Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Recommended Posts

hoo boy, theres been a lot of people brandishing lately. Not sure the law in KY but here in FL "you may only pull a firearm if you are in direct and immediate threat of death". My instructor laid it out like this... if you get into a fight, and the guy is swinging at you, you may not pull out your firearm. You're being attacked, but punching is not direct threat of death. If he starts choking you, or pulls out a knife, you may. If he then turns around to run away, you may not shoot, since the direct threat is no longer present.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of things to consider in any self defense situation. Disparity of force being one.

 

 Lots of perspectives and angles one must know and be able to articulate in a self defense situation. Also going to vary state by state with Stand Your Ground laws, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Looks just like mine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that Jon Voight? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Looks just like mine.

Mine too!

IMG_1539.JPG

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I bet there were at least four people in that crowd with a larger pistol. :blink:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"“During the encounter both patrons and protesters brandished firearms. " - who knows if a protester pulled a firearm and the guy reacted feeling his life was threatened. 

 

More here: https://heavy.com/news/louisville-diner-pulls-gun-blm-protesters-video/

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Edited by Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like an NAA Pug:  https://northamericanarms.com/product-category/firearms/pug-mini-master-black-widow/the-pug/

 

Glad nobody was hurt and the woman was able to encourage her fellow protestors to move on. But all in all, I’d say he was very lucky. 
 

A Pug vs an armed crowd, even if armed with just baseball bats, is the proverbial bringing a knife to a gun fight. With just the slightest change in events...

 

-He’d be dead. 
-A few protestors wounded. 
-The DA declines to prosecute on the grounds of self defense. 
-His widow is in the poor house when life insurance refuses to pay out. 
 

I’m not agreeing with any of that outcome, but well within possibility. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Always dicey to face a mob with a pistol, especially when they are within arms length and are also armed with more efficient firearms. If unavoidable the best way to faceoff with a mob:

 

 

rooftopkoreans1.jpg

rooftopkoreans2.jpg

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Raylan said:

Always dicey to face a mob with a pistol, especially when they are within arms length and are also armed with more efficient firearms. If unavoidable the best way to faceoff with a mob:

 

 

rooftopkoreans1.jpg

rooftopkoreans2.jpg

Korean grocers during the Rodney King riots. Funny how this incident never gets discussed. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Snakejaw_Joe said:

My instructor laid it out like this... if you get into a fight, and the guy is swinging at you, you may not pull out your firearm. You're being attacked, but punching is not direct threat of death.

 

If Pee-Wee Herman or Woody Allen is railing on me, sure. But if the dude outweighs me by at least 50 pounds just his fists alone can cause serious bodily injury, and if he knocks me unconscious and finds my firearm I probably won't be waking up. If you're in a fistfight that you started or willingly engaged in that's one thing, but if somebody attacks you without provocation and you're getting beat to hell that's grounds for using deadly force.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thought. I'm 71 and have balance issues and bad shoulders. I can't really defend myself against a physical attack. So pulling a gun because I knew I was going to get beat to death a viable reason?  Attorneys, judges, and juries would scratch their heads on that one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

Interesting thought. I'm 71 and have balance issues and bad shoulders. I can't really defend myself against a physical attack. So pulling a gun because I knew I was going to get beat to death a viable reason?  Attorneys, judges, and juries would scratch their heads on that one.

 

You would probably have to show that you had reason to be in fear of your life. If a 20yo in top physical condition knocks you on the ground and starts pummeling you, how badly do you think he has to injure you before you're justified? It only takes one good punch that causes your head to slam against the concrete to put you out of commission for good.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

If Pee-Wee Herman or Woody Allen is railing on me, sure. But if the dude outweighs me by at least 50 pounds just his fists alone can cause serious bodily injury, and if he knocks me unconscious and finds my firearm I probably won't be waking up. If you're in a fistfight that you started or willingly engaged in that's one thing, but if somebody attacks you without provocation and you're getting beat to hell that's grounds for using deadly force.

 

I dont disagree with you personally, but the law in FL states 'immediate threat of death'. That means threat of disfigurement or serious bodily injury doesnt count - just death. And I know, someone can pummel you to death... thats where a good lawyer and video evidence that you didnt brandish until it was clearly going that direction is helpful

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, this something my wife, who is a lawyer, says that is relevant... 'everyone hates lawyers, until they need one'.

 

I modify it to say 'guns are like lawyers - everyone hates them until they need them'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, you might want to reread that statute.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

 

 

2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

 

 

Prevent imminent death or GREAT BODILY HARM.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected - thanks @Alpo

 

I guess at that point then its up to the jury whether or not the matchup between you vs the attacker was that skewed

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Alpo said:

Joe, you might want to reread that statute.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

 

 

2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

 

 

Prevent imminent death or GREAT BODILY HARM.

