Draw your weapon to fire or to scare away?

[divemedic]

This is the Florida law:


Missouri law reads almost identically.

The problem is, that's only the part of the code that pertains to weapons violations per se. There's also the law on assault and aggravated assault. The penalty for that is generally a whole lot more severe in all states.

There are more than a few books written on this subject. I was not commenting on the specific situation form the OP. I was commenting that the DISPLAY of a firearm is not deadly force. Actually, I specifically stated that pointing a firearm at a person IS non deadly force, which of course you cannot use unless you are in self defense. (Same as punching someone)

If you draw a weapon, and have it pointed at the ground next to your leg- is that brandishing? IMO, probably not, as it would be hard to argue that the display is "rude, careless, angry, or threatening" but it will be for the court and a jury to decide.

Again, all of this, including whether or not you will be charged and/or convicted for the display of a firearm, are dependent on whether or not ANY force (not just lethal) was justified.

Having been in that situation, and actually having been arrested for it (charges were dropped at the first hearing) I can tell you that I would rather be as familiar with what the law says as possible, and err on the side of defense.

 

[DammitBoy]

I asked: Should he have waited until the four teens were close enough to be able to grab him and his girlfriend?

You answered:

These teens were just walking down the sidewalk. Sure, it was a little suspicious that they split into two groups, but they could have done that for any number of reasons. They had not done anything threatening.

You'll note I didn't ask if they had done anything threatening, and I didn't ask you to describe what they were doing.

I'll note you completely avoided answering the question.

 

[carbuncle]

I'm not clearing leather unless I'm going to pull the trigger as soon as I have a sight picture.

I did, however, spend an extremely uncomfortable few minutes walking an individual off a property when I was a security guard with my hand on the butt of my holstered 5906 ready to draw and fire the entire time. I had a 6p shining in the guy's face, until the end when we got to the stairs above the exit door: I cut the light, he twitched in that "I'm going to kick your ***" kind of motion then caught a glimpse of why I had had my right hand still through the entire encounter, looked me in the eye and saw something he didn't like, turned white as a sheet and took off running like an Olympic sprinter.

It turned out he had stolen about $200 worth of electronics from one of the rooms on the property, I'm real glad I didn't have to shoot him over that.

 

[B yond]

Originally Posted by DammitBoy
I asked: Should he have waited until the four teens were close enough to be able to grab him and his girlfriend?

You answered:

Originally Posted by B yond
These teens were just walking down the sidewalk. Sure, it was a little suspicious that they split into two groups, but they could have done that for any number of reasons. They had not done anything threatening.

You'll note I didn't ask if they had done anything threatening, and I didn't ask you to describe what they were doing.

I'll note you completely avoided answering the question.

While you're noting that, read the very next post, which I also wrote, which stated:

if someone is getting closer to you than you're comfortable with, telling them to back off or keep their distance seems more appropriate than just pulling a gun.

See, I did answer your question. Note that.

Believe it or not, not every teenager is up to no good. Going around drawing your weapon whenever a teenager gets close enough "to grab [you or your girlfriend]" is lunacy. You can note that too.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Draw to fire, scare away is a bonus.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Forked Attack

It seems to me I see some equivocation regarding the intent of the group of "youths" after having observed them to 1) follow, 2) split into a standard attack fork, 3) begin to close.

In those shoes, I don't see any percentage in wondering if I can negotiate with them or assertively tell them to "come no closer" with the numbers as they were.

If there's a phyisical out -- cut across the street, for example -- that seems to be the next attempt at establishing more distance.

Failing that, then we're in a variation of the Tueller drill. One assailant, one defender, 21 feet, time to draw. Two assailants? Three? The OP seems to specify four. The girlfriend is not an asset in this, but rather a liability.

So, how close do you let four guys get before you act? Do you wait until all four have pulled a knife? Just two? Only one?

The guy is tactically compromised, as his weapon is not ready to fire. What does that do to his four-on-one Tueller distance?

Under the circumstances, I have trouble faulting his actions.

Yeah, we can speculate all day long about exactly why four "youths" would fork into two pairs and bracket an apparently easy target. Maybe they wanted a smoke. Maybe they needed directions. Maybe they needed money for gas. Maybe they wanted to borrow bus fare. Maybe they only wanted to ask the time.

