How a CCW confrontation should go.......

[wichaka]

Had a request for assistance out in the County last night. The call came across as a man with a gun, possibly fighting with others.

Several of us responded, and was told the man had put the gun away and would be waiting for our arrival.

He was from Oregon, came to Washington to find his daughter who happen to be at a alcohol party. He found her, and a few of the subjects (intoxicated) thought he should leave his daughter there, and threatened to kick his aft end. As they approached, he drew into a SUL position and told them to get back, which upon eying the gun, reluctantly did.

Turns out the guys girlfriend was the one who made the 911 call, and knowing we would be responding, and that all was safe there, he unloaded the gun, and placed it in the car in plain sight. On his person was not only an Oregon CCW, but a Utah CCW as well, which is honored in WA State.

The gun was placed into the County car for safe keeping until the situation could be figured out. Witnesses not part of this fiasco, made statements which coincided with the man. The gun was returned to the man on the spot, statements were taken, arrests made of the subjects that made the threats, and all is well now.

I chalk this one up to a calm person who knew not only the laws of where he lives (Oregon) but also of where he carries.

I praised him for his excellent actions, and told him I wished more had his kind of head and thinking.

Be well out there folks.........

[FNULNU]

I'm suprised tempers cooled enough before you arrived. I would expect to arrive with the gun still drawn or the CCW holder to have already vacated the premises.

[msc]

How often does it go that someone draws a CC weapon, SUL or otherwise, and it does not get used? Just curious. What percentage would you say? I would think that if you draw it, you have to be not only ready, but deadly serious. Do you think this guy would have used it?

[wichaka]

The perps were still shootin off their mouths a bit, until they got hauled off to jail. The guy that was renting the property was telling us all he had his rights. That he was the victim, and knew his rights that someone couldn't come on his property and pull a gun. One of us told him he was lucky he was still able to tell us that.

The CCW guy was very cool and collected, and he felt was unable to disengage from the problem, and actually wanted us there...which was why he didn't leave.

I think a drawn gun makes 'somewhat rational' people think twice. While others, the ones shot, don't think the person will pull the trigger.

Anytime you draw a gun, you draw it to use it. So in essence one has to be able to hit the gas, and then immediately hit the brakes if need be. And one that has thought thru things, invested time in gaining knowledge of laws etc., will prevail in situations like these.

He said he would have used had they close enough to him, and by Wa. State law, he would have been covered to do so.

[bstrawse]

First, thanks for sharing this story - not just because it ended well, but also because it contains some great lessons learned for all of us.

Second, thanks for your service - stay safe!

B

[kenoc]

Thanks for the story. Is it wise though to draw on an unarmed group of people? I mean if you draw you need to be willing to shoot. So if they keep approaching, you then HAVE to shoot or risk being disarmed and shot yourself.
So...if they did not back off and he shot and killed one of them...what then?
Would he be charged and possibly convicted of murder or manslaughter?
If not, wouldn't he likely be sued by the victim if victim survived, or victim's family if victim did not survive?
I am not saying he should not have drawn..just asking if people here who carry, feel this is the wisest course of action in a case like this? I think i would have relocated FAST instead of drawing.

[paul45]

arrests made of the subjects that made the threats,


The perps were still shootin off their mouths a bit, until they got hauled off to jail


What was the charge?

Pure guessing on my part, but I feel in my area the one arrested would have been the one drawing a gun on unarmed people.

[kenhwind]

Pure guessing on my part, but I feel in my area the one arrested would have been the one drawing a gun on unarmed people
I was just on the Florida CCW site and reached the same conclusion, not to mention a mandatory jail time for brandishing a weapon.

[Hawkmoon]

Kenoc, Paul45 & kenhwind -

The man was not "brandishing" a weapon. HIS daughter, presumeably underage or it would not have been a problem, was at a party where he didn't want her to be. He had a right as her guardian to get her. He was threatened -- threatening is a criminal offense -- with bodily harm by a GROUP of males. Given the nature of the party, it is reasonable to assume (Wichaka can confirm) that the would-be assailants (note: plural) were younger than the guy, and perhaps larger. That's a disparity of force.

