Drawing but NOT Firing in Self Defense

[stonewall50]

So a verbal altercation arose at the local dog park the other day. It got me thinking: if someone threatened you and gave every indication of trying to get into a physical altercation...what would the legality of drawing your weapon be? And this is assuming you have not provoked or escalated the situation and you are unable to retreat/leave.

Now the state of Florida law is as follows:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html

So this is in one of those weird brackets where you COULD have a legitimate fear for your life, but if the guy says "I am going to kick your blank" and if you end up in fear and draw your weapon, a better lawyer might get YOU convicted. And this is also bearing in mind that bearing a weapon or even stating that you are armed might be enough be considered an escalation.

So my legal question is mainly: does this law appear to cover a verbal altercation where someone threatens violence, but if once a weapon draws...they come to their senses before the worst happens?

I really wish they could make the law more clear with that.

[mavracer]

Until you believe grave bodily harm is emminent I would suggest alway de-escalating at every opportunity and would site Harold Fish and George Zimmerman as evidence. While both men were eventually freed the costs were staggering.

[andy29847]

If you are carrying a gun, don't get into a verbal confrontation. If you find yourself in a verbal confrontation, walk away. Your gun is for defense. It should be used as a last resort. If you have to shoot somebody, it will be life changing (for you) in many ways.

[stonewall50]

Originally Posted by mavracer

Until you believe grave bodily harm is emminent I would suggest alway de-escalating at every opportunity and would site Harold Fish and George Zimmerman as evidence. While both men were eventually freed the costs were staggering.

See I feel the same way, but there are DOZENS of YouTube videos showing the "tough" guy, roid using tools out there that may not LET you de-escalate a situation because their "machismo" demands they "whip your ___." Ya know? My personal motto is that I do not have a duty to retreat, but it is a good policy. If I don't have to fight...I will not. Pride isn't worthy dying for.

[BarryLee]

don't get into a verbal confrontation. If you find yourself in a verbal confrontation walk away

I agree separating yourself from the situation is the best course of action. I also believe that being the first person to call the Police can work in your favor, so if someone is threatening you use your cell phone before your gun. As for exactly where the line is I will freely admit it’s a little fuzzy to me also, but I guess that is simply the reality.

[stonewall50]

Originally Posted by andy29847

If you are carrying a gun, don't get into a verbal confrontation. If you find yourself in a verbal confrontation, walk away. Your gun is for defense. It should be used as a last resort. If you have to shoot somebody, it will be life changing (for you) in many ways.

Correct. But that really isn't the type of scenario I am thinking of. If I can, I will. But it is not unrealistic to be put in a situation where retreat isn't an option. Either the aggressor is out of his mind, a macho man, or maybe a road raging dick who is pounding your window till it cracks and you are stuck between vehicles and your car cannot move.

[stonewall50]

Originally Posted by BarryLee

I agree separating yourself from the situation is the best course of action. I also believe that being the first person to call the Police can work in your favor, so if someone is threatening you use your cell phone before your gun. As for exactly where the line is I will freely admit it’s a little fuzzy to me also, but I guess that is simply the reality.

Yea. And drawing the cell phone is the only method I can think of that would reduce the situation, but even then...I can see someone going off the rails. Idk if you saw that video of the marine in traffic who flipped his crap after the guy started filming him after notifying that police were called.

[NoSecondBest]

We had a guy here in NY about ten years ago who had some enraged person pounding on his window threatening to kill him. The guy in the car was a lot smaller than the agressor. As it ended up, the guy in the car got out and shot the agressor. He's still in prison for using excessive force. Even pulling out your gun to show you are armed will result in you being charged with menacing and you'll go to jail and lose your permit. I don't want to argue this point, it's just how it is. You do have an obligation to try to retreat here in NY and lots of other places. Even when you are justified, you're going to go bankrupt paying for your lawyers and defending yourself. I personally believe too many people are much more prone to up the game simply because they are carrying a gun. Sort of like keyboard muscles. I give pistol permit courses and I've actually turned people away simply after talking to them about why they want to carry a gun. They're simply a tragedy waiting to happen.