Uh, sure. I always fork into pairs when I'm out on the street with my friends and want to ask the time. Something to do with accoustics, I'm sure.

Hell, maybe it was a prank. Shucks! I'd sure wait until four guys were up close and personal to see if it was a prank. Sure I would.

At some point you have to stop thinking it to death and go with your gut.

Waiting until the two pairs are ten feet away, only then to discover they don't mean to play nice, is -- in my mind -- a really bad plan.

 

[X-Rap]

It seems that some of the Samurai class would have us do like the old Spaghetti Westerns and see if we can clear leather faster than the bad guys. This, I won't draw my gun unless lead clears the barrel seems to be prevalent amongst them as well.
Sorry gents I don't intend to fight fair and if having a gun in my hand while I make my retreat and insure the safety of my charges seems illegal or ungamely I CCL.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you draw a weapon, and have it pointed at the ground next to your leg- is that brandishing? IMO, probably not, as it would be hard to argue that the display is "rude, careless, angry, or threatening" but it will be for the court and a jury to decide.

How hard would it be to argue that the display is not threatening? What was your motive in pulling the gun? You didn't take it out to clean it.

Brandishing? Maybe. Assault? Maybe. Think for a minute that they wouldn't press charges?

And of course it is not concealed--in many jurisdictions that's another violation.

If your action was not immediately necessary and something does then happen, you may have quashed your hope for even a jury instruction to consider a defense of justifiability.

In addition, should one of the perps attack you after you have drawn a gun, they just might be the ones judged as having been justified in self defense. They don't even have to be carrying lawfully for that to happen.

Also, you may end up getting shot by a citizen or a police officer who interprets your action as one creating imminent danger.

If drawing is immediately necessary, you wouldn't point the gun at the ground--doing so would likely weaken your claim of immediate necessity, IMHO.

It's impossible to second guess a situation without having been there, but I don't think drawing on someone 75 yards away would be very easy to justify at all. The question has been properly asked, how close do they have to be before you do have to act? There are four of them--that's ability; if they close the distance sufficiently, that's opportunity; the remaining question is one of immediate jeopardy.

So far, there is no indication of violent intent. Probably the best way to determine whether jeopardy exists would be to change course yourself--cross the street, for example--and see what they do then. That should answer the question. If they go on their way, that's one thing. If they follow you (and are clearly doing so), you have tried to avoid and evade; the next question is whether escape is safely possible; and the next, I suppose, is whether retreat is required.

Yeah, I know, people like to crow about "stand your ground" laws and such, but I'd rather try to defuse the situation, and failing that, have a much stronger and more supportable defense should bad go to worse and then to worst. You can change direction as a defensive tactic without "retreating" and you don't need to argue about perfect safety or anything else to use that option.

By the way, the OP is not covered by a stand your ground law in Pennsylvania.

Personally, I'd like to live in a state in which casually moving my shirt aside without touching my holstered weapon would be permitted.

 

[B yond]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that these teens were splitting up to go in different directions at the next intersection, and really had no intention of even contacting the the main character in the scenario.

Then they see this guy who's walking in front of them look at them, pull a gun, and rack the slide....

Of course they ran! They didn't want to get shot, robbed, or worse.

Now, just for the sake of argument, lets say one or all of those teens had been carrying their own concealed weapons (legally or not). The main character just escalated the situation to where these teens would probably be justified in defending themselves. After all, he never gave them any verbal warning, or made it clear that he was afraid or uncomfortable with their proximity to he and his girlfriend, he just looked at them and pulled his gun out.

By drawing his gun, he not only gave up a tactical advantage he should have had, he made himself a potential target, probably broke at least a couple of laws, scared off some teens who may or may not have been up to no good, and potentially endangered himself and his girlfriend.

There are at least two sides to every story.

Heck, what if one of the teens lived in a nearby house? What if dad was sitting in the living room watching the whole thing unfold while polishing his hunting rifle? What do you think would happen when he saw some stranger pull a gun at his kid?

