Defensive Draw vs Brandishing

[James K]

One of the problems for armed citizens is that police officers not only have more training and more authority, but they have more alternatives. A police officer typically carries not just a handgun, but also a slapjack, a gas spray and/or an electronic stun gun. In most jurisdictions in the U.S. there is no legal way to carry or use (or sometimes even own) any of those except the handgun. The police officer also has a radio permanently connected to the police system; there is no need to "dial" a cell phone and wait for an operator if he/she needs backup.

So the citizen has only one option in self defense, the use of deadly force. For that reason, the citizen must be sure that the use of deadly force is necessary and justified. A person facing an immediate threat of death or GBH should not have to spend a lot of time considering the legal aspects, but part of his/her training should be the recognition of an actual threat vs an overactive imagination.

In Detroit, a man was convicted of second degree murder in a killing that should not have happened. Put bluntly, he used his gun instead of his brain.

There may be times when firing the gun is the only alternative. But it almost never needs to be automatic or done without thought. There may be situations where there is no alternative and the decision to fire has to be instantaneous. But those situations are certainly rare; the more normal case involves some time to consider the action to be taken and to assess the real need for deadly force.

Another problem for the citizen is that there is no real way to detain a suspected criminal. The citizen can draw a gun to stop an attack on himself/herself or on another innocent person, but cannot "hold" the alleged attacker. The "bad guy" can simply walk away laughing, and it will be illegal to shoot him or even fire at him, since the immediate threat is over.

(Yes, I know about citizens' arrest. I also know that if it is not done "by the book", Miranda warning and all, the alleged criminal will walk and the citizen can be sued for illegal detention.)

Jim

 

[DannyB1954]

Probably best to take the fifth. I would like to cooperate with you officer, but I do not believe that I violated any laws, and would like to speak with an attorney before any questioning. Bad guys keep quiet and are often not charged with a crime due to lack of evidence. Good guys think that they have to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is often determined to be a confession. As an example you go to court for a speeding ticket and say I had to step on the gas to avoid being hit by a semi truck loaded with steel coming right at me. The judge says, so then you have admitted to me you were speeding.


If there were witnesses, they should be able to state that you gave fair warning to a perceived threat. If there are no witnesses, who says you put your hand on your gun?

or

In my state open carry is legal. I just decided to open carry. I made certain that my gun was firmly seated in it's holster after I uncovered it.

There is a thing called the 21 foot rule. It says someone with a knife at 21 feet away can harm you before you get your gun out. Some experts now feel that it should be called the 40 foot rule.

That hesitation could cost you your life or property.

Do not try to defend property with lethal force. This may be allowable in Texas, but just about everywhere else if you shoot someone trying to steal property, you are going to be in serious trouble.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Probably best to take the fifth. I would like to cooperate with you officer, but I do not believe that I violated any laws, and would like to speak with an attorney before any questioning....

Not necessarily the best idea if you are claiming self defense. Your fallacy was discussed extensively in this thread and in this thread.

As I outlined in this post:

Yes, we have a right to remain silent. But there will often be a question of when to invoke that right, and when to speak up. If we witness a crime, should we not report it. If we witness a crime, should we not cooperate with a proper investigation.

But this issue usually comes up when we might be involved in an incident. And even then. silence might or might not be the best idea.

I am not an attorney, but I suspect johnelmore is not, either. You do have a legal (and moral) obligation to cooperate with investigating officers up to the point of an arrest (Miranda warning) or to the point where you believe you are being treated as a suspect.

Obviously, if you shoot someone on the street, your best course is to not answer anything other than name and address without an attorney present. But the idea that you should never talk to the police except through an attorney is absurd. If johnelmore had seen one of the Boston bombers dropping his backpack, would he refuse to give the police a description without an attorney present? I hope not.

