Threatening lethal force.

I'm in that same category, Kelly, . . . because of a slight heart condition, a bad knee, . . . and lately some tough breathing spells: I would be hard put to continue in much of a tussle.

I just think that if I saw some thug ripping off my stereo, . . . well, . . . he still ain't worth shooting on today's market. Thug hides just don't get much.

He probably needs his posterior elevated between his ears by a good swift kick, but I have been past doing those things for purty near a decade now, . . . and don't figure to be able probably ever again.

On the other hand, . . . if he only brought his fists, knife, or club to the gun fight, . . . he's probably gonna be disappointed in the outcome.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
If you smoked all your life and caused yourself emphysema, or if you ate thousands of Big Macs and got yourself obese, you have no one to blame but yourself if you now are in no shape to go hand-to-hand with a local miscreant. You shouldn't expect us to countenance your feeling that you have to go right for a gun to deal with him. You were stupid enough to bring it on yourself.


(**THESE ARE NOT MY PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THE MATTER. I AM JUST STATING WHAT I AM CONFIDENT SOME HERE MAY COME ALONG AND SAY, BASED ON OTHER POSTS IN OTHER RECENT THREADS.**)


-azurefly
 
Here's a thought. Some states (and im not sure which) have case law that states a persons vehicle is the same as thier home. Thier "residence" if you will. That being said would it be possible that the castle doctrine would apply to vehcles as well as homes?

SW
 
azurefly said:
(**THESE ARE NOT MY PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THE MATTER. I AM JUST STATING WHAT I AM CONFIDENT SOME HERE MAY COME ALONG AND SAY, BASED ON OTHER POSTS IN OTHER RECENT THREADS.**)
Click to expand...

I hope to god you aren't talking about me. I may be a bit of a left-wing-liberal-socialist-wacko at times, but I certainly hope I've not given the impression I'm a "blame the victim" type of guy. I only worry because I haven't seen anybody else here who would be dumb enough to suggest this either... :confused:
 
Nope, wasn't talking about you. I had someone specific in mind (or two) but I'm not going to come out and make that attack. It should just stand as, I think that there are people who would blame the victim just because he got himself to be out of shape, diseased, etc.

Don't be so paranoid.

-azurefly
 
azurefly said:
Nope, wasn't talking about you. I had someone specific in mind (or two) but I'm not going to come out and make that attack. It should just stand as, I think that there are people who would blame the victim just because he got himself to be out of shape, diseased, etc.

Don't be so paranoid.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. All I can wish upon such people is that they one day find themselves alone and face to face with some big Deebo-lookin' dude with no weapon to defend themselves with. Mayhaps that would change their mind...because there is always somebody bigger than you.

Afterwards I'd just tell them they shoulda hit the gym more.
 
i have read and know all the facts about when you can use leathel force(shoot someone), but i have looked and havent been able to find any info on when it is legal to threaten leathel force
Click to expand...
The rules are the same.
Don't pull your gun if you don't intend to use it, don't tell someone you have a gun unless you intend to pull it.
Better yet let them figure out what that thing in your hand is on their own
 
It's been a while since I reviewed the statutes, but if memory serves here's how it goes in Florida. If you threaten someone and are in possession of a deadly weapon, you've broken a law.

Without the weapon, it looks like the threat has to be credible, which I suppose is somewhat discretionary from the POV of the responding LEO. However, the presence of the weapon probably provides that credibility.

So threatening while in possession of a weapon, even concealed, is a no-no. Pull it out and you are brandishing unless you are in a situation legally allowing you to shoot, which probably means you better shoot or be killed or injured.

If you read all your state's statutes and mull over them, at least in Florida, it all starts to make sense.

I personally never make a threat unless I've already made up my mind to carry it out. I don't make my mind up as such unless I am sure I'm on solid legal ground. And then it's not a threat, but a command. The "or else" is up to the imagination of the guy in the wrong. And if it comes to it and I have to display my gun, the assailant can consider it already shot.

It's the same with legal threats. I don't run around threatening to sue people. If a situation gets to a point where that has to happen, the first they're going to know about it is when they are served with papers.

