My buddy's lesson around VCU last night.

Jonesy said:

Or move to a safer location in the vehicle and then call 911, or just go home, call the gf and explain. None of us like to feel that we cannot go where we want to, but sometimes better safe than sorry.

Click to expand...

None of us can really say, not having been there; howeve,r I would not have left the immediately observable area of my gf's apartment - would never forgive myself if she stepped out to check her mail or look for me and the bgs accosted her.

user said:

Announcing one's armed status is a good way of getting one's self killed. He'd have done better to just make eye contact and say, "How y'all doin' this evenin'?"

Click to expand...

Not to mention the distinct possibility of a "Brandishing" charge under VA statute...

Citizen said:

I don't recall anyone advocating telling the polic about the brandishing part. Or, were you just phrasing it that way to make a point? (a valid point with which I agree).

ETA: Although, I wonder if it would actually be brandishing. Does not the VA statute make an exception for self-defense? This of course leads into the question about disparity of force and that sort of thing. But, for the moment, I'm just wondering if it is clearly brandishing.

Click to expand...

Brandishing??? Really Cite please , my understanding of brandishing according to majority of states and common law is that the firearm must be in hand

stuckinchico said:

Brandishing??? Really Cite please , my understanding of brandishing according to majority of states and common law is that the firearm must be in hand

Click to expand...

Indeed that is one of the defense points in Skidmark's trial in Surry, Va.

stuckinchico said:

Brandishing??? Really Cite please , my understanding of brandishing according to majority of states and common law is that the firearm must be in hand

Click to expand...

Here's one: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1032714.pdf

stuckinchico said:

Brandishing??? Really Cite please , my understanding of brandishing according to majority of states and common law is that the firearm must be in hand

Click to expand...

Another of those sticky areas that we aren't sure of. According to one of User's posts, his research indicates it does need to be in hand.
As Grapeshot said, it's one of the issues in Skidmarks case and one that members of the GS are watching.

Hopefully it can be defined or better yet, just removed from the books (less likely in the near future)

I would thin Merriam-Webster's would be good enough. I think a habit has been developed lately of re-defining words.....

bran·dish /ˈbrændɪʃ/ verb
bran·dish·es; bran·dished; bran·dish·ing
[+ obj] : to wave or swing (something, such as a weapon) in a threatening or excited manner

GvdM said:

I would thin Merriam-Webster's would be good enough. I think a habit has been developed lately of re-defining words.....

bran·dish /ˈbrændɪʃ/ verb
bran·dish·es; bran·dished; bran·dish·ing
[+ obj] : to wave or swing (something, such as a weapon) in a threatening or excited manner

Click to expand...

You'd think so but apparently someone forgot to tell a few LEO's, Magistrates and Judges.

GvdM said:

I would thin Merriam-Webster's would be good enough. I think a habit has been developed lately of re-defining words.....

bran·dish /ˈbrændɪʃ/ verb
bran·dish·es; bran·dished; bran·dish·ing
[+ obj] : to wave or swing (something, such as a weapon) in a threatening or excited manner

Click to expand...

From the 2005 case cited above by t33j:

Brandishing a Firearm
As noted supra, Morris was charged with pointing, holding,
or brandishing a firearm in such a manner as to reasonably
induce fear in the mind of another, pursuant to Code § 18.2-282.
Morris argues “[t]here was insufficient evidence that [he]
pointed, held or brandished the firearm, and there was
insufficient evidence that there was reasonable fear in the mind
of Peter Molina.”
Morris says that although Peter Molina saw the flare gun in
Morris’s waistband, he never testified that he was in fear of
the gun. Morris asserts that Molina, solely out of concern for
his wife, insisted that they should leave the area where Morris
was sitting. Indeed, Morris states, Molina indicated in his there.”
Morris says further that he “never touched the gun in the
presence” of Molina or his wife and there is no evidence that
“he pointed the flare gun.” Hence, Morris concludes, the
evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for brandishing
a firearm.
We disagree with Morris. “Brandish” means “to exhibit
or expose in an ostentatious, shameless, or aggressive
manner.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 268
(1993). When Morris looked at Ms. Molina, said “[he’d]
like that,” and then pulled up his shirt to uncover the
flare gun, he exhibited or exposed the weapon in a
shameless or aggressive manner. And Morris brandished the
weapon in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the
mind of Peter Molina. Although Molina may not have said he
was in fear for his own safety, he stated unequivocally
that he feared for the safety of his wife, and that is
sufficient to prove the “induced fear” element of a
conviction for brandishing a firearm under Code § 18.2-282.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but the courts don't care what I think.

Again, I think the OP did the right thing.

My concern is over the suggestion to call the cops, and in telling the cops WHY you called them (because I'm pretty sure they'll ask), and then explaining why the "bad" guys" left in such a hurry, MAY open yourself up to a brandishing charge.

