"if you draw, you must shoot!" myth or fact?

[dekibg]

Let me start by saying that I do not have Ohio concealed carry permit, nor I am planning to obtain it anytime soon ( unless circumstances in my surrounding change ). Most of my friends do have one, and I respect and understand people that chose to do so.
My question is that almost everyone is saying that if you pulled a gun on someone you have to shoot that person, or you will be in a being trouble, meaning that your life was not really in danger and what you just did was a "brandishing" - which is a felony.
I partially get that, but is there a "middle solution" there , some sort of gray area on case by case basis?
My question is : what happens if attacker froze for a moment,stopped the attack and decided to run away at the last moment (after you pulled the gun) ?
Even if you could maybe legally get off the hook for shooting ( and potentially killing that person), while still standing in a front of you, is that something you want to live with if you knew that he is giving up ?
Other situation: if you shoot a person and go to a trial, and it was determined that your shooting was not justified, your legal consequences will be much, much harsher than "brandishing a weapon" charge against you.
I know it is a very complicated issue, it is a fast decision that needs to be made, and carrying a gun is big responsibility.
What is additionally confusing me is that gun magazines in letters to editor have "gun saving lives" type sections where people send their stories that sometimes go like this :
" I was in xxxx city with my wife, and after dinner at a restaurant we took a shortcut via small alley to the parking lot, and we noticed a group of 3 men that was following us. I turned around, lifted my jacket, and showed them my 1911 . You should see the look on their faces before they turned around and ran away !"
Is that not promoting that type of "brandishing" behavior ? Although , I would personally probably do the same if I was sure they had ill intentions and even more if my family is with me...
Lastly, I would like to hear from you stories if something similar happened to you or someone you know and what was the outcome
Thank you,
dekibg

 

[Sam1911]

This is a common misconception. It has some basis in a good idea but carried too far.

Anytime you draw a weapon or of course when you fire a weapon at another human being you are in very deep legal waters. If your gun clears the holster you probably should assume that you are going to have to explain your actions to the police and possibly defend it in court. However the fact is that you very well may have been justified in a fear for your life and that the action of drawing was completely appropriate but that the situation changed and there was no legal justification or realistic need to fire that weapon. In fact firing that weapon if the absolute requirement to do so has evaporated would almost certainly be a case of murder or at least manslaughter.

If one wanted to correctly phrase that statement it would probably be something like, do not draw your firearm unless you believe that you are going to have to shoot to save your life immediately. If the person threatening you changes their plans, which certainly does happen, then you are very fortunate not to have to pull the trigger. You will very likely still have to discuss this with the police. But the fact that it turned out you didn't have to shoot is not so hard to understand or accept that you would automatically be admitting guilt to an unjustified act, simply because you did not press the trigger.

There is a kind of faulty logical leap in saying that the fact you fired a shot at someone somehow justifies your absolute need to fire that shot. If that were the case no one would be convicted of murder! And a similar mistake is in play if one says that the fact that you didn't fire a shot automatically means there was no reason for you to fear for your life and draw your weapon.

 

[Frank Ettin]

.... I would like to hear from you stories if something similar happened to you or someone you know and what was the outcome....

First, in the Legal Forum we discuss what the law is and how it works. An understanding of the law is not necessarily furthered by collecting stories about what people did and got away with.

Second, at least some of the information the OP is looking for might be found in the threads An Overview of Basic "Use of Force" Law and "Brandishing", and "When Can I Draw"?.

 

[alsaqr]

""if you draw, you must shoot!" myth or fact?"

It's trash passed around by the uninformed.

 

[Officers'Wife]

If you are in a situation where the reasonable person could expect his life or health to be in jeopardy you have the right to bring a weapon into play. If that weapon reverses the situation without being used then use of the weapon can no longer be considered self defense.

Therefore the answers is the legal standard - it depends...

 

[MechAg94]

My question is that almost everyone is saying that if you pulled a gun on someone you have to shoot that person, or you will be in a being trouble, meaning that your life was not really in danger and what you just did was a "brandishing" - which is a felony.

First, I don't hear anyone saying that. I guess someone might be, but that is flawed which you obviously realized. When it comes to legal issues, attention to detail is critical. The line between prison and legal self defense can be very thin in some cases. Thanks for asking before acting.

Others have explained it better than me. As Sam1911 said, you need to be able to communicate some sort of fear of death or serious bodily harm before drawing. It is pretty much the same justification for shooting. The situation 2 seconds later when you aim your gun might be the same, or it could be different. You have to keep your brain engaged and stop when necessary. If the bad guys turn to run away as you point your gun, the threat goes away in most cases. They might also shoot back at you as they run. It is up to you to keep your brain engaged so you will have fewer issues explaining yourself to police or maybe later a jury.

