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

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

There have been several times when I have been in my car and something has happened where in "normal" situations, I might have reacted aggressively... except for those times when I am carrying, which is nearly always. I just bite my tongue and continue on my way, leaving the idiot to fume at air and space. If, on the other hand, he decides to escalate the confrontation, then that might open up a whole different scenario. But that has yet to happen.

When one carries, one must do whatever they can to continue to wear the vale of innocence until one can no longer do so. Then act and act decisively.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

cREbralFIX wrote:

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.

Not always true. A man was charged with brandishing a while back when while at a VRE station he got into a verbal confrontation with another man, and the first man unbuttoned his jacket to ensure easy access to a firearm that was never revealed. It was in a VA Alert, but I'm not certain what the resolution of the case was, and of course nobody knows what really happened that day other than what one party has said.

Point being if the other guy thinks you have a gun, and the police later find out you did have one, you could wind up getting arrested depending on whose story the officer believes.

 

[Prophet]

imported post

There is some good dialogue going on here and that is a good thing. But let me paint a picture in your minds eye if you will indulge me.

Try...very hard...to imagine if bubb DIDN'T draw his weapon. The road rager either puches through the window, or uses that Res Q device, or opens the door and either slams Bubb on the ground. Before Bubb can draw his weapon the Road Rager puts a solid boot with full force directly on Bubb's windpipe and he dies. Or when the RR breaks the widow he pulls Bubb so his neck is over the now open window and drops with full force to the ground with Bubb's head in tow so that he breaks his neck on the door.

Now, Bubb is dead. Someone herepoststhe new article here.In the article it says Bubb had a firearm but didn't draw it and use it to save his life. What do you think the conversation would be? I think nearly ALL ofus would probably have said that he should have drawn when the guy was rushing, yelling and screaming in the middle of the road at thestop light.

But guess what...we don't have to have that conjecture. Bubb drew and the aforementioned incident didn'toccur. The Brady Campaign and all the gun grabbing leftistwhackos usestats that onlydictate crime that occurs...it hardly ever includescrimes that are prevented. If you have to be getting beaten to death before you can draw yourweapon, than Virginia is not nearly asfree a state as I was led to believe.

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

Prophet wrote:

There is some good dialogue going on here and that is a good thing. But let me paint a picture in your minds eye if you will indulge me.

Try...very hard...to imagine if bubb DIDN'T draw his weapon. The road rager either puches through the window, or uses that Res Q device, or opens the door and either slams Bubb on the ground. Before Bubb can draw his weapon the Road Rager puts a solid boot with full force directly on Bubb's windpipe and he dies. Or when the RR breaks the widow he pulls Bubb so his neck is over the now open window and drops with full force to the ground with Bubb's head in tow so that he breaks his neck on the door.

Now, Bubb is dead. Someone herepoststhe new article here.In the article it says Bubb had a firearm but didn't draw it and use it to save his life. What do you think the conversation would be? I think nearly ALL ofus would probably have said that he should have drawn when the guy was rushing, yelling and screaming in the middle of the road at thestop light.

But guess what...we don't have to have that conjecture. Bubb drew and the aforementioned incident didn'toccur. The Brady Campaign and all the gun grabbing leftistwhackos usestats that onlydictate crime that occurs...it hardly ever includescrimes that are prevented. If you have to be getting beaten to death before you can draw yourweapon, than Virginia is not nearly asfree a state as I was led to believe.

Good point and one which needs to be addressed by someone with greater knowledge than myself. However, it is my understanding that the victim's perception of grave danger and/or serious bodily harm is what dictates his use of deadly force. This gets us into the arena of what constitutes serious bodily harm and/or grave danger to one's self.

I have a DVD entitled, "Deadly Force: Firearms, Self Defense, and the law". In it, a lawyer with extensive experience in the very area in California is interviewed and this question is raised. He states that serious/grave bodily harm can include lacerations and broken bones among other injuries. Now these types of injuries can most certainly result from a beating, so your question or "If you have to be getting beaten to death before you can draw yourweapon' is certainly a valid one. And according to this lawyer, the answer would be no.. you do not have to wait around until the beating has commenced. Your fear of such a thing would justify your use of deadly force. Still, there is the ever-present possibility that an over zealous prosecutor or a liberal leaning jury might see things differently.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

The only argument I keep hearing that that you are justified at the thought that the guy "might" attack you.

If that was the standard... you could pretty much pull your gun onanyone you like while they show no physical intent to cause you any harm.