The standard in most states (check your state's laws for the exact language) is that force and deadly force may be used in self defense if the actor is in fear of death or serious bodily injury. If I'm an older guy (which I am) and a GROUP of intoxicated young hooligans are yelling that they are going to kick my six, and they are approaching me with obvious hostile intent -- you bet I'm in fear of at LEAST serious bodily injury, and that entitles me to draw my weapon for self-defense.

Wichaka is entirely correct -- the punks were, in fact, lucky the "old dude" didn't shoot one or more of them.

"Brandishing" is what you do if you draw your weapon for no valid reason and YOU are the one doing the threatening. [Disclaimer: I do recall an article about a guy who was arrested for "brandishing" even though his weapon never left the holster on his belt. IMHO that was a prosecutor who should never have been allowed to pass 9th grade English class.]

I think i would have relocated FAST instead of drawing.
That would have meant leaving his daughter there, since the reason they were going to attack him was to prevent him from removing his daughter.

[Hunter]

I am pretty sure if you are approached by several folks and you do feel threatened you can defend yourself.
I cannot imagine you would be arrested by drawing down on several folks who were intent on hurting or killing you, the only thing I can imagine would be a problem would be if the victim could of escaped.

[dogdollar]

It looks to me like we could pick this thing to pieces without end with the "what ifs", but I get the drift of the post, which I think is that control of one's own emotions and a familiarity with the law in the local jurisdiction can pay off big in terms of both de-escalating a potentially lethal situation, and in sparing the fellow that pulled the gun a grilling from the Police.
DD

[kenoc]

I am just asking WHAT LIKELY would have been the repercussions if he had shot and/or killed one of those unarmed partiers?

[kenhwind]

Yes I just reviewed the FL Statuesand thie case is open to several "if ands or buts" and I will not be suprised if the person that pulled his gun out has not seen the end of this.
He wasn't in his car nor was he in his house. He was on some else's property and although he had reason to be there, he had reason to retreat.
In other words: Its Lawyer time for all concerned.

I don't disagree with what he did, but I cannot help but think "was his life in danger by drunkin threats"

[Hawkmoon]

Florida law doesn't apply. Washington does not have a duty to retreat law. In fact, neither does Florida. The difference is that Florida just made that clear in their law; Washington has always been that way.

So what's this about a "reason to retreat"?

And, don't forget, most states that have a duty to retreat law include the provision that the actor must be able to retreat "in safety" or "in complete safety." How safe (or wise) would it be for one guy to turn his back on a mob of angry, intoxicated, younger dudes?

Lastly, I will reiterate that the standard for using deadly force in most states is not limited to fear of death. In most states the standard is "reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm," or words to that effect. Any reasonable man would be completely justified in fearing that a stomping by a superior number of drunken hooligans would result in grievous bodily harm, if not death.

I honestly don't see why there is any question on this. Do you gentlemen all have carry permits? Did your instructors, if you had to take a class, not explain to you when you are allowed to use deadly force?

[kenoc]

Yes my 20+ year NRA CCW instructor explained that. He also explained that the average amount of $$ one spends defending oneself from a JUSTIFIED shooting is 60k in court costs. He also explained that even if you make it through the criminal courts ok, if the victim survives he will likely sue you. if he does not, his family will likely sue you.
His thought was because of that, drawing your weapon should be an absolute last resort, and that when you draw, you better be willing to pay whoever you draw on at LEAST $60k. That is here in Oregon. Mileage in your state may vary.
Sort of changes one's approach to drawing/shooting.

Florida law doesn't apply. Washington does not have a duty to retreat law. In fact, neither does Florida. The difference is that Florida just made that clear in their law; Washington has always been that way.

So what's this about a "reason to retreat"?

And, don't forget, most states that have a duty to retreat law include the provision that the actor must be able to retreat "in safety" or "in complete safety." How safe (or wise) would it be for one guy to turn his back on a mob of angry, intoxicated, younger dudes?

Lastly, I will reiterate that the standard for using deadly force in most states is not limited to fear of death. In most states the standard is "reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm," or words to that effect. Any reasonable man would be completely justified in fearing that a stomping by a superior number of drunken hooligans would result in grievous bodily harm, if not death.

I honestly don't see why there is any question on this. Do you gentlemen all have carry permits? Did your instructors, if you had to take a class, not explain to you when you are allowed to use deadly force?

[dogdollar]

The obvious point you make (maybe inadvertently) is that if you are more concerned over civil penalties than your own safety, you have no business drawing your weapon to begin with.