A lot of people make idle threats. The people they've made them to might consider my threat idle, too. That's why I think threatening is a dangerous technique.
 
azurefly , You are probably correct and let me be the first to say I did bring this problem on myself and I'm not going to try to collect money fromthe tobacco Co. for it as so many hsave done I made the decision to smoke and no one forced me to do so, and I take full responsibility for that action, but inregard to protecting myself froma criminal the two have only an indirect relation in that due to incapacity to sustaina prolonged fight I will do what I think is necessary for the well being of self and Family.
 
azurefly , Your First post,#20
"Let's see how long it is before someone theorizes that you don't have the right to defend yourself because you did something to bring the emphysema on yourself, Kelly J. We have here some folks who'll likely see it that way".
-azurefly

Your SEcond Post, #22
"If you smoked all your life and caused yourself emphysema, or if you ate thousands of Big Macs and got yourself obese, you have no one to blame but yourself if you now are in no shape to go hand-to-hand with a local miscreant. You shouldn't expect us to countenance your feeling that you have to go right for a gun to deal with him. You were stupid enough to bring it on yourself".

(**THESE ARE NOT MY PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THE MATTER. I AM JUST STATING WHAT I AM CONFIDENT SOME HERE MAY COME ALONG AND SAY, BASED ON OTHER POSTS IN OTHER RECENT THREADS.**)
-azurefly

Both of these statement are true to a degree, and I honestly think that these arguments would be made by those that have never been impaired in any way or think they are better than anyone else, and just to hazzard a guess these would be the same group that would condone the use of recreational drug use, not a accuation of any one just an obversation of past experiance of an encounter with a personwho was a bit put out that I could use a scooter inwall mart and they couldn't.
 
silicon wolverine , If you go to the State of Florida of the Internet and search the Castle Doctrine you will get the answer to your question in detail, but yes the stand your ground policy states that you do not have to flee from any place you have a legal right to be. And that you can use lethal force if necessary to protect your life.
 
The answer was given earlier - check your state laws. If you can take a tactical class and get some experience relevant to your local laws.

BTW - we've (and every other forum) have had the debate on whether when you draw the gun, you have to shoot or you shouldn't draw unless you are going to shoot - consensus of opinion is that:

You can or should draw when you are legally allowed to and/or you feel that you are in danger of grievous bodily harm. That doesn't mean that you mustshoot. Challenging the offending individual with a gun is legit based on the actual situation if you meet the test of being able to use lethal force. That's not brandishing. You shoot based on what actually happens. It is conceivable the threatening individual will give up or go away. Unless, you are one of the I wanna shoot somebody crowd.
 
JuanCarlos , Lighten up and stop taking everthing personally, you aren't the only person with odd views, I have a few of my own at times, my question is why would you even think that the response was even remotely aimed at you personally, unless you yourself feel you were the intended target, if that is the case there must be a reason for it.Just don't get your skivies up in a wad for no reason!
 
You can or should draw when you are legally allowed to and/or you feel that you are in danger of grievous bodily harm.
Click to expand...

Regrettably, but absolutely correct.

That doesn't mean that you mustshoot.
Click to expand...

Then what did you draw for?

Challenging the offending individual with a gun is legit based on the actual situation if you meet the test of being able to use lethal force...
Click to expand...

...and can prove it to the satisfaction of the particular officer who may soon show up.

That's not brandishing.
Click to expand...

Officer Friendly will decide that, not you.

You shoot based on what actually happens. It is conceivable the threatening individual will give up or go away...
Click to expand...

... and dial 911 at the first opportunity to accuse you of brandishing.

Unless, you are one of the I wanna shoot somebody crowd.
Click to expand...

or the I'd rather buy a Lexus or install a swimming pool than pay a lawyer tens of thousands of dollars crowd.

---------

Believe me, I'm the last guy in line in that "wanna shoot somebody" crowd. But I don't want to be seriously injured or killed and I don't want to spend the next three years in a courtroom or preparing to go there, let alone the money I'd have to pay a Beverly Hills-priced lawyer to make sure I remained free (or at least out of jail).

The problem I have with showing a gun you don't use is this, and there have been cases to back me up. In fact, one case involved the "brandishing" of not a gun, but a holster.

When you show your gun, by definition the viewer sees it. Now he can say two things he couldn't say before you showed it. First, you have it. Second, he can describe it.

If you aren't first to call 911 or you aren't as good a storyteller, or for any number of other reasons, he should somehow convince a cop that you simply got mad and "pulled" a gun on him that he can describe, you could lose the immunity from arrest (and therefore prosecution) and civil action that Florida law provides you when you are able to show or convince the police that your actions were due to your fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Such a situation might arise when the scene suggests it and you are the only one in any shape to do any accusing.

So while it's true that the statutes do seem to say (I haven't read them in a few months, so I'm maybe winging it a little here) you can brandish, in so many words, but not have it called use of deadly force (for which, I think, you have to point the gun or fire it in the general direction of the bad guy) if you can show that you did it defensively, sometimes what you see as a cut and dried situation is a little more murky to the responding officer. Keep in mind that cops are NOT lawyers and they frequently don't know the law. They'll write the report based on what they think happened and what they think the law is and arrest or not accordingly.

