Get involved or mind your own?


Pele

VA State CCW Holder!
Suppose you witness a crime in progress.

Some woman in a dark alley getting assaulted. Guy getting the crap beat out of him on the ground by a bunch of thugs.

You're carrying. To what extent can you get involved?

If you yell, "Hey! Stop that!" and they turn their attack towards you, thereby putting you in imminent danger, is that legal justification to brandish?
 

festus

God Bless Our Troops!!!
You need to know the laws

If the act is a forceable felony and grievous injury or death is the logical outcome...at that point it will become a judgement call on the part of the responder. I would yell out something like "I've already dialed 911" and see if there is a change in response of the attackers. If they press on, and it is a felony in progress, I would do every thing in my power to get their attention and try to save the victim. I am not very keen on shooting an unarmed opponent. I would not brandish unless threatened with a lethal threat. The perp would probably not make it 5 feet off the scene in that case.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
Call 911, then do something to get their attention as festus said. Maybe blow a car horn or something and try to drive them away; if they turn on you, then use force. If the State Attorney wants to press charges against me for helping the victim of a violent crime in progress, then let's go for it. I'll be happy to go on a sensationalist news show and make my case. Maybe that old bat Nancy Grace is having a slow week.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Not in FL.

Why not? If they start running toward you and you draw and aim at the perps without firing a shot, and they stop and run away, why would that not be justifiable? You stopped an attack against yourself that would have taken place had you not aimed the gun, and nobody got hurt.
 

HK4U

New member
Texas Penal code.


Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
 

maybejim

Maybejim
If you yell, "Hey! Stop that!" and they turn their attack towards you, thereby putting you in imminent danger, is that legal justification to brandish?

If the attack you witnessed was a threat of severe bodily harm or death, you have a legal justification not only to brandish (legally, I don't think this would be brandish) but to shoot the perpetrators. Obviously if they come after you the same would be true.
 

mot mayhem

New member
Not in FL.

does FL still have the no self defense laws?

A friend of mine in the 80's was brought up on attempted murder charges because he was being attacked, defended himself, & put the guy in a hospital in very critical condition ( he threw his shifter knob @ the guy & it stuck in his head) They said if he had time to unscrew the shifter knob, he had time to get away. Jim said there were 3 of them circling his car w/ weapons. He really didn't have a clean getaway, & would have had to run someone over, which would have led to a similar ending. Jim served a few years.
 
Last edited:

FreedomsAdvocate

New member
Why not? If they start running toward you and you draw and aim at the perps without firing a shot, and they stop and run away, why would that not be justifiable? You stopped an attack against yourself that would have taken place had you not aimed the gun, and nobody got hurt.

Well, according to Gutmacher:

Improper exhibition of a firearm is (FS 790.10) a first degree misdemeanor. It occurs when any person carrying a [...]firearm exhibits it to others in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner -- unless in necessary self-defense
.

Page 187:
...the only time you can use a firearm [...] in self defense is when it is used to stop or prevent a 'forcible felony'. That doesn't mean necessarily firing the weapon -- pointing it may also constitute use....
Page 225 under the use and display of a weapon:
the display of a weapon, without its discharge, is considered the use of 'non-deadly force'.
you have the right to use any reasonable 'non-deadly force' against a misdemeanor.

BUT, you have to get a jury to say you acted 'reasonably'. If you are facing a mandatory 3 year prison sentence for aggravated assault the jury determination of 'reasonable' is critical (or you automatically go to prison.)

Aggravated assault (FS 775.087(2)) is simply a normal assault that includes a 'deadly weapon'. Pointing a gun at someone is by definition aggravated assault, and is punishable by a mandatory 3 year sentence.

So, I guess it all depends on the jury...if you want to chance it. It would also depend on if the person(s) you pointed it at presses charges.
 
Last edited:

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Well, according to Gutmacher:

.

Page 187:
Page 225 under the use and display of a weapon:

BUT, you have to get a jury to say you acted 'reasonably'. If you are facing a mandatory 3 year prison sentence for aggravated assault the jury determination of 'reasonable' is critical (or you automatically go to prison.)

Aggravated assault (FS 775.087(2)) is simply a normal assault that includes a 'deadly weapon'. Pointing a gun at someone is by definition aggravated assault, and is punishable by a mandatory 3 year sentence.

So, I guess it all depends on the jury...if you want to chance it. It would also depend on if the person(s) you pointed it at presses charges.

From your first quote, the key word is IMPROPER. Brandishing to stop a threat can hardly be considered improper display of a firearm.
 

festus

God Bless Our Troops!!!
If your case goes in front of the "wrong" judge...

If your case goes in front of a liberal hug a thug judge, You may be in deep doodoo. You see lately the trend has been to legislate from the bench and it ain't pretty. Utah HAD a female judge that hated guns, hunters and did not think much of God fearing Christians. It took an election to remove her from her throne. By then several people were charged with contempt of court simply because she did not like them or their values. Never mind the fact that the other folks were within the law.

Similar cases have come out of California, Illinios and Colorado that I know of.
 
In Georgia if you or someone else is in imminent danger then it is legal to use deadly force as shown in the following:

a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
In Georgia if you or someone else is in imminent danger then it is legal to use deadly force as shown in the following:

a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The code seems to justify deadly force but is silent on brandishing.
 

Hamster

Hamster
The code seems to justify deadly force but is silent on brandishing.

In the Ga. code , i feel the section "a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force" would cover brandishing as it would fall under threatening.

It all depends on the defination of brandishing and why you were doing it.
 
The code seems to justify deadly force but is silent on brandishing.

If you're talking about someone displaying a weapon as a threat against you, as long as you did not provoke the incident (i.e. trespassing, threatening to kick his but, etc.) this can be seen as a deadly threat. Of course I'm not a lawyer and there's always the chance you may be required to prove you were in imminent danger. This is the chance you take and the reason deadly force should be a last resort.
 

FreedomsAdvocate

New member
From your first quote, the key word is IMPROPER. Brandishing to stop a threat can hardly be considered improper display of a firearm.

IMPROPER was part of the title of the section in the book, too. I don't know that one can depend on that to justify as to its legality: after all, 'shall not be infringed' has been legally ignored and misinterpreted for a while. ;-)

'rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner' is what legally defines 'improper' and is the real criteria by which its legality judged.
 
Last edited:

FreedomsAdvocate

New member
tattendupboy:

After I re-read my reply, I thought it could be taken wrong. Just so that doesn't happen, your statement:

you may be required to prove you were in imminent danger. This is the chance you take and the reason deadly force should be a last resort.

is right on target. I agree completely.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
If your case goes in front of a liberal hug a thug judge, You may be in deep doodoo.
.

I think it's more so the wrong jury than the wrong judge that could do someone in in a situation like this, which is why picking a sympathetic jury is just half the battle.
 

Jaeger

New member
This is just one man's opinion but "carrying" a concealed weapon offers us no protection at all. It is the understanding that we may be placed in the terrible situation where the taking of another's life can occur and our willingness to do so if it does get to that point. Hopefully that burden has been considered by everyone who carries a weapon. I carry a weapon because I've accepted the burden of being willing, if necessary, to use it.

We are not LEO's and we have no obligation to stop a crime in progress but California law allows use of deadly force and homicide (literally the killing of a human) in several instances. Since a holstered weapon worn on the body can't "reasonably" be used in the situations originally posted, drawing the weapon would not be brandishing but would be a logical step between observing and intervening.


CA Penal Code 197

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein
; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,340
Messages
622,573
Members
74,167
Latest member
blammoammo.com
Top