The Real Hawkeye
member
You might have a point there. I forgot the part about eye contact. Could be so construed.Shootcraps said:
Did I "brandish" Minnesota
- Thread starter 12smile
- Start date
- Status
The Real Hawkeye
member
Israeli security personnel are trained to keep the chamber empty, and to rack the slide as they draw the gun.nfl1990 said:
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
Marnoot said:
They are????
CAnnoneer
Member
The fact that there is so much disagreement about it being or not being "a brandishing" comes to show the dicyness of what thranspired. Dicy is bad, because it means a lawyer can twist it easily.
In that situation, perhaps it would have been best to yell at them to keep their distance. If they do not comply, it then becomes threatening and you can pull your gun to defend yourself. You always have to try to resolve the situation verbally, if you would be the first to resort to deadly force. Otherwise, you set yourself up for a lot of trouble.
In that situation, perhaps it would have been best to yell at them to keep their distance. If they do not comply, it then becomes threatening and you can pull your gun to defend yourself. You always have to try to resolve the situation verbally, if you would be the first to resort to deadly force. Otherwise, you set yourself up for a lot of trouble.
CAnnoneer
Member
Fourth from the right (sergeant?) is the prettiest. 
Does she date?
Does she date?
First of all, Minnesota does not have a brandishing law. It is illegal to point it at someone, but not to hold it down at the ground.
it could be considered to be and assualt, but there would have to be shown intent.
The blisninny soccer mom, ignore her.
The bum/homeless/etc. do not ignore. In Minneapolis's political climate, You really Need to be careful about how you acted. Yes the homeless are a big issue around the city, but they are wanted and desired by the politico's because they show a greater need for funding some new socail program and the political graft and influence they can peddle from that new program.
HOWEVER> if you do in fact draw on one after they refuse to leave you alone. THE next step has to be a call to the police. If not some do gooder will see you as a gun waving psycho and SERIOUSLY ruin your day. Rule one, only the pull the gun if you have not other choice, ( or believe you are right there) rule two, shoot or not, call the cops, yes it is a hassle but 99% of the cops i have met in the cities, If you have a reason to be there and you have a permit. they are going to say, carry on. And they are going to give your trouble a ride downtown.
it could be considered to be and assualt, but there would have to be shown intent.
The blisninny soccer mom, ignore her.
The bum/homeless/etc. do not ignore. In Minneapolis's political climate, You really Need to be careful about how you acted. Yes the homeless are a big issue around the city, but they are wanted and desired by the politico's because they show a greater need for funding some new socail program and the political graft and influence they can peddle from that new program.
HOWEVER> if you do in fact draw on one after they refuse to leave you alone. THE next step has to be a call to the police. If not some do gooder will see you as a gun waving psycho and SERIOUSLY ruin your day. Rule one, only the pull the gun if you have not other choice, ( or believe you are right there) rule two, shoot or not, call the cops, yes it is a hassle but 99% of the cops i have met in the cities, If you have a reason to be there and you have a permit. they are going to say, carry on. And they are going to give your trouble a ride downtown.
Well I'm glad I posted my report of "The engagement portrait in Loring Park" It really exposes my need to "go back to the drawing board" and study up.
I carry with the chamber empty because I have zero concern for accidental discharge....AND.....AND...I wanted to reserve the slide racking action to be a warning action....I warned the HoBo's off but unwisely it seems.
It seems the prudent course of action would be to carry loaded in sturdy holster and master verbal command behavior. It's an open question as to the intent of the Bums. Robberies and Robbery/assaults start off with an "interview" by the perp. I avoided "the interview" but was clearly using a 10 pound hammer for flyswatter.
I posted my account of the event on my professional wedding photographers forum in response to another photographers story about being carjacked in New York City....no way in hell (unless maybe she was related to Chuck Schumer) was she going to get a carry permit. Our Governor signed the Minnesota Personal Protection Act....minutes after it was passed by the Legislature.
Thanks for listening....I appreciate the responses...I'm back to the drawing board as far as strategy.
I hope my friend here isn't brandishing illegally......
I carry with the chamber empty because I have zero concern for accidental discharge....AND.....AND...I wanted to reserve the slide racking action to be a warning action....I warned the HoBo's off but unwisely it seems.
It seems the prudent course of action would be to carry loaded in sturdy holster and master verbal command behavior. It's an open question as to the intent of the Bums. Robberies and Robbery/assaults start off with an "interview" by the perp. I avoided "the interview" but was clearly using a 10 pound hammer for flyswatter.
