Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 120

Thread: Question about pointing pistol at someone

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fairfield County, CT
    Quote Originally Posted by tgs View Post
    i'm not a lawyer. Caveat emptor:

    I don't think that keeping the gun at the low-ready is any different than pointing a gun at someone. you're still presenting a hostile intent to use lethal force, which is a big reason i'm not for using a gun as a non-lethal alternative.....because it doesn't exist as a concept. It doesn't matter whether you aren't intending to shoot them...you're still presenting a hostile intent with lethal force. If you pull a gun, then you better have the reason to shoot them, too. If you don't, then you are giving him the right to shoot you. The lethal force continuum applies to everyone.

    How familiar does this sound:

    "you can't read a persons mind, so if they are presenting oaj then you shoot them. You can't tell if they are actually meaning to stop short of killing you and just beat you up, humiliate you, ect. They might be wanting to kill you, they might not be, but they're still presenting oaj to kill you...so kill them."

    that applies to us as well......no one knows what we're thinking, either. you can not use a lethal weapon as a non-lethal alternative.

    If they happen to stop upon seeing my gun before i shoot, then all the better.......that is a good day. A great man once said, "today i didn't even have to use my ak, i got to say it was a good day." true that. A gun is not a bargaining chip, it's a problem solving tool.
    yes.

    Yes!!!

  2. #22
    A possibly related point...

    In my training for dealing(unarmed) with combative patients, we were told things like "It should be clear to someone across the street that you're the good guy" and "It should be obvious to someone who can't hear what you're saying that you're trying to help." For us that meant body language -- the stance and gestures for "easy, big fella", not "bring it on".

    Being at the low ready instead of actually pointing your weapon might make a huge difference in the eyewitness accounts of what happened.

  3. #23
    A camel named Charlie... TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by peterb View Post
    A possibly related point...

    In my training for dealing(unarmed) with combative patients, we were told things like "It should be clear to someone across the street that you're the good guy" and "It should be obvious to someone who can't hear what you're saying that you're trying to help." For us that meant body language -- the stance and gestures for "easy, big fella", not "bring it on".

    Being at the low ready instead of actually pointing your weapon might make a huge difference in the eyewitness accounts of what happened.
    Yes, you should try to present yourself in a professional, "good guy" manner.

    Respectfully, I think relying on that to shape the outcome of the situation is relying on reality to conform to a utopian concept and grossly dangerous. Enter the case of Special Agent John Capano.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    Respectfully, I think relying on that to shape the outcome of the situation is relying on reality to conform to a utopian concept and grossly dangerous. Enter the case of Special Agent John Capano.
    I'm not suggesting that it will shape the outcome, or that it should be a high priority in a dangerous situation. It's just another element to consider.

    On the other end of the force scale, we had a high-profile case last year in NH of a homeowner who received a felony conviction and jail time for "brandishing" a pistol at a trespasser. The law as then written made "displaying" legal but "brandishing" illegal. At trial, the accuser testified that he pointed the gun towards her.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fairfield County, CT
    Quote Originally Posted by peterb View Post
    I'm not suggesting that it will shape the outcome, or that it should be a high priority in a dangerous situation. It's just another element to consider.

    On the other end of the force scale, we had a high-profile case last year in NH of a homeowner who received a felony conviction and jail time for "brandishing" a pistol at a trespasser. The law as then written made "displaying" legal but "brandishing" illegal. At trial, the accuser testified that he pointed the gun towards her.
    The difference between "display" and "brandishing" is likely that displaying a firearm is a justified use of a firearm when circumstances permit...but brandishing is the unlawful display of a firearm when circumstances do not justify it.

    The action is the same, the circumstance is not.

    Think of it like getting falling down smashed and acting like a fool.

    Perfectly acceptable on the beach at a keg party with a crowd of strangers...not acceptable at the same location when it's a company cookout with the boss attending.

    In both cases, you may do the same thing - but only one situation seems to believe that behavior is acceptable.

    Bringing a gun into play isn't a minor thing.

    It's just not.

    We can debate the fine points of aiming in vs. low ready...doing that in the office behind Courtroom 3B at 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT before the Honorable - I should probably not mention Judge's names online - and whichever State's Attorney happens to be doing felony matters that day...

    Rather another thing.

    The people you will be justifying your actions do see a lot of people do a lot of bad things, and they aren't adverse to referring to some of the "Frequent Flyers" as "The Late, Unlamented..." - BUT... understand you are effectively doing the same thing to those people as they'd do to you, and it looks a lot like you threatened someone, assaulted someone, or killed someone.

    This reminds me of when people used to ask on another forum "Where can I cut someone so the prosecutor will know I was just defending myself?"

    You can't!

    The actions of defending yourself are not distinguishable from the actions of someone assaulting another person!

    Only the situation matters. Only the Pre-Fight & Post-Fight make the matter different.

    Head shooting someone is still headshooting someone.
    Stabbing someone is still stabbing someone.

    Pointing a gun at them?

    Pointing a gun at them.

    Actions don't really change that much, circumstances do.

  6. #26
    Site Supporter Nephrology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Gateway to the West

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchell, Esq. View Post
    Bridgeport, CT
    Fun place to be! Speaking of lethal force....

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchell, Esq. View Post
    I'd disagree for CT based on my experience.

    If it was unjustified, you would be charged the same way: threatening in the 1st degree, which is a felony.

