When to use lethal force?

[Ryder]

If you are within your rights to draw you should be within your rights to shoot.
I spent a lot of time becoming fast enough that by the time I am going to draw I also going to be prepared to shoot.
Right away.

Good shot at explaining brickeyee, thanks. Some people probably don't realize just how fast others can be. There is no time for the target to comprehend what is happening and back down against a fast draw and this is why I must determine deadly force is justified before drawing, rather than after drawing.

When the hand is quicker than the eye drawing and shooting becomes a single step for all practical purposes. I train to stay alive against the wishes of someone who wants me dead and I can only imagine the state has a good appreciation for this since they teach the Mozambique drill in CCW class

Still, it is impossible to predict what scenario you may find yourself in. It would be wrong to believe that everyone needs to be shot. So thank you PAX for your excellent input.

 

[WANT A LCR 22LR]

"" What was said is if you draw without shooting you are brandishing in most
states.""

Will this never end. . . I take brandising to be the initial attacker flashing a gun in order to gain the upper hand or someone flashing a gun because another person stopped to ask directions. Pretty clear that showing a gun is excessive force.

So, to the poster of the above quote, if a BG is holding a gun on you, you draw but don't fire, he turns and runs, will you be hit with brandishing because you didn't shoot him in the back?

Does anyone really think the average street thug has a lawyer on retainer to sue victims because they flashed a gun and didn't shoot them? Do they really want to be noticed by the police?

 

[therewolf]

Many thugs spend their time in incarceration suing everybody they can

in the hopes they can have a productive jail stay with a big payday upon their

release. Some of these "fishing expeditions" are productive, apparently.

So no, BGs don't generally carry lawyers in their pockets. But they CAN(and do) sue from prison...

 

[youngunz4life]

you should be ready to shoot immediately upon drawing or even - depending on the circumstances - while drawing. This doesn't mean that you have to shoot when you draw.

I pretty much look at it like 'I will never draw unless I have to', but I won't be the guy who hesitates in an obvious situation because he "can't make the choice".

I am confident in myself enough to know if and when I draw it will be for the right reason.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by rb0211: If you're going to pull it, fire it.

Only if you still have to fire it after you have pulled it; things change, and the mere sight of your drawn gun may cause an assailant to run or put up his hands.

And shoot to kill.

Shoot until the treat has been neutralized. Chances are very high that a person shot by a handgun will survive. If you knowingly and willfully keep shooting after he ceases to constitute a threat, say goodbye to your fortune, your record, and your personal freedom.

There is no "brandishing".

If you were justified in drawing, that is correct.

Pulling your gun is a last resort...

Yep.

...and if you pull it out, you better have no doubt in your mind that you WILL use it.

If it is necessary.

 

[brickeyee]

This is Virginia's brandishing law.

It is actually pretty similar to a lot of other places.

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

C. For purposes of this section, the word "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material. The word "ammunition," as used herein, shall mean a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-69.2; 1968, c. 513; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, cc. 588, 599; 1992, c. 735; 2003, c. 976; 2005, c. 928.)

Drawing IS brandishing in most places.
You are showing a weapon to induce fear, the very element of brandishing.

Pointing the weapon then becomes assault. (degree depending on local law).
Remember, threats are assault (cocking your arm with a fist).
Striking is battery.

 

[WANT A LCR 22LR]

""Many thugs spend their time in incarceration suing everybody they can

in the hopes they can have a productive jail stay with a big payday upon their

release. Some of these "fishing expeditions" are productive, apparently.

So no, BGs don't generally carry lawyers in their pockets. But they CAN(and do) sue from prison... ""


I'll take my chances. If the BG went to prison as a result of trying to attack me, it seems the brandishing issue is dead, otherwise he would not be in jail.

