-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Brandishing
- Thread starter peter nap
- Start date
Neplusultra
Regular Member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Dood, you're supposed to eat them while they're still warm and soft, not after they get old and crusty. Like some we know about. :lol:2a4all wrote:Hardee's biscuits, known locally as hockey pucks can be hard to swallow. Just like some of the opinions we read about.
Yata hey
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
We got off on this discussion by talking about brandishing. My point was that carrying a gun in the hands is not brandishing unless coupled with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or instill fear in, another person. But pulling out a gun, or even making reference to a gun, even one feels vaguely threatened, can be considered brandishing, even if the gun is not in the hand. If it is in the hand under those circumstances, it could be charged as attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon (though that could be knocked down to simple assault at plea bargain time, depending on the court and prosecutor).
skidmark wrote:
No, that was not a slip of the fingers. When I've done my firearms law lectures, Jimmy Johnson, owner of VaPistol.com who's been sponsoring the events, always introduces me by telling the folks that what I say will shock them. This is why.
However, I did fail to make two important points. First, one can always change his mind and put the gun away without shooting, if he should decide that he was wrong or that the threat has dematerialized. Second, that every word in that definition is really important, and it's a long-winded definition. You have to know it so well that you dream about it. "If you reasonably believe, based on objective fact, that you or an innocent third party is faced with the threat of an imminent serious bodily injury, then the use of deadly force is excusable."
You have to be reasonable. It only needs to be a belief, not scientific fact, but it's got to be reasonable. Differential of potential force makes a difference in one's reasonable belief. That, alone doth not a good defense make, sinceeach of the elements of the defense has to be proved by testimony. (Hence the old aphorism, "Don't threaten a fat old geezer who isobviously in no shape to fight - he'll just kill you.")
It has to be based on objective fact - other people watching the same events, would have seen the same things you did that led you to the reasonable belief. (That's why cops areusually exonerated because they mistakenly shot people who pulled out a shiny pen, cell phone, or cigarette lighter. It was an objective fact that the detainee pulled out a cell phone. Other people watching would have seen him pull out the cell phone. The cop had a reasonable belief, based on that objective fact, that the detainee had a dangerous weapon and that he or other officers were threatened thereby.)
The belief has to be about a threat, not an emotional response ("Fear is not an option.")
The threat must be imminent, right now, not five minutes from now, not five minutes ago. Imminent means immediate, like right now.
The threat must involve serious bodily injury. Not necessarily a deadly threat, a baseball bat to the knees would probably result in a serious bodily injury.
If you don't have all those conditions at the same time, don't even think about the gun. If you do have all those conditions at the same time, the threat is a human being, and yes, you have to stop the threat, but that means stopping that human being. You need to know this definition and what it means so well that you'll be able to apply it despite the adrenaline rush you will get in a real emergency. You have to be reasonable, even though your body is being as unreasonable as all-get-out.
I don't like euphemisms and dancing around what's really going on. The purpose of a defensive gun is to kill people. Like a fire extinguisher, I hope, I really hope, verily I say unto you, I truly hope that I never have to use one. But when I do, I mean business. And if you're in court as a result of a shooting, you need an attorney who will not avoid the unpleasantness of your having shot someone by dancing around the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room, namely that you shot someone.
Everyone in the room is going to know you used a gun to shoot someone, and everyone knows how horrible that is. No point in trying to pretty it up. Face it head on, and explain why you reasonably believed that it was absolutely necessary to do what you did, and why you did it. I want a client who can look at the jury and tell them the whole story and make them understand that any sane person who wants to livewould have done exactly the same thing in the same circumstances.
And if you're in that situation, there's no getting around the fact that the gun is designed specifically to kill human beings. Everyone's going to understand that. The fact that you've lightened the trigger pull, honed the action, used hollow point bullets, and used night sights and a lasergrip, is not going to make the slightest bit of difference in the decision of whether you're guilty or not guilty. (It could be relevant to sentencing. But let's don't get to that point by doing things that could get us found guilty.)
You'd best not shoot anyone if you don't mean to kill them. (Attempted murder is punishable to the same degree that murder is.) If you're not willing to kill another human being in a situationthat requires it, you'd best not have a gun, unless you justenjoy target practice. And you'd best not mean to kill anyone unless you "reasonably believe, based on objective fact, that you or an innocent third party is faced with the threat of an imminent serious bodily injury."