So if that is the standard... how would it play out if the police walked up with guns drawn to every traffic stop? I can easily articulate how the person in the vehicle might cause me harm based on all the traffic stops that have gone bad.

I am confident 99.9% of the members would say that this is excessive!! The driver has not done anything to make you believe he isgoing toharmyou.

How about when the police feel that you are a threat and instead of drawing down on you... you disarmyou. Oh My!!!! You have no valid reason to believe they will harm you and the cop needs to deal with it till youdo something.

Seems odd to me that this is how things have played out on this board over time.

It is OK for citizens to pull their guns at the thought of a threat but the police must wait till a threat has been presented. The police drawing their guns is "excessive force!"

Does any of this ring a bell at all? We have all read it here time and time again.

I understand that you do not need toget ya beating before you can draw down... But I personally feel that you are going to need just a little more than... a guy was yelling and screaming at me.

And I have been dispatched to MANY calls where one citizen was doing this to another and it is very rare for a fight to actually break out. Often times... they are blowing off steam. For many people.. they are just going to whoop your ass and not talk about it.

But the majority in this thread feel it is OK to flash a gun to prevent when they feel may be a future problem.

Guys... you are asking for trouble if you think this is the acceptable standard. It certainly may work for some of you.... But you can see from the membership... you do not have 100% backing you and these guys have guns too. Imagine the judge, jury, and citizens who do not own a gun. How do you think THEY will decide if that time came?

Enough said.... We can agree to disagree. I you get charged... do not drop the soap!! :lol:

 

[PT111]

imported post

Either supportive or not I am willing to bet $50 that if BUB had been the attacker and told the story from his point of view that those that are now supporting him would still be supporting him and calling the driver that pulled the gun all kinds of names.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=11286&forum_id=55

This case was similar to Lonnie Wilson's but reversed and now he has a fund going to sue half of America because he didn't have his gun with him to fend off the crazy driver.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

wow, this is one messed up situation in general.

now for my 2 cents to be thrown in.

First, either way you go, there was no one "right" and no one "wrong. Both parties made errors, and both parties were wrong.

first off, the way I see it, the OP was, by his own admission, wrong due to his driving. party 2 was wrong in his action to get out of the car and proceed to try to go mortal Kombat on him in the middle of Rush hour traffic.

In this situation, there was no "right" person. Would I have pulled my gun on party 2? I can't say that, as I wasn't there. had I seen him coming, I probably would have drove off had I had the ability. If I didn't have that option, I'd have probably grabbed my pistol and aimed for the middle of his eyes, and waited till he either made a move or left. Of course I may also have just bowed up, opened the door and went ape snot on him. there is just absolutely no way of knowing.

right or wrong, what the police officers said was the law, and they were just enforcing that law. The Law sometimes just isn't adequate. Most laws are made after an incident occurs, not pre-emptively. That's why most laws have someone's name attached to them. Had you gone to jail for it, I'd have gotten my lawyer to show case after case, after case of Road Rage homicides, and hopefully had them admitted into evidence. I'd have petitioned for teh State to change the brandishing laws, I'd have done something.

of course, we can't blame the cops, they were merely enforcing the law, as it is written. That's what we always gripe about, is cops "making up the rules" or not knowing the rules. When they are actually enforcing those rules, they are doing their job.

Sad part is, there is no way for us to know exactly what's gonna hapen. for all we know, the guy may have drug Bubb out of the car, walked a mudhole in him, and then left. he could have also just as easily pulled his carry after he had him on the ground and put holes completely through him. As a permit holder, we'd expect him to have better sense than that, of course as a permit holder, we'd also expect him not to step out of his car acting like Billy bad-*** too.


bottom line is, both parties were at fault here, and there is no way that any of us should be able to support either person, as both parties were wrong.

 

[PT111]

imported post

Most laws are made after an incident occurs, not pre-emptively. That's why most laws have someone's name attached to them

That is a little know fact that is so true. At a company I once worked at we had a safety manual about 100 pages thick. The Safety Director once said "Every rule in this safety manual is due to an accident that someone had". Sometimes bad laws get passed due to overreaction to an incident or a misunderstanding of it. But there isn't a single law that I know of that wasn't a result of someone's action involving that law. When Cain murdered Able there wasn't a law against murder or at least he didn't know there was.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Either supportive or not I am willing to bet $50 that if BUB had been the attacker and told the story from his point of view that those that are now supporting him would still be supporting him and calling the driver that pulled the gun all kinds of names.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=11286&forum_id=55

This case was similar to Lonnie Wilson's but reversed and now he has a fund going to sue half of America because he didn't have his gun with him to fend off the crazy driver.

