Don't brandish your gun if you're not willing to use it

[NiteQwill 0]

http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/881426-i-didnt-pull-trigger/?

1st mistake: "Showing off" your gun to a bunch of thugs (brandishing)

2nd mistake: Failing to use your gun as you get your ass kicked by several guys who can easily kill you with a kick to the head

3rd (or is 1st?) mistake: Not paying attention in your CHL/CCW class

Geesus, carrying a gun is a mindset... if one is unwilling to use it to protect yourself, don't carry it.

"Fail, fail again. Fail better."
-Samuel Beckett

[quade 4]

And she almost got her gun stolen from her which would have put it into the hands of gang members.

Score one more for some otherwise normal people, even ones with concealed carry permits, having no business carrying a gun.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

Quote

And she almost got her gun stolen from her which would have put it into the hands of gang members.

Score one more for some otherwise normal people, even ones with concealed carry permits, having no business carrying a gun.

see... I told you you were against people having the chance to defend themselves. You claim you're not, but you are.

--
Rob

[wolfriverjoe 1,485]

Quote

Quote

And she almost got her gun stolen from her which would have put it into the hands of gang members.

Score one more for some otherwise normal people, even ones with concealed carry permits, having no business carrying a gun.

see... I told you you were against people having the chance to defend themselves. You claim you're not, but you are.

I only read part of the link, but the person had ample opportunity to defend herself.

And chose to "take a beating rather than end a persons life".

I see it as a chain of bad decisions, of which "flashing" the gun was only one.

Not having the mindset to pull the trigger when necessary was the worst.

I'm not entirely sure that pulling the trigger would have been the right decision. But pulling out the gun without being willing to pull the trigger is always a bad idea.

I volunteer as a range officer at my local range and I see people who have no business holding a gun, let alone using it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I volunteer as a range officer at my local range and I see people who have no business holding a gun, let alone using it.

I don't know you, but I'd suspect you see such things as an opportunity to educate rather than en excuse to confiscate.

[wolfriverjoe 1,485]

Quote

Quote

I volunteer as a range officer at my local range and I see people who have no business holding a gun, let alone using it.

I don't know you, but I'd suspect you see such things as an opportunity to educate rather than en excuse to confiscate.

Absolutely. I am fully in favor of those who are capable and qualified being allowed the means to defend themselves.

But there are some who aren't.
For lots of different reasons.

Look at the highways and I'm sure you will see a fair number of drivers who have no business behind the wheel of a car.
Same general principle.

Unfortunately, just like with a car, the worst offenders fully believe they are perfectly qualified, and any criticism of their behaviors is an "attack on their rights".

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[justinb138 0]

Quote

http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/881426-i-didnt-pull-trigger/?

1st mistake: "Showing off" your gun to a bunch of thugs (brandishing)

2nd mistake: Failing to use your gun as you get your ass kicked by several guys who can easily kill you with a kick to the head

3rd (or is 1st?) mistake: Not paying attention in your CHL/CCW class

Geesus, carrying a gun is a mindset... if one is unwilling to use it to protect yourself, don't carry it.

I'm not sure where it took place, but in Texas I think that brandishing would have been considered a "use of force", which IIRC is not legal in response to verbal provocation alone.

In that case, I think showing a weapon may have been considered an escalation of force, and would put the person in a really bad position had they decided to fire.

Either way, I think the correct response would have just been to get into the car and leave, as there are probably other gas stations w/o thugs hanging around.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And she almost got her gun stolen from her which would have put it into the hands of gang members.

Score one more for some otherwise normal people, even ones with concealed carry permits, having no business carrying a gun.

see... I told you you were against people having the chance to defend themselves. You claim you're not, but you are.

I only read part of the link, but the person had ample opportunity to defend herself.

And chose to "take a beating rather than end a persons life".

I see it as a chain of bad decisions, of which "flashing" the gun was only one.

Not having the mindset to pull the trigger when necessary was the worst.

I'm not entirely sure that pulling the trigger would have been the right decision. But pulling out the gun without being willing to pull the trigger is always a bad idea.

I volunteer as a range officer at my local range and I see people who have no business holding a gun, let alone using it.

history....


quade doesn't think people other than law enforcement/military should carry weapons. (I almost said guns, but he's probably against all weapons. don't want people to be dangerous to the police...)

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/881426-i-didnt-pull-trigger/?