What I have found helpful is to pay attention to real self defense stories and article. You often do not have the full story, but you can put yourself in the person's shoes and ask yourself "what would I do?". It is a good way of training your thinking so you might be better armed for decision making. www.selfdefensegunstories.com has 20 or 30 minute podcasts covering specific self defense events. There are lots of other places to look including gun forums.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

If your friends believe that they probably shouldn't be carrying.

 

[AZAndy]

Displaying a gun in the manner described in your anecdote would be illegal in Arizona. I don't know about Ohio. I'm sure you could look up Ohio code regarding brandishing and its definitions.

The Buckeye Firearms Association has a nice breakdown of Ohio law pertaining to firearms right here.

 

[Jim Watson]

Yet it is commonly said that only one time in eleven is it necessary to fire the gun, the other ten times the threat of armed resistance is enough.

One trainer said that we must avoid training in "The Stroke" in which the gun is reflexively drawn, aimed, and fired... like we do in IDPA and IPSC.

I don't know where that puts you legally what with "brandishing" ordnances and such. As usual, it is wise to be the first one to call the police after an armed encounter.

 

[dekibg]

""if you draw, you must shoot!" myth or fact?"

It's trash passed around by the uninformed.

I agree.
Even worse is probably the line that you sometimes read on certain forums:
" A cop, good friend of mine, told me once - if you shoot them at your property, make sure you drag the bodies inside your house."
Yeah, right.
Forensics will never figure out what really happened there ...

 

[dekibg]

If your friends believe that they probably shouldn't be carrying.

I have to agree on that, too.
Sam 1911 explained it very simply and clearly.
I will point to some of my friends to read this

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Before we passed our defensive display law in AZ in 2009 there was no white space between being justified to use the gun and showing or letting a threatening person know you had a gun. That still was not "must shoot" but as a practical matter pretty close. Now we can do a defensive display when threatened with "physical force".

 

[Panzerschwein]

Sometimes the presentation of the pistol and a command voice can quell any violent actions. Not all the time, but you don't certainly have to produce fire every time you draw on a suspect. Doing so is not the wisest thing. Remember to call the cops first because you will be the "complainer" instead of the other person.

 

[Deaf Smith]

My question is that almost everyone is saying that if you pulled a gun on someone you have to shoot that person, or you will be in a being trouble, meaning that your life was not really in danger and what you just did was a "brandishing" - which is a felony.

You need to read the writings of Massad Ayoob (trainer, ex-cop, courtroom expert.) Your ideas about pulling a weapon during an attack are grossly misinformed.

Deaf

 

[Old Dog]

Pretty much.

 

[JohnKSa]

In some areas it might be true that you may not draw until there is justification to shoot, but even that doesn't mean you have to shoot after you draw. It just means that at the time you make the decision to draw, you must have justification for the use of deadly force. In the interval between that decision and the time that the gun is ready for use, things could change enough that the justification for deadly force no longer exists. Shooting at that point would actually be criminal.

It is not always true that drawing a gun requires justification for the use of deadly force in order to be legal. In TX, for example, it is legal to draw and display a gun when force (not necessarily deadly force) is justified as long as the goal of the defender is to create the apprehension that deadly force will be used if necessary.

 

[rtroha]

what you just did was a "brandishing" - which is a felony.

If you search Ohio Revised Code for the words "brandish" and "brandishing", it is only mentioned in the act of committing another crime.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/

I have read news articles where people have been charged with Aggravated Menacing for displaying their gun during road rage incidents.

 

[Kendal Black]

It just means that at the time you make the decision to draw, you must have justification for the use of deadly force. In the interval between that decision and the time that the gun is ready for use, things could change enough that the justification for deadly force no longer exists.

I heard the old mantra, "if you draw you have to shoot," from an old senseless elderly constable who never shot anybody.

 

[Sistema1927]

Firearms are used millions of times to thwart crime without a single shot being fired.

 

[dekibg]

You need to read the writings of Massad Ayoob (trainer, ex-cop, courtroom expert.) Your ideas about pulling a weapon during an attack are grossly misinformed.

Deaf

as I said , I don't CC. My friends do.
That is why I never bothered to really learn what can be done or not in that type of situation in public.
My guns are for range practice and for home defense - where different "rules of engagement" would apply - I think i have a pretty clear picture about Ohio laws in that regards.
Thank you for pointing out Massad's articles, I will look up, read and share with my friends.

 

[230RN]

This is a common misconception. It has some basis in a good idea but carried too far.

(Bolding mine.)

True. As the Armed Citizen section of the American Rifleman used to say "The mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, has prevented many crimes."

I am also enamored of the expression found on some edged weapons*, "Do not draw me without reason; do not sheath me without honor."

