Posted by fibernar: I have no problem with this! Don't get me wrong! I just am/was confused because in my other thread people were saying drawing isn't justified unless you are ready to shoot.
No, no, no, not "ready" to shoot,
justified in the use of deadly force.
And again, that varies by state. In at least a couple of states that I know of, one may present a weapon if
force is justified to prevent certain crimes, and in another, one may "display" a firearm defensively, as defined in the law, when deadly force is not necessarily justified.
That leaves the law, which includes the case law, in each of the other states and the territories. A member here once said that in his jurisdiction, one could lawfully hold a firearm in his hand as long as he did not point it at anyone, while investigating an incident of trespass. Whether that was his opinion, that of a police officer, that of an attorney, or something set forth in an appellate court ruling, he did not say. Only the last would have any authority.
The wise thing to do is to do everything you can to avoid crossing the yellow line if you do not know exactly where it is.
Draw only when it is necessary.
Posted by Carl N. Brown: The local newspaper has had a few recent reported detentions of burglars at gun point by homeowner/resident with no reported downside to the citizen arrestor.
Yes, and one reads about it in
The Armed Citizen all the time.
I'm not sure just exactly what the homeowners think they are holding a gun for (self defense would be justified, but do people realize that they cannot shoot a burglar who chooses to depart?). I do not see much legal risk other than the potential for civil liability, but the downside described above by Shadow 7D is there, and in the case of a home burglary, there is the additional risk of being ambushed by an accomplice.
Posted by brboyer: The law has not changed, yet. The Governor has not signed the bill yet...
Good catch. Thanks.
Still, this change has nothing at all to do with the situation described, the use of force laws do.
While the change was initially proposed to permit open carry, and ended up being enacted ostensibly to preclude prosecution for the inadvertent display of a concealed firearm, the term inadvertent does not appear in the code, and I should think that the change, when it goes into effect, would be relevant in cases such as these in which a civilian briefly displays a firearm.
Regarding the use of force laws, since the witness had not been directed by a police officer to assist in making an arrest, the only applicable law would be that pertaining to the use of force in defense of person. Was holding the gun lawful? Well, the witness was not trying to gain leverage in an argument, but on the other hand, where is no indication in the article that he had reason to believe that imminent danger existed, so it's not clear.
I still think it boils down to whether it would have been a good idea to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had committed a crime. I would think not. Every now and then, reason prevails.
Posted by quatin: This guy was taking a gamble. In situations where no one gets hurt, usually there's no consequences for the good guy. However, if one of the thieves was aggressive and he had to shoot, he might be labeled a vigilante. It's hard to predict the actions of the police, public opinion, the district attorney and ultimately the jury. The less you give them the less you're at risk.
Yep.
I would wager that our hero here had absolutely no idea that he could not lawfully use any force at all to overcome resistance against arrest unless he had been summoned or directed to assist a police officer in making the arrest.
