It was suggested that I post this as a standalone topic for responses. Thanks for that, better not to detract from the other thread:
I realize that 'brandishing' and related legal terms have different meanings in different states, but in the situation of being seated in a vehicle....would it necessarily be considered that? Because you could make the case that you needed to have the weapon ready to use if needed. You had a threat, maybe not lethal yet, and need to have the weapon ready to employ if necessary.
Most men are practically sitting on theirs and mine is in a purse on the seat next to me. "Hiding" it after getting it out seems stupidly anti-productive. (And there would be limited places to hide it where it was still quickly accessible).
I know many of you practice drawing in such situations, but I'm thinking more about the ridiculousness of having to hide your weapon in a situation where you might need it. Wonder if most jurisdictions and juries would see it that way?
Note: hiding it because you didnt want to escalate a situation is different, that's not really what I'm referring to here. I'm more discussing 'brandishing' and similar where there is usually an intent to intimidate attached to the meaning.
"So, should the student have shot him instead of just pulling the Glock and showing it to him? There are those on here who say they would have because they never would draw with out firing."
The legal answer as I see it, in FL, is- unfortunately- yes.
The guy with the bat is coming in his direction with a baseball bat...
Doesn't mean he intends to use it on his person...maybe he wants to bash out the headlights or windshield, right?
I don't believe that is a forcible felony...and if he did actually shoot the perp- he would have to convince a jury that he was reasonable in being in fear for his life. Probably would lose that argument though, if he had room to run/retreat...
It's not often discussed- but there are ways to show the BG that you may have a weapon- and hopefully get him to rethink his actions- without actually showing it to him, right?
I think whether or not you shoot or not can be more of a moral issue rather than a legal question.
For example, in cases where there is castle doctrine and you are clearly justified by law to shoot anyone who breaks into your house, are you going to go ahead and shoot someone who just as clearly may not be a threat to you just because the law says you can in that circumstance?
Some people are going to say, "Hell yeah, I can't wait for someone to break in so I can legally use my gun." While others may use their moral compass to really weigh whether or not that person is really an immediate threat to their life, and may decide not to shoot someone based on the fact the intruder really has no "ability" to hurt them. Even though the law may say they would be legally in the clear to shoot, you know the intruder is really an unarmed, 90 lb drug addict who couldn't fight their way out of a wet napkin and wet their pants when you and your trained doberman confronted them.
I'm not talking about someone with a weapon where you have to try and guess whether they intend to really use it or not. I'm talking about where there is a clear and unquestionable situation where you know the person poses no real threat to you, yet circumstances of the law says you are going to get a pass if you do shoot.
Obviously, this is a totally different scenario, but the moral dilemma can still apply to the one in the post depending on certain dynamics.
If I have my gun....I can shoot him when he breaks thru a window or I can shoot him if I exit my vehicle and he comes after me. I think I am safer in the car. And as pointed out, I would be supported by Castle Law (or the equivalent) in my state.
If I dont have my gun....I still think I'm safer in my car....(if I cannot use my car for escape). I used to keep a tire iron underneath my driver seat....I should grab that again and put it back under there.
Ummm...You might want to consider something that does not require a lot of room to utilize effectively. A fixed blade knife, pen knife/pokey-stabby thing (don't recall what they are called), taser, or OC (still not a fan of OC...). You are more likely to have the tire iron taken from you than defend yourself while sitting in your vehicle.
I'm a mechanic by trade, and I would go for a screwdriver before my 18" crescent wrench (never mind the other 8k pounds of blunt instruments in a variety of sizes and weight in my work truck) if I was CC free, and had to engage in HTH. Poke a few holes in a persons hand and arms, they will loose interest in grabbing you, or being within contact distance.
If it's legal in your state for it to be exposed, you shouldn't have an issue with brandishing unless you are waving, pointing it , etc. Or, unless some big scared anti see it's and calls 911.
Some states do require them to be concealed, or in certain locations such as consoles or glove boxes, but I'm with you.... I want it out where I can grab it.
There is a holster set up where it holds the holster on the front part of the driver's seat, keeping the gun literally in front of them between their legs, but I wouldn't want to draw it from that location.
I think when you boil this down you only have one or two things to really consider here. No matter what the situation is, car, parking lot, front porch exc exc. you should never draw your weapon/show your weapon/or in any present your weapon UNLESS you are very prepared to use it. The 'Defensive display of a firearm' law, AKA the "brandishing" law that some states have enacted (I am using AZ's here, but they are mostly similar) states that "Defensive display is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe physical force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against another person's use or attempted use of unlawful physical or deadly physical force."