[stonewall50]

Originally Posted by NoSecondBest

We had a guy here in NY about ten years ago who had some enraged person pounding on his window threatening to kill him. The guy in the car was a lot smaller than the agressor. As it ended up, the guy in the car got out and shot the agressor. He's still in prison for using excessive force. Even pulling out your gun to show you are armed will result in you being charged with menacing and you'll go to jail and lose your permit. I don't want to argue this point, it's just how it is. You do have an obligation to try to retreat here in NY and lots of other places. Even when you are justified, you're going to go bankrupt paying for your lawyers and defending yourself. I personally believe too many people are much more prone to up the game simply because they are carrying a gun. Sort of like keyboard muscles. I give pistol permit courses and I've actually turned people away simply after talking to them about why they want to carry a gun. They're simply a tragedy waiting to happen.

Which I understand. And Florida law is obviously different than NY. Personally? I'm never going to exit a vehicle. I'm not a cop. A CCW doesn't make me one. Period.

[kilimanjaro]

A verbal altercation is verbal. No imminent threat to life or limb, even if the bigmouth says "I'm going to take you apart". Until he starts to attempt to take you apart, it's all just hot air.

Your cellphone is your best defense if you truly can't just walk away.

[Brit]

The big balancing act, is simple. If you can not retreat, the person who is just about to attack you (and in my case, you are aged 80!) it is all you can do.

You stand a decent chance (in Florida) of being on the side of the Angels.

A couple of years ago, my Wife was followed all around our local Publix store, two pants hanging down "Yutes" no basket or cart between them. I was reading in the parking lot, cell call, I was waiting under the overhang when my Wife slipped out, smoothly, I was standing at the back of my Security marked Jeep. One of these late teens, early twenty's young men, noticed me, grabbed his buddy's arm, and they took off across the parking lot.

Afterwards I thought of a few different ways I could have dealt with that scenario, but it worked for a rapid thought out plan.

[Skans]

Somebody threatening to "kick my butt" is not going to cause me to pull my weapon, even in Florida. Not at this point in my life. Give me another 30 years and confronted by a 20-something 6'5 guy, and I might have a different opinion.

[tangolima]

Five essential elements in legitimate self defense; innocence, imminence, proportion, avoidance, and reasonableness. All need to be met simultaneously.

Verbal assault is not lethal force, not even push and shove. Drawing a gun is. It is not proportional.

- TL

[zukiphile]

So my legal question is mainly: does this law appear to cover a verbal altercation where someone threatens violence, but if once a weapon draws...they come to their senses before the worst happens?

I really wish they could make the law more clear with that.

Laws are necessarily unclear in that they provide standards for assessing future events rather than describing future scenarios precisely.

The answer to your legal question will depend on the state in which the incident occurs. According to the FL code cited above, whether one is entitled to use deadly force, or any force at all, will turn on the reasonable belief of the person employing force. A verbal threat of violence could prompt one to reasonably believe believe that he needs to employ force in order to defend or to prevent imminent death or GBI.

No one should misunderstand that to mean that a verbal threat will itself categorically justify force in return.

[Sharkbite]

Here is my take...for what thats worth

If the adversary shows/has the ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY and INTENT and i truly believe my life is in danger (in some clearly explained way, example... I'm recovering from back surgery and cant escape OR fight him off).

AND i can explain that my firearm was the only way i had to protect myself from this violence. I would draw and give loud verbals...

If thats my only option to avoid a struggle and possible losing my gun to my attacker, i think that is "Reasonable".

If i draw my gun just because some guy says he is going to kick my *** down the street...thst is NOT reasonable

As always it comes down to the totality of the circumstances.

[colbad]

A potential fight or verbal altercation does not justify pulling the gun absent some very compelling facts involving reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm (not crazy hypothetical scenarios some think up in their head as justification). You will certainly end up in jail in the short run, even if you are later not charged or found not guilt.

This is especially true if you can simply walk away or disengage from the altercation. Pulling the gun now makes you appear as an aggressor. People get wrapped around the "no retreat" language in some laws and are in dangerous territory. Maybe you wont get charged criminally, but guarantee that you will lose in a civil case if the gun at your side inflated your balls beyond your brains ability to make good decisions.

I think the vast majority on this site clearly understand the serious responsibility of carrying a FA. However, it never fails that some want to split hairs over the language of the law and their right to shoot someone. Like we tell our kids "use your words or walk away".

[zukiphile]

A potential fight or verbal altercation does not justify pulling the gun absent some very compelling facts involving reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm (not crazy hypothetical scenarios some think up in their head as justification).