If someone has the means to defend himself and his family from an imminent and deadly threat, and chooses NOT to do so, only because of what may or may not create some future civil or even criminal liability, I can only suppose that person may have been dropped on his or her head as a child.

DD

[Kimber_Rox]

Where does one research these laws for his/her own state?

[CDogg]

the CCW holder to have already vacated the premises.

i think this only makes matters worst for yourself. When Im involved in "drama" and cops get called out, I always stay and meet the LEO first to give my side of the story and stay put and calm. This hasnt gotten me introuble yet. Leaving or running away might have them call a BOLO on you and it wont look good if you get pulled over. The man did a good job of keeping cool and thought straight under stress :appld:

[kenhwind]

Well I was gonna post some excerpts from the FL site, but it seems that if you have justification to pull your weapon that is fine, but to use it is another matter.
Verbal assaults are not a deadly threat, without an overt act.
I cannot help but think that if this happened in a metropolis the results would have been different.

[kenoc]

I think you miss the point entirely. Point is simply that if you use your handgun, at least where i live, your life BETTER be in SERIOUS danger, because when you shoot the unarmed guy, he or his family (if he dies), will likely take your for everything you have later.
So no, i am not going to draw on some loudmouth punks, some drunks making verbal threats, or even someone downstairs stealing my tv in my home. Because those threatening drunks or guy stealing my TV are not worth 60k...they are not even worth the RISK of me losing 60k, even though i may be justified by saying i felt they were going to do GBH.
Now if the drunk draws a knife, or the guy stealing the TV comes up my STAIRS into my family bedroom area THEN i feel seriously threatened and yes, protecting my family is worth MUCH MORE than 60k.
That is the outlook our CCW instructor instilled in us, and i tend to agree with him 100%.
So when i draw, i better do so with that understanding. Is it worth the potential criminal/civil consequences? Is there are better, less risky course of action than drawing/shooting?
Is verbal de-escalation, or quick relocation a possible/better option?



The obvious point you make (maybe inadvertently) is that if you are more concerned over civil penalties than your own safety, you have no business drawing your weapon to begin with.

If someone has the means to defend himself and his family from an imminent and deadly threat, and chooses NOT to do so, only because of what may or may not create some future civil or even criminal liability, I can only suppose that person may have been dropped on his or her head as a child.

DD

[John]

Better judged by 12 than be carried by 6.

You guys keep forgetting about the man's daughter. Who cares of what will follow, I am more interested in protecting my child's well being than what will happen if.... And when a group of people walk against me, I have every reason to be frightened about my well being and my life, and the life of my child I am protecting.

[kenoc]

His daughter was at a PARTY. Doesn't sound like anyone was out to kill her.
Smart thing to do IMHO is relocate, call the cops, have them extricate her from the party.
Nobody draws, nobody is shot/killed. Nobody goes to jail or is sued.
Better judged by 12 than be carried by 6 may SOUND all nice and fine.
Better NOT judged by 12 , NOT carried by 6 is even better. Forget the macho stuff. Be smart.
Now if someone was trying to harm her then and there, that is another story altogether. That was not my take on this.
Sounds like she was at a party. He arrived and said she was going with him. The partiers told him to get lost or they would kick his butt.
He drew on them. That certainly is more macho than than verbal de-escalation or relocating and calling the cops. More macho but not more wise.


Better judged by 12 than be carried by 6.

You guys keep forgetting about the man's daughter. Who cares of what will follow, I am more interested in protecting my child's well being than what will happen if.... And when a group of people walk against me, I have every reason to be frightened about my well being and my life, and the life of my child I am protecting.

[dogdollar]

Kenoc,
With all due respect, your entire argument seems to be based on what you are reading into the story.

His daughter was at a PARTY. Doesn't sound like anyone was out to kill her.

We don't have enough detail to know what was verbalized, how many guys there were, if she was underage, if she was drunk, where his girlfriend was and if she, too was threatened, if he could take a tactical position or was surrounded, etc.
What we know is he did succeed in de-escalating the situation, he was NOT arrested, no one was hurt, and he got his daughter and girlfriend home unharmed.
What's your beef?

No one is going to put their hands on me. No one is going to tell me what my daughter is going to do or where she is going to stay. Your suggestion that he leave his daughter in harm's way at a drunken blowout and "relocate" to call the police suggests to me that maybe you don't have a daughter.

