OT USE OF DEADLY FORCE DISCUSSION - How to TRY and prevent our trucks from being stolen

[HSKR R/T]

Brandishing is a specific term. There's absolutely nothing that locks you into using a firearm just because you've drawn it and/or displayed it.

Why would you carry a firearm if you don't trust your decision-making abilities with it?

I didn't say you had to use it's but if you are going to display your weapon in an altercation as someone is breaking into your vehicles then you should be doing it with the intent to use it. If you draw your weapon then you do so with intent to use it. Otherwise leave it in the holster. If it's a long gun(rifle/shotgun) and you don't have it shouldered and ready to fire it's a waste of your time. If the person you are trying to "scare" has their own gun, they will more likely be more prepared to fire before you are.

And in response to your reply about my use of "brandishing". If you come out of your house carrying a gun in your hands and not secured in a holster, that can be considered brandishing.

 

[HSKR R/T]

First, that wasn't in Florida. Second, they brandished firearms at people who weren't on their property, so I'd like to see you draw a parallel there.

Parallel, responses in this thread about using a weapon to protect their vehicle are limited to when only parked in your driveway.

Even if this was a useful point, they pleaded out to misdemeanor charges from an overzealous DA and were pardoned the next week. So...is your point that even that unrelated scenario was good?

Even though they were pardoned, they lost their weapons and the weapons were destroyed. If it was truly a bad charge, then they should have been give their guns back. Either way, they were in their own private property, displaying weapons to deter anyone from trying to damage their property. Kind of like if you are displaying a gun to try and prevent/stop someone from breaking into or stealing your vehicle

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

I didn't say you had to use it's but if you are going to display your weapon in an altercation as someone is breaking into your vehicles then you should be doing it with the intent to use it. If you draw your weapon then you do so with intent to use it. Otherwise leave it in the holster. If it's a long gun(rifle/shotgun) and you don't have it shouldered and ready to fire it's a waste of your time. If the person you are trying to "scare" has their own gun, they will more likely be more prepared to fire before you are.

There's a wide gap between being prepared to use a firearm and having intent to use a firearm.

And no one is going outside to check out a noise with a holstered pistol or a slung long gun.

And in response to your reply about my use of "brandishing". If you come out of your house carrying a gun in your hands and not secured in a holster, that can be considered brandishing.

That's not what brandishing means, legally or otherwise.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

Parallel, responses in this thread about using a weapon to protect their vehicle are limited to when only parked in your driveway.

Which had nothing to do with pointing weapons at and threatening people who are not on your property.

Not the same thing. Not even close.

Even though they were pardoned, they lost their weapons and the weapons were destroyed. If it was truly a bad charge, then they should have been give their guns back.

The weapons haven't been destroyed.

Either way, they were in their own private property, displaying weapons to deter anyone from trying to damage their property. Kind of like if you are displaying a gun to try and prevent/stop someone from breaking into or stealing your vehicle

Again, these aren't even close to comparable. If anyone was advocating for standing in their driveway with a rifle, pointing it at people who walked by, and telling them not to touch the truck or they'd shoot them, you'd have a point.

 

[HSKR R/T]

There's a wide gap between being prepared to use a firearm and having intent to use a firearm.

And no one is going outside to check out a noise with a holstered pistol or a slung long gun.

That's not what brandishing means, legally or otherwise.

That's exactly the legal definition of brandishing.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

That's exactly the legal definition of brandishing. View attachment 129401

No, it isn't.

"If you come out of your house carrying a gun in your hands and not secured in a holster"

Carrying a firearm isn't brandishing.

 

[HSKR R/T]

No, it isn't.

"If you come out of your house carrying a gun in your hands and not secured in a holster"

Carrying a firearm isn't brandishing.

Guess you just ignored the definition I posted from a legal website. Making up your own definitions now?

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

Guess you just ignored the definition I posted from a legal website. Making up your own definitions now?

Nope, it looks like I might be the only one who read it.

"in order to intimidate that person"

Good luck trying to claim that someone responding to a thief breaking into their car on their property in the middle of the night meets the legal definition of brandishing.

 

[HSKR R/T]

Nope, it looks like I might be the only one who read it.

"in order to intimidate that person"

Good luck trying to claim that someone responding to a thief breaking into their car on their property in the middle of the night meets the legal definition of brandishing.

So you walk out holding a gun and don't think it's in an effort to "intimidate" the thief to stop? I mean, if you weren't trying to intimidate them, then why show them you have a gun?

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

So you walk out holding a gun and don't think it's in an effort to "intimidate" the thief to stop? I mean, if you weren't trying to intimidate them, then why show them you have a gun?

Who said to show them anything? I'm talking about walking around my property with a firearm to investigate something out of place.

