If you are in a situation that could potentially get ugly, in your opinion, when should you discharge your weapon? A friend was telling me that if you are in a situation where you pull your gun, you should be firing that gun basically. As in, you shouldn't pull it to try and intimidate the attacker but instead pull it and discharge it to stop the attack. What are your thoughts? Like in a given scenario at what point is the line crossed and you have to shoot? Particularly when the situation is a little murky or unsure. Like a person isn't overtly trying to kill you(yet) etc. So like maybe a guy is yelling at you from his car and he threatens to like stab you. He hasn't brandished a knife yet etc. but if he hopped out his car with a knife and started walking towards you, is that a shoot moment?
Not OP but wondering this? If you’re in danger of a robbery but the threat hasn’t yet waranted use of the gun can’t you pull your jacket back so they see your holster?
Not technically brandishing but most criminals want easy targets and will back down if they see risk
I would say revealing your gun is a bad idea. Most likely. I especially wouldn't reveal it if the enemy had a gun of their own. Your biggest benefit is ambush basically. Like some crooks don't expect a person to have a gun of their own. I live in a "no guns" state for gun ownership is uncommon. So crooks here tend to really think they are basically invincible because the chance someone has a gun that they are robbing is very low. However, its not non-existent. Which is why I would never want to be a criminal. You literally don't know who has a gun and are just assuming someone is an easy target.
I would much rather they back down after realizing I’m a thorny target than have to surprise magdump
you're gonna get magdumped first idiot. life isn't like a movie and criminals aren't always gutless idiots
>you're gonna get magdumped first idiot.
The multiple videos I've seen of shootings say you can still come out on top if you actually practice drawing and shooting. You're only worse off if it's a crack head on drugs with a knife.
>life isn't like a movie and criminals aren't always gutless idiots
Criminals are always idiots, and always violent morons. Life is dumber than a movie, you're probably just some ineffectual pussy projecting your inability to act on others.
>when should you discharge your weapon
it varies by jurisdiction. Texas, for example, has no statute against brandishing. In fact it even has a section on when threats of force are justifiable (pretty much the threat of force is justifiable whenever the actual use of that force would be justifiable).
In this video
linked in the other britbong thread, the homeowner not only leaves the confrontation to go get his gun, but he then brandishes his gun, then fires a warning shot between the feet of the intruder, before shooting him in the heart. The case was thrown out by the grand jury, it wasn't even close - the homeowner was justified in killing him by multiple texas statutes.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
The last sentence is important, because it means if your threat to use deadly force is justified under the first sentence, then it does not provide justification for the other guy to use deadly force in self defense.
I should look up my state laws on it. I live in Massachusetts(please help) and I believe our state has like weird duty to retreat in it and some other weird shit that will probably get you killed.
Yeah, they literally convicted a woman of murder for shooting her abusive drunken husband who was literally trying to murder her and their children, because the judge said she could have climbed out of a basement window and called the police.
That's what got Castle Doctrine codified into law.
You sure this didn't happen in Europe? Sounds like Europe.
it was a pretty (in)famous case in MA a few decades ago, that led to a number of states passing castle/stand-your-ground laws.
I don't believe it, castle doctrine means this shouldn't happen in any cucked state, and the fact that a woman got sentenced is equally far fetched.
>If you are in a situation that could potentially get ugly, in your opinion, when should you discharge your weapon?
When you feel threatened for your life, it's not illegal to put your hand on your gun if the other guy isn't aware because you don't feel safe as long as you're not doing it as a threat since lots of states don't allow that. But if somebody's got a knife or a gun and they intend to rob you, you're gonna be shooting that gun.
>A friend was telling me that if you are in a situation where you pull your gun, you should be firing that gun basically. As in, you shouldn't pull it to try and intimidate the attacker but instead pull it and discharge it to stop the attack
He's right generally speaking, courts will try to rake you over the coals because "well you brandished you weren't in fear of your life if you didn't shoot!"
And in reality, it's mostly true, since you don't generally brandish to scare off a psychotic scumbag. If you're in danger, or somebody is invadng your personal space and making it extremely clear there's going to be physicality involved you had better be ready to defend yourself.
If it's worth drawing down on a moron, its also a situation when you'd be doing society a favor by removing them.
That is, draw and shoot when you are in justifiable fear for life or limb. Dont let them get away to try it on the next victim who may not have the means to defend themselves.
Wise words.
Kobeni the cowardly dog https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a9lRU120YOg
this is how retards like you end up in prison
Nothing he said is wrong, if you draw down on somebody you're going to be removing them as a problem from your immediate life, don't let them try and take your life or limb, simple as.
I don't live in EU.
The second someone looks at you cockeyed, blow a quarter size hole in their chest.
When you think they just ran over your wife sleeping in her tent (you didn't know that she was elsewhere) and you fear for your life and only use the force you've been trained to respond with to end the conflict as safely as possible (Three rounds of 5.56 through the windshield directly into the man's face).
The line between being charged with aggrevated assault and lawful show of force is very thin and in some states completely blended.
Case law is better than statutory language because then you know how the courts will apply it.
I recommend you not retrieve your firearm unless you reasonably believe you'll have force capable of causing death or great bodily harm visited upon you imminently. It's not worth living in a cage for decades.