It's not a matter of what is macho and what is not. I'm old, fat, and tired, and I simply have too many people that count on me for love and support to die by falling and hitting my head on the pavement during what may have started out as a scuffle with some drunken idiot. So, if you're looking for somebody to "put up their dukes", I'm just not your guy. You win. Just walk away and leave me alone.
If you just can't take no for an answer, well, that's going to turn into a very unfortunate situation for someone.

[Hawkmoon]

So no, i am not going to draw on some loudmouth punks, some drunks making verbal threats,
So how long do you advocate waiting? Do you draw after the first of the gang punches you? Or do you think you still need to wait, until you're on the ground and they're all taking turns using your head as a soccer ball?

Threatening is illegal. It is a criminal offense. When the person or persons making the threat has the means and demonstrates an intention of following up on the threat (as was apparently the case in this instance), you do not have to wait until they have broken your ribs before you take action to defend yourself. If you choose to do so, that's what life is about -- free choice. My choice would be to terminate the threat BEFORE I get clobbered.

[kenoc]

I have no beef. I just was questioning whether the best course of action is to pull a gun on a bunch of unarmed people. USUALLY it is the dumbest course of action. But you are correct, not enough information to say one way or another in this case. I just hear way too often, people saying how they would do this or that whenever they feel a bit threatened. Too often the first thing they SAY they would do is draw, when usually that is the last thing they should do, after all options are exhausted.
That is all.
Kenoc,
With all due respect, your entire argument seems to be based on what you are reading into the story.



We don't have enough detail to know what was verbalized, how many guys there were, if she was underage, if she was drunk, where his girlfriend was and if she, too was threatened, if he could take a tactical position or was surrounded, etc.
What we know is he did succeed in de-escalating the situation, he was NOT arrested, no one was hurt, and he got his daughter and girlfriend home unharmed.
What's your beef?

No one is going to put their hands on me. No one is going to tell me what my daughter is going to do or where she is going to stay. Your suggestion that he leave his daughter in harm's way at a drunken blowout and "relocate" to call the police suggests to me that maybe you don't have a daughter.

It's not a matter of what is macho and what is not. I'm old, fat, and tired, and I simply have too many people that count on me for love and support to die by falling and hitting my head on the pavement during what may have started out as a scuffle with some drunken idiot. So, if you're looking for somebody to "put up their dukes", I'm just not your guy. You win. Just walk away and leave me alone.
If you just can't take no for an answer, well, that's going to turn into a very unfortunate situation for someone.

[kenoc]

No, i do not shoot every drunk or drunk group who theatens me. You do? You can't be serious? If i did, i would have been sent to jail a long time ago. TALKING your way out of things is a great first option! De-escalation instead of escalation. More people should try it. Relocating? Great second option. 2 great options before one draws and start splattering people all over the bar. Drawing is a great last resort. You can make it your first resort or your last resort. I CHOOSE to make it the last. And so do most juries.
So how long do you advocate waiting? Do you draw after the first of the gang punches you? Or do you think you still need to wait, until you're on the ground and they're all taking turns using your head as a soccer ball?

Threatening is illegal. It is a criminal offense. When the person or persons making the threat has the means and demonstrates an intention of following up on the threat (as was apparently the case in this instance), you do not have to wait until they have broken your ribs before you take action to defend yourself. If you choose to do so, that's what life is about -- free choice. My choice would be to terminate the threat BEFORE I get clobbered.

[wichaka]

Well this has taken a life of its own now hasn't it?

Ok, first since this is an open case I can only give out so much info. I thought that if people knew to get their stuff in order before an incident like this occurs, then there may be more happy endings.

We are in WA State, not FL. or anywhere else. So I'm not sure how that crept into the thread. I would suggest that everyone know their laws where they live. This subject not only knew the laws where he lives, but that of every state he his licensed to carry in. One would be wise to take heed.

Every state is governed by 2 laws concerning deadly force. 471 US 1 (Tenn V Garner 1986) and state law. I know most of this pertains to LE rules of engagement so to speak, but some of this carries over to the CCW side of things as well. You need to check your local laws, be sure to pay attention to the legal definitions that are used in your laws.

