Had to Draw on Someone Last Night
This is a discussion on Had to Draw on Someone Last Night within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Billspider
Maybe you should buy another dictionary.
Her telling us is a secondary result.
Definition of SEQUELA
: an aftereffect of ...
December 20th, 2011 10:10 AM
That's hilarious. A recounting is not a 'result'. Maybe you should give up while you're behind. See 1 in your own post. No injury=no sequelae. Injury would be arrest or harm and none apparently occurred. BTW, pointless bickering like this is a good way to get a thread locked. Perhaps that's your intent. I'm not playing further.
Originally Posted by Billspider
December 20th, 2011 10:17 AM
Trying to correct someones spelling, grammar or vocabulary on a gun site is rude. Using a term that would be more fitting at a medical convention on a gun site is just pompous. You got caught. No need to apology.
1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious: pompous officials who enjoy giving orders.
2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.
3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious: a pompous occasion.
December 20th, 2011 12:26 PM
gods. Is that what this thread has come to?
Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
See also Sheep
December 20th, 2011 12:52 PM
LOL! I knew that it would end up like this from the start... It starts innocent enough until a certain regular "been there, done that, this is how it should have been done" chimes in and there goes the neighborhood..
December 20th, 2011 12:56 PM
Originally Posted by gottabkiddin
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow.
End the cycle of hatred, don’t give them a tomorrow."
December 20th, 2011 02:53 PM
We'll try and dumb it down for you in the future, mate. :)
Originally Posted by Billspider
December 20th, 2011 03:08 PM
I thought you weren't going to play anymore. I guess your word is as good as your vocabulary.
Originally Posted by Speculator
December 20th, 2011 03:50 PM
I find it a little disturbing with all the talk that downgrades the significance of brandishing. Take it as you will and throw whatever you deem necessary, that's my opinion and I have a right to it so as long I'm a citizen under our current constitution. I don't endorse any attacks directed at the OP, however, if the OP didn't want her actions examined then she should not have made a public post in an internet forum that has numerous members, presumably thousands of members. I can't speak for the intentions of other members but I come here to learn and when we can get together and discuss different contingencies, then I am grateful for another perspective so that I don't become myopic in my views and loose legitimate discernment. The OP did well in that she is safe and she didn't have to shoot anyone. The OP, as most of us have agreed, should have called the police and reported the incident. She could have also just as easily driven away without even touching her gun. Her 3,000 (+ or -) lb. car put her in the safe as much or more than a projectile weighing a few grams. I don't have a problem with the OP getting her gun ready so long as she's not pointing it in a manner to intimidate the guy on the bike.
Please take some of these things into consideration;
Self-defense, or technically the defense of justification, is a defense to a charge of brandishing, “If there is substantial evidence in a case involving a charge of exhibiting a dangerous and deadly weapon in a rude, angry and threatening manner that the defendant acted in self-defense, it is incumbent on the trial court to submit an instruction on that defense to the jury…”10
The cases finding an act to be brandishing have first found the guest of honor to have threatened another person or persons with a weapon, or had uttered threats while holding a weapon. Displaying anger while in possession of a weapon is considered a sufficient substitute for threats. One cannot be found guilty of brandishing a weapon unless one is shown to have been angry or threatening. This is an excellent reason to keep one’s temper and mind one’s manners.
In most states, it is a felony to exhibit a weapon in an angry or threatening manner. In the rest it is a misdemeanor with very unpleasant consequences. The term may not be specifically defined. It has usually been construed in cases involving threats, either general or specific. To be a crime, a weapon must actually be displayed. Obviously some people have a lower threshold for fear than others.
This is something that no one has addressed so far...we often talk about the examples that we set with the behavior we exibit with our firearms and the poor examples give the antis ammo;
...This was “only a misdemeanor” but a firearms violation of any kind often affects the right to own guns, and looks terrible on an employment background check, even if it does not result in jail time.
The open carry movement and the insistence of some persons bringing firearms to emotionally charged demonstrations will only provide “corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative” to wild claims of brandishing.4 When the police respond to “man with a gun” reports and find a man with a gun, they tend to arrest the man and let the judge sort it out. Hysterical hoplophobes go to their legislators and demand hysterical laws designed to solve imaginary problems.
All quotes were taken from here; https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...andishing-law/
It is critical to be the first person to relate events to the police. The first report sets the tone for the case. The stock advice is to remain silent. This is very good advice. However when the psychotic driver complains that he was threatened with a gun for “no reason at all,” silence implies consent.
December 20th, 2011 05:06 PM
Okay, now that I can finally get around to posting a response to this plethora of responses I will say this:
1). To those who have brought up my military experience/involvement, I will say this, yes those of you who have brought up UMCJ regulations, you are absolutely correct this would have been something I would needed to alert my chain of command to. However, as of right now I am no longer held accountable by the UMCJ having served honorably and received an honorable discharge.
2).To the person who brought up the response of “perhaps the OP hasn’t made it public about informing the police”, that would be a great assumption.
3). To the person(s) who brought up how threats are received differently from gender to gender, you are absolutely correct. I had to make a judgment call that night, I chose to pull, had the circumstances been different I wouldn’t have. But I trusted my own judgment as best to my personal ability and call on the situation. I did not know how that situation would have ended; all I can say is my main mission? Make it home alive.
4). To the person(s) who have shared different personal situations of such a circumstance, and/or, things they would have done differently, thank you for sharing. We learn from each other from our strengths and weaknesses, our errors, and our correctly executed actions.
5). I understand the purpose of this discussion forum to critique the actions of one’s acts, to fully educate each other and learn different thoughts and speculations. However, I will not try to ever criticize one’s actions in a personal defensive scenario. While I can read the report and decide what I myself would do in such a situation, I therefore cannot tell the OP what THEY should have done. I do not care how well written the report of the scenario/event was, there are too many variables to fully tell someone what they should have done.
6). I believe this thread has gone why over what was the main topic. People have posted some great views, good serious thoughts on the topic. To those who have decided to bash me and others on this thread, all you have accomplished is wasting your time. I will stand firm in the decision I made that night with full confidence, because of one fact. I made it home.
I will now ask for the MODs of this board to lock/close/whatever they deem fit to this thread, if they feel this topic has been taken too far off track IMO.
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend. - US Marine Corps
December 20th, 2011 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by BrunetteMP
December 20th, 2011 05:31 PM
+1. Thanks OP.
Originally Posted by Billspider
December 20th, 2011 09:33 PM
Nice job OP. I thought you did well.
ETA :Oh, and by the way my crap-o-meter comment was meant to say that the thread was lousy (crappy) to read with all of the haters. It was not that the OP was full of BS.
My name is Frogman46 and I'm tougher than you.
December 21st, 2011 09:33 AM
Yep, this thread was long. Yes, some criticized, some doubted, some chastised, some praised, and maybe even some "hated."
Some learned. For the most part, the criticisms were constructive. Some opinions were defended "with vigah." And, nobody was really wrong in the whole exchange.
I for one, hope; that should I ever be so unfortunate as to have to draw my weapon, I can post about it, get a real debriefing here, and learn some more...
Well done OP, well done all.
It could be worse!
Search tags for this page
chl, civil suite for drawing your weapon
deadly force north carolina
did gunfire take place in deltona florida last night
does the colorado castle doctrine law include the porch or your property
does the colorado castle law include bicycles
draw firearm on someone else who is threatened
how to describe a person for drawing purposes
iowa castle law
secondary result definition
Click on a term to search for related topics.