 

46 minutes ago, Snakejaw_Joe said:

I stand corrected - thanks @Alpo

 

I guess at that point then its up to the jury whether or not the matchup between you vs the attacker was that skewed

 

Both of you need to "Google" the name of Michael Drejka. In my opinion, he was defending himself against a possible asskicking. He's now doing 20 years because a jury watched a slow motion video when the actual assault and shooting occured within seconds. Watch the video in real time, you be the judge.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

 

Both of you need to "Google" the name of Michael Drejka. In my opinion, he was defending himself against a possible asskicking. He's now doing 20 years because a jury watched a slow motion video when the actual assault and shooting occured within seconds. Watch the video in real time, you be the judge.

 

Yes! That is exactly the case that I think of when thinking about brandishing scenarios. He pulled the gun after only being pushed to the ground, and then fired after the attacker turned around. The attacker never had a weapon and never even hit him.

 

That case is a big reason why I tend to err on the  side of caution with brandishing scenarios. It is one thing to FEEL threatened in a scenario when the adrenaline is pumping and you're angry... but a jury won't care how you felt... only the bullet points of what happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Snakejaw_Joe said:

I stand corrected - thanks @Alpo

 

I guess at that point then its up to the jury whether or not the matchup between you vs the attacker was that skewed

 

Well, we all watched the George Zimmerman case. He's in FL and went up against an unarmed man. He wasn't even charged with anything until the public caught wind of it and people started calling for his head on a platter. As a result the overzealous prosecutor decided to charge him with 2nd degree murder, which was pretty hard to prove given the circumstances. Sure enough he got off, but I think he was a pretty good example of a grey area situation. Yes he was getting his ass handed to him, but he also pursued his antagonist in the first place. He also was into boxing and was of similar size, so he should've been able to handle him with his bare hands.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Michael Drejka's case, also remember that he chose to put himself in a confrontational position when he decided to yell at the man's girlfriend for parking in the wrong spot. The jury didn't appreciate the fact that he was playing traffic cop, and simply getting shoved to the ground for doing something you shouldn't be doing in the first place doesn't justify shooting someone over it.

 

In all self defense cases, the jury is going to be interested in knowing what you did to precipitate the incident and what you tried to do to either avoid or de-escalate it. If you choose to get into someone's face and suddenly discover he's a lot better fighter than you it's going to be very hard to justify using deadly force.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

Well, we all watched the George Zimmerman case. He's in FL and went up against an unarmed man. He wasn't even charged with anything until the public caught wind of it and people started calling for his head on a platter. As a result the overzealous prosecutor decided to charge him with 2nd degree murder, which was pretty hard to prove given the circumstances. Sure enough he got off, but I think he was a pretty good example of a grey area situation. Yes he was getting his ass handed to him, but he also pursued his antagonist in the first place. He also was into boxing and was of similar size, so he should've been able to handle him with his bare hands.

 

A lot of times in court, the way it should be isn't always the way it winds up. That's the human element of the procedure. Both sides try to vet the jury so theres no inherent bias, but you trust jurors to be honest during initial questioning. Then the prosecutor has to pick the right charge... like manslaughter... and the judge has to give the fair sentence.

 

The process is fascinating. I still believe ours is the best system in the world, but even the best has areas to improve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

Looks like an NAA Pug:  https://northamericanarms.com/product-category/firearms/pug-mini-master-black-widow/the-pug/

 

Glad nobody was hurt and the woman was able to encourage her fellow protestors to move on. But all in all, I’d say he was very lucky. 
 

A Pug vs an armed crowd, even if armed with just baseball bats, is the proverbial bringing a knife to a gun fight. With just the slightest change in events...

 

-He’d be dead. 
-A few protestors wounded. 
-The DA declines to prosecute on the grounds of self defense. 
-His widow is in the poor house when life insurance refuses to pay out. 
 

I’m not agreeing with any of that outcome, but well within possibility. 

I somewhat agree with you but sometimes producing a firearm of any size is enough to scare away attackers even if they’re armed. One shot in the face with that little pug will ruin someone’s day and/or their life!

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Snakejaw_Joe said:

 

Yes! That is exactly the case that I think of when thinking about brandishing scenarios. He pulled the gun after only being pushed to the ground, and then fired after the attacker turned around. The attacker never had a weapon and never even hit him.

 

That case is a big reason why I tend to err on the  side of caution with brandishing scenarios. It is one thing to FEEL threatened in a scenario when the adrenaline is pumping and you're angry... but a jury won't care how you felt... only the bullet points of what happened.

 

That was the difference. In the split second between the person assaulting Drejka seeing the gun/attempting to retreat and Drejka firing the gun was only a split second. That split second was the difference between freedom and 20 years in prison.

