Aftermath of Premature Draw

Shockwave (quote)

"The way I train for this exact situation is to turn my strong side away from the threat and get my hand on the firearm. Not drawn yet. If the person makes a hinky, furtive move of some sort, I can draw and hold it behind my leg, pointed downward."

Most aspects of this have been covered so I will limit my comments to the above. I also like and use the above. It has been my experience my self and working with others that the clearing of the garment and obtaining a grip on your gun generally reduces draw/first shot times by around fifty per cent. In addition to preparation for a response the turning action shields your weapon from view thereby eliminating brandishing claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shockwave

In this scenario, you are drawing defensively, which is allowed under Castle Doctrine. A fine point, but a very critical one.

---

A castle doctrine as they are written in states where they have been enacted, including Florida has NO application in this scenario. A supermarket parking lot is not your domain or abode.

I think I would loudly and crisply insist he back off. If he moves far enough away that he's no longer an immediate threat I'd load my car and drive far enough away as to be safe from him and any associates he might have (maybe across the parking lot from where I could maybe see what he does next). Then call 911 and report that there's someone in the parking lot who tried to mug me.

Rationale: (1) I'm assuming I'd have been tracking the situation with the appropriate levels of rationality, common sense, prudence, situational awareness, self-defense mindset, etc. (2) Given all that, I would not have drawn simply out of fright but out of a rational assessment of him being a potentially deadly threat. (3) I expect an predator, when caught on the verge of an attack will put on a harmless or scared act, and that a novice predator in particular will certainly be surprised, shocked, scared to find his victim has teeth. So I wouldn't trust his reaction as being a sign of harmlessness. (4) Calling 911 would be a gamble. If the person IS a predator then he's not likely to call 911 with your description and license number, but if he's a harmless/clueless ordinary person he might call 911 and it's important if there's a 911 call that you make it fist and establish yourself as the victim. The gamble is that depending on what questions the dispatcher/and then the police ask and how you answer and how they respond things might get very sticky with your having and displaying a gun.

In any case, the way you presented the scenario it sounds like I would be making a reasoned and appropriate series of assessments and gotten to the point where drawing was the appropriate and prudent tactic. That the next steps can get very messy is too bad, but that's life. And, perhaps most importantly, I'm still alive to take those next steps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guantes

Shockwave (quote)

"The way I train for this exact situation is to turn my strong side away from the threat and get my hand on the firearm. Not drawn yet. If the person makes a hinky, furtive move of some sort, I can draw and hold it behind my leg, pointed downward."

Most aspects of this have been covered so I will limit my comments to the above. I also like and use the above. It has been my experience my self and working with others that the clearing of the garment and obtaining a grip on your gun generally reduces draw/first shot times by around fifty per cent. In addition to preparation for a response the turning action shields your weapon from view thereby eliminating brandishing claims.

---

Ditto. Not to mention that the distinctive move of clearing your shirt and putting hand to weapon even if strong side is turned away will likely either cause the suspect to reveal his own weapon or stop in his tracks.

Quote:

---

A supermarket parking lot is not your domain or abode.

---

No, and you're referring to a different aspect of the doctrine. The part I'm talking about is the "no duty to retreat." Specifically, you are in a place you have a legal right to be and are allowed to defend yourself from imminent harm, therefore the mandatory 3-year sentence for brandishing would not apply as you felt threatened and were acting defensively. The penalty applies when you produce your weapon to raise the level of threat you are making toward another person. That is not the case here.

I don't know if Iowa law is comparable to Florida's in this respect. The key point is that just because you drew your weapon by mistake doesn't mean you are in violation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shockwave

No, and you're referring to a different aspect of the doctrine. The part I'm talking about is the "no duty to retreat." Specifically, you are in a place you have a legal right to be and are allowed to defend yourself from imminent harm, therefore the mandatory 3-year sentence for brandishing would not apply as you felt threatened and were acting defensively. The penalty applies when you produce your weapon to raise the level of threat you are making toward another person. That is not the case here.

I don't know if Iowa law is comparable to Florida's in this respect. The key point is that just because you drew your weapon by mistake doesn't mean you are in violation.

---

I beg to differ with you. The Castle doctrine also known as Defense of Habitation Law designates one's place of residence and in some states car or workplace. It only gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place, his/her "castle."

In criminal law, the castle doctrine is an exception to the retreat rule. The retreat rule allows a person the use of deadly force while protecting his/her place of abode, its premises and its inhabitants from attack such as from a trespasser who intends to commit a felony or inflict serious bodily injury or harm. This defense justifies such conduct constituting a criminal offense. This is also termed as defense of premises, defense of habitation and dwelling defense. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/castle-doctrine/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIGP250

I beg to differ with you. The Castle doctrine also known as Defense of Habitation Law designates one's place of residence and in some states car or workplace. It only gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place, his/her "castle."

