If You Draw You Must Shoot

[K_Mac]

I am always baffled by the ​idea that if a weapon is drawn, it must be used. Yes, drawing a gun indicates the willingness to use deadly force. Sometimes that willingness will stop the aggression. At this point a decision to fire is not justifiable as self-defense. How would one justify killing another person under that circumstance?

[Bluecthomas]

I've always of the school of thought that threatening with a gun is just asking the other person to go get a gun and use it...

But shooting someone in the back is NOT self defense.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Bluecthomas

But shooting someone in the back is NOT self defense.

Not even if the "someone" has just murdered someone, and has multiple guns in a crowded location where your wife is sitting next to you?

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=586525

[Lohman446]

Let me clarify, I will not draw unless I am certain there is no other way to prevent certain injury or death. Under those circumstances firing is justified and I will because I have no other choice. I will not draw unless there is no other option. If I draw under any other condition then I am not justified so I shouldn't have drawn. If I do then under Florida law could be charged with a felony and imprisoned thus loosing my tight to carry. I will not draw unnecessarily. By not drawing I get to retain my rights.

I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that one should brandish a firearm willy nilly.

However the statement that I will only draw if it is justified (no other way to prevent injury or death) does not equate to I must shoot if I draw.

If in the process of drawing your firearm the threat stops you are no longer justified in shooting. You were justified in drawing as the threat was ongoing but the moment it stops is the moment your application of force must stop.

For the record I was taught you do not have to necessarily draw the gun to be in danger of brandishment charges. Any threatening movement that reveals the presence of a weapon is enough (and assault charges do not require the presence of a weapon).

I was further taught that when presented with justification for a shooting you must first:

Reveal the presence of a firearm (the beginning of a draw stroke)
Draw your firearm (actually clearing the holster)
Commit assault with a deadly weapon (the aiming, pointing, or waiving of your firearm)
Warn your attacker you will shoot (though this step is allowed to be skipped if doing so will present further unnecessary danger to yourself)
Commit attempted murder / murder with a firearm (the pulling of the trigger regardless if the shot was intended to hit or not or if it hits or not)

If at any point your attacker ceases to present the justification for the use of deadly force you must cease to escalate. Granted these things may take seconds or fractions of a second but you may not shoot simply because one second before you had the justification if that justification has ceased.

[Don P]

Let me clarify, I will not draw unless I am certain there is no other way to prevent certain injury or death. Under those circumstances firing is justified and I will because I have no other choice. I will not draw unless there is no other option. If I draw under any other condition then I am not justified so I shouldn't have drawn. If I do then under Florida law could be charged with a felony and imprisoned thus loosing my tight to carry. I will not draw unnecessarily. By not drawing I get to retain my rights

My thoughts and opinion being a firearms instructor and continuing my education in the field. You should give deep honest consideration about not carrying a concealed weapon. You have to understand that if the attacker breaks off the attack and proceeds to flee the scene after seeing you and your gun that the threat has ceased therefore there is NO REASON TO SHOOT. It correlates to chasing a robber out of a place of business into the streets and gunning him/she down. YOU WILL BE charged with murder. They have fled the scene and the THREAT IS OVER
The same as folks stating that if someone breaks into their home the have the right to shoot and kill them. The castle doctrine does not make ones home an execution chamber

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let me clarify, I will not draw unless I am certain there is no other way to prevent certain injury or death. Under those circumstances firing is justified and I will because I have no other choice.

I think the part you are failing to either acknowledge or understand (leading to criticism) is that unless there is no time gap between your decision and your acting on that decision (i.e. unless you are superhuman), the circumstances justifying use of deadly force can change in the time span between your decision to draw and actually drawing the weapon.

People have gone to trial because the first shot was justified; but there was an arguable case that the second shot fired a half second or less later was not. Corcumstances can change very quickly.

So the idea that you MUST shoot if you draw is flawed. Even in terms of establishing a proper mindset, I'd argue it is a bad generalization.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Minorcan

In Florida brandishing a firearm can be agravated assault with a deadly weapon is a felony and has a minimum three year sentence. Don't draw unless you have to which translates to must shoot. I said that if I draw I must and will shoot. Many thought I was an idiot . In fact many locals have similar laws.

