The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 7, 2014, 09:54 PM   #1
armed
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2013
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 22
Defensive Display, Brandishing, and Burst Presentation

This examines an instructor demonstrating a pre-emptive defensive display maneuver.

Threat Scenario

You are 5’9” male with a slim build weighing 155 lbs. You have issued verbal commands, “STOP STAY BACK”. There are pre-assault threat cues present but there is distance of 25 feet between you and the threat.There is no option for avoidance or cover. When you retreat 10 feet the threat advances 15 and the gap has now closed to 20 feet. You have reasonable belief that imminent death or great bodily harm is about to occur but no weapon is present (yet) except disparity in size.

To illustrate size and threat cues.

To countermeasure, the instructor demonstrates a "Burst Presentation" (don't laugh) by issuing verbal commands while simultaneously sweeping or lifting the cover garment, and obtaining a solid firing grip on the gun.

Threat leaves the scene w/o gun being drawn.

The Issues

There's disagreement amongst a group of instructors Some are advising this is Brandishing, as there's no provision for Defensive Display in Florida (a bill is pending- I think). Some believe this has no application, as standard protocol dictates that once you go for the gun you draw.

I believe events determine movement and the burst presentation is an appropriate countermeasure for the account given. My concern is the erroneous conception that this is somehow brandishing.

Your thoughts?

Last edited by armed; August 8, 2014 at 05:25 PM.
armed is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 10:17 PM   #2
jmtbiggin
Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2009
Location: effingham,sc
Posts: 39
I am curious as well. I never understood why "brandising" is bad if threat is nuetralized w/o harm. When I was a MP the last levels of force were presentation of deadly force,then finally use of deadly force. Presentation is a very effective deterrent taught by the Army.Curios to see what others opine
jmtbiggin is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 10:49 PM   #3
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by armed
....There's disagreement amongst a group of instructors Some are advising this is Brandishing, as there's no provision for Defensive Display in Florida (a bill is pending- I think). Some believe this has no application, as standard protocol dictates that once you go for the gun you draw.

I believe events determine movement and the burst presentation is an appropriate countermeasure for the account given. My main concern is the belief that this is brandishing....
Basically you're talking about displaying a weapon defensively, so it becomes a matter of legal justification.

The usual definition of assault, based on the Common Law is:
Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 04:47 AM   #4
armed
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2013
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Quote:
Originally Posted by armed
There's disagreement amongst a group of instructors Some are advising this is Brandishing, as there's no provision for Defensive Display in Florida (a bill is pending- I think). Some believe this has no application, as standard protocol dictates that once you go for the gun you draw.

I believe events determine movement and the burst presentation is an appropriate countermeasure for the account given. My concern is the erroneous conception that this is somehow brandishing.
Basically you're talking about displaying a weapon defensively…
I was talking about a 5’9” male with a slim build weighing 155 lbs who reasonably believed an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm existed, who had no means of retreat or cover and could not avoid the threat, who went for the draw to defend himself, and at the sight of a firing grip wrapped around his holstered gun the potential threat threw up his hands and ran away.

5’9” male is well read on FS 790.10 and could not have possibly “displayed a weapon defensively” since there’s no provision in FS 790.10 for “Defensive Display”.

Quote:
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
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.
Is that how the Threat Scenario reads to you, or are you just playing devils advocate?
armed is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 06:25 AM   #5
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Posted by armed: 5’9” male is well read on FS 790.10 and could not have possibly “displayed a weapon defensively” since there’s no provision in FS 790.10 for “Defensive Display”.
What do you think "not in necessary self-defense" means?

For that, look to 776.12:
Quote:
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.
Emphasis added.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 07:09 AM   #6
Mobuck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 2,394
If it never left the holster, how could it be "brandished" or displayed?
Mobuck is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 07:30 AM   #7
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Posted by Mobuck: If it never left the holster, how could it be "brandished" or displayed?
Well, you do not have to exhibit the entire firearm.

But as Frank pointed out, the real issue is not the misdemeanor firearms charge. It is the risk of a felony aggravated assault charge or something similar.

