PDA

View Full Version : When to use lethal force?


PTMGunner16
January 26, 2011, 10:38 AM
:eek:When is the proper time to pull your gun?? At what point in any situation do you use your weapon? Has anyone every had to pull out on someone?

Steven_Seagal
January 26, 2011, 10:54 AM
In all seriousness, I think the need to pull your gun differs from situation to situation. There are varying degrees of threat/perceived threat and there is not one constant situation that says "if this happens, then you pull your gun." You have to gauge the situation, determine whether your life/safety is threatened, and act swiftly - if you do not properly assess a situation and unjustifiably pull your weapon, you may be staring straight in the face of legal trouble.

I would say generally, if you tell the potential threat to stand down, announce that you fear for your safety and will defend yourself, and the threat does not retreat, THEN you can pull your weapon. If at that point, the threat still does not retreat and advances on you, pulling the trigger would likely be justified.

my $.02

glockcompact
January 26, 2011, 11:31 AM
First deadly force should only be used when:
1: The attacker has the ability and shows intent to do you or someone else serious bodily harm that may result in death.

AND

2: All lesser means to defuse the situation have failed.


Now of course that can happen in a split second.

Scenario 1: You are a large middle age man (let’s say 6'2", 210 lbs) in good physical condition. Some small older lady (let’s say 5'2", 112) walks up to you in a parking lot and is obviously really ticked at you. She starts yelling right in your face about how you cut her off. Maybe she's even threatening you. Maybe she appears to be on some drugs. Maybe she takes a swing at you. Her hands are in plain site and they are empty.

She's showing intent but does not necessarily have the ability.

Scenario 2: You are an older lady. (5'2", 112) and a large man (6'2", 210) walks up to you in a parking lot. He comes up to you and asks for directions. You happen to notice he has a pistol under his unzipped jacket.

He has the ability to do you serious bodily harm but has not shown intent.

These are two easy examples and there are times when intent and ability can be harder to figure out. Every scenario can have millions of different variables but I hope this helps.

A friend once told me "never pull your weapon out of anger." If you pull your weapon out of anger you're wrong. Only pull the weapon out, out of fear. I've always liked that way of thinking.

Hope this helps. :D

Brit.

Daryl
January 26, 2011, 12:16 PM
When you're choice is to either use it or die, or use it or watch another innocent person die.

Ain't no glory in killing someone.

Daryl

thunderbird101
January 26, 2011, 01:00 PM
I have a question to add to this.....

Is it possible to pull a gun on someone without firing, in hopes of having them back off and therefore diffusing the situation without reaping legal actions? Is this advisable in any situation?

Ultimately I guess it comes down to the ability and intent of the BG to do harm, but in a split second situation, without a lot of training and experience (which I am sure a great deal of gun carriers do not have) who is going to be able to skillfully make that decision? I guess i personally would rather pull the gun and tell the BG to "Back the _____ away" then to hesitate on drawing and live (or not live) to regret it.

Can anyone give me legal advice on this train of thought?

Thank you!

dahermit
January 26, 2011, 01:14 PM
Is it possible to pull a gun on someone without firing, in hopes of having them back off and therefore diffusing the situation without reaping legal actions? Is this advisable in any situation? In Michigan, it is against the law to "brandish" (point, show, display, etc.), a gun. Therefore, the court may or may not interpret your pulling of a gun as "brandishing".



Ultimately I guess it comes down to the ability and intent of the BG to do harm, but in a split second situation, without a lot of training and experience (which I am sure a great deal of gun carriers do not have) who is going to be able to skillfully make that decision? I guess i personally would rather pull the gun and tell the BG to "Back the _____ away" then to hesitate on drawing and live (or not live) to regret it.
In Michigan (and other states), in the required CCW classes, you are given instruction on when and when you cannot use your concealed gun.

Can anyone give me legal advice on this train of thought?No, not unless they are a lawyer in the state of which you reside. And, if anyone does, and you take it, you would be foolish. Get your information you seek from a lawyer and from the CCW classes you must take before applying for the license.

Buzzcook
January 26, 2011, 01:17 PM
There are various qualifiers, but the shooter has to believe his life is at risk if he doesn't shoot.

The reasons to draw the gun in the first place are the same as for shooting.

boredom
January 26, 2011, 01:49 PM
if you feel your life is in immediate danger, or if someone in a similar situation under the same circumstances would do the same. if you arent prepared (to kill/stop the threat) and legally in the right to pull your gun dont.

pax
January 26, 2011, 01:52 PM
Three resources for you:

www.CorneredCat.com/Legal/AOJ.aspx

and

www.CorneredCat.com/Legal/myths.aspx

and

www.useofforce.us



pax

glockcompact
January 26, 2011, 02:11 PM
Buzzcook
The reasons to draw the gun in the first place are the same as for shooting.

This is correct!

thunderbird101
Is it possible to pull a gun on someone without firing, in hopes of having them back off and therefore diffusing the situation without reaping legal actions? Is this advisable in any situation?


Think of it this way:

We know from Safety rule #1 "All guns are always loaded"

Therefore a pistol is ability
A pistol pointed at someone is ability and intent

IF you draw your weapon and point it at someone you are now showing ability and intent.

Verbal commands should have already came from you before you draw. Dont ever draw your weapon unless you've already decided there is no other way out of this one. And you're in fear for your life or someone elses.

This is why it is always best to have a good holster and carry in condition 1.

Brit.

glockcompact
January 26, 2011, 04:44 PM
Ok. I want to add one more thing into the mix. First though let me say that I'm not trying to sound like a no-it-all because I'm not. I'm just drawing from the training I've had. I know there are a lot of people on here that have more training than me and I like to here their thoughts also.

When is the proper time to pull your gun?
Ok so I've stated that the attacker has to have ability and show intent.

There's one more item that I think has to be considered before you draw that weapon. That is your own limit.


Scenario 3: You walk down to the corner store late in the evening to get your fix. For me it's diet pepsi and some chips (I don't smoke). You have your ccw and you've had a decent amount of training. You feel very confident with your weapon at your side. Besides it's just another day. You walk into the convenience store and walk towards the back where the soda machine is. You noticed when you walked in that there were no cars out front and the only person you see inside is the cashier. You get your soda and head over to the chips. You here the dingaling sound of the front door and as you look over a man is screaming at the cashier and racking his pistol gripped shotgun. He points the shotgun at the cashier and screams "give me all the f'n money" So he obviously has ability and he's shown intent.
The question is - is this in your limit? Let's say it's 20 feet between you and him. He's lunging at the cashier with his shotgun and moving quite eraticaly. Shooting 20' free standing at a stationary target is not easy. Now a moving target that has a 12guage would be very difficult. This is where it's very important to understand your limit. He can swing that shotgun at you very quick and he only has to get close - It's a shotgun. I can see where depending on different variables at that time (cover and concealment) you may not decide to pull that weapon even though he has ability and has shown intent. I wouldn't feel very protected behind a shelf of Doritos.

