Incident at a "No Services" rest area

[Mainsail]

Why are you completely ignoring the fact that the OP admits he did it so they could see and to let them know his was armed? The OP even said so. That is the most important part of the discussion and you missing it completely.

I haven't missed it. I believe it isn't relevant to the discussion. He came in here and told us why he did it the way he did it- BUT- that information wasn't available to the guys in the truck. Since they are the potential victims (for lack of a better term) of the so-called brandishing, the only relevant information is the information that was reasonably available to them at that time. Like I've mentioned several times now- if I were witnessing those actions as described by the OP, I wouldn't have considered it threatening or intimidating.

To address the original topic, I believe the key to their intent (let's discuss their intent for a while) was that they drove down and parked in a position to block his only available egress. If they were traumatized by the sight of his holstering actions, they would have left. They drove into a position where he would have to pass to get by. Not the actions of someone worried about a holstered handgun. I think they were considering their options, and potentially intending to block his exit. That could have gotten ugly fast.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ClickClickD'oh: There's a lot of talk regarding the possible commission of the crime of Brandishing. Problem is, there's no such crime in Oklahoma.

Actually, there is. In the code, it is now called the "misdemeanor pointing of a firearm". That one requires actual pointing of a firearm, either loaded or unloaded. That's not in question here. We can dispense with it.

Although I am in the camp that thinks you may have been unwise for surrendering a tactical advantage, nothing you did was against Oklahoma law.

I would be very hesitant to conclude that. It is unlawful to threaten anyone with a weapon without lawful justification--anywhere. What constitutes lawful justification does vary, but two men sitting in a truck would not cut it. See Frank Ettin's explanation. What we do not know is whether Oklahoma courts have placed a rather high threshold on what might constitute an unlawful threat.

If not, the question would then becomes one of whether the OP did intentionally do that. His post would give a pretty good piece of ammunition to an investigator, hence my gentle warning.

Without that, or on top of that, it would be a simple matter of whom to believe, the complainant or the suspect--unless the incident had been recorded, in which case there would be hard evidence for charging authority, or the triers of fact, should it go that far, to evaluate. That could tip the scales either way.

Did he seem to naturally and casually turn while occupied with something else? Or did it seem that he was trying to make an impression? A judgment call. Intent, judged by others.

I'm not quite sure why the term "brandishing" comes up so often in these discussions. We used the term in the ST&T sticky simply because it does, but usually the unjustified presentation of a firearm in a confrontation leads to the possibility of other charges.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Since they are the potential victims (for lack of a better term) of the so-called brandishing, the only relevant information is the information that was reasonably available to them at that time. Like I've mentioned several times now- if I were witnessing those actions as described by the OP, I wouldn't have considered it threatening or intimidating.

Not always true, and highly dependent on the wording of the actual law in effect. For example, here in Texas the applicable law would be disorderly conduct, and it is dependent on the intent of the person displaying the firearm, not the perception of the person witnessing it. If he displays a weapon with the intent to cause fear or alarm he has violated the law here. Any competent lawyer could easily argue that if his stated intent is to get them to move along, he is intending to cause fear and alarm.

To address the original topic, I believe the key to their intent (let's discuss their intent for a while) was that they drove down and parked in a position to block his only available egress. If they were traumatized by the sight of his holstering actions, they would have left. They drove into a position where he would have to pass to get by. Not the actions of someone worried about a holstered handgun. I think they were considering their options, and potentially intending to block his exit. That could have gotten ugly fast.

Objection, supposition.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Actually, there is. In the code, it is now called the "misdemeanor pointing of a firearm". That one requires actual pointing of a firearm, either loaded or unloaded. That's not in question here. We can dispense with it.

As he did not say anything about pointing the firearm, I left that one out of the conversation.

However, don't forget I did say this, "Now, that's not to say that people won't just flat out lie and say things to an officer that never happened." As I stated, I don't believe anything he did violated Oklahoma law in and of itself, but you never know which version of the story will be the one most believed in court.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Ah, I see how you're reading it. Again, he didn't *show* them a gun, he allowed them to see his holster his gun which I contend is not the same thing at all. My "original post" is way back at the bottom of page one.

