Correct me if I am wrong. In the meantime, just remember, Assault by pointing a weapon (14-34) is a MISDEMEANOR punishable by 6 months max. And self defense is a valid justification.
Misdemeanor doesn't mean not illegal. Just means a minor offense.
But as far as self defense as the reason goes, and again, this is based on the passage that I've seen multiple times in reference to the law (both in my class and on packing.org) but cannot find in the law about simple assualt, I don't see where you can pull a gun for a situation that hasn't elevated to deadly force yet. The cops might not care, when they show up and let the victim go, but we'll ignore that for now and just assume everyone is being a hardass and sticking the law to them. The "assailants" had no visible weapons. They could be screaming up and down that they are going to kill the guy as they approach, but
as I was taught by the officers teaching my CCL class I am not yet authorized to use deadly force. I could draw the gun so it is prepared, but I cannot yet aim it at them.
Course, the other problem is, as I recall from the discussion at the course a few months ago, they can have a weapon on or near their person, but i am still not authorized to use deadly force until it is in their hand. I specifically asked about a scenario where a gun is right next to a guy on the table and he is threatening me, but until that gun is in his hand, I am in the wrong. This is a problem because, as I see it from those discussions, once I draw the gun, I have brought deadly force into the situation and if they were to shoot me and call the cops, they'd be fine because i'm laying there with a drawn weapon.
But anyhow, the assailants are approaching with no weapons. As per the legal definitions as I recall, this is still a simple assualt and I cannot bring in a weapon in my defense. If there is a gross size difference I might be able to argue that I had reasonable reason to believe I was in bodily danger, and deadly force was authorized, but that's up for a lawyer to argue for me.
I seem to see a theme in this thread that there was no option to retreat because they were on the phone and the car was dead 200 yards away. Considering that it is very rare that I've ever seen a mall in the middle of no where, I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't of been other phones around. I don't see why the option of continuing to approach a dangerous area would be encouraged when a tactical retreat may be less confrontational. If they continue to follow, you have an easier time arguing the bodily harm (as they are clearly pursuing you now) and if they don't, you are out of the situation.
Either way, John, I just want to say that I have no hard feelings towards you on this matter, and appreciate the correction on details that I noticed I missed (where the gun was pointed for example). The posters friend does not appear to be as in violation of the law as I thought he was. I do think that he was in a violation of the spirit of the laws in some ways (I feel that the law really wants that gun to stay far out of the situation until someone needs to die, hence, no brandishing either), but **** the spirit, it isn't written down.