brandishing your ccw

Or do you want to stand in front of a judge and explain why you shot a man you were sure was trying to kill you ?

My understanding is that you stand in front of a judge when he is sentencing you.

At that point the question will indeed be...

Who will take care of your wife,your kids?

Prior to that you may have been put on the stand to answer your attorney's questions, which will have been framed to elicit your explanation in a favorable light.

And to answer the prosecution questions during cross examination, which will have been designed to reduce or destroy the credibility of your account of the incident.

The case may well hinge on forensic evidence and on the testimony of witnesses, including perhaps expert witnesses for both sides. This may or may not be favorable.

If you did the right thing, let us hope that you are acquitted. Do not believe that it will not be extremely expensive to get to that point.

By far the best outcome is having avoided having to shoot.

As Recon7 put it...

Avoiding situations where you need to make these tough decisions is the best policy.

Not always possible, of course.

Might be worth supplementing your last ditch lethal force option with one permitting the use of less than lethal force, should that prove the wiser action.

Back to the original question, it would sure help if a slightly less stringent requirement for demonstrating that an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm existed for one to be able pull back his jacket and put his hand on a visible, holstered firearm, I think.
 
Brandishing with a Twist

I'm a firm believer in keeping the gun holstered until you perceive a viable threat to your person. Of course, what constituted a "viable threat" is open to interpretation too.

So let me ask our thoughtful members this question:

You've gone somewhere with a local friend who also has a CCW. Where isn't important, it could be the hardware store, out for a burger or KFC for pre-game chicken wings. :p The two of you are together when some rough looking character approaches the two of you walking to the building. As you get within about 15-18 feet, the character reaches for the small of his back, pushing his jacket out of the way. Either you or your friend produce your CCW at a low-ready. The character mumbles something (an Oh! Sh**! would be appropriate) backs away showing his hands and then runs off into the parking lot.

Now... one of you pulled a weapon in preparation to do unto another before he did undo you. If the police arrive and ask why only one of you pulled the gun how much trouble might the "brandisher" get into? Do you think it would it depend on what the friend said?
 
Standing in front of a judge can happen when the case is being heard to go to trial.

At that point,if the district attorney is informing the judge that the locality sees the shooting as justified,then you might not have to go to trial.

It is at that point that the judge may ask you why you shot the man in the first place.

You need to be consistent with ALL the statements you gave to the police and everyone investigating the case. and be HONEST with the judge.

One of the PRIMARY ways to stay out of jail AFTER A SHOOTING IS TO NOT TALK TO THE MEDIA ABOUT IT.

You could make a totally honest mistake talking to the press and it will be used against you in court.

It is extremely important after a self defense shooting that you NOT TALK TO THE PRESS.

Get a lawyer right away.

If you do give a statement to the police,you would well be served by having your lawyer there first.

DO NOT talk to all the witnesses and try to get all of your stories to match.

WOW,there is no better way to make a justified shooting look like a murder with a cover up then that.

You can ask-did you see what happened and get their names and phone numbers if the police won't.

Do not instruct them in any way about the shooting.

It is very important to understand that you might feel the shooting is one hundred percent justified but YOU won't be the person that determines if it was.

A district attorney will or a judge will.

If you are very blessed,you might get a police captain that goes above and beyond and says,

"Look,the guy this homeowner/ccw holder shot was one bad hombre."

"All the evidence at the scene including the witnesses accounts confirm what the public citizen did was only to save his own life."

"There is no reason to take this to trial."

But you can never count on that happening.

You MUST have the gun in full compliance of with the laws before the shooting.

You can't be illegally carrying a illegally concealed gun,have a guy try to rob you and kill him and expect to not be slammed for the concealed carry violation.

And you really need to not talk to anyone after the fact has happened other than your lawyer.

Running your mouth even months or years later could get a hefty civil suit slammed against you.

You shot a guy that was trying to kill you.

You defeneded yourself.

Now you need to defend what you did by keeping quiet about it.
 
Depends on where you are

It depends.

If you were here in Oregon, you'd get by ok if he were a BG since there is no such thing as "brandishing." However, actually pointing it at someone is a big deal - if you are wrong when you do it, you could get a sufficiently high-level misdemenor [sic] to lose your ccl.

Frankly, I really like the idea of no brandishing law. Idiots waving a gun around have other things to get charged with, and pointing it at someone will get 'em their three hots and a cot. But to pull and go to low ready, and not be at the risk of an arrest just because of that move, is good.

Well, actually, we know a lot of cops don't know all the law, and getting arrested could happen anyhow.

And, in a brandishing state, I wouldn't venture a guess. But in the end, if I need to draw for my protection, I will. I hope.
 
i got this from wiki so who know how accurate it actually is but anyways...