Look, if you can find a single occurrence of the victim of a felony on their own property being convicted of brandishing, you have a point.

 

[HSKR R/T]

Who said to show them anything? I'm talking about walking around my property with a firearm to investigate something out of place.

Look, if you can find a single occurrence of the victim of a felony on their own property being convicted of brandishing, you have a point.

Once again, you don't walk around "investigating" with a firearm visible if you aren't trying to intimidate whoever you may for may not find. And just because people don't get "convicted" doesn't mean they don't meet the legal definition. But hey, I guess you are a lawyer now

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

Once again, you don't walk around "investigating" with a firearm visible if you aren't trying to intimidate whoever you may for may not find.

Carrying a firearm doesn't inherently imply intimidation. That kind of nonsense comes up in arguments against lawfully carrying a firearm in public.

And just because people don't get "convicted" doesn't mean they don't meet the legal definition.

That's exactly what it means. There are plenty of cases of people being convicted for brandishing firearms, when their actions actually meet the legal definition of brandishing.

Now, lets hear about a case that remotely supports your assertion. Just one.

But hey, I guess you are a lawyer now

Nope. Are you?

 

[HSKR R/T]

Carrying a firearm doesn't inherently imply intimidation. That kind of nonsense comes up in arguments against lawfully carrying a firearm in public.

That's exactly what it means. There are plenty of cases of people being convicted for brandishing firearms, when their actions actually meet the legal definition of brandishing.

Now, lets hear about a case that remotely supports your assertion. Just one.

Nope. Are you?

"Carrying" a firearm is different than walking around "investigating" with you firearm in your hands in full site. And if you say you aren't trying to intimidate anyone, who might be on your property, by walking around with a firearm, you are lying you **** off

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

"Carrying" a firearm is different than walking around "investigating" with you firearm in your hands in full site.

Walking around Home Depot is also different from confronting someone who is committing a felony on your property.

And if you say you aren't trying to intimidate anyone, who might be on your property, by walking around with a firearm, you are lying you **** off

Why would I need to intimidate anyone? Their goal is to not be caught. If they're caught, they're likely to run whether I'm armed or not. The firearm is only there in case they have a different idea.

That's called being prepared. Same reason you'd carry, I'd hope. Doesn't mean you're out looking to intimidate anyone. If you are, you probably shouldn't be carrying.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

Not to fuel the fire too much but I have to agree with Husker here. As a VCDL member we are preached to by many in the firearms world from VCDL president to legal speakers at meetings to John Lott about the danger to your personal legal wellbeing for brandishing, threatening or heaven forbid, firing a warning shot (I wonder what would happen if your defense was "president Biden said to fire a warning shot in the air" and play the clip back in court. After all it was a presidential order....)

Below is one example of case law from the VCDL website. And yes, coming outside with a gun in your hand to confront the guy breaking into your truck will likely be considered brandishing. Sure, you may beat it. You could probably buy 5 more trucks instead of the lawyer fees, but hey, it's only money.

VIRGINIA LAW ON DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY
The threat to use deadly force by brandishing a deadly weapon
has long been considered an assault.
* * *
[T]he owner of land has no right to assault a mere trespasser
with a deadly weapon. (citation omitted). . . . [A] deadly
weapon may not be brandished solely in defense of personal
property.
Commonwealth v. Alexander, 260 Va. 238, 241, 242, 531 S.E.2d 567, ___
(2000).
BRANDISHING
Morris was charged with pointing, holding, or brandishing a
firearm in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the
mind of another, pursuant to Code § 18.2-282. . . .
Morris says that although Peter Molina saw the flare gun in
Morris's waistband, he never testified that he was in fear of
the gun. Morris asserts that Molina, solely out of concern for
his wife, insisted that they should leave the area where Morris
was sitting. Indeed, Morris states, Molina indicated in his
testimony that he “may have stayed where he was had his wife
not been there.”
Morris says further that he “never touched the gun in the
presence” of Molina or his wife and there is no evidence that
“he pointed the flare gun.” . . .
“Brandish” means “to exhibit or expose in an ostentatious,
shameless, or aggressive manner.” Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, 268 (1993). When Morris looked at
Ms. Molina, said “[he'd] like that,” and then pulled up his
shirt to uncover the flare gun, he exhibited or exposed the
weapon in a shameless or aggressive manner. And Morris
brandished the weapon in such a manner as to reasonably induce
fear in the mind of Peter Molina. Although Molina may not have
said he was in fear for his own safety, he stated unequivocally
that he feared for the safety of his wife, and that is
sufficient to prove the “induced fear” element of a conviction
for brandishing a firearm under Code § 18.2-282.
Morris v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 127, 134-135, 607 S.E.2d 110, ___ (2005)

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

Not to fuel the fire too much but I have to agree with Husker here. As a VCDL member we are preached to by many in the firearms world from VCDL president to legal speakers at meetings to John Lott about the danger to your personal legal wellbeing for brandishing, threatening or heaven forbid, firing a warning shot.

