• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
2a4all said:
.... If you use a shoulder rig, it's much harder to "brandish in place". Mine points backwards, so it might intimidate anyone behind me in the checkout line. Would that be brandishing?

If one of the rules of gun safety is something along the lines of 'never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy' how do those of you who wear something like this justify doing so? I'm not trying to be awkward about this, I'm genuinely curious as to how safe direction and pointing directly at anyone behind you is addressed. I know you're not touching it so it should be impossible for it to go off on its own, but if you do have to draw it then you're touching it while it's pointing at anyone behind you and like 2a4all asks 'could that be brandishing' if it scares the crap out of the innocent bystander it's pointing at as you remove it?
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
If one of the rules of gun safety is something along the lines of 'never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy' how do those of you who wear something like this justify doing so? I'm not trying to be awkward about this, I'm genuinely curious as to how safe direction and pointing directly at anyone behind you is addressed. I know you're not touching it so it should be impossible for it to go off on its own, but if you do have to draw it then you're touching it while it's pointing at anyone behind you and like 2a4all asks 'could that be brandishing' if it scares the crap out of the innocent bystander it's pointing at as you remove it?

That sounds similar to a discussion on cross draw... As you draw you essentially "sweep the crowd" as you bring your sidearm to bear. Way to point in a safe direction! :p
And no, while it may scare them, it "shouldn't" be construed as brandishing. (shouldn't, because we all seem to know LEO's can make "mistakes" ) "Bare fear of the firearm is not enough to... Blah blah blah" I liked one OCers response "scare you? I don't know why, it's not doing anything."

Sent using tapatalk
 
Last edited:

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
Here's a technique that I've found useful.

LEOs are trained to adopt a position called "The Interview Stance" when talking with folks. It's a posture that lets them face the individual while postioning their arms and hands to protect their weapon against an attempt by the contact person to grab it, as well as "knowing where it is". Basically, place both hands in front of you on your belt buckle and let your elbows point outward or sligthly back with your forearm touching your holstered firearm.................


...........This stance might also be useful while wating in the checkout line.............

.

This all sounds very, very familiar. :)
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Sorry, Ed, but I think your BS mater is broken. http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1032714.pdf

I have more I'd like to say but cannot do so for the next few days. I'm sure you all understand.

stay safe.

I seldom disagree with anything you write, Skid, but I think that Ed's BS Meter is more correct than it is wrong in this case. In the case you cited, the appeals court specifically relied on Webster's definition:

“Brandish” means “to exhibit or expose in an ostentatious, shameless, or aggressive manner."

Since OC is legal under Virginia law, the mere existence of an exposed handgun should not (cannot?) be considered to be "ostentatious" or "shameless", leaving us with "aggressive." In the poster's comment (which Ed called BS), he suggested that the mere act of touching any part of the handgun at any time would be considered "aggressive," and thus, "brandishing." While I think that a reasonable person might agree that touching the grip in a non-aggressive way would not be "fear-inducing," I understand that in an age and situation where pointing one's finger at someone might be considered "brandishing" by some, that it behooves us to be mindful of where our hands are.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
and I think you are wrong.. The meter is just fine.. I am sure you will change your tune next week. Ed
Not likely Ed! Brandishing charges are used just like Disorderly Conduct....Something to charge you with when there's nothing else. How do you think a GD case is going to change anything. State law is still vague, Magistrates are still anyone that will take the job and way too many cops are still limber wristed twits who excelled in the Glee Club. Win, lose or draw on Tuesday....Skid still went through hell for nearly a year. If it stops there, they'll all get a good laugh while slapping each other on the back. If you think what really happened has any effect on being charged, Wyche filed a couple of reports and changed his story a couple of times.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Not likely Ed! Brandishing charges are used just like Disorderly Conduct....Something to charge you with when there's nothing else. How do you think a GD case is going to change anything. State law is still vague, Magistrates are still anyone that will take the job and way too many cops are still limber wristed twits who excelled in the Glee Club. Win, lose or draw on Tuesday....Skid still went through hell for nearly a year. If it stops there, they'll all get a good laugh while slapping each other on the back. If you think what really happened has any effect on being charged, Wyche filed a couple of reports and changed his story a couple of times.
+1, Peter.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
So it sort of seems like they (the LEOs in cahoots with the CAs) just throw the brandishing charge up against the wall, just hoping that some of the time it might stick.

Who defines how low the success rate has to go before it becomes prosecutorial misconduct?

Or is there even such a thing?

TFred
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I think the key element of this recent section of this thread is the statutory language about inducing reasonable fear:

18.2-282

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...