Training and practice helps you find your own limit. I think it's very important to know your own limit.
Just my thoughts.

Brit.

maddyfish
January 26, 2011, 05:14 PM
This answer is som much more complicated than can be answered on a computer.

You need to find a qualified individual and maybe consult a qualified lawyer to even approach this answer.

MisterPX
January 26, 2011, 05:19 PM
Opportunity, ability, and intent.

glockcompacts scenarios are good examples.

stormyone
January 26, 2011, 06:28 PM
Self Defense.

or

Self Defense of another. (If that person was considered allowed to use deadly force)


*Edit - But all States are different.

These 4 things must be met.

The bad guy must
1. Have the ability. (A knife in his hand)
2. The intent. (bad guy states "I'm going to cut you)
3. The opportunity. (Bad guy is looking right at you 3 feet away)

and you must feel like you are in

4. Jeopardy (Of severe harm or death).

Again, your State may be different.

lee n. field
January 26, 2011, 09:07 PM
When is the proper time to pull your gun?? At what point in any situation do you use your weapon?

What state do you live in?

youngunz4life
January 26, 2011, 10:13 PM
when you have an honest, reasonable fear for the life of yourself or family at the given moment you draw and/or shoot.

nygunbroker
January 26, 2011, 11:02 PM
Something I think fits in to this topic.

The Gun is Civilization by Marko Kloos (thefiringline.com/forums/member.php?u=3812)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: Reason and Force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for “automatic rule” by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a forced monopoly.Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won, by the physically superior participants. The result is overwhelming injury inflicted on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/)

AcridSaint
January 26, 2011, 11:56 PM
Depends on your state and what you value in life. The question is just too open. First you need to define what is legal and illegal, then make informed decisions. There may well be scenarios that are legal and proper and you choose not to shoot, there may also be some situations that you would choose to shoot regardless of the legal implications. It's just not black and white.

B.N.Real
January 27, 2011, 12:00 AM
Only when you know you are in a situation where you are going to die and there is no other possible way you can prevent it other then to draw and fire your weapon.

There are no absolutes either.

If you draw your weapon and the threat concedes he is about to die and stops attacking you ,you cannot fire on him.

Just pulling your firearm from your holster or pocket can get you thrown in jail if you cannot prove in court why you did it.

I hear alot of people that talk a boatload of nonsense about them pulling guns on people that are acting threatening but actually not threatening them in any way.

Never-ever do this.

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

As a lawful handgun owner and user,you should act like there is always someone listening to everything you say in person and write on the internet about your firearms and how you will use them.

I will have no problems with defending myself or my wifes life by using my handguns but that's probably the only time I would ever use them in that way.

There is a huge misunderstanding from some gun owners that they can stop people from stealing their property.

I had a neighbor do this with a twenty two rifle about twenty years ago against two dirtbags that just went into his shed and walked down his driveway with two saws they just stole out of his shed.

He shot one of the guy's in the legs to stop him from leaving the scene.

Those two saws cost that homeowner fourty thousand dollars in legal fees and doctors bills for the guy he shot and the homeowner almost went to jail.

You must be smart and do everything you can before the fact to not get yourself in a situation where you might need to draw your weapon.

You must also plan ahead if you think you might use your weapon for say,home defense,so that you can confirm that the people you love are out of harms way before you try to stop a home threat.

You don't want to be startled and shoot someone,one of your kids invited over to the house that night.

There is alot of self training you must do to get this decison right and it will be the most important decision you will ever have to make.

I hope you never have to fire on another person.

Eagle0711
January 27, 2011, 03:19 AM
Have come very close on a few occasions. Have had to talk myself out of shooting an aggressor.

If you can get away that's always the best. Why shoot someone and take a life if you can somehow get out of it. A few instances I would have been within the legal justifaction, but could safely leave.

If I was threated with no way out with a weapon in the BGs hand then I would shoot as fast and accurately as I'm capable of until he was no longer a threat.

You do have to be willing.

therewolf
January 27, 2011, 04:08 AM
If I felt I could draw and point the gun, and it would save my life, WITHOUT

shooting the BG, I would do it, but only if it were down to either show him or

shoot him, I guess.

You're faced with a dilemma here. If you shoot the guy, he's dead, he can't

testify against you. You brandish the weapon, even if you don't actually point it

at someone, it's very easy for them to lie, say you pointed it, THEN you get

charged with a third-degree felony.

Tough choice, but I guess I'd still rather risk standing in court, rather than

live with killing someone.

With only moments to make the right decision, I guess we all hope we'll make

the right choice, and LE will see it our way.

AcridSaint
January 27, 2011, 04:15 AM
If you're clearing leather then things are already worse than bad. Thinking of brandishing as a deterrent is, in my mind, a dangerous mindset.

Ryder
January 27, 2011, 04:44 AM
We are not authorized to pull a gun without using it in this state. It's only a last resort solution.

Jamie B
January 27, 2011, 07:49 AM
A gun should not be pulled unless it is going to be used.

Common sense.

markj
January 27, 2011, 04:20 PM
Take a class in your state and ask these questions there. Answer may differ state to state which is insane but what the heck.

SatCong
January 27, 2011, 05:37 PM
Once you qualify to carry, that subject is covered in your training. If you are not authorized to carry, the point is moot.

Mike

pax
January 27, 2011, 05:55 PM
Here's another really excellent resource. It's a booklet titled, "What Every Gun Owner Needs to Know About Self Defense Law," and it comes from Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network. You can order it as a free booklet that they'll mail to you, or download it as a pdf from here:

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hayes-SDLaw.pdf

pax

raimius
January 27, 2011, 06:24 PM
We are not authorized to pull a gun without using it in this state. It's only a last resort solution.
I highly doubt that. Are you sure it isn't that you have to be justified to use lethal force before you can use the threat of lethal force?

Otherwise you end up where you might be "forced" to shoot someone who suddenly decided to stop threatening/attacking you!...and that just doesn't make sense.

youngunz4life
January 27, 2011, 06:30 PM
I agree with Ramius.

clemsonbloz
January 27, 2011, 07:21 PM
When it comes to the poster's question about the shotgun in the mini-mart.. If I was in a store, and there was an armed robbery going on in front of me,, that is definatly a situation that you would draw your weapon.. You are witness to a violent crime, and in this state(SC),, your right to self defense can be laid apon another person,,, if that person is in fear of their life.