I have a picture of one of my favorite gun-holster combinations which I titled, "Do not draw me without reason; do not holster me without honor."

A slight change, the philosophy is the same, though.

Terry

* Or maybe their scabbards... I'm not sure where I got this from.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Opening Post: ".... if you pulled a gun on someone you have to shoot that person, or you will be in a being trouble, meaning that your life was not really in danger and what you just did was a "brandishing" - which is a felony."
Please contact a criminal law attorney in your jurisidiction and ask about what constitutes felony brandishment where you live.
Felony brandishing in most jurisdictions is threatening with a weapon without a reasonable justification, like fear of death at the hands of an intruder. Threatening with a weapon out of anger is neither reasonable nor justified in most jurisdictions.
One of my relatives chased off one home invader and detained his accomplice at gun point for arrest by responding officers; she refrained from shooting either one of the miscreants and was not charged with brandishing.
If you draw a gun on a threatening person who has ability and opportunity to do you bodily harm and a "reasonable person" -- police, prosecutor, judge, jury -- would feel they were at risk of death or greivous bodily harm if they were in your shoes, you are usually justified in non-lethal use of a lethal weapon (such as threatening) and most jurisdictions, like where I live, prefer non-lethal self-defense.
This meme that if you draw against a threat you are obligated to shoot to kill, rather than holster the gun if the threat runs away or proves to be harmless, is dangerous advice.

 

[Sav .250]

WHAT! Who comes up with stuff.

 

[JeffG]

To my theory of teaching there are three distinct, separate decisions to shooting a firearm.
Grasp Grasping a gun to put in your holster, gun safe, etc. You obviously don't fire a gun each time you grasp it.

Point A gun is always pointed whether it is stored, in a holster, or in your hand. Every time you point a gun,do you shoot it? No, that is a separate decision.
Shoot Once you point a gun, the separate decision comes if you want to fire the firearm. Then, you insert the trigger finger from its place indexed along the frame of the gun, and press the trigger.

In a draw stroke, where the decision to fire the gun at a target or an attacker, all three functions come as one movement. Firing the gum each time you draw it is inconsistent with this decision making process, and could lead to an unwanted discharge only because you trained yourself to fire the gun each time it was drawn.

 

[Sam1911]

WHAT! Who comes up with stuff.

Well, to be honest, it isn't QUITE as absurd as it sounds. (I mean, yes it is, but there's more to the story.)

There is an idea we've discussed here before that gets to that very important question of "if you draw that gun, what are you going to DO with it?"

Some of our strategy discussions tend to hang up on those very ticklish situations where someone's doing something that makes you scared or very uncomfortable but which isn't exactly (quite, not yet) a threat to your life. And the tempting answer is to draw that gun and "warn the guy off" or "show him you mean business" or "show him you're not an easy mark", etc.

And we all know that a gun is NOT for scaring off folks or making you look hard to handle.
And we all know that drawing or displaying a gun in a way that causes apprehension or fear in another person is a form of an assault, and in itself is a felonious act and the various state laws deal with it in ways somewhat similar to a homicide -- in that you have to have a compelling, clear, immediate reason why you had to do that thing in order to keep on living or prevent grievous bodily harm, or you can be found guilty of the crime of assault.

But there's a very fine, fuzzy, gray line between unlawfully brandishing a weapon and lawfully drawing in a moment of dire need and seeing the would-be attacker turn and run and NOT shooting him. And the truth of which it was may only be finally determined by a jury.

Out of all of that comes this idea that, if you drew your weapon and you didn't actually shoot it at the other guy, then that's prima facie evidence that you didn't NEED to shoot the other guy, and it casts doubt on whether you needed to draw the gun in the first place. Especially if both of you end up in court and the investigative evidence doesn't really show anything clearly, and the other guy is testifying that you were a belligerent nut running around with your gun drawn yelling at people. Some folks have taken that possibility WAAAY out to the extremes and said, well if you DID shoot the other guy, that would (somehow?) verify that you definitely believed you needed to, and thus would obviate the question about brandishing. Of course that overlooks the problem that instead of going to court to fight a charge of brandishing a weapon, you've now shot and/or killed someone and have that heavy burden of proof to sustain instead.

It is a highly nuanced problem to sort out, entirely dependent on the tiny details of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED in the fractions of seconds in one specific instance, and we gun carrying types are all trying to write up a rule that says what to do in general situations like that. And in trying to write up a rule book for extremely variable and infinitely changing circumstances we end up confusing the idea that one should never draw a firearm unless they're convinced they're about to have to immediately shoot to save their life, with the false inverted idea that if we draw the weapon, we must shoot someone.

These are not simple ideas, and there's a whole country full of average folks out there trying to grasp them and wrestle with how they might have to apply them. The temptation to come up with dangerous simplifications is pretty strong.