Drew today. I hope that's my last time ever.

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

"This is all assuming that you cannot drive away...I am not condoning the actions of the OP, but getting your ass kicked isn't a viable option because if that weapon gets away from you, you're dead, period, you do everything to avoid that, brandishing or not, it may have just saved your life."

I carry a gun for self defense. That's it's sole purpose. The shelf life on that can of whupp-ass I used to carry expired a long time ago. If necessaryI would 'brandish' (display)to dissuade the attacker along with a verbal warning if there was any doubt that I couldn't do itphysically. Ifthe attackerpersisted...I would shoot them in self defense to STOP the attack. I've had all that 'close combat, martial arts type trainingstuff'... butI was much younger. At this point in life... I will not be laid a hand on. I will not be put in fear for my person or property. That's just the way it will go down. I'm self-aware of that each day I buckle on that gunbelt.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

mvpel wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Read the brandishing code and learn what is allowed.

Excusable or justifiable self-defense is allowed.

So if you want to charge the victim of an attack, you certainly can, Mr. Officer, but you'd need to persuade a jury that a man in a blind rage coming towards you doesn't call for self-defensive actions.

Whoa Nelly!!!! :lol:

Someone standing outside your door yelling at you is NOT the same as someone running full steam in your direction about to play linebacker.

Every situation is going to be different too.

What if a 110 pound kid is screaming and yelling at you and headed in your direction? Do you plan to use justifiable self defense on him be shooting him center mass?

Look at it this way....

Man vs woman

350 pound man vs 165 pound man

6'8" dude vs 5'4"

Weightlifter vs computer nerd

Old frail man vs young buck

You can drive away vs you are stuck behind a car

You can lock a door vs you are out in a field

So many things to toss into the mix.

To cover all events with the same self defense blanket is just dumb!! You cannot have a one size fits all situation.

You, and only you.... can weigh each situation and decide what to do.

Furthermore.... what YOU feel is justified may not be what the public feels is justified.

You may have had options you could havetaken to avoid taking a life.

In closing...

Just because you can... does not always mean you should. The OP knows he screwed up. Learn form his mistake. He put himself out there to let everyone else learn from it.

You do not need to convince me when YOU think you should pull a gun. Save it for a jury of your peers. I can only provided you with things to think about BEFORE you do.

I could have many times off duty. I chose not to. I escaped, everyone lived, I didn't get sued, I still have my job.

Do you see where I am coming from?

 

[PT111]

imported post

One of the requirements for the Castle Doctrine and Stand You Ground is that you must not be at fault for starting the incident. In the OP's case he was at fault for almost killing the fellow with his careless driving.:shock:

 

[emsjeep]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

One of the requirements for the Castle Doctrine and Stand You Ground is that you must not be at fault for starting the incident. In the OP's case he was at fault for almost killing the fellow with his careless driving.:shock:

I don't think this situation is exactly what they meant by that.

My previous comments were based on the assumption that the other guy is of near equal or larger, ie, like I said, someone who could potentially overpower you.

 

[PT111]

imported post

emsjeep wrote:

PT111 wrote:

One of the requirements for the Castle Doctrine and Stand You Ground is that you must not be at fault for starting the incident. In the OP's case he was at fault for almost killing the fellow with his careless driving.:shock:

I don't think this situation is exactly what they meant by that.

My previous comments were based on the assumption that the other guy is of near equal or larger, ie, like I said, someone who could potentially overpower you.

I think it is exactly what they meant by that. You walk by someone and "accidently" knock him over, he gets up cussing you out threatening to whip your butt. You don't have the right to shoot him. You initiated the incident even though unintentionally.

 

[emsjeep]

imported post

How can one pass legislation pertaining to an accident? If you make a mistake you should line up for your violent beating and not complain about it? It was clearly unintentional, the law is intended to prevent someone from baiting a response and then killing the victim of the baiting. If you do something unintentional and then try to vacate the area, and make no attempt to escalate you are not an aggressor. They discussed this in the Florida thread about the guy who kicked the door of the car that later came back to try to run him over and he shot them, his act of contact wasn't deemed to be intentionally escalating the situation and it was an intentional and purposeful act. If you make a genuine mistake and someone wants to take it out of your ass, literally, you have a right to defend yourself.

