ugh... I need to move.

[RetiredUSNChief]

I'm not arguing just to be arguing nor am I arguing with any of you. I'm arguing with the story and wording. He did not brandish a firearm.

With all due respect, I'm not seeing this.

Nowhere in the OP did the person state he did what you were postulating he did in postings 17 or 20. He does not say he is in his driveway, or even on his own property at the time. Nor does he say he ever took his shotgun into his house, just that he got inside. These are all suppositions, not supported by the OP or any subsequent posting by him.

He saw three suspicoius looking teens come out of hiding and approach his direction. He pulled his shotgun out of his vehicle, kept it pointed down, turned and loudly greeted them. This is it, in a nutshell.

Like it or not, that MAY be interpreted as "brandishing".

Personally, I'm not arguing the point as to whether or not this was necessary...the decision of if and when to present a firearm is circumstantial and must lie with the best judgement of the person with the weapon. This is part of the inherent responsibility involved in the owning and use of weapons. And rightfully so.

As with everything we do, we must weight the risks of our actions with the possible outcomes and determine if those risks are personally justified in perspective.

Regardless, his immediate calling of the police to inform them about the youths was very proper, and if the police subsequently received a complaint of "brandishing", they would already be able to put things into context.

 

[fallout mike]

This is where we use a little common sense. He states he got HOME from work at 3:30 which is when and where said event took place. They came from behind another HOUSE. Not around the apartment building. I also doubt he parks in a neighbors yard and walks home. Lets not play dumb bc he didn't give us a 25 page narative with every single detail.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by fallout mike: They came from behind another HOUSE. Not around the apartment building.

That's completely irrelevant.

I also doubt he parks in a neighbors yard and walks home.

Okay--but one more time--being "on ones's property" does not change the use of force laws.

 

[Torian]

With all due respect, I'm not seeing this.

Nowhere in the OP did the person state he did what you were postulating he did in postings 17 or 20. He does not say he is in his driveway, or even on his own property at the time. Nor does he say he ever took his shotgun into his house, just that he got inside. These are all suppositions, not supported by the OP or any subsequent posting by him.

He saw three suspicoius looking teens come out of hiding and approach his direction. He pulled his shotgun out of his vehicle, kept it pointed down, turned and loudly greeted them. This is it, in a nutshell.

Like it or not, that MAY be interpreted as "brandishing".

Personally, I'm not arguing the point as to whether or not this was necessary...the decision of if and when to present a firearm is circumstantial and must lie with the best judgement of the person with the weapon. This is part of the inherent responsibility involved in the owning and use of weapons. And rightfully so.

As with everything we do, we must weight the risks of our actions with the possible outcomes and determine if those risks are personally justified in perspective.

Regardless, his immediate calling of the police to inform them about the youths was very proper, and if the police subsequently received a complaint of "brandishing", they would already be able to put things into context.

My point entirely. This is merely a learning experience for all as to being prepared for any and all senarios to play out.

For the record, I agree with the OP's judgment. I merely wanted to draw attention to the ambiguity of the law as it is frequently written in terms of "brandishing" or "presenting" a firearm in similar situations. I don't need a 25 page narrative to make this conversation worthwhile.

For those that contributed to the discussion on this subject, thanks!

 

[Lex Luthier]

Similar situation in an urban environment: Sitting at a stoplight, suspicious male sauntering slowly along the driver side. My hand went right to my weapon while observing his approach. Not "brandished", but at the ready and out of sight.

Looked right in his eyes as he passed me. SitRep: an unfortunate encounter with mental illness that would probably scare many people, OR: a BG whose confidence buckled upon direct opposition. Probably just another drug addict trying to get his next fix.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Torian: I merely wanted to draw attention to the ambiguity of the law as it is frequently written in terms of "brandishing" or "presenting" a firearm in similar situations.

I'm afraid I don't see a lot of ambiguity.

The threshold for justification varies, and it is important to know what it is. But in all cases, one may not produce a weapon, or even perform an overt act that draws attention to it, unless physical force is justified; in most jurisdiction, the threshold is deadly force.

That's pretty clear.

I cannot imagine how anyone would reasonably believe that even non-deadly physical force would be justified because of someone walking in any direction at a distance of fifty feet.

One would have to present some evidence of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, and also address preclusion.

Let's turn the tables here. Suppose you are walking peaceably in the dark for whatever lawful reason, and someone getting out of a truck unlimbers a shotgun. Would you be reasonably concerned about imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm?