If a BG has a shotgun that he just racked and has pointed at some poor man or woman making 8.50 an hour working 2nd shift at a 7-11,, I'd have to make the judgement call and say their were in fear of losing their life.. I would draw, aim at center mass, identify myself as a person with a gun,,, and send the BG to Jesus if they do anything other than lay a weapon down and step away from it, then lying on the floor.. You cover, and have someone dial 911, and nobody leaves on a stretcher..

I know there are some dumb laws in some states,, but if you remove a weapon and don't have to use it in a true blue self dense situation,, there isn't a jury outside of california that would convict you of anything..

glockcompact
January 27, 2011, 07:41 PM
clemsonbloz:

If your referring to my post - I wasn't questioning the legalities of the situation. Anytime you have a firearm aimed at you that is justification to use deadly force. I stated that in my post that that the attacker has shown ability and intent.

What I was referring to was you need to know your own limit to see if you can make the shot. Please read my post again.

Ryder
January 27, 2011, 10:06 PM
raimius:

I highly doubt that. Are you sure it isn't that you have to be justified to use lethal force before you can use the threat of lethal force?

Otherwise you end up where you might be "forced" to shoot someone who suddenly decided to stop threatening/attacking you!...and that just doesn't make sense.

Didn't say I agreed with them, I agree with you.

State certified instructors teach this and taking the class is a requirement to get a permit. They claim it is because shooting proves you were justified to use a gun out of fear. To do otherwise means you were not experiencing sufficient fear to employ a firearm.

I suppose if you were justified to shoot but didn't the police may not arrest you for brandishing but I don't want to be a test case, or made an example of. So I train to shoot rather than threaten people and hope they change their mind. As long as they're OK with it, I'm OK with it.

brickeyee
January 28, 2011, 12:02 PM
If you draw without shooting you are brandishing in most states.

It is an issue.

The BG gets a very brief opportunity to stop his actions at that point.

Possibly a mere couple of seconds (the draw time).

And for the most part if you are within your rights to draw you are within your rights to shoot.

Drawing without the intent of shooting is a BAD idea.

pax
January 28, 2011, 12:28 PM
If you draw without shooting you are brandishing in most states.

No. No, you're not. You don't have to shoot just because you drew. Not in any state of the union. Never shoot unless you are justified in shooting. If you drew your firearm unjustifiably, shooting doesn't make the situation any better and doesn't turn your unjustified action into a justified one.

Here's an example of the law in Florida, which is similar to most other states:

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.

Similar laws (with similar exceptions as the one I highlighted in bold) are on the books in almost every state of the union. Those without specific black-letter laws to that effect usually have case laws that do the same thing.

Of course, if you draw the gun intending to fire and the bad guy surrenders or runs away or otherwise stops his assault before you pull the trigger, you are NOT justified in shooting him. Nor will it help the situation if you do so.

If you draw the firearm with the intent of stopping an assailant, then it does not matter whether you stopped him by shooting him or whether you stopped him by the act of drawing the gun: in either case, as soon as the criminal assault has stopped, you are no longer justified in pulling the trigger. And in either case, your act of drawing the gun was lawfully justifiable.

At the time you draw the firearm, you must reasonably believe that you are justified in using deadly force. That does not mean you must fire or must use that level of force. It simply means you must believe you are legally justified to use deadly force at the time you draw. But these types of situations can change very rapidly, and you need to keep up with what's happening. If you draw and the threat goes away, you no longer have a legal justification for pulling that trigger -- no matter how quickly the event unfolds.

You should not draw unless you are willing and prepared to shoot. And you should never shoot -- nor intend to shoot -- unless a criminal is presenting an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

Bottom line: if you can legally use deadly force you can legally display the weapon as a deterrent. The law will never punish people for using less force than they were entitled to use!

pax

pax
January 28, 2011, 12:36 PM
Forgot to add: there are some states where you can legally "brandish" when you are not justified in shooting -- since brandishing isn't regarded as deadly force in those states. But even in states where brandishing is regarded as deadly force, you aren't required to shoot simply because you drew.

Again: even in the most restrictive states, if you can legally use deadly force you can legally display the weapon as a deterrent. The law will never punish people for using less force than they were entitled to use.

pax

egor20
January 28, 2011, 12:53 PM
My wife has had to draw her weapon twice (I'm lucky I've never had to) she was getting to her truck when 2 BG's tried to truckjack her no weapons, just BIG guys. She saw them coming and reached into her purse and dropped her keys to the ground and while the BGs were looking at them she drew her revolver. Both BGs saw the gun and ran away, she had no reason to fire. She then dialed 911 and made a report, they were never found.

The second time a BG came at her with a knife, she didn't even try the key trick, she drew and fired twice. She hit him once in the chest and again in the shoulder with .38 Glaser +P rounds from a S&W 60 LS. She then called 911 and locked herself in the truck. No charges were even thought about against her, and the BG is doing 25 to life, we don't have parole in VA :D.

What we learned from this was:
#1 take off any reference to her being a horse Vet, (signs on the truck door and vanity plate) they were looking for Ketamine.
#2 automatic door locks with a loud alarm.

So brandishing a weapon, no. It was self defense and it was correct in the first instance, at least the Commonwealths Attorney thought so.


BTW pax, we both love Cornered Cat :)

brickeyee
January 28, 2011, 12:58 PM
You don't have to shoot just because you drew. Not in any state of the union. Never shoot unless you are justified in shooting. If you drew your firearm unjustifiably, shooting doesn't make the situation any better and doesn't turn your unjustified action into a justified one.

That was not what was said.

What was said is if you draw without shooting you are brandishing in most
states.

You are not allowed to draw without the same criteria that would allow you to shoot.

Brandishing becomes assault when you point the weapon at someone.

In some state since it IS a deadly weapon it can even be 'malicious assault.'

If you are within your rights to draw you should be within your rights to shoot.
I spent a lot of time becoming fast enough that by the time I am going to draw I also going to be prepared to shoot.
Right away.

If shooting is not required there is no reason to draw.

We are not the police trying to force compliance under threat of death.

jad0110
January 28, 2011, 08:35 PM
What was said is if you draw without shooting you are brandishing in most
states.

You are not allowed to draw without the same criteria that would allow you to shoot.

