Would I be lawfully able to draw my ccw in this situation? - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Would I be lawfully able to draw my ccw in this situation?

  1. Sometimes going from concealed to open carry is all a couple thugs need to see, to change their mind about messing with you. Assuming you live in a state that doesn't consider that brandishing.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Nacelle View Post
    Sometimes going from concealed to open carry is all a couple thugs need to see, to change their mind about messing with you. Assuming you live in a state that doesn't consider that brandishing.
    Good luck with that.

    In the state of Tennessee, you would be committing an aggravated assault, unless you were justified in using lethal force (by being in fear of death or great bodily harm). It is a class C felony and is punishable by 3-15 years depending on your criminal history. See TCA 39-13-102.

    USA Carry | What Does Brandishing Mean? And Why You Should Never Do It…
    USA Carry | Brandishing and Improper Exhibition of a Firearm

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,833
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Good luck with that.

    In the state of Tennessee, you would be committing an aggravated assault, unless you were justified in using lethal force (by being in fear of death or great bodily harm). It is a class C felony and is punishable by 3-15 years depending on your criminal history. See TCA 39-13-102.

    USA Carry | What Does Brandishing Mean? And Why You Should Never Do It…
    USA Carry | Brandishing and Improper Exhibition of a Firearm
    I think you missed the point he was making when he mentioned "brandishing." Might want to re-read it. My guess is that he was referring to states like FL used to be where even a very short duration and inadvertent exposure of an otherwise legally carried concealed handgun would get you a brandishing charge, or something very similar to it. FL clarified their laws within the last several years making inadvertent exposures less likely to be charged with anything over, but actually OC'ing will still stick one with that charge.

    I don't think the newb was advocating brandishing in any way.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I think you missed the point he was making when he mentioned "brandishing." Might want to re-read it. My guess is that he was referring to states like FL used to be where even a very short duration and inadvertent exposure of an otherwise legally carried concealed handgun would get you a brandishing charge, or something very similar to it. FL clarified their laws within the last several years making inadvertent exposures less likely to be charged with anything over, but actually OC'ing will still stick one with that charge.

    I don't think the newb was advocating brandishing in any way.

    Blues
    The question is, was the poster advocating for the display of a firearm with the intent to threaten someone or was the poster simply advocating for open carry? Given that the poster was advocating for changing from concealed to open carry when confronted by some thugs made me believe that the intent was to threaten those thugs by displaying the holstered firearm.

    If the plan is to go from concealed to open carry when confronted by some thugs, why not open carry in the first place? Maybe that is what the poster was advocating for?

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,833
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    The question is, was the poster advocating for the display of a firearm with the intent to threaten someone or was the poster simply advocating for open carry? Given that the poster was advocating for changing from concealed to open carry when confronted by some thugs made me believe that the intent was to threaten those thugs by displaying the holstered firearm.

    If the plan is to go from concealed to open carry when confronted by some thugs, why not open carry in the first place? Maybe that is what the poster was advocating for?
    Well, first of all, Nacelle said, "Assuming you live in a state that doesn't consider that brandishing," so there is that acknowledgement already.

    But, if open carry is legal in the jurisdiction being considered, changing from one mode to the other should be legal also without regard to the motivations for changing. I OC for the exact reason you mention. I want to appear as a threat to anyone who would otherwise think me a soft target. I don't like drawing attention to myself except for in that (hopefully) rare instance that a thug will change his mind about me being an easy mark because he became aware before going on the attack that I was packin'. Should my motivations for OC'ing likewise be criminalized just because I didn't go from concealed to open at the very moment I felt threatened?

    It seems your rationale for criticism of the post you were responding to exposes a distinction without any real difference. If the law you cited would apply in such a situation, it would expose the same distinction with no difference as long as OC is legal in the jurisdiction being discussed. It's beyond obvious that whether or not Nacelle was advocating for full-time OC or changing at the moment a threat was perceived, s/he was advocating for OC as a means of deterrent. In jurisdictions where OC is legal, I can think of no reason why a holstered weapon should suddenly and magically turn into a brandished weapon.

    There may be a political (or other kind of) statement to be garnered from open carry demonstrations and such, but those of us who do it every day are trying as hard as we can to give victimizers every chance to understand that we will not be willing victims. Some people, the Mommies for instance, would see our OC'ed weapons and consider them a threat in any and all situations. I know from your postings that you don't believe such tripe, so why does it matter to you if someone advocates for OC in any situation, whether they leave the house that way or change when they perceive a threat?

