If You Draw You Must Shoot

[Evan Thomas]

More pertinent to the situation may be reporting the incident.
Recently criminals have been known to immediately call the
authorities, and lie to them about what just transpired.

When the police show up, they are responding only to the
criminal's call, if you did not call them, also. As such, they
may be inclined to take the criminal at their word, more
readily.

That sounds rather far-fetched to me. Most crooks try not to attract attention to themselves.

Care to share your source for this information?

The underlying problem here is that you're both assuming that the world can be neatly divided into "good guys" and "criminals," and that police should always be able to tell the difference. But if one draws their gun in, say, a road rage incident or some other altercation, it's likely to be their word against that of the other party. In such cases, the cops may well see the person who called the police first as the likely "victim." This does suggest that reporting any incident should always be a priority.

But the issue of reporting is already a little off-topic here.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's a story about the 911 calls and the confusion that occurs when you are the guy or gal pointing the gun.

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/lessons-learned-good-samaritan-attempt/

 

[Don P]

In Florida brandishing a firearm can be agravated assault with a deadly weapon is a felony and has a minimum three year sentence. Don't draw unless you have to which translates to must shoot. I said that if I draw I must and will shoot. Many thought I was an idiot

My emphasis added to the quote. Pure and simple poppy-cock, horse fertilizer. As stated earlier, you draw and the situation deescalates rapidly (attacker turns and runs) and you have to shoot him because you drew your gun. You best re-read the Florida statutes 790.06 or better yet consult with a criminal attorney that handles firearm related cases. I concur with your last sentence.

 

[thallub]

Can't understand where the "you must shoot if your draw your gun" nonsense came from. Don't recall hearing that 25-30 years ago.

Maybe it's an extension of the "if I draw my knife it must bring blood thing".
Then the guy nicks a finger, wipes off the blade and puts the knife away.

 

[Minorcan]

Let me clarify, I will not draw unless I am certain there is no other way to prevent certain injury or death. Under those circumstances firing is justified and I will because I have no other choice. I will not draw unless there is no other option. If I draw under any other condition then I am not justified so I shouldn't have drawn. If I do then under Florida law could be charged with a felony and imprisoned thus loosing my tight to carry. I will not draw unnecessarily. By not drawing I get to retain my rights.

 

[K_Mac]

I am always baffled by the ​idea that if a weapon is drawn, it must be used. Yes, drawing a gun indicates the willingness to use deadly force. Sometimes that willingness will stop the aggression. At this point a decision to fire is not justifiable as self-defense. How would one justify killing another person under that circumstance?

 

[Bluecthomas]

I've always of the school of thought that threatening with a gun is just asking the other person to go get a gun and use it...

But shooting someone in the back is NOT self defense.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But shooting someone in the back is NOT self defense.

Not even if the "someone" has just murdered someone, and has multiple guns in a crowded location where your wife is sitting next to you?

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=586525

 

[Lohman446]

Let me clarify, I will not draw unless I am certain there is no other way to prevent certain injury or death. Under those circumstances firing is justified and I will because I have no other choice. I will not draw unless there is no other option. If I draw under any other condition then I am not justified so I shouldn't have drawn. If I do then under Florida law could be charged with a felony and imprisoned thus loosing my tight to carry. I will not draw unnecessarily. By not drawing I get to retain my rights.

I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that one should brandish a firearm willy nilly.

However the statement that I will only draw if it is justified (no other way to prevent injury or death) does not equate to I must shoot if I draw.

If in the process of drawing your firearm the threat stops you are no longer justified in shooting. You were justified in drawing as the threat was ongoing but the moment it stops is the moment your application of force must stop.

For the record I was taught you do not have to necessarily draw the gun to be in danger of brandishment charges. Any threatening movement that reveals the presence of a weapon is enough (and assault charges do not require the presence of a weapon).

I was further taught that when presented with justification for a shooting you must first:

Reveal the presence of a firearm (the beginning of a draw stroke)
Draw your firearm (actually clearing the holster)
Commit assault with a deadly weapon (the aiming, pointing, or waiving of your firearm)
Warn your attacker you will shoot (though this step is allowed to be skipped if doing so will present further unnecessary danger to yourself)
Commit attempted murder / murder with a firearm (the pulling of the trigger regardless if the shot was intended to hit or not or if it hits or not)

If at any point your attacker ceases to present the justification for the use of deadly force you must cease to escalate. Granted these things may take seconds or fractions of a second but you may not shoot simply because one second before you had the justification if that justification has ceased.

