Defensive Carry banner

"Brandishing" from inside a vehicle

6K views 57 replies 24 participants last post by  9MMare 
#1 ·
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.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
In Florida, you don't have to have a CCW permit to have a loaded firearm in the car...it needs to be in a holster and in the glove box or console...that'll work for ya'.:yup:
If you have a CCW permit, then it must not be seen from outside of the vehicle. It can be on your person...on the seat next to you with your hat over it, between the console and seat with a cloth over it, etc.
 
#3 ·
My wife has a Coronado Leather purse with a built in holster that is accessed from the side.

She has her Florida CCW but that purse would surffice as a gun case/bag if it was kept in the car.

She has on several occasions placed the purse on her lap and had her hand on her S&W 638 while it was still in the purse.

The gun is very quick to access from that posistion.

http://coronadoleather.com/i-6630792-american-hobo.html

The zipper access on the side of the purse is where the holster is located.


OS
 
#4 ·
Just to clarify, I mean if there is some type of confrontation, like a verbally abusive person outside your car window. (But not someone with a gun because it's pretty black and white there that you have the legal right to draw). But just about anything in-between.
 
#6 ·
I like the topic. It seems to me like there is a difference between brandishing and showing an assailant your weapon as a step to end the situation if possible has merit some times, but not all the time. I also think that there are very few hard and fast rules when one is being attacked. The one of interest here is should you show them your gun in an attempt to de-escalate the situation as long as doing that doesn't take away your chance to actually fire if you have to. In otherwords, you have the time to do it with out it reducing your chances to avoid death or grevious injury, should you?

IMO it depends on the situation. With respect to being attacked in my vehicle there are several possibilities. The big difference between being outside the car and inside the car is that from inside with the windows up I may have more time between the recognition of the threat (the guy is banging on the wondow trying to break it, goes to his vehicle and comes back with a tire iron, or something like that) and when he can lay hands on me. The challenge is to use that time to somehow de-escelate or end the conflict with out sacrificing any of the protection from being in the vehicle with the window rolled up.

One way would be to drive away if that is possible. In the other thread, it wasn't. And for now, lets assume one can't drive away for some reason or other because if one can drive away there are too many variables to discuss what comes next. So if you can leave with out injury, do it.

So to set the scenario for my first discussion, we are blocked in by the attacker, he's exited his vehicle and is banging on ours, the window is up, and the attacker is violently trying to get at us. We have some options to de-escalate or end the confrontation, my goal would be to figure out what they are (I'm hoping people will add more options):
  1. We can get out our cellphone and let the attacker see we are taking a picture, then get on the cell phone calling 911, and clearly making the 911 call would be a good idea if we have reception. Put it on speaker so the 911 operator can hear the attacker. There is at least some chance the fact that we are doing that will cause the attacker to come to his senses and leave. If they leave I'd take a picture of the vehicle if I could do so with out hanging up on the 911 operator, and ask where to send the picture(s).
  2. However, if the cell phone doesn't work, or the guy is going back to his car and reaching for something, we are about out of options. At that point drawing the weapon and letting it be seen is about the only non-lethal option available to the vehicle occupant for adjusting attackers expectations before he breaks the window or gets out a gun of his own. To say don't draw the weapon with out firing gives up a perfectly good option for ending the incident with out property damage or bloodshed and pretty much guarentees you will be in court (he didn't actually harm you, hadn't even broken the window, and you shot him dead you blood thirsty villan you?). You may win, but it won't be cheap. Why not take a perfectly good option? Being tried for murder is not better than being tried for brandishing. I can see making a good argument that showing the gun was using the least effective level of force to end the situation. If it works fine, ...
  3. If he sees the gun and continues the attack, he's pretty much made your case for you. Point the gun in his face, if he breaks the window or even cracks it, or raises a tool that might break it and cause you grevious injury or death, or to fear them, then shoot to prevent death or grevious injury.
Ok, now, change the scenario just a little. This time we are still blocked in, but the attacker exits his vehicle with a baseball bat or tire iron and heads in our direction. Now what?

This happened to a male student trying to find his way in a strange town at or just before the beginning of the school year. As I recall, the student had been driving slower than traffic, the guy following him was getting agitated. The student pulled into a parking lot to study his map, the agitated guy pulls in after him, gestures, jumps out with a baseball bat and heads in the student's direction. The student pulls a Glock out of his glove compartment, shows it to the assailant who immediately stops, lowers his bat, returns to his car, and quickly drives away. Student immediately calls 911 to report the incident. The student had no legal issues as a result of his conduct that I read about. The event was on this site in "In The News:" two or three years ago. Seems like as good an ending as was possible under the circumstances.