Back to the topic:

Let's look at it from a different angle. Imagine you're sitting in your car with your wife at a rest stop late at night- you've pulled in to make a cell phone call because you're such a law abiding citizen. Now you notice me pull in and I park away from you. I take two dogs out of the back seat on leads, then I open the trunk. You see me holster a handgun, pull my sweatshirt over it and walk with the dogs away from where you're parked. At no time do I even so much as look your way. Do these actions frighten or intimidate you? More importantly, do these actions present to a reasonable man that my intention was to intimidate you?

I say no. If you called the police and reported those actions it’s unlikely they’d send a car. None of those actions are unlawful on their face, and a reasonable man would not find them to be threatening.

First of all, if the police get a report of a "man with gun", don't bet a single red cent on them NOT coming to check it out.

When I receive a report of a problem in engineering in the shipyard where I work, the true scope of the problem cannot reliably be ascertained until the engineer (myself) actually visits the site of the problem and investigates for himself. Likewise, the true scope of a report to the police of a problem cannot be accurately ascertained until the police actually show up and investigate for themselves.

So, if the police get a report of a man with a gun you can almost certainly bet they will send somebody to investigate...and they'll be investigating from the starting point of the information they received over the phone by whomever reported it, whatever that may be. (And YOU certainly will not know what these people have reported to the police about your actions.)


Second, with respect to what a "reasonable man would not find them to be threatening"; once the authorities are involved, your say in this matter rapidly declines and it increasingly becomes what OTHER people have to say on the matter.

Once the investigating officer has checked things out to his/her satisfaction, the immediate decision on the matter rests with him/her. Not you. And if an arrest is made, or some legal citation issued, then the matter moves on to what the DA has to say and, very possibly, what the court has to say. If it boils down to your word against theirs, then it gets very murky indeed.


The point here being that the only thing you really have full control over is how you decide to comport yourself during the process of obtaining/arming yourself with any kind of firearm. Once other people are involved in this, THEIR opinion, right or wrong, becomes a very significant issue the first time somebody opens their mouth to complain.


Show your gun or do not show your gun...the decision is yours, along with all the potential risks, whatever they may be and however serious they may become. But DON'T blow those risks off as warrantless, or somehow not actionable. That's not part of good Operational Risk Management.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mainsail: The word 'intimidate' doesn't appear anywhere in the OP, ...

And it is only one of the things mentioned by Frank as possibly being seen as constituting a threat.

What was he doing? Holstering a gun.

In a manner to make sure that his action was noticed.

The way I'm reading it he was attempting to warn them that he was armed.

Exactly. And just why did he do that? Might it perhaps have been to ensure that someone kept his distance? Are you aware that people have served serious time for having done just that without lawful justification?

That is why the Defensive Display provision was enacted by the Arizona legislature. Placing one's hand on a gun, showing part of it, or telling someone you are armed for purposes having to do with one's safety, are now lawful under certain circumstances.

In Oklahoma? Well, maybe there's some case law, or maybe it has yet to be made. That could cost the person who decides to make it his personal fortune and the best years of his life,

In the end he arrived home safely and that's the best part.

Yep.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RetiredUSNChief: So, if the police get a report of a man with a gun you can almost certainly bet they will send somebody to investigate...and they'll be investigating from the starting point of the information they received over the phone by whomever reported it, whatever that may be. (And YOU certainly will not know what these people have reported to the police about your actions.)

That is precisely why the most knowledgeable experts in use of force law emphasize the importance of being the first to report the incident.

Now, should the OP have called this one in? What would he report? A truck pulled in behind me and had me worried?

That gives some indication of the difficulty he would have had in explaining his actions, had he been accused of having done anything threatening.

Someone has used the term gray area, and absent some hi-res recorded imagery from which reasonable people could draw a reasonably firm conclusion, that's what it is.

It is an area to try to avoid.

 

[SwissArmyDad]

I'd say you acted prudently and pro-actively. You didn't go lookin' for trouble, yet you conveyed a clear message of, "don't even think about it".

No harm done, no confrontation = win.

If your spidey-sense starts bleepin' away, 9 times out of 10, it's not for "no reason".

 

[Mainsail]

First of all, if the police get a report of a "man with gun", don't bet a single red cent on them NOT coming to check it out.

So, if the police get a report of a man with a gun you can almost certainly bet they will send somebody to investigate...

That may be true out there on the east cost, but it is not true here in Washington. I'd bet you much more than a red cent and you'd lose.

