Parking lot incident

[OldMarksman]

Like I said, he got out of the car and started banging on the window. assault. period.

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

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

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

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

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

[noelf2]

Do you think that constituted an attack? If so, why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zilmo]

UPDATE!!!

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

Scott

Gosh. That's really funny.

[MLeake]

So, if you point a weapon at somebody, you have to have an affirmative defense.

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

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

[noelf2]

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

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

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

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

[scottaschultz]

Yes, MG got out safe... this time!

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

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

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

Scott

[MLeake]

... and generally speaking, they did not result in great bodily harm to either side. Black eyes, bloody noses, cut lips, etc, yes, but no serious bodily harm and no death.

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

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

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

Something here just does not compute.

[MLeake]

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

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

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

[noelf2]

what could have happened after MG drew his .380

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

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

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

[MLeake]

Which you either failed to comprehend, or intentionally chose to disregard.

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

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

[scottaschultz]

From noelf2: Are we sure it was a 380? Or are we guessing?

From the very first post:

From Microgunner: I drew my KetTec P3AT...

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

Scott

[noelf2]

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

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

[noelf2]

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

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

[scottaschultz]

From noelf2: Seriously, I thought I read this whole thread and didn't see that it was a 380.

Then I guess you jumped in some time after the initial posting!

Scott

[noelf2]

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

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

[eclipsetactical]

If we can get this thread to stretch 100 pages long......lolz

[alloy]

If we can get this thread to stretch 100 pages long

Will throw in my .02 for the 100 page cause

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

[eclipsetactical]

Tear gas gernade out the window then roll up the window. Fox Labs makes tear gas gernades we can get from our vendor, says law enforcement use only though lol.

[Master Blaster]

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

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

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

[alloy]

Tear gas gernade out the window then roll up the window

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

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

[noelf2]

Seems like some pepper spray would have been ideal.

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

[OldMarksman]

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

What the law does say is that...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OP believed he was in imminent peril.

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

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

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

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

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

We agree on that.

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

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


__________________

[scottaschultz]

Posted by noelf2: Didn't seem likely that the scenario could reach your imagined conclusion given the OPs description.

Why do most of us chose to carry a concealed weapon? It is precisely because we never know who is carrying a weapon or how they intend to use it. BG's don't walk around with T-shirts saying, "I have a gun! Don't make me angry or I will use it on you!"

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

Scott

[noelf2]

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

What if it read like this:

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

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

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

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

[noelf2]

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

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