Now, the in Florida, the way I understand it, the stakes, while they do not directly include your home, are pretty high. While suing your home out from under you is not easy in Florida, hocking it to pay to remain out of jail might have the same effect.

So, read'em, both the self-defense (homicide) statutes and the weapons and firearms statutes completely and try to fit them together. My understanding is there hasn't been too much case law since last year, and since the ostensible reason for the changes was to codify case law, reading the laws is probably enough. I try to read them every 2 years, but as you can see, maybe I should make it every year.

Also, every gun shop (with a range, can't speak for pawn shops) I have entered has available copies of a very good book about every aspect of self defense and gun law. I can't recall the name, but it was green before the 2005 changes and is tan now and about twice as thick. It is written by a lawyer and is loaded with examples. Buy it and read it next trip to the gun shop.
 
So we all think that if we draw a gun and shoot someone:

1. We are guaranteed a kill. What if the guy lives? You are going to finish him off to avoid an assault charge?

2. The legal consequences are less severe for shooting someone dead or wounding them than for brandishing?

The gun world is so black and white in some eyes and that is so stupid.

I also think that many of the abstract responses are from folks who have little FOF or competent tactical training. I've done lots of that for a fat old civilian from people rated the best in the country and none of them have stated that when you draw, you must shoot. In training, challenging in a lethal force situation is done quite a bit.

Find me a law or well recognized source that has stated you must shoot if you draw and that there is no discretion.

Give you a scenario from the NTI - which I think is a recognized training event. You are outside your friend's house. You are bringing pizza - you hear screaming and yelling for help. You could flee but it is your friend and you do want to help him. The door is open so you enter and you see blood every where. Thus, something is amiss. Do you draw then? We all did - in an appropriate position like a low ready, we tried to move through the house to get to our buddy. Thus, we drew. Question - do we immediately shoot the first person we see? Why not!! We drew the gun - didn't we? That person might charge me with assault or brandishing. I better shoot him.

What do you think? Would you not draw in such a situation?
 
1. We are guaranteed a kill. What if the guy lives? You are going to finish him off to avoid an assault charge?
Click to expand...

Not to be overly difficult, but in Florida, if it's legal to kill him it's legal to stop him. And you're not going to be sued.

2. The legal consequences are less severe for shooting someone dead or wounding them than for brandishing?
Click to expand...

If you are legally justified to shoot them, then the legal consequences are....nothing. Brandishing, on the other hand, is another matter. You simply cannot do it unless it is part of the escalation of a problem you can prove someone else started. And then it's not brandishing, but it's use of deadly force in self-defense. Brandishing is such a serious matter that it's worth a minimum 3 years in Florida. So you are going to want to really know you are in BIG trouble before you take your gun out (which, under that circumstance, isn't brandishing), trouble of the size that might justify you shooting.

The gun world is so black and white in some eyes and that is so stupid.
Click to expand...

Here in Florida, as I said before, it isn't black&white. I think it was designed to handle gradations and escalation with the hopes that some events that start out bad can be concluded without dead people.

I also think that many of the abstract responses are from folks who have little FOF or competent tactical training. I've done lots of that for a fat old civilian from people rated the best in the country and none of them have stated that when you draw, you must shoot. In training, challenging in a lethal force situation is done quite a bit.
Click to expand...

I'll buy that. But shooting someone to end a conflict is only a little piece of the picture. The loud noise attracts attention, ultimately that of a judge and jury. This is something that oughta be thought about at some length.

Find me a law or well recognized source that has stated you must shoot if you draw and that there is no discretion.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was the law, but I did comment on whether it was wise in the face of the law.

Give you a scenario from the NTI - which I think is a recognized training event. You are outside your friend's house. You are bringing pizza - you hear screaming and yelling for help. You could flee but it is your friend and you do want to help him. The door is open so you enter and you see blood every where. Thus, something is amiss. Do you draw then? We all did - in an appropriate position like a low ready, we tried to move through the house to get to our buddy. Thus, we drew. Question - do we immediately shoot the first person we see? Why not!! We drew the gun - didn't we? That person might charge me with assault or brandishing. I better shoot him.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is the whole problem where my responses are concerned. You are including an unknown tactical situation into which you actively inject yourself. I would think that in that circumstance there would be ample evidence that you came upon a problem already in progress, and here that would pretty much eliminate brandishing.