If you were to draw and fire, would you be entitled to claim self defense?

 

[Torian]

I'm afraid I don't see a lot of ambiguity.

The threshold for justification varies, and it is important to know what it is. But in all cases, one may not produce a weapon, or even perform an overt act that draws attention to it, unless physical force is justified; in most jurisdiction, the threshold is deadly force.

That's pretty clear.

I cannot imagine how anyone would reasonably believe that even non-deadly physical force would be justified because of someone walking in any direction at a distance of fifty feet.

One would have to present some evidence of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, and also address preclusion.

Let's turn the tables here. Suppose you are walking peaceably in the dark for whatever lawful reason, and someone getting out of a truck unlimbers a shotgun. Would you be reasonably concerned about imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm?

If you were to draw and fire, would you be entitled to claim self defense?

Kleanbore,

I'm not the most qualified individual to debate this with you, but if we look at the SC law as Al Thompson cited for example, you will notice they say "...present or point..."

I know what "pointing" a firearm at someone is...but what does "present" mean to you? What does it mean to the police, DA, or judiciary? This strikes me as written in an ambiguous way, unless the law further describes what "present" actually entails.

If someone sees your weapon in the holster (inadvertently or not), or if you draw the weapon, but point it at the ground, does that qualify as a felony according to SC law?

Regarding the individual coming out of a truck with a shotgun...it would really depend on a multitude of factors:

- Is he walking towards me?
- Is the weapon pointed at me?
- Where am I currently? (if I'm in my front yard, or a public area like a parking lot, or am I making a night drop deposit?)
- Is he exhibiting any other general indicators that I might perceive as a threatening?
- Am I in a state that requires me to retreat before using lethal force?
- Can I retreat safely without offering my back to threat (is there nearby cover)?

I really couldn't make a decision without carefully and quickly weighing all the factors involved. Even if I'm fully justified, the last thing I want to do is drop the hammer on someone. It's a legal and public relations nightmare with all the attention you get.

I was going to make a reference to the Zimmerman case, but I thought it better we not go down that road on this thread

EDIT: I reread your post and now I'm seeing what you are keying in on - the need to apply physical or lethal force when drawing a firearm...got it.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let's consider some of these together:

• if you draw the weapon, but point it at the ground, does that qualify as a felony according to SC law?
• Is the weapon pointed at me?

If one has reason to believe that someone else has the ability and the opportunity and the intent to harm one, one cannot safely wait until he has pointed the firearm, nor would the law expect one to do so.

Similarly, if you have reason to believe that someone intends to seriously harm you and is armed, you cannot afford to wait until he has drawn on you before you act. That could well be fatal.

Regarding "Where am I currently? (if I'm in my front yard, or a public area like a parking lot, or am I making a night drop deposit?)", that is completely irrelevant.

This one--"can I retreat safely..."--applies even if the answer to "am I in a state that requires me to retreat before using lethal force" is "yes". But remember, the man has a long arm in his hands. Can you retreat safely?

I really couldn't make a decision without carefully and quickly weighing all the factors involved. Even if I'm fully justified, the last thing I want to do is drop the hammer on someone.

Good thinking! But if someone threatens you with a gun, you will have less than a heartbeat to decide and act.

It is always a good idea to know the answers to two questions before uncovering, displaying, presenting, drawing, pointing, or picking up a firearm: (1) why am I about to do this, and (2) just what is it that I intend to do with this thing?

In the OP's case, the answers are difficult to fathom, because the persons were fifty feet away and had exhibited nothing in the way of an imminent threat.

But from their point of view, the unlimbering of the long arm could be perceived as a very serious, imminent threat.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It is always a good idea to know the answers to two questions before uncovering, displaying, presenting, drawing, pointing, or picking up a firearm: (1) why am I about to do this, and (2) just what is it that I intend to do with this thing?

Outstanding.

This was a key point I had in a discussion with my wife many years ago, when the subject of guns and self-defense came up. Her opinion at that time was that you should shoot the guy in the knee.

After a brief moment to count to ten and carefully consider how to explain this to her, I explained the concept of deadly force, when it's to be used, and the commitment one must make when intentionally drawing a weapon against another human being.

Bottom line being that the ONLY reason you EVER pull a gun with the intent to shoot another human being is because you actually fear for your life or the life of another. If that's REALLY the case, then you have absolutely no business shooting other than center of mass because it's literally him or you. There is no time for anything less than that level of response.

