Absolutely.
But that doesn't mean you HAVE TO pull the trigger. That's all I'm saying.
How many people here have used a gun to defuse a situation?
- Thread starter Vincent Vash
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely.
But that doesn't mean you HAVE TO pull the trigger. That's all I'm saying.
You are wrong.
If he has a blog, an article, a website, a verifiable interview, ANYTHING you can post or link to that supports your position, please post it.
The old myth that you must fire if you draw is just that, a myth.
It is totally possible and plausible that one may be justified in drawing even if they don't pull the trigger.
Would you like to participate in a thread on this topic, if I start it and move some quotes over to it, in the Legal section here on THR?
Tony_the_tiger
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 905
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
Drawing a firearm is use of lethal force. In Florida, Lethal force is only justified when your life is in danger or to prevent a forcible felony. Do not draw your weapon unless you are justified to use lethal force.
That said, you do not have to fire the weapon once it is drawn.
If drawing the firearm stopped the threat, you cannot continue to use the firearm and fire, or you have committed murder. Once the threat to life and limb or the forcible felony is stopped, you are no longer justified to continue the use of lethal force, which means you may not shoot nor may you continue to brandish your weapon.
Any situation, in Florida, where one may use a firearm in self defense, one may draw the firearm in self defense. Both are uses of lethal force. However, use of lethal force does not require you to kill/injure/maim/murder/shoot anyone, even if you are justified to do so.
That said, I would not encourage anyone to make use of a firearm in a threatening manner unless you are justified in actually using the firearm.
Drawing a firearm is use of lethal force. In Florida, Lethal force is only justified when your life is in danger or to prevent a forcible felony. Do not draw your weapon unless you are justified to use lethal force.
That said, you do not have to fire the weapon once it is drawn.
If drawing the firearm stopped the threat, you cannot continue to use the firearm and fire, or you have committed murder. Once the threat to life and limb or the forcible felony is stopped, you are no longer justified to continue the use of lethal force, which means you may not shoot nor may you continue to brandish your weapon.
Any situation, in Florida, where one may use a firearm in self defense, one may draw the firearm in self defense. Both are uses of lethal force. However, use of lethal force does not require you to kill/injure/maim/murder/shoot anyone, even if you are justified to do so.
That said, I would not encourage anyone to make use of a firearm in a threatening manner unless you are justified in actually using the firearm.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oh hogwash. That's one of the most absurd readings of the law I've ever heard.
If you draw a gun and the aggressor instantly throws up his hands, you don't shoot! And you are not a criminal.
If you draw a gun and the aggressor turns and runs, you DON'T SHOOT! And you are not a criminal.
Being granted the fraction-of-a-second's reprieve that allows you to CEASE hostilities before you take a life is not a CRIME. It is a blessing! Claiming that if you draw you must shoot is so wrong-headed as to be MURDEROUS.
Shooting after someone has ceased to be a threat is NOT justifiable use of force, it is manslaughter at best.
Mr. Gutmacher has never said otherwise, no matter what someone may have MISunderstood about his advice.
FWIW, I've drawn a pistol on someone twice in FL. Didn't shoot either time. Both times I called the police, told the rseponding officer what happened, and why I had gone to deadly force. Both times the responding officers felt I was justified, and charges were pressed on the aggressor. I wasn't even detained, much less charged with a crime.
Ralph is mistaken. As long as the justification for deadly force exists, it is legal to present a weapon. If the situation changes and you no longer need to shoot, thats a good thing.
Ralph is mistaken. As long as the justification for deadly force exists, it is legal to present a weapon. If the situation changes and you no longer need to shoot, thats a good thing.
pockets
Member
I have.
I will not elaborate, as I have no desire at all to enter into the arguing that has become the bulk of this thread.
.
mljdeckard
Member
The vast majority of all armed encounters end with no shots fired. This is why we argue that concealed carry is effective.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The laws of different states vary, as does the tenor of the police and prosecutors -- what one prosecutor may see as justified, another will prosecute for.
But in general, if you are justified in using deadly force, you commit no crime if your attacker stops at the sight of your weapon.
But in general, if you are justified in using deadly force, you commit no crime if your attacker stops at the sight of your weapon.
phonesysphonesys
Member
The times I have presented my weapon has stopped all aggression. I have never been charged because I never started the incidents. You don't have to fire if the person or persons stop their actions.
Certaindeaf
member
Most folk wouldn't tell you squat were you sharing a couple drams around a campfire, last I heard anyways.
Sorry, Ralph, you do not understand law and are being very misleading.RalphS said:
The Common Law definition of "assault" is: an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. In general, display of a firearm in a threatening manner is, in all States, an assault of some type (although the laws of one or more State may call it by a different name) and is prima facie a criminal act. but in all States it will be a defense against a charge of assault (or any similar crime) it you establish that your assault satisfied the applicable legal standard for justification.