I am an attorney. But I'm not your attorney. I'm not giving legal advice. I'm providing comment on a legal topic based on my training and experience. So --

Keeping Silent Isn't the Best Idea in a Self Defense Matter

But Don't Say Too Much.

Call 911. Be the first to report the incident and do so immediately. If you don't report it, or if there's a long delay, you will appear to have a guilty conscience.

Then, having taken LFI-I with Massad Ayoob, spending time with him and helping with a class of his in Sierra Vista, AZ not too long ago, I'll go along with his recommendation for when the police arrive.

[1] While one has a right to remain silent, clamming up is what the bad guys do. Following a self defense incident, you'll want to act like one of the good guys. You also won't want the investigating officers to miss any evidence or possible witnesses. What if the responding officers miss your assailant's knife that you saw fall down the storm drain? What if they don't know about the guy you saw pick up your assailant's gun and walk off with it?

[2] At the same time, you don't want to say too much. You will most likely be rattled. You will also most likely be suffering from various well known stress induced distortions of perception.

[3] So Massad Ayoob recommends:

• Saying something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.
• Saying something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).
• Pointing out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.
• Pointing out possible witnesses before they vanish.
• Then saying something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."

Pleading Self Defense is Very Different From the Common Lines of Defense to a Criminal Charge.

A lot of folks point to the "Don't Talk to the Police" video that is making the rounds on gun boards. But it is about a police contact in general. It works fine when you aren't claiming self defense, and it's up to the State to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But things work differently if you are pleading self defense.

Basically --

[1] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.

[2] Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

[3] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

Let's go through that again.

In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

So in such cases, it probably doesn't pay for you to say anything to the police, at least early on. Let them do the work of trying to amass evidence to prove the case against you. There's no reason for you to help.

But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of what would, absent legal justification, constitute a crime. You will necessarily admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified.

So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the more convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.

And people need to understand that sometimes what you don't say can be used against you too. The Supreme Court has ruled that one may be asked questions in under circumstances not amounting to a custodial interrogation, and one's silence in response to such questioning may be used by the prosecution (Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246, Supreme Court 2013).

...If there were witnesses, they should be able to state that you gave fair warning to a perceived threat. If there are no witnesses, who says you put your hand on your gun?...

Why? What do you know about eyewitness psychology?

In fact, the unreliability of eye witnesses is well studied and well known. See, for example the article "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony" as published in the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies. An eyewitness might easily conclude that you were the assailant and that you threatened an innocent man with your gun.

And even if there are no third party witnesses, there will always be a witness besides you -- the guy you threatened with your gun.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There is a thing called the 21 foot rule. It says someone with a knife at 21 feet away can harm you before you get your gun out. Some experts now feel that it should be called the 40 foot rule....

It's a myth to call it a "rule." It is not any kind of a rule.

Dennis Tueller (a Salt Lake City police officer) developed the exercise to test at what distances an assailant with a contact weapon could be a credible threat. But folks seem perversely want not to understand the real meaning of the Tueller data (and it is not a "rule").

The point Tueller was trying to make with his exercises is that an assailant 21(+/-) feet away with a contact weapon needs to be taken seriously as a threat. You need to take him seriously as a threat because (1) he can cover the distance between you and him in a short time; and (2) it will take you a roughly comparable amount of time to draw and fire your gun.

Tueller's original article may be read here. Notice that Tueller talks about how being able to recognize what your danger zone is and that someone in it is a credible threat allows one to take early, appropriate defensive, risk mitigating actions.

 

[armed]

I'm pretty sure not a single one of those cues (presented in the video) would qualify in court as a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury. Walking towards someone while being told to stop doesn't seem to qualify either. It seems that further retreat is the best option.

Really? Tell that to to a petite female, or madmo44mag. Also, you misread the threat scenario. It stated “There is no option for avoidance…” meaning, he couldn’t retreat. And you downplayed the event. The threat was not just “walking towards someone while being told to stop…” The potential victim yelled “STOP STAY BACK” and withdrew 10 feet from the threat, at which point the threat continued to advance, moving another 5 feet closer (as in closing with the enemy for a climax of attack).