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. Should the student have waited till the guy whacked him or his car with the ball bat and then shot him? I think the student did just fine.

OK, I've run dry for the moment. I haven't attached any indispensible ego to any of this, so have at it.

Fitch
 
#33 ·
I like the topic. It seems to me like there is a difference between brandishing and showing an assailant your weapon as a step to end the situation if possible has merit some times, but not all the time.....
Fitch
AZ sees it your way.
you may show the other party your weapon and have it not be considered brandishing.
 
#7 ·
I don't believe there is a single answer to answer your question, as there are so many variables involved.

First, it depends on how the "brandishing" statute is written. Some include an exemption for self defense, others do not.

Second, it depends on if the statute includes anything on the intent to intimidate or create fear. If the statute merely has wording such as "rude or threatening manner" there is no requirement of intent, merely the exhibition.

Third, statements, such as in the thread referenced could change an non brandishing incident into one of brandishing by the threat stated or implied in the statement.

Fourth, the DA's interpretation of the actions in the incident, relative to the statute involved.

Those are just some examples.
 
#8 ·
Brandishing, generally illegal, can mean displaying a gun in a careless, menacing, or threatening manner. The defensive display of a firearm, legal in some states, may be excused as non lethal force in self defense, but not always. It can be viewed by a jury as assault. IMO the use or threat of deadly force is a last resort when necessary to prevent or stop great bodily harm or death. To me, the word "necessary" implies retreat and less than lethal action when possible and safe. With available verbal and non verbal tools for disengagement, I have to strain to visualize a situation where an opponent could see my gun, before it is fired.
 
#9 ·
There was a video of a LEO that was shot by an "old feller" near the on-ramp (IIRC) to a major hiway. The LEO had pulled him over, the old feller went to the insode of his vehicle and pulled out a long gun... started shooting the LEO. LEO was out of his vehicle, on the radio... LEO didn't make it.

So, my question is, what's he going back to his vehicle for? Is it to get in? Is it to reach in and get a weapon?

But the above is sorta related, but happens somewhere later in the continuum of the OPs scenario.

So let me try to answer the OP's question.

Guy comes to my door, screaming and banging on the side window (slapping rather than punching. Punching indicates to me a REAL DESIRE to get at me because punching tempered glass is painful), I'm not going to show my weapon, yet. Taking his picture is a novel idea, but might be considered "escalating" I'm not sure... so I probably wouldn't.. but I would get on the phone to 911. speaker phone.

If I can't drive around him...because we're bumper to bumper, as in the other post, I'l wait a beat... If I can't back up a bit and get out of there right away, in my experience, the average joe behind me doesn't want to get involved... he'll go around if he has room 'cause he's got somewhere else to be. So, as soon as that happens, I'll back up and book.

If, on backing, I see the guy has no back plate... then either he's just purchased this vehicle and has a paper plate (in my state) or some other cause for not having a plate... maybe he likes to go around giving grief to fellow travellers (who knows). But, that means that whatever damage he's done to my car, I ain't gonna collect on except through my own full coverage anyway. So, I'm outta there if at all possible.

In the mean time, I've called 911, I'm giving a description of his vehicle and the guy... and I'm driving away...

Now, let's go to the next step.

Guy screaming, banging on my car. I'm trapped and average joe isn't behind me, the one behind me thinks this'll make a great you tube video... and he's close enough I can't get out... I'm on 911 as before... guy is really angry, and starts punching on my car, and kicking it... and then, since he can't get to the back end of his escalade with it on my bumper... he goes to his back door and leans in.... I'm drawing my weapon, and waiting... if there's time before he comes back, I've probably stuck it between my seats (60/40 split) with the grip well up and accessible.

If the you tube idiot behind me sees the guy come out with a tire iron.. or a baseball bat... he ain't movin' ("this is gonna be suhweeeet").

If BG comes out with a gun... you tube idiot might decide he's seen enough... and burn rubber... Now, I'm in a gunfight. Don't know how that's gonna end, But BG's gonna feel my pain, too.

If it's a baseball bat, pipe wrench, tire iron; well, I always heard that rock beats scissors... and my gun is the rock to his scissors. But he ain't gonna see it until he's on the back swing. If that doesn't cause a check swing.... then well... Here I am, still buckled in, and he's swinging for my melon... that, in my mind, is disparity of force. I have no means of retreat, I have no other option... I'm gonna suffer permanent hearing loss.
 