I am not sure what a "potential" fight is, but a reasonable belief of imminent death or GBI would be what a prosecutor and/or jury would need to find according to that Florida code.

Just as an undue sense of machismo may lead to an incorrect answer about whether one should employ force, it is also true that a disproportionate disdain for the employment of force may also lead one to the wrong answer.

Some of the responses above suggest that one cannot rightly employ force until the beating begins. We might call that the Zimmerman rule. However, that is not what the code above indicates and may also be imprudent.

I now forget where I saw it, but many of you may have seen this video as well. An attacker with a rubber knife stands 20 or 30 feet away and a defender with a holstered pistol gets to defend himself. The fellow with the rubber knife always does plenty of lethal damage even if the defender does get a shot in.

[Pond, James Pond]

Seems to me it comes down to the difference between unlawful force by an aggressor and force such that it causes you to fear for your life or fear great bodily harm.

A credible threat to your life is probably pretty plain if it happens but the ambiguous one is great bodily harm. What is that? Is it a legally defined type of injury? If not what is it?

On the one hand someone threatening to punch a person in the nose doesn't seem to warrant the victim drawing and firing a gun.

But having said that a fist can be a deadly weapon. A powerful punch to the head can kill. It can blind. A punch to the body can damage internal organs.

A punch in itself may not do these things, but it can put someone on the floor at which point they are significantly more vulnerable to further blows and kicks by which time they have lost the chance to defend themselves effectively.

These are documented events albeit rare, yet if someone were in court for shooting their assailant and claimed "they were going to punch me" they'd probably have the book thrown at them.

A frightfully fine line.....

[g.willikers]

This attempt at an answer might be a bit off topic, as it's more to do with skill than legalities, but.....
What if the person with the gun had sufficient skill, and confidence in that skill, to be able to draw their gun effectively in a split second?
Then there would be no need to present the arm in anticipation of trouble before it might actually be needed.
Just a thought.

[44 AMP]

Different states have different laws about "threatening / menacing / brandishing" a weapon.

However, time and time again, the sight of a weapon chases off attackers and convinces would be attackers to would be something else, without a shot being fired.

One thing that can make a difference, is what story the police hear, FIRST.

If the first story the cops hear is from you, the law abiding upstanding citizen (with a permit?) or your lawyer, telling how you were threatened / attacked, and drew in self defense but didn't need to shoot, they will likely have a different attitude than if the first thing they hear is a complaint about how you threatened to shoot someone who was "minding their own business"...

Without witnesses these things usually come down to your word against theirs. And if the punks are in pairs or worse, then you have multiple words against yours, which makes their lying tougher to prove.

If you get into this type of situation, I recommend calling your lawyer, and then calling the cops (based on his advice) right away. OR calling the cops to file a report, then calling your lawyer, if you think that best. My point is that you need to make the first report, if possible. This puts you on the record, and potentially give you the stronger case.

I'm not a lawyer, not pretending to be one. My advice is worth what you paid for it. Not valid where prohibited by law, order before midnight for special handling...

[RaySendero]

I read these self defense discussion threads and get the impression we
"Make this hard," too hard for a possible split second decision.
AND its mostly theoretical with very little practical experiences/examples.

Seems to me we are missing one of the most valuable experiences - WWPD.
The police are trained in these very situations. And collectively have a lot of real life experiences verbal altercations of all types.

Now , I'm not advocating in any way that we act as police!!!
But to understand how the local police are trained, the "trigger points" (pun intended) that they themselves use to step-up their use of force would seem to be a good measure for us to know and to use if necessary for your own legal defense.

[turkeestalker]

I'm in Missouri not NY, but I'll recount the only situation where I've produced my daily carry which happened a couple of years ago, I was genuinely surprised by how it actually played out.

I had been right at a year without seeing or speaking to either of my sons. (Long story which needn't be told here, but basically I was forced into a divorce ten years ago that I did not want and the mother of my sons has done some unforgivable things in an attempt to destroy my relationship with them, thankfully unsuccessfully.)
The motivator for not having contact with them was a concerted effort on the part of their mother and her live in boyfriend.

