If you have to draw.....

[OldMarksman]

This should throw some light on the subject.

 

[Bennyboy]

I'll have to read that thoroughly when I have time. But something immediately jumps out. It's not that I think "I have to shoot because I pulled my gun". I think like this, "I pulled my gun because I have to shoot".

Think about it.

 

[Spats McGee]

Spats:

In fact, I'd like to apologize. I shouldn't have said anything about being reasonable and logical. I'm sure you are both.

I should have said that what I posted was being looked at in a cynical way. Instead of thinking, "he said if he pulls and the guy is begging for his life he is still going to murder him in the streets" it could have been thought of as "he's saying that if he is scared enough to pull his gun, he's going to end the situation as quickly as possible because it must've been very serious".

No harm done, Bennyboy.

As for "looking at what you posted in a cynical way," consider it this way: Frank and I looked at what you posted as lawyers do. Frank is a retired attorney, and I'm an actively practicing one. I don't prosecute violent crimes, but I've been in courts enough to know that, if I did, I could make some hay with lines like the ones you posted earlier, pre-clarification. Imagine being the defendant after an SD shooting (& defendant) and taking the stand:

PA: Didn't you brag on the internet that "if you draw, you shoot?"
Def: Well, I said it, but I wasn't "bragging."
PA: Ok, but you said it, right?
Def: Right.
PA: So you knew three weeks before you killed that 14 yo choirboy that if you drew, you were going to shoot him.
Def: Well, no . . .
PA: But that's what you said. "If you draw, you shoot." You just told us that.
Def: Well, that's not really what I meant.
PA: So was it a lie when you posted it, or is it just a lie now?

Can you see how quickly credibility goes down the pipes? Word choice and articulation are very important.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

If you wait until you have to shoot before you pull your gun you are in serious danger of being behind the proverbial curve.

There are a great many instances where pulling a gun might be justified while pulling the trigger at that moment would not.

The standards for presenting a weapon vary by locality but they are not (generally) the same standards as using that weapon.

Some states even have verbiage that specifically allows for the presentation of a firearm with the express purpose of preventing the situation from escalating to the point that deadly force is actually warranted.

Point being, drawing your firearms and discharging your firearm are only tangentially connected in the sense that it must be drawn before it can be used. Neither justifies the other and drawing does not necessitate use.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Brian Phlueger: If you wait until you have to shoot before you pull your gun you are in serious danger of being behind the proverbial curve.

You certainly do not want to wait too long.

The issue is one of determining when and whether the threat is in fact imminent. For those who are not aware of the history, Dennis Tueller became famous through his conduct of experiments showing that, if one is faced by an assailant armed with a contact weapon, waiting to draw until the attacker was in close enough proximity to use the weapon would not work out well for the defender. The need for that demonstration arose from disputes over when a defender (a police officer, in that case) could lawfully present his weapon.

There are a great many instances where pulling a gun might be justified while pulling the trigger at that moment would not.

That's true in some jurisdictions, but not in others. In the latter, the distinction between the justification for drawing (or in some of them, pointing the gun) and for shooting is one of what is going on at the moment.

I have had to point a gun at violent criminal actors on three different occasions (all indoors) over the years, and in each the mere presentation of the weapon, plus some clear industrial strength coaching, saved the day. I did not present the weapon until I had been faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and presenting the weapon took care of the threat.

Some states even have verbiage that specifically allows for the presentation of a firearm with the express purpose of preventing the situation from escalating to the point that deadly force is actually warranted.

Yes, and in some of those that resulted from appellate rulings, and in some, from legislative action.

Most of us would likely favor that provision, but not everyone does. In one state, a bill providing for the "defensive display of a firearm" was vetoed by the governor, who made dire predictions about the potential effects of such a law. The requirement that a defender be faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm before even mentioning a firearm thus remained in effect. Fortunately her successor signed the bill the second time around.

In another state, the legislature reduced the threshold for lawful presentation from one in which deadly force had been necessary to one in which non-deadly physical force would be justified after an unusual set of circumstances. The use of force laws had been re-written, apparently hurriedly, and a high court ruling in an appellate case determined that under the new law, drawing a firearm in self defense was justified only if the defender actually shot the assailant (!). That obviously had not been intended, and the legislature redrafted the law, with many improvements.

In one state, and only one that I know of, pointing a gun at someone is legally the same as using deadly force.

 

[Jim243]

If you wait until you have to shoot before you pull your gun you are in serious danger of being behind the proverbial curve.

Brian, that is true, but while I understand your position, I am not sure I agree with the premiss unless you are on your own property and facing an unknown threat. Many states consider the pulling of a weapon as brandishing unless it is absolutely necessary. This is a very gray area, and unless the attacker has a weapon in his or her hand, I would tend to leave mine holstered until needed.

I know it might not be the smart thing to do, but I would rather be behind the curve than behind bars.

Jim

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I should have said that what I posted was being looked at in a cynical way...

One needs to be careful about what and how one puts things. You have no control over how people look at what you say. You only have control over what you say. To paraphrase an old carpentry adage: think twice; speak once.

And that probably goes double on the Internet where you are speaking to everyone in the world with Internet access. See this article headlined "Bay Area prosecutors increasingly using social media posts in criminal cases" from the 16 August 2013 edition of the Contra Costa Times:

PLEASANTON -- A teenage driver originally accused of vehicular manslaughter now faces a murder charge in the death of a bicyclist, partly because prosecutors say he bragged on Twitter about driving dangerously.

His case is part of a growing trend of social media posts being used as evidence against suspects, authorities said Friday.

....

As suspects feel compelled to post their misdeeds online for audiences to see, investigators have taken advantage, using the online quasi-confessions to bolster their cases, Bay Area prosecutors said.

In San Francisco, a cyclist in March fatally struck a 71-year-old pedestrian in a crosswalk after speeding through three red lights in the Castro District. Chris Bucchere, who eventually pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter, received a stiffer charge after he posted his explanation of the crash on a cycling group's website....

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Jim243: Many states consider the pulling of a weapon as brandishing unless it is absolutely necessary.

Or as aggravated assault.

What constitutes necessity does vary.... In some states that means that deadly force is immediately necessary, and in others, non-deadly physical force is the threshold.

The subject of when one may lawfully draw and of what pitfalls a citizen may encounter whee he or she is not the first to notify he police are touché upon in this book, which I heartily recommend.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

If you wait until you have to shoot before you pull your gun you are in serious danger of being behind the proverbial curve.

There are a great many instances where pulling a gun might be justified while pulling the trigger at that moment would not.

Well said. From just 10 feet someone can make contact with you before you can clear your holster. Not at all hard to be surprised by someone while debating pulling your weapon.

At the same time their behavior may have warranted a draw by entering your space in a way that is threatening or alarming, but not enough to fire.

Knowing the difference can save your life or your freedom.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This thread is continuing to wander off point. The question was whether one should call the police and make a report if he had been force to draw his gun to defend himself, but the assailant broke off before the defender needed to fire his gun.

The answer is "yes."

But it looks like no one has anything further to say on the subject.

Closed.