Threshold for drawing a handgun

[Shadow 7D]

UH, duns nobody is going to cite case law, and this is the internet, our advise is worth every penny you don't pay for it, and ...

CASE LAW DIFFERS BY STATE
so what works in one, doesn't work in another

OH and for TX, as I have read the every SD goes in front of a grand jury, you really might want to get a lawyer on retainer, because in the end, it really does depend, it depends on YOU, and when you draw. A lawyer would be able to advise you of when it would be legal for you to do so in your state.

 

[KodiakBeer]

In the specific scenario I mentioned, where someone refuses my command not to approach closer, and if the context is threatening (e.g. the BG had stepped out of the shadows and followed me and kept on coming despite commands not to do so), would it be correct to say it would be reasonable to draw but not yet to point the gun at the BG?

I would, but I'm only painting a scene in my mind based on a very bare bones description. That scene may differ considerably from what you have in mind. If you're alert and aware, you're going to know what's happening. The real deal isn't going to be so ambiguous that you can't make up your mind.

 

[Sam1911]

would it be correct to say it would be reasonable to draw but not yet to point the gun at the BG?

How about your favorite answer, "It depends."

As Shawn so succinctly points out, "Draw your gun, go to jail." In most states drawing a gun in such a way that could be seen as threatening is a crime, in itself -- sometimes called "brandishing" and sometimes a facet of "assault." If the other party turns out to have had no ill intent (and even if they did!) and they report that action to the police you easily could face felony charges which will require you to articulate your justifiable reasons for your actions to much the same degree as though you had fired.

My question was really about how to establish clarity before it is too late. If that's not possible, then the value of a concealed handgun is greatly diminished IMO.

Well, congratulations. You are one of probably very few gun-toters who have really begun to understand how grave the decision to carry a deadly weapon really is. Far from a magical talisman that will protect you from danger, a weapon exchanges one set of vulnerabilities for another -- almost equally grave -- set of risks.

 

[shockwave]

(e.g. the BG had stepped out of the shadows and followed me and kept on coming despite commands not to do so), would it be correct to say it would be reasonable to draw but not yet to point the gun at the BG?

Not sure what you are failing to get here - you have no right to issue orders to other citizens. Nobody has to pay any attention to anything you say. You are not a law enforcement officer. You cannot command a person to do as you say. People are free to do their business in any public venue they are entitled to be in. If they frighten you, well, that's life.

It is critical that you dispense with the "shouted orders" aspect of the confrontation you are imagining. If you need to draw and shoot, then just draw and shoot. Whether you are justified or not won't depend on your "commands" to another citizen.

 

[duns]

UH, duns nobody is going to cite case law...

Why not? With all due respect, I suspect because the responders to date don't know of any. This is not to disparage anyone -- I don't know of any cse law myself not being a lawyer and not being a subscriber to Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, etc.

...it depends on YOU, and when you draw...

Please, no more repetitions of "it all depends". Got that already. .

 

[duns]

Well, congratulations. You are one of probably very few gun-toters who have really begun to understand how grave the decision to carry a deadly weapon really is. Far from a magical talisman that will protect you from danger, a weapon exchanges one set of vulnerabilities for another -- almost equally grave -- set of risks.

Point taken!

 

[Sam1911]

If you need to draw and shoot, then just draw and shoot. Whether you are justified or not won't depend on your "commands" to another citizen.

I have to say I completely disagree with this. You absolutely should express your alarm and vocalize as loud as you can some kind of warning. Even if you immediately draw and shoot, the fact that you tried to disengage -- gave the assailant every opportunity to understand that you were feeling threatened and were about to shoot him -- will greatly assist you in your defense. Especially if other witnesses heard your yells.

"LEAVE ME ALONE!"
"BACK OFF!"
"DROP THE GUN!"
"HELP! CALL 911!"

Pretty much something like that is completely appropriate to say (who knows, it MAY actually wake up your attacker who was really just oblivious) and helps to establish that you didn't simply draw and perforate the guy without warning.

You aren't acting as a police officer telling a person to get up against the wall or submit to handcuffing. You aren't making an arrest. You are simply reacting in a natural way as a reasonable person would be expected to when confronted with a lethal threat.

