Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
I don't see this one gaining any traction. I'd call it "asked and answered"...
Speaking of the OP, we haven't heard from him since his first post. I'd be interested to know what he thinks of this discussion.
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.
Yes, they most certainly might have called the police. Your neighbor's account might have helped to seal your fate.Posted by imporperlyaged: I suppose they could have called the police and said I threatened them, but I would have a phone call to the police on record, and unknowingly a witness (my neighbor)
Seems that is opening another can of worms as to whether to store a gun in a vehicle. Generally, very generally, that's a no-no, so I for one expected that he does this every night, which for somebody that comes home at 3:30 am or so is not so much a stretch.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.
If I were to name it I would call it "group think".
I'll try, though we have been over it extensively.Posted by Librarian: I find this thread confusing. Perhaps someone might assist.
Let's start by not using the term "brandishing". The legal point is, producing and displaying a firearm in the presence of others in a manner that can be interpreted as threatening constitutes a crime unless the act is lawfully justified. The threshold for justification varies, but at minimum, the immediate use of physical force for self defense would have to be justified.It's true that in some jurisdictions his posted reaction to the late-night strollers might be considered 'brandishing', and if that were presented to LE, brandishing can be a large problem.
Individual judgment is always a factor.Is there not room for individual evaluation of circumstances, including local laws on the point, followed by action that seemed wise within the boundaries of that information?
Well, as it turned out, he was neither shot nor criminally charged, nor did he end up using deadly force and having to mount a defense of justification.Posted by lloveless: Yep the OP done good...
Yes indeed. Often, that means avoidance.Posted by henschman: First and foremost, you should do whatever gives you the greatest chance of getting through a situation alive.
That's OK, if and only if you have reason to believe that grabbing your shotgun is immediately necessary to defend yourself. You would have to have reason to believe that the individuals had the ability, the opportunity, and the intent to harm you (in some states, to kill or cause serious injury) and that you had no other alternative.If an unknown group of fellas are approaching me in my driveway and I have a shotgun available, I am going to grab it.
Make no mistake about it: aggravated assault is not a misdemeanor; it can result in serious jail time and in the life-time loss of your gun rights.I am not going to take any extra risks with my life just to avoid the long-shot application of a misdemeanor statute by some Monday morning quarterback cop.
You are making several unsubstantiated and unjustified assumptions there.Newsflash for y'all... scumbags don't call the cops on folks for brandishing. They don't want to have to explain why they were approaching you threateningly at night in front of your own house. They don't want anything to do with the cops.
It's not the odds, it's the stakes. It's a risk--a remote one, but very serious.And you certainly can't worry about the possibility of a cop or concealed carrier standing in the shadows and popping you as soon as he sees a gun.
Good comment. What did the OP know about the situation?You act based on what you reasonably know about the situation. you don't have time to make crazy unjustified assumptions like that.
Just what is it that made this a "SD situation"?Having second thoughts like that will get you killed in a SD situation.
"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?"
"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?"
"Lawful, and very common...."
"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"."
"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."
"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."
I have some concerns about this post, but I'm going to sit back and see what Kleanbore's response is.Kleanbore,
This entire discussion could all be due to the misinterpretation caused by a brief forum post. The OP was there and he could see their body language. It's very possible to tell the difference between someone merely walking around and someone stalking you with purpose. Based upon what the OP said, it *appears* that they reacted to his presence (odds of them coming out at that moment are very low at 0330 hours). They approached him. Three on one justifies lethal force.
Is it legal for them to do what they did? Sure thing!
But put it all together at 0330 hours and it certainly looks like they had evil intent.
Again this could be all misinterpreted since this is flat text. But, some of your posts go too far in their conclusions.
Seriously, are you deliberately being dense for the sake of argument? They have feet and it's only 50 feet, which may be crossed in a few seconds. Three on one justifies lethal force.
They came from behind the house as the OP arrived, prior to the display of the weapon. It is VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY unlikely coincidence at 0330 hours.
Lawful, yes, but it also speaks to intent. You are acting as if the situation was emotionally devoid and the OP could not read body language.
Crossing onto someone's property at 0330 is lawful? Perhaps they didn't get that far before the OP responded. It's not clear to me.
One simple action would be for the OP to move so the vehicle is between him and the trio. This adds cover to the equation and forces the trio to move around an obstacle once they arrive. It certainly demonstrates intent on the part of the trio should they continue toward the OP.
