Brandishing a weapon in self defense...
This is a discussion on Brandishing a weapon in self defense... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by FryDay
I am wondering how legal brandishing or displaying a weapon in order to stop an attack is (even if you do ...
December 16th, 2011 07:10 AM
Sounds like your good to do so, many states now allow the treat of deadly force where deadly force may become needed to avoid it all together. Plus protecting money is always a good reason. I hate when states use the term Actor.
Originally Posted by FryDay
December 16th, 2011 01:42 PM
If I even considered giving up my belongings it would only be because this condition was met. I would only do so if I was in fear of great bodily harm to myself of loved ones.
In Wisconsin, the law states:
“A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself
.” Wis. Stat. § 939.48(1)
It would be my assumption that if you had given up your wallet that it was probably out of fear for your health. Not because of some desire on your part to help out your fellow man by spreading the wealth.
Therefore if I were judging you I would give you a free shot card.
December 16th, 2011 02:37 PM
Several months ago, a similar discussion arose regarding mugging and robbery. In that thread, Bark'n stated that there is a difference between armed robbery and strong arm robbery. If I recall correctly, the point being that with the first but not the second there was grounds for lethal force. I wonder though, is strong arm robbery, at least when a threat of 'or else' is articulated in many ways like rape in that the threat of violent or even deadly assault is implied if compliance isn't forthcoming?
Clearly, even without a visible weapon, if an aggressor is making it clear that they believe they have superiority of force to which they can take what they want, you have a serious threat on your hands.
Sent from my BlackBerry using Tapatalk
December 16th, 2011 02:39 PM
Many are responding to the Wisconsin law that the OP quoted without putting in in context of the question he asked:
Utah, for example, it is illegal to brandish in a threatening manner. If the potential bad guy ended up not touching you at all, you could be charged for pulling your gun in a threatening manner (brandishing). You do not brandish. You draw your gun with intent to fire if you have reasonable fear for you life or body. If the bad guy decides to run to avoid his own imminent harm, that is great for everyone. But you draw with the intent to shoot. This is NOT brandishing.
I am wondering how legal brandishing or displaying a weapon in order to stop an attack is (even if you do not feel your life is in danger....
Brandishing is drawing, not with the intent to shoot, but with the intent to change the guys mind and scare him off. If you think those two scenarios are the same, you either do not understand brandishing or may want reconsider your comfort with carrying in the first place.
In court, there will be those with paid lawyers that would love to hear you say, you wanted to scare the guy off. That will translate into a bad judgment of what may not have been imminent bodily harm. CC comes with great responsibility and requires split second decision making about the intent of another human being. You have to decide in split seconds if the potential bad guy is moments away from inflicting great harm, and then you have to decide if you are willing to shoot him.
I would guess that 99% of the time, brandishing is not a good idea. Drawing with the expectation of shooting, or not drawing at all, are the primary options. There are states with very specific laws that speak of "brandishing".
December 20th, 2011 03:44 PM
Here is the best answer I can give if you live in FL. Keep in mind that the display of a firearm “is” the use of non-deadly force. With that being said you are A LOT more legally “safe” if a weapon is presented in a forcible felony situation. Because it’s the ONLY time you can use deadly force. I don’t recommend it in a misdemeanor situation. So question is..is the use of non-deadly force in a misdemeanor situation reasonable? Well in FL there is NO case law that resolves this issue. Unless you want to be the first test case,,,,Don’t do it!
December 20th, 2011 04:28 PM
did I miss something here.... you have a gun and someone is pounding your butt but you are not going to pull your weapon for what reason? what if they beat your butt and take your gun?...
Originally Posted by FryDay
to what extent are you going to take a butt whopping before you say you had enough and and have to pull?
is there a magic amount of pain you have to hit before you pull?
do you think the guy giving you a butt whopping is going to stop when you said you had enought?
December 20th, 2011 04:35 PM
Utah recently changed their brandishing law.
Originally Posted by CAS_Shooter
76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
(1) As used in this section, "threatening manner" does not include:
(a) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior
which is threatening; or
(b) informing another of the actor's possession of a deadly weapon in order to prevent what the actor
reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any
activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(2)(a).
(2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for those persons described in Section 76-
10-503, a person who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in
an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of
a class A misdemeanor.
(3) This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in
compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another's use of unlawful force:
(a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or
(b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon.