And, as always, I will continue to hold Mr Ettin's words in high regard.

While I commend you on the respectful reverence, you should always consider contrasting parallels; Respectful Irreverence

The scenario as described doesn't tell us enough, which is the point. If it did, then we'd likely all be in agreement.

I believe the scenario gives the gist...If not, then identify the gaps and I’d be happy to fill them in.

I believe we are in agreement, it’s just that we tend to muddy the waters that surround self-defense, an area already filled with fantasy and fiction. It’s folks who haven't walked in madmo44mag’s shoes that indoctrinate and confuse conceal carriers, especially the novice, with minutia. It’s about raising legal issues, that are connected but obsolete to the main one, for the sake of unnecessary caution. So it’s not disagreement…it’s about all the extraneous bull, that arouses fear and alarm, that then become matters of dispute.

That said, I’d like to get back on topic.

This is about a tactical maneuver, a “Burst Presentation”. It’s a managed maneuver that directs you to erupt suddenly, to acquire a proper firing grip, in preparation for the draw. That’s it.

It is designed to show someone who is unarmed, but who you believe intends to inflict grave bodily harm or death, that you possess superior firepower, and that you will use it if they don’t comply with your demands.

There are some that have cautioned, erroneously I believe, that I’m instructing my clients on Brandishing and/or a Defensive Display of a firearm. My argument - it’s neither.

If you have arguments for or against this methodology, or if you think I should add or delete context, or if better criteria should be laid down for distinguishing this maneuver, or for whatever reasons…let's discuss them.

Your thoughts.

 

[armed]

To Oldmarkman

Not trying to be a wise arse here ok.
Have you ever been mugged, robbed, or shot during a robbery?

I’ve been mugged twice, robbed 3 times, and shot once during a robbery.
This was long before Texas allowed CCW.

I’d much rather take my chance is court that a visit to the undertaker!

Now with that said I gave the readers digest version of what happened.
I feel I could easily defend myself based on the circumstances.

My main point is simple.
If you feel a threat is eminent don’t hesitate.
That hesitation could cost you your life...

I understand that my perception may not match a courts perception but is it worth risking your life?

I consider that plagiarism. From every defensive shooting course I've taught, you took the words right from my mouth.

 

[spacemanspiff]

I have had a similar experience to the one hypothesized in the OP, however without the size disparity.

I was approached while walking during winter, icy slippery roads, by a male who was coming from the left. He got distracted by his friend who had pulled up behind me in a truck. He started yelling at his friend 'What are you doing?' and arguing. It was at this point that I surmised it was a failed attempt at a mugging. I started walking away but the male ran to catch up, and I was blocked in, with him standing in front, his friend behind me in the truck, on a street that had a snow burm on the right, up against a fenced in property. Roads were slippery, limiting my ability to make a hasty exit.

The male started trying to ask me what time it was. What I was out doing. Etc. Wanted to shake my hand. I refused to answer his questions, just told him "I don't know you, don't want to talk to you, don't want to shake your hand". I told him to back off a few times and put my right hand on the grip of my gun, holstered at 4oclock.

One of his hands was in his coat pocket, the other was out, still trying to get a handshake out of me. I knew I was in danger, but without him presenting a weapon, I did not display my gun or draw from holster.
I have no idea what amount of time passed from start to finish, adrenalin swept me away. I was able to make small progress along the street, about 25 yards to the intersection, all the way still telling him to 'back off' and 'go away'. I could only make it halfway across the intersection due to traffic.

When it finally did clear and I could jog across (he had followed me out halfway thru the intersection) as I turned from facing him, he reached out and smacked my right hand that was still holding the grips and said 'Bang'. Then he went back and got in the truck with his friend.

