Thoughts on this sutuation

[mr ed]

Slightly different scenario to think about would be.
Person A yells at person B.
Person B does not get out of truck, but yells back.
Person A shows gun.
Person B shoots person A.
Person B by not leaving truck is legally covered by castle doctrine because of "brandishing" threat of person A.

 

[BigTulsa]

Brandishing. Plain and simple. This was discussed in my CC class in July.

 

[okiebryan]

Ok, slightly different scenario.

Woman is pumping gas into her car. Man comes up and asks her for money. She says no, and tells him to leave her alone. He asks again, more agressively and moves closer. Woman opens jacket to expose legally holstered handgun. Man realizes he's late for choir practice.

Find me one DA in the state of Oklahoma who would prosecute this woman? By the way, "brandishing" only exists in state law in a disorderly conduct statute.

 

[okiebryan]

Slightly different scenario to think about would be.
Person A yells at person B.
Person B does not get out of truck, but yells back.
Person A shows gun.
Person B shoots person A.
Person B by not leaving truck is legally covered by castle doctrine because of "brandishing" threat of person A.

I'm fairly certain that if you shoot someone with a HOLSTERED handgun, who was not trying to break into your vehicle, that you will be sharing a cell with Jerome.

 

[mr ed]

I'm fairly certain that if you shoot someone with a HOLSTERED handgun, who was not trying to break into your vehicle, that you will be sharing a cell with Jerome.

They would not have to be breaking in. Because they could shoot thru your car without breaking in. And by exposing their gun, you have reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death and are justified.
This is for CC not OC. With OC the driver would hopefully have seen the gun on the other guys hip and never yelled back in the first place.

If someone is yelling and screaming at you, then raises their shirt or jacket to reveal a gun.
they have taken it to the next level and made a threat. imho

 

[SMS]

Ok, slightly different scenario.

Woman is pumping gas into her car. Man comes up and asks her for money. She says no, and tells him to leave her alone. He asks again, more agressively and moves closer. Woman opens jacket to expose legally holstered handgun. Man realizes he's late for choir practice.

Find me one DA in the state of Oklahoma who would prosecute this woman? By the way, "brandishing" only exists in state law in a disorderly conduct statute.

Threatening deadly force against another person when you have not been threatened with the probability of the same is wrong. Just because you might not be prosecuted for it does not make it right or responsible....or is your "Association" now promoting Technicaly-Not-Illegal and Unprosecutable Carry instead of Responsible Carry?

There are plenty of other options that the woman in your scenario can do before resorting to using the threat of deadly force.

 

[Sam Shoun]

Given a LEGITIMATE encounter with an aggressive unknown or bad guy, indexing the firearm (not exposing it, not brandishing it) by forming a visible grip is a viable option, under extremely limited circumstances. So limited that all the top self-defense instructors I know of are very reluctant to even teach or suggest it.

In the case of person A/B scenario, both were acting in an intimidating/threatening manner and both are cheesy imaginary tough guys that are begging for something tragic to happen. In the case of okiebryan's woman at the gas pump, the woman exposing her handgun is asking to get rushed, overcome, and have her weapon taken. She would be tremendously better off making some noise by shouting at the unknown to get him away from her.

Who cares about the legality of extremely poor self-defense tactics?

 

[sanjuro893]

Person A could always just get the tag number, call 911 and report the guy as a drunk driver.

 

[okiebryan]

Threatening deadly force against another person when you have not been threatened with the probability of the same is wrong. Just because you might not be prosecuted for it does not make it right or responsible....or is your "Association" now promoting Technicaly-Not-Illegal and Unprosecutable Carry instead of Responsible Carry?

There are plenty of other options that the woman in your scenario can do before resorting to using the threat of deadly force.

I believe in the situation given that said woman went from concealed carry to open carry. Period. Under no stretch of the imagination is that brandishing. Unsure what you consider irresponsible when a woman is aggressively advanced upon by a stranger after she has told him to leave her alone, and transitions to legal OC in order to take advantage of the obvious deterrent effect. Maybe you didn't hear, but the law changed on Nov 1.

BTW, just because I engage in a discussion about a hypothetical situation, it doesn't mean that the OKOCA is promoting anything. Surely you're smart enough to know the difference.

 

[okiebryan]

In the case of okiebryan's woman at the gas pump, the woman exposing her handgun is asking to get rushed, overcome, and have her weapon taken. She would be tremendously better off making some noise by shouting at the unknown to get him away from her.

In my example, she already did make some noise, and the stranger persisted in advancing. I have a hard time believing that a rapist/mugger/carjacker is going to do anything but retreat once he sees that she is willing and able to shoot him if he persists. So in your "tactical" opinion, should she just wait until he's upon her or showing a weapon before taking steps to defend herself? Might be too late.

Before Nov 1, lifting your shirt behind your gun was illegal. Now it's not. It's still one major step short of drawing, and even further short of shooting. This is one of the reasons why OC may result in fewer defensive shootings.