#10 ·
This is the best I can get, concerning brandishing, in Georgia. No, I am not a lawyer, and I almost never stay at a Holiday Inn.

From: Georgia Gun Laws in Plain English on GeorgiaPacking.org

"Georgia Gun Laws In Plain English"

Deadly Force

There are 3 code sections that govern when lethal or deadly force may lawfully be used.

Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force which may harm or kill only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (unless it is regarding defense of habitation, which has it's own requirements below). You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)

Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.
A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

(16-3-23)

Defense of property other than habitation; Lethal force cannot be used to protect real property unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.(16-3-24)

(Stand Your Ground/Shoot First/License To Murder - went into effect July 1st, 2006) If you have determined you need to use lethal force (as stated in one of the underlined "Defense" sections immediately above) you do not have to try to retreat before using that force. If your defense is valid, you are immune from criminal prosecution (unless it is illegal to carry that weapon where you used it) and civil liability actions.(16-3-23.1, 16-3-24.2, 51-11-9)
 
#11 ·
Lots of assumptions and add on perceptions to the ops question have been put forward.

Brandishing, the legal definition of, what constitutes, and what the penalaties are vary from state to state. It is best to consult an experienced lawyer familiar with the WA state laws.

In the situation described, and clarified in the followup post, does not meet the requirement for lethal self-defense. The perp is outside the vehicle and abusive. They have not shown a weapon or broken into the vehicle assaulting you or attempting to pull you out of the vehicle. Are they aggressive, you bet. Should the perp be considered a threat, definitely. Does the perp constitute a lethal threat? No, not based on what the op posted. The prudent thing to do is drive away quickly. Place your hand on your weapon if you are unable to drive away or otherwise trapped in the vehicle. Showing the weapon to the perp, even if you don't point it at them would be considered brandishing in many states.

I also agree with the comments about a concealment purse. They allow you to appear to be getting a cell phone to call the police, while in reality your hand can be on your weapon without anyone seeing the weapon.
 
#13 ·
Fighting in and around vehicles. That is what this all boils down to.

If I can drive away - I drive away.

If I cannot drive away - I get the heck OUT of my vehicle. A vehicle is a bullet magnet, and will NOT protect you from fire. I'm going to assume the aggressor is armed, whether I see a gun or not. Get out. Move to cover. Deal with the situation as appropriate - but do NOT get trapped inside the vehicle if it is immobile. Don't waste time deciding whether to draw, or "brandish," or whatever. GET OUT.

If I cannot drive away, and I cannot get out in time - I have a Level III ballistic insert in my briefcase, which is usually on the seat next to me. I can throw that against the side window, and use it for cover - it will stop all common handgun rounds. I can then either return fire, or attempt to escape, or whatever.

That's my take on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadgerJ
#14 ·
Good post!

I'm with Guantes. I don't think there is any good single answer. Too many variables and too many definitions by state as to what it means to be brandishing.

We all know the general dictionary definition:
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously.

But how individual states tend to incorporate that into their weapons laws tends to be vague in some states and very narrow and specific in other states.

Basically, I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do and rely on the fact that along with my attorney, I feel I can articulate my reasons for doing what I did in a way to satisfy most authorities. I'll have to deal with any negative consequences as they develop with the help of my attorney.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rably
#15 ·
I think I know what you are getting at 9MMMare.

I AM NOT A LAWYER - know your state laws on the matter and consult with an attorney before using the following as a defensive method!

IMO, display of firearm would be acceptable at that point where a reasonable person believes that JAM is about to be met. IMO females have a fair chunk more leeway in these matters.

Are you in Jeapordy?
Does the aggressor have the Ability?
Does the aggressor have the Means?

Have you exhausted any and all available methods of defusing or avoiding/escaping the situation? [Lets not get into the whole "Duty to retreat" hoopla. Regardless if you don't have to, it's still best that you try to some extent. It's better than dropping the hammer on an idiot.]

I am not going to fill a page with different types of possibilities surrounding you sitting in your vehicle and the aggressor approaching or standing outside your door. I'll just state that, yes to any two of the three and the third is very, very near to being met, then yes, display of your firearm in a manner other than taking aim at the aggressors COM would be acceptable. Know that this must be immediately followed with a call to 911 if you have not already done so.