1st mistake: "Showing off" your gun to a bunch of thugs (brandishing)

2nd mistake: Failing to use your gun as you get your ass kicked by several guys who can easily kill you with a kick to the head

3rd (or is 1st?) mistake: Not paying attention in your CHL/CCW class

Geesus, carrying a gun is a mindset... if one is unwilling to use it to protect yourself, don't carry it.

I'm not sure where it took place, but in Texas I think that brandishing would have been considered a "use of force", which IIRC is not legal in response to verbal provocation alone.

In that case, I think showing a weapon may have been considered an escalation of force, and would put the person in a really bad position had they decided to fire.

Either way, I think the correct response would have just been to get into the car and leave, as there are probably other gas stations w/o thugs hanging around.

In texas it's legal to brandish if you believe you were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. But of course, it's also legal to use deadly force in such situations. Which is more effective with less repercussions depends on the situation. Brandishing, I believe (and I've made this decision already) is what happens while I evaluate my target.

--
Rob

[justinb138 0]

Quote

In texas it's legal to brandish if you believe you were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. But of course, it's also legal to use deadly force in such situations.

While I agree with the deadly-force aspect (hard to shoot w/o showing a weapon), the "belief of imminent danger" part reads "when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

The "reasonable" part might get to be decided by a jury.

While I don't believe there should be any legal responsibility to leave the area, the fact that the person had an opportunity to do so and instead chose to brandish a weapon might open the door for civil liability, if not a lengthy and expensive criminal trial as well.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

In texas it's legal to brandish if you believe you were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. But of course, it's also legal to use deadly force in such situations.

Sort of.

The intent of the language written in that law was to prevent someone from being charged for displaying a weapon with out firing. It was not to give someone the ability to simply brandish the weapon. The point is that when you break leather, you should be in "I must defend myself" mode and drawing your weapon with the intent to use it. If during this process the threat ends, then you are not liable for having drawn your weapon.

The difference is significant.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

In texas it's legal to brandish if you believe you were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. But of course, it's also legal to use deadly force in such situations.

While I agree with the deadly-force aspect (hard to shoot w/o showing a weapon), the "belief of imminent danger" part reads "when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

The "reasonable" part might get to be decided by a jury.

While I don't believe there should be any legal responsibility to leave the area, the fact that the person had an opportunity to do so and instead chose to brandish a weapon might open the door for civil liability, if not a lengthy and expensive criminal trial as well.

no might. In a shooting, there's always a grand jury hearing.

In Texas you can't bring civil suit for something that happened as a result of you committing a crime.

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

In texas it's legal to brandish if you believe you were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. But of course, it's also legal to use deadly force in such situations. Which is more effective with less repercussions depends on the situation. Brandishing, I believe (and I've made this decision already) is what happens while I evaluate my target.

Incorrect, sir. Brandishing (in Texas) is a Class B misdemeanor.

PC 42.01 Disorderly conduct
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

There is no defense to prosecution for section a8.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

In texas it's legal to brandish if you believe you were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. But of course, it's also legal to use deadly force in such situations.

Sort of.

The intent of the language written in that law was to prevent someone from being charged for displaying a weapon with out firing. It was not to give someone the ability to simply brandish the weapon. The point is that when you break leather, you should be in "I must defend myself" mode and drawing your weapon with the intent to use it. If during this process the threat ends, then you are not liable for having drawn your weapon.

The difference is significant.

true... and brandishing is what I do while I evaluate my target (as to whether or not they're still a threat). I won't ever intentionally brandish. It's just part of my presentation process. connect/retrieve/grip/aim ... then evaluate.

My first CHL instructor went over the brandishing laws. His advice was not to wait once you've presented and aimed, evaluate threats and fire as needed to stop the threat. Don't ever think that presenting the firearm will stop the threat by itself.

He was a 26yr veteran of APD. Last time I took a renewal it was a gun-store instructor. I got zero from the class. I'll make the drive next time for the good instructor.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

In texas it's legal to brandish if you believe you were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. But of course, it's also legal to use deadly force in such situations. Which is more effective with less repercussions depends on the situation. Brandishing, I believe (and I've made this decision already) is what happens while I evaluate my target.

Incorrect, sir. Brandishing (in Texas) is a Class B misdemeanor.

PC 42.01 Disorderly conduct
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

There is no defense to prosecution for section a8.

this is what I was referring to:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Quote

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

--
Rob

[justinb138 0]

You missed this, assuming you're still referring to brandishing as it related to the story in the original post.

