Answer the door

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Aquila Blanca:

No, but answering a different question than was asked is also not helpful.

I disagree. Every attorney with whom and for whom I have worked would, when answering a question posed by a client, try to impart knowledge that would be relevant and helpful, even if the client did not know precisely how to pose the question.

Many of them, when questioning clients, often asked something like "is there anything else that I should have asked you?".

All of this in privileged communication, of course.

It happens that I know more states do NOT define "brandishing" as a criminal offense than do. But the question was specific to Kentucky and I didn't know about Kentucky specifically, so I didn't answer.

The answer can be readily obtained.

But again, it would not be meaningful.

The OP most certainly really wanted to know whether his action might constitute a criminal offense, and not necessarily whether it would be defined as "brandishing" under Kentucky law.

And the answer is not one of yes or no; it would depend upon the circumstances.

 

[zukiphile]

It isn't that the OP's question was illegitimate.

And the answer is not one of yes or no; it would depend upon the circumstances.

Clients may ask simple yes or no questions because they don't grasp the complexity of the situation to which they are trying to bring understanding and order. The client may not be asking the right question; frequently his real question is "What should I do or not do?"

Giving a simple yes or no doesn't give him the benefit of the kind of advice he sought; it is often misleading since the answer is most often a "maybe".

I don't engage in criminal defense frequently; my firm does a lot of estate planning and transactional work, so people call us before they act to find out how they should act. The question often begins "Can I......".

They almost always mean "Should I....." That's the beginning of a conversation, not a simple answer.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by buck460XVR:

I thought the OP had a legitimate question.

What was it, really?

Did he simply want to know if the action he described would be defined specifically as "brandishing" in Kentucky? That would be a very academic question, but it might be legitimate.

Or did he really intend to ask whether that action might constitute a crime that, while it might defined as brandishing in some jurisdictions, would actually be defined as something else in Kentucky? That would seem to be a more likely intent. And it is very legitimate indeed.

The answer to that would depend upon several things, including whether anyone else were to become aware of the presence of the firearm at any time during the encounter, and what the resident were to do with the firearm and for what purpose.

Before anyone were to try to make a decision on the basis of that limited knowledge, one should also be aware of the possible legal implications of such an action on one's ability to successfully mount a defense of justification, should it become necessary. TomNJVA was kind enough to point that out for us.

 

[buck460XVR]

Or did he really intend to ask whether that action might constitute a crime

That's how I took it. Even if the answer was a complicated yes/no/maybe, I didn't quite understand the condescending statements made like Why would you want to do that? Could be the OP was seeking if it was legal or not before he did it. In reality, there are probably many folks who go to the door with a gun in their hand and at their side. Folks woken up by a knock on the door and grab a bedside gun and don't take the time to strap on a holster. Folks that have a gun stashed in a drawer by the door that grab it before opening the door. It was simple question.....does carrying a gun at my side when I answer the door in Kentucky, constitute brandishing? Should have been an easy answer for folks like you with your extensive legal background, but instead there was some need to belittle and chastise the OP first.

You make the statement,

The answer can be readily obtained.

but then go on several long winded rants, including adding a camera or an intercom, instead.

Would the answer "no" be helpful?

Might the OP like to know that that would be because "brandishing", in that context, is not defined in Kentucky law, and that is therefore not a crime?

More importantly, might the OP, and others interested in the answer, be well served to know that it might well be considered menacing, or wanton endangerment, under certain circumstances, and that those are crimes in Kentucky?

Yep, that would have not only been helpful, but answered the original question quickly and efficiently without chastising the OP first. Seems some folks feel the need to portray some sort of superiority over others by belittling and condescension and taking a fairly simple question and turning it into the O.J. Simpson case.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by buck460XVR:

I didn't quite understand the condescending statements made like Why would you want to do that?

Upon reflection, that may not have been the nicest way to do it, but it would serve to start a discussion on why someone would consider doing it in the first place, which would then, hopefully, have brought out a good discussion of the reasons to not do so, and perhaps some better ideas.

