Would I be lawfully able to draw my ccw in this situation?
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

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

  1. Would I be lawfully able to draw my ccw in this situation?

    I am a fairly small person 5'7, skinny, bout 125 pounds. If I was physically attacked by one or 2 persons significantly bigger than myself, say the attackers are not armed with any weapons but their own means of brutality (fists, kicks) I wouldn't ever want to draw my pistol on anyone without a weapon, but I'm not a good fighter. Like what if while I was getting beat up they saw I carried and could grab my gun and use it against me. My question is would i lawfully be able to use my firearm in a situation such as this?

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,253
    First, understand your state's deadly force law. Second, if there is a disparity of force to the extent that you are in fear of death or serious bodily harm, then you normally can respond with deadly force even though the attacker does not have a weapon. Watch this video: James Yeager - Lethal Force and Hand-to-Hand Combat.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819
    Bofh is right about it varying from state to state, but generally-speaking, the standard is state of mind of a "reasonable person" rather than actual, tangible evidence (such as the presence of a weapon by your assailant) for when use of deadly force is authorized. Witness the case of George Zimmerman. FL has a strong Stand Your Ground law. It was determined by the cops the night of the incident that his use of deadly force fell within the parameters of that law, and he was released. After the hoopla arose and the state's AG got involved, Zimmerman's attorneys chose not to go to a SYG hearing, where, had Zimmerman prevailed, there never would've been a trial. The "reasonable person" standard for being in fear for one's life can come from having one's head bashed against a wall or a concrete sidewalk or punched, kicked or stomped just as assuredly as staring down the barrel of a gun can invoke the same reasonable fear. Most states' laws recognize that these calculations are made in the heat of battle and attempt to balance (to one degree or another) between the human instinct for survival against law that provides for public safety. Like Zimmerman, it may take a jury trial to impose which side is weighted more heavily on the balancing scale, but whether it be a decision by the cop on the street or the local prosecutor evaluating pursuing charges or the jury at the end of a trial, the reasonable person standard is always (supposed to be) employed throughout their determination process in every jurisdiction that I've ever looked into in this country.

    Bottom line, you will always have to justify the use of a gun as an act of self-defense. If you can't get to self-defense through the reasonable person standard, whatever that means to the people you're trying to justify your actions to, then you're most likely not going to fare too well. In other words, there is no absolute correct answer to your question. And jurisdiction definitely has meaning. In most states, even in 1984, Bernard Goetz never would've faced trial for the shooting he was involved in, but in NYC, he went to trial for charges ranging from attempted murder at the top, to several weapons charges at the bottom, only one of which of the latter was he convicted on. He spent 8 months of a one-year sentence in prison on that one charge, and was subsequently financially ruined when one of the survivors sued him and won a judgment of $43 million. Shooting someone, even when reasonable people would have done the same thing, is always a crap-shoot. Sometimes you'll win, and sometimes you'll lose, and I am talking about the legal battle that may ensue after the fact, not the battle for your life that you presumably believed you were in at the time of the shooting.

    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. A big difference in "drawing" your weapon and firing your weapon.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by gfrlaser View Post
    A big difference in "drawing" your weapon and firing your weapon.
    If you would not be justified in immediately firing the gun, then you should not be drawing it. Drawing the gun with an intention to intimidate in circumstances other than self-defense that would warrant immediately firing the gun in self-defense is, in most states, illegal. I would like to see a citation to a justification in any state that allows only drawing or pointing a firearm in self defense when shooting in self defense would be illegal. Although, I suppose, in a duty to retreat state one could say they drew their gun while attempting to escape as a precaution should a safe escape become impossible.

    To the OP - depends a lot on the state you would be located in - which you have failed to provide.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,482
    Most States state "that you are in fear of death or serious bodily harm" you can use deadly force. I add that the burden of proof will very greatly in the jurisdiction the event occurred in.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Midwest City, Oklahoma
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    If you would not be justified in immediately firing the gun, then you should not be drawing it. Drawing the gun with an intention to intimidate in circumstances other than self-defense that would warrant immediately firing the gun in self-defense is, in most states, illegal. I would like to see a citation to a justification in any state that allows only drawing or pointing a firearm in self defense when shooting in self defense would be illegal. Although, I suppose, in a duty to retreat state one could say they drew their gun while attempting to escape as a precaution should a safe escape become impossible.

    To the OP - depends a lot on the state you would be located in - which you have failed to provide.
    In most states the use of a weapon for self defense is justified to stop the threat. If simply drawing a weapon cause the assailant to retreat and the threat has ended, there is nothing illegal with that. But like others have said, you need to know your state laws and the laws of any state you plan on carrying in.

    Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

  9. #8
    JJaggar,
    Suggest you check laws in your state. Opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one. You are talking about a very serious subject. There no room for error or speculation. his is something that will affect you, your family, the attacker, and their families. Like I say, no room for error. With your permit comes a lot of responsibility.

  10. Thanks for the responses everyone. I would never draw my firearm if I didn't intend to use it, and my state is VA.

  11. #10
    Have you thought about training in the martial arts? In the scenario you described, I have no doubt that my superior hand to hand skill would take down two punks in the blink of an eye.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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