IMHO, you shouldn't draw your weapon unless you need to use it. CCW is a last resort. It is not a deterrent to a potential crime.

The main character was operating on assumptions about hypothetical ways the scenario could have played out, but only considering scenarios where he would need to defend himself. Carrying a hammer does not make every potential confrontation a nail

I'm not questioning whether or not the main character thought he was in danger. I'm questioning whether or not a jury of reasonable people would see it the same way. I highly doubt it.

 

[B yond]

In all fairness if I'm going to criticize how the main character handles the situation I should probably include how I would've handled it were I in his shoes.

I would've handed the beverage to the girlfriend, just like he did.

I would've kept an eye on both groups and pprobably have picked up the pace a bit.

If the group across the street began to come over or the group behind began to close the distance I would've positioned my hands to begin a two-handed draw from concealment (without revealing the weapon at this point), while asking in a loud and authoritative tone "Can I help you?" If they continued getting closer I'd issue an order to stay back. If they didn't comply I'm draw.

If they were running at me and I didn't have time for verbal commands I'd just draw while yelling to stay back.

The important difference here is I'd wait until they made an move that signaled aggression. Walking behind me or across the street from me doesn't fit that bill in my mind.

 

[qajaq59]

There is something I haven't seen discussed yet. But this is a long thread so perhaps I missed it? Even if the police say you were fully justified and do not arrest you, it does not stop there.
#1, you have had to take a human life, and bad guy or not, that can be tough to live with.
#2, perhaps you'll still have to deal with a civil suit by the bad guys family. And that does not require "Beyond a reasonable doubt". Will they win? Who knows? With juries the way they are, that's anyone's guess?

Hopefully none of us will ever have to find out.

 

[stuckinsocal]

Never, ever draw a gun on someone unless your life or the life of someone else is in immediate danger of serious bodily injury or death. Any situtation less than that doesn't justify the drawing the gun. The firearm should be the absolute last resort in any situation. If what someone is doing is so dangerous and heinous that I need to resort to deadly force he needs to be immediatley stopped. That means physically stopping him with the gun. As always, not having to shoot someone is the best option. But if the situation is serious enough that you have to draw a gun, it's probably serious enough that the use of deadly force is justified. And the opposite is also true. If you're not justified in exibiting your gun, you're generally not justified in firing it.

 

[supham]

I think it depends on the case. I had someone trying to break in my back door (sliding glass). I flipped the light on, with me behind the kitchen counter with my gun pointed at his head telling him he better get away.

 

[stuckinsocal]

I agree, it depends on the case. I'm talking about a general statement. If the situation is serious enough to warrant drawing a gun, it should be serious enough that the threat needs to be stopped immediately (since we don't draw guns on people that aren't immediately threatening lives). Shooting him may be the only way to stop the threat before he kills you. Again, it's a general statement that doesn't apply to all situations. Maybe a better way to explain it is if the threat stops between the time I draw my gun and the time I'm ready to fire, I don't shoot. But if, after he knows that I'm armed because I pull my gun and he still continues to be a threat, firing is probably the only way to immediately stop him.
I think that there's a shift in thinking on this though. The mentality has seemed to change from shoot/don't shoot situations to "may shoot/don't shoot" situations. Drawing a gun doesn't necessarily mean that you should fire it. But I think that people need to be prepared to shoot if necessary and never draw to only scare somebody. It's one of the basic gun safety rules: never point a gun at something you're not willing to destroy. In my mind, drawing to scare somebody is the same (meaning totally unjustified) as shooting to wound or firing a warning shot.

 

[BURN]

I weapon is drawn only to protect a life or stop a violent attack.....

said weapon is used in a manner to stop the threat...once the threat goes away the gun goes away....

K.I.S.S.

 

[stickhauler]

We must live in different Ohios.

In MY Ohio, when not in home or auto, you are required to ATTEMPT to withdraw if you can do so IN PERFECT SAFETY. You are also permitted to defend another with deadly force, if were the roles reversed, you would be entitled to use it to defend yourself. I doubt anyone would even THINK about prosecuting you for defending that old woman, even if you did so on Carty Finkbeiner's lawn, with Toby Hoover looking on in horror, terrified that the robber might be harmed in some way.