Originally Posted by Minorcan

Let me clarify, I will not draw unless I am certain there is no other way to prevent certain injury or death. Under those circumstances firing is justified and I will because I have no other choice. I will not draw unless there is no other option. If I draw under any other condition then I am not justified so I shouldn't have drawn. If I do then under Florida law could be charged with a felony and imprisoned thus loosing my tight to carry. I will not draw unnecessarily. By not drawing I get to retain my rights.

What you seem to be missing is that the involvement of a firearm is, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., considered to be using deadly force -- whether or not you actually fire the gun. In your first post you stated that many locals (I think you meant locales) have "similar" laws -- which I took to mean that you think there are places that don't allow the use of a gun other than to actually shoot someone.

In reality, the laws I have reviewed (which certainly does not include every state or every jurisdiction) generally address not "shooting" but the use of deadly (or "lethal") force. In many of them, simply drawing -- and in some cases just putting your hand on a holstered gun -- is deemed to be the use of deadly force, whether or not you shoot. So once you draw, you have employed deadly force in self defense. If simply showing the gun defuses or deescalates the confrontation and the threat goes away -- why would you then have to shoot? More to the point, since you propose that "many" locations require you to shoot if you draw -- please post even one reference to such a law.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Mr. Roberts is correct. The American Rifleman discussed a case where a few seconds delay to the follow up shot led to a charge of premeditated murder.

[buckhorn_cortez]

For the record I was taught you do not have to necessarily draw the gun to be in danger of brandishment charges. Any threatening movement that reveals the presence of a weapon is enough (and assault charges do not require the presence of a weapon).

You do realize that this generalization is not applicable in all states. In the state where I live, there are no laws defining brandishing. Therefore, you cannot be "in danger of brandishment charges" because there is no law to be broken.

How do you make a threatening movement that reveals a weapon? If you reveal a gun that is being carried concealed in the state where I live, there's no problem as the gun simply becomes open carried and that is legal as it is covered under the State's constitution.

Whole lot of generalization being passed off as being facts that can be ubiquitously applied.

My point is that you need to know the laws of the state where you live, and the laws where you live don't necessarily apply to everyone else in other states.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by buckhorn cortez

You do realize that this generalization is not applicable in all states. In the state where I live, there are no laws defining brandishing. Therefore, you cannot be "in danger of brandishment charges" because there is no law to be broken.

How do you make a threatening movement that reveals a weapon? If you reveal a gun that is being carried concealed in the state where I live, there's no problem as the gun simply becomes open carried and that is legal as it is covered under the State's constitution.

I respectfully offer that I am not convinced. A state that doesn't define "brandishing" may well define "threatening," and may do so in terms that are general enough that it includes any action intended to instill fear in another person. Under such a definition, while open carry per se might or might not qualify, peeling back a cover garment and placing a hand on the grip of a holstered firearm could very well lead to a charge of threatening. Maybe you could beat it in court, maybe not. You'd still be paying a lawyer.

My point is that you need to know the laws of the state where you live, and the laws where you live don't necessarily apply to everyone else in other states.

Agreed 110%.

[OldMarksman]

We do have a sticky on the subject that addresses moist of the points raised here:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=536596

[Lohman446]

You do realize that this generalization is not applicable in all states.

Yes. Hence the caveat "I was taught" immediately preceding the statement. This little statement is important in language because it establishes my statement is based on what I was taught and is not necessarily a factual representation of reality.

Whole lot of generalization being passed off as being facts that can be ubiquitously applied.

If a reader generalizes a statement that I specified was based only on what I was taught the fault is with that reader. I only make the statement as a matter of fact - it was, in fact, what I was taught. The accuracy of that teaching should be considered and weighed by the reader as to how it fits his or her situation.

My point is that you need to know the laws of the state where you live, and the laws where you live don't necessarily apply to everyone else in other states.

I would not disagree

[OldMarksman]

If you reveal a gun that is being carried concealed in the state where I live, there's no problem as the gun simply becomes open carried and that is legal as it is covered under the State's constitution.

One who acts upon that belief just might be in for a most unpleasant surprise.