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Well, first of all, Nacelle said, "Assuming you live in a state that doesn't consider that brandishing," so there is that acknowledgement already.

    But, if open carry is legal in the jurisdiction being considered, changing from one mode to the other should be legal also without regard to the motivations for changing. I OC for the exact reason you mention. I want to appear as a threat to anyone who would otherwise think me a soft target. I don't like drawing attention to myself except for in that (hopefully) rare instance that a thug will change his mind about me being an easy mark because he became aware before going on the attack that I was packin'. Should my motivations for OC'ing likewise be criminalized just because I didn't go from concealed to open at the very moment I felt threatened?

    It seems your rationale for criticism of the post you were responding to exposes a distinction without any real difference. If the law you cited would apply in such a situation, it would expose the same distinction with no difference as long as OC is legal in the jurisdiction being discussed. It's beyond obvious that whether or not Nacelle was advocating for full-time OC or changing at the moment a threat was perceived, s/he was advocating for OC as a means of deterrent. In jurisdictions where OC is legal, I can think of no reason why a holstered weapon should suddenly and magically turn into a brandished weapon.

    There may be a political (or other kind of) statement to be garnered from open carry demonstrations and such, but those of us who do it every day are trying as hard as we can to give victimizers every chance to understand that we will not be willing victims. Some people, the Mommies for instance, would see our OC'ed weapons and consider them a threat in any and all situations. I know from your postings that you don't believe such tripe, so why does it matter to you if someone advocates for OC in any situation, whether they leave the house that way or change when they perceive a threat?

    Blues
    I certainly understand your explanation.

  8. Regardless of laws, if you are certain they intend on attacking you, they are the ones committing a crime. I would think that it's your duty to inform them as to what will happen if they further escalate the situation. It would would be preferable to waiting until the last moment, whipping out your gun, and capping someone. It's also your duty to not let your gun fall into the hands of a bad guy. Getting into a fist fight just because they aren't armed means you could lose your gun during it. Then they could kill you or someone else with.

  9. The central thing to understand in "Disparity of Force" scenarios is this. Disparity of Force situations will very, very often end up in front of a JURY. These kinds of cases are tailor made to be litigated.

    So, the issues for you boil down to how much MONEY do you have? How good is your ATTORNEY? These are the central issues because without money and a good attorney you may very well end up financially ruined even if you win, and imprisoned if you lose. You need to assume that if you go to trial in a disparity of force case (in probably most parts of this country), if the case goes to a jury, everything bad that can happen WILL!

    This is the best argument that there is out there for having some sort of coverage in the event you need to defend yourself with a firearm. U.S.Law Shield, Citizens for Self defense, I believe there are others that offer a support system that is probably very well worth considering.

    I have thought about this issue a lot as I am in the same boat as you. I am a 64 year old man, I weigh 145lbs. and stand 5' 9". Oh yeah, did I mention that I have NEVER been a good runner?

    The police are NOT immune from big time trouble over disparity of force, either. Just check out the recent news:

    Officer Jason Van Dyke vs Laquan McDonald (w/knife)
    Officer Timothy Loehmann vs Tamir Rice (w/airsoft gun)
    Officer Darren Wilson vs Michael Brown (unarmed)

    If the police have problems like this, what chance do you think YOU have?

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,833
    Quote Originally Posted by Paco View Post
    The central thing to understand in "Disparity of Force" scenarios is this. Disparity of Force situations will very, very often end up in front of a JURY. These kinds of cases are tailor made to be litigated.

    So, the issues for you boil down to how much MONEY do you have? How good is your ATTORNEY? These are the central issues because without money and a good attorney you may very well end up financially ruined even if you win, and imprisoned if you lose. You need to assume that if you go to trial in a disparity of force case (in probably most parts of this country), if the case goes to a jury, everything bad that can happen WILL!

    This is the best argument that there is out there for having some sort of coverage in the event you need to defend yourself with a firearm. U.S.Law Shield, Citizens for Self defense, I believe there are others that offer a support system that is probably very well worth considering.

    I have thought about this issue a lot as I am in the same boat as you. I am a 64 year old man, I weigh 145lbs. and stand 5' 9". Oh yeah, did I mention that I have NEVER been a good runner?

