Incident at walmart

COMMANDER1911 said:

Can someone translate this?

Click to expand...

Yes, here is the official translation:

I was looking through some of Ivans previous posts and found this,

Wrighttime-

"I have to agree with you and I was in the wrong. Like I say I am constantly learning from folks in here and will continue to learn. I aspect to be call on the things that I say wrong..."

I guess he changed his mind.

I have to agree with NavyLT's stance. Brandishing/not brandishing aside, the OP brought the capability of deadly force to a non-lethal force situation. I think what NavyLT is getting at is that while there is nothing legally keeping the OP from getting involved, it would be prudent for someone who is armed to keep somewhat of a distance so as to not bring a firearm into the already heated situation. Of course, deadly force statutes vary from state to state. In my home state I have to prove there was an *immediate* threat of death or grave bodily harm for me to shoot in self defense. Outside of this I would have to prove that there was a significant disparity of force (which is subjective and arguable). We also have a duty to retreat if not in our own home or place of business that we own.

Now, if the aggressor had deployed a deadly weapon and showed intention of using it on anyone present the OP would be justified in getting involved. It is his decision of course to get involved, but I can tell you in the same situation I would distance myself and phone it in to the police. Why leave yourself open to arrest or prosecution if you don't have to? In the end, maybe the guys end up throwing a couple punches at each other but the moment you as an armed citizen steps in, this ups the ante.

Just my $.02

Ivan Sample said:

Dreamer-

You are the biggest piece of **** that ever hit a forum-the MODS wants to talk about personal attacks and delete some of my post. Then they should take a look at your dumb ass and delete yours. You know your mother must have drop you on head when you was younger because you don't have any ******* common sense you retard. Now MODS do your job and delete this post!

Click to expand...

'nuff sed...

Ivan Sample said:

Dreamer-

You are the biggest piece of **** that ever hit a forum-the MODS wants to talk about personal attacks and delete some of my post. Then they should take a look at your dumb ass and delete yours. You know your mother must have drop you on head when you was younger because you don't have any ******* common sense you retard. Now MODS do your job and delete this post!

Click to expand...

I have no idea what his post says. But if you believe it to be a personal attack, click on the exclamation mark on the bottom of the post and send a short (polite) message to the mods. You will get a lot further taking the high road, rather than trying to get the mods to see his insult while they are fuming about yours in this post.

Ivan Sample said:

Dreamer-

You are the biggest piece of **** that ever hit a forum-the MODS wants to talk about personal attacks and delete some of my post. Then they should take a look at your dumb ass and delete yours. You know your mother must have drop you on head when you was younger because you don't have any ******* common sense you retard. Now MODS do your job and delete this post!

Click to expand...

Are these grounds for getting banned?

This is precisely why OC'ers should maintain a CHL... To be able to untuck a shirt, cover the weapon, and go to someone's aid without risk of escalating the situation. You can be all the good samaritan you like when people don't know you have a weapon. "Walk softly and carry a big, hidden thunderstick" is a good rule in certain cirumstances.

Putting a shirt over my firearm lowers my state of readiness. If I were anticipating coming to the aid of another, that is the LAST thing I'd want to do.

The OP stated that the the belligerent party threatened to kill him and continued to close the gap on the group. At this point, prudence demands that you take the necessary steps to be able to respond to an attack. It is not a requirement to suffer injury or get killed before taking measures to protect yourself.

You can take this to the bank: if you verbalized to a police officer "I'm going to kill you" and started to close the gap, expect to be at gunpoint if not shot.

We weren't there to see the actions of the belligerent. We didn't see his actions, what he was telegraphing to the group through verbal and physical cues. Pre-assault indicators may have been present to lead the OP to reasonably believe that the threat to kill him was with merit. Pre-assault indicators include clinching the fists, target glancing at the person's duty belt or weapon(s), checking the area for witnesses, etc. There is inherent danger in letting someone into your personal space because your reactionary time and zone is compromised. If he produces a knife or another weapon, you are in the kill zone. If he is skilled in the martial arts, you will be disarmed.

