The bank robber example just came to mind, but my point is that anything less than “you or him” is a toss up to a jury.
Ok, he acted threatening and reached into his pants. If you do shoot him and he doesn’t have a weapon, you better hope the jury has never heard the “sticks and stones” rhyme.
To be clear, I would certainly pull my gun but I don’t see a justifiable reason to fire.
If you don’t want to be charged with shooting the person then the trick in this situation is to work the bullet back out by kneading the body with your tires.
Even as a gun-disdaining and pacifistical hippie, I completely agree. You could not get me to convict this person if I believed this was the series of events that occurred. Even with a judge’s express “If you believe he fired the shots, you must convict” instruction.
Juror #11
If it’s relevant, no charges were brought against a pizza delivery guy here in town a few months ago who was set upon by several teenagers (unarmed, I think, or perhaps with blunt instruments - no knives or guns), had his nose broken, ran, was pursued, and shot one of the teenagers. He was not in his car or his house, but the question didn’t even make it to the grand jury of whether his concern for his life was reasonable.
As a UK resident, can anyone elaborate on what I recently saw referred to as an offence in the context of ‘brandishing a weapon’ … specifically it was in a comment on a video at liveleak. The person was riding a motorbike slowly down a street, when he was confronted by a group who pulled him off said bike and jostled him, he then produced a handgun - and the ‘mob’ hastily dispersed. One person stated that if it had been in Florida, he could have been prosecuted for ‘brandishing a weapon in a public place.’
In the above scenario, he was lucky not to have had the weapon taken from him, as he had to back out of the group - but once the gun was out, the incident ended, and he rode off. It seems to me that ‘brandishing’ was the lesser of two evils, since he was able to extricate himself from trouble without anyone getting shot.
I can understand if it is an offence to walk down the street with a loaded weapon in your hands even if you claim it is ‘only as a deterrent’ since there is no immediate threat to yourself.
The incident with the biker, was shot ( no pun intended) in Brazil where it very much seems like the law of ‘might is right’ applies esp. in the slums of Sao Paulo and Rio D. J
Yes, here at least, that’s “brandishing”. However, you’re unlikely to be arrested for “brandishing” if you aren’t being an asshole. I was told in the CCW class that if you ever have to do anything like that, you immediately tell the cops and get your story on record first. It’s technically illegal, but then so is assault, and recall that assault is not actual physical contact. (That’s assault and battery.)
Well, in some states at least, the statute against brandishing specifically exempts acts of self-defense, i.e., drawing your pistol to get some guy who has threatened you harm to back off.
It appears that the guy telebox mentioned was wrong about Florida, at any rate. It does indeed have a self-defense exemption in its brandishing law (emphasis mine):
I would expect that a lot of other states (if not most or all) have similar provisions. For example, in Washington State the relevant law is RCW 9.41.270:
So, brandishing in order to protect yourself or another person from a present threat is lawful, even if the level of the threat might not be quite sufficient to justify lethal force. The Washington statute also exempts law enforcement officers in the performance of duty, any person making or assisting in a lawful arrest, and, interestingly, any act committed within one’s home or permanent place of residence. So, it seems it’s legal to intimidate someone with a weapon as long as you invite them to your house first? :dubious:
Here in Minnesota there’s no such thing as a “brandishing” law per se, but pulling out and aiming a deadly weapon can be considered second degree assault if done without cause.
In England and Wales, the biker could have committed any number of offences, threatening with an offensive weapon, assualt under common law, affray, harrassment under sec 4A Public Order Act 1986.
Its unlikely that he would have been prosecuted or if so, convicted since he was defending himself. But carrying a firearm is also an offence, that could well have been prosecuted.
Indeed - I believe it is now a mandatory 5 years for possession of an unlicensed firearm … and they either have, or are trying to incorporate replica weapons like airsoft - if they are being used in a way that causes alarm, or in the furtherance of any other crime.
Thanks for all replies - it seems fair enough that you would not be guilty of an offence in pulling a gun out, if acting as a deterrent to a very real threat ie a mob pulling you off your bike. Esp. since he did not even discharge it.
I challenge any of you to go up to a cop car, open the door, tell the cop “I’ll smoke you”, and reach in your pants.
Post here with the results (if you can…).