(Thankfully, she understands that now. Amazing how Mamma Bear's attitude changed when she had cubs of her own!)

If you pull a gun on another human being, pointing it or not, then there is an expressed intent to use deadly force, whether that intent is explicit or implicit...and whether it is actually used or not. This is essentially the stand the law makes in every state I've researched this in, to one extent or another.

I'm certainly not saying one should never NOT draw a weapon as a show of force...just that one must consider all the ramifications before doing so. Ideally, one considers such things long before ever actually having the need as part of their own training.

 

[Torian]

Let's consider some of these together:

• if you draw the weapon, but point it at the ground, does that qualify as a felony according to SC law?
• Is the weapon pointed at me?

If one has reason to believe that someone else has the ability and the opportunity and the intent to harm one, one cannot safely wait until he has pointed the firearm, nor would the law expect one to do so.

Similarly, if you have reason to believe that someone intends to seriously harm you and is armed, you cannot afford to wait until he has drawn on you before you act. That could well be fatal.

Regarding "Where am I currently? (if I'm in my front yard, or a public area like a parking lot, or am I making a night drop deposit?)", that is completely irrelevant.

This one--"can I retreat safely..."--applies even if the answer to "am I in a state that requires me to retreat before using lethal force" is "yes". But remember, the man has a long arm in his hands. Can you retreat safely?

Good thinking! But if someone threatens you with a gun, you will have less than a heartbeat to decide and act.

It is always a good idea to know the answers to two questions before uncovering, displaying, presenting, drawing, pointing, or picking up a firearm: (1) why am I about to do this, and (2) just what is it that I intend to do with this thing?

In the OP's case, the answers are difficult to fathom, because the persons were fifty feet away and had exhibited nothing in the way of an imminent threat.

But from their point of view, the unlimbering of the long arm could be perceived as a very serious, imminent threat.

This was the type of discussion I was looking for. Thanks for the thorough breakdown.

 

[X-Rap]

So since the OP admits he removed the shotgun as intimidation he is at fault for brandishing?
Did he make such admission?
It is not uncommon for me to leave my truck with a long gun in hand and often it could be seen as an offensive weapon to some (EBR, scoped "sniper rifle") this may be in day or night, just this morning a friend dropped by to show me a new shotgun and the day before I dropped a rifle off at another friends.
There are countless threads here that admonish people for leaving guns in their vehicles so it's hard to see how one can win.
Someday should I be shot down dead because I didn't have my rifle wrapped in a bed sheet I'm sure I will regret it but I find it hard to condemn a guy for making clear that a group of young men approaching in the middle of the night have been seen and that their numbers have been equalized. The opportunity to change or reverse course is at that time all theirs, I know what I would do.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by X-Rap: ...I find it hard to condemn a guy for making clear that a group of young men approaching in the middle of the night have been seen and that their numbers have been equalized.

So--what was the basis for a reasonable belief that it was immediately necessary to display a weapon to make anything clear to anyone because three young men were "approaching" at a distance of fifty feet?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

So since the OP admits he removed the shotgun as intimidation he is at fault for brandishing?
Did he make such admission?
It is not uncommon for me to leave my truck with a long gun in hand and often it could be seen as an offensive weapon to some (EBR, scoped "sniper rifle") this may be in day or night, just this morning a friend dropped by to show me a new shotgun and the day before I dropped a rifle off at another friends.
There are countless threads here that admonish people for leaving guns in their vehicles so it's hard to see how one can win.
Someday should I be shot down dead because I didn't have my rifle wrapped in a bed sheet I'm sure I will regret it but I find it hard to condemn a guy for making clear that a group of young men approaching in the middle of the night have been seen and that their numbers have been equalized. The opportunity to change or reverse course is at that time all theirs, I know what I would do.

I don't think we're assigning any real "blame" or "accusation" towards the OP for brandishing...only that brandishing is a very serious consideration one must consider given whatever circumstances one is in at the time.

Displaying a firearm is an option in terms of risk mitigation in some confrontations. However, there IS a legal risk to that action...just as there is a legal risk if you should ever have to actually shoot someone in a totally justifiable and clear-cut act of self-defense.

Don't go into it blindly or ignorantly is the rule of thumb.

