Drawing but NOT Firing in Self Defense

S

stonewall50

New member
So a verbal altercation arose at the local dog park the other day. It got me thinking: if someone threatened you and gave every indication of trying to get into a physical altercation...what would the legality of drawing your weapon be? And this is assuming you have not provoked or escalated the situation and you are unable to retreat/leave.

Now the state of Florida law is as follows:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Click to expand...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

So this is in one of those weird brackets where you COULD have a legitimate fear for your life, but if the guy says "I am going to kick your blank" and if you end up in fear and draw your weapon, a better lawyer might get YOU convicted. And this is also bearing in mind that bearing a weapon or even stating that you are armed might be enough be considered an escalation.

So my legal question is mainly: does this law appear to cover a verbal altercation where someone threatens violence, but if once a weapon draws...they come to their senses before the worst happens?

I really wish they could make the law more clear with that.
 
Until you believe grave bodily harm is emminent I would suggest alway de-escalating at every opportunity and would site Harold Fish and George Zimmerman as evidence. While both men were eventually freed the costs were staggering.
 
If you are carrying a gun, don't get into a verbal confrontation. If you find yourself in a verbal confrontation, walk away. Your gun is for defense. It should be used as a last resort. If you have to shoot somebody, it will be life changing (for you) in many ways.
 
mavracer said:
Until you believe grave bodily harm is emminent I would suggest alway de-escalating at every opportunity and would site Harold Fish and George Zimmerman as evidence. While both men were eventually freed the costs were staggering.
Click to expand...



See I feel the same way, but there are DOZENS of YouTube videos showing the "tough" guy, roid using tools out there that may not LET you de-escalate a situation because their "machismo" demands they "whip your ___." Ya know? My personal motto is that I do not have a duty to retreat, but it is a good policy. If I don't have to fight...I will not. Pride isn't worthy dying for.
 
don't get into a verbal confrontation. If you find yourself in a verbal confrontation walk away
Click to expand...

I agree separating yourself from the situation is the best course of action. I also believe that being the first person to call the Police can work in your favor, so if someone is threatening you use your cell phone before your gun. As for exactly where the line is I will freely admit it’s a little fuzzy to me also, but I guess that is simply the reality.
 
andy29847 said:
If you are carrying a gun, don't get into a verbal confrontation. If you find yourself in a verbal confrontation, walk away. Your gun is for defense. It should be used as a last resort. If you have to shoot somebody, it will be life changing (for you) in many ways.
Click to expand...



Correct. But that really isn't the type of scenario I am thinking of. If I can, I will. But it is not unrealistic to be put in a situation where retreat isn't an option. Either the aggressor is out of his mind, a macho man, or maybe a road raging dick who is pounding your window till it cracks and you are stuck between vehicles and your car cannot move.
 
BarryLee said:
I agree separating yourself from the situation is the best course of action. I also believe that being the first person to call the Police can work in your favor, so if someone is threatening you use your cell phone before your gun. As for exactly where the line is I will freely admit it’s a little fuzzy to me also, but I guess that is simply the reality.
Click to expand...



Yea. And drawing the cell phone is the only method I can think of that would reduce the situation, but even then...I can see someone going off the rails. Idk if you saw that video of the marine in traffic who flipped his crap after the guy started filming him after notifying that police were called.
 
We had a guy here in NY about ten years ago who had some enraged person pounding on his window threatening to kill him. The guy in the car was a lot smaller than the agressor. As it ended up, the guy in the car got out and shot the agressor. He's still in prison for using excessive force. Even pulling out your gun to show you are armed will result in you being charged with menacing and you'll go to jail and lose your permit. I don't want to argue this point, it's just how it is. You do have an obligation to try to retreat here in NY and lots of other places. Even when you are justified, you're going to go bankrupt paying for your lawyers and defending yourself. I personally believe too many people are much more prone to up the game simply because they are carrying a gun. Sort of like keyboard muscles. I give pistol permit courses and I've actually turned people away simply after talking to them about why they want to carry a gun. They're simply a tragedy waiting to happen.
 
NoSecondBest said:
We had a guy here in NY about ten years ago who had some enraged person pounding on his window threatening to kill him. The guy in the car was a lot smaller than the agressor. As it ended up, the guy in the car got out and shot the agressor. He's still in prison for using excessive force. Even pulling out your gun to show you are armed will result in you being charged with menacing and you'll go to jail and lose your permit. I don't want to argue this point, it's just how it is. You do have an obligation to try to retreat here in NY and lots of other places. Even when you are justified, you're going to go bankrupt paying for your lawyers and defending yourself. I personally believe too many people are much more prone to up the game simply because they are carrying a gun. Sort of like keyboard muscles. I give pistol permit courses and I've actually turned people away simply after talking to them about why they want to carry a gun. They're simply a tragedy waiting to happen.
Click to expand...



Which I understand. And Florida law is obviously different than NY. Personally? I'm never going to exit a vehicle. I'm not a cop. A CCW doesn't make me one. Period.
 
A verbal altercation is verbal. No imminent threat to life or limb, even if the bigmouth says "I'm going to take you apart". Until he starts to attempt to take you apart, it's all just hot air.

Your cellphone is your best defense if you truly can't just walk away.
 
The big balancing act, is simple. If you can not retreat, the person who is just about to attack you (and in my case, you are aged 80!) it is all you can do.

You stand a decent chance (in Florida) of being on the side of the Angels.

A couple of years ago, my Wife was followed all around our local Publix store, two pants hanging down "Yutes" no basket or cart between them. I was reading in the parking lot, cell call, I was waiting under the overhang when my Wife slipped out, smoothly, I was standing at the back of my Security marked Jeep. One of these late teens, early twenty's young men, noticed me, grabbed his buddy's arm, and they took off across the parking lot.