The rules for engagement under 471 US 1, allows for the use of deadly force in 2 separate and specific instances;

Prong 1) against ANY PERSON as necessary in SELF-DEFENSE or the DEFENSE OF ANOTHER; when they have REASON TO BELIEVE they or another are in IMMEDIATE DANGER of DEATH or SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM.

Points to be made here are;
- Any Person
- Self-Defense
- Reason to believe
- Immediate Danger of Serious Physical Harm

Prong 2) Relates more to LE people, in short the points are;
- To Capture or Seize
- Probable Cause
- Crime Inflicting/Threatening Serious Bodily Harm
- No Reasonable Safe Means (to point 1 of this prong)

AND

.....will when FEASIBLE, issue a VERBAL WARNING to the suspect.
Factors of this include;
Availability of cover
Persons in vicinity at risk
Likelihood that subject will surrender
Nature of threat posed

In the case that started this threat, there were disinterested witnesses that agreed with what the CCW holder gave in his statement.

He pulls up in front of the suspected residence, and parks on the shoulder of the road, with passenger side of vehicle facing residence. Girlfriend stays in vehicle, in front passenger seat. He contacts his daughter on the porch of said residence. By WA State law, everyone has a general right to access the main entrance to a residence without fear of arrest, until the subject is asked to leave. At which time it becomes trespass. Remember, we are talking WA State law. Access meaning, the right to go to the door and knock. Think of the UPS guy etc.

CCW holder obtains daughter (under age to be drinking) from porch and places her in the rear seat of his car on the passenger side, in which 3 intoxicated males follow, shouting threats of kicking his aft end should he leave with said daughter.

He tells g/f to call 911, and draws to a SUL position as the 3 males approach. He gives a clear verbal warning to back off, and they do reluctantly, as one spits on CCW holder.

He gets around to the driver side of his vehicle, making sure that males will stay put. He hears sirens coming and then unloads gun and places it in the car with him still standing outside.

Here in WA State one does not have to see a weapon to respond with deadly force, as our laws pretty much mirror 471 US 1. Look back at prong 1, and you see everything was in play here.
So is it possible to shoot an unarmed person and not go to jail? Yes, here in WA State, given that prong 1 exists in its entirety.
In some instances, if you wait to see a weapon, it may be too late to act to defend yourself.

I have to agree with DD here;
If you are more concerned over civil penalties than your own safety, or that of your loved ones, I wouldn't even bring up the point about drawing your weapon, I would tell everyone, don't carry a gun to begin with.

The subjects were arrested for furnishing liquor to minors, threats/harassment, & assault. It may sound cheap, but in WA State spitting on someone is considered an assault.

[kenoc]

I have to agree with DD here;
If you are more concerned over civil penalties than your own safety, or that of your loved ones, I wouldn't even bring up the point about drawing your weapon, I would tell everyone, don't carry a gun to begin with.


I don't think anyone mentioned being more concerned with civil penalties than they are over protecting their loved ones?
One does however need to be willing to lose their home, their shirt and everything they have ever worked for when they draw their weapon.
Don't draw unless willing to shoot.
Don't shoot unless you are willing to lose it all.
In other-words if there is any other way out, use it.
And yes protecting your life and family comes before all else.
That is all i was saying.

[msc]

That is a lot more infomation no one had before. And I don't think what kenoc is saying means he should not carry or that he would not use his firearm if he felt it necessary.

He is simply saying that one has to guage the situation. I don't see how that argument goes all the way to saying he should not carry. Not everyone is going to see the same situation with the same eyes. And I don't see how his statements mean that he is more worried about a civil suit than his family, he already said that was not the case and I see nothing in what he said that would point otherwise.

It would be good to talk about these things realistically and with all the implications and ramifications of drawing a firearm. I have never drawn mine and have not had the need to, in my eyes that is...but I have been in some dicey situations that always worked out through other means. Does that make one less interested in personal safety or the safety of loved ones? I think not...it is situational. This is an interesting topic and worth talking about. :)

[sourdough1938]

You should imagine yourself in this or similar situations before you first pickup your firearm to leave your house. You should decide what you are going to do before leaving home. You can't tell what the specifics are going to be but you must set your limits. I had to decide if I was going to shot someone who came into my bedroom at 5am. I decided I was going to shot him if he took one step toward me and I let him know. He left. I am very glad he left but I would still do the same again. It is your decision. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

[Hawkmoon]

The subjects were arrested for furnishing liquor to minors, threats/harassment, & assault. It may sound cheap, but in WA State spitting on someone is considered an assault.
I'm a senior citizen and for 90+ percent of my life I was under the impression that "assault" meant striking someone. Now that I have a CCW and a greatly enhanced need to understand the nuances of the law as it applies to the use of force in self defense, I have discovered (to my intense surprise) that in some jurisdictions merely employing harsh words can be charged as "assault," as well as "threatening." The actual act of striking another person is "aggravated" assault.