Below is one example of case law from the VCDL website. And yes, coming outside with a gun in your hand to confront the guy breaking into your truck will likely be considered brandishing. Sure, you may beat it. You could probably buy 5 more trucks instead of the lawyer fees, but hey, it's only money.

VIRGINIA LAW ON DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY
The threat to use deadly force by brandishing a deadly weapon
has long been considered an assault.
* * *
[T]he owner of land has no right to assault a mere trespasser
with a deadly weapon. (citation omitted). . . . [A] deadly
weapon may not be brandished solely in defense of personal
property.
Commonwealth v. Alexander, 260 Va. 238, 241, 242, 531 S.E.2d 567, ___
(2000).
BRANDISHING
Morris was charged with pointing, holding, or brandishing a
firearm in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the
mind of another, pursuant to Code § 18.2-282. . . .
Morris says that although Peter Molina saw the flare gun in
Morris's waistband, he never testified that he was in fear of
the gun. Morris asserts that Molina, solely out of concern for
his wife, insisted that they should leave the area where Morris
was sitting. Indeed, Morris states, Molina indicated in his
testimony that he “may have stayed where he was had his wife
not been there.”
Morris says further that he “never touched the gun in the
presence” of Molina or his wife and there is no evidence that
“he pointed the flare gun.” . . .
“Brandish” means “to exhibit or expose in an ostentatious,
shameless, or aggressive manner.” Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, 268 (1993). When Morris looked at
Ms. Molina, said “[he'd] like that,” and then pulled up his
shirt to uncover the flare gun, he exhibited or exposed the
weapon in a shameless or aggressive manner. And Morris
brandished the weapon in such a manner as to reasonably induce
fear in the mind of Peter Molina. Although Molina may not have
said he was in fear for his own safety, he stated unequivocally
that he feared for the safety of his wife, and that is
sufficient to prove the “induced fear” element of a conviction
for brandishing a firearm under Code § 18.2-282.
Morris v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 127, 134-135, 607 S.E.2d 110, ___ (2005)

Just some of the good parts from a quick read of that case.

[T]he owner of land has no right to assault a mere trespasser

The record establishes that Morris has a string of nine felony convictions dating back to 1977.

Morris appeared on the scene, dragging a bicycle and smelling of alcohol. He sat on a tombstone, staring at Molina and his wife, cursing and mumbling. After about five minutes, Morris looked at Molina’s wife and said, “I’d like that.” When Molina asked Morris what he had said, Morris stood up, “raised up his shirt,” and “showed [Molina] this gun he had in his waistband.

You're good people, man, but holy smokes that was a terrible case to bring into this.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

Just some of the good parts from a quick read of that case.







You're good people, man, but holy smokes that was a terrible case to bring into this.

You're right, different circumstance but it was the one I had handy. It does show that the guy just lifting his shirt to make it known he has a gun, not even a real gun but a flare gun, not touching it was charged with brandishing.

Yes drunken ditrtbag leering at your wife is different than citizen protecting his property.

But when you actually go to deal with prosecutors, they tend to be the drunken dirtbags out to get any charge they can. About one step below the D- law school lawyer with the scanner in his car heading to accident scenes.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

All that said, I am in the woods at the end of the road so the only one to see brandishing is myself and my wife. I guess the bad guy and his smashed to bits phone that might have had a picture at one time before the unfortunate accident of the sledgehammer falling on it 15 times.

You know because I wouldn't stop someone at gunpoint out here were no one could see.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

You're right, different circumstance but it was the one I had handy. It does show that the guy just lifting his shirt to make it known he has a gun, not even a real gun but a flare gun, not touching it was charged with brandishing.

Sure, but that meets the legal definition of brandishing, it was on public property, and was an action taken by the aggressor not the victim of a crime.

Yes drunken ditrtbag leering at your wife is different than citizen protecting his property.

Indeed. Hell, in a lot of states, lawfully displaying a firearm is considered nondeadly force and is not only not brandishing, it's codified and permitted.

But when you actually go to deal with prosecutors, they tend to be the drunken dirtbags out to get any charge they can. About one step below the D- law school lawyer with the scanner in his car heading to accident scenes.

Just another reason I don't live in places like NOVA, St. Louis, or Chicago.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

Sure, but that meets the legal definition of brandishing, it was on public property, and was an action taken by the aggressor not the victim of a crime.

Indeed. Hell, in a lot of states, lawfully displaying a firearm is considered nondeadly force and is not only not brandishing, it's codified and permitted.

Just another reason I don't live in places like NOVA, St. Louis, or Chicago.

All true!