The assailant isn't legally obligated to follow your advice -- but whether they do or not may further establish the validity of your self-defense claim. If you can say in court that you yelled, "BACK OFF, LEAVE ME ALONE!" and the attacker just kept coming, the jury is more likely to understand your state of mind as you pulled that trigger.

 

[duns]

It is critical that you dispense with the "shouted orders" aspect of the confrontation you are imagining. If you need to draw and shoot, then just draw and shoot. Whether you are justified or not won't depend on your "commands" to another citizen.

Is that just your personal opinion or do you have some basis? My opinion would be that "to draw and shoot" with no warning would make one much more vulnerable to prosecution. Sam articulated it very well IMO.

 

[Shadow 7D]

BTW duns, you seem to have missed the part where I said go to an expert on YOUR states laws, a lawyer licensed to practice by the state bar association specializing in gun law.

When you need his expertise well, depends on you.

 

[duns]

BTW duns, you seem to have missed the part where I said go to an expert on YOUR states laws, a lawyer licensed to practice by the state bar association specializing in gun law.

What, pay a lawyer $200 to $700 per hour for a tutorial on the interpretation of the law? I bet he would say "it all depends".

 

[Sam1911]

My opinion would be that "to draw and shoot" with no warning would make one much more vulnerable to prosecution.

While such things are never absolute, it flies in the face of logic (and common belief) that your aggressor is going to be yelling, "DROP THE GUN," or "LEAVE ME ALONE!," or especially, "CALL 911!" If other witnesses remember you yelling that it can corroborate your story that you tried to break contact which could help your case tremendously.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Look, even having a lawyer on speed dial is probably going to be a less than optimal plan when being assaulted.

I think our friend here is allowing himself to paint a lot of ambiguity into something that is pretty clear in the vast majority of situations. Somebody tries to drag you out of your car, or somebody pulls a gun in the 7/11, or somebody pulls a knife and says "Give me your wallet." Those are typical situations and you don't need to check with a lawyer before making up your mind.

Mysterious poker-faced strangers appearing out of the shadows shouldn't be a major concern. Although, I'm sure a lawyer would be happy to sit down for $200 an hour and "what if" any situation we care to come up with. But, that's a different kind of robbery...

 

[duns]

I think our friend here is allowing himself to paint a lot of ambiguity into something that is pretty clear in the vast majority of situations. Somebody tries to drag you out of your car, or somebody pulls a gun in the 7/11, or somebody pulls a knife and says "Give me your wallet."

I was asking about the ambiguous situations not the ones where the right course of action is obvious.

... I'm sure a lawyer would be happy to sit down for $200 an hour and "what if" any situation we care to come up with. But, that's a different kind of robbery...

LOL

 

[Sam1911]

Now, see, on the one hand we have a guy who says this:

Mysterious poker-faced strangers appearing out of the shadows shouldn't be a major concern.

But on the other hand we have a guy who says this:

If your mindset is that danger will only come in one scenario, then you've already lost the fight.

And it's the same guy! See how the question ties us up in knots?

A good criminal is going to give you as little warning or opportunity to formulate a resistance as possible. You will have to draw, or not, based on whatever cues your situational awareness gives you. The fact that you are confused, unsure of your need to act, and hesitant to risk jail by drawing your gun all work in the favor of your attacker.

It may, indeed, be that you witness a robber draw a gun and assault the clerk in a Quick-E-Mart and have half a minute to figure out if you'll intervene or wait out the situation. But it also may be that someone you didn't even notice "bumps" you on the street and you find yourself with a gun in your face before you can respond.

This is a potential danger in rehearsing certain situations. Will you react if it doesn't go down the way you'd practiced? (And, yet, certainly we MUST practice and prepare!)

 

[Shadow 7D]

No, Kodiak, read what I orginally posted, a lawyer would be able to explain, as defined by case law and statute, what "self defense" means in his state, and from that, when he would be justified in drawing a gun.

Besides that,
The usual suspects have given and cited a number of "good" opinions, that there is not universal has been beaten to death.

The only thing missing is for Lee Lapin to come in with words of wisdom and the thread to be locked.

 

[vicdotcom]

If I am to pull my handgun and point it at someone I need reasonable justification, i don't think anyone would disagree with that. Is it enough that someone is approaching me and refuses commands (1) to explain what they want and (2) not to come any closer. Do I have to wait for them to make an explicit verbal threat ("I'm going to kill you/do you seriously bodily harm"), lay hands on me, start hitting me, or produce a weapon, before I am justified in drawing my gun?