 

[fallout mike]

Kleanbore, I'm referring to post #26 in regard to the op. I'm not saying it matters or not. Post #26 says the op didnt give some info that i said. Actually he kinda did which is what my last post refered to.

 

[Torian]

Kleanbore, I'm referring to post #26 in regard to the op. I'm not saying it matters or not. Post #26 says the op didnt give some info that i said. Actually he kinda did which is what my last post refered to.

I'm not trying to be a smart--- here, but for the life of me, I really can't understand this post

 

[tomrkba]

Maybe he did brandish a firearm, but people are forgetting the other half of the equation: circumstances under which lawful brandishing can occur. I think it was done in lawful self-defense:

1) The OP noticed three individuals REACT to his presence.
2) Three individuals moved toward him as a group.
3) It was late at night and they were not supposed to be there.
4) He did not know the intent of the individuals besides their reaction to his presence and attempt to approach him.

This appears to me to be a case of self-defense in which no shots were fired. I think this would a strong defense because it shows motive (reaction to presence for the purposes of robbery or worse), opportunity (waiting in the bushes at night where nobody should be) and ability (three against one, unknown if they had a weapon or weapons).

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Try and move but otherwise you did what 95% of here would have done.

 

[X-Rap]

He was startled by 3 individuals who came from concealment (my word) and acknowledged them and armed himself with what was available in an nonthreatening manor and they changed course, he reported to police and life is good.
He allowed himself some time for the situation to evolve before everyone was at bad breath distance, didn't "rack" the gun but continued about his business.
Until there is much more info to fill in the gaps I'd say he did what a majority would have or should have done.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Kleanbore, I'm referring to post #26 in regard to the op. I'm not saying it matters or not. Post #26 says the op didnt give some info that i said. Actually he kinda did which is what my last post refered to.

Fair enough...I'll clarify, then. Though please understand that I'm not doing this to be offensive.

Here is what you said in posts 17 and 20:

"So carrying your long gun into your house is "brandishing" a weapon to anyone that happens to see it when you are on your own property?"

"It doesn't matter when he got his gun out in this case. He pulled into HIS driveway, got his gun to take into HIS house. Its not his problem somebody was walking into his yard with possible bad intent. He did not pull a gun on them."

And here is what you say in post 27:

"This is where we use a little common sense. He states he got HOME from work at 3:30 which is when and where said event took place. They came from behind another HOUSE. Not around the apartment building. I also doubt he parks in a neighbors yard and walks home. Lets not play dumb bc he didn't give us a 25 page narative with every single detail."

However, the OP said:

"I get home from work around 3:30AM everynight. Last night I get home and start getting out of my truck. About 50 feet away three guys (late teens) come out from hiding behind a house and start walking my way. First thing I did was grab my shotgun out from behind my seat and hold it by the reciever pointing it at the ground. I turn to them and give a very loud "HOWDY!!!". Loud enough to wake my neighbors. They stopped and turned around and went down the street away from my house. I am not sure what was going through their heads but three guys approaching me at o dark thirty in a not so great neighborhood makes me a little unnerved. When I got inside I called the cops to let them know there were several "suspicious" characters hanging around my neighborhood and requested a cruiser to come through and check on them."

I bolded the points which were discrepant, though I may have missed a couple.


This only matters because you said "I'm not arguing just to be arguing nor am I arguing with any of you. I'm arguing with the story and wording. He did not brandish a firearm."

Since you are arguing with the story and the wording, then the actual content very story and wording DOES matter as it is written.

There are a lot of assumptions, reasonable or not, in what you said. However, there is no real supporting verbiage in the OP to support them.

He came home. Didn't say he parked in his driveway, in the street, or in the yard, just that he came home.

He saw three teens come out from behind a house, not an appartment. Could have been his own house or a neighbors house.

The three teens started walking his way. Never said they were actually on his property, just that they were walking his way. Could have been across the street, in an adjacent yard, on a sidewalk, or in his yard. We don't know.

He pulled his shotgun from behind his seat. Not a case. He never said he got his gun to take into his house. In fact, the context he uses makes it very clear he pulled it from behind his seat in direct response to the youths he saw approaching. And though he goes into his house, he never actually mentions whether or not he took that shotgun into the house with him or put it back in his vehicle.


My point in post 26 was that your claim to be arguing using the story and wording to support your assertation in post 17 that he was not brandishing a weapon because he was only carrying his shotgun to his house on his own property is clearly not supported in the actual verbiage and context of the OP.