I don't recall seeing a mention of the bad guy trying to steal the poor, defenseless older lady having a gun. I recall it a case of him trying to steal a purse. Ohio law does consider the threat level, and introducing a firearm into the situation, if the criminal is not armed, is gonna get you charged most anywhere, including Ohio.

But play it as you wish, make sure you've got a "throw down" without your fingerprints on it, because I'll betcha a "C" note that if you drop a bad guy stealing a purse from even the most ardent 2nd amendment advocate cop in Ohio, that ain't armed, you're gonna be behind bars for a while.

Given the scenario given, a bad guy trying to steal a purse from an old defenseless lady, and me seeing it while carrying a firearm, my understanding is that unless he's holding a gun or knife, and actually trying to kill the lady, me pulling a gun on him to stop him is a crime. And shooting an unarmed person, even a purse thief, is felonious assault at best if you just wound him, and manslaughter if you do kill him. Criminal courts don't rule based on sympathy, or how they feel about what you did, they convict or not based on law.

 

[X-Rap]

In my dream the woman is being kicked and punched.

 

[dec41971]

You can never predict how some situation is going to unfold. Did y'all see the retarded cop who pulled his gun at the snowball fight in DC? Did anyone run? Noo, people started heckling the guy. He dared someone to hit him with another snowball (meaning he was going to shoot ofcourse!). You know what, he got nailed in the face. Lucky for him he didn't shoot. Now he is going to have to face IA, and who knows, might be demoted or loose his job. It was only a snowball, with clearly hundreds of people hauling them at each other in a friendly game. What was going through his head. He is the proverbial guy walking around with a hammer and everything looks like a nail to him. How about announce you are a cop and want no part of this game? That'd sure have solved the problem instantly. I think the guy probably has an anger problem.

 

[scoutsabout]

While I agree that this kind of thing can be difficult to decide in the moment, I would also agree that it shouldn't be over-simplified.

I find that what works best for me is to think of it in stages, or threat levels. In all such scenarios, our behavior should be outwardly confident and assertive. This helps in sorting out the stimulus so that you can make decisions. We must be proactive if we hope to stay on top of things.

One of the great philosophical frameworks for this is the Escelation of Force (or Continuum, if you prefer). Many people think that defensive measures are strictly reactionary, but this is not necessarily true. There are non-aggressive things that we can do to change the dynamics of the encounter in our favor. Whether it is body language and eye contact, putting distance and barriers between us and the threat, or issuing verbal challenges, there are plenty of things we can do to sort out ambiguous situations.

Now, if the situation is NOT ambiguous... and the creeps are obviously out to get you, or have initiated an obviously hostile act, then your behavior should be such that "actions speak louder than words."

There are rare instances when displaying a firearm, in addition to challenges/commands, would be the most appropriate course of action. Still, I think it should be avoided if at all possible. The best training for this is to run yourself through many scenarios. Get together with some buddies, your wife, whoever... and brainstorm things like this. Keep in mind that your actions may be predicated on the nature of your environment.

I would always prefer to keep my element of surprise.

 

[stuckinsocal]

While I agree that this kind of thing can be difficult to decide in the moment, I would also agree that it shouldn't be over-simplified.

I find that what works best for me is to think of it in stages, or threat levels. In all such scenarios, our behavior should be outwardly confident and assertive. This helps in sorting out the stimulus so that you can make decisions. We must be proactive if we hope to stay on top of things.

One of the great philosophical frameworks for this is the Escelation of Force (or Continuum, if you prefer). Many people think that defensive measures are strictly reactionary, but this is not necessarily true. There are non-aggressive things that we can do to change the dynamics of the encounter in our favor. Whether it is body language and eye contact, putting distance and barriers between us and the threat, or issuing verbal challenges, there are plenty of things we can do to sort out ambiguous situations.

Now, if the situation is NOT ambiguous... and the creeps are obviously out to get you, or have initiated an obviously hostile act, then your behavior should be such that "actions speak louder than words."