 

[youngunz4life]

brickeye I don't have evidence to back me up yet so just hear me out(I just read the recent posts):

is it possible there is an exception to the law in a life-threatening situation? I mean, it is illegal to shoot somebody too. It is also illegal to kill someone. If you have justified cause, it is a moot point.

secondly&refering to oldmarksman's recent post:

oldmarksman is dead on(pun intended). you don't ever shoot to kill. you shot center mass to eradicate the threat(just one example). and as he pointed out, once the threat is over you must stop. does this mean when in another scenario you are holding the guy down waiting for police and he is claiming he is done you have to let go? of course not, but you get the jist.

 

[egor20]

youngunz4life

See my above post, the Commonwealths Attorney did not find my wife to be in the wrong in either occurrence. He didn't even bother to use the taxpayer's money to convene a Grand Jury, "waste of time" was his comment. So yes, there are times when drawing a hand gun is not brandishing.

 

[brickeyee]

is it possible there is an exception to the law in a life-threatening situation? I mean, it is illegal to shoot somebody too. It is also illegal to kill someone. If you have justified cause, it is a moot point.

Not in Virginia.

There may be in other places, but ALL lethal force law in Virginia is case (common) law.

In Virginia we have justifiable and excusable homicide, depending on if there was interaction before the shooting (words, fighting, etc.).

 

[Hook686]

pax wrote:

If you draw without shooting you are brandishing in most states.

No. No, you're not. You don't have to shoot just because you drew. Not in any state of the union. Never shoot unless you are justified in shooting. If you drew your firearm unjustifiably, shooting doesn't make the situation

Why is it ok to draw if you are not justified in shooting. If you are justified in shooting, then shooting seems a natural extension of the action. If you pause to think about it, it seems to me you might have lost the advantage of surprise that might save your life. On the other hand, if your purpose is to scare away the threat, rather than save your life, I can understand drawing, pausing to see if the threat retreats, before shooting.

How long do you figure that 'Pause' to see if the threat retreats ought be ... 1 second, 2, 3 .... Some of us think slower than others, does that enter into the equation ?

I tend to agree with some of the posters that seem to think that drawing, but not shooting, is more an indication that you were a afraid of a potential threat to you life, but really not sure of it.

 

[glockcompact]

I think most people are on the same page and understand you have to have justification of deadly force before you draw your weapon. Depending on the distance to the threat things can change before you are able to pull the trigger. If you decide pulling the trigger was not needed at that last split second. Then don't. Most of us are arguing for the same thing. Although we need to watch our wording or people may take you wrong.

For instance:
rb0211

Run. Get out of danger. If you can't. Shoot. If you're going to pull it, fire it. And shoot to kill.

I'm going to break this apart.

Run. Get out of danger.

This is correct. Any time you can avoid a threat by all means leave.

If you can't. Shoot.

Yes, if the justifications (opportunity, intent, and ability) of deadly force are met and you have used all other lesser means and they have failed. There is no way out.

If you're going to pull it, fire it.

Not necessarily. Even if your a fast draw, things can change especially with distance. You may have had justification to use deadly force before you drew your weapon but things can change very rapidly. We're not talking about a particular instance so the senarios are endless here. If the threat stops and runs away this is better for you.

And shoot to kill.

This is not correct thinking. Sorry but I need to pick this apart. The word kill will get you into a lot of trouble here. Your intensions are to "stop the threat". Never say you "needed to kill him" or "he needed to be killed". If your up on the stand infront of a jury and you say "I had to kill him." The jury will look at that way different then if you said "I had to stop the threat or he would have killed me." It's important that people who are armed understand this. However the most effective way to stop the threat, if you are forced to shoot, is to aim center mass on that threat. Do not use "shoot to kill"

 

[pax]

Hook,

I didn't suggest pausing. I simply said, Never fire unless you are justified in firing. Your purpose is to stop the assault. If your action of reaching toward the gun stops the assailant, you've accomplished your goal. If your act of drawing the gun does the job, you're done. If your act of firing the gun does it, you stop then. If your first shot doesn't stop the assailant, and your second one doesn't, but the third one does -- that's when you stop.

It's not a "reach for the gun, pause to check, draw the gun, pause to check, fire one shot, pause to check..." It's a continuous re-evaluation of a rapidly developing situation, taking all human factors into account including your own reaction times.