Now that I've thoroughly muddied the waters, I think I'll stop here.

 

[fallout mike]

Retiredusnchief, you actually nailed exactly what I was saying. I just didn't want to have an explanation that long. The wording I was talking about is that its not very detailed. We can all make assumptions and have our ideas about it. A couple of people have made no logicalb assumptions and base their theory strictly on the wording. Which is really what you should do. But I just believe the assumptions I made are very logical and were just left out. We all know for sure that lots of details were left out. So to be fair and open minded to the op I gave my assumptions. You muddied no waters here. I was not doing a great job explaining myself.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by tomrkba: Maybe he did brandish a firearm, but people are forgetting the other half of the equation: circumstances under which lawful brandishing can occur. I think it was done in lawful self-defense:

Just what makes you think that the OP had reason to believe that the three individuals who were fifty feet away had the ability and opportunity to cause death or serious bodily harm and presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm?

1) The OP noticed three individuals REACT to his presence.

Would it not be quite reasonable to expect someone to "react" by changing course rather than continue to approach a stranger who had just armed himself with a long arm under unusual circumstances?

2) Three individuals moved toward him as a group.

Lawful, and very common....

3) It was late at night and they were not supposed to be there.

The time of day is cause for enhanced situational awareness, but there is no indication that they were not where they had "a legal right to be".

4) He did not know the intent of the individuals besides their reaction to his presence and attempt to approach him.

Not knowing the intent of someone does not begin to justify pulling a gun on him. And repeating, one's reaction to such an act is no indication of intent.

This appears to me to be a case of self-defense in which no shots were fired.

From the description of the incident, it would seem that several of the essential prerequisites for lawful self defense did not exist.

I think this would a strong defense because it shows motive (reaction to presence for the purposes of robbery or worse), opportunity (waiting in the bushes at night where nobody should be) and ability (three against one, unknown if they had a weapon or weapons).

One more time, reaction d
to the presentation of a firearm does not indicate motive.

Any authoritative treatise on self defense will tell you that unless someone is close and appears to be armed, one would be unable to provide evidence of opportunity or jeopardy.

One more thing: while the term "brandishing" may apply in some states, the more serious charge would likely involve some kind of criminal assault.

For example, in Arizona, displaying a firearm without lawful cause would constitute aggravated assault. It's a serious crime.

The law in Arizona does provide for the lawful defensive display of a weapon under some circumstances in which deadly force is not justified, but the OP did not describe such a circumstance. A small handful of other states also provide for the lawful presentation of a firearm when deadly force is not yet required, but not in circumstances such as those described here.

 

[Pilot]

A small but important point. You don't need to intend to brandish or actually brandish to have legal problems. All you have to do is be ACCUSED of brandishing in some jurisdictions. Then it is up to you to defend yourself, which means lawyers, money, and a potentially BAD outcome.

My personal policy is to NEVER show any firearm unless I feel I have to use it as all other options like avoid, retreat, etc are exhausted.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

For me the fact it was 3:45 am in the morning makes me agree with him. I would have done the same thing and as for brandishing he never pointed at them. So it is another non issue. He didn't' have to shoot anyone and called the police as soon as it was safe to do so. THE BEST point to be made is always be armed cause when seconds count the Police are minutes away.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

@ fallout mike:

Okie-dokie!

 

[Torian]

Maybe he did brandish a firearm, but people are forgetting the other half of the equation: circumstances under which lawful brandishing can occur. I think it was done in lawful self-defense:

1) The OP noticed three individuals REACT to his presence.
2) Three individuals moved toward him as a group.
3) It was late at night and they were not supposed to be there.
4) He did not know the intent of the individuals besides their reaction to his presence and attempt to approach him.

This appears to me to be a case of self-defense in which no shots were fired. I think this would a strong defense because it shows motive (reaction to presence for the purposes of robbery or worse), opportunity (waiting in the bushes at night where nobody should be) and ability (three against one, unknown if they had a weapon or weapons).

This is all circumstantial evidence, none of which supports your assertion that the OPs life was threatened, and that he was therefore compelled to present his weapon.

As Kleanbore has already pointed out multiple times on this thread, personal opinions not grounded in local / state gun laws aren't too helpful to keeping you out of court.

We can all personally approve of the OPs actions, but that doesn't change the way authorities would / may interpret the OP's action this if called to the scene of the incident.