The truck circled around and continued to follow, but at a distance of 100 yards or so. I was close to my apartment, but walked further past it until the truck gave up and drove away.

I filed a police report, at the very least it was very suspicious behavior, that did not result in the intended mugging. My gun did not get displayed. The male did seem to know what I had my hand on. Had he shown a weapon I think it would have turned out a lot worse.


Did I fear for my life and safety? Yes. Did I fear enough to use a threat of deadly force? No. Do I think everyone should react the same way I did? Of course not.

The question of this thread, whether its a 'defensive draw' or 'defensive display' of a firearm to discourage a threat on your safety, thats a tough call.

I would have to say that it would be ill advised to 'display' your weapon when your assailant appears to be unarmed, because you have effectively escalated the situation then. And if you prepare your mind to do such a defensive display, will that be what your first response is when you are faced with a weapon? Will your mind be stuck thinking "OK, reveal my gun so the threat goes away?"

If you do have a weapon pulled on you, and you draw yours, there exists a chance that you may not even fire, perhaps the threat drops their weapon and runs away?

As for determining what 'disparity of force' means to you, thats subjective.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by .22lr: I'm pretty sure not a single one of those cues (presented in the video) would qualify in court as a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury.

That's a near certainty.

Now, certain combinations should cause a prudent person to start thinking fast about what to do, but even those combinations would likely prove extremely troublesome as evidence of jeopardy--of intent to cause great bodily harm right then and there.

Should the defendant choose to take the stand, and I do not see any other way that those "cues" could ever be presented as part of a defense of justification, most defendants would most likely have a terrible time describing the "cues" and why he or she happened to be qualified to interpret them as an indication of criminal intent. There are multiple possible explanations for each of them, and frankly, some people just act that way. I would dread being put in that position.

Walking toward someone while being told to stop doesn't seem to qualify either.

That has been covered here before numerous times. The fact is, no one has a legal right to demand that anyone stop walking in any direction on a public right of way.

Now, it the defender is in fact cornered, and if the big, chest puffing man who seems to being avoiding eye contact for whatever reason, and whose "stare" is disconcerting to the defendant, is clearly and intentionally trying to close in on the defendant and nothing else, things get a little touchy. One might well warn, and if it comes to that, shoot.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by armed: This is about a tactical maneuver, a “Burst Presentation”. It’s a managed maneuver that directs you to erupt suddenly, to acquire a proper firing grip, in preparation for the draw. That’s it.

Not the way you described it, I'm afraid. Read on, and avail yourself of the aforementioned PDN video.

It is designed to show someone who is unarmed, but who you believe intends to inflict grave bodily harm or death, that you possess superior firepower, and that you will use it if they don’t comply with your demands.

As Frank pointed out, if you threaten force for the purpose of enforcing "demands" that someone do something or stop doing something, you have committed an assault, in the classic common law definition.

There are some that have cautioned, erroneously I believe, that I’m instructing my clients on Brandishing and/or a Defensive Display of a firearm. My argument - it’s neither.

How so?

First, let's revisit the OP: "This examines an instructor demonstrating a pre-emptive defensive display maneuver. [emphasis added]" We can eliminate the term "brandishing"; it's used in some jurisdictions and not in others.

Second, let's look at the way the law is written in one state in which there is a legal provision for defensive display of a firearm: defensive display includes uncovering the gun, placing one's hand on it, telling the person that you are armed.... Read it yourself. And you have to be justified in using physical force before you can do any of that.

And that's the point: if it is necessary to do it, you are justified, and you had better not be spending time thinking about it. If it is not necessary, it is not justified.

In between, here are two possibilities:

1. surreptitiously putting one's hand on a firearm concealed in a pocket, as kraigwy suggested; that one does not wann, but it gets you ready; and
2. doing what attorney, and expereinced expert witness, Marty Hayes suggests in the video that I mentioned.