I had the police called on my while walking laps after breakfast and openly carrying a 1911 in Wright Park in Tacoma. As I rounded the bend, I noticed a woman hissing angrily into her phone, "...but he's carrying it right out in the open! Aren't you going to send someone?" She wasn't happy that the police were NOT going to investigate the lawful activity of carrying a firearm. And what could they do? They cannot legally detain me for open carry because it's a perfectly lawful activity.

Listening to the scanner one afternoon I heard a call for a man with a gun. Two cars were dispatched. The first car into the area reported back that "...it's just an open carrier." He never got out of his car and the man was never contacted or even aware the police had been called.

Your erroneous assumption highlights something I mentioned previously- the maddeningly differing laws between the various states.

 

[Potatohead]

I thought "the element of surprise" was the concealed carrier's gospel? And yet I read all these stories of people who "accidently on purpose" expose their firearm to someone when they perceive them as a threat. I am failing to understand this phenomena. If the two men in the truck were bent on criminal activity, isn't the theory that upon seeing the gun they make plans to shoot the person carrying the gun first so they can then fulfill their criminal intentions?

I'm no sociologist but it depends what type of criminal doing which type of crimes you're dealing with I would think. Just a couple punks up to no good would probably just ease on to the next victim if they see a holstered gun on your side. Then you can avoid all of that messy litigation that you can't avoid if you have to pull it and do the dirty dirty.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

What we really need is to see what Oklahoma's law says on the subject. I know Colorado's law isn't relevant but I pointed it out as an example of just how little it takes in some states.

To be perfectly clear what the OP did would have been illegal in Colorado BECAUSE OF his intent

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That may be true out there on the east cost, but it is not true here in Washington. I'd bet you much more than a red cent and you'd lose.

(Good stuff deleted in the interest of space.)

Your erroneous assumption highlights something I mentioned previously- the maddeningly differing laws between the various states.

This is not just the East Coast. I've been around the block quite a bit in my travels.

Whether or not the police check something out, and exactly how much priority they put into it, depends a lot on dynamics that you and I are not privy to, police scanners aside. What is reported, how it's reported, what's said, where it came from, the ability of the person reporting to articulate the problem, whether or not the police already have information on this from other sources, what other activities are taking place in their jurisdiction at that time, manpower available, local crime statistics/trends, and more factor into this.

I submit that NOT checking out a "man with gun" report is the rare exception, not the rule. Not checking out a "man with gun" report where someone calls in "Hey, I just say a man with a holstered gun at my I-40 rest stop walking his dog" is a far cry from not checking out a "man with gun" report where someone calls in "Hey, a man just threatened me with a gun at my I-40 rest stop!" It would be interesting to hear the take from any LEO members on this site, based on their experience.

YOU don't know what OTHER people are reporting, nor do you know about any of the local/regional priorities police may have with which to evaluate such reports. The fact that YOU didn't have an officer investigate when one lady that you overheard calling in a report about you is NOT a basis in which to say ANY such reports will be summarily dismissed by the police. The police have an obligation to evaluate and determine what action (if any) to take, and they'll do so based on all the information they have at hand.


As for the "maddingly different laws" aggrevation you mentioned, I certainly agree...to a point. I really don't think they're all that different, with the few spot exceptions across the nation, on this subject. And different laws is part of the inherent freedoms we enjoy by having such a diverse, multi-tiered government system of federal, state, and local jurisdictions. It allows over 310 million people to exercise some level of legal diversity across the country.

Unless, of course, it'd be much better having one big government who rules over all citizens on all matters unilaterally, regardless of any differences from one locality to another.

 

[HoosierQ]

Here's what I have learned at THR. NEVER bring to light the details of your experiences with carrying...experiences like this one...under any circumstances. It never goes well, you will get Monday morning quarterbacked to death and there will be a lengthy debate as to whether:

• a) what you did was a good idea or not,
• b) what you did was legal or not,
• c) whether or not you were a complete idiot,
• d) whether or not you were a hero,
• e) what you did was likely to get somebody innocent killed or not,
• f) what you did was likely to get you killed or not
• g) what you wrote about the event could be used against you in court or not

It never goes well, don't expect it to.

 

[Kleanbore]

We really should not be focussing on the "man with a gun" question.

The question at hand has to do with what would happen, should someone who believes (or who improperly wants to claim) that someone else has threatened him with a dangerous weapon--a bludgeon, a blade, or a firearm, report the incident to the police.

That is quite unlike a "man with a gun" call, which may well not indicate any unlawful conduct at all unless it comes from a sports venue or the inside of a post office or from within a building or from some other places. The authorities would have no basis for not investigating the report.