" Officer/Deputy, I told them I was armed, they said "cool, we cool" and left in a hurry."

Why did they leave in a hurry? Because you scared them with the knowledge that you were armed. You didn't pull the pistol out so obviously you weren't THAT concerned for your protection. I think this meets the definition of brandishing.

Had you pulled it out, THEN you could argue that you were afraid, then it would be justified per the law as stated.

Obviously this is conjecture, as it didn't happen this way, and the cops were not called. But the "bad" guys got the message...

The op wasn't involved, the story is second hand.





Explaining why the "bad" guys" left in such a hurry.




Intended victim-" Officer/Deputy, they might have noticed my OC'ed firearm, they said "cool, we cool" and left in a hurry."

officer- "Why did they leave in a hurry?" "Did you do or say anything to them."

Intended victim-"I don't know they didn't tell me."
"Maybe, because they are cowards that prey on the presumed weak and defenseless, I apparently didn't fit that bill."
"I can't remember as things happened quickly."

officer -"You didn't pull the pistol out so obviously you weren't THAT concerned for your protection.

Intended victim- " No need to unholster at that time, they disengaged."
"If they continued towards me I would have addressed the situation."




Obviously this is conjecture, as it didn't happen this way, and the cops weren't called. But the "bad" guys got the message...

Ultimately I think the OP's buddy handled it perfectly. He was able to stop a potential confrontation, and he went home unharmed. I don't think it can get much better then that.

I still don't see any reason to call the police though.... Had it evolved into more of an 'issue'... who knows... perhaps. Depends on how far it went I think.

Glad things worked out for the best. Virginia really does need to get their 'brandishing' law re-written. Does anyone remember the poster a couple years back that was threatened with a brandishing charge when he pulled his jacket back to display a previously-concealed pistol during an arguement? The way the law is written, this fellow could have been charged with brandishing without touching the pistol simply by "instilling fear of death or serious bodily harm in the mind of a rational person" when he simply pulled his shirt up or jacket back to expose the fact that he was carrying a pistol.

He did so in a "threatening manner" to "instill fear in another person" or to "win the arguement". This law is one of the major reasons I am very careful where and how I "transition" from CC to OC when I'm out and about. Sometimes the weather warms up and you want to take off the outer clothing that was concealing your pistol. I try to find a private place like a bathroom stall to do the "Superman" change of clothes so I don't "upset anyone" and cause them to make an unnecessary MWAG call.

MSC 45ACP said:

Glad things worked out for the best. Virginia really does need to get their 'brandishing' law re-written. Does anyone remember the poster a couple years back that was threatened with a brandishing charge when he pulled his jacket back to display a previously-concealed pistol during an arguement? The way the law is written, this fellow could have been charged with brandishing without touching the pistol simply by "instilling fear of death or serious bodily harm in the mind of a rational person" when he simply pulled his shirt up or jacket back to expose the fact that he was carrying a pistol.

He did so in a "threatening manner" to "instill fear in another person" or to "win the arguement". This law is one of the major reasons I am very careful where and how I "transition" from CC to OC when I'm out and about. Sometimes the weather warms up and you want to take off the outer clothing that was concealing your pistol. I try to find a private place like a bathroom stall to do the "Superman" change of clothes so I don't "upset anyone" and cause them to make an unnecessary MWAG call.

Click to expand...

I remember that one.

Not to undermine your main point that the law needs to be changed (it does), but that guy wouldn't have been charged--the two women at who he "flashed" the gun were definitely not put in fear. They verbally harassed him even more.

return the second time would have been ok if he had to shoot ....nobody has to know it was his second time back , afterall it would be his word against ...well....two dead thuggs

bushwacker said:

return the second time would have been ok if he had to shoot ....nobody has to know it was his second time back , afterall it would be his word against ...well....two dead thuggs

Click to expand...

The "books" are full of un-noticed witnesses.

stuckinchico said:

Brandishing??? Really Cite please , my understanding of brandishing according to majority of states and common law is that the firearm must be in hand

Click to expand...

Morris v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 127, 135, 607 S.E.2d 110 (2005).

I strongly disagree with the holding in this case because it fails to consider that "brandish" is a general term which should have been limited by the more specific terms, "point" and "hold", under the doctrines of judicial construction known as "ejusdem generis" and "noscitur a sociis". The problem in Morris is really that Morris was a convicted felon who really was threatening people; he was an aggressor, and there's no question that he pulled up his shirt to show off his flare gun with the intention of creating the reasonable apprehension that he intended to use it on the people he was confronting. I think he was charged with the wrong crime, it should have been "assault". However the brandishing charge is the one that was before the court, and as the saying goes, "hard cases make bad law."

In the OP's example, the gun was never displayed, so there is no possibility of a brandishing charge in that case.