From the sticky posted above:

This can become a question of why, and under what circumstances, you are displaying your gun.

If you are you displaying your gun to intimidate someone, to assure that someone keeps his distance or leaves, to secure his compliance, etc., your display could well be seen as a threat. And that sure seems to be your most likely purpose in displaying your gun, at least as you've posed the question. Or are you suggesting that you're displaying your holstered gun just so someone can admire the craftsmanship of your fancy grips?

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

So a display of a firearm or telling someone you have a gun, when done for the purposes of intimidation, 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.

[JoeSixpack]

My thoughts and opinion being a firearms instructor and continuing my education in the field. You should give deep honest consideration about not carrying a concealed weapon. You have to understand that if the attacker breaks off the attack and proceeds to flee the scene after seeing you and your gun that the threat has ceased therefore there is NO REASON TO SHOOT. It correlates to chasing a robber out of a place of business into the streets and gunning him/she down. YOU WILL BE charged with murder.

Depends on the state, In Ohio you'd be right, lethal force can only be used to protect life, although reasonable force can be used to protect property.

In Texas you can use lethal force to protecting property.. infact it does no even need to be YOUR property.. check out the case of Joe Horn many years back.

The same as folks stating that if someone breaks into their home the have the right to shoot and kill them. The castle doctrine does not make ones home an execution chamber

Really all castle doctrine does is change your disposition in a SD case from presumed guilty (prove self defense) to presumed innocent (have to prove murder)

CD Really just make the burden on the state and removes things like duty to retreat.. typically your home and car.

some states castle doctrine laws go a bit further, provide other protections.
Like CD in Ohio also added relief for getting your weapon back after a shooting.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JoeSixpack

...In Texas you can use lethal force to protecting property.. infact it does no even need to be YOUR property.. check out the case of Joe Horn many years back.....

No, you're wrong. It's much more complicated than that. Bartholomew Roberts, a member here and a lawyer in Texas has clarified things --

• Here:

  Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

  
  

  So if you live in Texas and want to shoot someone over your neighbor's property, you need to first at least meet the following conditions:
  
  1. The neighbor must be in lawful possession of the property.
  2. The property must be land or tangible, movable property.
  3. You must reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to stop the interference with the property.
  4. The other person has no claim of right to the property.
  5. The crime being prevented is arson, burglarly, robbery, theft during nighttime or criminal mischief during nightime.
  6. You must reasonably believe the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by other means OR using less force would expose you to substantial risk of death or serious injury.
  
  When those conditions are met, THEN you just need to meet all the conditions in Sec. 9.43....

• And here:

  Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

  
  Here are the Texas statutes that justify the use of deadly force in defense of property:
  
  

  The biggest issue I see off the top of my head is that stealing a potted plant from your neighbor's yard is theft. Under Texas law, deadly force may only be used to prevent the imminent commission of theft during the nighttime or prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after the theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property....

You're also wrong about Joe Horn. His case wasn't about protection of property. It was about self defense:

...Police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett, a spokesman for the Pasadena Police Department, stated that the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and that one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before angling away from Horn toward the street when the suspect was shot in the back. The medical examiner's report could not specify whether they were shot in the back due to the ballistics of the shotgun wound.⁷ Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into Horn's front yard. The plain clothes detective did not arrest Horn....

Originally Posted by JoeSixpack

...Really all castle doctrine does is change your disposition in a SD case from presumed guilty (prove self defense) to presumed innocent (have to prove murder)....

That's also not accurate. See this thread.

[JoeSixpack]

No, you're wrong. It's much more complicated than that. Bartholomew Roberts, a member here and a lawyer in Texas has clarified things --

He left his house to engage the men to protect property.

None the less that action will get you charged in Ohio.

That's also not accurate. See this thread.

ME

Really all castle doctrine does is change your disposition in a SD case from presumed guilty (prove self defense) to presumed innocent (have to prove murder)

Thread

The basic principle is that someone who is in his or own house is given certain presumptions regarding the justification of the use of force against an unlawful intruder that would not apply somewhere else.

ME

CD Really just make the burden on the state and removes things like duty to retreat.. typically your home and car.