    The CT courts would consider the display of a firearm the use of a firearm.

    If you are justified, it doesn't matter, if you aren't...
    Having previously been a CT resident for near 30 years, I understand that CT's laws may be neither logical nor representative of other locales. However, I spent many hours hunting in CT with a long gun, and I can tell you that there is an enormous difference between carrying a long gun in what might be considered a ready position and pointing that same long gun intentionally at another person.

    Here is Alaska's law: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/...Section900.htm

    (16) "deadly force" means force that the person uses with the intent of causing, or uses under circumstances that the person knows create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious physical injury; "deadly force" includes intentionally discharging or pointing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction in which another person is believed to be and intentionally placing another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument;


    Leaving aside your interpretation of CT's law, or for that manner any law, given the risk of a negligent discharge hitting a person, and understanding the mechanics of hitting your target as described above, should make pointing a weapon at another person something to be avoided, in favor of an extended, confirmed ready with the muzzle below the threat?

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fairfield County, CT
    Quote Originally Posted by Nephrology View Post
    Fun place to be! Speaking of lethal force....
    Don't be hatin, homes.

    Be coo, yo. Be coo. S'all good.

    Word.

  9. #29
    Leopard Printer Mr_White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Gaming In The Streets
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitchell, Esq. View Post
    I'd disagree for CT based on my experience.

    If it was unjustified, you would be charged the same way: threatening in the 1st degree, which is a felony.

    The CT courts would consider the display of a firearm the use of a firearm.

    If you are justified, it doesn't matter, if you aren't...
    Ive been advised that Oregon law is similar that having a gun in hand and pointed in the general direction (almost think of a 180 rule) of a person, without justification for the use of deadly force, may be a criminal act. Some of us here believe that there will be no legal difference between having a gun pointed/aimed directly at a person without justification, and having a gun pointed in their direction, but not directly at them, without justification. Ditto if justified in both cases no legal difference. Both are likely to be seen as deadly force directed at someone, even if not precisely enough at them to have a bullet strike them if a shot were fired without further refinement of the muzzle orientation.

    This reduces the legal utility of most high ready and low ready positions. A muzzle buried (SUL) or muzzle up position (straight up, like Norte) might improve legal standing. Maybe. I think even a fully muzzle-averted ready position might still be adjudicated as an unjustified threat of deadly force though, depending on the specifics of the human interaction in the situation.

    My personal calculus for when to put someone at gunpoint is essentially that AOJ must already be present, but modified for the human performance factors (distance, obstacles, time, action vs. reaction, etc.) that necessitate having the gun closer to the position from which I can immediately engage than the holster, or I risk being unable to act in time to keep myself from being killed or seriously injured. It boils down to AOJ modified by the necessities of time.

    This gives rise to an approximation of the old and oversimplified adage dont draw the gun until you are going to fire immediately. There are situations where I might draw the gun and point it toward someone but not yet fire it, however, that span of situations is narrowed compared to what it might be in another state with a different legal situation.

    When ready positions are legally weakened, the importance of a fast draw increases, but active awareness, and manipulation of environmental and interactive factors to allow us more time to evaluate the potential threat or give us additional or clearer information with which to evaluate the potential threat, or might even allow the luxury of disengagement, are still the most important (creating distance, using obstacles, adding artificial light, verbal interactive skills, recognition of threat cues, etc.)

    The above mostly references the legal aspects, as this non-lawyer sees it, of ready positions. I absolutely concur with the human performance/mechanical assertions of Bill Rogers re: ready positions vs. trying to get ahead by having muzzle on target, sights on target, and trying to look past the visual input-blocking or visual input-reducing hands and gun.

  10. #30
    A camel named Charlie... TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    Having previously been a CT resident for near 30 years, I understand that CT's laws may be neither logical nor representative of other locales. However, I spent many hours hunting in CT with a long gun, and I can tell you that there is an enormous difference between carrying a long gun in what might be considered a ready position and pointing that same long gun intentionally at another person.

    Here is Alaska's law: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/...Section900.htm

    (16) "deadly force" means force that the person uses with the intent of causing, or uses under circumstances that the person knows create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious physical injury; "deadly force" includes intentionally discharging or pointing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction in which another person is believed to be and intentionally placing another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument;


    Leaving aside your interpretation of CT's law, or for that manner any law, given the risk of a negligent discharge hitting a person, and understanding the mechanics of hitting your target as described above, should make pointing a weapon at another person something to be avoided, in favor of an extended, confirmed ready with the muzzle below the threat?

    Whether or not you're threatening someone who may or may not be interacting with you, by carrying a long arm at the ready position in the wilderness of Alaska, is entirely situation dependent.

    You can still be threatening a person with a long arm at the ready. Or you might not be.



    (16) "deadly force" means force that the person uses with the intent of causing, or uses under circumstances that the person knows create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious physical injury; "deadly force" includes intentionally discharging or pointing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction in which another person is believed to be and intentionally placing another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument;

    The low ready is pointing a firearm in someone's direction, or where you believe another person to be.

    Thus, if the person has doubts as to your friendly disposition, and he believes you're in the low ready with a gun to harm him, he would very well be within his rights and logical reason to blast you. It's pretty cut and dry.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

TLG 1970–2016 RIPRampageForTheCure.org