Other than "stopping a serious felony" (rape, robbery, murder, burglary, and arson) defense of self/defense of others is the only reason to even think about pulling out a gun, unless you're a law enforcement officer. There may be a defense of excusable homicide where a non-LEO shoots a fleeing felon who represents a continuing danger to other people, that has been recognized where cops have done the shooting; but I wouldn't count on a favorable verdict in that situation. To my knowledge that defense has not resulted in any precedents where a non-LEO did the shooting, so it's an uncertain area of the law.
For us non-LEO's it's a binary choice - unless you're faced with the "right now" kind of threat that requires deadly force, don't even think about touching the gun. It has to be a strictly defensive measure and only in circumstances that require it.
Note: the cases cited by 1774.org website are good information, but not necessarilyreliable as precedent - an "unpublished" opinion is not precedent.
We got off on this discussion by talking about brandishing. My point was that carrying a gun in the hands is not brandishing unless coupled with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or instill fear in, another person. But pulling out a gun, or even making reference to a gun, even one feels vaguely threatened, can be considered brandishing, even if the gun is not in the hand. If it is in the hand under those circumstances, it could be charged as attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon (though that could be knocked down to simple assault at plea bargain time, depending on the court and prosecutor).
skidmark wrote:
No, that was not a slip of the fingers. When I've done my firearms law lectures, Jimmy Johnson, owner of VaPistol.com who's been sponsoring the events, always introduces me by telling the folks that what I say will shock them. This is why.
However, I did fail to make two important points. First, one can always change his mind and put the gun away without shooting, if he should decide that he was wrong or that the threat has dematerialized. Second, that every word in that definition is really important, and it's a long-winded definition. You have to know it so well that you dream about it. "If you reasonably believe, based on objective fact, that you or an innocent third party is faced with the threat of an imminent serious bodily injury, then the use of deadly force is excusable."
You have to be reasonable. It only needs to be a belief, not scientific fact, but it's got to be reasonable. Differential of potential force makes a difference in one's reasonable belief. That, alone doth not a good defense make, sinceeach of the elements of the defense has to be proved by testimony. (Hence the old aphorism, "Don't threaten a fat old geezer who isobviously in no shape to fight - he'll just kill you.")
It has to be based on objective fact - other people watching the same events, would have seen the same things you did that led you to the reasonable belief. (That's why cops areusually exonerated because they mistakenly shot people who pulled out a shiny pen, cell phone, or cigarette lighter. It was an objective fact that the detainee pulled out a cell phone. Other people watching would have seen him pull out the cell phone. The cop had a reasonable belief, based on that objective fact, that the detainee had a dangerous weapon and that he or other officers were threatened thereby.)
The belief has to be about a threat, not an emotional response ("Fear is not an option.")
The threat must be imminent, right now, not five minutes from now, not five minutes ago. Imminent means immediate, like right now.
The threat must involve serious bodily injury. Not necessarily a deadly threat, a baseball bat to the knees would probably result in a serious bodily injury.
If you don't have all those conditions at the same time, don't even think about the gun. If you do have all those conditions at the same time, the threat is a human being, and yes, you have to stop the threat, but that means stopping that human being. You need to know this definition and what it means so well that you'll be able to apply it despite the adrenaline rush you will get in a real emergency. You have to be reasonable, even though your body is being as unreasonable as all-get-out.
I don't like euphemisms and dancing around what's really going on. The purpose of a defensive gun is to kill people. Like a fire extinguisher, I hope, I really hope, verily I say unto you, I truly hope that I never have to use one. But when I do, I mean business. And if you're in court as a result of a shooting, you need an attorney who will not avoid the unpleasantness of your having shot someone by dancing around the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room, namely that you shot someone.
Everyone in the room is going to know you used a gun to shoot someone, and everyone knows how horrible that is. No point in trying to pretty it up. Face it head on, and explain why you reasonably believed that it was absolutely necessary to do what you did, and why you did it. I want a client who can look at the jury and tell them the whole story and make them understand that any sane person who wants to livewould have done exactly the same thing in the same circumstances.
And if you're in that situation, there's no getting around the fact that the gun is designed specifically to kill human beings. Everyone's going to understand that. The fact that you've lightened the trigger pull, honed the action, used hollow point bullets, and used night sights and a lasergrip, is not going to make the slightest bit of difference in the decision of whether you're guilty or not guilty. (It could be relevant to sentencing. But let's don't get to that point by doing things that could get us found guilty.)
You'd best not shoot anyone if you don't mean to kill them. (Attempted murder is punishable to the same degree that murder is.) If you're not willing to kill another human being in a situationthat requires it, you'd best not have a gun, unless you justenjoy target practice. And you'd best not mean to kill anyone unless you "reasonably believe, based on objective fact, that you or an innocent third party is faced with the threat of an imminent serious bodily injury."