24 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

In Michael Drejka's case, also remember that he chose to put himself in a confrontational position when he decided to yell at the man's girlfriend for parking in the wrong spot. The jury didn't appreciate the fact that he was playing traffic cop, and simply getting shoved to the ground for doing something you shouldn't be doing in the first place doesn't justify shooting someone over it.

 

In all self defense cases, the jury is going to be interested in knowing what you did to precipitate the incident and what you tried to do to either avoid or de-escalate it. If you choose to get into someone's face and suddenly discover he's a lot better fighter than you it's going to be very hard to justify using deadly force.

 

The confrontational position (regardless of how stupid Drejka was for doing it) should have had no bearing in the actual judgement in this case of deciding whether this was self defense or wrongful death. You are correct that it did have an impact on the jury and the prosecution made sure that it did. Drejka got shoved to the ground hard with the person doing the assault now positioned to kick his butt. In my opinion, if Drejka hadn't pulled his gun, he would have got his ass beat. He put himself in the situation though. This case just shows that it all comes down to how the jury perceives as "imminent death or great bodily harm" and whether the force used was necessary to prevent it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Snakejaw_Joe said:

 

I dont disagree with you personally, but the law in FL states 'immediate threat of death'. That means threat of disfigurement or serious bodily injury doesnt count - just death. And I know, someone can pummel you to death... thats where a good lawyer and video evidence that you didnt brandish until it was clearly going that direction is helpful

Edit. Never mind. Already answered.

I use to teach it in the Academy.

Edited by Utah Bob #35998
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

..but sometimes producing a firearm of any size is enough to scare away attackers...

 

Attackers, aggressors, douchebags... I've been there 3 times where this is 100% true.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Under those conditions and with my age and physical problems I might feel justified in shooting.  I may end up going to jail but the puke I shoot will never know it.

 

BTW, what happened to the kid who shot the people attacking him in Oshkosh(???)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

BTW, what happened to the kid who shot the people attacking him in Oshkosh(???)

Still awaiting his trial. Shouldn't be a trial, should've been given a medal and a case of ammo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

 

Both of you need to "Google" the name of Michael Drejka. In my opinion, he was defending himself against a possible asskicking. He's now doing 20 years because a jury watched a slow motion video when the actual assault and shooting occured within seconds. Watch the video in real time, you be the judge.

One can never predict a jury’s verdict. I have been surprised before.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Raylan said:

Still awaiting his trial. Shouldn't be a trial, should've been given a medal and a case of ammo.

I agree.  Should have been a lot more people shooting at the rioters, too,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

Korean grocers during the Rodney King riots. Funny how this incident never gets discussed. 

It is also interesting how fast they disappeared after it was all over...But I do remember it....

 

Texas Lizard

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

Well, we all watched the George Zimmerman case. He's in FL and went up against an unarmed man. He wasn't even charged with anything until the public caught wind of it and people started calling for his head on a platter. As a result the overzealous prosecutor decided to charge him with 2nd degree murder, which was pretty hard to prove given the circumstances. Sure enough he got off, but I think he was a pretty good example of a grey area situation. Yes he was getting his ass handed to him, but he also pursued his antagonist in the first place. He also was into boxing and was of similar size, so he should've been able to handle him with his bare hands.

George Zimmerman wasn't had every right to follow BO's son from another mother & he wasn't trespassing.  So when Trayvon laid in wait to pounce on him.  GZ had every right to deliver a lead pill to stop Trayvon from repeatedly bashing his head into the ground.  Blunt force trauma to a human's head is deadly.  The prosecution of GZ was totally political to prevent the mob from rioting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

In Michael Drejka's case, also remember that he chose to put himself in a confrontational position when he decided to yell at the man's girlfriend for parking in the wrong spot. The jury didn't appreciate the fact that he was playing traffic cop, and simply getting shoved to the ground for doing something you shouldn't be doing in the first place doesn't justify shooting someone over it.

 

In all self defense cases, the jury is going to be interested in knowing what you did to precipitate the incident and what you tried to do to either avoid or de-escalate it. If you choose to get into someone's face and suddenly discover he's a lot better fighter than you it's going to be very hard to justify using deadly force.

Telling a driver to move their car out of a handicap parking spot isn't a crime.  The crime was committed by the shooting victim.  Drejka drawing his gun when on the ground was justified.  The crime was pulling the trigger before the victim advanced towards him.  Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in firing the AR-15 he was carrying when the attacker carrying a handgun pointed it at Kyle.  The idiot was lucky he only lost the use of his right arm when after stopping his pursuit with his strong hand at his side.  Then after a short pause raise the handgun toward Kyle.  The dude committed a federal felony, felon in possession, by having the firearm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Mine too!

IMG_1539.JPG

Mine doesn't have that cool looking porting on the muzzle & my cylinder is smooth . It sure does bark though!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.