Microgunner
New member
You didn't read the thread, did you?
Parking lot incident
- Thread starter Microgunner
- Start date
- Status
You didn't read the thread, did you?
eclipsetactical
Moderator
Reply
I think the whole situation is a very grey area. In FL, as he was saying and I know cause I have several friends that live there, they have one of the most liberal laws about being able to draw your gun on somebody. As well they have one of the most liberal laws about being able to fire on a perp. Under FL law he would have legally been able to shoot that gentleman that got out and pounded his fist against his window. The gentleman showed agression, and threatened the starter of this thread. Another factor that comes into play is the handicap situation, being handicapped obviously provides a much greater chance had a physical confrontation happened that the handicapped person would be hurt and most likely in a sever way.
Seeing as all CCDW laws are different in each state as well as use of deadly force in such a situation I can see where in FL this would be permitted. I can also see where in KY with the handicapped circumstances that this would have been permitted. I can also see where in some other states this would not be permitted. I sit in on classes with some of the instructors here in KY and I remember one of the points they always make is that if you are traveling to a different state and want to carry your weapon concealed you need to call ahead and check the laws.
The only reason I go through all this is to say honestly only people in FL with a CCDW from there, or people familiar with FL law inparticular can really make an educated statement about the situation at hand. Everyone else can have an opinion but it is just that an opinion that holds no legal bearing on what actually happened.
I know that this gentleman was just in pulling his gun and pointing it at the person under FL law. Thinking logically and not by law it also served a purpose of the situation not escalating and froze the perp. in his tracks although it could have went the other way and the perp. could have kept coming and forced a shot to be fired. So I go back to my original statement of this is such a grey area. More grey in the philisophical area then in the actual area of law.
I think the whole situation is a very grey area. In FL, as he was saying and I know cause I have several friends that live there, they have one of the most liberal laws about being able to draw your gun on somebody. As well they have one of the most liberal laws about being able to fire on a perp. Under FL law he would have legally been able to shoot that gentleman that got out and pounded his fist against his window. The gentleman showed agression, and threatened the starter of this thread. Another factor that comes into play is the handicap situation, being handicapped obviously provides a much greater chance had a physical confrontation happened that the handicapped person would be hurt and most likely in a sever way.
Seeing as all CCDW laws are different in each state as well as use of deadly force in such a situation I can see where in FL this would be permitted. I can also see where in KY with the handicapped circumstances that this would have been permitted. I can also see where in some other states this would not be permitted. I sit in on classes with some of the instructors here in KY and I remember one of the points they always make is that if you are traveling to a different state and want to carry your weapon concealed you need to call ahead and check the laws.
The only reason I go through all this is to say honestly only people in FL with a CCDW from there, or people familiar with FL law inparticular can really make an educated statement about the situation at hand. Everyone else can have an opinion but it is just that an opinion that holds no legal bearing on what actually happened.
I know that this gentleman was just in pulling his gun and pointing it at the person under FL law. Thinking logically and not by law it also served a purpose of the situation not escalating and froze the perp. in his tracks although it could have went the other way and the perp. could have kept coming and forced a shot to be fired. So I go back to my original statement of this is such a grey area. More grey in the philisophical area then in the actual area of law.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Really? You sure about that?
WildisayyouarewrongAlaska TM
eclipsetactical
Moderator
Yup Very Sure
As I understand it under FL law all you have to do is be threatened or feel threatened with bodily harm. KY law reads a little different as you have to be threatened with bodily harm that will cause injuries which could affect your well being for a prolonged time. I.E. Broken bones, etc. or of course feel threatened to the point you think you are going to be shot or stabbed. Or if you see a gun (whether it be real or not) and you assume it is and are going to be fired at you are able to use deadly force. Basically in KY as long as you can say you FEEL threatened by these perameters you are within your right to use deadly force no matter that if later it is found out that the gun pointed at you was fake. Been through my CCDW and sat in on many classes taught by instructors. I have been thinking about becoming an instructor myself so I am pretty up on the KY law part of it. Also pretty up on the FL law part of it from friends from FL and other vendors at gun shows we work from FL talking about it.
