Like like like like like like why haven'ti found the stupid like tab did I forget to mention like like like like .... Thank you CCW9mmGood comments so far. Lots of good opinions, food for thought.
No, bad idea.
C.Y.A. Can You Articulate. The statues related to self-defense and use-of-force are nearly always written in the "reasonable man" perspective, stating that one may take reasonable actions in a situation where a reasonable person would believe such actions to be necessary. Translation: others will judge your actions.
In anything you do in a self-defense situation, you need to be able to clearly articulate a credible threat, and to articulate the justifiability of what you did. Knowing where that dividing line is can be hard. But it's someone else's life you're capable of taking. You'd better be damned certain that your actions are necessary to protect innocent life (your own or others), even if "only" threatening its use.
Imagine being on a jury, in which the defendant is being charged with menacing or similar, the type of thing you're concerned with in this thread. Imagine the defendant claimed he felt assailed but not yet actually attacked, and yet he threatened the potential use of a firearm to stop being assailed. What was the infraction by the alleged assailant? What was the threat? Did it justify the use of deadly force, or even the threat of its use? Ask yourself this: if the defendant didn't feel that deadly force was actually needed, then what in the world is he doing threatening the use of deadly force? Think about it.
Some possible reactions to alleged threatening behavior by an assailant:
- Simply leaving, saying/doing nothing else.
- Verbally resisting, ie saying "no."
- Verbally stating you'd use force to stop being assailed. <-- what you're suggesting
- Physically showing you'd use force to stop being assailed (ie, removing hands from you).
- Physically using less-than-lethal force to stop being assailed.
- Verbally threatening the use of deadly force.
- Physically threatening the use of deadly force (ie, grabbing your weapon).
- Presenting your weapon.
- Using your weapon.
While there's certainly no clear-cut continuum of force specified in the statutes, you get the idea. As the threat becomes clearer, the severity of response actions becomes easier to justify. How far is too far? How reasonable is "reasonable"? It's whatever the DA/jury judge that to be. You'll need to decide what you're comfortable with, how far you're prepared to go at each level of a threatening situation. Think it through. Welcome to citizenry.
That said, in the end we each need to decide on the instant where that dividing line is, at which point we'd each be willing to step up and cease an attack against us. For my part, I'm unwilling to take a life unless mine is actually credibly threatened, but that's just me. Where, exactly, I would take steps to handle or present my weapon(s) would depend heavily on the specific circumstances.
Read Ayoob's In The Gravest Extreme. Re-read.