The OP describes an incident in which a citizen, apparently with virtually no basis for a reasonable belief that he had been threatened in any manner, holstered a firearm and while doing so "turned sideways toward them so they could plainly see what I was doing".

Absent lawful justification, that action would certainly have been defined as some form of assault in most states.

In Oklahoma, a threat to harm someone is defined as assault. Would an action deliberately calculated to make known that one is armed in a situation such as the one described be seen as having constituted a threat in Oklahoma? Maybe, or maybe not, but the way to find out is not a good road to travel.

Of course, nothing would likely happen unless the other persons were to report the incident. But as scaatylobo has told us, should they choose to do so, their ability to describe the weapon and the holster will give them credibility at the outset. Again, it is best to be report at the scene or if that is not safe, as soon as possible after leaving. And to be the first to report.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by HoosierQ: Here's what I have learned at THR. NEVER bring to light the details of your experiences with carrying...experiences like this one...under any circumstances. It never goes well, you will get Monday morning quarterbacked to death and there will be a lengthy debate ....

Well, your advice is good, but your reasons are not.

Debate is a good thing, but not in public if it is about something in which you were involved.

Looks like its time to trot out this old horse again.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Here's what I have learned at THR. NEVER bring to light the details of your experiences with carrying...experiences like this one...under any circumstances. It never goes well, you will get Monday morning quarterbacked to death and there will be a lengthy debate as to whether:

(deleted lots of good stuff)

It never goes well, don't expect it to.

But...what if I posted something about what I did and I was WRONG?

Or, what if I posted something that happened to me and there was a BETTER way of handling it than I did?

Or, what if I posted something I did correctly, but for the WRONG reasons?

Or...just about anything else on something I may post?


Personally, I'm not such a big man that I cannot accept criticism for my own actions. Whether I'm right or wrong about the way I may handle things in a posted event, I try and learn SOMETHING about what people say...and for the obvious inputs that are way off base, I can tactfully avoid or discuss as I choose.


I have an event of my own that took place back when I was working my way through college wherein I chose to display my own firearm as part of my readying maneuvers. (As a bicyclist coming home from work late one night, I was being confronted by a man with a tire iron, who stopped his car in the road in front of me.) If I were to post all the details of that encounter, I should EXPECT a broad spectrum of responses, whether I agree with them all or not.


I see a LOT of people here with decent advice, perspectives, and experiences. If what they have to say makes me think about what I did, research various sources of data, and possible better ways to handle my scenario, then it's an event well worth the time.

I've already had several myths dispelled on a variety of subjects during my relatively short tenure on THR through discussions very much like this one. I like to think that I've added some valuable tools to the toolbox of life because of this and that they'll serve me well in the future, should the need arise.

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^ +10

Well said.


Willie

.

 

[Kleanbore]

Post #115 was not intended to discount the value of good, constructive discussion. It was intended to point out, one more time, that posting on a public forum can have very unfavorable effects in the legal systems, both criminal and civil. It can happen and it does happen.

Should one wish to comment on something specific that has even a remote likelihood of involving questions of legality, one should always consult one's own attorney, privately, to protect attorney-client privilege. Otherwise, anything created is subject to discovery.

I personally do not think that the OP is at any real risk here, but no one can guarantee that. He might well have learned the answers to his questions in a more private manner.

The downside is that that approach would have deprived others of the benefit of the discussion. It is generally more prudent to couch such discussions in terms of hypotheticals that cannot result the creation of evidence that could influence, or even result in, legal actions.

 

[ilbob]

I don't know why people post these kind of things in the first place.

If the OP was somehow "wrong" in what he did there is absolutely no upside to admitting to it in writing on a public forum.

It seems to me like the OP is having 2nd thoughts about what he did and wants someone to tell him he did OK. Well, you are out of luck there. No one here knows with any certainty what you actually did and what the actual circumstances were. Your perceptions of what was your situation at the time may have been dead on, they may have been dead wrong. No one here knows, likely even the OP himself, or he would not have brought it up. Likewise, no one here, including possibly the OP, knows what actually happened.

There is just no way for anyone here to say with any degree of certainty whether the OP did good, bad, or something in between.

Waving your gun around (figuratively now) is not a good substitute for showing the good sense to just leave when you feel threatened. JMNSHO.

 

[taliv]

good discussion, but it's run its course. it's good to think about this stuff seriously before you act