We have all kinds of discussion about the term "brandishing" here. In many states, the term does not show up in the code at all, but that does not mean that one need not worry about the consequences the improper showing of a gun without adequate justification.
In many, if not most, jurisdictions, the issue impinges on possible charges having to do with assault of one kind or another. Just to cite one example (and yes, I know this doesn't apply to the OP, but I want to make a point), the term "brandish" does not show up in the Arizona state criminal code at all; however, until recently, one could be jailed for aggravated assault if one exposed, or even spoke about having, a firearm, unless deadly force itself were justified. That did happen, and it was mentioned in the excellent white paper written by attorney Michael Anthony that is maintained on a state web page. One found nothing in the black law about it--it had to do with precedent.
The law in Arizona has now been changed to permit the
defensive display of a weapon under certain circumstances in which force is justified. "Defensive display" includes verbally informing another person that one has a firearm; exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect oneself against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical or deadly force; placing your hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other form of containment or transport; it does not include drawing or pointing a firearm. Before the law was changed, any of those seemingly benign actions could lead to very serious consequences. The term "brandishing" was not and eis not part of the lexicon.
Had the OP's scenario unfolded in Arizona before the new law was passed, he would have risked an aggravated assault charge, and would have had to present at least some evidence to the effect that it had been immediately necessary for him to actually employ deadly force to defend against imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
I relate all of that to point out three things: (1) things vary according to jurisdiction; (2) "brandishing" may or may not be an issue, but even if it is not, other very serious concerns may well apply; and (3) one cannot know the meaning of the law from a layman's reading of the code.
Let me repeat that last one:
one cannot know the meaning of the law from a layman's reading of the code.
In another thread, someone recently asked a question about when one is justified in drawing a gun. Lee Lapin responded with this; it applies here also:
That is a question best addressed to a practicing criminal defense attorney familiar with the laws regarding self defense in your jurisdiction, not to anonymous strangers on the Internet.
I am not a lawyer.
As a very general rule, you draw when you have run out of all other legitimate options to escape the situation at hand. You draw when, both before and after the fact, you can clearly articulate to a responding cop/arresting officer/prosecuting attorney/jury of your peers precisely WHY you felt it legally necessary to introduce a firearm into the situation, and thus why you would have been legally justified in firing said firearm had the situation continued to escalate.
Getting a legal education in court at the defendant's table IS NOT how you want to learn the answer to this question, I assure you.
I do not mean to seem at all harsh or dismissive, but that's how things are. In a prior life, I often heard lay people read out loud selected parts of a law or regulation and apply their own dictionary definitions to the wording to try to justify or rationalize a particular course of action. I cannot remember the success rate exactly, but I do know that you do not want to risk much at all on that approach.
Posted by Ralph Moore: Without paying an attorney, I will pursue learning more directly from law enforcement.
Unfortunately, one would probably get three answers from five officers, and the chance that one is right might be slim.
What I would do is drop in on a criminal defense attorney or two and see if one would be willing to discuss a hypothetical question without charge. As Lee Lapin points out, you do want to make sure that the person has some experience in defending self defense or assault cases.
I hope this helps.
