my fist.:o Somehow I don't believe justification depends on the strength of a particular sidelight.

How about he punches it, it shatters, and he stands there dumbfounded and says, "I didn't really mean to break it!" Still justified?

As I said in a previous post, intentions can change. Sounds like this guy was properly deflated when a gun was pointed at him. It was probably his adrenaline high saying "shoot me!" And it was his coming down and common sense not taking it any further than that. Nobody can say he wouldn't have escalated if the OP would have just remained passive.

MLeake
August 10, 2009, 05:57 PM
...according to the OP's description.

He pounded, once, on the window of the back door as he came around the vehicle, then stood outside the driver's window screaming, but there was no further physical contact, unless the OP simply left that part out of his description.

One rap on a window where nobody was seated, as the guy continued moving, does not constitute a reasonable belief that the guy is breaking into the vehicle. Not saying it's appropriate behavior, or sensible, but it doesn't pose a serious threat to life and limb.

Florida's castle doctrine, which does extend to vehicles, would not allow you to shoot some guy acting like an idiot outside the front door of your house. It would allow you to do so if he were actively kicking your door in. Same concept here. Guy was acting like an idiot outside the door, not smashing out the glass.

Responding officer should have arrested at least one of the parties, and probably both.

spacemanspiff
August 10, 2009, 06:05 PM
All who say the glass is 'easily broke with simple fists', please, go to a junkyard and start punching glass if its so easy. Take a video camera to document it, post it on youtube or liveleak so we all can learn.

If the glass was so easy to break and the OP's life truly threatened, why would we need to have special instruments specifically designed to break glass in an auto in the event of an accident and the doors are unable to be opened?

Do police punch through glass with fists? Or do they use their expandable batons?

MLeake
August 10, 2009, 06:09 PM
... very easy with a center punch or screwdriver; you don't even have to hit them hard. Remember seeing a safety video that advocated keeping a center punch on a string attached to the center console, in case of going off the road into water. Find the string, find the punch, bust out the windows to equalize water pressure and get the door open.

Had a mapcase mounted escape tool in my truck. Pointy hammer on one side of the head, with a seatbelt cutting razor mounted in the handle below the head, similar to the shroud cutters we used to carry in our flight suit inner thigh pockets. Lost it, need to find another.

Side windows resist wide area blunt force pretty well, but don't resist small point pressure well at all.

OldMarksman
August 10, 2009, 06:13 PM
But not [justfied if] simply pounding on it in an attempt to break it?...Herculite is not that hard to break.

So--in pounding once with his hand and then screaming, was he attempting to break into the car unlawfully and with force? Sounds like a real stretch to me. If it didn't break and it's not that hard to do, sounds like a really, really big stretch. Was he in the process of breaking in? That seems to be the threshold in Florida.

How many times do you think people whack on someone's car door or window in the course of an argument? Do you think the Florida statute was intended to justify the use of deadly force whenever that happens?

Had he been banging away with a hammer, would people assess the situation differently?

What if someone banged once on the glass part of the door of your house with his knuckles? With a crowbar, repeatedly? Varies. In Colorado, some part of the fellow has to have entered the house. By the way, their castle law does not extend to one's automobile.

Stevie-Ray
August 10, 2009, 06:51 PM
So--in pounding once with his hand and then screaming, was he attempting to break into the car unlawfully and with force? Sounds like a real stretch to me.Which makes this post all the more questionable, especially coming from someone that makes a point of contentious debate out of just about every thread that involves pulling a gun:

Under the facts as exactly related by the OP, glass breaks, use of weapon justified.The back doorglass shatters, he comes to the front doorglass, screams his gibberish and the OP can simply shoot him? (After rolling down the window, of course) I doubt it, but then I don't really have an honest opinion for the OP, except, as I said, intentions can change.

Oh and, All who say the glass is 'easily broke with simple fists', please, go to a junkyard and start punching glass if its so easy.Not that this silly post needs answering, but sometimes you should just take it for granted that some people simply know more about a subject than you.

MLeake
August 10, 2009, 07:28 PM
... according to the OP's original post, the other guy was NOT pounding on the front window when the OP chose to point a gun at him.

Screaming and ranting don't equal the imminent threat of deadly force from outside a vehicle, without either a serious attempt to break into the vehicle, or the display of a weapon that could be used to breach or directly attack from outside the vehicle.