As to the OP's issue and my immediate response, although I didn't say so, I was picturing the "buddy" making eye contact with one of the assailants and moving to the outside of that person's field of vision as he did so; i.e., if he was approaching the guy to his left, the he should move to his left, circling around to the outside and putting the two guys in a line with each other and creating more distance between himself and the other guy. The point of speaking first, in a firm and confident voice, while making eye contact, was to communicate the "I'm a bigger dog than you are" kind of confidence. That thing of "engaging the potential victim in conversation" works both ways. In my mind, it can be used to create the feeling in the mind of the proposed assailant that the potential victim thoroughly intends to rip his arms off and beat him over the head with his own arms. That is not the same as a defense, but it will give him a moment of advantage in which to improve his position.

As to the announcement that one is carrying and the potential for that making one into a target or guilty of brandishing. I strongly urge people who attend my "Deadly Force Seminar" never, ever, to talk about the gun or to make any kind of verbal threat. What one is doing by such statements is exposing himself as someone who is not going to pull the gun out and use it - if he were going to do something with the gun, he'd have gone ahead and done it. Legally, you can't pull the gun out in the absence of an immediate or imminent threat of serious bodily injury. That was not the case here. The two guys clearly intended an attack, but had not commenced the attack. When they attack, pull the gun out and shoot like you mean it, but until they actually attack, seek strategic advantage.

user said:

<snip> The point of speaking first, in a firm and confident voice, while making eye contact, was to communicate the "I'm a bigger dog than you are" kind of confidence. That thing of "engaging the potential victim in conversation" works both ways. In my mind, it can be used to create the feeling in the mind of the proposed assailant that the potential victim thoroughly intends to rip his arms off and beat him over the head with his own arms. That is not the same as a defense, but it will give him a moment of advantage in which to improve his position. <snip>

Click to expand...

Yes I will agree with this ! Just the original "How yall doing this evening?" Was a question where instead I would bark a command to back off so they knew I wasn't politely trying to engage them in conversation.

I think the OP friend did a bang up job AND it worked.

user said:

In the OP's example, the gun was never displayed, so there is no possibility of a brandishing charge in that case.

As to the OP's issue and my immediate response, although I didn't say so, I was picturing the "buddy" making eye contact with one of the assailants and moving to the outside of that person's field of vision as he did so; i.e., if he was approaching the guy to his left, the he should move to his left, circling around to the outside and putting the two guys in a line with each other and creating more distance between himself and the other guy. The point of speaking first, in a firm and confident voice, while making eye contact, was to communicate the "I'm a bigger dog than you are" kind of confidence. That thing of "engaging the potential victim in conversation" works both ways. In my mind, it can be used to create the feeling in the mind of the proposed assailant that the potential victim thoroughly intends to rip his arms off and beat him over the head with his own arms. That is not the same as a defense, but it will give him a moment of advantage in which to improve his position.

As to the announcement that one is carrying and the potential for that making one into a target or guilty of brandishing. I strongly urge people who attend my "Deadly Force Seminar" never, ever, to talk about the gun or to make any kind of verbal threat. What one is doing by such statements is exposing himself as someone who is not going to pull the gun out and use it - if he were going to do something with the gun, he'd have gone ahead and done it. Legally, you can't pull the gun out in the absence of an immediate or imminent threat of serious bodily injury. That was not the case here. The two guys clearly intended an attack, but had not commenced the attack. When they attack, pull the gun out and shoot like you mean it, but until they actually attack, seek strategic advantage.

Click to expand...

Confirms my position/opinion - appreciate it.

Agent19 said:

The "doctrine of competing harms" and the "doctrine of necessity."
Put very simply, you are allowed to break the law (in this instance: brandish), in the rare circumstances where following the law (i.e. not brandishing) would cause more injury to you or other innocent humans than would breaking it.

Click to expand...

That's written into the maritime collision regulations. It's the only set of rules I know of that says in essence, "if the only way to avoid a collision is to break a rule, break the rule". I think that's pretty cool.

xd shooter said:

Again, if he felt that self defense was justified, he should have pulled his gun.

Click to expand...

There are many levels to self-defense. You don't have to jump right to the strongest one.
(To a little kid with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)

Being assertive ("Stay away!", with eye contact & maybe a 'stop' hand) would be a good start once they started moving in for the attack.
If they kept coming I'd put a hand on the grip & repeat the warning to stay away.
Then comes drawing, then pointing it at the closest one, with two more warnings to leave me alone.
Probably by then they would figure out they made an error in the victim selection process.
They leave, I go inside & call police to report an attempted assault / robbery.

And yes, as the situation was described I'm sure the guy was being set up for an attack.
At least, if I were in that situation, reasonable person that I am, I would be in fear for my bodily safety.