Presuming you have done this, the situation is absolutely not over until the aggressor leaves entirely, or the LEOs arrive. You may very well end up in a standoff with said idiot still standing outside your door, JAM still not met 100% and the aggressor daring you to shoot them. The aggressor may return to their vehicle and produce their own weapon if they don't all ready have it on them. Very shaky ground indeed.
 
#24 ·
Are you in Jeapordy?
Does the aggressor have the Ability?
Does the aggressor have the Means?
Not to split hairs, detract from the main points of the thread or bust any chops, but to clarify for the benefit of the novice who may not be intimately knowledgeable in what comprises lethal force components I would like to point out, or suggest that Means and Ability is defined as pretty much the same thing in this context, and are essentially interchangeable terms.

I believe the third separate component you are looking for which would comprise being in a state of "Immediate and otherwise avoidable threat of death or crippling injury" is Opportunity.

I always learned that for a person to consider them self to be in "Immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury," three separate components must be present at the same time.

Those components would be:
Ability
Opportunity
Jeopardy

Which is defined as:
(1) The aggressor possesses the ability to kill or cripple you by possessing a deadly weapon, force in numbers (large group of people acting in concert), a noticeably larger physical size and strength advantage over the defender, or other "means" to inflict death or injury.

(2) The aggressor has the opportunity to kill or cripple you (such as being close enough to employ a knife or club if the aggressor possesses a contact weapon), or in the case of possessing a firearm, may be at a much further distance.

(3) The aggressor has placed you in jeopardy by his threats, deeds or actions which cause you reasonably, and realistically believe you are in immediate danger of death or crippling injury.

For example, if an aggressor is threatening to kill you with a 24" iron crow bar but is standing 35 or 40 yards away... while he certainly possesses the means or ability to kill you, until he gets to within contact distance, or about 2 or 3 feet away, he does not have the "opportunity" to kill you from 35 or 40 yards away. Conversely, if the aggressor possesses a firearm, he certainly does have the "opportunity" to kill or cripple you from a much greater distance than he would using a "contact" weapon.

Regardless of how an individual state or jurisdiction defines brandishing, if you legitimately believe your life is in "immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury", you'll likely be okay in displaying your weapon.

And what constitutes a legitimate belief that you are in an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or injury?

The aggressor must possess (at the same time), the ability to kill you, have the opportunity to kill you, and has placed you in jeopardy by his threats, deeds, actions or behavior which causes you to believe he intends to make good on those threats.
 
#16 ·
There is a lot of subtlety and nuance to this question. As Bark'n and others have pointed out, ultimately it will depend upon the statutes of your state, especially with regards to weapon in a vehicle. In some states, it is perfectly legal to openly display a weapon in a vehicle, even without a permit, in others it must be concealed.

In attempting some research on this topic, I did come across a few interesting things, regarding the definition of brandishing. Generally speaking, it is accepted that the laws against brandishing are taken to mean using a weapon in a manner to intimidate or cause terror in an otherwise peaceful people. In some cases, displaying a weapon is considered a form of assault. I have also seen references to the "reasonable man" concept as part of the statute as in what would a normal, reasonable person think in this situation.

I also think that presence within a vehicle is important. In many states a vehicle is considered an extension of your private, protected space, via castle doctrine. Lets say for example, if one were to answer their front door with a gun in hand, is that brandishing? Is that a crime? Is it assault? In the particular case in question, the person banging on your car window, is an act of aggression tantamount to assault. For clarity, I mean banging as being with obvious hostile intent and different from say knocking to get your attention (reasonable person definition applies here). So even if displaying a weapon is a form assault, you are responding to a form of assault with equal force (assault) but also with the threat of lethal force.

Edit: perhaps there is a distinction between displaying a weapon and pointing the business end of it at someone?
 
#17 ·
...

Edit: perhaps there is a distinction between displaying a weapon and pointing the business end of it at someone?
There most certainly is. That is for the lawyers to hash out.
 
#18 ·
Thanks. Noway, Sticks and a few others hit on points I was wondering about.

My thoughts are that....is it brandishing if someone is already intimidating me? (threatening me from outiside my car, even without a weapon.) I realize, from other threads, that the level of fear of 'lethal threat' does vary in each situation and for each individual.

And what would be considered 'low ready' in your car....how could you distinguish it from 'brandishing?' That's kind of what I was referring to about how silly it seems to have to 'hide' your weapon and still try to have it ready to use if you need it.
 
#19 ·
.

In PA there is NO "Brandishing" Law.