In reality, there are probably many folks who go to the door with a gun in their hand and at their side.

Yes, unfortunately, and years ago, I was one of them.

All of the competent trainers of whom I am aware recommend against going to the door at all if there is a reasonable concern about the safety. Massad Ayoob has a video in which he recommends an intercom, and in it he demonstrates the danger of standing in front of the door rather than standing back and moving around to stay out of a possible line of fire. Rob Pincus covers the subject in his books. There was a pretty good piece on The Best Defense on the subject. Members have posted articles here on how a resident has identified a threatening visitor who appeared nonthreatening and has then been attacked by someone else hidden outside the door. We have seen reports of persons injured while looking though a peep-hole.

All of those bring to mind the obvious possibility of acquiring a camera, and those are becoming less and less costly.

Long winded? Here's how it could have ben answered:

"No--there is no such crime in Kentucky".

Would that have been a good answer? If any attorney, advisor , consultant, trainer, or anyone else I was paying gave me that answer, I would fire him or her.

So, how about "no, but under some circumstances, it can result in charges of menacing or endangerment".

What would one do with that? What circumstances, pray tell?

How about "as long as no one sees the gun, or you would be lawfully justified in displaying it, you would okay from a legal standpoint, but do understand that your showing it could result in charges and weaken any case you might have for justification " ?

How helpful would that have been? Given an understanding of the existence of potentially serious legal risks, the OP would than be left with the question of what to do to mitigate them. And the best answer, of course, is to not go to the door with a firearm.

But that's not really for legal reasons at all . Ayoob and Pincus haven't raised the legal issues. They have advised us to not go to the door to all, unless we know who is there, for tactical reasons.

Ayoob quotes Ogden Nash: "if called by a panther, don't anther".

Here's more: "should you behold a panther crouch, prepare to say ouch".

We need to understand that having a gun in hand or on our belt will likely not protect anyone from a vicious, ready, and armed attacker at the door. The best that one can expect is a false sense of security.

Best to stay back until we know what is there. Ayoob recommends an intercom, and a camera will cost little more and give one a whole lot more information.

Should have been an easy answer for folks like you with your extensive legal background, but instead there was some need to belittle and chastise the OP first.

The intent was not to belittle or chastise anyone, but to educate everyone.

I would, however, have preferred to phrase it a little differently, now the you point it out. Thanks for the input.

 

[KyJim]

Kentucky does not have a law against "brandishing" a firearm. That said, answering the door with gun in hand might be seen as threatening behavior. Take a look at the crimes of Menacing or possibly Wanton Endangerment in the Second Degree or even Wanton Endangerment in the First Degree. Wanton Endangerment is usually what is charged when someone points a loaded gun at someone without justification. I know those are not exactly the facts presented but I'm just throwing it out there. Obviously, a lot of other factors come into play.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by KyJim:

Kentucky does not have a law against "brandishing" a firearm. That said, answering the door with gun in hand might be seen as threatening behavior. Take a look at the crimes of Menacing or possibly Wanton Endangerment in the Second Degree or even Wanton Endangerment in the First Degree.

Right; that has been mentioned.

Wanton Endangerment is usually what is charged when someone points a loaded gun at someone without justification. I know those are not exactly the facts presented but I'm just throwing it out there. Obviously, a lot of other factors come into play.

At the risk of seeming to split hairs, we should not leave anyone with the impression that it would be necessary to actually point a firearm at someone to bring about criminal charges.

A complete answer to the legal equation (only) would, in my opinion, also cover what might constitute legitimate defenses against such charges.

That is, we should consider what could justify the action that might otherwise lead to charges--and what might be unlikely to do so.

We carry firearms for a reason, and for many of us, at least some of the firearms we have in our homes are kept there for the same reason. From time to time, we may have to use them, or get ready to do so in a manner that is noted by others. There's no if-then flowchart that defines lawful justification, but an understanding of basic principles is essential.