When to use lethal force?

[SatCong]

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]

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/...ayes-SDLaw.pdf

pax

[raimius]

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]

I agree with Ramius.

[clemsonbloz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

Originally Posted by Florida Statute 790.10

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]

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]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

"" 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

""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]

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]

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]

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.).