Brandishing

[Bottom Gun]

Merriam-Webster says this:

Bran-dish

1. To shake or wave a weapon in menacingly.
2. To exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.

Placing your hand on your pistol is doing neither. Most police officers do this very thing when making a traffic stop.

In a tense situation, if I let someone know that I’m packing, you can count on my hand being on it. I want every advantage I can get.

 

[Outlaws]

Well in my CCW it was specifically explained that opening a jacket to reveal a weapon was only allowed when you have reason to believe you are in danger of injury or death, and not from verbal threats alone, unless a weapon is being wielded or visable.

Examples you can display a firearm:
1. Someone is holding a bat and informing you they are going to beat you to a pulp.
2. Someone is holding a weapon of any kind and threatening you

Example you can display a firearm, draw a firearm, or fire a firearm:
Someone is threatening you and/or coming at you; you believe you are in a life/death/sever injury situation. You may either warn, display, draw, or draw & fire. Whatever will stop the threat.


Here are all the codes, you can look them up but you cannot just display a firearm with your hand on it because someone is getting loud and obnoxious at you.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=13

2. To exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.

Displaying a weapon and placing your hand on it is exactly that. Cops don't have the same laws. If you do that in a store while at the check out counter cuase you need to put your hand somewhere, you can count on getting arrested.

 

[mljdeckard]

Without reading all of the responses,

The instructor explained too far. He should keep opinions to himself.

If Jet Li was surrounded by thirteen year-olds talking smack, he would have a hard time convincing a jury it was necessary to kill one of them. If one of the rest of us mere mortals was outmanned, outweighed, and there were any mitigating factors such as drugs, alcohol, peer pressure, etc fanning the flames, it is entirely possible that a reasonable person legitimately believes that their life may be in danger, and can convince a jury of this.

It is irresponsible to try to tell students in a class that there is a list of situations in which deadly force is justified, and another list in which it is not. These situations never happen the same way twice, and the student might find himself in a situation where he IS facing a legitimate threat from a gang, and all they have running through their head is the example from the instructor, and they are trying to decide whether or not this situation is the same.

A ten-year-old waving a sword at me is not a deadly threat, even if it might be a deadly weapon. A very large man who is intoxicated, and is well known for committing violent acts, who wrongly believes that you have damaged his car might well be a deadly threat, even though he isn't armed. It all depends on the circumstances.

I can take a shot and walk away. A black eye, a broken tooth, a bruised rib, that's life. But if it starts there and shows no signs of stopping, you are facing a real possibility of serious bodily injury or death.

 

[Bottom Gun]

Exactly which section are you referring to, Outlaws?

I don't feel like searching through the whole statute.

 

[Outlaws]

Exactly which section are you referring to, Outlaws?

I don't feel like searching through the whole statute.

I don't feel like finding it for you. Feel free to grab your pistol though in public. Sometimes you have to find out the hard way.

 

[Bottom Gun]

That's exactly the type of response I expected.

You do it your way, I'll do it mine.

Merty Christmas.

 

[Outlaws]

That's exactly the type of response I expected.

See my next post.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Honestly, I think 99% of us would know when to draw a gun and when not to. Just the fact that you HAVE a gun on you concealed, lends you to being a little more relaxed and cool headed. Here's what I'd say: don't be where you don't belong. You know an area is gang territory and you're there at 1am, guess what? You're asking for trouble.

 

[Prince Yamato]

double post

 

[Outlaws]

Brushing your jacket or shirttail aside and placing your hand on your gun is NOT brandishing. It is perfectly OK. That action will defuse most situations.

http://www.azdps.gov/ccw/forms/firearminstrman.pdf

It starts on page 20.

Use of a firearm in any dispute can be evidence of intent to cause physical injury to another person, and the likelihood of causing such an injury, accidentally or intentionally, is increased when a firearm is used to settle the dispute. Moreover, the intent, combined with the firearm may create an aggravated assault.

If you display a firearm during a dispute or to an unsuspecting person, that person may reasonably apprehend imminent physical injury. Moreover, reasonable apprehension of injury, combined with the display of a firearm may create an aggravated assault.

Furthermore.....just because you are pushing and shoving is not enough to display a firearm. It doesn't matter who started it.

[Example #2: You are in a heated argument that turns into shoving and punching. To make a point, you pull back your coat, revealing your gun. You put your hand on your gun and tell the other person that he had better buzz off or you will end the argument right now. Simple assault + deadly weapon = aggravated assault.]

Those two quotes state that unless you feel your life is in danger or you will suffer serious injury, you are not legal to brush "your jacket or shirttail aside and placing your hand on your gun".

 

[Jeff22]

Arizona CCW manual

many thanks to Outlaws for posting those links to Arizona law and also to the Arizona CCW manual. The CCW manual has all sorts of "what if" type scenarios to illustrate different aspects of self-defense law. Although those scenarios are specific to the law in Arizona, self-defense law across the country has enough similarities that those stories can be illustrative of concepts that apply in other places.