In most States the standard for justifying the threatening display of a gun is the same as for justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In a few, it's a somewhat lesser standard. But in all States you showing at least prima facie that your display of a gun in a threatening manner was justified will be a defense to a charge of assault or similar crime.
St8LineGunsmith
Member.
LMAO Dont bring a stick to a gun fight fool
As I stated before, I really don't want to argue Florida law with anybody. I've lived here for 20 years and over the years there have been a number of cases where people presented a gun, brandished a gun, waved a gun, or whatever you want to call it, claiming self defense, but they were charged with Agg Assault with a Firearm.
Here's the latest one, in which a woman fired a warning shot into the ceiling to stop her husband from attacking her and she got 20 years.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-11/...entencing-hearing-florida-woman?_s=PM:JUSTICE
Whether you guys want to believe this or not, is your decision. Doesn't matter to me. I understand the law here.
Here's the latest one, in which a woman fired a warning shot into the ceiling to stop her husband from attacking her and she got 20 years.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-11/...entencing-hearing-florida-woman?_s=PM:JUSTICE
Whether you guys want to believe this or not, is your decision. Doesn't matter to me. I understand the law here.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
OOOOOhhh! Of course there have been! That happens all the time. But that doesn't prove ANYTHING about your claim.
The problem is that they were not able to prove that they HAD to do that thing in order to stop a lethal threat. But if the justification was not present for them to draw/brandish, it certainly wasn't present for them to SHOOT SOMEONE, either.
Having shot someone would not create that justification, nor prove that it existed!
What might mask/muddle this tendency is that FL does have a fairly generous "stand your ground" type law wherein a DA may not dig very deep into whether the homicide was strictly justified if the shoot-ee is deceased (or even if not). The fact that shots were fired may be thought to lend credence to the evidence that shots NEEDED to be fired. But in truth, people are found not to have been justified in shooting at least as often as they're found not to have been justified in brandishing.
The risk in this claim is that it seems to encourage someone who has had to draw to believe, "Oooh, I'd better go ahead and shoot this guy in order to prove my self defense claim!" And that's utterly backward.
So what??
That doesn't support your claim in any way, shape, or form.
You are absolutely, completely wrong, and what you are telling other people is extremely dangerous in the event that they believe you.
[1] How long you lived there is irrelevant. You still haven't demonstrated that you understand Florida law on the subject.RalphS said:
[2] No doubt people have displayed a gun in a threatening way, claimed self defense and were charged with aggravated assault. Exactly what happened in each of those cases matters a great deal. And how many were exonerated?
[3] And how many people displayed a gun in a threatening manner, claimed self defense and were not charged because the evidence clearly showed that the display of the firearm was justified?
And that case has nothing to do with the topic.RalphS said:
The defendant's problem in that case is that she left, got a gun, came back. On those facts, she'd pretty much lose pretty much everywhere.
The thing is, Ralph, you don't fully understand how important the details are.
Roadking Rider
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 466
Only once many years ago in the military. All I can say is it involved a knife and fortunately the person came to their senses dropped the knife and no shots where fired.
Last edited:
sansone
Member
you are permitted to expose a gun (without pointing) if you are in mortal danger.
In court you must convince the judge you WERE in mortal danger
In court you must convince the judge you WERE in mortal danger
Certaindeaf
member
If you are in mortal danger, nevermind
I have had to use a firearn to defend myself 3 times in my 58 years. Thank God ,I've never had to pull the trigger. One was an attemped robbery about 35 years ado, one was an attempted home invasion, and one was a case of road rage. In all three cases, I pointed a weapon at someone who, I truly believed was intending to do me bodily harm.
P.S. I don't know if the threat of bodily harm defuses or escalates a situation. However, I can tell you that looking down the barrel of a 12ga shotgun had an instant tranquilizing effect on a very large, very angry young man who was rapidly approching me with a tire iron. YMMV.
P.S. I don't know if the threat of bodily harm defuses or escalates a situation. However, I can tell you that looking down the barrel of a 12ga shotgun had an instant tranquilizing effect on a very large, very angry young man who was rapidly approching me with a tire iron. YMMV.
Last edited:
I have had to use a firearn to defend myself 3 times in my 58 years. Thank God ,I've never had to pull the trigger. One was an attemped robbery about 35 years ado, one was an attemptrd home invasion, and one was a case of road rage. In all three cases, I pointed a weapon at someone who, I truly believed was intending to do me bodily harm.
P.S. I don't know if the threat of bodily harm defusers or escalates a situation. However, I can tell you that looking down the barrel of a 12ga shotgun had a instant tranquilizing effect on a very large, very angry young man who was rapidly approching me with a tire iron. YMMV.
P.S. I don't know if the threat of bodily harm defusers or escalates a situation. However, I can tell you that looking down the barrel of a 12ga shotgun had a instant tranquilizing effect on a very large, very angry young man who was rapidly approching me with a tire iron. YMMV.
Certaindeaf
member
A gun in the hand is worth twelve bushes full of internet mouthing.
josiewales
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 694
^ +1
- Status
