Brandishing on Private Property

This may have been mentioned before, but I could not find anything about it in the search. But what are the laws concerning brandishing on private property? For example, a while ago there were several gang-banging teenagers who were hesitant to leave my property after several warnings. I also had some outdoor items stolen a few nights ago. I don't want to call the police on these kids because they obviously know where I live, and I've already been shot at once for stopping a home invasion, so I know they have deadly potential.

However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in...

Excusable or justifiable self-defense.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-282

I would not suggest so much "brandishing" as wearing openly and making sure the bangers see it. They will get the idea.

well,,,

"Get off my lawn"!

in my state, on my property, I can draw, point, twirl, threaten, anytime and anyone I want!

you dont want to call the cops, on guys that try home invasion, and shoot at you?

you got more concerns than the legality of brandishing!

Oh I did have the cops there after the invasion/shooting, but not since they were trespassing. I live on several acres of woods, so they like to go back there and conspire or whatever they do, including building fires, which I'm not keen of. I even found a stash of guns once! Turned them in of course.
So walking outside with my shotgun would not be excusable? Or is that considered open carry? The neighbors can't see me, but if the shadowy figures decide to call the cops on ME for having a gun, I would get in trouble?

I would suggest against leaving the safety of your home to go outside and confront trespassers with a gun. Remember too, you cannont use deadly force to protect property in Virginia.

You may want to speak to one of the fine attorneys that we have around here to get their advice.

I'd personally inform those turds they are trespassing (DVR/CCTV running) and call the police everytime they return.
Like someone else stated you have bigger issues than worrying about brandishing.
Good Luck!


If you have enough property to legally shoot consider posting no trepasssing/ bullet impact zone signs.
Invite a dozen or so friends over for a friendly shoot.

Kg4usk, I don't have as much property as you, but I always carry, usually OC around the house (outside, weather permitting).

I have had several encounters with strangers who came into my yard without an obvious purpose, but didn't cause any trouble, as I suspect they saw my (holstered) firearm. Once, a person knocked on my door, another walked up my driveway as I was pulling my truck into the garage. In each instance, they left peaceably after I spoke with them, and I notified the police.

Yeah I will definitely use my better judgement when it comes to these things. I was just wondering the legality of having a firearm in my hands when confronting stubborn trespassers. The cops can't really do anything about the issue and signs just get torn down in a couple days. It's just a bunch of teenage gangsters who find strength in numbers. I've talked to one and he was all "cool cool, I'll leave". Get a few together and it turns into "you can't tell me what to do, I got people on all deez streets". Oh the joy of living in the city

Be cautious

I’m by no means a lawyer, but my laymen’s understanding of the law tells me that brandishing still applies on private property. A murder is still a murder regardless of public or private property, most laws (emphasis on “most”) don’t recognize a distinction between public and private land.

There is a proviso that you can brandish if you are engaged in “excusable” or “justifiable” self defense, however what may be justifiable to you and I may differ to a magistrate or jury. I’d have it quite visible on your belt when confronting the ragamuffins, however having it in your hand without some qualifying condition to illicit immediate fear of grievous bodily injury and/or death may land you in the klink.

No a sermon, just a thought.

The problem as I see it is that you're intimidated by these kids and want to turn the tables.

That's a bad plan, legal or not.

Your gun is a tool of last resort. You have it to save your life, not frighten people.

If you brandish it long enough, someone's going to take you up on it.
Then one of several things are going to happen.

1. You have to kill him and hope it's justified.

2. He takes your gun and you hope he doesn't use it on you.

3. You run and forever have a "KICK ME" sign on your back.

If you can't handle them, call a cop.

Then again, I couldn't recommend confronting anyone whom you have a reason to distrust while disarmed.

It sounds like you've got enough property for the "in a public place" clause to not apply to your particular circumstances.

t33j said:

Then again, I couldn't recommend confronting anyone whom you have a reason to distrust while disarmed.

It sounds like you've got enough property for the "in a public place" clause to not apply to your particular circumstances.

Click to expand...

No, and I wouldn't either.
There is a world of difference between being armed and Brandishing though....except in Surry:uhoh:

peter nap said:

The problem as I see it is that you're intimidated by these kids and want to turn the tables.

That's a bad plan, legal or not.

Your gun is a tool of last resort. You have it to save your life, not frighten people.

If you brandish it long enough, someone's going to take you up on it.
Then one of several things are going to happen.

1. You have to kill him and hope it's justified.

2. He takes your gun and you hope he doesn't use it on you.

3. You run and forever have a "KICK ME" sign on your back.

If you can't handle them, call a cop.

Click to expand...

I agree with Peter, but it might be better to rely upon a big dog than the Po-Po. Many sewer rats fear dogs more than po-po.