You MUST have an LTCF (permit) to have a Loaded Firearm in the vehicle.

There is NO other PA Law saying HOW you must transport it.

I can strap it to my hand if I wish :tongue:

However , This does NOT mean I can point it at someone :nono:
 
#20 ·
9MMare,

I think that you are looking at the wrong end of the horse on the brandishing/low ready.

It is against the law to shoot someone, unless the threat is recognized as sufficient to justify it.

I would look at brandishing/low ready in the same way. Is the threat sufficient to justify the brandishing/low ready?
 
#21 ·
Well that is almost exactly the discussion we were having in the other thread where the OP drew and told the unarmed aggressor who had him pinned between cars.

That's why I started the new topic. I realize there is no clear answer, partly because state laws differ and partly because the threshold for 'feeling that you were in imminent danger of a lethal threat' is different for each person.

To me, if you feel that you are in imminent danger of death or gross bodily harm, you are justified in drawing your weapon and it is then NOT brandishing. Even if I am still locked in my car and that person is unarmed.

I mean, if they break the window and get their hands on me...exactly what are they going to do? Pull my hair? Pinch me? No, they are going to beat on me or worse. That, to me, would qualify as gross bodily harm (but again, dont know how the legal system would look at it...is a man beating the crap out of a woman 'gross bodily harm?')

Am I supposed to wait for them to do that? As I said earlier, I would have my cell out and be using that as a deterrant (911, pics) first, but if they start on the window....?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadgerJ
#23 ·
Personally, one of the most important things that this and the other thread have reminded me of is this: IF you draw your gun, you had better be ready to use it. Or have another plan to get the heck out of Dodge.

Because a gun is NOT intended as a deterrant even if it (thankfully, because it saves lives) sometimes acts as one. I hope to keep the mindset that I will never draw my gun unless I believe it's use may be required...and then be prepared to do so.

I think that's why I'm looking for (elusive) clarification on 'low ready' in a vehicle....I do want my weapon ready...but I do not want to escalate a situation.

Edit: It is so easy to get sucked into the daydream that pulling a gun and red-dotting a jerk will instantly end a situation and everyone goes home and we feel all self-righteous. The reality, and then consequences, are probably a whole lot different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadgerJ
#25 ·
9MMare - One of the reasons I advocate getting out and away from an immobile vehicle is that, in addition to the tactical advantages, there are also legal advantages.

You tried to get away from the threat. You tried to put cover between you and him.

If he pursues anyway, despite all of that - things get much, much clearer from a legal perspective.

The bottom line is that you don't want to ever be trapped and immobile - whether in a vehicle or otherwise. Dithering about the legalities will only get you killed as you hesitate. Get away from the threat (known as "get off the X") and the legalities will take care of themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guantes and Bark'n
#27 ·
Thanks. Yours is one of the responses I was considering when I posted.

Here's another question: Do you think that a jury will think that I was safer outside of my vehicle than remaining locked inside (if aggressor had no visible weapon)? Because there is a line there that the aggressor must cross....the breaching of the vehicle. If I get out....I open myself up to being chased. Or turning and firing. It could also be viewed as escalation....positioning myself to fire.

I know you nor anyone else can really answer this, but it's still something to consider.
 
#30 ·
Great thread - both of them. We need to see both sides, we need this kind of forum and this kind of example to learn.

I'm glad to see cooler heads here, but I have to admit I can say what I LIKE to think I'd do, but that's a very scary scenario, being blocked in.

I also think that we need to LISTEN to our FEAR, listen to our INNER VOICE and if we do that we will not get in such a TIGHT situation. The OP has to realize that he was doing a little 'playing along' and should have pulled over or gone the other way and he had SEVERAL opportunities to get out of the way. Instead he slowed to the speed limit which, unfortunately, was baiting the out of control guy.

It's VERY hard not to bait sometimes, but we just have to STOP enabling road ragers. Let's be clear - we DO enable them, we are sometimes tempted to be passive aggressive.

How do you not do this - for let's be honest - most people's personality changes a little when they get behind the wheel of a car. It can be done, and I use humor to do it.

Example: I see someone doing that and I move over or even pull over and say 'Oh, my, he needs to take a class in 'how to merge', and we laugh'. I'm not totally calm, but HUMOR can defuse it. I infantilize the bad driver, basically - 'oh, he/she must be a new driver and doesn't know where the turn signal is...poor baby' LULZ

$.02
 
#31 ·
Here is FLorida, brandishing is defined as "displaying a firearm in a reckless manor for the purpose of gaining an upper hand in an argument"
You are allowed to use "deadly force o protect your life or "great bodily harm" or that of another person
To prevent a felony
to arrest a felon
yada, yada.