I was thinking more along the lines of being caught in a situation that's a little more obvious, like having an argument with a neighbor who starts throwing rocks (or ducks, or whatever) at you. In a situation like that, if I see death coming my way, the neighbor is going to be dodging lead a few hundred milliseconds after he gets to see what my gun looks like.

Another example of what I had imagined is road rage. Let's suppose the driver of a large rig doesn't like my driving and decides he's determined to run me off the road (it has happened, but I could remain at a safe distance, so I left my gun where it was, in the glove box). Chances are I'm going to try to distance myself, but if he's persistent and I can't get away, I will have to take out my gun. Shortly after that, lead will be coming his way, without a doubt, even though I would be unlikely to hit him. It's a matter of common sense. I don't want to be run off the road at 70. I have, in my possession, a device that might be a last-ditch deterrent. My decision will be to take it or leave it. I'll either keep my hands off the gun or I'll do my best to use every aspect of it (it's appearance AND its function) to stop the attack. Tires and windshields come to mind.

Just so I'm not evading the question, if I did come upon the scenario you describe (I'm not sure I'm qualified to handle it) and if I did decide to enter, I would most certainly have my gun drawn and pointed at where I was going. I'd try my damndest to not shoot the first thing I saw moving, but truthfully, all bets are really off. I pretty much doubt you could say any different, other than your training reduces the chances that you would inadvertently shoot your friend.
 
My point about lethality was that:

1. The argument was that brandishing gets you in trouble and killing him doesn't? Or I got that implication in this type of argument. However, you can shoot someone and not kill them. I think even with castle and stand your ground laws, you can't finish off a wounded person who has ceased being a threat. That person then is a risk for nailing you for brandishing.


2. Highly trained folks - well, I remember a friend coming out of the scenario - saying that he shot his son. A 3D reactive dummy son. I personally vaporized an older gentlemen sitting on the toilet. Rounds right into the head. I said - I'm sorry I shot you, Sir! Much hilarity on the debrief.

3. I agree if death is coming your way, you may just want to shoot. However, my point was that folks who state that you must shoot if you draw are being too absolutist.

Nice to have a reasoned discussion. Back to work. :D
 
1. The argument was that brandishing gets you in trouble and killing him doesn't? Or I got that implication in this type of argument. However, you can shoot someone and not kill them. I think even with castle and stand your ground laws, you can't finish off a wounded person who has ceased being a threat. That person then is a risk for nailing you for brandishing.
Click to expand...

Real brandishing, which I read to be displaying of a weapon without reason, perhaps to gain advantage in an argument, gets you in 3 years of trouble whether the judge likes you or not. Killing someone, when necessary as defined by law, leaves you scot free except for the psych damage you probably do to yourself. I met a former LA cop at a party. He's one of those people who's always going to school for something but never actually finishes. He killed someone on duty. It destroyed him mentally. He seems to be a great guy, too. So it's a factor.

2. Highly trained folks - well, I remember a friend coming out of the scenario - saying that he shot his son. A 3D reactive dummy son. I personally vaporized an older gentlemen sitting on the toilet. Rounds right into the head. I said - I'm sorry I shot you, Sir! Much hilarity on the debrief.
Click to expand...

Like I say, that is a tough scenario. I try to know when I'm incompetent for a task, though I sometimes err on either side. That's why I don't know what I'd do if I came on that scene. Knowing myself, I'd do something quick and very dispassionately. I'm just like that. Sadly, that quick thing could kill my friend.

3. I agree if death is coming your way, you may just want to shoot. However, my point was that folks who state that you must shoot if you draw are being too absolutist.
Click to expand...

I would agree that there's no must about it. But a reading of all the laws and the intent of the legislature sort of ratchets you into it legally. That's why I always recommend people read the statutes on homicide and weapons carefully (in Florida they're separate sections) and try to reconcile them in your mind. They seem to be written to keep your gun put away unless you REALLY need it.

Nice to have a reasoned discussion. Back to work.
Click to expand...

Heh heh. I could have said what my lawyer once told me when I asked if he was the one to call should I have to shoot someone (he had done only civil work for me up to then). He said "if you stay within the law, you won't need me". I found that to be a very clear statement of the obvious.

Just to reiterate, I don't disagree with you. It's just that I want people here to know that they should know that the little nuances are important and that they should read the laws in their states. I like most everybody here and would hate to see them go through legal hell unnecessarily.
 
"...people read the statutes on homicide and weapons carefully..."

The case law dealing with the statutes is also necessary.
It provides how the law has been interpreted and applied in previous decisions.
The plain text of the statute law is only a starting point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top