Quote

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In texas it's legal to brandish if you believe you were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. But of course, it's also legal to use deadly force in such situations. Which is more effective with less repercussions depends on the situation. Brandishing, I believe (and I've made this decision already) is what happens while I evaluate my target.

Incorrect, sir. Brandishing (in Texas) is a Class B misdemeanor.

PC 42.01 Disorderly conduct
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

There is no defense to prosecution for section a8.

this is what I was referring to:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Quote

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

That is justification for the use of force, it does not speak to brandishment.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhaig 0]

brandishing is considered use of force. Or that's what I was taught in my CHL class. Specifically in reference to sec 9 and sec 46.

--
Rob

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

That is justification for the use of force, it does not speak to brandishment.

Displaying a firearm in such a manner IS a use a force. That is the language I was referring to in my previous post.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[steve1 5]

There's lot's of people who think they can end a conflict by showing off a weapon. Sometimes that works, sometimes not. It can also get you locked up.

I remember one time when a guy pulled out a knife to stop someone who was harassing him. That did work well for about 30 seconds. Then somebody grabbed his wrist (that held the knife), and smacked him a good one. About then the police showed up. I'm not sure how that turned out in court.

My brother told me of a retired parole officer who was out camping. He'd had a drink or two. A couple guys camping nearby started harassing him, so he pulled out his pistol and pointed it at them. That did end the conflict, but he got ten years for each guy he pointed his weapon at. He's now in a prison. He hopes that noone finds out he once worked law enforcement, so he doesn't get killed in the pen. Not a fun way to spend your retirement years.

Another guy I knew was a stock contractor for rodeos. He was worth quite a bit of money and had quite a bit of land. One day he confronted some tresspassers and pulled out his gun. He's now serving time in prison, for that mistake.

Years ago, we were out hunting antelope. We drove down into a place to camp for the night. We thought it was public land, but it wasn't. A couple younger guys pulled in with a jeep. The one guy in the back of the jeep threw back a tarp and brandished an AR-15. He didn't actually point it at us or we would have taken him to court. I felt like slapping the hell out of him. There was no reason for such theatrics. I'm not sure who he thought he was at that moment. He had probably watched too many John Wayne movies.

I can see how people get themselves into trouble with guns. It probably all boils down to not having the right kind of training.

I have two daughters who grew up with guns. I don't want them to ever be victims of a violent offender. They shoot a fair amount. They both own pistols and rifles. I've trained them to pull their gun if their life is threatened. That means anyone who breaks into their home. If the person doesn't stop they will shoot. I hope they will be able to do that. I'm confident they will.

I guess none of us know what that day would be like, unless we have been there. There are police and soldiers who can't actually pull the trigger, when they need to. I think proper training should kick in, but it may not.

I hope my daughters will take an acredited defensive shooting course. So far it's just been Dad trying to teach his daughters how to defend themselves. I was once a special forces weapons specialist. But I too need to take a course on defensive shooting. I sure don't know it all...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That is justification for the use of force, it does not speak to brandishment.

Displaying a firearm in such a manner IS a use a force. That is the language I was referring to in my previous post.

Where is that in the statute, please? I don't see anything about brandishing being considered use of force, at least not in Sec 9 or 46.

I see where Sec 46 has a defense against display of the handgun if it were in circumstances where deadly force was warranted - I still see nothing that lets me flip back a cover garment and flash the gun if deadly force is not warranted.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I see where Sec 46 has a defense against display of the handgun if it were in circumstances where deadly force was warranted - I still see nothing that lets me flip back a cover garment and flash the gun if deadly force is not warranted.

that's exactly what I was talking about. our instructor said something like, "So if deadly force is justified in the first place, don't just show your weapon, intend to use it to stop the threat".

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I see where Sec 46 has a defense against display of the handgun if it were in circumstances where deadly force was warranted - I still see nothing that lets me flip back a cover garment and flash the gun if deadly force is not warranted.

that's exactly what I was talking about. our instructor said something like, "So if deadly force is justified in the first place, don't just show your weapon, intend to use it to stop the threat".

That's not brandishing, and I agree with that aspect of it.

I'm speaking of the action that the person talked about in the OP did - that *IS* brandishing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

quade doesn't think people other than law enforcement/military should carry weapons. (I almost said guns, but he's probably against all weapons. don't want people to be dangerous to the police...)

Incorrect. You're attempting to put words in my mouth and exaggerating by huge amount. It's not a binary world.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

If I get the chance, I'll look up the case law that defines all of that. Today is a little hectic, though.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."