Good guy with a gun saves woman being stabbed to death...

[JimBowie1958]

Who judged whether they were lawful? The defender always says it is lawful. Then they go to jail.

In violent encounters the cops always put all the males in jail and will sort them out later. They can hold you for 24 hours, you know?

Many are prosecuted and spend a good deal of time in jail.

True and the cops usually get it right the first time.

 

[Wilbur Right]

What your friend did wrong is that if he really felt threatened he should have not brandished the weapon, but pulled it, aimed at the other guys, and held them in a submitted position until the police arrived.

You never just "show" a gun. You pull it, aim it, and get one of the parties to submit until law enforcement arrives.

He was trying to intimidate the men he was arguing with. He admits that.

Had he pulled his gun, held these men at gunpoint and waited for the police, he would have went to jail.

It was a civil matter (eviction) and he would have had no cause to pull a gun. Plus they would have sued his ass and lived in his house rent free for months.

No I mention this story as a reminder that sometimes when you are carrying a gun, your good sense will be overriden by your sense of what a bad ass you are carring a 9mm.

But there is always someone else a little bit badder. Like the guy with the AR15.

At least my friend didnt try and shoot it out. Or I would have never heard this story.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If your friend was smart he would have then evicted those men and then he 'wins' as those fucks are not renting under good intent.

thats why he was at the property. to post the 3 day notice to vacate. Which starts the eviction process.


He by his own admission showed his gun in an effort to intimidate the men he was arguing with. When one of the men went back into the house, he said he wasnt sure what to expect. When the man returned with his AR, my friend was intimidated, got in his truck and left.

Nobody got shot. He didnt call the cops.
DGUs all around I say. Both parties had a gun for the same reason and both used the gun for the same reason.
A double shot of DGUs.

Your friend was acting in self defense since in most states an assault by multiple assailants is a lethal threat, so he was showing his gun to dampen the situation. The dude that went in and grabbed his AR was not responding to a threat but escalating the situation to maintain his edge regarding intimidation.

BTW, if your friend has any training, he would know that the guy fetching the AR is a threat to him and he could have simply and easily shot the man as he came out of the house and would probably have gotten off on any charges. Simply showing a jury the pic of the AR brought to the point of disagreement would have gotten off.

But he chose the better path of retreating from a pointless battle.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No I mention this story as a reminder that sometimes when you are carrying a gun, your good sense will be overriden by your sense of what a bad ass you are carring a 9mm.

Except that isnt what happened here was it?

And why? Because people have a natural instinct to not start shit, even if they are morons that feel 'bad ass'.

 

[martybegan]

A survey study as your proof?

Yeah......

Why would you think they are? There are many in jail who thought they were lawfully defending themselves.

really? How often is self defense used as a defense and proved wrong?

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

Your "study" was a random survey based questionaire, nothing more. It's less than nothing.

You fail to answer again. Very telling.

I did answer, what you quoted as a reference is bull.

 

[martybegan]

What your friend did wrong is that if he really felt threatened he should have not brandished the weapon, but pulled it, aimed at the other guys, and held them in a submitted position until the police arrived.

You never just "show" a gun. You pull it, aim it, and get one of the parties to submit until law enforcement arrives.

How many times have you had to do that as a civilian?

Most criminals are not so stupid that you have to aim through a set of sights. At close quarters I wouldnt even advise it or things like a Weaver. I would and have held the gun at about Solar Plexis height, with the gun along the front of my body and my side turned toward them. IT will sting if I have to fire it, but I dont want them to grab my gun and I want my left hand free to do whatever a hand needs to do. I only had to do that once, the rest of the time simply them seeing the gun was enough.

And no way will I call the cops. These guys, not even mentioning th e DA, are rather inventive with the law at times and if they dont like what you have done you might be going to jail,no matter what, and your gun confiscated for all practical purposes once the cost of getting the item out of impound is higher than the cost to replace the item itself.

Where is the upside to calling in the cops if the crooks are gone and no harm done?

My issue is with him just "showing the gun". If a situation is threatening enough to show you have a gun, its threatening enough to show you are willing to use the gun if the other party doesn't immediately end the threatening situation.