I posted my account of the event on my professional wedding photographers forum in response to another photographers story about being carjacked in New York City....no way in hell (unless maybe she was related to Chuck Schumer) was she going to get a carry permit. Our Governor signed the Minnesota Personal Protection Act....minutes after it was passed by the Legislature.
Thanks for listening....I appreciate the responses...I'm back to the drawing board as far as strategy.
I hope my friend here isn't brandishing illegally......
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
12smile said:I hope my friend here isn't brandishing illegally......
I think she is. I can sense intent.
Travis Lee
Member
Hmm, a lot of monday morning quarterbacking and second guessing and legal nannying going on here....
Personally, I see nothing but unwisdom in carrying a pistol with an empty chamber. If a pistol is dangerous with a round chambered it is too dangerous to carry, IMO. The time it takes to rack the slide could be fatal. I have seen situations that I would not want to spend that time.
Have any of the posters who take issue with his drawing his pistol ever done the Tueller drill? Do you really understand how long it takes an attacker to advance 20 ft? If you think he should have yelled at them to "STOP!" at 20 ft, I fully expect they would have continued another 10 ft before the command even sank in to their besotted brains.... and that is assuming that aggressive beggary was the only intention they had.
I've been attacked several times, and they are seldom preceeded by, "Hey, you, I'm going to attack you now!...ready...set...", from 50 ft away. Seldom, as in NEVER.
Was he WRONG? did he "brandish"?, I wasn't there, but I have been in comparable situations where the warning signs before an attack were clear, but QUICK! As I read the first posting, it seemed more like sensible deployment in preparation to a self defense shooting.
Please tell me exactly HOW close you are willing to allow two aggressive men to advance? Exactly how much lead time do you you expect to perceive a threat, verbalize, (blah blah blah, "appropriate action", blah blah blah) ascertain that the threat is still coming, draw, aim, and fire?
I would rather present a weapon 2 seconds before I need to fire, because that might, I say MIGHT, be enough time for an adversary to save his own life and break off his aggression. If I draw and aim in haste, with only one tenth of a second before I HAVE NO OPTION but to triple tap somebody in the chest..... well, my attacker really has no opportunity to retreat, repent and re-evaluate his life choices, now does he?
Drawing too early is debatable, drawing too late can be fatal.
--Travis--
Personally, I see nothing but unwisdom in carrying a pistol with an empty chamber. If a pistol is dangerous with a round chambered it is too dangerous to carry, IMO. The time it takes to rack the slide could be fatal. I have seen situations that I would not want to spend that time.
Have any of the posters who take issue with his drawing his pistol ever done the Tueller drill? Do you really understand how long it takes an attacker to advance 20 ft? If you think he should have yelled at them to "STOP!" at 20 ft, I fully expect they would have continued another 10 ft before the command even sank in to their besotted brains.... and that is assuming that aggressive beggary was the only intention they had.
I've been attacked several times, and they are seldom preceeded by, "Hey, you, I'm going to attack you now!...ready...set...", from 50 ft away. Seldom, as in NEVER.
Was he WRONG? did he "brandish"?, I wasn't there, but I have been in comparable situations where the warning signs before an attack were clear, but QUICK! As I read the first posting, it seemed more like sensible deployment in preparation to a self defense shooting.
Please tell me exactly HOW close you are willing to allow two aggressive men to advance? Exactly how much lead time do you you expect to perceive a threat, verbalize, (blah blah blah, "appropriate action", blah blah blah) ascertain that the threat is still coming, draw, aim, and fire?
I would rather present a weapon 2 seconds before I need to fire, because that might, I say MIGHT, be enough time for an adversary to save his own life and break off his aggression. If I draw and aim in haste, with only one tenth of a second before I HAVE NO OPTION but to triple tap somebody in the chest..... well, my attacker really has no opportunity to retreat, repent and re-evaluate his life choices, now does he?
Drawing too early is debatable, drawing too late can be fatal.
--Travis--
FedGunner
Member
JamisJockey said:
You live in Minnesota. The land of 1,000,000 liberals. Think about your question.
12-34hom
Member
Your pics are out of line for this site.
Your actions concerning these folks indicates to me that you harbor some type of racist attitude towards them referring to then as "Mexi - bum's".
Finnally, your action with a firearm are equally stupid. Folks who exclusively rely on a firearm for their safety are in for a real bad experience.
Good luck - your going to need it someday.