And one need not draw, or even show, the gun to run afoul of the law.

Marty Hayes has a pretty good video on the subject. You may have to get a premium subscription to the Personal Defense Network to see it. I would direct your attention to "even implying."

In the mean time, see this.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 08:41 AM   #8
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,553
The Personal Defense Network has a great video covering this, its about "Active Shooter Situations".

An example: Assume you're in a mall during an active shooter incident and are carrying.

First choice of course would be to "de de" the area. Baring that, if you arnt in immediate danger, you should hunker down and wait since few are trained to engage active shooters.

While hunkered down you should be prepared to either produce you weapon (if the bandit shows) or produce empty hands if LE shows.

You have a split second to make that decision and act.

The dangers of active shooting is, the bandit, the police, or some other private citizen with a gun. The bandit presents one danger. If you have you gun out then the LE or other CCW may take you as a threat.

Whats the answer. Presentation. You should be able to draw (from concealed carry) in less then 1/2 second.

Then you have the option during that period of producing a weapon or producing empty hands depending on who confronts you.

I pocket carry and by habit always have my hands in my pocket. It would be difficult to accuse me of brandishing but in fact I may be.

The thing is, no one knows but me.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 08:44 AM   #9
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 727
armed, I think Frank Ettin explained it well.

Also, the excerpt of the law you quoted specifically mentions self defense.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 09:28 AM   #10
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 20,015
When you put a hand on your gun, or draw your gun, you are certainly putting someone in fear of death or grievous bodily harm; that is the whole idea. If the aggressor weren't fearful of being killed or wounded, there would be no point in drawing the gun.

The question would be whether the circumstances are such that the person with the gun is justified in drawing/displaying it, and Frank Ettin covers that very well.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 09:36 AM   #11
madmo44mag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Ft.Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,163
I always have to ask; if you felt your life was in danger or perceived a possible threat to your person or life why would you worry about brandishing or showing a holstered firearm if it would defuse the problem?

I myself of 3 occasion know I prevented getting robed by doing nothing more than lifting my shirt and placing my hand on the butt of my pistol. The gun never left the holster.

Twice there were two youths and when the one facing me saw the gun he shouted to the one coming up from behind “GUN – HE HAS A GUN” and both jumped back in their car and sped away. The other time the perp approached me face on with what appeared to be a gun in his hoodie pocket; saw the gun and turned and ran.

I believe in an old saying “rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”
__________________
Texas - Not just a state but an attitude!
For monthly shooting events in DFW visit http://www.meetup.com/TexasGunOwner-DFW
madmo44mag is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 09:52 AM   #12
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Posted by James K: When you put a hand on your gun, or draw your gun, you are certainly putting someone in fear of death or grievous bodily harm; that is the whole idea. If the aggressor weren't fearful of being killed or wounded, there would be no point in drawing the gun.

The question would be whether the circumstances are such that the person with the gun is justified in drawing/displaying it, and Frank Ettin covers that very well.
Yes indeed.

The key word is justified.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 10:00 AM   #13
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Posted by madmo44mag: I always have to ask; if you felt your life was in danger or perceived a possible threat to your person or life why would you worry about brandishing or showing a holstered firearm if it would defuse the problem?
Simply because what you "felt" is not sufficient for justification. You have to provide at least some evidence supporting a basis for your having had a reasonable belief that the circumstances called for displaying the firearm. What is reasonable would be judged by others.

In Texas, one may lawfully draw a firearm for defense if one has reason to believe that force is justified. In many other states, the threshold is deadly force.

Quote:
I myself of 3 occasion know I prevented getting robed by doing nothing more than lifting my shirt and placing my hand on the butt of my pistol. The gun never left the holster.

Twice there were two youths and when the one facing me saw the gun he shouted to the one coming up from behind “GUN – HE HAS A GUN” and both jumped back in their car and sped away. The other time the perp approached me face on with what appeared to be a gun in his hoodie pocket; saw the gun and turned and ran.
The problem arises when they or someone else report the incident before you do and can describe how you carry your gun. That has happened.