    The police are NOT immune from big time trouble over disparity of force, either. Just check out the recent news:

    Officer Jason Van Dyke vs Laquan McDonald (w/knife)
    Officer Timothy Loehmann vs Tamir Rice (w/airsoft gun)
    Officer Darren Wilson vs Michael Brown (unarmed)

    If the police have problems like this, what chance do you think YOU have?
    Jurisdiction matters. There are tons of variables besides the few you mentioned that are either taken by the law as mitigating circumstances, or aggravating circumstances for the same set of facts depending on which jurisdiction the shooting takes place. In a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground state, disparity of force is a minimal consideration in certain places, such as home, business or car. The victim of a car-jacking here in Alabama gets the legal presumption of justified use of deadly force if he fires his weapon to fend off the jacker(s). Same for several felony crimes in a home or business. In a non-Castle Doctrine/SYG state, you may be exactly right how the law looks at the use of deadly force in any and all places a victim may be. You may be wrong too though. With 50 different sets of laws covering hundreds of different crimes in different ways, there are no blanket statements (or applicable warnings) that apply across the board.

    You're of course right though that things can go South in any shooting situation. It's an extension of the schizophrenic way our (in)justice system looks at the Constitution, civil rights generally, and 2nd Amendment rights specifically the way I see it. When I say "schizophrenic," there are lots of examples available to demonstrate what I mean, but let's just look at the Martin/Zimmerman case for a brief moment. Both the cop-shop and the Prosecutor initially declined to seek an indictment against Zimmerman because they put their heads together and concluded that he was justified in shooting Martin under FL's SYG law. A few weeks later, after intervention by the State AG and ridiculous butting-in from the fed, Zimmerman was arrested and charged, and the Chief of Police was driven out. I think technically he resigned, but there were definitely higher-ups putting pressure on him to do it. In the end, Zimmerman, the local Prosecutor and the cop-shop were all proven correct in their initial assessment by an acquittal verdict based on the same principles of defense described in the SYG law. Yes, Zimmerman's financial life will likely never be stable again, and yes, he has since shown a proclivity for drawing further attention to himself since the trial, but the facts as they played out clearly show that the SYG did apply, and should've been left alone after the cop-shop and local Prosecutor first invoked it as their rationale for not seeking an indictment.

    The same kind of schisms can show up here in Alabama I suppose, but most people who choose to carry a gun for protection don't decide to pull the trigger based only on what the law says, and that's true whether the law should shield them from prosecution as in the Zimmerman case, or if their perceptions of being threatened don't comport with local law at that split second when one decides to pull the trigger. In both sets of circumstances, it can go for or against the shooter depending on so many variables that it renders it unrealistic to expect even the most well-trained, well-informed and well-intentioned carrier to go through all the thought-processes you lay out above. As the saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. There's only so much one can do to prepare for that moment, and most of the aftermath will still be out of their hands no matter how well-prepared they were going in.

    Not really disagreeing with you, just trying to take the wide view on the subject. Legally-speaking, it ain't just you and the bad guy that determines the legality or illegality or the rightness or wrongness of a given shooting, or the accuracy/inaccuracy of perceptions that the members of government evaluating the shooting after the fact may bring to the table, and that's true even in jurisdictions like the one I live in where black letter law gives us much wider latitude than the vast majority of other states do. Pulling the trigger is always a crap-shoot (no pun intended). If one worries about it beyond making themselves as well-informed as they can realistically be, they're going to hesitate at the critical moment and get themselves killed.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  11. Your use of the word “schizophrenic” is an excellent choice of words. And this IS the problem.

    I am very aware that laws are different in different jurisdictions so lets just talk about here in PA.

    In PA, if you kill an assailant in self-defense you have just committed, “Voluntary manslaughter”. This is a felony level crime. And by claiming self-defense, you have just ADMITTED that you are guilty of the felony crime of voluntary manslaughter.
    From here, your defense rests upon the, “totality of the circumstances”; you had no choice (you were “Justified”) because failure to do as you did would have resulted in your death or severe bodily injury.

    In other words, the burden of proof shifts from the State to YOU as being the one who needs to prove necessity for your actions under the law. The standard you must meet is subjective. It is the, "Reasonable person standard", meaning; would a reasonable person, had they been in your situation, would they have done the same thing? NOT, "Did YOU think your actions were reasonable?" But, would OTHER people think your actions were reasonable?
    (This, by the way, is exactly why one generally will only get oneself deeper and deeper into trouble the more one talks about the incident with the police).

    If you add to this fundamental legal conundrum, “Disparity of Force”, then your burden of convincing anyone of the necessity for your actions easily becomes a very, very steep hill to climb.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast