| |
| ▲ | eYrKEC2 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In addition to the lost time, you'll have a hard time racking the slide from the adrenaline dump. Also, the bad guys always have first-movers advantage and you're always playing catch up. After watching thousands of violent encounters on John Correia's "Active Self Protection" channel, I agree that round-in-the-chamber is absolutely necessary if you're carrying for self protection. https://www.youtube.com/@ActiveSelfProtection | |
| ▲ | esseph 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most states prevent you from drawing without firing, because it is considered brandishing / threatening. So you either draw and fire and call the police and tell them what happened, or you don't and just... deal with the consequences of whatever happened instead. | | |
| ▲ | eurleif 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >Most states prevent you from drawing without firing, because it is considered brandishing / threatening. I'm not sure how many other states work this way, but in Florida, brandishing is considered non-deadly force as a matter of law[0]. So the standard for self-defense is different between brandishing and firing: deadly force like firing requires a higher degree of threat to be considered justified self-defense[1]. [0] https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/24/loading-and-openly-carr... [1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ... | |
| ▲ | why_at 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I know only an average amount about guns/gun laws (which is to say, not very much), but this seems pretty off to me. If someone is going to attack me with a knife, but then I draw a gun and they run away, surely that's not illegal because I didn't shoot them. | | |
| ▲ | BeetleB 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It'll all come down to: 1. Could you have reasonably escaped? 2. Could you have reasonably de-escalated (or were you the one who escalated to get here)? 3. Can you convince a jury (and the cops) that your life was in danger? If there are no witnesses, this is tough. Typically you're allowed to use deadly force only if you fear loss of life/limb. Yes, yes, plenty of cases where juries ruled in favor of the shooter when there was clearly no risk of loss of life/limb. 4. Do you have the relevant insurance to cover your legal defense costs? If not, you'll likely make a plea deal with the prosecutor even if you were clearly in the right. I would say if the guy lunged at you with a knife and you drew your gun and he ran away, you'll be fine if there are witnesses. | |
| ▲ | esseph 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Search "brandishing laws" | | |
| ▲ | why_at 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm familiar with the idea of "brandishing" being illegal, but I looked it up anyway. I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing which says "Self-defense is often explicitly given as an exception." It seems like then it would be legal to draw a gun without firing if it was in self defense? I have a hard time believing that there are any cases where shooting someone in self defense would be legal, but scaring them away wouldn't. | | |
| ▲ | asa400 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not exactly what you’re referencing but I bring it up to show just how complicated things can be: Minnesota recently ruled that you do not have the right to use deadly force if you have the opportunity to escape. And this is the crucial bit, quoting the article: “The court decided the principle also applies to people who merely use the threat of force — meaning one cannot pull a weapon in self-defense if there are other means to escape, even if the person is threatening them with death or bodily harm.” https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/minnesota/news/minnesota-supreme... | | |
| ▲ | BeetleB 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That's pretty standard in non-"stand your ground" states (with the possible exception of your own home). The whole point of "stand your ground" is that you do not have the responsibility to escape. | |
| ▲ | tshaddox 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But again, there's no distinction between brandishing and shooting. The Minnesota law applies both to brandishing and to shooting. |
| |
| ▲ | esseph 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "There are various situations in which brandishing a firearm may occur. For instance, pulling out a gun during an argument or altercation with another person could be considered brandishing. Additionally, waving or gesturing with a firearm in a manner that suggests aggression or hostility towards others may also constitute brandishing. It is crucial to understand that even if no shots are fired, and no physical harm is inflicted, the mere act of displaying a weapon in such circumstances can lead to serious legal consequences." Source: https://www.dischleylaw.com/blog/2024/june/understanding-the... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tshaddox 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Which states don't have self-defense exceptions to brandishing laws? Note that shooting someone is also assault, but self-defense is an exception to assault. | |
| ▲ | sneak 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m fine with a brandishing charge if it defuses the situation and ends the threat and I don’t have to kill anyone. I would take almost any criminal charge over being forced to kill somebody. If I hadn’t been willing to brandish at least once, I would have had to shoot to kill, and that sucks bad. Being in a gunfight is the last thing that I want besides being dead or severely injured. |
| |
| ▲ | AceyMan 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This just in: you don't get to pick the category of the emergency when SHTF. That's like saying "I only wear seat belts on the freeway" or something equivalently vapid. |
|