Looks like we are arguing over semantics here. I am in complete agreement that one can only draw and fire when all 3 prior mentioned criteria are met (intent, ability, opportunity). However, all 3 conditions can be present (imagine a BG treatening you a few feet away with knife in his hand) and a the armed citizen, for whatever reason, could draw and order the BG to drop the knife instead of shooting. Because all 3 criteria are present, this would be legal in most places, however inadvisable it may be from a tactics standpoint.

If a BG has a shotgun that he just racked and has pointed at some poor man or woman making 8.50 an hour working 2nd shift at a 7-11,, I'd have to make the judgement call and say their were in fear of losing their life.. I would draw, aim at center mass, identify myself as a person with a gun,,, and send the BG to Jesus if they do anything other than lay a weapon down and step away from it, then lying on the floor..

I agree here as well, a person in this situation would be legall justified in responding with deadly force in most places, in defense of another. Though as Glockcompact points out, there may be complicating factors (innocents directly behind the BG, poor visibility, erratic movement of the BG, etc) that may make discretion the better part of valor. If I were to respond in that scenario, I'd skip the verbal warning unless legally obligated to do so in your particular locale. If I'm up against a BG with a superior weapon (puny handgun vs shotgun) and he isn't aware of my presence (such as in Glockcompacts' scenario), I'm not going to give him the chance to fire such a brutal close range weapon on me first, or at the same moment I fire.

God forbid any of us face such a thing.

Casimer
January 28, 2011, 10:06 PM
No. No, you're not. You don't have to shoot just because you drew. Not in any state of the union. Never shoot unless you are justified in shooting. If you drew your firearm unjustifiably, shooting doesn't make the situation any better and doesn't turn your unjustified action into a justified one.

That's a very good point. I'd be interested to know whether anyone's ever analyzed the prevalence of prosecutions for 'brandishing', and how these are applied. Because it's my impression that the threat of prosecution for brandishing is often overstated, causing people to assume that you're somehow legally compelled to shoot the person.

In PA, for instance, we don't actually have a 'brandishing' law. Incidents in which a firearm is presented in a threatening manner, without proper cause, are handled by other laws concerning disturbance of the peace, terroristic threats, harrassment and intimidation. So prosecutors can file charges against someone who's presented a firearm with an illegal intent, but the presentation of the firearm, in and of itself, isn't a crime.

rb0211
January 28, 2011, 10:40 PM
Run. Get out of danger. If you can't. Shoot. If you're going to pull it, fire it. And shoot to kill. There is no "brandishing". Pulling your gun is a last resort and if you pull it out, you better have no doubt in your mind that you WILL use it.

Ryder
January 29, 2011, 05:22 AM
If you are within your rights to draw you should be within your rights to shoot.
I spent a lot of time becoming fast enough that by the time I am going to draw I also going to be prepared to shoot.
Right away.


Good shot at explaining brickeyee, thanks. Some people probably don't realize just how fast others can be. There is no time for the target to comprehend what is happening and back down against a fast draw and this is why I must determine deadly force is justified before drawing, rather than after drawing.

When the hand is quicker than the eye drawing and shooting becomes a single step for all practical purposes. I train to stay alive against the wishes of someone who wants me dead and I can only imagine the state has a good appreciation for this since they teach the Mozambique drill in CCW class :p

Still, it is impossible to predict what scenario you may find yourself in. It would be wrong to believe that everyone needs to be shot. So thank you PAX for your excellent input.

WANT A LCR 22LR
January 29, 2011, 09:03 AM
"" What was said is if you draw without shooting you are brandishing in most
states.""

Will this never end. . . I take brandising to be the initial attacker flashing a gun in order to gain the upper hand or someone flashing a gun because another person stopped to ask directions. Pretty clear that showing a gun is excessive force.

So, to the poster of the above quote, if a BG is holding a gun on you, you draw but don't fire, he turns and runs, will you be hit with brandishing because you didn't shoot him in the back?

Does anyone really think the average street thug has a lawyer on retainer to sue victims because they flashed a gun and didn't shoot them? Do they really want to be noticed by the police?

therewolf
January 29, 2011, 09:30 AM
Many thugs spend their time in incarceration suing everybody they can

in the hopes they can have a productive jail stay with a big payday upon their

release. Some of these "fishing expeditions" are productive, apparently.

So no, BGs don't generally carry lawyers in their pockets. But they CAN(and do) sue from prison...

youngunz4life
January 29, 2011, 09:48 AM
you should be ready to shoot immediately upon drawing or even - depending on the circumstances - while drawing. This doesn't mean that you have to shoot when you draw.

I pretty much look at it like 'I will never draw unless I have to', but I won't be the guy who hesitates in an obvious situation because he "can't make the choice".

I am confident in myself enough to know if and when I draw it will be for the right reason.

OldMarksman
January 29, 2011, 10:00 AM
Posted by rb0211: If you're going to pull it, fire it. Only if you still have to fire it after you have pulled it; things change, and the mere sight of your drawn gun may cause an assailant to run or put up his hands.

And shoot to kill.Shoot until the treat has been neutralized. Chances are very high that a person shot by a handgun will survive. If you knowingly and willfully keep shooting after he ceases to constitute a threat, say goodbye to your fortune, your record, and your personal freedom.

There is no "brandishing". If you were justified in drawing, that is correct.

Pulling your gun is a last resort...Yep.

...and if you pull it out, you better have no doubt in your mind that you WILL use it. If it is necessary.

brickeyee
January 29, 2011, 10:04 AM
This is Virginia's brandishing law.

It is actually pretty similar to a lot of other places.


§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

C. For purposes of this section, the word "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material. The word "ammunition," as used herein, shall mean a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-69.2; 1968, c. 513; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, cc. 588, 599; 1992, c. 735; 2003, c. 976; 2005, c. 928.)

Drawing IS brandishing in most places.
You are showing a weapon to induce fear, the very element of brandishing.

Pointing the weapon then becomes assault. (degree depending on local law).
Remember, threats are assault (cocking your arm with a fist).
Striking is battery.

WANT A LCR 22LR
January 29, 2011, 10:06 AM
""Many thugs spend their time in incarceration suing everybody they can

in the hopes they can have a productive jail stay with a big payday upon their

release. Some of these "fishing expeditions" are productive, apparently.