 

[nickerj1]

imported post

I disagree with almost everyone. The actions were entirely inappropriate. You drew your firearm too early. Especially if the visible weapon is only fists.

 

[emsjeep]

imported post

nickerj1 wrote:

I disagree with almost everyone. The actions were entirely inappropriate. You drew your firearm too early. Especially if the visible weapon is only fists.

I think that was the general consensus...though fists can be just as deadly as a gun the initial response is something we all agreed needed to change, even the OP.

What is important here is that in the future we recognize the potential for the threat to escalate without jumping right to the gun, but while protecting ourselves. Whether that for you is having the gun ready and out of sight or that means going mobile outside the car I think we ALL realize that some amount of action is necessary before resorting to a firearm.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

emsjeep wrote:

nickerj1 wrote:

I disagree with almost everyone. The actions were entirely inappropriate. You drew your firearm too early. Especially if the visible weapon is only fists.

I think that was the general consensus...though fists can be just as deadly as a gun the initial response is something we all agreed needed to change, even the OP.

What is important here is that in the future we recognize the potential for the threat to escalate without jumping right to the gun, but while protecting ourselves. Whether that for you is having the gun ready and out of sight or that means going mobile outside the car I think we ALL realize that some amount of action is necessary before resorting to a firearm.

Agreed... Most everyone feels it was a wrong decision. Only a few believe it was completely justified.

Those people need to be careful!!!

Fists can be used to kill.... but so can a gun in a holster.

In either case... before you deploy deadly force... you should probably wait for them to deploy their weaponto justify your actions.

 

[mvpel]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Do you see where I am coming from?

Yes, but I assumed that I wouldn't have to post a 100-line treatise of disclaimers and exceptions to get my point across.

I would like to think that fellow law-abiding gun owners and defensive-firearm carriers would take everything that you mentioned for granted, and just assume that I wasn't talking about an 110-pound kid threatening a linebacker.

Maybe I should draw up a standard three-page disclaimer when I make posts like that, and tack it on to every one of them in 6-point type, since apparently my assumption about getting the benefit of the doubt from my fellow gun owners so often falls face-first into a puddle of pedantry.

Because that is what you have in the OP's case. There was no threat to him. The guy was yelling and screaming. People do this all the time.

No... no they don't.

Maybe in law enforcement you get a distorted picture of society, just like my mother does working in child support enforcement for county government, that leads you to believe that they do?

If a full-grown man, who obviously should know better, is yelling and screaming obscenities at me, and wants to get close to me badly enough to jump out of his car at a red light in the middle of the street, I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that a physical attack is imminent and that I need to take immediate action to evade and/or prepare to defend myself.

An older guy here in New Hampshire was threatened with a "brandishing" charge by one of the most anti-self-defense police departments in the state when he simply exposed his concealed, holstered handgun when a group of three young thugs with bicycles, who he found in the middle of vandalism and attempted arson of his neighbor's home, started toward him yelling "let's kick his ass."

Would you characterize that situation as "unlawful brandishing," or "victimizing the victim?"

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

mvpel wrote:

Yes, but I assumed that I wouldn't have to post a 100-line treatise of disclaimers and exceptions to get my point across.

A statement so qualified as to be tautologically true is also not falsifiable thus not 'scientific'.

People that write so are more interested in back and forth (a.k.a. trollery) than advancement of an idea. If a concept or statement can't be made in a line or two then it is not well formed or is a lie being hidden.

 

[mvpel]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Agreed... Most everyone feels it was a wrong decision. Only a few believe it was completely justified.

Just because I'm a little bored, I went back through the thread, since it hasn't reached 50 pages yet, and assessed each poster's responses as generally supportive, generally critical, or indeterminate.