Uh, no. Had the OP gotten out of his car to go scream at somebody, I'm fairly sure we would all be telling him what an ass he was. Road rage with gesturing and foul language is bad enough, getting out of your car makes you the aggressor, period.

And in Lonnie's incident nobody got out of either car, which is the key part of this incident.

Like I said, I don't necessarily support what the OP did, but it's just not that simple. (The responding cop must have agreed with this, since he didn't charge the OP.) The other guy was clearly acting aggressive and stupid, since he got out of his car. He was clearly looking for a fight.

Was that enough provocation to brandish? Probably not, but you should at least use a more reasonable argument.

The real question here seems to be whether or not the OP had a reason to fear for his life. Many of us think not (you), or aren't sure (me). But angry people charging your car when you can't run is a bad situation to be in. Reginald Denny's famous beating during the King riots of '92 demonstrates that you should never allow yourself to be ripped from your vehicle and beaten. To me, this case would depend on the circumstances.

Also, there is something to be said for the fact that the revelation of the presence of a firearm stopped the aggression with no one being harmed, no punches thrown and no damage to any vehicles. Some people think that all brandishing is wrong, that if you draw somebody has to get shot. I'm not sure I buy that; if you draw and the threat turns his back and runs, that's probably a better outcome for all involved.

 

[emsjeep]

imported post

This totally happened to some poor woman on the other side of the intersection from me today. Guy stops in traffic, parks in the turning lane gets out runs up to the other vehicle and starts pounding on the window and screaming...and all I thought was, wow, wtf do I do if this goes to @#$% by the time my light changes green...some poor womand against this guy...and then I think...@#$%, where is my gun...yeah thats right...in the safe in the trunk of my car, great place for it. Anyway, I hit my siren from across the intersection (unmarked vehicle, I'm a fire officer,so I figured I wouldn't be painting myself as a target)to let him know someone was watching, and maybe think twice about continuingand he got in the car and took off...

5 minutes later I had finished getting gas at the corner Wawa when someone takes the turn too hard and hits 2other cars in exactly the same spot...finished fueling and went to go deal with that.

interesting day.

This was on my way home from the Meleanie Hain's benefit Utah CCW class in Hellertown PA...if you are familiar with such an event, where it was learned, among other things,that car doors dont stop bullets...

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Most laws are made after an incident occurs, not pre-emptively. That's why most laws have someone's name attached to them

"Every rule in this safety manual is due to an accident that someone had".

that's just like the silly little warnings that we see on fan blades "do not stick you hand here, or on preparation H " not to be taken orally"

we laugh, but the sad part is... someone's probably been stupid enough to do it. remember that as you go about your daily life... the guy who you are fixing to **** off may be the guy who took preparation H orally... do you really think he's going to think a situation trough logically?:banghead:

 

[mvpel]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The only argument I keep hearing that that you are justified at the thought that the guy "might" attack you.

If that was the standard... you could pretty much pull your gun onanyone you like while they show no physical intent to cause you any harm.

You must be talking about a different thread.

That's the only explanation I can think of that could account for your apparent belief that a man who jumps out of his car in the middle of the road in a screaming rage and starts coming toward you only "might" attack you, and does not show "physical intent to cause you any harm."

Pick twelve random strangers on the street and describe the scenario, and ask them whether they think the guy was ready to physically harm them, and I think you'd get twelve "yes" answers.

 

[mvpel]

imported post

emsjeep wrote:

This totally happened to some poor woman on the other side of the intersection from me today. Guy stops in traffic, parks in the turning lane gets out runs up to the other vehicle and starts pounding on the window and screaming...and all I thought was, wow, wtf do I do if this goes to @#$% by the time my light changes green...

It had already gone to @#$%. It was already wading knee-deep in the @#$%.

I hope you got the guy's description and plate number, so he can be arrested and charged with assault.

I wonder if LEO would tell that woman that the guy showed no physical intent to cause her harm, since he was only pounding on her window, not her, and screaming, like folks usually do?

 

[holeinhead]

imported post

For me, if a guy was :cuss: and charging my car, I'd be worried, and be getting ready to draw if there was no way to evade. Of course this is me sitting in a chair thinking about this, and not actually being there. Who knows what I'd actually do in that situation.

Thanks for posting that OP. It's something we can all learn from. Right or wrong, you're alive and well, and no one got hurt or charged, and I'm glad for that.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

mvpel wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The only argument I keep hearing that that you are justified at the thought that the guy "might" attack you.