So no, BGs don't generally carry lawyers in their pockets. But they CAN(and do) sue from prison... ""


I'll take my chances. If the BG went to prison as a result of trying to attack me, it seems the brandishing issue is dead, otherwise he would not be in jail.

youngunz4life
January 29, 2011, 10:29 AM
brickeye I don't have evidence to back me up yet so just hear me out(I just read the recent posts):

is it possible there is an exception to the law in a life-threatening situation? I mean, it is illegal to shoot somebody too. It is also illegal to kill someone. If you have justified cause, it is a moot point.

secondly&refering to oldmarksman's recent post:

oldmarksman is dead on(pun intended). you don't ever shoot to kill. you shot center mass to eradicate the threat(just one example). and as he pointed out, once the threat is over you must stop. does this mean when in another scenario you are holding the guy down waiting for police and he is claiming he is done you have to let go? of course not, but you get the jist.

egor20
January 29, 2011, 11:11 AM
See my above post, the Commonwealths Attorney did not find my wife to be in the wrong in either occurrence. He didn't even bother to use the taxpayer's money to convene a Grand Jury, "waste of time" was his comment. So yes, there are times when drawing a hand gun is not brandishing.

brickeyee
January 29, 2011, 11:46 AM
is it possible there is an exception to the law in a life-threatening situation? I mean, it is illegal to shoot somebody too. It is also illegal to kill someone. If you have justified cause, it is a moot point.

Not in Virginia.

There may be in other places, but ALL lethal force law in Virginia is case (common) law.

In Virginia we have justifiable and excusable homicide, depending on if there was interaction before the shooting (words, fighting, etc.).

Hook686
January 29, 2011, 11:55 AM
pax wrote:

If you draw without shooting you are brandishing in most states.

No. No, you're not. You don't have to shoot just because you drew. Not in any state of the union. Never shoot unless you are justified in shooting. If you drew your firearm unjustifiably, shooting doesn't make the situation


Why is it ok to draw if you are not justified in shooting. If you are justified in shooting, then shooting seems a natural extension of the action. If you pause to think about it, it seems to me you might have lost the advantage of surprise that might save your life. On the other hand, if your purpose is to scare away the threat, rather than save your life, I can understand drawing, pausing to see if the threat retreats, before shooting.

How long do you figure that 'Pause' to see if the threat retreats ought be ... 1 second, 2, 3 .... Some of us think slower than others, does that enter into the equation ?

I tend to agree with some of the posters that seem to think that drawing, but not shooting, is more an indication that you were a afraid of a potential threat to you life, but really not sure of it.

glockcompact
January 29, 2011, 12:08 PM
I think most people are on the same page and understand you have to have justification of deadly force before you draw your weapon. Depending on the distance to the threat things can change before you are able to pull the trigger. If you decide pulling the trigger was not needed at that last split second. Then don't. Most of us are arguing for the same thing. Although we need to watch our wording or people may take you wrong.

For instance:
rb0211
Run. Get out of danger. If you can't. Shoot. If you're going to pull it, fire it. And shoot to kill.

I'm going to break this apart.

Run. Get out of danger.
This is correct. Any time you can avoid a threat by all means leave.

If you can't. Shoot.
Yes, if the justifications (opportunity, intent, and ability) of deadly force are met and you have used all other lesser means and they have failed. There is no way out.

If you're going to pull it, fire it.
Not necessarily. Even if your a fast draw, things can change especially with distance. You may have had justification to use deadly force before you drew your weapon but things can change very rapidly. We're not talking about a particular instance so the senarios are endless here. If the threat stops and runs away this is better for you.

And shoot to kill.
This is not correct thinking. Sorry but I need to pick this apart. The word kill will get you into a lot of trouble here. Your intensions are to "stop the threat". Never say you "needed to kill him" or "he needed to be killed". If your up on the stand infront of a jury and you say "I had to kill him." The jury will look at that way different then if you said "I had to stop the threat or he would have killed me." It's important that people who are armed understand this. However the most effective way to stop the threat, if you are forced to shoot, is to aim center mass on that threat. Do not use "shoot to kill"

pax
January 29, 2011, 12:11 PM
Hook,

I didn't suggest pausing. I simply said, Never fire unless you are justified in firing. Your purpose is to stop the assault. If your action of reaching toward the gun stops the assailant, you've accomplished your goal. If your act of drawing the gun does the job, you're done. If your act of firing the gun does it, you stop then. If your first shot doesn't stop the assailant, and your second one doesn't, but the third one does -- that's when you stop.

It's not a "reach for the gun, pause to check, draw the gun, pause to check, fire one shot, pause to check..." It's a continuous re-evaluation of a rapidly developing situation, taking all human factors into account including your own reaction times.

When you fire the gun, you must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the very moment you pulled the trigger. "I fired because I drew" doesn't cut it.

Kathy

pax
January 29, 2011, 12:12 PM
brickeyee ~

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

I just bolded the important part. You don't have to fire just because you drew. And it isn't "brandishing" if you are engaged in excusable or justifiable self defense.

pax

OldMarksman
January 29, 2011, 12:16 PM
Posted by Hook686: Why is it ok to draw if you are not justified in shooting. Except for one or two jurisdictions, it is not lawful for a civilian to draw unless he or she has a supportable reason to believe that the use of deadly force is justified.

If you are justified in shooting, then shooting seems a natural extension of the action. I'm not sure what that means.

Think about it this way: a person or persons threaten you, perhaps with weapons; you have no alternative to the use of deadly force to protect yourself, so you draw--lawfully.

And then things suddenly change.

The perp or perps suddenly throw up their hands, or turn and high tail it across the parking lot.

You are NO LONGER justified in the use of deadly force.

If you do shoot, and if witness testimony, security camera footage, forensic evidence, and/or the testimony of the perps themselves show what happened, you will be in the proverbial world of hurt.

Yes, things happen fast, and you just may be able to mount a successful defense on the basis that things happened so quickly that you could not have been aware of the fact that the threat had passed. And then again, you may not.

Does that explain it?

pax
January 29, 2011, 12:35 PM
is it possible there is an exception to the law in a life-threatening situation? I mean, it is illegal to shoot somebody too. It is also illegal to kill someone. If you have justified cause, it is a moot point.

Youngunz4life,

Yes, there is such an exception in the VA statute.

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Hope this helps.

pax

FireForged
January 29, 2011, 02:23 PM
Use of force laws differ from State to State. My advice is to read and clearly understand the use of force laws in your State. There are plenty of use of force attorneys around the Country who have written books on the subject.

brickeyee
January 29, 2011, 05:07 PM
"Yes, there is such an exception in the VA statute."

My attorney looked at that and claims the law was passed after a CA tried throwing a brandishing charge after losing a self defense case.

Note the "However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense."

All the rules in Virginia governing the use of lethal force would have to be met to threaten lethal force, in other words you could have fired.

pax
January 29, 2011, 05:37 PM
All the rules in Virginia governing the use of lethal force would have to be met to threaten lethal force, in other words you could have fired.