Thread

Provisions vary from one jurisdiction to another. In general, however, "castle doctrine" laws and rulings do the following:

They provide a resident or his or her guest with a presumption that an unlawful entry by an intruder gives the occupant reason to believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; that belief is one of the fundamental requirements of a defense of justification for the use of deadly force;
they establish clearly that, once the conditions for justification have been met, there is no duty to retreat within or from the domicile in the event of an attack by an unlawful intruder.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JoeSixpack

He left his house to engage the men to protect property.

None the less that action will get you charged in Ohio.

Again, you don't understand.

Joe Horn was exonerated by the grand jury in Texas because the evidence of an eye witness supported the inference that he was physically threatened by two, armed persons.

I won't offer an opinion on whether or not the same facts would yield a different result, but manifestly you're not qualified to.

Originally Posted by JoeSixpack

ME

Thread

Again, you don't understand.

One isn't presumed innocent under a Castle Doctrine law. One ratder has the benefit of a presumption, if certain conditions are met, that one element needed to support a claim of justification has been satisfied. Here's how I explain the Castle Doctrine law in Florida:

...II. How a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law Can Help

Since this particular case arose in Florida, we'll look specifically at Florida law. However, all the self defense/Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws I've looked at are pretty similar.

[1] In general, under Florida law the use of lethal force can be justified as provided in Title XLVI Florida Statutes, Section 776.012:

[2] So if you claim your use of lethal force in self defense was justified, you will at least need to put forth evidence that the requirements of 776.012 were satisfied.

[3] The Florida's Castle Doctrine/Stand You Ground law at Section 776.013 helps by providing, among other things:

[3] A presumption is a rule that affects evidence and burden of proof in court. Ordinarily, one who asserts something in court will have the burden of proving, by presenting good evidence, that certain facts supporting that assertion are true. But sometimes the law might allow one of those facts to be accepted as true without specific evidence of that fact if the party with the burden of proof shows that certain other facts are true. So the party might be entitled under a rule of law to have fact A presumed to be true if facts B, C, and D are shown to be true, even if the party produces no direct evidence that fact A is true.

[4] So you can establish that your use of lethal force was justified, thus satisfying 776.012, if --

1. You can show that
   
   
   1. The person you used force against was, "...in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will..."; and
      
      
   2. You, "...knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred...."
   
   
2. None of the exceptions in 776.013(2) apply.

And if you can do that, you don't have to specifically establish that you believed, "...that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself...."

[5] But note that you don't get the presumption automatically. You need to show that the conditions that create the presumption exist. That might be easier than showing a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, but you still must do some work to establish your claim of justification.

[6] And in the law, any available presumption is rebuttable. That means that even though one may be entitled to the benefit of a presumption as to a certain fact, the other side may try to prove that fact is not actually true. So, for example, even if you might have been entitled to a presumption that you were reasonably in fear for your life, the prosecutor could put on evidence and try to show that under the particular circumstances, a reasonable person could not have been reasonably in fear for his life.

III. The Bottom Line

Every Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law has conditions, in general similar to those under the Florida statute, that you will need to show have been satisfied in order to be protected under those laws.

These are technical issues. Please avoid the temptation of trying to play lawyer when you aren't one. The details matter.

[Minorcan]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca - What you seem to be missing is that the involvement of a firearm is, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., considered to be using deadly force -- whether or not you actually fire the gun. In your first post you stated that many locals (I think you meant locales) have "similar" laws -- which I took to mean that you think there are places that don't allow the use of a gun other than to actually shoot someone.

In reality, the laws I have reviewed (which certainly does not include every state or every jurisdiction) generally address not "shooting" but the use of deadly (or "lethal") force. In many of them, simply drawing -- and in some cases just putting your hand on a holstered gun -- is deemed to be the use of deadly force, whether or not you shoot. So once you draw, you have employed deadly force in self defense. If simply showing the gun defuses or deescalates the confrontation and the threat goes away -- why would you then have to shoot? More to the point, since you propose that "many" locations require you to shoot if you draw -- please post even one reference to such a law.

Yes I did mean "locales". The issue is many people recommend drawing to prevent escalation. The laws in many states, Florida is one, is if you draw for a reason other than prevention of bodily harm or death then you are not justified and such display can be a felony with a minimum three year sentence. Advising people to draw when drawing can result in a felony charge is not wise.

