My question is this. At what point do these cease to be legitimate defensive gun uses and become illegal brandishing? I'm sure there is an easy common sense answer, but IMHO the laws rarely allow for the application of common sense. I'm also aware that the laws vary greatly from state to state. Not looking for legal advice, just curious what your opinions are.
This is my Opinion: There are many like it but This One Is Mine:
If I draw, it is because I reasonably believe that I am justified in using deadly force against someone under 776.012 Florida Statutes. when I draw, it is for the purpose of aiming and destroying my target.
If, in those last brief moments, my target displays some semblance of self-preservation (and it HAS HAPPENED more than once) and flees my general vicinity, no longer offering deadly force as the dance du jour, then at that time I am no longer justified in offering deadly force in my own self defense and at that time I holster my firearm and call the law to get on the record what just happened.
There are probably many instances where drawing and then someone backing down doesn't justify shooting whereas if they continued you would have been justified in shooting. I had it happen recently. I've had it happen with animals and people.
Is this not the same thing? The situation that caused you to draw justified shooting. In the course of your presentation of your firearm in preparation to utilize deadly force, the situation was de-escalated by the reaction of your assailant, at which point your justification to shoot ceases. This does not make the draw unjustifiable; It merely means that you didn't have to defend your life THIS TIME but you very nearly did.
Even with animals, maybe more so, officials question you very hard about what made you think you had to shoot. A question that I used in response that seemed to even the playing field was, "At what point would you shoot?" "You are a police officer. Trained in situations like this. At what point would you shoot?" I guarentee that they wouldn't wait as long as they would like us to because they know how quickly things can go bad.
Oh, I wouldn't know about that. I'd say that varies from officer to officer. Having stared down my sights at a human once or twice in my life, I found myself looking for reasons NOT to shoot, not waiting for justification; I had it. I could have legally taken the shot, but I did not. In retrospect, I am rather glad I did not. And by the fact that I am still alive, I feel I made the correct judgement call in those cases.
Before I'd judge another human being on his willingness to take human life, I'd have to see how he's done with that scenario before. If he hasn't, there's really no litmus test to know in advance, no matter how good the MMPI test is.
What you say here is true, but at the moment you draw the firearm, if you're not justified in shooting, you're probably not justified in drawing. That's not to say that as you draw, and the situation continues to change, that you HAVE to shoot. What's important (legally) is the situation at the split second you start to draw.
Yes, exactly.
Then it's no longer anger, it's stalking with some sort of intent.
Yup. That can get scary. Since your assailant has chosen the time, best you choose the place for a confrontation that appears inevitable, and choose WISELY, as this may be your only advantageous decision you get to make.
If it isn't, you should consider yourself fortunate.
S
I agree, ease off the caffeine... slow down, and yes... guns are not a magic wand that ward off bad people.