But you do not need to fire in order to use that exemption.

No matter how blinding your draw speed, firing comes after drawing by some measurable interval. It's quite possible that all of the elements justifying deadly force were in place at the moment you drew, but no longer in place by the time your sights are on target. It's also quite possible that even a situation where deadly force would be legally justifiable might allow you the luxury of choosing to use the lesser level of force (drawing the gun) in relative safety, and that you might choose to do so for some perfectly legitimate practical reason.

This is analogous to the number of times you fire. After the shooting, you must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the very moment you fired each shot you took. Each shot stands independently in the dock. If you empty the magazine, no matter how fast or how slow you empty it, your final shot must be every bit as justified as your first shot. Within the confines of human reaction times, you don't get a free pass on that final shot just because "I was already firing and to fire again was a natural extension of that action." You need to be able to justify every shot you take, not just the first one.

Similarly, you need to be able to justify the act of drawing the gun. And you need to be able to do so independently of your act of firing the gun.

Just because you draw the gun doesn't mean you need to fire it.

Just because you fire once doesn't mean you need to fire again.

If you draw unjustifiably, your legal situation will not be helped by firing the gun.

If you draw justifiably, your legal situation will not be harmed by holding your fire if your practical situation allows you to do so.

You don't need to fire just because you draw. And the law -- even in the Commonwealth of Virginia -- will never punish you for using a lesser level of force when you are legally justified to use a greater level of force.

pax

Carter
January 29, 2011, 05:52 PM
This is a question that has no absolute answer. When you pull your firearm depends on the situation, the person/animal you are facing, your state's laws, the surroundings, and YOU.

Remember, you can have a clean cut case of self defense, but if you can't articulate what happened you could end up in trouble.

My instructor for my CCW class went in to great depth about this type of question. Every situation was worse than the last. Point being, when you use lethal force (that includes pointing the firearm at the person) you better start thinking about the elements needed to justify your actions before the cops get there and be ready.

Hook686
January 29, 2011, 06:01 PM
If you are justified in shooting, then shooting seems a natural extension of the action.


I'm not sure what that means.



If you are justified in drawing your gun and shooting, you must be in fear of your life, or serious injury. It just seems to me that practice is drawing and firing, as all in one smooth action. To try to break this process down into digital steps seems incongruent with that process. It seems to me if I have time to not shoot in order to ameliorate the situation, then it really is not yet to that point where I am truly in fear of my life. I might be scared, but I have yet to accept that my life is on the line.If I reach that point it seems obvious that it is time to draw ... and if I have practiced squeezing the trigger as part of that draw in order to place my shot center of mass, it all seems as one smooth action that is done without thinking during the process ... it is m
'muscle memory' as some put it here ... if I am understanding the term. The 21 foot rule seems to be the point that a threat is considered very serious to ones life if confronted by an armed assailant. It seems said that it is difficult to draw and fire before being cut in the best of cases. Why would one pause, even a microsecond, to see if the threat has altered his/her path ?

MauiMontana
January 29, 2011, 06:25 PM
i've been arrested for felony aggravated assault before and i didn't even draw my firearm, (wasn't concealed) but it came down to my word against theirs, two FEMALES broke into my house in the middle of the night, and assaulted me, i didn't feel my life was threatened, but didn't want the assailants to get their claws into the 357 hanging out of my pajama pants. i took a beating (not into hitting girls) and i managed to escape the house and called 911, when the sheriffs arrived 25 minutes later, they arrested me because the two girls (whom were still in my home) said they felt threatened because they knew i had a gun and attacked me. (with beer bottles and shoes) they also told the police that they were invited to my house. (once again, my word against theirs) anyway, i went to jail for two days, and the girls were left to rob me blind in my own home, i returned home 48 hours later with an empty house and neighbors saying they saw a uhaul truck in my driveway the day before. all that being said, probably should have drawn my firearm because in the end, it didn't even matter. they saw the gun and used that for their statement/defense. probably not helpful here, but just sayin'.... now i carry a knife along with my sidearm,.... just in case... ;)

rb0211
January 30, 2011, 09:21 AM
Glockcompact - Good clarification on my post and all valid points.

brickeyee
January 30, 2011, 10:36 AM
But you do not need to fire in order to use that exemption.

It does not say that.

Virginia does NOT use legislative history to interpret laws.
The Virginia courts use the law as it is written, and assume the general assembly pout everything needed into the statute.

Adding ANYTHING to the statute is risky.

If you draw on someone you had better be withing the law to shoot them at that point.

4runnerman
January 30, 2011, 10:54 AM
Scenario 3: You walk down to the corner store late in the evening to get your fix. For me it's diet pepsi and some chips (I don't smoke). You have your ccw and you've had a decent amount of training. You feel very confident with your weapon at your side. Besides it's just another day. You walk into the convenience store and walk towards the back where the soda machine is. You noticed when you walked in that there were no cars out front and the only person you see inside is the cashier. You get your soda and head over to the chips. You here the dingaling sound of the front door and as you look over a man is screaming at the cashier and racking his pistol gripped shotgun. He points the shotgun at the cashier and screams "give me all the f'n money" So he obviously has ability and he's shown intent.
The question is - is this in your limit? Let's say it's 20 feet between you and him. He's lunging at the cashier with his shotgun and moving quite eraticaly. Shooting 20' free standing at a stationary target is not easy. Now a moving target that has a 12guage would be very difficult. This is where it's very important to understand your limit. He can swing that shotgun at you very quick and he only has to get close - It's a shotgun. I can see where depending on different variables at that time (cover and concealment) you may not decide to pull that weapon even though he has ability and has shown intent. I wouldn't feel very protected behind a shelf of Doritos

Golckcompact- I just took the class here in Minn. Under this senerio we were told. If you pulled your gun ,you are going to jail. The senario has to many varaibles to it. One,Casheir gives BG money -situation resolved,no one killed.
By pulling your gun,you now put BG in a win lose senerio that you created by pulling your gun. Yes i would reccomend checking with your states as said before each state is different.

egor20
January 30, 2011, 11:07 AM
In your current situation, dial 911 tell the dispatcher where you are, and mute the phone and leave it on, good evidence for the police. Draw your weapon and keep it hidden from the BG. Then hide, if my wife's with me (we'll I maybe a MCP) she's behind me when I hide, with her revolver hidden also.

glockcompact
January 30, 2011, 11:30 AM
I completely agree that if you carry you need to understand the laws in your state.