 

[martybegan]

What your friend did wrong is that if he really felt threatened he should have not brandished the weapon, but pulled it, aimed at the other guys, and held them in a submitted position until the police arrived.

You never just "show" a gun. You pull it, aim it, and get one of the parties to submit until law enforcement arrives.

He was trying to intimidate the men he was arguing with. He admits that.

Had he pulled his gun, held these men at gunpoint and waited for the police, he would have went to jail.

It was a civil matter (eviction) and he would have had no cause to pull a gun. Plus they would have sued his ass and lived in his house rent free for months.

No I mention this story as a reminder that sometimes when you are carrying a gun, your good sense will be overriden by your sense of what a bad ass you are carring a 9mm.

But there is always someone else a little bit badder. Like the guy with the AR15.

At least my friend didnt try and shoot it out. Or I would have never heard this story.

Then he was in the wrong then, and probably should be arrested for brandishing, just like the guy who went and got his AR-15.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My issue is with him just "showing the gun". If a situation is threatening enough to show you have a gun, its threatening enough to show you are willing to use the gun if the other party doesn't immediately end the threatening situation.

Well you are quoting text book legal advice to gun carriers, but I still think that most of the time one doesnt have to actually pull it. Not pulling it is a rather low escalation way of warning the idiot off, saying 'You picked the wrong guy today, moron, so beat it' and letting it go, so the guy runs.

To pull your gun all the way out in front of God and all Creation is a huge escalation that says to the crook 'I am going to be a hero and let everyone see me busting your ass.' So the crook may feel compelled to pull whatever weapon he may have, a knife, stolen gun,whatever and fight you instead. It is rare but it is a provocation. If you are a cop or other authority this makes sense, but to a private carrier who might be in violation of who knows what bullshit reg, no, it does not make sense.

Also, a lot of crooks know that there is a hesitance on the part of most people to not squeeze the trigger and cross that line into violence, and they may feel like a bum rush is their best shot at ending the confrontation in their favor.

But to each their own. Showing it has worked for me most of the time, but your mileage may vary.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Then he was in the wrong then, and probably should be arrested for brandishing, just like the guy who went and got his AR-15.

I dont think you can be arrested for brandishing on your own property, can you?

If so, I brandish my gun every damned day of the week.

 

[Brain357]

Why would you think they are? There are many in jail who thought they were lawfully defending themselves.

really? How often is self defense used as a defense and proved wrong?

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

Your "study" was a random survey based questionaire, nothing more. It's less than nothing.

You fail to answer again. Very telling.

I did answer, what you quoted as a reference is bull.

I asked why you would think they are lawful? What could lead you to believe that? What specifically is wrong with the study?

 

[martybegan]

really? How often is self defense used as a defense and proved wrong?

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

Your "study" was a random survey based questionaire, nothing more. It's less than nothing.

You fail to answer again. Very telling.

I did answer, what you quoted as a reference is bull.

I asked why you would think they are lawful? What could lead you to believe that? What specifically is wrong with the study?

Because its based on a survey of opinions, not actual events resulting in prosecution.

If most private gun uses turned out to be unlawful, why aren't there thousands of CCW holders losing their permits?

 

[Brain357]

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

Your "study" was a random survey based questionaire, nothing more. It's less than nothing.

You fail to answer again. Very telling.

I did answer, what you quoted as a reference is bull.

I asked why you would think they are lawful? What could lead you to believe that? What specifically is wrong with the study?

Because its based on a survey of opinions, not actual events resulting in prosecution.

If most private gun uses turned out to be unlawful, why aren't there thousands of CCW holders losing their permits?

Well mostly because there aren't very many defenses and this is why they are not reported.

 

[Brain357]

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

Your "study" was a random survey based questionaire, nothing more. It's less than nothing.

You fail to answer again. Very telling.

I did answer, what you quoted as a reference is bull.

I asked why you would think they are lawful? What could lead you to believe that? What specifically is wrong with the study?

Because its based on a survey of opinions, not actual events resulting in prosecution.

If most private gun uses turned out to be unlawful, why aren't there thousands of CCW holders losing their permits?

I assume you don't believe the surveys about the number of DGUs?

 

[martybegan]

Then he was in the wrong then, and probably should be arrested for brandishing, just like the guy who went and got his AR-15.