There are rare instances when displaying a firearm, in addition to challenges/commands, would be the most appropriate course of action. Still, I think it should be avoided if at all possible. The best training for this is to run yourself through many scenarios. Get together with some buddies, your wife, whoever... and brainstorm things like this. Keep in mind that your actions may be predicated on the nature of your environment.

I would always prefer to keep my element of surprise.

+10000 on that. Deadly force should always be the last resort.
De-escalation is always best if possible. I got out of a potentially violent situation when a guy on a motorcycle was chasing me because he thought I flipped him off. Although I didn't flip him the finger, I lied and told him that somebody had cut me off in traffic and it was meant for him, rather than the guy on the bike. He believed me and drove off. Having to lie isn't the best thing to do, but it sure beat having to defend myself against him....I could've easily run him over with my truck, especially since he was on a motorcycle.
BTW, I had my arm hanging out of the window to feel the breeze, so I really have no idea why he thought I gave him the finger. That's also a good reminder that you can be attacked anywhere at any time, even for unknowingly offending somebody by what you're doing.

 

[zignal_zero]

doesn't anybody believe in pistol-whipping, anymore? what's happened to this world

 

[swagner89]

"...in a situation where the law-abiding citizen is criminally threatened with physical harm, the great saving force of the self-defense handgun will be demonstrated more in its psychological deterrent power...if the timing is right..."
-In the Gravest Extreme, M. Ayoob

sounds to me like the timing of the OP was just right. The BGs would not have revealed their intent to attack until they actually attacked; OP would have had no choice but to fire (assuming there was still time), and then he'd be dealing with homicide charges. The way it went down- BGs walk away, OP walks away.

 

[NWCP]

My dad as well as 20 years in the military drilled one thing into my brain when it comes to weapons. If you draw your weapon it is with the intention of destroying a perceived threat, or whatever is in front of your sight picture. It doesn't leave your holster otherwise unless you're cleaning, or storing it. There are some knuckleheads out there that don't scare easily. Unless you're willing to pull the trigger find another way out of the situation. My goal when it comes to firearms is to avoid putting myself in harms way. Other than hunting, or range days punching holes in paper my firearm never leaves its holster, and the rifles remain in the gun safe. If I have zero options left and my, or another's life is in mortal danger when my weapon is drawn it is for one purpose only and that is to neutralize the threat. Brandishing is not an option. If on the other hand, the bad guy gets religion real quick and hits the floor begging me not to shoot he then he will be held at gun point until the police arrive. It should never be an idle threat though.

 

[Dannix]

I don't recall seeing a mention of the bad guy trying to steal the poor, defenseless older lady having a gun. I recall it a case of him trying to steal a purse. Ohio law does consider the threat level, and introducing a firearm into the situation, if the criminal is not armed, is gonna get you charged most anywhere, including Ohio.

But play it as you wish, make sure you've got a "throw down" without your fingerprints on it, because I'll betcha a "C" note that if you drop a bad guy stealing a purse from even the most ardent 2nd amendment advocate cop in Ohio, that ain't armed, you're gonna be behind bars for a while.

Given the scenario given, a bad guy trying to steal a purse from an old defenseless lady, and me seeing it while carrying a firearm, my understanding is that unless he's holding a gun or knife, and actually trying to kill the lady, me pulling a gun on him to stop him is a crime. And shooting an unarmed person, even a purse thief, is felonious assault at best if you just wound him, and manslaughter if you do kill him. Criminal courts don't rule based on sympathy, or how they feel about what you did, they convict or not based on law.

I don't know about Ohio law on the matter, but if a man doing anything malicious to a little old lady it doesn't matter if he's armed or not. Now if he tries to pickpocket a man of equal size that's a different matter.

"Purse snatching" can vary too. If the lady put the purse down and the thug snatched it, that's one thing. If the lady is carrying it and the thug drags her around while attempting to take her purse, that's another. One potentially involves a foot chase by a good Samaritan, the other something more significant.

 

[X-Rap]

I still can't believe that some seem to feel the need to have the BG right on top of them before they feel the right to prepare for their defence.
The example of the man and wife is a clear situation if it happened as presented. Why would you want to wait until they closed to dangerous distance when way out numbered in what was obviously unusual behavior.
I wouldn't say to do this at the mall or ball game.