12-34hom.
Your actions concerning these folks indicates to me that you harbor some type of racist attitude towards them referring to then as "Mexi - bum's".
Finnally, your action with a firearm are equally stupid. Folks who exclusively rely on a firearm for their safety are in for a real bad experience.
Good luck - your going to need it someday.
12-34hom.
In Michigan only but may be in other states as well.
In Michigan the atty general:
In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions
defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary
definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997).
According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition
(1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or
flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. –n. A
menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the
meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For
example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the
court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a
weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about,
or displayed in a threatening manner."
P.s. If law enfrocement can and why can't we? (rhetorical no answer expected)
answerguy said:
In Michigan the atty general:
In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions
defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary
definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997).
According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition
(1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or
flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. –n. A
menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the
meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions. For
example, in United States v Moerman, 233 F3d 379, 380 (CA 6, 2000), the
court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a
weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about,
or displayed in a threatening manner."
P.s. If law enfrocement can and why can't we? (rhetorical no answer expected)
Yes, you did brandish and are lucky not to have had repercussions from such action.
That answered the question but you asked for feedback, so here goes.
Improve your attitude regarding your obligations and responsibilities as a carrier; an enhanced study of concealed carry laws might help.
Be very careful of offenses to others, particularly groups or perceived classes of people; they have the same rights as you, and freedom from cowboys is one.
If you want immediate usage of your firearm, change to a revolver asap.
You had a valuable learning experience; hope you benefit from it.
That answered the question but you asked for feedback, so here goes.
Improve your attitude regarding your obligations and responsibilities as a carrier; an enhanced study of concealed carry laws might help.
Be very careful of offenses to others, particularly groups or perceived classes of people; they have the same rights as you, and freedom from cowboys is one.
If you want immediate usage of your firearm, change to a revolver asap.
You had a valuable learning experience; hope you benefit from it.
Taurus 66
Member
I would rely on a firearm for safety against others with guns, knives, bats, iron pipes, whathaveyou, who intend to do me harm. There may come a time I will not succeed in defending my life. Who knows what the future holds? But the gun at least put me on a level playing field with the armed assailant(s). Without a firearm or an ability to just haul arse, It would be a grave situation for me.
You're right in the sense that guns are not a good substitute for seat belts in automobiles or on various amuzement park rides; guns also make poor helmets and are not really good as eye protection. Guns cannot be used as safety harnesses. They can't even warn you of an approaching tornado! How lame is that?!
... it goes on and on ... you get the picture.ReadyontheRight
Member
Only in a Nanny State like Minnesota would a disapproving Nanny (or Mom) with a baby feel so empowered as to give a guy a tongue-lashing for brandishing his weapon instead of screaming or running away.
Anyplace can be dangerous, but Loring Park ain't North Minneapolis. I bring my kids there once in a while. I could see why you wouldn't think you'd need one in the pipe, but you should probably try to be consistent in how you carry.
It's YOUR choice whether you carry in condition 1, 3 or whatever. Just be sure to practice so you rack the slide as a matter of course. As you've found out, mixing the way you carry is not a great idea.
Anyplace can be dangerous, but Loring Park ain't North Minneapolis. I bring my kids there once in a while. I could see why you wouldn't think you'd need one in the pipe, but you should probably try to be consistent in how you carry.
It's YOUR choice whether you carry in condition 1, 3 or whatever. Just be sure to practice so you rack the slide as a matter of course. As you've found out, mixing the way you carry is not a great idea.
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
Laws vary from state to state, and Minnesota's Penal Code is kinda hard to sort through in the Web. But I'd guess this would apply:
609.222 Assault in the second degree.
Subdivision 1. Dangerous weapon. Whoever assaults another with a dangerous weapon may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than seven years or to payment of a fine of not more than $14,000, or both.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/222.html
Subd. 10. Assault. "Assault" is:
(1) An act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or
(2) The intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/02.html
(5) Criminal intent does not require proof of knowledge of
the existence or constitutionality of the statute under which
the actor is prosecuted or the scope or meaning of the terms
used in that statute.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/02.html
I'd suggest you look into your state's laws and maybe get some training.
Joel Rosenberg posts here once in a while, and he's a hell of a writer. I'd go take his course if I were you.
http://ellegon.com/
Pepper spray would be a very good option for the pan handler. I would have one in the pipe in the kel-tec and in a good pocket holster with nothing else in the pocket. Pepper spray would be in the other pocket If pepper spray did not work then pull the gun (already have the hand on the grip) and show it but not point it. You tried to avoid (reluctant participant) to the incident which is key to a self defense claiim to an outside witness.