Unfortunately, my limited research has found that the self-defense laws in most states are not written as clearly as the law in Arizona . . . there are few hard & fast rules about the use of force or deadly force in self defense.

Reading those vignettes does bring to mind the importance of a fully-charged cell phone, OC spray (where legal) and a quality flashlight as necessary tools of self defense, along with your firearm.

 

[PennsyPlinker]

I can take a shot and walk away. A black eye, a broken tooth, a bruised rib, that's life. But if it starts there and shows no signs of stopping, you are facing a real possibility of serious bodily injury or death.

Really? From whom? How hard? Where might it land? I've taken shots to the head and body that might have killed someone else - or me in a different situation. The worst was being hit in the heat with a flying shot put in high school. You know what? I'm not in high school anymore, and I do not care to find out if my head is still as hard or resilient.

Locally there is a murder case going on right now. Two guys got into a fight at a wedding, and one is dead after being punched in the head. I would have to go back and find the article, but I seem to recall that the number of punches he sustained before dying was not more than two or three.

Personally I have put people on the ground with one punch. What if someone my size hit you with a good solid punch and you fell over something behind you, cracking your head and dying? I know about that too (except the dying part). In my younger days a guy half my size sucker punched me and knocked me clean over a chair that happened to be behind me because his punch had enough force to make me stumble backwards.

I do not mean to be adversarial about this with you in particular, but people who think they can "take a punch" and walk away don't know what might happen when that punch lands. You don't know who is throwing it, what kind of strength they possess, what might be going on in your head or body at the time, etc. The human body is a funny thing. You can shoot it full of holes and it can survive. Other times, one blow in the right place at the right time can stop it forever.

And in most cases, fights on the streets are not like the schoolyard tussles that many of us remember. They are also not controlled situations like boxing matches. They are deadly confrontations with people who have no regard for their own lives, much less yours. There is no such thing as one punch and walk away. If someone is going to punch you once, then he is going to try and follow up with others, or some other type of force to take you out for whatever reason he wants you out - money, power, sex, or just for fun.

I simply cannot understand anyone allowing themselves to get into a situation where they are going to take a punch or two and walk away. It just might come to an abrupt end a lot faster than you ever thought possible.

 

[up_onus]

Here is the brandishing question....
If you were walking along and somebody swung their jacket back, and put there hand on their gun while menacingly staring at you....?
Facts are - He has his hand on a dangerous weapon. This allows you by LAW to produce yours if you feel threatened.

Now, back to YOU brandishing. This may make your situation worse while being surrounded by thugs threatening your life. Brandish? UUUHHH, NO. You produce your gun when your ready to shoot. For 2 reasons, First- tactical advantage, second - it allowes the "surrounding thugs" to legally produce THEIR firearms when you pull yours....

Brandish and the thugs kill you legally, GOOD THINKIN!....

 

[Outlaws]

Here is the brandishing question....
If you were walking along and somebody swung their jacket back, and put there hand on their gun while menacingly staring at you....?
Facts are - He has his hand on a dangerous weapon. This allows you by LAW to produce yours if you feel threatened.

Now, back to YOU brandishing. This may make your situation worse while being surrounded by thugs threatening your life. Brandish? UUUHHH, NO. You produce your gun when your ready to shoot. For 2 reasons, First- tactical advantage, second - it allowes the "surrounding thugs" to legally produce THEIR firearms when you pull yours....

Brandish and the thugs kill you legally, GOOD THINKIN!....

Very good post.

 

[armoredman]

Laws change from state to state. Do not use any advice from another set of state laws other than from Arizona. Get competant instruction, too.

As for the scenario described...

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

And,

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

And,

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

D. This section is not limited to the use or threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

And,

13-1204. Aggravated assault; classification; definition

A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as defined in section 13-1203 under any of the following circumstances:

1. If the person causes serious physical injury to another.

2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
....

And,

13-105. Definitions...
...12. "Deadly physical force" means force which is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.

Reading just these indicates that an assault by a number of individuals, using the reasonable man standard, could be construed as an act of deadly physical force, and self defense using or threatening to use deadly physical force can be held to be justifiable in the state of Arizona.
All quotes above from Arizona Revised Statues. BTW, here's the bonus clause....

13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

 

[mljdeckard]

The question isn't whether or not a punch is serious bodily injury. The question is, whether or not you can convince a jury it was serious bodily injury. The entire intent of my post was to show that every situation and set of circumstances is different.

 

[Shawnee]

How much raping of your wife can the BGs do before you're allowed to draw?

I'd bet there isn't a cop or lawyer or judge in the state that would insist your right to draw required getting a "little beat up first". Methinks your instructor should not be an instructor. Or maybe that "instructor" is imaginary.

 

[iiibdsiil]

If you aren't willing to sit in jail because of your decision with a smile on your face, you made the wrong decision. You should ultimately be happy to be alive, with little regard to what laws you may have broken.

Not sure if that makes sense to anyone but me though. Hard to put that thought into words on a computer.

