Any time, any place

…..a beating by fists isn't mortal danger.
Click to expand...

Well, I’m not so sure about that. A guy I was an acquaintance with spent quite a few years in prison for man slaughter. He hit a guy with his fist outside of a bar. One punch to the face. The other guy fell backwards, hit his head on a street curb, cracking open his skull. He bled to death before an ambulance could arrive. So a fist can lead to mortal danger.

I’m not about to take a beating by fists if it can be prevented. If showing a weapon will stop said beating, I’m willing to take my chances against the State’s Attorney.

BTW, the guy in the original post didn’t brandish a weapon. To brandish means to take out and wave around or point. Simply showing a weapon is lesser.
 
Good points. If the guy is known to have military training, bigger than the friend and behaving in a physically-threatening manner, then it's seems reasonable for an average person to expect possible grave injury or even death, though I still think there's a possible missing component of seeking to avoid if that was reasonably possible. My guess is that the big tough behaving in a threatening manner "is equivalent" to revealing possession of a firearm--so it's a "draw" in terms of using reasonable threat to counter what a reasonable person would perceive as a potential lethal threat.
 
In the state of Ohio doing what he did is illegal. I am not in the mood to tear into the O.R.C. but it is made out (as clear as lawyer speak can be) that a beating by fists isn't mortal danger.
Click to expand...

I think it has been established on easily more than a thousand occasions that fists can be lethal. As far as the law goes in each individual state concerning self defense, that is the sole responsibility of the gun carrier to know like the back of his hand. That being said, there could be a distinction made between brandishing a firearm that is still holstered and placing your hand on a holstered firearm. The former could be saying "Look, I have a gun on my hip", the latter being a ready position not necessarily intending the target to understand I am armed.
In my opinion, letting a threat know you are armed and to leave you alone under the umbrella of your known state laws that allow that, is the responsible thing to do. I am talking ideal circumstances here.
When I am unsure I look to LEO policy. I think it is a rare occurrence that even an undercover LEO has thrown his shirt open to show a threatening target he has a gun. The gun is either out and on the target or holstered and concealed.
The best bet is to question an LEO thoroughly about your local gun laws and know your state gun laws thoroughly, and knowing is half the battle :)
 
Here in CT, both parties could be charged with breach of peace. I don't think showing a holstered gun quite meets the definition of brandishing but some over zealous DA might try it. The catch all here is breach of peace. You can open carry here or conceal, but if someone notices it, you can be charged under a breach. I do agree that one must always be prepared, but with extreme caution as the effects of encounters such as this can go either or any way.
 
Just in the nick of time. I'm glad your friend showed restraint.

I cannot comment on the legality (not qualified, I'm no law scholar!). First I'll say that worked out pretty well so I don't think anyone is unhappy with the result. My stance is that in general, concealing as long as you can gives you an upper hand. I suppose I'm thinking about if the assailant is irrational (relatively speaking) as in he or she does not value their own safety in order to be deterred. Devil's advocate: What was there keeping that boyfriend from carrying his own pistol? And seeing how verbally abusive he was I'd say his anger could potentially skew his thinking into "this man wants a gunfight? Look he started it!" as he'd been itching for some kind of confrontation. Remember - it worked out fine so no worries this time.

The thing with the bare fists: I once read a definition of "grievous bodily injury" to include not only immediate death but anything that could reasonably break bones - and the skull is just a bone too. Also there is no way to know how far an attacker may choose to go. There is no written contract saying he will stop the beating/choking after the defender falls. So since empty handed doesn't equate to non-lethal, my speculation is that it would help determine when to draw if we're given a clue about his/her intent. As in: I'm backpedalling but he's advancing.

So statistically (if we believe them) your friend shouldn't have too many more confrontations left in his lifetime right? - but he might unless you as his friend help keep him clear of the crazy women who lure in crazy men :D just half kidding.
 
In a lot of jurisdictions, bare fists do not make the standard for deadly force, unless a strong argument can be made for disparity of force. EG, healthy vs disabled, adult vs child, adult vs elderly, multiple assailants, etc.

Those jurisdictions are often the ones that consider the display of a weapon to be unjustified unless the actual use of deadly force would have been warranted.

It appears WY does not fall into that category.

For the "only draw if you are going to shoot" crowd, bear in mind that over 90% of SD uses of handguns result in no shots fired - the BG ceases hostilities upon seeing the weapon. If the BG ceases to be a threat, justification for deadly force ceases, too, so be careful about getting into the "If I draw I must shoot" trap.
 