Legally you will be fucked if the person you drew on survives. If you draw you had better be killing that target dead and be doing so out of legitimate fear for your life
>source: CCW holder in 2 states and have attorneys
>Verification not required
Most gun defense is brandishing so to say “only draw to kill!!” is dumb. But there is some rhyme to the reason
It’s for two reasons. One is the legal fear, you don’t want to be in that murky area of drawing a weapon inappropriately; having to actually use it has much more clear cut conditions, even if those can end up in court too sometimes.
Second reason is tactical. Unless you KNOW this person and anyone allied with them doesn’t have a gun, brandishing can just lead to you getting shot by surprise. Knowing they have no gun would be for example they are already brandishing just a knife and they’re alone.
It's because any sort of brandishing, bringing a weapon to bear, or even just making known verbally without display that you have a weapon, can land you with an aggravated assault charge.
Absent an actual deadly force threat or chance of great bodily harm, which are very fluid factors, then what you're doing is assaulting the other party by attempting to change their behavior with an implication of deadly force, the only kind of force a firearm can produce.
Don't listen to guys who tell you it's fine, it's not. Guys like Andrew Branca, and most legal defense counsel, will tell you it's a terrible idea.
Guys like Andrew Branca told you that Derek Chauvin would be acquitted and Kyle Rittenhouse was going to spend the rest of his life in prison. You may listen to them if you wish, but I will laugh at you for being retarded.
He never said Kyle would be convicted ever and he doesn't predict verdicts because juries are fucking retarded. On the merits and the law, Chauvin should have been acquitted. Lethal amounts of drugs in Groid's system is reasonable doubt, so was the ambulance being late.
nice cope. you clearly have a lot of practice at it.
>if I make up bullshit it makes the law not real
Who do you get your legal counsel from? I bet they're retarded. Don't brandish unless you are facing a reasonably percieved imminent deadly force threat.
What does "brandish" mean? That word doesn't appear in my state's penal code.
It's not statutory language, but you'll catch an aggrevated assault charge just the same for the idiomatic definition, enjoy.
An important thing to remember when looking at prosecutions for brandishing a weapon is that the vast majority of brandishing incidents go unreported and uninvestigated. If you point a gun at a mugger, he's not going to go to the police and tell them that you threatened him while he was trying to rob you. Yes, there are cases of people being charged with assault for pointing a gun at someone, but it usually involves other factors like domestic violence accusations, etc. that attract police attention to the situation.
But if you shoot your attacker, the cops aren't going to just look the other way and pretend they didn't notice a dead body full of bullet holes. Maybe the facts will be on your side, and maybe you'll be in a state that's friendly to self-defense, but even in the most justified of circumstances, shooting someone puts you in a huge degree of legal jeopardy that could be avoided if you were able to resolve the threat without shooting.
exactly what i was going to say. of course lawyers that defend people in court for brandishing are going to recommend against brandishing lol. most people in court for brandishing did so during a road rage incident or outside a bar, or to their angry neighbor. i.e really easy situations to avoid if you are a mature adult and don't have intermittent explosive disorder.
brandishing on an actual career criminal that is accosting you or invading your property will typically result in them running away, or maybe trying to kill you, but they are never talking to the police.
If you draw, it's to shoot. If you shoot, it's to kill.
If some drugged up Hispanic was yelling at me from his car and he threatens to stab me, I'd magdump him and neutralize the threat.
early and often
>captcha: KYS at
This summer a dude got so angry that he opened my car door, but I was still able deescalate things with just my words.
You can have my wallet, but you can't have my life.
When bored
From what I've gathered
>only draw if you, beyond a reasonable doubt, believe you will be killed or seriously injured
>when you draw, shoot to kill
>you must be scared and remorseful about it
So in court, would it look better if I mag dumped a guy because I was too scared to keep track of my shots?
Or would it be better if I simply shot until whoever was on the ground, not moving?
Basically, does it look better in court if you seem very in control of the situation, or if you look scared and were simply going off of adrenaline?
Talk to a lawyer. Write down your exhaustive list of questions and ask how much a 30 minute consultation would be- probably 200 bucks or something and well worth it if its that big of an issue for your circumstances.
>consulting a lawyer
idk man sounds like PREMEDITATION to me
ill talk strategy with the lawyer once we get a good handle on who the jury is and how competent or caring the prosecution is
Premeditation? Wouldn't the contents of that conversation be confidential and protected by lawyer-client confidentiality? How would the contents of this discussion be discovered, anon?
idk man im just being retarded and trying to assume the jury will end up making retarded assumptions like that too
in reality i will probably never shoot anyone and a consultation with a lawyer wont be scrutinized
Trying to "game" a hypothetical future trial by shooting your assailant more than necessary is a bad idea, and is just as likely to backfire on you as it is to help your case. Sure, a defense attorney could argue that mag-dumping showed how scared you were during the incident, but a prosecutor could just as easily argue that you were demonstrating an intent to kill your target rather than just protect yourself, or at least a criminal indifference to the consequences of your actions.
The most legally correct way to use a gun in self defense is to shoot until the threat is over, and no more. If you can give honest testimony that accounts for each shot you fired within that standard, you're in a pretty strong position. On the other hand, if all you can say is that you were scared and started shooting until you had no ammo left, and the forensics shows an absolutely mangled corpse that was shot repeatedly while it was already on the ground, then your position is no so good.
>When should you discharge your gun
Whenever I fucking please you communist gay.
You're supposed to use your weapon if you ever pull it out, because it wants to taste blood. But some studies or surveys show people can get away with brandishing.