What does a citizen drawing their gun represent?
I have been looking to purchase a new conceal carry gun for my self and for my wife. So i was reading some articles on SA DA and DAO. The argument that was listed for the DAO was that it limits your liability when shooting, and cited examples about police officers accidentally discharging their weapon when holding someone at gun point.
I dont know the rules for when/how an officer should draw their weapon, but i was under the impression that IF a citizen pulls their gun, then there had better be a threat on your life, or in better words if you draw your weapon, you should already be at a point that you feel like you are in need of using it, so an accidental discharge COULD NOT be argued.
My question is this; Is there a "buffer" where as you can pull you weapon when you think the situation COULD escalate to that point, as in your life it not in danger, but you think it could get to that point. I am under the impression, that there is no such thing as a warning shot, you fire, your intent will be interpreted as to kill (hopefully in order to defend yourself). But i thought that once drawing your weapon, you must be in a life threatening/sever physical threatening position (at least this is what my CCDW instructor told us - but he was a .... well lets just say probably not the best instructor in the world and i know presented his opinion as fact in a couple other cases)
Check your state laws. I know that's not the answer you were loking for, but each state may be a bit different. Here's what Indiana says.....
SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]:
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
I added the bold, and italics....... I'm not aware of any liability, or exemption from liability due to the type of action of a particular firearm. That means only that I'm not aware.....not that any liability does or doesn't exist.
Check your own state's laws. You would be rolling the dice on innocence vs guilt on legal advice from the internet.
Check local laws. Here is some of Florida's regarding use of Force:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27
Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVI Chapter 776 Justifiable Use of Force - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws
Everything i have read talks about the USE of force, so it all seems to only address the shooting of someone. I could not find anything on "drawing your weapon". So i would assume that upon drawing your weapon, your not making any kind of commitment until the gun was fired.
Where as he told us that in a trial situation, drawing your weapon is considered an intent to use... Which does not seem correct to me based on what i have read.
He was a bit of a "Rambo wanna be" claiming that he normally carried two S&W 500 (which he had holstered on each hip and did the shooting test demo for us, but then later slipped up making a comment about his friends that let him borrow the guns). He was a VERY big guy (probably 400 lbs - about 6 ft tall), and could have gotten away with hiding both, but he was very intent on letting everyone know how much of a bad -a#$ he was. I have looked up a lot of the things he said that did not make sense, but drawing being interpreted as intent to use (claimed same as firing) did not seem too crazy to me. I want to follow that as much as possible anyway, as i NEVER want to point a gun at anything or anyone i am not willing to shoot. Just curious about the whole thing really. Most opinions i have found seem to go against what he said, and everything i found in our laws refer to the USE.
If drawn right no one should "accidently shoot" someone at gun point.
You draw with your trigger finger OUT of the trigger guard, and parallel to the slide until you are going to shoot. Once you put your finger in the trigger guard, and on the trigger, you better be ready to shoot.
In the hand of the right person a SA, DA, and DAO are all the same, safety or no safety. Thats my opinion.
I don't have the proper docs on hand at the moment, but I tell all my students a few simple things that are within Fl law.
1. Concealed means concealed
2. You are not allowed to use your CCW firearm to leverage in and arguement or fight etc
3.If you pull it you better use it. Brandishing a firearm in the state of FL is illegally and will guarentee you time in jail. FL has a 10-20 Life rule on firearms. i also nelieve there's a mandatory minimum to be served.
Your instructor was correct in telling you that you can only present your firearm with the intent of self defense etc. You were trying to stop the threat etc.
please stop me if I'm missing the point of your question!
Personally i dont think i would ever pull my gun unless i was feeling i needed to fire (so within the scope of my rights). But in a situation like that, you sure want as much time as you can to be prepared, and not be trying to pull it once you have been attacked.
The biggest problem with my instructor was his ego, wanting to teach the course HIS way even skipping some of the things he was supposed to because he did not like it (which has even made me worry if my license could ever come into question if that was discovered). It was his first time teaching a class (but my next door neighbor, before i recently moved, was a ballistics guy for the FBI - so he really tool me under his wings as far as teaching, training etc.). It was evident that he was more concerned with impressing us, and convincing us of his authority and knowledge (which is usually a sign the person does not believe in themselves). So there are still questions i remember from time to time as to what he said, and what really is.
But again, what you said was just what i am wanting, it seems to be an issue with some room for opinion, and if so, i would love to hear any thoughts on it. I am in KY by the way.
Couple of points- bearing in mind that I AM NOT A LAWYER. Legal advice from me is worth exactly what you paid for it- bupkus.
First- your instructor sounds like a jerk- but that is my personal opinion.
Second, your state law will drive this. In general, you may not BRANDISH a firearm without a threat that a REASONABLE MAN would find a realistic threat to do serious harm, or cause death. Example- you come running at me, screaming, with a dagger in your hand. The dagger is rubber. There is not a real threat to me- but would a reasonable man have BELIEVED that there was?
Third- do not confuse actions of a police officer with actions of a private citizen. Police officers are expected to walk INTO situations most of us could walk away from. Example- 2 AM, area noted for burglaries, Officer Friendly spots a car pulled in behind Joe's Pawn Shop- he will probably- and quite rightly- have unholstered before approaching the car. If he does not have a shotgun.
Sorry brother but I don't know much about KY or the laws there. I'd say try this link and see if you can find another instructor in your area and take it from there.
NRAInstructors.org - Portal for NRA certified Instructors, NRA Education and Training
As for drawing when someone is approching etc I'll give you the same answer I gave to a student last week.
I have this little bubble I call my personal space and if you invade it negatively I will issue a panic push and then assess the situation at hand. In a situation like that you always want to look at the hands.
There's saying in LE and some other sector, "in god we trust everyone else let me see your hands."
Hands kill, and as such the attack will come from that arena. I'm not saying don't focus on the whole body but pay close attention to the hands of the individual in question.
I'd normally do a demonstration as to the panic push, but obviously we're online. It's push then assess and if needed go to what ever options are at hand or needed.
The bigging part of the vid shows two friends of mine going though a "tough guy push scenario". The instructors name is George Matheis "mercop" and he is the owner of Modern Combative Systems.
I think it's a good enough example of what the panick push is. He also goes into some other stuff on the vid but those aren't what I'm concerned with at this time. Feel free to checkout the rest of the site while you're at it.
MODERN COMBATIVE SYSTEMS - Tough Guy Push Defense Video
|All times are GMT. The time now is 11:10 PM.|
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.