 

[Don P]

The Issues

There's disagreement amongst a group of instructors Some are advising this is Brandishing, as there's no provision for Defensive Display in Florida (a bill is pending- I think). Some believe this has no application, as standard protocol dictates that once you go for the gun you draw.

I believe events determine movement and the burst presentation is an appropriate countermeasure for the account given. My concern is the erroneous conception that this is somehow brandishing.

Your thoughts?

Living in FLA and having LE members at our range and talking about such things my suggestion to you would be in your scenario after the threat leaves is CALL DA POLICE!!! and explain the situation and give them a description of the threat. If the threat calls and you don't you will have a lot of explaining to do and could be in a heap of poop.

 

[armed]

Geeez spaceman, that’s quite the story. It was so bizarre I read it 3 times. I will not pass judgement except to say you’re a very, very lucky man. For sure you’ve replayed this a thousand times and you’re better prepared to control distance and contact.

YOU ARE VERY LUCKY TO BE ALIVE.

Glad you’re still with us. Hope you’re getting some formal training. Good luck. WOW.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...This is about a tactical maneuver, a “Burst Presentation”. It’s a managed maneuver that directs you to erupt suddenly, to acquire a proper firing grip, in preparation for the draw. That’s it.

It is designed to show someone who is unarmed, but who you believe intends to inflict grave bodily harm or death, that you possess superior firepower, and that you will use it if they don’t comply with your demands.

There are some that have cautioned, erroneously I believe, that I’m instructing my clients on Brandishing and/or a Defensive Display of a firearm. My argument - it’s neither...

That is all balderdash. The exact nature of the maneuver is irrelevant. Your so called "burst presentation" is just another way of threatening someone with being shot.

You effectively admitted that (emphasis added):

...It is designed to show someone who is unarmed, but who you believe intends to inflict grave bodily harm or death, that you possess superior firepower, and that you will use it if they don’t comply with your demands...

And that is, to use the language of FS 790.10 (emphasis added):

...having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner,....

The manner of making the threat doesn't really matter. You are committing an assault:

an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact

It is a criminal act in every State of the Union, whether it be called assault, menacing, brandishing or by some other name. How you do it doesn't really matter because the act, and its criminality, is defined by your intent and the reasonable apprehension of the person to whom your act was directed.

So since, by your admission, your "burst presentation" is intended to (emphasis added):

...show someone who is unarmed, but who you believe intends to inflict grave bodily harm or death, that you possess superior firepower, and that you will use it if they don’t comply with your demands...

it is your stated expectation that your display of your gun will cause someone to fear immediately getting shot if....

How you threaten someone with lethal force is irrelevant. It's prima facie a crime. What's relevant is under what circumstances you do so, because the circumstance could provide you the defense of justification.

 

[DannyB1954]

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/se...u-should-never-do-after-self-defense-shooting Please note the paragraph make a statement.

When Police officers are involved in a shooting they are not required to make an immediate statement. Some give 48 hours, but some even 72 hours. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...tories-straight-after-shooting-citizens.shtml If you think that you can think straight immediately after being in a confrontation or shooting someone, good luck. If you say I thought he might have a weapon instead of it appeared that he had a weapon, or hundreds of other misstatements and it goes from SD to brandishing or worst.

Outside of saying I was in fear for my safety and was prepared to defend myself, you can do yourself more harm than good. A persons mouth can usually get them into more trouble than it can get them out of. Especially if they think they are smart.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You are probably more of an expert than the person that wrote this web site http://www.secondcalldefense.org/se...u-should-never-do-after-self-defense-shooting

Actually, what he wrote is quite similar to what I suggested. Take a look at his exact words (emphasis added):

...you don't want to say too much because anything you say will be used against you. What should you say? There are many opinions on this, but here is one formulation:

My gun is laying over there, and that is the gun that I used to shoot my attacker in self defense because I feared for my life. I do not want to say anything else until I have had time to talk to my attorney. I want to cooperate with the investigation completely, but I'm very upset right now and I need to talk to my attorney first. I hope you understand.​

So he's not saying to clam up completely. He's saying that you should be careful what you say. Compare what he suggested to what I suggested (post 23):

• Saying something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.
• Saying something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).
• Pointing out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.
• Pointing out possible witnesses before they vanish.
• Then saying something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer

...When Police officers are involved in a shooting they are not required to make an immediate statement. Some give 48 hours, but some even 72 hours. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...tories-straight-after-shooting-citizens.shtml...