Quote:
I believe in an old saying “rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”
That's a neat cliche, but don't put too much stock in it.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 10:02 AM   #14
.22lr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2007
Posts: 239
Quote:
There are pre-assault threat cues present
I'm pretty sure not a single one of those cues (presented in the video) would qualify in court as a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury. Walking towards someone while being told to stop doesn't seem to qualify either. It seems that further retreat is the best option.

And, as always, I will continue to hold Mr Ettin's words in high regard.
.22lr is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 10:24 AM   #15
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by armed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Quote:
Originally Posted by armed
There's disagreement amongst a group of instructors Some are advising this is Brandishing, as there's no provision for Defensive Display in Florida (a bill is pending- I think). Some believe this has no application, as standard protocol dictates that once you go for the gun you draw.

I believe events determine movement and the burst presentation is an appropriate countermeasure for the account given. My concern is the erroneous conception that this is somehow brandishing.
Basically you're talking about displaying a weapon defensively…
I was talking about a 5’9” male with a slim build weighing 155 lbs who reasonably believed an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm existed, who had no means of retreat or cover and could not avoid the threat, who went for the draw to defend himself, and at the sight of a firing grip wrapped around his holstered gun the potential threat threw up his hands and ran away.

5’9” male is well read on FS 790.10 and could not have possibly “displayed a weapon defensively” since there’s no provision in FS 790.10 for “Defensive Display”.

Quote:
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
OldMarksman, in post 5, answered you drawing our attention to certain language in FS 790.10 and by pointing out FS 776.12. But let's also look again at FS 790.10 (emphasis added):
Quote:
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
So an element of crime described in 790.10 is that the weapon is not displayed in necessary self defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by armed
...Is that how the Threat Scenario reads to you,...
I'm not responding to the Scenario. I'm discussing general legal principles that apply to the use of, or the threat of the use of, force.

And in general terms a legal defense to a charge of any crime the elements of which include the use of force or the threat of the use of force would be that the use or threat was justified. The legal standards for justification may vary, and in any such situation whether or not those standards for justification have been met becomes a pivotal issue.

That principle is reflected in both FS 790.10 and 776.12.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 10:35 AM   #16
madmo44mag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Ft.Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,163
To Oldmarkman

Not trying to be a wise arse here ok.
Have you ever been mugged, robbed, or shot during a robbery?

I’ve been mugged twice, robbed 3 times, and shot once during a robbery.
This was long before Texas allowed CCW.

I’d much rather take my chance is court that a visit to the undertaker!

Now with that said I gave the readers digest version of what happened.
I feel I could easily defend myself based on the circumstances.

My main point is simple.
If you feel a threat is eminent don’t hesitate.
That hesitation could cost you your life or property.

I understand that may perception my not match a courts perception but is it worth risking your life?
__________________
Texas - Not just a state but an attitude!
For monthly shooting events in DFW visit http://www.meetup.com/TexasGunOwner-DFW
madmo44mag is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 10:50 AM   #17
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmo44mag
...I understand that may perception my not match a courts perception but is it worth risking your life?
But please understand clearly that our purpose here is to give people tools which can help them survive both on the street and in the legal system.

So ignoring the legal standards for justification will not further our purposes here. And if your view of matters is at odds with the legal standards and how a court is likely to see things, we will point that out for the benefit of others.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 10:52 AM   #18
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,030
Quote:
Posted by madmo44mag: Now with that said I gave the readers digest version of what happened.
I feel I could easily defend myself based on the circumstances.
Good.

This has ben discussed here an on other boards before, and it is a point made by the best known istructors, and it is covered in the link provided in Post 7: "As in any use of force incident involving self-defense, it is very important to be the first to report the incident to the police. One more time: if you ever pull your gun on anyone for any reason, it is very important to be the first to report the incident to the police."

Failure to do so can destroy your defense.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 11:02 AM   #19
madmo44mag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Ft.Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,163
Agreed, calling the cops 1st is a must.
Its best they get your story 1st.