I dont think you can be arrested for brandishing on your own property, can you?

If so, I brandish my gun every damned day of the week.

Brandishing doesn't just involve taking a gun out, there has to be an implicit threat.

What is Brandishing? | Firearm Training Classes, Firearms Training

t 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 a 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.

 

[martybegan]

Your "study" was a random survey based questionaire, nothing more. It's less than nothing.

You fail to answer again. Very telling.

I did answer, what you quoted as a reference is bull.

I asked why you would think they are lawful? What could lead you to believe that? What specifically is wrong with the study?

Because its based on a survey of opinions, not actual events resulting in prosecution.

If most private gun uses turned out to be unlawful, why aren't there thousands of CCW holders losing their permits?

I assume you don't believe the surveys about the number of DGUs?

I usually don't believe surveys in general. My analysis of the DGU numbers of 1.5M a year was just to see if the numbers even made a bit of sense.

 

[martybegan]

Your "study" was a random survey based questionaire, nothing more. It's less than nothing.

You fail to answer again. Very telling.

I did answer, what you quoted as a reference is bull.

I asked why you would think they are lawful? What could lead you to believe that? What specifically is wrong with the study?

Because its based on a survey of opinions, not actual events resulting in prosecution.

If most private gun uses turned out to be unlawful, why aren't there thousands of CCW holders losing their permits?

Well mostly because there aren't very many defenses and this is why they are not reported.

So you are running to lack of reporting to hide your B.S.?

Figures.

 

[Brain357]

You fail to answer again. Very telling.

I did answer, what you quoted as a reference is bull.

I asked why you would think they are lawful? What could lead you to believe that? What specifically is wrong with the study?

Because its based on a survey of opinions, not actual events resulting in prosecution.

If most private gun uses turned out to be unlawful, why aren't there thousands of CCW holders losing their permits?

I assume you don't believe the surveys about the number of DGUs?

I usually don't believe surveys in general. My analysis of the DGU numbers of 1.5M a year was just to see if the numbers even made a bit of sense.

They don't. There are only 1.2 million violent crimes.

 

[Brain357]

You fail to answer again. Very telling.

I did answer, what you quoted as a reference is bull.

I asked why you would think they are lawful? What could lead you to believe that? What specifically is wrong with the study?

Because its based on a survey of opinions, not actual events resulting in prosecution.

If most private gun uses turned out to be unlawful, why aren't there thousands of CCW holders losing their permits?

Well mostly because there aren't very many defenses and this is why they are not reported.

So you are running to lack of reporting to hide your B.S.?

Figures.

So far you have given no reason to believe they are lawful. I have provided a study showing most aren't. One wouldn't report an unlawful defense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Brandishing doesn't just involve taking a gun out, there has to be an implicit threat.

What is Brandishing? | Firearm Training Classes, Firearms Training

I am aware of that, but unless it is on public land on or near a school, it is a misdemeanor.

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 also point out that your tactic of clearing your holster and bringing your gun into full view is more apt to be classified as brandishing than if a person simply lifted the shirt (oops I slipped) and there was no proof of intent to threaten.

Also, the site you reference is against Open Carry, aka 'Constitutional Carry'. I regard it with suspiscion as it fails to get that simple subject correct.

In 2011 a Chesterfield County mom decided to open carry her handgun while walking one of her daughters to the bus stop because she was concerned about her daughter being bullied. At this point, I don’t think I have to tell you anything else for you to know that she had the intent of inducing fear, but I will anyway. Three students ages 12 and 13 who were at the bus stop that morning testified that when one of them pointed out to the others that she had a gun, the woman began a profanity-laden tirade about her right to carry and the fact that she was not afraid to fight or use her gun. The children say the woman put her hand on the gun, but the woman denied as much. However, as the judge stated, she didn’t have to touch the gun for a brandishing conviction; the threatening behavior combined with the presence of the gun reasonably induced fear which resulted in the finding of guilt.


That is just horse shit. The woman had a right to open carry that is listed in the 2nd Amendment and it is a scandal that so many states fail to respect that right.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They don't. There are only 1.2 million violent crimes.

you mean 'only 1.2 million violent crimes reported', dude.