I said, it, Wichaka said it. There is no substitute for knowing what the law is in YOUR jurisdiction. That's the only law under which your actions can and will be judged. And if you have multi-state permits (either by holding multiple permits, or by reciprocity), it is important to remember that your state's laws don't cross the border with you and your permit. When you enter another state, they may allow you to carry under your home (or some other state) permit, but you do so subject to their rules.

It was much easier when I was a lot younger and the only thing I had to keep track of was which states allowed right turns on red. Now they all do (I think), but I have to keep track of which states have "no duty to retreat" laws, which states have "safe journey" laws, and other such legal complexities.

[msc]

Where I live, it is unlawful to "brandish" a firearm. Brandishing any deadly weapon is an assault. However, this does not apply in cases where self-defense can be proven. Assault or battery on the part of the assailant may give the person with the gun the right to pull and/or use a firearm (deadly weapon really, it is does not talk about firearms only). So here in Virginia, if you draw your deadly weapon, you have to prove you are threatened enough to justify self-defense. That is not always cut and dry...

And we are not really talking about actually using the firearm here, but if you use it, you have to prove that "reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to himself" was present.

Not drawing any conclusions, but responding to Hawkmoon's comment about knowing the law where you live. Virginia is most likely pretty favorable in terms of viewing drawing a weapon (or using it for that matter), but my guess is that there is legal action is in the future of those even showing a pistol...so being circumspect is always smart.

I don't know what I would have done in the case the OP described. I have two daughters and with one, it is possible to see ugly situations arising…some she may unknowingly contribute to. I don't think any of us do unless we were there. The OP was praising the guy for keeping his head, and knowing the law...that is smart for certain. I'm curious about the age of the daughter...being a minor may or not may complicate things in terms of being a guardian...that is an interesting twist, and if she was threatened or not.

No duty to retreat here in VA, but not sure about case law so will do some digging there.

I do know that if I really needed to protect my family or myself, I would not hesitate to use any deadly weapon, firearm or not. With a firearm tho, my benchmark tho is not about bringing it out to scare people off, but rather with the end game in mind. Meaning, I would not pull it unless prepared to go all the way. That is pretty big decision.

[kenhwind]

Unfortunately we can debate this until the "cows come home". A CCW confrontation is a dice game so to speak. When the dice are rolled there is no more "what ifs". Doesn't matter because if someone presses charges "it's Show time" in court.

You all have my humble apology; Wichaka; for trying to make a poor analogy with FL Law.
Because I registered with our other Forum I find myself there, FL DOACS, quite often, and for my own good.

[Frank]

kenoc, your basic problem is that you are trying to second guess wichaka based on little more than assumptions. But wichaka (1) is a long time, experienced LEO in Washington State; (2) was there at the scene; and (3) participated in the initial investigation and the arrest of the other persons at the party. He know a heck of a lot more about the situation than you do, and he is also more familiar wit the laws of Washington State than you are.

Of course the threshold question is whether under the circumstances the father could be justified in using lethal force in self defense. While the exact rules vary by state, in general, you are justified in employing lethal force only when a reasonable and prudent person, in like circumstances and knowing what you know, would conclude that lethal force is necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. To demonstrate that there was indeed a real danger from the assailant, one must show that the assailant had (1) the Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm; (2) the Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and (3) put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he has the intent to kill or cripple. A person claiming self defense will need to be able to articulate why in the exact situation as it unfolded he concluded that lethal force was necessary based in the forgoing paradigm.

In this situation, a groups of men, some of whom were intoxicated, threatened the father with violence. It's certainly conceivable that such circumstances the father would be able to establish the elements necessary to justify his use of lethal force. His display of his weapon would therefore not be unlawful brandishing. It appears that the police on the scene, who know more about the details, concluded that lethal force could have been justified.