In criminal law, the castle doctrine is an exception to the retreat rule. The retreat rule allows a person the use of deadly force while protecting his/her place of abode, its premises and its inhabitants from attack such as from a trespasser who intends to commit a felony or inflict serious bodily injury or harm. This defense justifies such conduct constituting a criminal offense. This is also termed as defense of premises, defense of habitation and dwelling defense. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/castle-doctrine/

---

You are 100% correct.:yup:

1911PKR well each court and judge can be different and I have seen some of the best around but you have your opinion. Whether you call the police or not is your decision but you are running the risk of the guy calling and making up some outlandish story about what happened and all they know is you left the scene but whatever you prefer.
INccwchris just curious why would you call your lawyer to the scene? Not bashing just wondering.

This would seem to indicate that either is a possibility, relating to Castle Doctrine, depending on the statutes of the particular state and what is included in them.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tacman605

1911PKR well each court and judge can be different and I have seen some of the best around but you have your opinion. Whether you call the police or not is your decision but you are running the risk of the guy calling and making up some outlandish story about what happened and all they know is you left the scene but whatever you prefer.
INccwchris just curious why would you call your lawyer to the scene? Not bashing just wondering.

---

tac... I understand what your sayin' and YES, the police should be called if you show the business end of a handgun to someone.:yup:

Quote:

---

I beg to differ with you. The Castle doctrine also known as Defense of Habitation Law

---

As it happens, this specific aspect of Castle Doctrine was mentioned in another incident - that Pompano Beach shooting. Here's the part I'm referring to and this should clear up the confusion:

Quote:

---

According to legal experts, it appears Murdock had Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law on his side.

Sought by the National Rifle Association, the law allows a person to shoot to kill if he or she feels in danger of death or great bodily harm, regardless of location. At home, in a vehicle, or out on the street — it doesn't matter.

Before the law was passed in 2005, Florida residents had the right only in their homes. Outside their castles, Floridians were required to retreat from an attack, if possible, before fighting back.

---

So the drawing in question in this scenario doesn't risk the charge of illegal brandishing, if Iowa's law is similar to Florida's, QED.

Call 911.
Say, "My name is ---, I am at ---. I drew my handgun in fear for my life. It turned out I was mistaken and there was no immediate danger. All is OK now, I just wanted to report the incident"
If officers arrive. Say, "I was once attacked and injured in a manner exactly like this. Because of this past experience I was in fear for my life. I'm glad it turned out well for all concerned".

Bobo

I am not going to nit pick on what I would do differently from the original post. The situation is what it is as presented.
Since I can now see his hands I am still going to order him to step back. I am going to order him to back away and to keep his hands in plain sight. After he is twenty feet or more away (depending on how much room we have) I will order him to keep his hands where I can see them, turn away from me and walk away. At this point I move to a better location (preferably close by) and call 9-1-1 and wait for the deputies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shockwave

As it happens, this specific aspect of Castle Doctrine was mentioned in another incident - that Pompano Beach shooting. Here's the part I'm referring to and this should clear up the confusion:


So the drawing in question in this scenario doesn't risk the charge of illegal brandishing, if Iowa's law is similar to Florida's, QED.

---

I believe Florida was the first State to coin the phrase "Castle Law" or "Castle Doctrine." True, Florida and a few other states have modified the defense into what is now called a " Stand by Your Ground Law." States that have not adopted either in these terms have some provision to describe what constitutes a defense when threated with the threat of bodily harm to self, significant other(s) and in some states any other person, property, etc.

In the case you mention, the person was defending "his turf." In that situation it may be a defensible argument. To misinterpret the law out of context is no defense at all.

Quote:

---

In the case you mention, the person was defending "his turf." In that situation it may be a defensible argument. To misinterpret the law out of context is no defense at all.

---

Why did you trim my quote? Here's the part you intentionally removed, for reasons I do not understand:

Quote:

---

the law allows a person to shoot to kill if he or she feels in danger of death or great bodily harm, regardless of location. At home, in a vehicle, or out on the street — it doesn't matter.

---

The question I am responding to, which may or may not be what you are talking about, is the matter of whether drawing and pointing a firearm at another person in error will, by necessity, invoke the mandatory 3-year prison sentence. According to the Florida statute, no, it doesn't do that.

As an example, in the information packet you get with your FL CWL, they cite the case of a woman who was arguing with a neighbor. She got angry during some dispute about lawn watering or such, and drew her gun. She's doing 3 years hard time right now.

Somebody's following you in a parking lot and starting to act aggressively in a threatening manner and you draw, that's a different situation. So a decision about whether or not to call and report the incident depends on whether you think the person involved might retaliate. That's really going to depend on how they respond. It'd be a good idea to talk with the person and explain what happened and see if you can resolve it yourself without involving LEO. If in doubt, you'll have to call, but that's a worst-case outcome.