From what has been posted by the OP, it sounds like a firearm was employed as a deterrent and successfully. Police responded to the scene and found no probable cause for arrest for brandishing or whatever the NC equivalent is.

I find it alarming that a peaceful conclusion of using a weapon is condemned by a group of people who use OC as a passive deterrent to would be assailants. If the police officer on scene found the OP to be within the scope of the law, why would we put on a mock trial here on the forums?

HeroHog said:

My spelling sux too! That's why ieSpell is my best friend!

Click to expand...

I alays wented to be a enchineer but I cultnt spelgoood enuf ever? Ispel badr tooo van U.

palerider116 said:

The OP stated that the the belligerent party threatened to kill him and continued to close the gap on the group. At this point, prudence demands that you take the necessary steps to be able to respond to an attack. It is not a requirement to suffer injury or get killed before taking measures to protect yourself.

Click to expand...

Under NC case law, common law and Statute, "fighting words" are NOT justifiable reason for using, or threatening to use deadly force in self defense.

Under NC case law, common law and Statute, "uttering threats" is NOT justifiable reason for using, or threatening to use deadly force in self defense (although it IS a misdemeanor).

Under NC case law, common law and Statute, "simple assault" is NOT justifiable reason for using, or threatening to use deadly force in self defense unless there is a TREMENDOUS disparity of force on the part of the attacker.

Under NC case law, common law and Statute, citizens do NOT the right to "stand their ground" if outside their own property unless they are being actively presented with an "immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, or sexual assault", have no other alternative and are "in fear for their life".

Some loudmouth shouting threats and waving his fists at you in a WalMart parking lot meets NONE of the legal requirements for justifiable use (or threat of use) of deadly force, under NC law.

It doesn't matter what people from other states say or believe. It doesn't matter what someone who is a security guard, or has Army EOD training believes. The law is established on this issue in NC.

The OP was lucky he wasn't arrested, or charged with assault or GAttTotP.

If he continues down his current path, however, he will.

We're just trying to prevent that...

Please, "Scott", I'm begging you again.
Find a qualified instructor, and take a freaking course.
Your safety, your freedom, and your LIFE depend on it...

First of all, ANYONE who carries a tool for self defense needs to know the definition of deadly force.

Deadly force- that force which a person uses with the intent of causing death or serious bodily harm, or that which a reasonable or prudent person would consider likely the substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. I cited that from memory.

Secondly, there are three preconditions for use of deadly force. Does the assailant posses the means to do you harm, does he/she have the intent to do you harm, and finally, is he/she able to do you harm. If all three of these things are met, then a reasonable person (juror) would more than likey decide that deadly force was authorized. Putting your hand on your firearm is NOT a deterent, it is the first step in pulling your weapon to defend yourself. If OCing alone isnt a good enough deterent, then nothing will deter the individual from doing harm. The ONLY time a hand should be placed on a firearm (while carrying in public), is when you or someone else's life is in immediate danger, and you going to draw. As stated before, citizens cannot act as police and place their hands on their weapons SIMPLY as a deterent. No, the OP wasn't arrested this time, but the next time might not have a happy ending.

Brandish.

I looked up the meaning of the word Brandish in my Websters 20Th Century Unabridged Dictionary.

Brandish.
1.To move or wave, as a weapon; to raise and move in various directions; to shake or florish: often with meaning of threatening; as to brandish a sword or a cane belligerently.
2. figuratively, to play or flourish as with a sword, whip, etc.

The OP did none of these things unless I missed a post in which he said he did any of the above in points one and or two?

Haz. said:

I looked up the meaning of the word Brandish in my Websters 20Th Century Unabridged Dictionary.

Brandish.
1.To move or wave, as a weapon; to raise and move in various directions; to shake or florish: often with meaning of threatening; as to brandish a sword or a cane belligerently.
2. figuratively, to play or flourish as with a sword, whip, etc.

The OP did none of these things unless I missed a post in which he said he did any of the above in points one and or two?

Click to expand...

Not too many people bother to look it up. Barring a definition being stated in the law in a given jurisdiction, this is what "brandish" would mean. Some folks mistakenly think that the mere presence of a weapon or making it visible is brandishing. That would be true only if the law said so.