.In the specific scenario I mentioned, where someone refuses my command not to approach closer, and if the context is threatening (e.g. the BG had stepped out of the shadows and followed me and kept on coming despite commands not to do so), would it be correct to say it would be reasonable to draw but not yet to point the gun at the BG?

Ok I am not going to give you a "It Depends" answer. But I will probably give you an answer you do not like, I say you do not have the justification to draw if they only "did not listen to your verbal commands".

Reason: You can CROSS THE STREET or MOVE AWAY FROM THEM.

There is no reason or mandate for them to obey your commands. But you can evade the situation and the POSSIBLE threat. Retreat.

No what if's. Get away. Now when you run and they chase you, then you have every probable reason to believe that they mean you harm.

 

[DERGLOCKINMEISTER]

How blue is blue ? The only guideline you can depend on is : am I willing to defend this action later ? If you are looking for a blueprint on self defense you are going to be looking in vain.Every situation , every person is different . Hell yes the BG is in the drivers seat , having a ccw is the best option to attempt to level the playing field . If you feel threatened , or if your loved ones are , in your opinion in peril , then respond as appropriate . Only you will know if the situation warrants the ultimate action. Good luck .

 

[duns]

Ok I am not going to give you a "It Depends" answer. But I will probably give you an answer you do not like, I say you do not have the justification to draw if they only "did not listen to your verbal commands".

Reason: You can CROSS THE STREET or MOVE AWAY FROM THEM.

Thanks for not giving an "it depends" answer! I greatly appreciate that. Actually, I don't dislike your answer. I would indeed cross the street or move away from the threat if time permitted.

I did what you suggested recently in Houston. I crossed the street to avoid a suspicious looking guy, but unfortunately he crossed over too coming directly at me. I crossed again and so did he, again coming directly towards me. He was halfway across the street and about 5 yards away when I raised my left hand and said in a loud voice "SORRY SIR, I CAN'T HELP YOU". I did not sweep my shirt aside or otherwise indicate I was armed. He went back to the other side of the road and immediately pissed against the wall of a convenience store perhaps to express what he thought of me.

My question was about what to do when these tactics don't work and someone keeps coming and coming. How close do you let them get? If they start beating you, how bad a beating before you go for your gun? I don't believe I've had a clear answer on this but thanks to everyone who tried to clarify.

I'm with Sam on this. I hope I'm not misrepresenting his views. But it seems to me that you have to give the potential BG the benefit of the doubt until his means, motive, and opportunity is clear. This greatly decreases the benefit of being armed though does not totally negate it IMO.

 

[Sam1911]

If they start beating you, how bad a beating before you go for your gun?

That is a very bad situation. One punch can kill. Grievous bodily injury is not an acceptable risk. BUT, "mutual combat" (wherein you go mano-a-mano with some guy as a "willing" combatant) pretty much destroys your affirmative self-defense claim. Meaning, if you get into a fist fight and start to lose, if you draw your gun and shoot your way out of it you very probably will be found guilty of manslaughter.

So what? Refuse to fight, if you can. Disengage. Verbally warn the aggressor off. ("LEAVE ME ALONE! I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT YOU!") Make any and every verbal concession to give him the "win" and you the chance to leave. ("Hey, you win! I'm leaving. I apologize. I don't want any trouble...") As an almost last ditch choice, you could even try verbally and/or visually "brandishing" to try to dissuade him. That sucks and puts you at great risk but it is STILL better than killing him.

If you get into a fight while armed, you HAVE introduced a gun into the situation. Even if you don't choose to draw, the chances are that your gun will become a factor as you grapple -- and you can't risk that.

Very dangerous ground.

 

[duns]

I wasn't at all talking about man-a-mano (brawl situation) but the situation where one is attacked by a complete stranger for no apparent reason. Happened to me a couple of years ago and I still don't know what the motive was. I fought him off and he ran away without taking my wallet or anything else but I did suffer internal bleeding for a couple of weeks afterwards.

 

[mljdeckard]

duns, here's the problem.