If this is true in Minn. It's unfortunate.
I just took the class here in Minn. Under this senerio we were told. If you pulled your gun ,you are going to jail.

I don't see how it would be a slam shut case. I could see how things could go terribly wrong giving the 20' shot on a guy who has a shotgun. But if the distance was shorter and within my limts it should be considered self defense of another. Still intimadating though when it's against a pistol gripped shotgun. Hope I never see that day. :eek:

Had to edit to add this:

By pulling your gun,you now put BG in a win lose senerio that you created by pulling your gun.

I don't feel like I created a bad situation. The guy has a weapon aimed at an inocent person. He's showing (opportunity, ability, and intent) he created the bad situation.

pax
January 30, 2011, 11:57 AM
I think some people do not understand that they are never legally required to pull a trigger. Being legally justified to shoot someone does not mean you legally must shoot someone.

pax

4runnerman
January 30, 2011, 12:14 PM
Glockcompact i should clarify to make sure i say this right.Sometimes the keyboard don't say what i meant:o. Our senerio was

You have a CCW, You walk into a 7-11 store and see a cashier behind counter beat up and bloody,person on outside of counter pointing gun to her head.Question was-Do you draw. I answered yes. Was told i will go to jail if i draw. Reason being,I just walked into situation happening,I have no idea if said cashier is bad person,if person brandishing gun is law officer. I can not assume what the picture looks like to be the facts. After class i did go and talk to trainer about this senerio he put me in. His answer was.No one said that this was going to be easy and with out all the facts never draw your pistol. I do not agree with that answer at all,My response to him was
So in that case i could wait to see if it was BG with gun and watch him shoot her in head and live with the fact that i could have stopped it,but by law was not allowed to. I left that class with a whole new (sorry to say) disrespect for the law then i have ever had. Protecting a third party is only permissable if you have the facts, That being did third party start situation,did third party prevoke situation. With out all the info we were told do not draw your gun ever. Hope i said this all right ..

youngunz4life
January 30, 2011, 12:33 PM
runnerman, I am not going to say you can or can't to your scenario. You described a good scenario. I wouldn't feel comfortable saying freeze to the guy and hoping for the best, yet I am sure many LEO's could do this routinely.

If the scenario happened to me I am already(its innate and automatic with me but not for everyone) figuring out to the best of my ability if this guy is alone.

I am not saying I'd do this; in fact I am not saying this, but I would not be panicking enough where I wouldn't be unable to aim and kill him dead on the spot. Some people would be shaking and just wouldn't be able to do it. Not counting the shaking, nerves can do terrible things. Example: when someone panicks because they can't swim it takes 30 seconds tops for them to be underwater for the last time.

All this being said, it depends on the state if you end up killing this armed robberer. I guess one just has to do what they feel is right and/or is warranted at any given time. Many of these robberies end with a deceased employee. I do agree one should always just cough up the cash if robbed while being a cashier. I do know that things become much more dicey when you make your presence known, and I think that is why some oldtimers say, "shoot and ask questions later". If that same scenario happened to me(runnermans), I think I would be ready to take him out yet watch him leave the scene(always ready). If this man fired that shotgun at the cashier than that would definately be the last shot he ever takes. It would all depend though on what I would do.

Puntmefar
January 30, 2011, 01:25 PM
It comes down to how well you can handle your self with out your weapon. If you have the means to defend your self hand to hand than do so. If a retreat is the best way than you dont need a weapon (and no a retreat dont mean your chicken). But if you cant fend of the attacker or get away from the situation than you need to increase the force you use to protect your self acordingly. I have never pulled my weapon in defence and if im blessed I will never need to..... but i have had justifyed cause to pull it out and used less force to keep safe. the game is safty not who is the badest in town.

glockcompact
January 30, 2011, 02:28 PM
Pax
I think some people do not understand that they are never legally required to pull a trigger. Being legally justified to shoot someone does not mean you legally must shoot someone.

Exactly.

I agree with you. It was the way I was trained.

Also, just as you have said in your earlier post, as soon as the threat stops - you stop. End of story.

Could be three BG's and you shot one and the other two ran. What ever scenario you want to come up with it doesn't matter. When the threat stops you stop. If your so blindingly fast on the draw that givin any amount of threats, or givin any amount of distance, and givin any type of scenario, that the BG's won't have the chance to physically stop. Then I need to find out where you recieved your training cause I need some school'n. ;)

OldMarksman
January 30, 2011, 03:48 PM
Posted by Hook686: Why would one pause, even a microsecond, to see if the threat has altered his/her path ?Guess this from pax didn't register:

Hook,

I didn't suggest pausing. I simply said, Never fire unless you are justified in firing. Your purpose is to stop the assault. If your action of reaching toward the gun stops the assailant, you've accomplished your goal. If your act of drawing the gun does the job, you're done. If your act of firing the gun does it, you stop then. If your first shot doesn't stop the assailant, and your second one doesn't, but the third one does -- that's when you stop.

I doubt that anone here can grab the weapon, draw from concealment, present the weapon, aim and fire in even a few microseconds, and if you have your eyes where you should, you should be able to see what the assailant is doing.

If the facts of the situation support a reasonable belief that one is in imminent danger and that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect against that danger, one may draw for the purpose of shooting the assailant. However, if the threat dissipates when one reaches for the gun, or draws, or presents the weapon, or aims, deadly force is no longer justified.

Hook686
January 30, 2011, 06:59 PM
You know oldmarksman I agree ... if the threat turns away, or disipates, while I am reaching for my weapon (I have already concluded my life is about to be taken), then I hold back ... if I have my hand on my revolver and am retrieving it from concealment and the threat turns away, or disipates, then I hold back ... however if I am in the process of bring the revolver up to point shoot in protection of my life, I do not believe I have the thought time, reaction time, or freedom of skill to avoid a discharge. You I think the time from bringing the revolver to bare on the target and discharging a round is measured in micro seconds at this point (maybe a thousand, or two). It strikes me as very fast when I practice. How long does it take you to point your pistol downrange and squeeze the trigger (from the ready position) ? Pause at that point and I think you have defeated yourself.

OldMarksman
January 30, 2011, 07:38 PM
Posted by Hook686: however if I am in the process of bring the revolver up to point shoot in protection of my life, I do not believe I have the thought time, reaction time, or freedom of skill to avoid a discharge.

That is one of the things that I worry about myself.

The others are,


not drawing quickly enough,
hitting a bystander, and
facing an evidentiary situation, including ambiguous or negative eyewitness testimony, that could put my defense of justifcation in jeopardy.