The other part of this is you are taking my statement that if I draw I must shoot as meaning there is a law that says if a person draws then they must shoot. That is not what I said or meant. The law says if you draw and didn't shoot then you can/may be charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Again, the only time I will draw is when it is justified, if it is justified I must fire or suffer bodily harm or death.

For example in a road rage incident, one person is an aggressor and threatens another person but doesn't draw a weapon. The person being threatened gets ticked of to the point of drawing a firearm, the other person starts backing away. Many may think that the drawing of the firearm prevented an attack. The PDA may not see it that way. The person that drew his firearm has now become the aggressor and the person that started the threatening behavior was the aggressor but he has now become threatened party or the possible intended victim. The initial agreesor can call the police and file a complaint. When they investigate they find the initial aggressor didn't have a weapon and the person that drew obviously did. Who do you think will go to jail? It will be the person that drew when it was not justified. He will or at least could be charged with a felony, loose his right to carry and go to jail for a period of years. When gets out n more weapons ownership or right to carry.

So please don't twist my posts. The intent is to prevent someone that read the initial recommendation to draw in order to diffuse a situation as thinking it is a good idea to draw when it is not justified. It is not. The only time to draw is when it is justified to prevent certain injury or death and if you are in that situation you will have to shoot to prevent such injury or death. If draw for any other reason it is not justified. Therefore you shouldn't have drawn and you are now the aggressor with intent to harm. The other person is now the threatened party and if armed would be justified in drawing and shooting you. By drawing you escalate or stand a good chance of escalating the situation instead of preventing it.

As far as documenting the logic then I suggest you read "Florida Firearms Law, Use & Ownership" (Eighth Edition by Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq. He is the recognized exert of Florida Gul Laws. For the purposes of this discussion Chapters Seven, Twelve and Thirteen are most relevant.

[OldMarksman]

The law says if you draw and didn't shoot then you can/may be charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Perhaps, but that will not be because you did not shoot.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Good Grief, are we at this topic again? OK, I'll disregard the alarm bells going off in my head and weigh in: Back in the day, my commander on several occasions reminded me, "Mr. Griffiths, it's my policy that you won't draw your weapon unless you're going to use it." My response was, "Colonel, every time I draw my weapon, I use it!" I never had to shoot anybody, but I can recall at least three occasions in which the only reason I didn't have to shoot was because I was ready and the subject wisely decided he couldn't outdraw a trigger-pull. Of course, as a Federal LEO, I was indemnified against prosecution for a reasonable use of force.

Here's what I have yet to see in this thread: Just as intentionally shooting and killing someone is not always murder or manslaughter, neither is pointing a firearm at another in order to prevent him or her from taking a life-threatening action against you or another innocent person. Aggravated assault, under common law, is assault with a means likely to cause death or grievous bodily injury. Pointing a gun at someone certainly falls within the category of such a means, but assault requires an intent to cause harm or to place another in fear of death, etc. You may justify an action that would otherwise be a serious crime by stating that you reasonably believed that doing so was necessary to prevent death or grievous bodily injury. For example, if a thug pulls a knife and demands your money, but you pull a gun and point it at him, telling him to "Put the weapon down!" will you be charged with aggravated assault? Well, in NJ, NY MA or CA, all bets are off, but ordinarily the law will recognize your action as justified.

I'd be willing to bet that the brandishing laws, all of which are strictly statutory, contain some provision exculpating those who do so in response to a threat. Perhaps not, as we hear stories all the time about someone being arrested for "brandishing" because a gust of wind blew a concealing garment aside. It would behoove you to know the law in your state.

It has always been my philosophy, "When in doubt, whip it out!" However I must now be mindful of the immortal words of Frank Drebbin (Leslie Nielson - Police Squad): "Now that I'm not a cop, the next time I shoot someone, I could go to jail!"

As always, the outcome of any use of your weapon will depend highly on your ability to articulate how your actions were reasonable under the circumstances, and on the policies and prejudices of the local law enforcement and prosecutors.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Gary L. Griffiths

...I'd be willing to bet that the brandishing laws, all of which are strictly statutory, contain some provision exculpating those who do so in response to a threat.....

