...Brandishing a firearm would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that imminent death or great bodily harm was present, and an active threat. Jeopardy/Intent is satisfied by brandishing a weapon at someone. Actions convey intent...
Lets not change things as we go along. Its hard enough to follow without it. We've been talking about merely drawing the firearm, "which is at most brandishing." No mention yet of brandishing
at someone. Two different things there. We've been talking about the draw
being brandishing, not drawing and then brandishing
at someone.
I don't agree that brandishing a firearm would give a reasonable and prudent person the idea that imminent death or great bodily harm was present. It would certainly ratchet up the seriousness. But, if brandishing justified lethal force, there would be a lot more dead threatened-suicides. Any gun or knife held in the hand as an intimidation factor (for want of a better word) would be justification for police to shoot. Every time. Yet, we've seen numerous videos where police didn't shoot the suicide-threat, or the bad guy who only brandishes. Plenty where he was shot once his brandishing got around to brandishing
at the cops, though. But, there are plenty where he wasn't shot while brandishing, but not pointing at anybody.
One element of the video that supports my idea that brandishing is not enough is the simple fact that he did not start shooting the moment the gun was drawn. The fact he did not start shooting right after the draw is proof that the intent
was not present. He clearly intended not to shoot, otherwise he would have started shooting.
Another aspect of this is
time. In that sort of situation, by the time we start to react to the draw, the moment has already passed on to the point where it is obvious he is not shooting.
At the moment of the draw, about all one can say is that he
might intend to start shooting later, but we don't know that, yet. And if he
might start shooting later, it necessarily means that he
might not.
So, we cannot say injury or death to the innocent is imminent, because we cannot say the intent exists.
Is it prudent to shoot him at the instant he drew? I'll say its the safest thing to do; but I still can't see it being justified. As I mentioned earlier, the only thing I can see is drawing our own weapon while moving to cover, and ordering him to drop his. I can even see pointing our gun at him, safety off, even. But, not shooting just because he drew in a school board meeting, just after finishing spraying a "V" on the wall.