I was on my way home from work and stopped at a Walgreens drug store near the house to pick up a couple of Arizona Sweet Teas for a buck. Walked in and to the cooler, grabbed them and walked back to check out. There are two check out isles opposite one another, and I realized that my oldest son and his mother's BF were in the isle behind me. Surprised since I'd not seen nor spoken with him for so long, I turned and said, "Well hello" to my son, at which point the BF simply exploded verbally yelling every curse word that I know at me at the top of his lungs. In disbelief I asked the BF what the hell his problem was, mind you this is the FIRST and only time that I have ever met the man face to face, Doing so only escalated his behavior. Without looking at me my son quietly said, " It's best just to leave Dad". I knew he was right because this fella was obviously wacko, and shaking my head I turned and apologized to the clerk and paid for my tea and left.

I got into my service van and began driving across the parking lot toward the exit at the traffic light in order to easily make a left turn with the afternoon traffic, what I always do with it being a regular stop on my way home from work. As I was driving across the lot on the only path that I could, my son and the BF were walking out of the store and he continued cursing at me, I simply said, "I love you Jim" , to my son at which point the BF ran toward my service van in a fury. He reached my window which was down obviously, at about the time that I had to stop at the light which was red.

He immediately grabbed the door handle as I slapped the lock down with my elbow which prevented him from opening the door, and began screaming for me to get out of the van because he was going to kick my arse, cursing with every other word. He then attempted to reach through the open window to grab the interior door handle at which point I pushed him back, he grabbed my arm and lifted me off the seat and against the seat belt before I was able to wrench it away from him, like he was going to try to drag me through the open window.
That was when I reached into my shirt and withdrew my daily carry from under my left arm as I sat back down in the drivers seat. I DID NOT point the pistol at him, I simply withdrew it from the holster and laid it on my right thigh and said to him that he needed to back away from the van which he somewhat did, though he never stopped his rant. I then took my eyes off of him for only a split second to turn to see if the light had changed from red and at that point he lunged forward and punched me on the left side of my face.
He did not hit me that hard, but hard enough to send my Bluetooth flying from my right ear across the van. He disappeared around the back of the van almost before I could turn my head to see where he'd gone, I just caught a glimpse of him in the mirror doing so as I turned back from looking out the window to where he had just stood.
Fortunately the light had turned green and I simply drove away a little stunned to say the least.

There is a small park on the mile and a half drive on toward my home where most afternoons there is a Saint Charles County Sherriff's deputy hanging out. I pulled into the lot and along side of his patrol car and asked if I could speak with him. He stepped out of his car and up to the van as he asked what was up. I first told him that I wanted him to know that I held a CCW license and that there was a handgun in the van, he asked where, and I told him that it was now in the engine hub console tray, he disregarded it and asked me again what was up. I told him that I had just been assaulted I suppose more or less and he agreed that he could see that it looked as if I'd taken a blow to the left side of my face.
As I explained the situation that had just unfolded to him, my son and the BF drove past and I pointed the vehicle out to him. I explained everything that had happened and at which point I had produced my pistol. His only question was whether or not I had pointed it at him to which I responded no. He was very relaxed and matter of fact about it all and asked me to follow him back to Walgreens and to wait outside while he went in to verify my story. He came back out and said that they verified my account of what had happened in the store and asked me what I wanted to do. I told him I wasn't sure what I should do at that point. He then contacted Saint Peters police as the store was not actually in his jurisdiction but theirs.
Two St. Peters officers arrived and he recounted the incident to them before they spoke to me. Again I immediately told them that I did have a handgun in the van and once again they didn't really seem to care since I had not actually pointed the handgun at the BF.

(I had been more distraught than I can verbally express over not having had any contact with my sons in the previous year. The whole situation had devastated me and consumed my every waking thought all day every day. That whole year I could not reason out what was going on, until that incident, that day. My sons were literally terrified of this man, understandably after what I'd just witnessed.)

Having had time to think about it all, I told the officers that I did not wish to press charges because I was afraid of possible repercussions to my sons over doing so, but thought it important to document the incident. I was afraid what a future meeting with this nutbag could bring and I told them that. I told them that my fear was that the situation could and probably would escalate further the next time and I could see myself in a situation where I may actually have to shoot him. One of the St. Peters officers responded, "Oh don't do that, it makes for waaay too much paperwork!" Both officers and the deputy laughed aloud when he said it.