Also in KY there are laws as follows:
Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)
As I understand it under FL law all you have to do is be threatened or feel threatened with bodily harm. KY law reads a little different as you have to be threatened with bodily harm that will cause injuries which could affect your well being for a prolonged time. I.E. Broken bones, etc. or of course feel threatened to the point you think you are going to be shot or stabbed. Or if you see a gun (whether it be real or not) and you assume it is and are going to be fired at you are able to use deadly force. Basically in KY as long as you can say you FEEL threatened by these perameters you are within your right to use deadly force no matter that if later it is found out that the gun pointed at you was fake. Been through my CCDW and sat in on many classes taught by instructors. I have been thinking about becoming an instructor myself so I am pretty up on the KY law part of it. Also pretty up on the FL law part of it from friends from FL and other vendors at gun shows we work from FL talking about it.
Also in KY there are laws as follows:
Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)
Dr. Strangelove
New member
Here are some of the Florida laws which deal with this situation, as well as some info from Charles Bronson, FL State Agricultural Commissioner. (No joke, that's his real name)
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using 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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
Here's the definition of forcible felony:
776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Not entirely true. You are only able to respond with deadly force to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony". (See definition of forcible felony above)
Possibly, if he can convince a grand jury that there was imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, or that a forcible felony was taking place. Are you willing to bet your freedom that your case is that clear cut? I'm not.
Sitting in a closed automobile with the windows up while an unarmed man screams at you and strikes the car a couple of times would be a hard sell to me as a juror as justification for use of deadly force, or even pointing a firearm at someone.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using 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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
Here's the definition of forcible felony:
776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
eclipsetactical said:
Not entirely true. You are only able to respond with deadly force to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony". (See definition of forcible felony above)
eclipsetactical said:
Possibly, if he can convince a grand jury that there was imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, or that a forcible felony was taking place. Are you willing to bet your freedom that your case is that clear cut? I'm not.
Sitting in a closed automobile with the windows up while an unarmed man screams at you and strikes the car a couple of times would be a hard sell to me as a juror as justification for use of deadly force, or even pointing a firearm at someone.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
eclipsetactical said:
Umm, no. The "feeling," or belief, has to be a reasonable one.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using 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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Dr. Strangelove beat me to this, but I've reposted the most relevant part of the Florida statute in order to emphasize one word: reasonably.
It is not enough just to "feel threatened." There has to be a reasonable basis for the feeling.
Just so...Dr. Strangelove said:
Wildalaska
Moderator
Yea well I have taught the classes...you are wrong
[deleted section]
WildofftotheofficeAlaska TM
Last edited by a moderator:
eclipsetactical
Moderator
Great to see the actual FL Laws
Like I said it was my understanding through what others had said about FL law that it was more leaneant than KY law. Sounds like it is just like KY law though because that is how it reads here as well. You have to be faced with "imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself" or have a reasonable belief of such.
Alaska just cause you have taught classes up in Alaska does not mean you know jack about KY law or FL law. Just like I obviously didn't know as much as I thought I did about FL law. [deleted section]
I will be the first to admit when I am wrong and love to be more educated about things by people who can actually state thier sources like Strangelove. Who taught me something after reading his post that I can now take with me as actual law and fact about FL laws.
I still hold the opinion that with the guy being handicapped that would hold some bearing in the court room had the perp say broke through his driver window or grabbed him or as you all were talking about had the "reasonable belief" that he was going to do so. Which with the guy already striking a window and telling him he was going to kick the @#@$ out of him, I can see how reasonable belief of serious bodily harm could be obtained. You can hurt some one with a disablity alot worse than you can one that is completely healthy.
Like I said it was my understanding through what others had said about FL law that it was more leaneant than KY law. Sounds like it is just like KY law though because that is how it reads here as well. You have to be faced with "imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself" or have a reasonable belief of such.
Alaska just cause you have taught classes up in Alaska does not mean you know jack about KY law or FL law. Just like I obviously didn't know as much as I thought I did about FL law. [deleted section]
I will be the first to admit when I am wrong and love to be more educated about things by people who can actually state thier sources like Strangelove. Who taught me something after reading his post that I can now take with me as actual law and fact about FL laws.
I still hold the opinion that with the guy being handicapped that would hold some bearing in the court room had the perp say broke through his driver window or grabbed him or as you all were talking about had the "reasonable belief" that he was going to do so. Which with the guy already striking a window and telling him he was going to kick the @#@$ out of him, I can see how reasonable belief of serious bodily harm could be obtained. You can hurt some one with a disablity alot worse than you can one that is completely healthy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Eclipse, it's a fine thing to be able to admit when you're wrong about something.eclipsetactical said:
As to stating sources, it's not hard -- you just have to want to be accurate. Google is your friend. It took me about 45 seconds to find the statute above on the Florida govt. website.