Of course, there's the question of whether the father may have had a duty to retreat. That again is a question of state law. Again wichaka is more familiar with Washington State law than we are. In addition, in general the duty to retreat attaches only when it can be done safely. Here, were the father to have retreated, he would have abandoned his minor daughter to a group of drunken men who themselves were furnishing her unlawfully with alcohol. Arguable, this man's daughter was thus in danger, and I doubt that Washington law would require him to leave his minor child in such a situation of risk.

Let me add a couple of Common Law definitions --

Battery: the unconsented harmful or offensive touching of another.

Assault: to place another in fear of an immediate battery.

DVC

[wichaka]

You all have my humble apology; Wichaka; for trying to make a poor analogy with FL Law.
Because I registered with our other Forum I find myself there, FL DOACS, quite often, and for my own good.


No apologies needed, it was just getting a bit confusing to me at one point.

I think we all need to apply our own state laws to this incident to see how it might stand the legal tests. Obviously there are difference where we go.

Like I said before, I was very impressed with the knowledge the CCW carrier had, with not only his home state but with every state he is licensed to carry.

The sad part...I find a lot of LE people don't really know the firearms laws of their state, and how they apply to the use of deadly force.

[dogdollar]

It looks to me like we could pick this thing to pieces without end with the "what ifs", but I get the drift of the post, which I think is that control of one's own emotions and a familiarity with the law in the local jurisdiction can pay off big in terms of both de-escalating a potentially lethal situation, and in sparing the fellow that pulled the gun a grilling from the Police.
DD

Well, this sure turned out out be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but, nonetheless, I would like to thank our fine friend Wichaka for 1.) his service to the local community; and 2.) bringing up a very relevant, timely, and interesting point of discussion.
Kind regards,
DD

[msc]

Well, this sure turned out out be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but, nonetheless, I would like to thank our fine friend Wichaka for 1.) his service to the local community; and 2.) bringing up a very relevant, timely, and interesting point of discussion.
Kind regards,
DD

+1, good discussion...real-life situation and topic to think about, and thanks for sharing it! And agreed, thanks for your service. :)

[laney823]

i would like to thank wichaka for creating this thread and for furnishing it with details that are helping me to gain a better understanding for what it takes to be a responsible CCW holder. for i am to young to get a ccw and will be for quite some time. but. for threads such as this one, as well as experienced members that know there laws i will enter the world of holding a ccw with a better understanding of how i should responsibly defuse situations with as little damage as possible. and my 2 cents if anyone cares to hear it is that if i was in immediate danger, and my father who is a ccw holder in FL acted in such a manner as wichaka describes, i would not blame him in the slightest as well as commend him for doing all that is necessary to keep his family safe.

[paul45]

Kenoc, Paul45 & kenhwind -

The man was not "brandishing" a weapon.

Thanks for the info. However, I don't believe I used the word "brandishing".

threatening is a criminal offense

Interesting, however not a situation where ones life is in immediate danger.


As I said clearly in my post, I feel drawing on unarmed persons who are only communicating a threat would create a large problem IN MY AREA. Not doubting or criticizing Wichaka at all, just making a comment. Too bad there aren't more level headed LEOs like him in my area.

As a point, a couple years ago a man was arrested for open carry in Charlotte......even though NC is an open carry state. He apparently had to defend himself for following NC law. :confused:

[Hawkmoon]

Interesting, however not a situation where ones life is in immediate danger.
Please re-read what I wrote, and what Wichaka wrote. The standard for being allowed to use force and deadly force in self defense is not solely fear that you'll be killed. The standard is fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. (Different states use different words in place of "grievous bodily harm," but the intent is the same.)

Being approached by a group of younger guys, who are intoxicated and threatening to clean your plow, would IMHO cause any reasonable person to fear imminent serious bodily harm, at the least. Or death -- it only takes one lucky punch or a kick to the head to be fatal.

You are not the only person in this thread to use the "not in danger of being killed" argument. As far as I know, EVERY state has the same basic rule in their laws. The standard is not limited to imminent fear of death. If you are carrying a handgun for self-defense, you really need to know and understand what the law says. Especially if you're going to be advising other people regarding what the law says.

[paul45]

Please re-read what I wrote, and what Wichaka wrote. The standard for being allowed to use force and deadly force in self defense is not solely fear that you'll be killed. The standard is fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. (Different states use different words in place of "grievous bodily harm," but the intent is the same.)