Afterwards I thought of a few different ways I could have dealt with that scenario, but it worked for a rapid thought out plan.
 
Somebody threatening to "kick my butt" is not going to cause me to pull my weapon, even in Florida. Not at this point in my life. Give me another 30 years and confronted by a 20-something 6'5 guy, and I might have a different opinion.
 
Five essential elements in legitimate self defense; innocence, imminence, proportion, avoidance, and reasonableness. All need to be met simultaneously.

Verbal assault is not lethal force, not even push and shove. Drawing a gun is. It is not proportional.

- TL
 
So my legal question is mainly: does this law appear to cover a verbal altercation where someone threatens violence, but if once a weapon draws...they come to their senses before the worst happens?

I really wish they could make the law more clear with that.
Click to expand...

Laws are necessarily unclear in that they provide standards for assessing future events rather than describing future scenarios precisely.

The answer to your legal question will depend on the state in which the incident occurs. According to the FL code cited above, whether one is entitled to use deadly force, or any force at all, will turn on the reasonable belief of the person employing force. A verbal threat of violence could prompt one to reasonably believe believe that he needs to employ force in order to defend or to prevent imminent death or GBI.

No one should misunderstand that to mean that a verbal threat will itself categorically justify force in return.
 
Here is my take...for what thats worth:rolleyes:

If the adversary shows/has the ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY and INTENT and i truly believe my life is in danger (in some clearly explained way, example... I'm recovering from back surgery and cant escape OR fight him off).

AND i can explain that my firearm was the only way i had to protect myself from this violence. I would draw and give loud verbals...

If thats my only option to avoid a struggle and possible losing my gun to my attacker, i think that is "Reasonable".

If i draw my gun just because some guy says he is going to kick my *** down the street...thst is NOT reasonable

As always it comes down to the totality of the circumstances.
 
A potential fight or verbal altercation does not justify pulling the gun absent some very compelling facts involving reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm (not crazy hypothetical scenarios some think up in their head as justification). You will certainly end up in jail in the short run, even if you are later not charged or found not guilt.

This is especially true if you can simply walk away or disengage from the altercation. Pulling the gun now makes you appear as an aggressor. People get wrapped around the "no retreat" language in some laws and are in dangerous territory. Maybe you wont get charged criminally, but guarantee that you will lose in a civil case if the gun at your side inflated your balls beyond your brains ability to make good decisions.

I think the vast majority on this site clearly understand the serious responsibility of carrying a FA. However, it never fails that some want to split hairs over the language of the law and their right to shoot someone. Like we tell our kids "use your words or walk away".
 
A potential fight or verbal altercation does not justify pulling the gun absent some very compelling facts involving reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm (not crazy hypothetical scenarios some think up in their head as justification).
Click to expand...

I am not sure what a "potential" fight is, but a reasonable belief of imminent death or GBI would be what a prosecutor and/or jury would need to find according to that Florida code.

Just as an undue sense of machismo may lead to an incorrect answer about whether one should employ force, it is also true that a disproportionate disdain for the employment of force may also lead one to the wrong answer.

Some of the responses above suggest that one cannot rightly employ force until the beating begins. We might call that the Zimmerman rule. However, that is not what the code above indicates and may also be imprudent.

I now forget where I saw it, but many of you may have seen this video as well. An attacker with a rubber knife stands 20 or 30 feet away and a defender with a holstered pistol gets to defend himself. The fellow with the rubber knife always does plenty of lethal damage even if the defender does get a shot in.
 
Seems to me it comes down to the difference between unlawful force by an aggressor and force such that it causes you to fear for your life or fear great bodily harm.

A credible threat to your life is probably pretty plain if it happens but the ambiguous one is great bodily harm. What is that? Is it a legally defined type of injury? If not what is it?

On the one hand someone threatening to punch a person in the nose doesn't seem to warrant the victim drawing and firing a gun.

But having said that a fist can be a deadly weapon. A powerful punch to the head can kill. It can blind. A punch to the body can damage internal organs.

A punch in itself may not do these things, but it can put someone on the floor at which point they are significantly more vulnerable to further blows and kicks by which time they have lost the chance to defend themselves effectively.

These are documented events albeit rare, yet if someone were in court for shooting their assailant and claimed "they were going to punch me" they'd probably have the book thrown at them.

A frightfully fine line.....
 
This attempt at an answer might be a bit off topic, as it's more to do with skill than legalities, but.....
What if the person with the gun had sufficient skill, and confidence in that skill, to be able to draw their gun effectively in a split second?
Then there would be no need to present the arm in anticipation of trouble before it might actually be needed.
Just a thought.
 
Different states have different laws about "threatening / menacing / brandishing" a weapon.

However, time and time again, the sight of a weapon chases off attackers and convinces would be attackers to would be something else, without a shot being fired.

One thing that can make a difference, is what story the police hear, FIRST.

If the first story the cops hear is from you, the law abiding upstanding citizen (with a permit?) or your lawyer, telling how you were threatened / attacked, and drew in self defense but didn't need to shoot, they will likely have a different attitude than if the first thing they hear is a complaint about how you threatened to shoot someone who was "minding their own business"...

Without witnesses these things usually come down to your word against theirs. And if the punks are in pairs or worse, then you have multiple words against yours, which makes their lying tougher to prove.

If you get into this type of situation, I recommend calling your lawyer, and then calling the cops (based on his advice) right away. OR calling the cops to file a report, then calling your lawyer, if you think that best. My point is that you need to make the first report, if possible. This puts you on the record, and potentially give you the stronger case.

I'm not a lawyer, not pretending to be one. My advice is worth what you paid for it. Not valid where prohibited by law, order before midnight for special handling...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top