Castle Doctrine in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Stand-your-ground law)

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day."

This legal doctrine is often linked to the rights of homeowners to bear arms, as defined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Conditions of use
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

Duty-to-retreat
"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.[3] Therefore, any state that imposes a duty to retreat while in the home does not have a "Castle law": the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.

For states that do not require the announcement to be "verbal", other indicators may be used. These are typically not defined by statute, and would be left to the court's interpretation, but may include things such as laser sights or the cocking of a firearm, such as a shotgun. Care should be exercised in studying applicable individual state laws. In the majority of jurisdictions warning shots are illegal, and even brandishing the weapon in a threatening manner can result in criminal charges.

Stand-your-ground
Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that; the shooter has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the shooter may legally be.[4] Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[5][6]

In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905) where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:

The doctrine of "retreat to the wall" had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[7]

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.[8]

Critics such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign denounce "Stand-Your-Ground" clauses as "Shoot First" laws (as in "shoot first, ask questions later"), asserting that the presumptions and other protections afforded to gun owners allow them virtual carte blanche to shoot anyone who is perceived to be trespassing. They also state it will lead to cases of mistaken identity, so-called "shooting the milkman" scenarios. Proponents like the National Rifle Association state that such scenarios are unlikely and are not protected under most Castle laws; the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither.


Adoption by States
Alabama,[9] Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.[10][11][12]

Some of the states that have passed or are considering "stand your ground" legislation already are considered "stand your ground" in their case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, already had "stand your ground" case law and passed "stand your ground" statutes due to possible concerns of the case law being replaced by "duty to retreat" in future court rulings. Other states, including Washington, have "stand your ground" in their case law but have not adopted statutes; West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law[13] before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self defense in their previous self defense statutes.
 
Last edited:
here's what they have for state-by-state. it says it was last verified in June of 2008. so may or may not be up to date. also from wiki

States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat anywhere.
Alabama
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana

Oklahoma §21-1289.25
South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
Texas
Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
Utah
Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)

States with a Castle Law
No duty to retreat if in the home.

Alaska
California (California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197[1]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'”)
Colorado
Connecticut

Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
Kansas (§ 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle.)
Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the commonlaw castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.)
Massachusetts
Michigan (more recent law—Act 309 of 2006—does not relieve duty to retreat "unless [deadly force is] necessary to prevent imminent death;" this represents no change from common law, which does not require retreat unless it can be safely done)
Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat")
Missouri (Extends Castle Doctrine to one's vehicle)
Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9th, 2008.[25] Section 2901.09)
Oregon. (ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).")
New Jersey ("Statutes" link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4, retreat required outside home if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc.)
North Carolina
Rhode Island
West Virginia
(Senate bill 145 signed March 12, 2008. WV code §55-7-22)
Wyoming
New Hampshire
Utah
Wisconsin


[States with weak Castle Law
The duty to retreat is not removed, but deadly force may be used to end invasion of home without presence of immediate lethal threat.

Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
Illinois (Use of deadly force is justified if defending a home from "a violent, riotous, or tumultuous" entry or "to prevent the commission of a felony"; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
Minnesota (Homicide justified to prevent the commission of a felony in the home)
Montana (Deadly force justified to prevent felony in the home)
New York (Deadly force justified to prevent burglary or arson of the home)
Pennsylvania (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505 on the defense of self says there is no obligation to retreat from the home or workplace unless the actor was the initial aggressor or, in the latter case, set upon by a co-worker; however, "surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" and "complying with a demand that [one] abstain from any action which [one] has no duty to take" are listed in addition to retreating as avenues which, if open to the actor but not taken, invalidate justification for the use of deadly force. Deadly force itself is not justifiable unless "the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 507 allows the use of deadly force if the actor believes there has been an unlawful entry into his or her dwelling and believes that nothing less than deadly force will end the incursion; if the person on the receiving end of the deadly force is "attempting to dispossess [the actor] of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession;" or if deadly force is the only thing that will prevent a felony from being committed in the dwelling. In any of those cases, the property owner must first ask the interloper to desist — unless the owner believes that doing so would be "useless," "dangerous," or would result in the property being defended coming to substantial harm before the request to desist could be effectively communicated.

States with no known Castle Law
Iowa (Law does not require retreat from home, but may require retreat within the home)
New Mexico
Virginia
District of Columbia

NB: Above sections provide detail findings for 37 states and the District only. Some sources list 16 states as having "Stand your ground laws"[26][27]; but review of the statutes does not make it clear that all listed states have eliminated the duty to retreat outside the home.

here's the source page if you wanna check it out :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#Stand-your-ground
 
Back
Top