In the case of the OP, where he was "assaulted" with intent to do harm, shooting would have been justified.

This exact situation happened on Orlando last year. A man was followed by a man who claimed he "cut him off' the Victim claimed he was not even at the intersection the rager said. The vic drove down the street where he lives and got out of the car after the vic, and punched him as thevic got out of his car. the rager went back to his car, then suddenly turned around and indicated that the punch was not enough. The vic pointed a gun at the rager and told him to stop. but the rager kept coming, so the vic shot him. The bystanders verified this.
The police spokesperson said that when the rager gets out of the hospital, he will be charged , and the vicwill not be charged.
 
#36 ·
OK people we're missing a BIG point here.

This situation could have been avoided and defused LONG before it got to the 'blocked bumper car stage'. THAT's why it's so challenging to solve. If you let it get all the way to that 'End Stage' it's going to be very difficult. The OP should have got out of there the MOMENT he saw the guy barreling down on him.

You can't solve all these HIGH CHAOS situations, least of all from a desktop. The solution is not to get into the end stage of a high chaos situation. PERIOD.

$.02
 
#41 ·
NO.

I'm not going to get off the hiway, street, whatever, just because someone is approaching my rearend at an accellerated rate of speed. I am aware of him, I will speed up if necessary to avoid being rear-ended... but if he comes up on my rear and sits there, I will slow down a bit and allow him to pass.

That's common courtesy, and the way we were trained to drive, back when they made you change a tire, and look under the hood showing the battery, dipstick for oil (and tranny), and drive a manual transmission car, before they passed you off to the DOT ride along tester that did everything they could to make you go the wrong way on a one way street and other illegal activities.

Now, should we as PCW holders try to avoid any situations in which we may have to use our weapons?

Some say we should try to avoid most of them... And, if you have little faith in your ability to decide when to get out of Deadwood, maybe that's the prudent thing to do.

Sometimes, no matter what we're doing, evil comes our way. The odds are low, but it can and does happen. I choose to live my life. And, I trust my gut. I am not going to skedaddle anytime some testosterone junkie decides I'm a 98 pound weekling he can kick sand at. I'm not looking for trouble, either.

I'm yielding to his right to pass me, but I'm not going to turn off and hope he just goes on by either.... It's just possible he knows this area better than I do, and he wants me to turn off into that blind canyon.

You're right about one thing, we can't solve "all these HIGH CHAOS situations" from our desktop.. But we can consider them, and decide what we might do in a similar situation. And we can choose at what point in the scenario we enter the fray... many choose not to play at all "I wouldn't be in that situation" some realize that the situation presented is a possibility that could affect any but the home bound agorophobic.

Keep it. 2¢
 
#37 ·
I see the 10thmtn's point regarding potential tactical advantage being outside of the vehicle. However, I too was thinking along the lines of Bark'n in that legally, being inside the vehicle makes the rules of engagement a lot more clear in your favor. The more I think about this, the more I come to the realization that showing a weapon, while in your vehicle / castle, you are making a clear warning to an aggressor that you are able and willing to defend yourself in your sovereign territory. While strictly speaking, this IS brandishing in as much as you are displaying a weapon with the intent to intimidate, you are NOT displaying it with the intent to upset an otherwise peaceful person, which I think really is the key (distinction) to brandishing as a crime. The breaking, or attempting to break, a vehicle window is an act indicating the intent to cause physically harm. Outside of a rescue situation, I can think of no other valid reason for such an action. I believe it to be intuitively obvious that their intent is not to talk, but rather such an action is only the prelude to further contact violence. The showing of a weapon to an aggressor, under these circumstances, is to remind or indicate to the aggressor that they are committing a serious violation of your protected space and that this violation will be met with full justified force. While such an action may escalate the situation, the rightful use of deadly force in such a circumstance belongs to the victim, not the aggressor and should the aggressor escalate the force, (to me) it is clear proof of intent and justification for usage of equivalent defensive force.

Edit, having a weapon in the low-ready state and letting it be noticed can achieve the same effect of notification, while still providing plausible deniability in regards to brandishing. As I said, I believe it to be obvious that there intention are hostile, consequently you are only preparing yourself for the increasing need to rightfully defend yourself in an otherwise vulnerable position.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top