The following posters appear to be generally supportive of Bubb's actions in the situation he describes at the top of the thread:

1. Sonora Rebel
2. emsjeep
3. Prophet
4. TechnoWeenie
5. Tomahawk
6. Citizen
7. Robin47
8. Alwayspacking
9. Flyer22
10. longwatch
11. deepdiver
12. jopencarry
13. Dustin
14. nitrovic
15. Jared
    
16. Thundar
    

The following posters appear to be generally critical:

1. tarzan1888
2. protector84
3. VAopencarry
4. Gentleman Ranker
5. PT111
6. nickerj1
7. LEO 229

So, there you have it. Feel free to check my math.

As for "completely justified," well, I doubt you can find any unexpected critical and chaotic situation where anyone feels it unfolded completely flawlessly, and that nothing could have been done differently.

I'd agree that in hindsight, it would have been a good idea to keep the drawn sidearm out of sight of the attacker longer, but only because when it was all said and done, he faced far more serious danger from the police officers than from the attacker.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

Sure does NOT sound like brandishing to me. Inducing reasonable fear is an element. A person holding a firearm inside their own vehicle would not reasonably induce fear in the mind of another. If one was threatening such a person they might then have fear, but the threat would certainly make it justifiable or excuseable to draw and point the weapon.

I avoid the issue by keeping my Sig 229 on the dash in plain sight. Hard to miss. Can't be brandishing if it is always there.

 

[lax]

imported post

If he went for your door handle then it would be easier to justify drawing.

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

mvpel wrote:

Yes, but I assumed that I wouldn't have to post a 100-line treatise of disclaimers and exceptions to get my point across.

A statement so qualified as to be tautologically true is also not falsifiable thus not 'scientific'.

People that write so are more interested in back and forth (a.k.a. trollery) than advancement of an idea.  If a concept or statement can't be made in a line or two then it is not well formed or is a lie being hidden.

"Back and forth" is certainly not "trollery". Your ignorance shines through with statements like the above. Your idea of trollery is called having an adult discussion. The true measure of intelligence (not just book smarts, anybody can read a book that somebody else wrote and recite back what they read. You have proved that time and again) is realizing your position may be wrong and having the humbleness to admit it. Get out there and live your life Dougie, see what the real world is all about. Instead of living in the area of police chiefs and taking their word for how to conduct police business, have the balls to go be a cop and see for yourself. You can do it Dougie (probably not actually, more than likely you couldn't pass the psych test and PT test).

 

[Jared]

imported post

BUBB4H wrote:

No, I don't know if he was carrying or not, and traffic was thick as always during the evening commute. It's definitely been an eye-opener, and for sure I'd do things differently.

I lived in Reston for 5 months on detail. I know the area very well. I also know that near the 267 the traffic lights can take 3 to 5 minutes and you were in a tight spot. I also know that traffic is very heavy in Fairfax, Arlington, Falls Church etc so running the red light could be difficult to impossible.

When I lived there I usually open carried with a handgun on my dashboard. I find this can be beneficial because your not brandishing and the perp may be able to see it. I remember in July I was visiting my uncle in Indianapolis. I had my pistol on the dashboad. He was curious why I did it (supportive but curious). While at a red light, the car in back of had his back window smashed in at a red light by a guy next to him who ran up to his car with a sledgehammer.

I told him that's why I carry on my dashboard from time to time.

Keep in mind though behind a locked door unless he has a weapon, he is not a deadly threat, he may damage your car, but that's the nature of the beast.

Like you said, it's a learning experience, I'm glad nothing came of the incident.

 

[Jared]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Every situation is going to be different too.

I could have many times off duty. I chose not to. I escaped, everyone lived, I didn't get sued, I still have my job.

Do you see where I am coming from?

I find the best rule is the classic....

Means

Opportunity

Intent

While it isn't always that simple as you eluded to. Looking at the situation at hand. Did the road rager have the following three.

Means... unknown, a reasonable person would not get out of a car in traffic and approach someone to yell at them (unless your in Miami Beach )

Opportunity... short of possessing a deadly weapon, a man outside of a locked door simply did not have the opportunity. Kind of like having a guy handcuffed on the ground yelling at you that he's going to kill you, he doesn't have the opportunity to at that moment.