When you fire the gun, you must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the very moment you pulled the trigger. "I fired because I drew" doesn't cut it.

Kathy

 

[pax]

brickeyee ~

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

I just bolded the important part. You don't have to fire just because you drew. And it isn't "brandishing" if you are engaged in excusable or justifiable self defense.

pax

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Hook686: Why is it ok to draw if you are not justified in shooting.

Except for one or two jurisdictions, it is not lawful for a civilian to draw unless he or she has a supportable reason to believe that the use of deadly force is justified.

If you are justified in shooting, then shooting seems a natural extension of the action.

I'm not sure what that means.

Think about it this way: a person or persons threaten you, perhaps with weapons; you have no alternative to the use of deadly force to protect yourself, so you draw--lawfully.

And then things suddenly change.

The perp or perps suddenly throw up their hands, or turn and high tail it across the parking lot.

You are NO LONGER justified in the use of deadly force.

If you do shoot, and if witness testimony, security camera footage, forensic evidence, and/or the testimony of the perps themselves show what happened, you will be in the proverbial world of hurt.

Yes, things happen fast, and you just may be able to mount a successful defense on the basis that things happened so quickly that you could not have been aware of the fact that the threat had passed. And then again, you may not.

Does that explain it?

 

[pax]

is it possible there is an exception to the law in a life-threatening situation? I mean, it is illegal to shoot somebody too. It is also illegal to kill someone. If you have justified cause, it is a moot point.

Youngunz4life,

Yes, there is such an exception in the VA statute.

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Hope this helps.

pax

 

[FireForged]

Use of force laws differ from State to State. My advice is to read and clearly understand the use of force laws in your State. There are plenty of use of force attorneys around the Country who have written books on the subject.

 

[brickeyee]

"Yes, there is such an exception in the VA statute."

My attorney looked at that and claims the law was passed after a CA tried throwing a brandishing charge after losing a self defense case.

Note the "However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense."

All the rules in Virginia governing the use of lethal force would have to be met to threaten lethal force, in other words you could have fired.

 

[pax]

All the rules in Virginia governing the use of lethal force would have to be met to threaten lethal force, in other words you could have fired.

But you do not need to fire in order to use that exemption.

No matter how blinding your draw speed, firing comes after drawing by some measurable interval. It's quite possible that all of the elements justifying deadly force were in place at the moment you drew, but no longer in place by the time your sights are on target. It's also quite possible that even a situation where deadly force would be legally justifiable might allow you the luxury of choosing to use the lesser level of force (drawing the gun) in relative safety, and that you might choose to do so for some perfectly legitimate practical reason.

This is analogous to the number of times you fire. After the shooting, you must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the very moment you fired each shot you took. Each shot stands independently in the dock. If you empty the magazine, no matter how fast or how slow you empty it, your final shot must be every bit as justified as your first shot. Within the confines of human reaction times, you don't get a free pass on that final shot just because "I was already firing and to fire again was a natural extension of that action." You need to be able to justify every shot you take, not just the first one.

Similarly, you need to be able to justify the act of drawing the gun. And you need to be able to do so independently of your act of firing the gun.

Just because you draw the gun doesn't mean you need to fire it.

Just because you fire once doesn't mean you need to fire again.

If you draw unjustifiably, your legal situation will not be helped by firing the gun.

If you draw justifiably, your legal situation will not be harmed by holding your fire if your practical situation allows you to do so.

You don't need to fire just because you draw. And the law -- even in the Commonwealth of Virginia -- will never punish you for using a lesser level of force when you are legally justified to use a greater level of force.

pax

 

[Carter]

This is a question that has no absolute answer. When you pull your firearm depends on the situation, the person/animal you are facing, your state's laws, the surroundings, and YOU.

Remember, you can have a clean cut case of self defense, but if you can't articulate what happened you could end up in trouble.

My instructor for my CCW class went in to great depth about this type of question. Every situation was worse than the last. Point being, when you use lethal force (that includes pointing the firearm at the person) you better start thinking about the elements needed to justify your actions before the cops get there and be ready.