Being approached by a group of younger guys, who are intoxicated and threatening to clean your plow, would IMHO cause any reasonable person to fear imminent serious bodily harm, at the least. Or death -- it only takes one lucky punch or a kick to the head to be fatal.

You are not the only person in this thread to use the "not in danger of being killed" argument. As far as I know, EVERY state has the same basic rule in their laws. The standard is not limited to imminent fear of death. If you are carrying a handgun for self-defense, you really need to know and understand what the law says. Especially if you're going to be advising other people regarding what the law says.
Ok, Hawkmoon, interesting thread anyway.

[kenhwind]

I don't believe I used the word "brandishing".
I did, the word brandishing is not the appropriate term.
I did some more looking into the FL website, and there seems to be a fine line between when and why. Most of the info refers to the use of deadly force and not whether or not the gun should be drawn.
Yes I am a FL CCW holder and when my brother and I went to New Orleans to pick up a boat, the first thing I did was check the reciprocity laws with AL, Miss, and LA.

[garrettwc]

The subjects were arrested for furnishing liquor to minors, threats/harassment, & assault. It may sound cheap, but in WA State spitting on someone is considered an assault.
Sounds like WA laws are pretty close to Indiana. Except here the threats/assault piece is sort of a mixed depending on the circumstances.

I have discovered (to my intense surprise) that in some jurisdictions merely employing harsh words can be charged as "assault," as well as "threatening." The actual act of striking another person is "aggravated" assault.
That's pretty close to how it is here Hawk. The standard is that if the subject is reasonably capable and motivated to carry out the threat (and I'm guessing three drunk yutes with aggressiveness qualifies) then it is assault. Although I think here we call the verbal "terroristic threatening".

Good original post, Wichaka. The guy knew the laws. Knew how to prepare for the arrival of LEOs. Maintained appropriate levels of force. Used distance, verbal commands, and his vehicle to break off the assault. And kept his head during the whole incident.

The only thing I might have done different would have notified the PD ahead of time and asked them to accompany me, rather than dialing up 911 during the incident. But I've been through the teenage daughter years (and survived) so I know what it's like and the head isn't always as clear as we would like.

[Hawkmoon]

I did, the word brandishing is not the appropriate term.
I did some more looking into the FL website, and there seems to be a fine line between when and why. Most of the info refers to the use of deadly force and not whether or not the gun should be drawn.
The term "brandishing" is one that appears to be defined differently (or not at all) in the laws of the various states, and the severity with which it is viewed (if at all) seems to vary quite widely.

As to use of deadly force, it is also important to recognize that many states regard the simple act of drawing a handgun (or any lethal weapon, in some cases) as using deadly force -- even if you don't pull the trigger.

This simply reinforces the advice that there is no substitute for knowing what the law actually says in the jurisdiction. For those who travel in a number of states and carry when they travel, it's a nightmare. But it's important. As Wichaka wrote, the man in the reported incident not only had a permit that allowed him to carry in Washington, he also knew what the law says in Washington. That's impressive. In fact, the guy had a Utah permit, which is recognized in about 30 states. I wonder if he has learned the rules in all 30, or only the ones where he actually spends time.

[Tom]

I have discovered (to my intense surprise) that in some jurisdictions merely employing harsh words can be charged as "assault," as well as "threatening." The actual act of striking another person is "aggravated" assault.

Also not that in Wichaka's later post, he stated that one of the drunk men spit on the father. In today's climate, with the threat of AIDS and other communicable diseases, spitting on someone is assault. A year ago, a homeless man in Texas was sentenced to 35 years in jail for spitting on a police officer. The charge: assault with a deadly weapon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/16spit.html

How the guy maintained his cool under all these circumstances amazes me.

[msc]

This original story has stuck with me and been thinking about it...a lot. What strikes me most is that they guy did all of this when his daughter was involved. Knowing the law...of course that is important. Staying calm...important, you bet. But doing all of that when the kid is part of the story takes uber-nerves. Also the kid must not have been in immediate danger, guessing, or it may have turned out very differently. Also have to wonder, but will never know, what kind of relationship they have after. Teenage daughters can be very, very trying. Anyway, good to think about these things before you get in a situation. So it was a useful exercise and situation to consider...before it happens, to any dad.