If that was the standard... you could pretty much pull your gun onanyone you like while they show no physical intent to cause you any harm.

You must be talking about a different thread.

That's the only explanation I can think of that could account for your apparent belief that a man who jumps out of his car in the middle of the road in a screaming rage and starts coming toward you only "might" attack you, and does not show "physical intent to cause you any harm."

Pick twelve random strangers on the street and describe the scenario, and ask them whether they think the guy was ready to physically harm them, and I think you'd get twelve "yes" answers.

I did... I talked to several people and they all felt that drawing a gun was a bad option without anything further to indicate a threat of physical harm was pending.

Now you see why YOU cannot carry a gun in school but I can.

You see people screaming and yelling to be a threat. I would not want you drawing your gun down on a bunch of children running at you.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Now you see why YOU cannot carry a gun in school but I can.

I saw your point and agreed with you at least partly, but no I still don't see taht one. we are all still human. I have had a cop draw on me for nothing more than waking up believe it or not, I was there.

Police have been known to screw up worse than citizens have.

 

[Jared]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Now you see why YOU cannot carry a gun in school but I can.

Strictly for the record, mvpel can carry in a school. New Hampshire has only 1 restriction on carrying and schools are not it.

Abill 2 years ago tried to ban school carry but it was laughed out of the General Court.

 

[protector84]

imported post

The problem that I keep seeing here is that people who wish to defend themselves want to use a firearm for that purpose in all cases. Someone once told me that you need to learn how to use your fists before you learn how to use a gun. I don't necessarily agree with that 100% as I haven't had any formal martial arts training and I don't think everyone needs it. However, there was a point to be made. If you cannot handle a verbal threat or a fist fight, how are you going to handle a deadly threat to your life? If you cannot handle a mere verbal confrontation properly, you have no business carrying a firearm.

Self-defense does not involve simply carrying a gun just in case. If that is what you do which appears to be the case with many on this board, you are setting yourself up for a problem. Others have mentioned here statements such as "who has time to decide what weapon to pull" or "who has time to think about what to do if you feel threatened." The truth is if you don't have time to think about your actions before you do them, you have no business carrying a firearm. It is true that things happen so fast but the largest part of self-defense involves using your brain. There is a huge difference between someone who is clearly threatening you with deadly force and someone who might pose a threat.

Take this example: I could be walking to my car at a 7-11 and some gangbanger gives me a menacing stare and I happen to notice and he knows that I notice and behind my back I hear him say "I ought to f*uck that man up." That is a verbal threat which would require me to have my guard up. In such a case, it would likely mean I should create distance, not respond to the person, but be ready in case something happens. Should the person start to approach, I would yell loudly "Back away, I am warning you" and then I would continue to back away creating more distance. No matter how many times this process repeats, I am not justified in pulling the gun. I may be justified in pulling out pepperspray and warning him of its use if he continues to approach and then using it if the warning is not heeded. If the man physically attacks, you are responsible for using only the amount of force necessary to re-create that distance. If he grabs my shirt with one hand and hits me with the other, I would be justified in a few hits and kicks and then I would immediately create more distance. Unless you are actually pinned to the ground or he is trying to take the gun away or he displays a weapon of some kind, you cannot just pull a gun and shoot him. The fact that "he may kill you" doesn't justify it. Anybody could kill anybody without warning but we don't go around pointing guns at anything that moves. Posing a threat and actually threatening are two different things. Honestly, if you don't think you are capable of handling a fist fight, maybe you should just run away and call the police. If you are going to carry a firearm you need to be prepared to handle lower-level threats and if you cannot do that or won't carry the necessary tools for those situations, you really shouldn't be carrying a gun. Going back to the 7-11 example, suppose as soon as you hear the man say the threat, you pull your gun on him and it turns out he has a bluetooth on his ear and was actually talking to someone else and you didn't notice that before. Again, if you don't have time to think about how you are going to respond to situations, you have no business carrying a firearm. Think before you act.

 

[mvpel]

imported post

Police have been known to screw up worse than citizens have.

That's undoubtedly because the police don't have the option of simply avoiding or fleeing violent criminals, they have to seek them out, then confront and subdue them.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Jared wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Now you see why YOU cannot carry a gun in school but I can.

Strictly for the record, mvpel can carry in a school. New Hampshire has only 1 restriction on carrying and schools are not it.

Abill 2 years ago tried to ban school carry but it was laughed out of the General Court.

I am talking about my state where most of us know a law exists.