That's really not necessary. Satisfying the legal standard for the justification of the threat or use of force can be a basis upon which to defend against any charge of a crime involving the threat or use of force.

[Minorcan]

Well said Mr. Griffiths

[OldMarksman]

I never had to shoot anybody, but I can recall at least three occasions in which the only reason I didn't have to shoot was because I was ready and the subject wisely decided he couldn't outdraw a trigger-pull.

So can I.

...assault requires an intent to cause harm or to place another in fear of death, etc. You may justify an action that would otherwise be a serious crime by stating that you reasonably believed that doing so was necessary to prevent death or grievous bodily injury.

Yes indeed.

However, it is also usually unlawful to display or handle a weapon in a manner that is careless and reckless.

It has always been my philosophy, "When in doubt, whip it out!"

Not mine.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Minorcan

The other part of this is you are taking my statement that if I draw I must shoot as meaning there is a law that says if a person draws then they must shoot. That is not what I said or meant. The law says if you draw and didn't shoot then you can/may be charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Again, the only time I will draw is when it is justified, if it is justified I must fire or suffer bodily harm or death.

This is where your logic falls apart.

You are using Florida law, so we'll go with that. The law doesn't address "shooting," specifically, it addresses the use of deadly force. As you note, drawing a firearm constitutes the use of deadly force. So does shooting another individual. So, whether or not you actually shoot, if you draw in self defense you can be arrested and charged. There's just no way around that.

The law does NOT say that if you draw and didn't shoot you may be charged with aggravated assault. If I'm wrong, quote the statute -- I'm reasonably certain the law doesn't even mention drawing without shooting.

So let's suppose you are in a situation where you are confronted by a mugger with a knife. He tells you to hand over your wallet "or else." I think most reasonable people would agree that's a situation in which you could genuinely and legitimately be in fear of death or serious bodily injury. So you draw your firearm, in preparation to defend yourself, and as soon as the mugger sees the gun he turns around and starts to run away. Do you still say you must shoot, simply because you already drew the gun? If you shoot, you'll be shooting a fleeing man -- who now does NOT pose any threat to you -- in the back.

I don't think that's what the law says, implies, or intends. When you drew, there was a credible threat, so you were justified in drawing. The threat evaporated before you could shoot. So how can you justify shooting?

Let's look at your road rage example:

Originally Posted by Minorcan

For example in a road rage incident, one person is an aggressor and threatens another person but doesn't draw a weapon. The person being threatened gets ticked of to the point of drawing a firearm, the other person starts backing away. Many may think that the drawing of the firearm prevented an attack. The PDA may not see it that way. The person that drew his firearm has now become the aggressor and the person that started the threatening behavior was the aggressor but he has now become threatened party or the possible intended victim. The initial agreesor can call the police and file a complaint. When they investigate they find the initial aggressor didn't have a weapon and the person that drew obviously did. Who do you think will go to jail? It will be the person that drew when it was not justified. He will or at least could be charged with a felony, loose his right to carry and go to jail for a period of years. When gets out n more weapons ownership or right to carry.

We'll assume you are person number 2. Person #1, the [initial] aggressor, threatens you. You believe (for reasons that are valid to you, but which may or may not be viewed as valid by a jury) that you are in danger of death or serious bodily injury, so you draw your firearm. Per your example, the other person (the [initial] aggressor) starts backing away.

Under your logic, he now shifts from being the aggressor to being a victim, and you somehow morph from being the victim to being the aggressor. I don't see how that transformation takes place, but the real question is this: You have drawn your gun. Your personal rule is that if you draw, you MUST shoot. So person #1 starts to back off, and you shoot him anyway -- because you already drew your gun.

How is that going to in any way make you LESS likely to be arrested, charged, and tried?

[OldMarksman]

The only time to draw is when it is justified to prevent certain injury or death....

That may be your philosophy, and it is the law in most jurisdictions, but as pointed out in the post linked in Post #36, there are a handful of jurisdictions in which a lesser threshold applies.

... and if you are in that situation you will have to shoot to prevent such injury or death.

It's not clear what you are trying to say.