Too add:

To Frank

I understand all too well.
Under stress your perception may not always be in line with that of a court or the literal intent of the law.
This is part of the tight rope a person has to walk when carrying a firearm.
Those perceptions may not always be right but not acting on them could be lethal.
You MUST know the laws and limitations under your CCW permit.
My point being; know the law, understand it but don’t be so afraid of the law that fear of prosecution puts your life or a loved one life in jeopardy.

To the OP question I know that the display of a holster gun prevented a situation.
Is that brandishing?
I think that could be argued both ways but what matters is, you walked away unhurt.
If you are prosecuted then you have to prove to the court you were justified.
__________________
Texas - Not just a state but an attitude!
For monthly shooting events in DFW visit http://www.meetup.com/TexasGunOwner-DFW

Last edited by madmo44mag; August 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM.
madmo44mag is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 11:04 AM   #20
tirod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,232
What an LEO is required to do, and trained to accomplish, vs what the citizen can do, are two different areas of responsibility and can have different courses of action.

Is his opponent identical in build, larger, or smaller? What sex? Lots of things are still in the air in determining whether brandishing has occurred to menace the opponent, or simply even up a disparity in force. "Threat" is completely undefined, when that is precisely what determines brandishing. Not the gun.

The differences in the instructor's opinions are exactly why a judge would take all that in as evidence in weighing a determination in a truly fair trial. The scenario as described doesn't tell us enough, which is the point. If it did, then we'd likely all be in agreement.

More specific information might spoil the discussion, tho.

Insert the following and see where it goes:

Homeless guy scrounging for aluminum cans after dark.
Teenager stealing a beer dispenser for his new bong.
Female who got lost looking for the air hose who is now in Red trying to escape.

Taking just the defensive cues as presented and discarding the grappling scene as not part of the printed setting, there's still too many variables to determine brandishing or not. It's dependent on WHO you present the gun to, and WHY you were there at all.

Got lost looking for the air hose, too.
Looking to steal what you can, and found the store owner back there.
Taking a jog after work thru that part of town and trying to avoid the large gang of thugs out front.

Now we have six different situations where it would or wouldn't be brandishing.
tirod is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 12:02 PM   #21
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 20,015
One of the problems for armed citizens is that police officers not only have more training and more authority, but they have more alternatives. A police officer typically carries not just a handgun, but also a slapjack, a gas spray and/or an electronic stun gun. In most jurisdictions in the U.S. there is no legal way to carry or use (or sometimes even own) any of those except the handgun. The police officer also has a radio permanently connected to the police system; there is no need to "dial" a cell phone and wait for an operator if he/she needs backup.

So the citizen has only one option in self defense, the use of deadly force. For that reason, the citizen must be sure that the use of deadly force is necessary and justified. A person facing an immediate threat of death or GBH should not have to spend a lot of time considering the legal aspects, but part of his/her training should be the recognition of an actual threat vs an overactive imagination.

In Detroit, a man was convicted of second degree murder in a killing that should not have happened. Put bluntly, he used his gun instead of his brain.

There may be times when firing the gun is the only alternative. But it almost never needs to be automatic or done without thought. There may be situations where there is no alternative and the decision to fire has to be instantaneous. But those situations are certainly rare; the more normal case involves some time to consider the action to be taken and to assess the real need for deadly force.

Another problem for the citizen is that there is no real way to detain a suspected criminal. The citizen can draw a gun to stop an attack on himself/herself or on another innocent person, but cannot "hold" the alleged attacker. The "bad guy" can simply walk away laughing, and it will be illegal to shoot him or even fire at him, since the immediate threat is over.

(Yes, I know about citizens' arrest. I also know that if it is not done "by the book", Miranda warning and all, the alleged criminal will walk and the citizen can be sued for illegal detention.)

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 02:05 PM   #22
DannyB1954
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2013
Location: Pahrump Nv USA
Posts: 459
Probably best to take the fifth. I would like to cooperate with you officer, but I do not believe that I violated any laws, and would like to speak with an attorney before any questioning. Bad guys keep quiet and are often not charged with a crime due to lack of evidence. Good guys think that they have to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is often determined to be a confession. As an example you go to court for a speeding ticket and say I had to step on the gas to avoid being hit by a semi truck loaded with steel coming right at me. The judge says, so then you have admitted to me you were speeding.