One can practice drawing, one can practice shooting and try to program himself to consider the backstop, and try very hard to program himself to not shoot unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Regarding the last item, there's only one mitigation that I can think of: make every possible effort to stay away from situations that might require the use of deadly force. That should help with the other three issues, also.

Andrewsmith1
January 30, 2011, 08:21 PM
I didn't read every single post in this thread, am not a lawyer, and won't even pretend to know the laws of every state in the US.

What I will say is that with firearms ownership comes enormous responsibility. We must know the laws of ownership in our individual states, know when and where we can carry, and know what situations we are allowed to use our firearms. We must also be aware that even in a legal shooting you are not protected from lawsuits and other potential legal problems. Always be aware of your situations, practice with your firearms, know what is in the background should you need to use your firearm, but try to flee the scene if possible.

We have a major winter storm moving into the are this week and may be running on generator power. Should someone try to take the generator from the back yard, I will not be opening fire on them to save it. My gun cost more than that generator and by the time the police take that from me, the "victims" get lawyered up and start the law suits, I would rather buy a new generator and avoid the hassle.

Glenn Bartley
January 30, 2011, 08:32 PM
:eek:And for the most part if you are within your rights to draw you are within your rights to shoot.:eek:

Please inform us as to the legal guidelines you have used to arrive at the above is conclusion, I have never heard it expressed before in my lifetime. :confused:

Drawing and shooting are two very different things, if you draw and a bad guy drops his weapon and stops being a threat and you then shoot him, you will be going to jail if there are honest witnesses. Drawing and shooting are not equivalent, nor is the justification to actually use deadly force necessarily commensurate with the justification to draw. Drawing is not using deadly force, shooting someone most definitely is using it.

All the best,
Glenn B

youngunz4life
January 30, 2011, 10:05 PM
ever wonder about those "real" situations(it happens in movies too) where someone draws and turns and almost kills their friend, wife, innocent person, etc? How did they not shoot because it was definately a close call in every case? It can happen late in the night with spouses as one example.

I think most know Wild Bill was unable to stop himself from turning, drawing(unless was already drawn), and killing his deputy with one fatal shot. It can go both ways too, but Wild Bill probably already had his firearm drawn in that famous incident.

Pulling the trigger is seperate from drawing a weapon even if there isn't much time in between.

Glenn Bartley
January 31, 2011, 09:02 AM
was unable to stop himself from turning, drawing(unless was already drawn), and killing his deputy Don't you mean he turned, drew his weapon and fired without properly assessing the situation and identifying his target first and not that he could not stop himself. Somene saying I could not stop myself, in a situation like that, is basically saying he did not assess properly and did not identify that at which he was about to shoot, or in other words had assumed that the guy behind them was an armed adversary.

All the best,
GB

brickeyee
January 31, 2011, 10:47 AM
Please inform us as to the legal guidelines you have used to arrive at the above is conclusion, I have never heard it expressed before in my lifetime.

You can only threaten deadly force if faced with a threat that allows its use (death if grave bodily harm).

If you are faced with the imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm you are also justified in using lethal force.

A lot of folks have watched to many movies and TV shows.
These incidents tend to happen very quickly.

If you point a gun at someone and say "Give me your money" you have met all the requirements that allow deadly force to be used against you.

You are not required to draw and think about it, or give a warning.
You can draw and shoot.

If you want to play Mexican standoff and hope the other guy gives up, go for it.

If the situation exists that you can threaten deadly force it exists to allow its use.

We are not the police.
We are not there to detain the bad guy.

Our purpose is to defend ourselves.

Threaten my life and I may very well respond in ways you may not like.

youngunz4life
January 31, 2011, 02:39 PM
Don't you mean he turned, drew his weapon and fired without properly assessing the situation and identifying his target first and not that he could not stop himself.

That is a fair assessment, Glenn. From my recollection of the history behind it, Wild Bill's pistol might have already been drawn as he turned around. He wanted to be quicker than the other guy when he heard the feet running up on him, and that resulted in the tragedy of his friend and deputy. That isn't an excuse, and my name isn't famous like Bill's so good luck to me if the same accident happened nowadays.

spacemanspiff
January 31, 2011, 02:57 PM
Knowing when it is lawful to use lethal force is only one part of the equation. The more complicated question that all who have chosen to carry must answer to themselves, is "Will my conscience allow me to use deadly force in defense of my own life or that of someone else?"

Those who carry without answering that question to themselves may wind up doing more harm than good.

Glenn Bartley
February 1, 2011, 09:15 AM
Brickeyee,

You can only threaten deadly force if faced with a threat that allows its use (death if grave bodily harm).

If you are faced with the imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm you are also justified in using lethal force.

I wasn't asking about the legal guidelines as to when someone can employ deadly force, I am well aware of them in any situation I would encounter. What I was asking was:

Please inform us as to the legal guidelines you have used to arrive at the above is conclusion, I have never heard it expressed before in my lifetime.

The above conclusion that I was questioning was this:

And for the most part if you are within your rights to draw you are within your rights to shoot.

Your answer addressed, in general, when deadly force is jusifiable. I was asking what are the legal guidelines that specifically say if you are within your right to draw then you are within your right to shoot. There is a big difference between when you have justification to shoot someone and when you have justification to draw as far as I see it. I basically was asking if there is a law that actually says if you had the justification to draw you also had the justification to shoot. That would be very interesting reading.

All the best,
Glenn B

Glenn Bartley
February 1, 2011, 09:17 AM
"Will my conscience allow me to use deadly force in defense of my own life or that of someone else?"

My conscience demands it!

All the best,
Glenn B

brickeyee
February 1, 2011, 11:25 AM
I was asking what are the legal guidelines that specifically say if you are within your right to draw then you are within your right to shoot. There is a big difference between when you have justification to shoot someone and when you have justification to draw as far as I see it. I basically was asking if there is a law that actually says if you had the justification to draw you also had the justification to shoot. That would be very interesting reading.

Virginia has NO statute law governing the use of lethal force.

NONE.
It is ALL case (common) law.

The requirements to threaten lethal force (fear of death or grave injury) are the same as the justification to use the force.

If you are NOT in fear of death or grave bodily harm you are not even allowed to threaten lethal force.

If you are in fear of death or grave bodily harm you have met the conditions to both draw and use that force.

They are inextricably linked.

THORN74
February 1, 2011, 04:05 PM
the only hard and fast guarenteed time to pull ur gun is when there are bullets flying ur direction. most will say that point is too late, and it is.

any other times are open to interprtation.

PTMGunner16
February 20, 2011, 09:38 PM
@Lee n. Field- I live in Georgia