Other than "stopping a serious felony" (rape, robbery, murder, burglary, and arson) defense of self/defense of others is the only reason to even think about pulling out a gun, unless you're a law enforcement officer. There may be a defense of excusable homicide where a non-LEO shoots a fleeing felon who represents a continuing danger to other people, that has been recognized where cops have done the shooting; but I wouldn't count on a favorable verdict in that situation. To my knowledge that defense has not resulted in any precedents where a non-LEO did the shooting, so it's an uncertain area of the law.
For us non-LEO's it's a binary choice - unless you're faced with the "right now" kind of threat that requires deadly force, don't even think about touching the gun. It has to be a strictly defensive measure and only in circumstances that require it.
- John Bernard Books played by John Wayne in "The Shootist".
Note: the cases cited by 1774.org website are good information, but not necessarilyreliable as precedent - an "unpublished" opinion is not precedent.
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
Thanks for asking, I don't have one lined up right now. I'm still working on logistics. I will be sure to announce it when I can do one. And I do mean to do it in Richmond, as well as other places around the Commonwealth.
Thanks for asking, I don't have one lined up right now. I'm still working on logistics. I will be sure to announce it when I can do one. And I do mean to do it in Richmond, as well as other places around the Commonwealth.
imported post
Thanks for the length and depth of your response. It clarified everything I was fuzzy about.
We agree that www.virginia1774.org is not definitive, but can serve as an introduction to the subject. Other than hiring an attorney to research case law, are you aware of a better easily-accessed compendium of information?
stay safe.
skidmark
Thanks for the length and depth of your response. It clarified everything I was fuzzy about.
We agree that www.virginia1774.org is not definitive, but can serve as an introduction to the subject. Other than hiring an attorney to research case law, are you aware of a better easily-accessed compendium of information?
stay safe.
skidmark
nuc65
Activist Member
imported post
I am still hoping for a class in (or around) Lynchburg.
I am still hoping for a class in (or around) Lynchburg.
The Wolfhound
Regular Member
imported post
Y'all go easy on theose "hockey puck" comments. I have an immediate family member making those Hardee's biscuits. I have it on good authority that if they were that hard, they would be used as balista ammunition.
Y'all go easy on theose "hockey puck" comments. I have an immediate family member making those Hardee's biscuits. I have it on good authority that if they were that hard, they would be used as balista ammunition.
imported post
The Wolfhound wrote:
The ones I had frequented were likely making a special selection just for me and I was able to make center ice slap shots with 'em. :uhoh: :shock:
Yata hey
The Wolfhound wrote:
Please let me know location of your recommended store.
The ones I had frequented were likely making a special selection just for me and I was able to make center ice slap shots with 'em. :uhoh: :shock:
Yata hey
wylde007
Regular Member
imported post
peter nap wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
http://www.pillsbury.com/products/biscuits/frozen/Grands-Frozen-Biscuits.htm
peter nap wrote:
:lol:
Grapeshot wrote:
Nuts to Hardees. Twenty minutes in the toaster oven. Haven't had a bad one yet.
http://www.pillsbury.com/products/biscuits/frozen/Grands-Frozen-Biscuits.htm
GuitarMan270
Regular Member
imported post
Is it just me, or did they just completely plagiarize http://vaguninfo.com/pages/opencarry.htm?
Or is that accepted as general knowledge?
Is it just me, or did they just completely plagiarize http://vaguninfo.com/pages/opencarry.htm?
Or is that accepted as general knowledge?
imported post
GuitarMan270 wrote:
Suspect that being posted to a public forum, it was not strictly required.
Yata hey
GuitarMan270 wrote:
Would have been at least polite and courteous to have asked for permission and to have given credit/source.
Suspect that being posted to a public forum, it was not strictly required.
Yata hey
kaiheitai17
Founder's Club Member
imported post
DrMark wrote:
DrMark wrote:
Yeah, maybe there is a market for rifle and shotgun holsters? They might be kind of clumsy to wear on the belt though. And imagine an inside the waistband rifle holster, ummmm. <MaeWest voice on>Is that a rifle in your pants or are you just glad to see me?<MaeWest voice off>
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
peter nap wrote:
ask kwikrnu.
peter nap wrote:
Since the internal memo from the parks service says a firearm (rifle, shotgun or hadgun) carried in your hand is brandishing....
I'd like to know if anyone has case law that would support it ?
ask kwikrnu.
ufcfanvt
Regular Member
imported post
user wrote:
user wrote:
Class(es) in NoVA should be well attended