If there were witnesses, they should be able to state that you gave fair warning to a perceived threat. If there are no witnesses, who says you put your hand on your gun?

or

In my state open carry is legal. I just decided to open carry. I made certain that my gun was firmly seated in it's holster after I uncovered it.

There is a thing called the 21 foot rule. It says someone with a knife at 21 feet away can harm you before you get your gun out. Some experts now feel that it should be called the 40 foot rule.

Quote:
That hesitation could cost you your life or property.
Do not try to defend property with lethal force. This may be allowable in Texas, but just about everywhere else if you shoot someone trying to steal property, you are going to be in serious trouble.

Last edited by DannyB1954; August 8, 2014 at 02:42 PM.
DannyB1954 is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 03:31 PM   #23
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyB1954
Probably best to take the fifth. I would like to cooperate with you officer, but I do not believe that I violated any laws, and would like to speak with an attorney before any questioning....
Not necessarily the best idea if you are claiming self defense. Your fallacy was discussed extensively in this thread and in this thread.

As I outlined in this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Yes, we have a right to remain silent. But there will often be a question of when to invoke that right, and when to speak up. If we witness a crime, should we not report it. If we witness a crime, should we not cooperate with a proper investigation.

But this issue usually comes up when we might be involved in an incident. And even then. silence might or might not be the best idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James K
I am not an attorney, but I suspect johnelmore is not, either. You do have a legal (and moral) obligation to cooperate with investigating officers up to the point of an arrest (Miranda warning) or to the point where you believe you are being treated as a suspect.

Obviously, if you shoot someone on the street, your best course is to not answer anything other than name and address without an attorney present. But the idea that you should never talk to the police except through an attorney is absurd. If johnelmore had seen one of the Boston bombers dropping his backpack, would he refuse to give the police a description without an attorney present? I hope not.
I am an attorney. But I'm not your attorney. I'm not giving legal advice. I'm providing comment on a legal topic based on my training and experience. So --

Keeping Silent Isn't the Best Idea in a Self Defense Matter

But Don't Say Too Much.

Call 911. Be the first to report the incident and do so immediately. If you don't report it, or if there's a long delay, you will appear to have a guilty conscience.

Then, having taken LFI-I with Massad Ayoob, spending time with him and helping with a class of his in Sierra Vista, AZ not too long ago, I'll go along with his recommendation for when the police arrive.

[1] While one has a right to remain silent, clamming up is what the bad guys do. Following a self defense incident, you'll want to act like one of the good guys. You also won't want the investigating officers to miss any evidence or possible witnesses. What if the responding officers miss your assailant's knife that you saw fall down the storm drain? What if they don't know about the guy you saw pick up your assailant's gun and walk off with it?

[2] At the same time, you don't want to say too much. You will most likely be rattled. You will also most likely be suffering from various well known stress induced distortions of perception.

[3] So Massad Ayoob recommends:
  • Saying something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.
  • Saying something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).
  • Pointing out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.
  • Pointing out possible witnesses before they vanish.
  • Then saying something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."

Pleading Self Defense is Very Different From the Common Lines of Defense to a Criminal Charge.

A lot of folks point to the "Don't Talk to the Police" video that is making the rounds on gun boards. But it is about a police contact in general. It works fine when you aren't claiming self defense, and it's up to the State to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But things work differently if you are pleading self defense.

Basically --

[1] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.

[2] Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

[3] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

Let's go through that again.

In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

So in such cases, it probably doesn't pay for you to say anything to the police, at least early on. Let them do the work of trying to amass evidence to prove the case against you. There's no reason for you to help.

But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of what would, absent legal justification, constitute a crime. You will necessarily admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified.