Brandishing on private property is brandishing. Just like possession of cocaine on private property is possession of cocaine. The essence of the offense is the intention of creating the apprehension in the mind of another person that he's likely to be seriously injured. It's a good basis for the self-defense rule when the unrulies have to defend themselves in court for why they shot you dead. Defense of "mere property interests" is not self-defense and gives no right to use deadly force.

Now, if you happen to be armed, and engaging in conversation with the unrulies, and one or more of them does something that gives you a good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent third party (you can't have started the problem and still be "innocent") is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, then the use of such force as may be reasonable, up to and including deadly force, is excusable.

Consider Charles Bronson's character in one of the "Death Wish" sequels: He buys a cheap used car and installs an expensive radio in it. While he's at dinner, the unrulies begin to steal the radio. He goes outside to see what's going on, and asks them, "Hey, what's the problem?"
"whut?";
"I said, what's the problem?";
"What's it to you, suckah?";
"It's my car!";
"Now you gonna die!" (pulling out a dangerous looking knife and approaching with evil intent);
At this point, the protagonist reasonably perceives, and forms the good faith belief, that he is faced with the threat of serious bodily injury. He did absolutely nothing to start a fight, and only asked questions about why the unrulies were in his car. He pulls out his Model 29 or some such enormous revolver and goes, "Blam, blam."

I'm not sure he should have shot the second guy.

Thundar said:

I agree with Peter, but it might be better to rely upon a big dog than the Po-Po. Many sewer rats fear dogs more than po-po.

Click to expand...

1+

But the dogs don't have to be big just capable of handling the situation, the shelter probably has some less than friendly k-9's that need a good home, one is good, two is better and three would be ideal.

Okay I understand. I am somewhat intimidated by these kids because there's a good possibility they have arms or access to them, and in my mind an unruly kid/teen with a gun is a scary thought. I'm also more or less just tired of all the city scum around here.
Now, is brandishing in your own home different? .. say if a B&E were to occur.
And, can you legally hold someone at gunpoint in certain circumstances? Not saying it would be a good idea, but I'm just curious.

Think of the self-defense exception to the brandishing statute as your get-out-of-jail-free card for the time when you've decided you need to kill another human being for good and lawful reasons, and you take all the steps necessary to accomplish that goal except pull the trigger. Then you decide your initial perception was in error, and you re-holster the gun without shooting. Point is, you're not required to kill someone even if you had the requisite "good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent third party is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury". You can, and should, avoid shooting where you can see you made a mistake that changes your perception of things (e.g., it's not a burglar, it's the Alzheimer's patient from across the street who wandered into the wrong house at 2:00 a.m. by mistake).

That's the only situation, in my mind, to which that exception applies.

If you are a cop and you have to control people in the crack house at midnight while your colleagues are executing a search warrant, then, yes, you can hold the gun on people for the purpose of intimidation (though it would be illegal to shoot them unless they did something that threatened serious bodily injury).

Any other attempt at intimidating, coercing, or controlling other people using a dangerous weapon (e.g., crowbar, tire-iron, etc.) is illegal. Notwithstanding movies to the contrary, pulling a gun out does not make you the boss, it makes you the target. You may, however, use such force as may be reasonably necessary to remove trespassers from your property, and if they resist, you may escalate as necessary; if they threaten serious bodily injury, then deadly force is legally excusable - but that's the self-defense rule at that point, not the self-help rule for dealing with trespassers.

I think it would be funny if you were to photograph these "unrulies", find out who they are, and file a civil suit against them for damages and an injunction. They wouldn't have a clue how to deal with that. And when you get your injunction awarded on your decree pro confesso (told you they wouldn't have a clue), and they continue trespassing, at that point you file a motion for a rule to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. Two or three of those on the same person can and likely will result in jail time, even though it's a civil suit.

Agent19 said:

1+

But the dogs don't have to be big just capable of handling the situation, the shelter probably has some less than friendly k-9's that need a good home, one is good, two is better and three would be ideal.

Click to expand...

I agree with having big dogs, or at least big enough to intimidate. A dog that is territorial and more than 75 pounds will keep most people off of your property.

Posting a few small signs might be a subtle approach.

Brandishing on your property at someone off your property (as 'in the street') would not, imo, be legal or supportable.

I carry, basically for the types of situations where otherwise I'd be cowering waiting to die trapped in the back of a 7-11 during a strong arm robbery where the perps are executing witnesses. All other type cases, from car jacking to mugging I would do everything possible NOT to deploy/shoot, including give up my property.

Even a home invasion if you can chase them out, or scare them away (like the mp3 of a shotgun racking ploy) then no shooting needed.

$.02