Whether he could have broken the window with his fist becomes irrelevant, given that by the OP's description, the guy wasn't attempting to do so.

TailGator
August 10, 2009, 07:39 PM
He wasn't pounding on the window when the gun was pointed...
...according to the OP's description.

He pounded, once, on the window of the back door as he came around the vehicle

I am ashamed to say I missed that detail in the OP. With that, it is nothing more than a jerk with a foul mouth - unpleasant, but no justification for turning it into an armed confrontation.

MLeake
August 10, 2009, 07:57 PM
... that in an awful lot of threads, a lot of people take a pretty cavalier attitude about when it's legally and morally appropriate to draw a weapon.

"Morally" is pretty subjective. "Legally" is somewhat subjective, but not THAT subjective. Most of us would benefit by periodic review of the statutes pertaining to the use of deadly force, and the threat of deadly force, as it pertains to SD in our areas.

Please note, I am not saying that one should wait until one has been stabbed, shot, hit with a hammer, etc.

I am saying that one should not escalate situations; one should not assume that since he has a hammer (the gun), that every problem looks like a nail (draw the gun); one should do one's best to avoid scenarios that require the drawing and possible use of a weapon.

On the other end, there are those who say that if one draws, one should fire. Given the estimate that 95% of SD uses of a gun do NOT result in gunfire, that train of thought seems illogical. The FBI and the cops do NOT use that rationale, else every time an agent or officer draws a weapon, shots would ring out. What was taught to me in Navy Security training was one should not draw unless one is prepared to shoot - this is not the same as don't draw unless you will shoot. However, one should not draw a firearm unless use of the firearm would be justified. For LEO, this has to do with steps in the force continuum. For citizens, it has to do with when the use of deadly force is lawful for SD.

Pointing a weapon at a person without the requisite threat to justify use or threat of deadly force for SD is, at minimum and with a good lawyer, brandishing, and more likely assault or assault with a deadly weapon. It's not something to do every time one encounters a loudmouthed, red-faced moron.

Note also that if your actions prior to drawing your weapon were found to have been escalatory (this does not seem to apply to the OP in this thread, but now I'm speaking in general), then you very well may have given up your right to an affirmative SD defense.

In the OP's situation, I might have drawn but kept the weapon out of sight; I'd definitely have told him the wife was on the line with 911, and the police were inbound. I'd also have been looking for an opportunity to move my vehicle and myself out of the threat area.

I would NOT have let him see the weapon, let alone have pointed it at him, unless he actively attempted to bust out the window, force the door, or attack me through the window. Unless, of course, he'd displayed a firearm, in which case the situation changes radically.

Note: this line of thought isn't so far from that used on a larger scale for standing worldwide CJCS Rules of Engagement. Military and LEO take the pointing / slewing / training of weapons very seriously; more posters here should do the same.

Al Norris
August 10, 2009, 08:42 PM
I am ashamed to say I missed that detail in the OP.

I have long noticed that people, as a general rule, will read only what they want to read. Details be damned. As a corollary to that, once a thread gets past the first page, very few folks read the whole thing, before commenting.

TailGator, this is not meant to identify you personally, it just happened that you made my point, with the quote above.

The reason I would point this out, is that selective reading and haste to post a persons 2 cents, mean that we will always argue over the finer details of any specific scenario.

Add to this, the following:

It seems to me that in an awful lot of threads, a lot of people take a pretty cavalier attitude about when it's legally and morally appropriate to draw a weapon.

The arm-chair commandos (what I like to call the "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" crowd), seem to bask in their so-called internet anonymity. Never quite coming to grips with the fact that 1) They are not anonymous (seriously, did you think you were?) and 2) they do harm to the cause of responsible gun ownership - the gun-woobies, as Wild likes to call them.

It's a crying shame. Really, it is.

On this board, many times (and in several areas) we discuss things that affect us both legally and/or physically. This is the time one should look hard at reality and what may or may not happen.

Here, we have that time. Out there? You will have seconds, at best, to make your judgment calls. Here we learn. There, we act or react as the situation calls.

Microgunner? Please take this as it is meant (to be helpful): Read that post by MLeake (above mine) and reflect upon it.

I'm closing this, as all that is happening at this point (200+ posts), is that we are going round in circles.