My point is that the law is not meant to "de-escalate" a situation, if you feel it necessary to draw your gun, or in any way present your gun to someone, the situation has already "escalated". IMO the law is simply common sense protection of carrying citizens rights in a scary situation.
SO to get back around to the OP's question, if your in your car and you feel that your life is at risk then by all means draw your gun, but just remember that your drawing it because your prepared to imminently use it, not because you think it will de-stress a situation.
The scenario, as described, has already gone past my comment---situational awareness. If you are driving and you are CC you have an obligation to yourself to be that perfect, courteous, wonderful, traffic law-abiding, car driving saint that, unfortunately none of us are. That does not mean we can't strive to that point. My point is simple. Yes there are nut cases out there who do not need a reason for being that way, but if you check your driving faults at the door of your car odds are you will never be in a position where someone is knocking on your car window wanting to do battle and you will never be in a position where thoughts of using your firearm are realized. What if is still what if, but it does take "two to tango" and you do not have to dance from the getgo.
PS: This is a good thread. Gives you some food for thought and should provide you with a reason to check your state's wording on brandishing etal. Thank you 9mm.
PPS: In SC "presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another person (is lawful) if that person unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's occupied car and is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime"---ie assault and battery or robbery or whatever. Sounds to me that once you have the presumption of imminent peril, based on the idiot trying to bang your window out, you must first present your firearm before you use it, this is not, IMO, brandishing, it is the moment before you actually are going to discharge your firearm under the presumption of imminent peril--whether you shoot or not is not the issue at that time.
Sounds to me that once you have the presumption of imminent peril, based on the idiot trying to bang your window out, you must first present your firearm before you use it, this is not, IMO, brandishing, it is the moment before you actually are going to discharge your firearm under the presumption of imminent peril--whether you shoot or not is not the issue at that time.
IANAL, but to me, "brandishing" laws are there so you can prosecute people (who most likely do not have CCL) who pick up a weapon and threaten someone in an offensive situation rather than defensive.
"Defensive display" is exactly what it says - you're not drawing to scare someone, you're drawing to protect yourself (which is the way I interpreted the OP's actions in the "other thread"). If that action happens to scare the BG away, that's great because I don't WANT to have to pull that trigger. That doesn't mean I'm not prepared to fire, but there are some scenarios where the BG might have that extra second to de-escalate. For example, is he 30 ft away and walking toward me with a baseball bat and verbally threatening me or is he 30 ft away and running at me full speed? In either case I'm going to be drawing. But in the first case, I'll be at low-ready, telling him "stop or I will fire". He will probably stop and leave, and I'll be calling 911 as he's walking/running away. In the second case, there's no "ready". In both examples, I would definitely have been in fear of grave bodily injury and been prepared to use deadly force to defend myself, but in the first example the "defensive display" de-escalated the encounter and we both walked away.
The problem is not with the law on brandishing. The problem comes when instead of using the definition in the English Dictionary the lawmakers create their own.
In one State brandishing may take its meaning from the commonly accepted definition we were all taught. In others they may decide it means something totally different. In effect creating a new word.
In my State I am told it means using it in a reckless manner. In others I have been told that if anyone notices you have a weapon under your shirt that is brandishing.
It would be nice if those writing and enforcing the laws had to use a common language. Perhaps we could enact an new law requiring all laws be written using words and definitions from the current English dictionary.
Further to IAm's comments, last xmas eve there was a shooting and a death in Bluffton, SC, involving a tow truck operator and a van that had been wheel-locked. The owner of the van, when exchanging words with the tow truck operator, opened his coat with the clear intent of showing the tow truck operator a firearm tucked into his waistband-----THAT IS BRANDISHING. In this case, however, the tow truck operator, not being the finest of humanity, went back to his truck, took out a gun and fired several times at the van owner and on the 5th or 6th shot, while standing over the van owner, put a bullet in his head and told his wife "feliz navidad" (they were latinos). Van owner is dead, 2 kids and wife have no provider, tow truck operator facing manslaughter (not murder probably because of the brandishing). Brandishing comes with severe consequences if you do it to someone with a firearm---THEY, NOT YOU-- can presume they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and YOU CAN DIE.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!