Yes, it does because of the reaction to his presence and the approach. Again, the entire context must be considered, not the individual parts. The OP felt like he was being stalked, therefore, he was. Whether or not this is actually true in the minds of the three men is irrelevant at this point of the encounter. The actual use of lethal force is not justified at this point, but the readying of a weapon for the purposes of stopping an attack certainly is. The OP is not expected to be telepathic and the courts recognize this. What the OP did have was: three men approaching onto his property at 0330 hours after suddenly appearing from behind another house after he parked his car. The odds are very low that they would suddenly decide to take a walk at that time. Perhaps they truly were innocent and actually needed Skittles at 0330 hours. But, telepathy is not part of the equation; only the actions of the trio matter and their actions certainly appear to the be the precursor actions for an attack. The rule of thumb is "fear of death or great bodily harm", not actual harm unless it occurs. People are allowed to think ahead and predict "great harm/death to themselves", but they need to be able to speak to the evidence (see pre-attack indicators, below*). Displaying a firearm to ward off an attack is a legal use of a firearm in self-defense, but the person doing so had better be able to clearly lay out the reason for doing so afterwards.*
You are almost taking the position of the prosecution of Zimmerman: that damage must be done before lawful self-defense can occur. You are right there on the line with your arguments.
You are not correct in that because it's not so cut and dried. Two or more men on one justifies lethal force in my state. They do not need to be armed. A large disparity in force and/or skill in a one-on-one fight can also trigger lawful use of lethal force in my state.
* Southnarc/Craig Douglas/shivworks' ECQC course goes over the pre-attack indicators which can be used to demonstrate their intent. Facial grooming, looking around, looking over the shoulder, nervousness/giddiness, cocking the leg, slapping an area on their body, very pale face/face turning pale, concealing a hand, hand at the waist, heavy breathing (though this can be contextual) or touching clothing where a weapon is located, and working in a group are all indicators that people can use as evidence of intent.
I have some concerns about this post, but I'm going to sit back and see what Kleanbore's response is.
One: they walked in his direction. Two: their reaction indicates abolutely nothing; had someone unlimbered a long arm in my direction, you can bet your boots I would have reacted. And I carry a gun.It's very possible to tell the difference between someone merely walking around and someone stalking you with purpose. Based upon what the OP said, it *appears* that they reacted to his presence (odds of them coming out at that moment are very low at 0330 hours). They approached him.
NO! One can argue that the disparity of force gave them the ability, and one may win or lose on that point.Three on one justifies lethal force.
Did you ever leave a party in the wee hours of the morning?But put it all together at 0330 hours and it certainly looks like they had evil intent.
Good reason to be very alert, but I sure wouldn't pull a gun in that situation. I might get ready to, or I might get the heck out of there, but I'm not sure just what expert witness I would be able to find to counter the prosecution's recital of Dennis Tueller's findings.Seriously, are you this dense [in asking "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?"? They have feet and it's only 50 feet, which may be crossed in a few seconds.
Covered that once. Not by itself it doesn't and it's not clear cut. The jury would have to decide.Three on one justifies lethal force.
The OP said nothing about reading body language in the dark. Nor would it justify the presentation of a firearm.You are acting as if the situation was emotionally devoid and the OP could not read body language.
It is not unlawful, but it was not claimed, either.Crossing onto someone's property at 0330 is lawful?
I think the reaction of turning around surely indicates a prudent tactic of self preservation, but it cannot be argued that it indicates aggressive intent beforehand.Yes, it [the reaction to the presentation of a firearm] does [ justify pulling a gun, or indicate intent] because of the reaction to his presence and the approach.
Nope.The OP felt like he was being stalked, therefore, he was.
Where does "his property" come into this?What the OP did have was: three men approaching onto his property at 0330 hours after suddenly appearing from behind another house.
What is the basis for that conclusion?...only the actions of the trio matter and their actions certainly appear to the be the precursor actions for an attack.
True. Ability can also derive from a disparity of force. But it is usually a rather difficult defense.You are not correct in that ["unless someone is close and appears to be armed, one would be unable to provide evidence of opportunity or jeopardy."] because it's not so cut and dried.
What we have here is several people walking together. I observe that from my porch almost every evening.Southnarc/Craig Douglas/shivworks' ECQC goes over the pre-attack indicators which can be used to demonstrate their intent. Facial grooming, looking around, nervousness/giddiness, cocking the leg, slapping an area on their body, very pale face/face turning pale, concealing a hand, hand at the waist, heavy breathing (though this can be contextual) or touching clothing where a weapon is located, and working in a group are all indicators that people can use as evidence of intent.
Did you ever leave a party in the wee hours of the morning?
What we have here is several people walking together. I observe that from my porch almost every evening.
NO! One can argue that the disparity of force gave them the ability, and one may win or lose on that point.
But don't forget opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion.
Indications of being stalked do not justify pulling a gun.Posted by tomrkba: Again, one has to read the situation and decide if one is being stalked.
True. Wait too long, and get injured. Act too soon and end up in real trouble.One does not have to wait for the attack to begin.
He hasn't said that, but even so, how would that justify pulling a gun?All I am saying is that neither of us were there and the actions of the trio were such that the OP believed they were stalking him for the purposes of committing a crime.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Ability alone does not justify the use of deadly force.I am not sure where you got the notion that two or more on one does not justify lethal force. Care to elaborate?