Brandishing firearm

[TCOV]

This discussion is worthwhile, but clearly the laws vary greatly from state to state. Further, each situation is equally dependant on the facts at hand, and how those facts are interpreted by the police on scene.

Whatever the case, one is likely to encounter a legal nightmare. Recently, in our county, a 73 year old retired marine war veteran who was having drinks at a restaurant/bar was jumped by a drunk 37 year old lumberjack and beaten to the ground. The marine was injured and dazed but managed to pull his handgun (licensed) and shot the lumber jack as he moved to attack again.

The lumberjack, a known trouble maker with a record, left the scene due to warrants. The police arrived and promptly arrested the marine for felony assault! He was jailed and is spending his meager retirement to pay his own medical bills, bail and significant legal expences. Everyone involved believes he is getting screwed by a prosecutor with political aspirations.

So, "goes to show you never can tell."

Old Lawman I have not heard of this case. Is there a link or publication giving the rest of the story?

 

[OLD LAWMAN]

TCOV: "Old Lawman I have not heard of this case. Is there a link or publication giving the rest of the story?"

Yes. I live in a very small town of 500 on the Columbia River in Washington. It took me a bit to run down the story in our weekly newspaper.

"Man shot at altercation in Skamokawa" Published on Thu, Oct 29, 2009 by Rick Nelson

http://www.waheagle.com/news/article.exm/2009-10-29_man_shot_at_altercation_in_skamokawa

I talked with two of my friends who were on-scene and they state this story does not accurately reflect what actually happened. The antaganist was arrested later on warrants, but not charged with assault as he should have been. I believe the officer on scene (whom I know and like) jumped to conclusions. Jack (shooter) is a Christian who was promoting his weekly Bible Study that night - this doesn't make him innocent, but it suggests he is not a violent man.

"Witnesses describe shooting" Published on Thu, Dec 3, 2009 by Stevan Morgain:

http://www.waheagle.com/news/article.exm/2009-12-03_witnesses_describe_shooting

I've known Jack for years, as well as the two prosecutors who are both anti-gun left wingers who face re-election.

 

[TomCat5]

I think it's pretty clear, irregardless of what state you're in.

Calmly ask the trespasser to leave. If they refuse, calmly retreat to your home and call 911 irregardless of what this person has to say after they refuse to leave. It is important not to engage this person in banter (once you've determined they are not there legitimately) as it may be designed to disarm you... literally. Your only thought should be to retreat to your home for safety and to report to authorities. Now... if the person pursues you....then that is a much different story. Again, you must feel you're in jeopardy of serious bodily injury or death.

If this person claims that there is an emergency and they need your help immediately... you can say, OK, I'll call 911...and report the incident.

If the person tries to move towards you saying there is not time... I would warn, then fire a warning shot if there was time. If that doesn't stop the person in his tracks... then look out... you have a decision to make.

If this unknown person decides to attack you, and you feel you're in danger of serious bodily injury or death, you defend yourself accordingly.

As mentioned in a previous post... be prepared to answer accordingly to authorities. Hopefully, you will never be in that situation.

Frankly, anyone on your property, without your permission, who refuses to leave....should be reported immediately. The worst thing you can do, in my humble opinion, is give them time to distract you from calling authorities.

Good Luck!

 

[TCOV]

Old Lawman thanks for the links. Not knowing any of the people involved it would seem that they all made poor decisions that night. I believe that I have read before that if you draw your weapon or shoot it it's best to be the first to call the police. Doesn't look like alcohol helped any one here. Too bad for the shooter. I had a close call once involving taverns and a gun, lucky for me my less drunk friend squared me away before I got in trouble.

 

[recurry]

It's not the law you need to be worried about, it's the Jury. Your scenario is pretty open-ended, in terms of the facts, but generally speaking it would be an extremely bad idea to leave your home, where you are safe and can call the police, in order to confront someone. Why are you leaving the house? Is the person attempting to kidnap a member of your family, or are they simply walking across the back forty with a rifle on their back?

Legal consequences aside, it's never a good idea to confront people with a firearm if your life is not in danger. Consider what happened out in WI a few years back - a bunch of deer hunters confronted one guy who was trespassing on their property and they all ended up dead...

 

[OLD LAWMAN]

I agree, TCOV, poor decisions all around. However, from the 73 year old shooter's point of view, dazed and on the ground, and the attacker coming at him again, I believe his actions are "reasonable". I'm 65 and I would be prone to shoot the guy. I got to be 65 by defending myself when I had too. What a "reasonable person" would do is supposed to be the governing principle in these matters.

If you read the witness' and shooter's statements closely you will see the details diverge considerably. The attacker came out of the bar and jumped the shooter. Also, note the position the writer of the first article (newpaper's editor) takes. He assumes that the antagonist is the "victim", thus the shooter must be the guilty party, "suspect". Never seems to dawn on him that it could be the other way arounnd. This is the view I would expect from anti-gun "progressives".