Intent... who knows for sure, perhaps he did have the intent. I would have gone with yes on this one.

Unless all three are present I would have run. Being a Fairfax PD officer, I'm sure you know how heavy the traffic can be and how long the red lights can be. If the traffic permitted, I would have ran the red light.

Like I said before, I'm glad everything turned out ok.

 

[cREbralFIX]

imported post

Compromise people! Compromise!

We understand there is what the law says and there's the context of the culture generated from past events.

In this case, either a COVERT draw or a hand on the CONCEALED gun with a "STOP" motion would have resulted in a READY weapon.

Perhaps the "STOP" motion would have gotten the guy to break off his venting. Either way, people KNOW what it means when one hand is up in the "STOP" motion and the other is at the belt (and concealed).

This is why we carry concealed. There is NO possibility of being charged with "brandishing" if the gun is covered because they don't know what's really there.

And yet, I understand why we open carry. In this situation, he would have not seen your gun hand. Open carry would not have mattered if there was any angle and something obstructing his view.

FPF Training goes over this sort of thing. You may want to look into attending Defensive Handgun Skills 1 (it includes a great refresher on mindset with video examples).

 

[mvpel]

imported post

Jared wrote:

Opportunity... short of possessing a deadly weapon, a man outside of a locked door simply did not have the opportunity.

This is the "Res Q Me." I have a one on my key chain next to my car keys, and gave one to all my family and loved ones.

The black end has a spring-loaded carbide point recessed inside that little hole you can see on the blue one above. You place the black end against the window and push, and the recessed point is pressed back and springs forward, instantly turning any tempered glass window into a pile of shiny gravel.

Using a Res Q Me, which is by no imaginable means a "deadly weapon," a person could have their hands on a driver in a matter of about 1.2 seconds at most.

 

[soloban]

imported post

mvpel wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Agreed... Most everyone feels it was a wrong decision. Only a few believe it was completely justified.

Just because I'm a little bored, I went back through the thread, since it hasn't reached 50 pages yet, and assessed each poster's responses as generally supportive, generally critical, or indeterminate.

The following posters appear to be generally supportive of Bubb's actions in the situation he describes at the top of the thread:

1. Sonora Rebel
2. emsjeep
3. Prophet
4. TechnoWeenie
5. Tomahawk
6. Citizen
7. Robin47
8. Alwayspacking
9. Flyer22
10. longwatch
11. deepdiver
12. jopencarry
13. Dustin
14. nitrovic
15. Jared
    
16. Thundar
    

The following posters appear to be generally critical:

1. tarzan1888
2. protector84
3. VAopencarry
4. Gentleman Ranker
5. PT111
6. nickerj1
7. LEO 229

So, there you have it. Feel free to check my math.

As for "completely justified," well, I doubt you can find any unexpected critical and chaotic situation where anyone feels it unfolded completely flawlessly, and that nothing could have been done differently.

I'd agree that in hindsight, it would have been a good idea to keep the drawn sidearm out of sight of the attacker longer, but only because when it was all said and done, he faced far more serious danger from the police officers than from the attacker.

FWIW my $0.02... you can add me to the supportive list. If someone came running up to car window (even more so on Leesburg or Columbia Pike area), they probably would have been looking down the barrel of my Kahr. That being said, Leesburg Pike isn't the most ideal location to talk on the phone and drive at the same time (can you say Handsfree??)

In one of the concealed carry books I read, I can recall two stories. One was in the Dallas area and involved someone getting cut off in traffic and the road rager chasing down the wrong car. The road rager ended up reaching through the guys open window and beating on the driver. Long story short the driver pulled his pistol and put a 9mm slug into his attacker (attacker survived, and the victim got off eventually). Another story the victim was involved in a traffic accident with his attacker and the victim wanted to call the cops to file a traffic accident report. Turns out the attacker was a parolee with a revoked licence and didn't want to go back to jail. Story ended almost like the last one but the attacker died in the hospital.