I hope you're not speaking from experience...
Just kidding.
eclipsetactical
Moderator
Nope just speaking logically
Just common sence that you could hurt a disabled person more seriously than a completely healthy one. I do have experience with disabled vets which also gives me an informed perspective of how injury prone a disabled person is as oppossed to a healthy one.
Just common sence that you could hurt a disabled person more seriously than a completely healthy one. I do have experience with disabled vets which also gives me an informed perspective of how injury prone a disabled person is as oppossed to a healthy one.
scottaschultz
New member
Someone is going to have to explain this one to me because I just don't get it. To me, being "injury prone" means that you are more likely to sustain an injury than someone who is not, but you said that "you could hurt a disabled person more seriously than a completely healthy one."
I am pretty sure that if I took a 33" solid maple Louisville Slugger and whacked you on the back of the head and a disabled person on the back of the head, both of you stand and fairly equal chance of sustaining the same level of injury.
Now I will grant you that a physically disabled person may not have as many options in terms of their response to a threatening situtation, but an injury is an injury no matter what! Maybe you're just not expressing yourself well.
Scott
I am pretty sure that if I took a 33" solid maple Louisville Slugger and whacked you on the back of the head and a disabled person on the back of the head, both of you stand and fairly equal chance of sustaining the same level of injury.
Now I will grant you that a physically disabled person may not have as many options in terms of their response to a threatening situtation, but an injury is an injury no matter what! Maybe you're just not expressing yourself well.
Scott
eclipsetactical
Moderator
reply
Well a disabled person's body is usually not able to take as much abuse. Your Louisville slugger thing for instance. If you hit a disabled person who has already had head trauma as oposed to someone who has not, you are much more likely to cause a much more serious injury to that disabled person. As far as a fight in general if you are fighting a disabled person who has sustained injuries to thier body in some sort of way you are more likely to agrivate those already sustained injuries as opposed to a healthy person you may cause new injuries but they are not going to be as severe as what you would do to a person physically disabled. Lets give a for instance, my friend Master Sergent Raferty has a partial prostetic leg and just doesnt get around that well. If you hit him with a bat it is going to cause serious life threatening injury with a definate slow recovery time as compared to you hitting me with that same bat with the same force. Yes you are going to hurt me but I do not have already weakened bone structure or a partial prostetic therefore my injuries would not be as severe and most likely not life threatening.
Did I explain it better that time?
Well a disabled person's body is usually not able to take as much abuse. Your Louisville slugger thing for instance. If you hit a disabled person who has already had head trauma as oposed to someone who has not, you are much more likely to cause a much more serious injury to that disabled person. As far as a fight in general if you are fighting a disabled person who has sustained injuries to thier body in some sort of way you are more likely to agrivate those already sustained injuries as opposed to a healthy person you may cause new injuries but they are not going to be as severe as what you would do to a person physically disabled. Lets give a for instance, my friend Master Sergent Raferty has a partial prostetic leg and just doesnt get around that well. If you hit him with a bat it is going to cause serious life threatening injury with a definate slow recovery time as compared to you hitting me with that same bat with the same force. Yes you are going to hurt me but I do not have already weakened bone structure or a partial prostetic therefore my injuries would not be as severe and most likely not life threatening.
Did I explain it better that time?
I agree. Although I don't recall reading WHY the OP needs to park in a handicap spot, it really does not matter, nor is it any of our business. Regardless, in most instances it would be safe to say that disabled person has a higher risk of sustaining crtical bodily harm compared to an otherwise healthy, non-disabled person.
That in itself could give a disabled person more of a REASONABLE fear of great bodily harm. Thus giving him the legal right to use deadly force.
Bottom line is that the situation likely happened in a matter of a minute or two. It escalated quickly and the OP was NOT the aggressor. You can sit here and say "should have" done this or that all day... But when it came down to a man stuck between two cars, with some jerk making physical threats, I still side with the OP's judgement in doing what he did out of fear for his safety.
That in itself could give a disabled person more of a REASONABLE fear of great bodily harm. Thus giving him the legal right to use deadly force.