However, they may be expected to (International Chiefs of Police Officer-Involved Shooting Guidelines, paragraph 5.2):

...provide pertinent information soon after a shooting to aid the initial investigative process...

Such information might well include whether or not there were accomplices and what happened to them, identification of witnesses, and the location of evidence.

...A persons mouth can usually get them into more trouble than it can get them out of...

Silence can also get you into trouble (Salinas v. Texas). Even your own expert doesn't suggest not saying anything at all.

 

[DannyB1954]

My apologies then to you sir.

 

[pax]

Deleted a personal insult.

If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument -- not the guy who made it.

Acceptable: "That argument is balderdash, and here's why..." (with references).

Unacceptable: "You are arrogant and prideful..."

Trusting this is clear. There will be no further warnings in this otherwise excellent thread.

pax

 

[Frank Ettin]

Some synonyms for "balderdash" include foolishness, baloney, beans, bilge -- in other words "grievous error."

And and I reject as "grievous error" the assertion by Armed that what he calls a "burst presentation" is not:

...Brandishing and/or a Defensive Display of a firearm...

As he, himself, described it, it is undoubtedly displaying a gun in a threatening manner (emphasis added):

...It is designed to show someone who is unarmed, but who you believe intends to inflict grave bodily harm or death, that you possess superior firepower, and that you will use it if they don’t comply with your demands...

His stated purpose in executing a "burst presentation" is to cause the person to whom the act is directed to fear that the actor will use the gun against him.

And the assertion that a "burst presentation" is somehow not:

...Brandishing and/or a Defensive Display of a firearm...

can not stand in light of the discussion of the Common Law definition of assault and both FS 790.10 and FS 776.12.

So considering that background, and considering the avowed intent behind the so called "burst presentation", i. e., to strike fear in the heart of a possible assailant that you will shoot him if he doesn't withdraw, how can a "burst presentation" be anything other than a threat. That is not fairly debatable.

So if one performs a "burst presentation" under circumstances in which he would not be justified to threaten lethal force, he will be subject to prosecution for assault, or menacing, or brandishing, as the case may be in the jurisdiction. But if one performs the "burst presentation" under circumstances in which he would be justified to threaten lethal force in self defense, his defense against prosecution for assault, or menacing, or brandishing, as the case may be in the jurisdiction, will be justification.

Threatening someone with a gun is prima facie a crime, no matter how you do it. Justified self defense is a defense to that crime.

 

[armed]

I'm chomping at the bit to attack your argument (rip to shreds actually) , but not until you answer my question. I'm not wasting my time if fate awaits me.

 

[pax]

Moderator Note

armed,

My earlier post was a clear answer to your question, in my role as Moderator in the T&T forum of TFL. If you cannot understand the answer in that earlier post, to continue posting here would indeed be a waste of your time.

Ripping an argument to shreds is all in good fun here. By all means, have at it! But using a fellow member's "Moderator" status as an excuse to insult him, figuring you'll get some extra lenience if you play that card? Not cool at all.

pax

 

[armed]

Some synonyms for "balderdash" include foolishness, baloney, beans, bilge -- in other words "grievous error."

And I reject as "grievous error" the assertion by Armed that what he calls a "burst presentation" is not...

Really counselor…is that really your argument?

Because I’m coming up with senseless, stupid, exaggerated or illogical talk or writing, nonsense, rubbish. In other words...well you didn’t leave any did you?