That was it. I had a handgun on my person, I produced the handgun in an altercation of sorts, but never pointed it at my 'assailant' though he did see it, and none of the three officers involved from two law enforcement agencies really seemed to care much if they cared at all beyond whether or not I pointed it at him.
I was more than a little struck by that, I mean I understand it I suppose, but it struck me that they just didn't really seem to care.

I have never been in a situation like that before in my life and never care to be in one again. That nutbag is gone from their lives and has been for a couple of years thanks to a protection order that their mother filed against him, though I still have fears that one day he'll reappear. Had I known then what I do know now about what was actually going on, I would probably be spending the remainder of my days behind bars and not have the amazing relationship that I do once again share with both of my sons. Part of me is grateful that I didn't know what I do know now, part of me wishes that I had.

Jim

[Frank Ettin]

So let's start with an overview of the law related to the threat or use of force in self defense.

The important thing to remember at the outset of any discussion of the use of force in self defense is that our society has, for hundreds of years, frowned on threatening another human or intentionally hurting or killing another human. Threatening someone or intentionally hurting or killing him is prima facie (on its face) a crime everywhere. However, our laws have long recognized that under certain limited circumstances a threat or an actual act of violence may be excused or justified.

You won't have the final say about whether your act of violence was excusable or justified self defense. That decision will be made by others after the fact -- the prosecutor and/or a grand jury and/or, if you're unlucky, the jury at your trial.

So let's take a general, high level overview of use-of-force law in the United States.

But first the usual caveats: (1) I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer; (2) This is not legal advice, but rather it's general information on a legal topic; and (3) this is intended as a general overview without reference to the laws of any particular State, and as such it doesn't consider specific state laws that might allow justification of a use of force in some circumstance not mentioned here.

Now let's look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.

1. Our society takes a dim view of threatening or using force against and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the threat or use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
   
   
   1. However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
      
      
   2. Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.
      
      
   3. Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.
   
   
2. The amount of force an actor may justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.
   
   
   1. Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
      
      
      1. Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
         
         
      2. Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
         
         
      3. put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.
      
      
   2. "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."
      
      
   3. "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.
      
      
   4. "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.
      
      
   5. Unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.
      
      
   6. A threat of force or the use of force may be legally excused or justified only for the purposes of stopping the threat. Once the threat has ended, the continued threat or use of force can no longer be excused or justified and may result in criminal (and civil) liability.
   
   
3. If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
   
   
   1. Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
      
      
   2. If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
      
      
   3. Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
      
      
      1. Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
         
         
      2. In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
         
         
      3. It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
         
         
      4. It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.
   
   
4. Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
   
   
5. Sometimes a defensive use of lethal force will have grave consequences for the defender, even when ultimately exonerated. For example --
   
   
   • This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
     
     
   • Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
     
     
   • Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
     
     
   • Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
     
     
   • Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.
     
     
   • Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.
     
     
   • And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.

Now let's look at the issue of displaying a gun to intimidate, secure compliance or threaten.

We discussed in this thread the general issue of justifying a threat of force.

Basically displaying a weapon defensively is a matter of of legal justification.

The usual definition of assault, based on the Common Law is:

an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

In the laws of some States this crime might be given another name. For example, in Alabama it's called "menacing." But by whatever name it is called, it is a crime in every State.

So a display of a firearm, when done for the purposes of intimidation, or to secure compliance, or to convince someone to keep his distance, or in response to a perceived threat is, in all States, an assault of some type. You are effectively putting someone in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, i. e., getting shot.

Now in all States it will be a defense against a charge of assault (or any similar crime) if you establish that your assault satisfied the applicable legal standard for justification.

In most States the standard for justifying a threat of lethal force is the same as for justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In a few, it's a somewhat lesser standard. So in all States if you threaten lethal force you will need to be able to at least show prima facie such threat was legally justified, that is if you want to avoid a conviction for assault.

[g.willikers]

But to understand how the local police are trained, the "trigger points" (pun intended) that they themselves use to step-up their use of force would seem to be a good measure for us to know and to use if necessary for your own legal defense.

Sounds like good advice.
Hopefully we don't get so intimidated by the legal aspects of self defense that we forget the obvious - surviving the encounter.
The legalities won't matter if we're crippled or dead.
Ask any member of any police force about it.

[stonewall50]

Thanks guys. I think I got my answer. Obviously retreat is the best policy whenever possible. Calling the police too. My primary concern is if the guy escalates beyond and does Not allow those options due to aggression:/anger.