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

Merely touching your gun can't possibly always reasonably induce fear. If that were true, lotsa people would be cited at gun ranges. No gun shop could every take a pistol out of the display case.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Two recent appellate decisions have quoted dictionary definitions for the word, "brandish", and I think that's all hogwash, however it is precedent and has effectively changed the law. I think that's the failure of some attorney to properly lead the Court into the correct method of figuring out what the words mean, because of a couple of rules for interpretation of statutes:

1) The legislature is presumed to be competent to write statutes and the words mean what the legislature wrote - one does not look to sources external to a statute to figure out what the words mean (which is why legislative history is not taken into consideration).

2) "Noscitur a sociis" means that when a list of terms is used, such as "point, hold, or brandish", then the specific terms control the general, such that the word, "brandish" means "to brandish in a way that means essentially the same thing as "point" or "hold".

3) "Ejusdem generis" means that when a particular class of terms is enumerated in a statute and general words follow, the general words are restricted in their meaning to a sense analogous to the less general, more particular words.

I think the Court was just plain wrong in Morris v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 127 (2005). It is, however, precedent and is likely to be followed.

Furthermore, the phrase, "to induce fear in the mind of another" doesn't mean what it says, it really means, "to create the apprehension of an immediate battery", according to the Court. Whether a person is brave or timid is irrelant, and the internal emotional response doesn't matter. Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 573 (2002); Huffman v. Commonwealth, 51 Va.App. 469 (2008).

My suggestion is to keep in mind that the law basically gives "just plain folks" a binary choice: you're either in the position where it is necessary and proper to kill another person, or you are not. If you are not, keep your hands off the gun, don't think about the gun, don't make any reference to the gun in any way, and forget about it. If, as, and when it may become necessary to take human life, find cover (or at least concealment), aim carefully, and shoot intentionally and well. Keep in mind that if, between drawing the gun and pulling the trigger, you've made a mistake, you can always stop the process and put the gun away.

Above all, know when that situation is appropriate. Stopping a serious felony (rape, robbery, murder, burglary, or arson) in progress, and self-defense/defense of others are the main things you need to know ("If you have a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent third party is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, then the use of such force as may be necessary up to and including deadly force, is excusable.") I suggest that if you carry a gun, you should memorize that definition and repeat it back to yourself frequently, meditating on each word, as you might do with a religious text.

Remember, "I was in fear for my life", is not an excuse or justification, because your internal emotional state is irrelevant.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
"If you have a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent third party is faced with the imminent threat of serious bodily injury, then the use of such force as may be necessary up to and including deadly force, is excusable."

user - can you provide info on where that quote is found, for reference?

Thanks.
 

Felix

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
186
Location
VA
User, I'm out on the west coast on business so I wasn't able to attend yesterday's trial. I am curious though, what definition of brandishing did the Surry Court end up using for Skid's trial? Did this argument you've made here carry the day or did the judge rely on the more commonly-accepted meaning of brandishing as most laypeople people understand it?
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Judge Zepkin stated his analysis in terms of the traditional two-element test that the Supreme Court has created: first that one has to have actually caused another person some basis for feeling that his life was in danger, and second that the defendant committed some specific act or behavior using a firearm that resulted in the perception of danger. In this case, the judge accepted the Commonwealth's evidence that the complainant felt alarmed, but found that there was no evidence to support the conclusion that Skidmark actually did anything involving a firearm to create that alarm.

The judge distinguished the facts of this case from those of the Morris decision, in which a drunken man made lewd comments to another man's wife in the presence of her husband, and then threatened them both verbally, pulling up his shirt to reveal a flare-gun stuffed into his waistband, and saying something about how he would use it. Judge Zepkin found that the mere fact that Skidmark was openly carrying a firearm had nothing to do with the "ostentatious or shamless display" that characterized the Morris case.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Judge Zepkin stated his analysis in terms of the traditional two-element test that the Supreme Court has created: first that one has to have actually caused another person some basis for feeling that his life was in danger, and second that the defendant committed some specific act or behavior using a firearm that resulted in the perception of danger. In this case, the judge accepted the Commonwealth's evidence that the complainant felt alarmed, but found that there was no evidence to support the conclusion that Skidmark actually did anything involving a firearm to create that alarm.

The judge distinguished the facts of this case from those of the Morris decision, in which a drunken man made lewd comments to another man's wife in the presence of her husband, and then threatened them both verbally, pulling up his shirt to reveal a flare-gun stuffed into his waistband, and saying something about how he would use it. Judge Zepkin found that the mere fact that Skidmark was openly carrying a firearm had nothing to do with the "ostentatious or shamless display" that characterized the Morris case.
And I can't help but note that the complainant is perfectly able to completely fabricate his testimony to the first part, and the whole lot of them together were the cause for the "loss" of any evidence that would have absolutely disproved the second part.

As to the first part again... it's interesting to observe ... again ... that had the complainant actually felt in fear, their actions that day, at the scene, would have been completely different than what really happened.

That should have been enough to prove to the judge that the first part was fabricated as well.