Haz. said:

I looked up the meaning of the word Brandish in my Websters 20Th Century Unabridged Dictionary.

Brandish.
1.To move or wave, as a weapon; to raise and move in various directions; to shake or florish: often with meaning of threatening; as to brandish a sword or a cane belligerently.
2. figuratively, to play or flourish as with a sword, whip, etc.

The OP did none of these things unless I missed a post in which he said he did any of the above in points one and or two?

Click to expand...

No he did not wave his weapon in various directions. What he did was place his hand on his firearm when there was no real threat presented at the time. The man was outnumbered by the man he struck and the manager. The man never presented or spoke that he had a weapon. Nothing but an empty threat was said. And had the OP minded his own business, the verbal threat would not have even been an issue.

NavyLT said:

Brandishing is a term that is largely made up by the media and misused by everyone else.

Click to expand...

The Virginia GA also made it up.

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.

NavyLT said:

And in North Carolina it's not brandishing. It's called Going Armed to the Terror of the Public. And in Washington, it's not brandishing, it's called Unlawful Display of a Firearm. Brandishing is a term that is largely made up by the media and misused by everyone else. Just like providing a firearm to a felon is more often then not called straw purchase, when, in fact, there may not actually be a straw purchase involved.

That's what we are trying to say here. It does not matter if the OP brandished a weapon or not. He can still be found guilty by a jury of unlawfully displaying (and in North Carolina, just unlawfully carrying a firearm) without having removed the gun from the holster and waved it around. Hell, according to the definition of brandishing two posts above, I can take my gun out and point it directly at you without brandishing it.

Click to expand...

Apparently the officer at the scene did not thinks so.

Sorry to say, but you are being hyperbolic.

"eye95",

The point of this thread isn't to determine whether or not the LEO made the right decision.

The point of this thread is to let "Scott" know what NC law and precedent actually SAYS, and to attempt to educate him (and other NC OCers) as to what is and is not legal and lawful in terms of acceptable force continuum in self-defense situations.


To everyone else:

I think we've established beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is NO SUCH VIOLATION as "brandishing" in NC. Everyone should just stop even referring to that. The term "brandishing" is irrelevant in terms of NC law, and continuing to use it just confuses the issue, dilutes the discussion, and clouds the reality of NC law.

We don't want to hear about VA statutes. We don't care what AL law says. What the law says in GA or WA or PA or anywhere else matters not one wit in this discussion. The event occurred in North Carolina, so only NC statute, case law and common law apply. Put it to rest.

We've cited NC case law.

We've cited the NC AG's "NC Firearms Law" handbook.

Scott has plenty of information. He'll either decide to act lawfully in the future or he won't. He's a big boy, and can make his own decisions. I only hope that he is mature and open-minded enough to decide to comport himself in an appropriate manner according to NC law in the future.

But, honestly, I wash my hands of this. I've tried and tried, and people seem to just not care about what the law actually says, preferring to argue irrelevant points from other state's laws, inject personal bias, and strut and posture.

I'll gladly donate to someone like Skidmark when he gets jacked for "contempt of cop" while going about his business lawfully in VA. But when (not if, but when) "Scott" gets arrested in the future, I will not offer one single penny or second of help, because I've offered all I can to him already. The decision is now his...

Please, "Scott", I'm begging you one last time.

Find a qualified instructor, and take a course. Put your pride on the back burner, and consult someone professional who actually KNOWS the law.

Your safety, your freedom, and your LIFE depend on it...

"Many"? I don't think so. A handful who have posted a lot.

If someone threatens my life, unlocking my retention and putting my hand on my firearm would be a muted response designed to defuse the situation, while, at the same time, increasing my readiness should deadly force become warranted. It is a measured response commensurate with the threat.

It is wise not to be caught less ready than one could be.

Could a rogue officer decide the carrier was creating terror? Of course. Just look at what happened to skidmark. There is no defense against rogue officers. We can only deal with them after the fact.

However, it is best to be prepared against folks who threaten your life before they start acting on the threat.

Again, I think your cautions are hyperbole.