I know the area your talking about and understand the problem. There are many solutions to the problem.
I know the area your talking about and understand the problem. There are many solutions to the problem.
He wasn't "brandishing"
.. because, in Minnesota, we don't have an offense of "brandishing." He was in Minnesota, so, therefore, he wasn't brandishing. (Similarly, nobody is ever guilty of "breaking and entering" here, even if, well, they break and then enter. We have a burglary statute that covers most of that, though.)
That's the good news. Sorta. The bad news is that he was, at least arguably, committing a low level assault. (I don't have the Minn. Stat. in front of me, but behavior that would frighten somebody else as to their personal safety is an assault, hereabouts, although there's lots of wiggle room in all of that.)
The real questions, I think, are:
1. Did he scare somebody inappropriately, or at all?
2. Was there a better way to defuse the situation?
3. What should a reasonable person do in a similar situation?
I'm not making a judgment, since I don't have to. 'Sides, I'm not real thrilled about being surrounded by what sound like, at best, aggressive panhandlers. At best.
One tool from the ol' toolbox, which has been known to be effective, at least on some occasions: take a bladed stance, weak hand outstretched, palm up, strong hand behind the hip (in my case, it'd be in the pocket, where my pocket holster and snubby live) and ask in a reasonably loud but not particularly friendly way, "Can I help you?" (The body language is saying, pretty unmistakably, "Don't come any closer.")
Somebody not stopping at that combination of language and body language is telling you something. As to what they're saying, and what's the best thing to do, hey, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
And, yup, this whole "my gun is going to be taken away and used against me" is, as far as I can tell, at least almost entirely urban myth with regard to civilians. (Cops have different issues. A fair number of cops are killed with their own guns, largely after having surrendered them at gunpoint.)
.. because, in Minnesota, we don't have an offense of "brandishing." He was in Minnesota, so, therefore, he wasn't brandishing. (Similarly, nobody is ever guilty of "breaking and entering" here, even if, well, they break and then enter. We have a burglary statute that covers most of that, though.)
That's the good news. Sorta. The bad news is that he was, at least arguably, committing a low level assault. (I don't have the Minn. Stat. in front of me, but behavior that would frighten somebody else as to their personal safety is an assault, hereabouts, although there's lots of wiggle room in all of that.)
The real questions, I think, are:
1. Did he scare somebody inappropriately, or at all?
2. Was there a better way to defuse the situation?
3. What should a reasonable person do in a similar situation?
I'm not making a judgment, since I don't have to. 'Sides, I'm not real thrilled about being surrounded by what sound like, at best, aggressive panhandlers. At best.
One tool from the ol' toolbox, which has been known to be effective, at least on some occasions: take a bladed stance, weak hand outstretched, palm up, strong hand behind the hip (in my case, it'd be in the pocket, where my pocket holster and snubby live) and ask in a reasonably loud but not particularly friendly way, "Can I help you?" (The body language is saying, pretty unmistakably, "Don't come any closer.")
Somebody not stopping at that combination of language and body language is telling you something. As to what they're saying, and what's the best thing to do, hey, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
And, yup, this whole "my gun is going to be taken away and used against me" is, as far as I can tell, at least almost entirely urban myth with regard to civilians. (Cops have different issues. A fair number of cops are killed with their own guns, largely after having surrendered them at gunpoint.)
Havegunjoe
Member
Looks like the consensus is you shouldn't have pulled the gun.
It's not technically brandishing in MN. If we can agree to that, you know you could have open carried in this situation. While I don't advocate open carry for tactical reasons, the sight of your gun holstered would probably send them running. Any objection from the tree huggers is moot as open carry is legal in Minnesota.
One suggestion, as soon as the homeless yell to me I immediately say something like, 'Not interested" put my weak hand up and shoo them away. I do not think asking, "can I help you" is a good idea as it begs a response and possibly engauges you in further conversation while they close on you. I want them to go away, I already know what they want, my money. I guarentee you most if not all are carrying some type of weapon from living on the streets. It goes with the territory. I don't let them get close to me if at all possible.
It's not technically brandishing in MN. If we can agree to that, you know you could have open carried in this situation. While I don't advocate open carry for tactical reasons, the sight of your gun holstered would probably send them running. Any objection from the tree huggers is moot as open carry is legal in Minnesota.