 

[Don P]

Let me clarify, I will not draw unless I am certain there is no other way to prevent certain injury or death. Under those circumstances firing is justified and I will because I have no other choice. I will not draw unless there is no other option. If I draw under any other condition then I am not justified so I shouldn't have drawn. If I do then under Florida law could be charged with a felony and imprisoned thus loosing my tight to carry. I will not draw unnecessarily. By not drawing I get to retain my rights

My thoughts and opinion being a firearms instructor and continuing my education in the field. You should give deep honest consideration about not carrying a concealed weapon. You have to understand that if the attacker breaks off the attack and proceeds to flee the scene after seeing you and your gun that the threat has ceased therefore there is NO REASON TO SHOOT. It correlates to chasing a robber out of a place of business into the streets and gunning him/she down. YOU WILL BE charged with murder. They have fled the scene and the THREAT IS OVER
The same as folks stating that if someone breaks into their home the have the right to shoot and kill them. The castle doctrine does not make ones home an execution chamber

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let me clarify, I will not draw unless I am certain there is no other way to prevent certain injury or death. Under those circumstances firing is justified and I will because I have no other choice.

I think the part you are failing to either acknowledge or understand (leading to criticism) is that unless there is no time gap between your decision and your acting on that decision (i.e. unless you are superhuman), the circumstances justifying use of deadly force can change in the time span between your decision to draw and actually drawing the weapon.

People have gone to trial because the first shot was justified; but there was an arguable case that the second shot fired a half second or less later was not. Corcumstances can change very quickly.

So the idea that you MUST shoot if you draw is flawed. Even in terms of establishing a proper mindset, I'd argue it is a bad generalization.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In Florida brandishing a firearm can be agravated assault with a deadly weapon is a felony and has a minimum three year sentence. Don't draw unless you have to which translates to must shoot. I said that if I draw I must and will shoot. Many thought I was an idiot . In fact many locals have similar laws.

Let me clarify, I will not draw unless I am certain there is no other way to prevent certain injury or death. Under those circumstances firing is justified and I will because I have no other choice. I will not draw unless there is no other option. If I draw under any other condition then I am not justified so I shouldn't have drawn. If I do then under Florida law could be charged with a felony and imprisoned thus loosing my tight to carry. I will not draw unnecessarily. By not drawing I get to retain my rights.

What you seem to be missing is that the involvement of a firearm is, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., considered to be using deadly force -- whether or not you actually fire the gun. In your first post you stated that many locals (I think you meant locales) have "similar" laws -- which I took to mean that you think there are places that don't allow the use of a gun other than to actually shoot someone.

In reality, the laws I have reviewed (which certainly does not include every state or every jurisdiction) generally address not "shooting" but the use of deadly (or "lethal") force. In many of them, simply drawing -- and in some cases just putting your hand on a holstered gun -- is deemed to be the use of deadly force, whether or not you shoot. So once you draw, you have employed deadly force in self defense. If simply showing the gun defuses or deescalates the confrontation and the threat goes away -- why would you then have to shoot? More to the point, since you propose that "many" locations require you to shoot if you draw -- please post even one reference to such a law.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Mr. Roberts is correct. The American Rifleman discussed a case where a few seconds delay to the follow up shot led to a charge of premeditated murder.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

For the record I was taught you do not have to necessarily draw the gun to be in danger of brandishment charges. Any threatening movement that reveals the presence of a weapon is enough (and assault charges do not require the presence of a weapon).

You do realize that this generalization is not applicable in all states. In the state where I live, there are no laws defining brandishing. Therefore, you cannot be "in danger of brandishment charges" because there is no law to be broken.

How do you make a threatening movement that reveals a weapon? If you reveal a gun that is being carried concealed in the state where I live, there's no problem as the gun simply becomes open carried and that is legal as it is covered under the State's constitution.

Whole lot of generalization being passed off as being facts that can be ubiquitously applied.

My point is that you need to know the laws of the state where you live, and the laws where you live don't necessarily apply to everyone else in other states.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You do realize that this generalization is not applicable in all states. In the state where I live, there are no laws defining brandishing. Therefore, you cannot be "in danger of brandishment charges" because there is no law to be broken.

How do you make a threatening movement that reveals a weapon? If you reveal a gun that is being carried concealed in the state where I live, there's no problem as the gun simply becomes open carried and that is legal as it is covered under the State's constitution.

I respectfully offer that I am not convinced. A state that doesn't define "brandishing" may well define "threatening," and may do so in terms that are general enough that it includes any action intended to instill fear in another person. Under such a definition, while open carry per se might or might not qualify, peeling back a cover garment and placing a hand on the grip of a holstered firearm could very well lead to a charge of threatening. Maybe you could beat it in court, maybe not. You'd still be paying a lawyer.

My point is that you need to know the laws of the state where you live, and the laws where you live don't necessarily apply to everyone else in other states.

Agreed 110%.

 

[OldMarksman]

We do have a sticky on the subject that addresses moist of the points raised here:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=536596​

 

[Lohman446]

You do realize that this generalization is not applicable in all states.

Yes. Hence the caveat "I was taught" immediately preceding the statement. This little statement is important in language because it establishes my statement is based on what I was taught and is not necessarily a factual representation of reality.

Whole lot of generalization being passed off as being facts that can be ubiquitously applied.