Bottom line is that the situation likely happened in a matter of a minute or two. It escalated quickly and the OP was NOT the aggressor. You can sit here and say "should have" done this or that all day... But when it came down to a man stuck between two cars, with some jerk making physical threats, I still side with the OP's judgement in doing what he did out of fear for his safety.
Trashcan-man
New member
Ok I went to the FL State Senate website (http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes) and re-read the statutes that apply here. Here is what I found.
Brandishing - as I read the statute below he was not brandishing the firearm because he was doing so in defense of himself, weather that defense was justified has nothing to do with the brandishing. The fact is that it says that you can show the weapon in self-defense and be cleared of any wrongdoing...legally that is.
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.--If any person 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, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083
Use of deadly force/Crimes committed - I do think that the BG was guilty of Simple Assault, but not aggrivated assault. The guy was threatening to harm the OP and was showing that he was capable of hurting the OP by poinding on the glass with his fists. All he needed was a metal object such as a key or a carabiener(sp?) to get through the glass and he would have upped the charge to agg battery.
784.011 Assault.-- (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
784.021 Aggravated assault.--
(1) An "aggravated assault" is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
So, as I read the statutes(I'm not a lawyer or a judge so I won't say for absolutely) legally speaking the OP was justified in showing the handgun but would not have been justified in shooting the BG. It would have been very unlikely for the State Atty General to have prosecuted him even if the police had arrested him...IMO. That being said I personally would have kept the handgun hidden from sight but still had my hand on or very very close to it.
Brandishing - as I read the statute below he was not brandishing the firearm because he was doing so in defense of himself, weather that defense was justified has nothing to do with the brandishing. The fact is that it says that you can show the weapon in self-defense and be cleared of any wrongdoing...legally that is.
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.--If any person 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, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083
Use of deadly force/Crimes committed - I do think that the BG was guilty of Simple Assault, but not aggrivated assault. The guy was threatening to harm the OP and was showing that he was capable of hurting the OP by poinding on the glass with his fists. All he needed was a metal object such as a key or a carabiener(sp?) to get through the glass and he would have upped the charge to agg battery.
784.011 Assault.-- (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
784.021 Aggravated assault.--
(1) An "aggravated assault" is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
So, as I read the statutes(I'm not a lawyer or a judge so I won't say for absolutely) legally speaking the OP was justified in showing the handgun but would not have been justified in shooting the BG. It would have been very unlikely for the State Atty General to have prosecuted him even if the police had arrested him...IMO. That being said I personally would have kept the handgun hidden from sight but still had my hand on or very very close to it.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Have to go with Ken (Wildalaska) on this one. Does Harold Fish ring a bell with anyone? If you shoot an unarmed person you are behind the eight ball from the get-go with any jury. You may get off but you will have to really show the jury something to justify it.
In the OP the nutcase was separated by the car door and window and therefore could not do anything. I liked Ken's tactic of keeping the gun ready and if and only if the nutcase breaks the window then fire away and no jury would convict. Brandishing the gun just escalates the situation. You were safe in the car, so stay there, call the cops, and have your firearm ready.
If you had shot him from your car without the window being broken I think you would have been prosecuted.
In the OP the nutcase was separated by the car door and window and therefore could not do anything. I liked Ken's tactic of keeping the gun ready and if and only if the nutcase breaks the window then fire away and no jury would convict. Brandishing the gun just escalates the situation. You were safe in the car, so stay there, call the cops, and have your firearm ready.
If you had shot him from your car without the window being broken I think you would have been prosecuted.
I don't think it would be a hard sell for a jury. Some laws in states say that if you get out of your car to confront another it is AUTO road rage. Road rage=rage. Rage=danger. Danger=self defense.
I am not saying shoot the guy, I am saying point the gun. The third bang on the window could have broken it. Never know till it happens
I am not saying shoot the guy, I am saying point the gun. The third bang on the window could have broken it. Never know till it happens
Wildalaska
Moderator
Citation please?
WildithinkyourewrongAlaska TM
http://www.roadragers.com/what-is-road-rage.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/curriculum/Unit 2.pdf
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13210.htm
The handbook specifically says trying to get someone to pull over to settle a dispute. Old boy came to his car to settle it. In cali thats 6 months no license.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/curriculum/Unit 2.pdf
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13210.htm
The handbook specifically says trying to get someone to pull over to settle a dispute. Old boy came to his car to settle it. In cali thats 6 months no license.
- Status