December 20th, 2011 04:45 PM
"Displaying a weapon in a threatening manor, for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in an argument is called "brandishing" and is illegal"
You can use deadly force to:
*Defend life or great bodily harm to you or another person"
" Arrest a felon"
" prevent a felony"
If a BG threatened a strongarm robbery, I believe the first and third apply. You are allowed to shoot!
I would do as the post above said. Firmly tell the BG that you will defend yourself. Do not say "gun" or "Shoot", but have your hand on your gun ready to use it. Forget about that "stop, or I'll shoot" crap you see on TV. If the gun comes out, use it, and use it until the threat stops.
December 20th, 2011 05:09 PM
The legal implications are possibly much greater if you shoot...better to try and stop the attack and shoot as a last resort...
Sent from my Android phone.
December 20th, 2011 05:11 PM
If you draw a gun you better be ready to use it. That said I'd rather be explaining brandishing to the cops than why I fired it. So if I draw I'm planing to shoot. If the BG cuts and runs then I've just brandished and that works for me.
I carry to protect myself and my loved ones from the BG's. Not to solve societies problems. That said: if more carried the deterrent would only have a positive overall effect on those problems.
December 20th, 2011 05:24 PM
Yup, I intend to use it if it is drawn but it will be out early enough for the BG to reconsider his options before it is too late. I do not believe that brandishing laws were meant to deter one from drawing a gun when they feel truly threatened or in a defensive manner. The intent of these laws is to avoid the use of gun waving to settle a dispute over the last piece of free cake.
December 20th, 2011 05:34 PM
Thanks, that made me smile.
Originally Posted by Doubledown
December 20th, 2011 06:03 PM
While most may disagree but my OC'ing has prevented many near incidents.
I do live in a state where OC is not that uncommon, so that in itself makes a huge difference. There are a ton of good ole boy rednecks that stand and talk with their hand resting on the butt of their gun, so again that makes a huge difference as that sort of behavior is within exceptable reason here.
You can and will see civilians OC'ing standing and talking to deputy's, PD officers akd even detectives at the local gas station, Walmart etc. I love where I live. I understand most here, especially further north, couldn't even imagine such freedom.
Now, with all that said, back to topic.
There have been several incidents since moving here that I have been approached by seedy individuals. Whether it was the "Hey man, got some gas money?" or the "Can you help me...". There were a few that were obvious ploys to get your guard down and get in physically close. I may take a different approach when alone...but not when my small children are near. I am a bit, no...ALOT less tolerant of strangers.
On a few occassions I have been approached and simply feined and relaxed stance and rested my hand on my gun responding "What can I do for ya?" You would be amazed how suddenly the individual didn't want anything and would turn and leave.
Many other times they were just some friendly good ole boy and a decent conversation would follow, ending in a handshake and parting of ways.
My point is that I find it easier to seperate the decent folk from the the scum sucking hood who's up to no good simply by having my handgun in plain sight. Mind you, the area I live in is infested with meth heads and govermemt charity cases who would rather steal than work.
Once the sight of my gun had the meth head go back to his waiting truck, after being refused a hand out for "gas money", to get his two buddies and a tire iron. It was then I drew my weapon, gave one firm verbal "warning" and they backed off and left. I called the Sheriffs Dept, gave details and my information (in case they needed to contact me further) and went about my merry way.
I just don't see why there is so much debate on common sense subjects. Unless you live in a nazi police state where you have as much to fear from the law as you do from criminals. Thankfully I don't have that concern.
December 20th, 2011 06:22 PM
We will never be able to settle this issue on brandishing:
1. Too many different interpretations, depending on state, locality, prevailing ethos;
2. You can never tell if it is a 'gravest extreme' situation until -after- the fact;
3. The interpretation the jury will have will vary widely and depend on things other than 'the facts' of the case;
4. Prosecutors may be more or less aggressive depending on a wide variety of issues, including political ones;
5. You may experience 'the law' but you will rarely find 'justice'.
What you can do is try to find an alternate 'way' to avoid being backed into a corner where your firearm is your only choice. In almost every occasion I think we get some warning.
December 20th, 2011 06:30 PM
I'm too slow to get out of Dodge. In this situation, the BG is gonna die. I've already done it once so I know I could do it again.
Originally Posted by bdcheung
Search tags for this page
brandishing a firearm in self defense
brandishing a firearm in virginia
brandishing a firearm in washington self defense
brandishing a firearm va
brandishing a firearm virginia
brandishing a gun in self defense
brandishing a weapon in florida
brandishing a weapon in self defense
brandishing a weapon virginia
brandishing firearm wisconsin
wisconsin brandishing law
Click on a term to search for related topics.