If a reader generalizes a statement that I specified was based only on what I was taught the fault is with that reader. I only make the statement as a matter of fact - it was, in fact, what I was taught. The accuracy of that teaching should be considered and weighed by the reader as to how it fits his or her situation.

My point is that you need to know the laws of the state where you live, and the laws where you live don't necessarily apply to everyone else in other states.

I would not disagree

 

[OldMarksman]

If you reveal a gun that is being carried concealed in the state where I live, there's no problem as the gun simply becomes open carried and that is legal as it is covered under the State's constitution.

One who acts upon that belief just might be in for a most unpleasant surprise.

From the sticky posted above:

This can become a question of why, and under what circumstances, you are displaying your gun.

If you are you displaying your gun to intimidate someone, to assure that someone keeps his distance or leaves, to secure his compliance, etc., your display could well be seen as a threat. And that sure seems to be your most likely purpose in displaying your gun, at least as you've posed the question. Or are you suggesting that you're displaying your holstered gun just so someone can admire the craftsmanship of your fancy grips?

The usual definition of assault, based on the Common Law, is:

an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
In the laws of some States this crime might be given another name. For example, in Alabama it's called "menacing." But by whatever name it is called, it is a crime in every State.

So a display of a firearm or telling someone you have a gun, when done for the purposes of intimidation, is, in all States, an assault of some type. You are effectively putting someone in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, i. e., getting shot.

 

[JoeSixpack]

My thoughts and opinion being a firearms instructor and continuing my education in the field. You should give deep honest consideration about not carrying a concealed weapon. You have to understand that if the attacker breaks off the attack and proceeds to flee the scene after seeing you and your gun that the threat has ceased therefore there is NO REASON TO SHOOT. It correlates to chasing a robber out of a place of business into the streets and gunning him/she down. YOU WILL BE charged with murder.

Depends on the state, In Ohio you'd be right, lethal force can only be used to protect life, although reasonable force can be used to protect property.

In Texas you can use lethal force to protecting property.. infact it does no even need to be YOUR property.. check out the case of Joe Horn many years back.

The same as folks stating that if someone breaks into their home the have the right to shoot and kill them. The castle doctrine does not make ones home an execution chamber

Really all castle doctrine does is change your disposition in a SD case from presumed guilty (prove self defense) to presumed innocent (have to prove murder)

CD Really just make the burden on the state and removes things like duty to retreat.. typically your home and car.

some states castle doctrine laws go a bit further, provide other protections.
Like CD in Ohio also added relief for getting your weapon back after a shooting.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...In Texas you can use lethal force to protecting property.. infact it does no even need to be YOUR property.. check out the case of Joe Horn many years back.....

No, you're wrong. It's much more complicated than that. Bartholomew Roberts, a member here and a lawyer in Texas has clarified things --

• Here:

  Sec.*9.41.**PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
  (b)**A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
  (1)**the actor reasonably believes the other ha
  d no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
  (2)**the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
  
  Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
  
  
  Sec.*9.42.**DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
  (1)**if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
  (2)**when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
  (A)**to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
  (B)**to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
  (3)**he reasonably believes that:
  (A)**the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
  (B)**the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
  
  Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
  
  
  Sec.*9.43.**PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
  (1)**the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
  (2)**the actor reasonably believes that:
  (A)**the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
  (B)**he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
  (C)**the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

  
  So if you live in Texas and want to shoot someone over your neighbor's property, you need to first at least meet the following conditions:
  
  1. The neighbor must be in lawful possession of the property.
  2. The property must be land or tangible, movable property.
  3. You must reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to stop the interference with the property.
  4. The other person has no claim of right to the property.
  5. The crime being prevented is arson, burglarly, robbery, theft during nighttime or criminal mischief during nightime.
  6. You must reasonably believe the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by other means OR using less force would expose you to substantial risk of death or serious injury.
  
  When those conditions are met, THEN you just need to meet all the conditions in Sec. 9.43....

  
  
• And here:

  Here are the Texas statutes that justify the use of deadly force in defense of property:
  
  

  Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
  (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
  (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
  (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
  (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
  
  Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
  (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
  (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
  (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
  (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
  (3) he reasonably believes that:
  (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
  (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

  
  The biggest issue I see off the top of my head is that stealing a potted plant from your neighbor's yard is theft. Under Texas law, deadly force may only be used to prevent the imminent commission of theft during the nighttime or prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after the theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property....

You're also wrong about Joe Horn. His case wasn't about protection of property. It was about self defense:

...Police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett, a spokesman for the Pasadena Police Department, stated that the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and that one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before angling away from Horn toward the street when the suspect was shot in the back. The medical examiner's report could not specify whether they were shot in the back due to the ballistics of the shotgun wound.⁷ Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into Horn's front yard. The plain clothes detective did not arrest Horn....

...Really all castle doctrine does is change your disposition in a SD case from presumed guilty (prove self defense) to presumed innocent (have to prove murder)....

That's also not accurate. See this thread.