TFred

ETA: Did anyone ask any of these clowns on the stand and under oath why they let Skidmark leave the scene?
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
....

ETA: Did anyone ask any of these clowns on the stand and under oath why they let Skidmark leave the scene?

TFred -

The short answer is that they had no idea of what to charge me with until after they met with the Magistrate and sifted through Chapter 18.2 of the Code of Virginia while I was spening more than 45 more minutes conversing with Sheriff Clayton in the lobby of his department building. (I spent over an hour speaking with Sheriff Clayton about Deputy Hill and how he might avoid a formal complaint about the demand for me to produce "the paperwork" for my handgun, about Deputy Hill demanding to know if I had a CHP while OCing, and Deputy Hill demanding to see my drivers license as proof of identification as opposed to accepting my stating my name and address as being a sufficient response.

The long answer is that by delaying the serving of the charges against me they could instruct the agency serving the paperwork (in this case Chesterfield County PD*) to arrest me instead of issuing a citation, and thus take me through the booking procedure and meeting with the Chesterfield County Magistrate to determine if I could be bailed and if so at what amount. Additionally, they could impose a condition of bail without need for a hearing that even the Chesterfield Magistrate could not alter - that I have no contact with Wyche during the time I was on bond. For those who are not quick on the uptake, it essentially meant that I could not return to the ferry site without running the risk of being accussed of violating a condition of my bond. I'm not positive they were bright enough to figure out every bit of that, but that was the upshot of what they did.

So, we learned a new word today. Can you say "egregious"? I knew you could.

stay safe.

* I'd like to remind everyone that all the members of the Chesterfield PD and Sheriff's Department that I had contact with that afternoon/evening treated me with absolute respect and showed the utmost consideration for my wellbeing and safety. Absolutely nothing they did was other than by-the-book and with as much courtesy and consideration as you would want them to show towards your sainted grandmother, let alone a desperado such as myself. I may not have made any new friends, but certainly neither side gained any new enemies.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Just to add to Users explanation of the Judges decision....Zepkin said Paul was OC'ing which was perfectly legal and Paul argued with Wyche which was also perfectly legal.
 

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Lots of fabrication here

And I can't help but note that the complainant is perfectly able to completely fabricate his testimony to the first part, and the whole lot of them together were the cause for the "loss" of any evidence that would have absolutely disproved the second part.

As to the first part again... it's interesting to observe ... again ... that had the complainant actually felt in fear, their actions that day, at the scene, would have been completely different than what really happened.

That should have been enough to prove to the judge that the first part was fabricated as well.

TFred

ETA: Did anyone ask any of these clowns on the stand and under oath why they let Skidmark leave the scene?

"the complainant" stated under oath that he was “always in fear, but hoped for the best outcome”.

The CA attempted to make the guard look like an Iraqi War veteran, when in fact; he was basically a librarian over there for the department of the Army after he retired as a career Supply Sgt.

Again, my question is if he is “always in fear in any confrontation” as he testified, why is he working an armed “high stress” security post and how did he get to be a “Project Manager” for Securiguard?

This individual (6’, 190 LBS and in excellent health) was in fear of a man (5’6”, 350 LBS in poor health) that walks with a cane and LOOKS LIKE SANTA !

And if he was so in fear for his life, why wasn’t Santa arrested on site???? They have the authority under DCJS regulations and Virginia Code?

Sorry, but in my opinion, he was “coached” as to how to testify and to stress that he was in fear for his life.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
Glad to hear Skidmark's case had a good outcome.

As to the suspected coaching, I'm surprised the lawyer didn't ask the defendant if he was coached in anyway as far as his testimony.
 

Felix

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
186
Location
VA
Glad to hear Skidmark's case had a good outcome.

As to the suspected coaching, I'm surprised the lawyer didn't ask the defendant if he was coached in anyway as far as his testimony.

If someone is already predisposed to shading the truth under oath, would they answer that question truthfully?
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Sorry, but in my opinion, he was “coached” as to how to testify and to stress that he was in fear for his life.

Taz, you know as well as I, that they were ALL coached. Ripley whom I like a great deal, was told to just not answer many questions based on National Security. I was told that Jo Anne Maxwell with the AG's Office was there just to make sure they didn't say the wrong thing (She wore pants BTW. I guess she didn't like the comments about her tight skirt:lol:)

Ripley had testified before and it is in the transcript, that they wiped overwrote the video's every 3 weeks. This time he said "At least 30 days".

Everyone stepped around the fact that Wyche kept changing the details when he filed a new report, and Wyche disputed the date on a report he made thinking it was a secret now when in fact Dan had it in his hand.

I had gotten it from the Clerks office before the judge sealed it so it will also be in the video...legally.

Yes, they were all coached.Now I just have to find out by whom....it sure wasn't Poindexter.
 
Top