So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the more convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.
And people need to understand that sometimes what you don't say can be used against you too. The Supreme Court has ruled that one may be asked questions in under circumstances not amounting to a custodial interrogation, and one's silence in response to such questioning may be used by the prosecution (Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246, Supreme Court 2013).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyB1954
...If there were witnesses, they should be able to state that you gave fair warning to a perceived threat. If there are no witnesses, who says you put your hand on your gun?...
Why? What do you know about eyewitness psychology?

In fact, the unreliability of eye witnesses is well studied and well known. See, for example the article "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony" as published in the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies. An eyewitness might easily conclude that you were the assailant and that you threatened an innocent man with your gun.

And even if there are no third party witnesses, there will always be a witness besides you -- the guy you threatened with your gun.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 03:42 PM   #24
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyB1954
...There is a thing called the 21 foot rule. It says someone with a knife at 21 feet away can harm you before you get your gun out. Some experts now feel that it should be called the 40 foot rule....
It's a myth to call it a "rule." It is not any kind of a rule.

Dennis Tueller (a Salt Lake City police officer) developed the exercise to test at what distances an assailant with a contact weapon could be a credible threat. But folks seem perversely want not to understand the real meaning of the Tueller data (and it is not a "rule").

The point Tueller was trying to make with his exercises is that an assailant 21(+/-) feet away with a contact weapon needs to be taken seriously as a threat. You need to take him seriously as a threat because (1) he can cover the distance between you and him in a short time; and (2) it will take you a roughly comparable amount of time to draw and fire your gun.

Tueller's original article may be read here. Notice that Tueller talks about how being able to recognize what your danger zone is and that someone in it is a credible threat allows one to take early, appropriate defensive, risk mitigating actions.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 04:46 PM   #25
armed
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2013
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by .22lr
I'm pretty sure not a single one of those cues (presented in the video) would qualify in court as a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury. Walking towards someone while being told to stop doesn't seem to qualify either. It seems that further retreat is the best option.
Really? Tell that to to a petite female, or madmo44mag. Also, you misread the threat scenario. It stated “There is no option for avoidance…” meaning, he couldn’t retreat. And you downplayed the event. The threat was not just “walking towards someone while being told to stop…” The potential victim yelled “STOP STAY BACK” and withdrew 10 feet from the threat, at which point the threat continued to advance, moving another 5 feet closer (as in closing with the enemy for a climax of attack).

Quote:
Originally Posted by .22lr
And, as always, I will continue to hold Mr Ettin's words in high regard.
While I commend you on the respectful reverence, you should always consider contrasting parallels; Respectful Irreverence


Quote:
Originally Posted by tirod
The scenario as described doesn't tell us enough, which is the point. If it did, then we'd likely all be in agreement.
I believe the scenario gives the gist...If not, then identify the gaps and I’d be happy to fill them in.

I believe we are in agreement, it’s just that we tend to muddy the waters that surround self-defense, an area already filled with fantasy and fiction. It’s folks who haven't walked in madmo44mag’s shoes that indoctrinate and confuse conceal carriers, especially the novice, with minutia. It’s about raising legal issues, that are connected but obsolete to the main one, for the sake of unnecessary caution. So it’s not disagreement…it’s about all the extraneous bull, that arouses fear and alarm, that then become matters of dispute.

That said, I’d like to get back on topic.

This is about a tactical maneuver, a “Burst Presentation”. It’s a managed maneuver that directs you to erupt suddenly, to acquire a proper firing grip, in preparation for the draw. That’s it.

It is designed to show someone who is unarmed, but who you believe intends to inflict grave bodily harm or death, that you possess superior firepower, and that you will use it if they don’t comply with your demands.

There are some that have cautioned, erroneously I believe, that I’m instructing my clients on Brandishing and/or a Defensive Display of a firearm. My argument - it’s neither.

If you have arguments for or against this methodology, or if you think I should add or delete context, or if better criteria should be laid down for distinguishing this maneuver, or for whatever reasons…let's discuss them.

Your thoughts.

Last edited by armed; August 8, 2014 at 05:31 PM.
armed is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15984 seconds with 7 queries