There is no way to give a definitive answer. You don't want us to tell you; "It depends", but it DOES. It ALWAYS does. We have guys in here twice a week asking; "I had a scary encounter this weekend, did I handle it right?" and we have to respond with; "We don't know. WE weren't there YOU were. YOU are the one who knows if there really was no other option. YOUR butt was the one in the crosshairs, not ours. What WE think really won't help much."

THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES determines whether or not deadly force is justified. Even in the scenario you described, there is a lot of grey area to consider. If a guy is threatening you, there are a hundred factors that will determine whether or not you REALLY think your life was in danger.

A guy twice your size could say he's going to kill you, but YOU might not believe he is serious. He could be a guy who you have known a long time and says crazy stuff to mess with people. You're not going to shoot him. A ten year-old kid might charge at you with a knife. YOU have to decide if he is really capable of KILLING you with it. You're not going to shoot him.

Even if they start beating you, it's situation dependent. Say someone walks up out of the blue and hits you. Whether or not you use deadly force depends on YOUR assessment of whether or not you are looking at more serious injury or death. If a woman is drunk, and walks up out of the blue and slaps you because you look like her ex, and suddenly realizes that she made a mistake, you're not going to shoot her. Neither YOU NOR A REASONABLE PERSON, would believe that you were in serious danger. It will come down to if you think that you are facing serious violence with an unknown outcome.

And yes, you should keep this in the back of your head. You should be examining situations and imagining whether or not you could escape, if someone is really a threat, and if they AREN'T, when WOULD they become one? This is part of the deal. You need to have already decided where you draw the line. You can't wait until you are staring a weird guy down do decide at which point you will shoot. You do this in training.

 

[duns]

You need to have already decided where you draw the line.

That's what I was asking for guidance on!

 

[mljdeckard]

Ok, here's where I draw the line.

I decided when I started carrying, that I don't draw unless I'm going to shoot, and I don't shoot unless I am pretty sure that this is for real. If I get a busted tooth, a black eye, a broken nose, something like that, BUT: I don't think that it's going to go any further than that, I WALK AWAY. I don't pull out my pepper spray, I don't put him in an arm lock, I don't push him back. I don't progressively escalate force.

Now, if the same guy hits me, and it looks like he is going to hit me again, and he looks mad enough that I don't know when he is going to stop, the deadly force switch comes on. He might back off immediately when he sees the gun, and if I realize it in time, I will turn the deadly force switch back off.

If a total stranger approaches me, and is trying to hit me or DOES hit me, and I am unable to create distance between me and him, and he will not respond to commands to back off, the deadly force switch goes on. Now, any of a hundred things can happen at this point. He could break into giggles and say; "Just deleted -- <Sam> with you man," and walk away. But if he KEEPS APPROACHING AS HE DOES IT, the deadly force switch doesn't turn off.

I THINK, the best way to do this is to keep it simple. Don't complicate yourself with checklists of what to do in varying levels of defense. It's hard enough to train to react with the bare minimum of rules. (Not to mention how hard it is to defend yourself AFTER the fact even when it's simple.) Don't keep 'what iffing' yourself.

As black and white as we can make it, is to quote the law. In MY STATE, a person is allowed to use deadly force to prevent a violent felony, serious bodily injury, or death. If a person enters my home, either by violence or by stealth, with the intent to commit a felony, deadly force is allowed. I am not required to retreat, but I absolutely will if I can.

Where you, (and all of the rest of us,) have to make a decision, is whether or not YOUR perception of what is reasonable matches the rest of society. There are gun guys who can convince them selves that they need to shoot someone even if pretty much everyone else on this board tells them no. These guys will probably have a hard time convincing a D.A. and jury that they needed to use deadly force. We say; "It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." but that doesn't mean you WANT to go to trial for murder. It only means it's better than being dead.

If you are asking us to tell YOU what YOU should do in a hypothetical situation that hasn't happened, where YOU will be there and WE WON'T, it's impossible. You can't tell the jury; "But the guys on THR told me it was ok to shoot between the second and third punches." It will never work like that for any situation in the world.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Then get training, there are too many what ifs, you can never cover them all, spend the money to learn.

Also, buy "The gift of Fear" by Gavin DeBecker, he may be anit-gun (unless you work for him) but he is very clear when he explains.

 

[duns]

mljdeckard: Thanks, that was helpful.

Shadow: I have had some training and intend to obtain more.