We all know when the obvious is true, drawing on someone simply because they said harsh word’s etc., but what about when the scenario is for real? When it’s not just a potential threat that has one on edge, but one that has manifested into the real thing and proven itself? For example, let’s say a gun grab scenario where your able to retain your firearm using retention techniques without the use of lethal force. Once you regain control the agressor breaks contact and backs up. Is it appropriate to go to a low ready position and asses before reholstering? Could that not be construed as a threat since the other person broke contact and you have your firearm in hand?
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
A man has just tried to take your gun by force? I see that as no different than had he drawn on you with his own gun. You are justified in brandishing at that point, and certainly if he has only “backed up” and not taken flight. There is no good to be had, and if you can’t draw in this scenario then just leave that gat at home next time and give him your wallet.
As South implies, the law will vary from place to place. In addition a lot of variables factor in which might lead you to be prosecuted even if within the law, or given a pass even if technically outside the law.
Even what “brandishing” means will vary.
Here in WA, “brandishing” is a term specific to your carry permit and the penalty could be losing your permit.
That is separate from the law about intimidation where any object might be employed; for example, a hammer.
That said, WA has language that makes exceptions for self defense and against those committing felonies.
In the end, the best defense is in a free place and use your best judgment. Even then you take your chances.
If in fact you’re required to draw your weapon, once the threat is over, make sure you call 911 before anyone else to explain the threat/bad guy. If someone else calls, from what they saw, you may be the aggressor and you’ll be on the receiving end of a bad day gone worse.
I’ve always been taught to go to a ready position and asses the situation after dealing with a legitimate threat before reholstering and standing down. I know that they can charge you with whatever they feel like, but I want to know what legal precedent they could have to make after action behavior stick in court.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
(DISCALIMER: NOT AN ATTORNEY OR LEGAL EXPERT. THIS IS NOT PROFESSIONAL LEGAL ADVICE.)
Legal precedents will vary from state to state just as much as law, since those precedents are based on each state’s individual set of laws concerning self-defense and deadly force. You should be able to find your state’s laws on their .gov website where they will have written in legal definitions for the terms contained in their laws.
I would say it may depend on your state’s definition of brandishing, it’s “stand your ground” and deadly force laws, and whether or not the state law provides for citizen’s arrest/apprehension. If all (or at least the first three) apply, I would feel comfortable with maintaining my weapon at a low ready until the authorities arrive. If not, I would consider re-holstering and creating distance while summoning the authorities. If the threat is then persistent, it may change the game–and my mind. Again, the legality is totally state-dependent, and the situation will dictate your best course of action [for survivability]; but you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do in order to stay alive (IMO).