 

[TooTaxed]

You have two choices...(1.) whether to draw, and (2.) when to shoot.

Twice, both in friendly California, I was saved from unprovoked physical assaults by drawing. In both cases the bad guys backed away and quickly departed, I suppose going to find someone who wasn't armed.

In neither case did I have to pull the trigger.

 

[mljdeckard]

Who said anything about letting yourself get beat up before you prevent a sexual assualt? You are adding context that is neither realistic nor in discussion.

What I'm saying is, anyone who punches you doesn't automatically get shot.

 

[PennsyPlinker]

The question isn't whether or not a punch is serious bodily injury. The question is, whether or not you can convince a jury it was serious bodily injury. The entire intent of my post was to show that every situation and set of circumstances is different.

I agree to a certain extent (that every situation and set of circumstances is different), but my point is, I do not intend to have to convince a jury of anything regarding someone else hitting me. If I let someone get that close, the odds are very good that I may not be around to convince anyone of anything. I can take punches fairly well, but if someone makes a move like he is going to hit me, he is going to be looking down the barrel of a gun. Period. He will continue to stare down that barrel until either the police arrive, or he runs away as fast as he can - or, in worst case, presses his attack and ends up shot. I do not need to get hit and I do not want to get hit. I have enough life experience to know how things work, and how people think, and I think I do not want to test my ability to take a punch so I can get out of a jury examination easier.

Bad guys do not want to call the cops to turn you in for pointing a gun at them. Their minds do not work that way. Most bad guys are going to worry more about the cop asking them why you were pointing a gun at them. If you think that is inaccurate, just read the police reports and crime stories in your local paper to see how difficult it is for the police to get anyone involved in BG on BG crime to testify even after they have been shot. It happens all the time in a city near here. Bad guys do not want anything to do with cops, and they are not going to call to have you arrested if you prevent them from trying to rob or hurt you by pointing your gun in their faces.

Who said anything about letting yourself get beat up before you prevent a sexual assualt? You are adding context that is neither realistic nor in discussion.

What I'm saying is, anyone who punches you doesn't automatically get shot.

Since I am quoting you in my other responses... I agree completely here on two counts. In the first place, the above scenario is not what was originally posted, and is nothing more than thread drift. It drives me nuts when people change the original post and ask you to defend their changes.

In the second, I also agree that I would not and do not advocate shooting someone for punching me, unless there is a the possibility of followup with more punches, which is very likely in the original scenario. My whole point, and perhaps we are in agreement, is that it should never come to allowing someone that close. The end of a gun is a wonderful deterrent to those who would like to engage in fisticuffs. Used properly it maintains social order.

 

[up_onus]

Pennysplinker

Good luck with your "brandishing" when you get into a fistfight!!
And, Good luck with your shooting someone who wants to hit you with their fist...If you know the law, and your a lil "crazy" or "drugged up", it would be easy to continue the attack. Your asking for A LOT of legal fees at the bare minimum and very possible prison time.

 

[Outlaws]

Your asking for A LOT of legal fees at the bare minimum and very possible prison time.

I hate to take this thread further off topic, but that brings up a good point. In my CCW class, the instructor said, "Every bullet comes with a $100,000 legal fee. Someone will file a civil suit no matter how justified you were at plugging their relative."

But there is a section in the Arizona Revised Statute about that...at least it seems like its about that.

13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

I don't know when this was passed into law, but that would seem to mean that you cannot be sued in civil court if it was a "good shoot".

Anyone in AZ have a take on that?

 

[Outlaws]

Bad guys do not want to call the cops to turn you in for pointing a gun at them. Their minds do not work that way. Most bad guys are going to worry more about the cop asking them why you were pointing a gun at them.

That is very true. But this whole thing about legal or not legal has more to do with a situational thing. If you are outside a packed bar and someone gets in your face and you draw a firearm, there may or maynot be witnesses who don't care one way or the other if you were in the right or not. The point, you are know subject to aggrivated assault charges and you can say bye bye to your gun collection.

Even though I spent some time in this thread pointing out you cannot legally place your hand on a firearm for someone yelling at you or even punching you once, that isn't to say I wouldn't do it. If I am in a dark alley or something, you are damn right I ain't putting up with very much. I would try to walk away if its reasonable, but I wouldn't hesitate to draw. Now if there is a group of people I wouldn't draw or even display, I would only shoot. Its hard enought to keep an eye on person let alone two or more.

 

[PennsyPlinker]

Uhhh, I don't get into fistfights. I don't go places or associate with people who think that fist fighting is a normal part of social intercourse. Beyond that, I am not exactly sure how to respond to your post. Your sentences don't make a whole lot of sense to me, although I am sure it is probably clear in your mind.

Are you suggesting that I am "crazy" or "drugged up"?

Perhaps you are suggesting that lawyers who "know the law" are out drinking and drugging, and then preying on people with their fists?

Who are you anyway, and do you have any life experience beyond the playground at school? In normal adult society people do not go around getting into fistfights to make a point or for recreation.