One suggestion, as soon as the homeless yell to me I immediately say something like, 'Not interested" put my weak hand up and shoo them away. I do not think asking, "can I help you" is a good idea as it begs a response and possibly engauges you in further conversation while they close on you. I want them to go away, I already know what they want, my money. I guarentee you most if not all are carrying some type of weapon from living on the streets. It goes with the territory. I don't let them get close to me if at all possible.
Last edited:
brownie0486
Member
Though the act of taking the gun out may or may not be brandishment per state statute and the jurisdiction in this case, in some locales it could also be a charge of "inciting the public" by displaying of the firearm.
The lady could report that she was put in fear from the act of displaying the weapon. Inciting the public is a charge thats on the books under various wording in most jurisdictions.
The inciting may not stick, the brandishing may not stick, but you can and may be charged if you pull a firearm and not use it in most cases. It could also be called threatening lethal force when not warranted.
You'd better be able to articulate your reasonable suspicion you were in imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury.
I understand some here might not like it, or agree with that, and in fact one has been baiting me regularly on this subject in other threads openly and in PM's here, but the laws are very specific on the issues.
It seems we have many logical thinkers on this subject and in this thread particularly. The baiter hasn't bothered to come in on this one yet, I wonder why? Could it be he isn't interested so much on the threads subject but on me specifically? It's looking that way, we'll see here shortly I'm sure.
Robin Brown
The lady could report that she was put in fear from the act of displaying the weapon. Inciting the public is a charge thats on the books under various wording in most jurisdictions.
The inciting may not stick, the brandishing may not stick, but you can and may be charged if you pull a firearm and not use it in most cases. It could also be called threatening lethal force when not warranted.
You'd better be able to articulate your reasonable suspicion you were in imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury.
I understand some here might not like it, or agree with that, and in fact one has been baiting me regularly on this subject in other threads openly and in PM's here, but the laws are very specific on the issues.
It seems we have many logical thinkers on this subject and in this thread particularly. The baiter hasn't bothered to come in on this one yet, I wonder why? Could it be he isn't interested so much on the threads subject but on me specifically? It's looking that way, we'll see here shortly I'm sure.
Robin Brown
I was the original poster.
Gentlemen,
I was the original poster of the "Brandishing" incident. It happened Summer of 2005. and Joel, above was my Carry Permit instructor (He's Brilliant...in Minnesota you want to take his course)
It was good to post on this and our local board. Simply it points out my inexperience...I need situational training...I was a lifeguard in High School and once actually saved a guys life...because I had drilled over and over the techniques of a water rescue. In the emergency where a guy was really drowning it was automatic and flawless.
I think the same groundwork needs to be laid in weapon handling....and I don't have it. I've begun enacting scenarios with shouted commands and that's a start. (the cat is however getting a little nervous ) and in some neighborhoods I do carry w/ round in chamber.
I have the best of intentions and am evolving my awareness of the grave issues at play here....I'm also aware that now in Minnnesota there are 26,000 (?) or more permit holders who are also "Novices" in personal protection....that is what the Antis visualize...they're thinking 26,000 dumb white guys with guns (no reference to Chenney here )
Finally to me the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is up there with voting. It makes me "proud to be an American" Just like the Founding Fathers wanted it ....a populace bristling with Arms.
Eddie
Gentlemen,
I was the original poster of the "Brandishing" incident. It happened Summer of 2005. and Joel, above was my Carry Permit instructor (He's Brilliant...in Minnesota you want to take his course)
It was good to post on this and our local board. Simply it points out my inexperience...I need situational training...I was a lifeguard in High School and once actually saved a guys life...because I had drilled over and over the techniques of a water rescue. In the emergency where a guy was really drowning it was automatic and flawless.
I think the same groundwork needs to be laid in weapon handling....and I don't have it. I've begun enacting scenarios with shouted commands and that's a start. (the cat is however getting a little nervous ) and in some neighborhoods I do carry w/ round in chamber.
I have the best of intentions and am evolving my awareness of the grave issues at play here....I'm also aware that now in Minnnesota there are 26,000 (?) or more permit holders who are also "Novices" in personal protection....that is what the Antis visualize...they're thinking 26,000 dumb white guys with guns (no reference to Chenney here
)Finally to me the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is up there with voting. It makes me "proud to be an American" Just like the Founding Fathers wanted it ....a populace bristling with Arms.
Eddie
- Status