Lawscholar: Sounds like to me that your friend did good. The
incident was resolved and nobody got hurt. As you know you
are going to have any number of armchair lawyers that will
chime in with their supreme Internet opinions. Btw the Stoeger
is a jewel in hiding. It's a lot of gun for a reasonable price. I
have the 8045F .45acp.
 
trex1310 said:
Lawscholar: Sounds like to me that your friend did good. The
incident was resolved and nobody got hurt. As you know you
are going to have any number of armchair lawyers that will
chime in with their supreme Internet opinions. Btw the Stoeger
is a jewel in hiding. It's a lot of gun for a reasonable price. I
have the 8045F .45acp.
Click to expand...

I was very happy when the Cougar came in. It's a gorgeous little gun, and I think feels better made than almost anything in the price point.
 
Many years ago a brother of a friend [lived in Ala.] overheard someone badmouthing his wife. Being the hothead/tough guy, he approached the loudmouth with clenched fists. The loundmouth pulled a gun and killed the tough guy. It was ruled justified. The loudmouth feared for his life!
In Michigan, one has to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, death or rape to justifiy shooting. To say fists aren't leathal weapons is , in my opinion, wrong. In nine years of karate I've met people who could probably kill someone faster with their hands than with a firearm.
Even though I'm guilty of not carring all the time, I do believe if you have it you should carry it. It is impossible to tell when the gun will be needed or not.
There I've said my piece wether it makes a contribution to the conversation or not is up to others to decide.
 
I read this here once..." when seconds count the police are minutes away ". I'm not sure what he did was "legal" but it worked and no one was hurt. Personally I wouldn't have let him get that close to begin with.
 
FrederickDav, in fifteen years of aikido and jujutsu I have yet to meet somebody who could reliably kill faster with bare hands than a decent shooter could kill with a firearm, but I know a lot of people who could probably have a good chance at a 20-30 second empty handed kill. I am one of those...

But the point is not whether bare hands can kill. The point is whether courts will accept that in a self-defense case.

In many places, one has to be obviously and severely outclassed. To add to that, odds are you could not argue fear of the other guy's martial prowess unless it could be proven that you knew the guy was a dangerous MA type before the attack.

Where you are can make a lot of difference, with regard to DA charging tendencies and existing case law.
 
Thanks for posting... I love Wyoming. I have been carrying for a couple of years off and on... Long story short I had to pull my CCW last summer... I carry as much as I can now. The Police told me I was very justified in my actions. I am glad that your friend is OK and I thank what he did was the correct thing to do. There was no harm in what he did... everyone went home to their own beds that night. If you ask me your friend is lucky to have you as a friend.
 
Mike38: I’m not about to take a beating by fists if it can be prevented. If showing a weapon will stop said beating, I’m willing to take my chances against the State’s Attorney.
Click to expand...

In Texas the law is intentional unconcealment but being threatened and showing the gun would not have been a problem. I probably would have had my hand on the butt of my S&W 642-1 in a pocket holster and told him to stop. If he did not comply I would have drawn and fired, as I am too old to
take whoopin. But at his age he might could have outrun the guy. I couldn't so the only way I am taking a whoopin will be after the gunfight is over. :(
 
Maybe I should have been clearer. The aggressor was at arms length, verbally threatening loudly with balled fists, lying in wait after midnight. My buddy showed the butt of a pistol with the safety on without drawing.
Click to expand...
I was just rereading this and it brought to me a question. IS it really a good idea to show any part of a gun if they are within arms reach? I mean IF the guy is bigger and stronger if the guy was really there to cause harm I think he could have done it before he got the gun out of his holster. Not trying to start anything or to tick you off . But I thought it was a valid question,
 
Just going to throw it out there

I believe your friend did the right thing, he didnt lose control of his temper or his firearm and he also did not get a one way trip to the greybar motel for shooting the musclehead new guy.
 
Do your friend another favor, and introduce him to Southnarc ( http://shivworks.com/ , and search the net for more). Two feet is physically too close to begin introducing a gun into the equation, and he needs to know how to handle that sort of close-up/contact situation better now that he's carrying. I haven't seen an integrated curriculum anywhere that's better than Southnarc's for this.

Meanwhile, the second line in my .sig would seem to apply...
 
Why does it always have to be either/or? I realize there is great danger outside your door and sometimes, even inside, yet one's own estimation of personal risk is no one else's business. Clearly one is not in the same risk everywhere, all the time, unless you're one of those who carry in church. If so, then I've nothing else to add.
 
Funny you mention that, BT, but after a string of shootings in midwestern churches, several of the ones in this area have designated marksmen in the congregation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top