Thoughts on this sutuation

[Michael Brown]

Either transitioning to open carry is a threat or it isn't.

This is simply not so.

Intent weighs incredibly heavily in the decision to prosecute so these hypothetical situations are all pretty ridiculous. All of the examples that could be exceptions require affirmative defense, so it is not a bright line distinction; you have to be able to explain why you did something that could be construed as a crime. That is why trials are not held in internet chatrooms.

A prosecutor and eventually judge and jury will be asked to weigh to person's intent when they committed the act they did.

If they find it reasonable, there will be no problem; If they don't, there will be a conviction.

Since it appears as though the poster wants us to believe that the person transitioning to oepn carry did so as a deterrent, it can be inferred to be a use of force.

My experience in the Oklahoma legal system leads me to believe that this would not likely be prosecuted simply because of case management, but if it were prosecuted would likely lead to a conviction.

However that is opinion only.

Michael Brown

 

[EFsDad]

Intent weighs incredibly heavily in the decision to prosecute so these hypothetical situations are all pretty ridiculous.

If they find it reasonable, there will be no problem; If they don't, there will be a conviction.

Michael Brown

I thought I said this five days ago.

Have a good day everyone!

Merry Christmas Michael and thanks for always looking out for everyone!

 

[NikatKimber]

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html
http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/unarmed-man-attempts-to-rob-emu-student-carrying-holstered-gun/
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/reports/reports2006/073106robNewtonPatton.htm
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...p-dont-chase-the-guy-who-just-stole-your-gun/
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=086_1260862712

If criminals will not attack an armed person, then cops never get in fights...right?

As far as tactics... it's not like I'm advising the use of ninja smoke here. I won't try to sell anyone on the relevance of the Tueller drill or the entire science of managing unknown contacts to these scenarios. Suit yourself. I'm just glad we're all interested in decent people being safer.

I doubt that transitioning between open and concealed carry at any time both are legal is technically illegal. I would, however, have serious concerns about how an aggressive prosecutor would use this act with a jury.

LEO vs civilian in this case aren't apples to apples.

Just for starters, if I start something with a LEO, and then run, gets buddies to join in, they all chase me down, and throw me in jail.

If I start something with a civilian, then decide to run away, said civilian is legally barred from pursuing.

So with a LEO, it's either confront one officer now, or a whole passel of them later. And they're all mad. And they've all got guns, and more radios. And even more backup if they need it. And SWAT teams probably.

With the civvy, it may never come to a confrontation.

 

[NikatKimber]

This is simply not so.

Intent weighs incredibly heavily in the decision to prosecute so these hypothetical situations are all pretty ridiculous. All of the examples that could be exceptions require affirmative defense, so it is not a bright line distinction; you have to be able to explain why you did something that could be construed as a crime. That is why trials are not held in internet chatrooms.

A prosecutor and eventually judge and jury will be asked to weigh to person's intent when they committed the act they did.

If they find it reasonable, there will be no problem; If they don't, there will be a conviction.

Since it appears as though the poster wants us to believe that the person transitioning to oepn carry did so as a deterrent, it can be inferred to be a use of force.

My experience in the Oklahoma legal system leads me to believe that this would not likely be prosecuted simply because of case management, but if it were prosecuted would likely lead to a conviction.

However that is opinion only.

Michael Brown

Well said.

 

[Glocktogo]

Either transitioning to open carry is a threat or it isn't.

You might think that, but you'd be wrong!

 

[NikatKimber]

Hypotheticals are just that, hypothetical. They are not a real situation, and since they aren't, they don't have the background, nor the detail to make valid conclusions.

Take this:

What happens if I cross a double yellow to miss an animal in the road?

There are two opposite answers. And it depends on the details.

Same with OC/CC.

If I walk into a restaurant and take off my jacket, pull out my chair and sit down; I've transitioned from CC to OC.

If as I'm walking out I get into an argument with the manager, and sweep my jacket back, showing my gun; I've willfully exposed it and thereby introduced lethal force into a previously non-lethal confrontation.

One is ok, the other is not.

 

[Stephen]

How about this, person A is the store owner CC carried, person B is shoplifter.
Person A chase the B to the parking lot, duing the confrontation, B got into the car with the merchandise and person stepped in front the car but B kept going. Instead of move away, can he (A)pull the gun and shoot?

 

[Michael Brown]

How about this, person A is the store owner CC carried, person B is shoplifter.
Person A chase the B to the parking lot, duing the confrontation, B got into the car with the merchandise and person stepped in front the car but B kept going. Instead of move away, can he (A)pull the gun and shoot?

This scenario has been court tested many times over and the result is almost always that A's shooting is NOT justified.

Placing yourself in a position to use deadly force does not justify the force.

Michael Brown

 

[bigfug]

I'm really not trying to be a troll. I don't see any strawman. Either transitioning to open carry is a threat or it isn't. The road rage incident that the OP offered up was probably a poor illustration but there are real life scenarios where exposing a gun can prevent an attack.

And as in my post, what if the gun wasn't concealed before but the other person simply hadn't noticed it? or what if it was accidentally revealed by a gust of wind or ordinary movement?

I'm simply trying to illustrate that someone revealing their firearm is not using deadly force like some here were saying. The only reason I'm making an issue out of this is because I can see a time where exposing a gun could prevent a crime against the carrier from ever occurring.

[/B][/I]

In the original post, the firearm is purposely displayed, so intent is there. But to reitterate Michael Brown, it is situational and based on intent. If a gust of wind blew a jacket open, there is no intent. If it was open carried the whole time, and he just noticed, there is no intent. And yes, there are times that exposing the weapon can prevent a crime, but again, when you expose the weapon you are displaying the intent to use it. So the justification of your intented use or actual use has to be "reasonable". If the guy had stepped out of the truck with a tire iron, or wrench, or the pedestrian were a midget, handicapped, or a woman, and the driver a sasquatch, or something, it would be different, as there is a disparity of force, and a reasonable fear of imminent danger or bodily harm exists. So in the OP's original post, with the info provided in that post, its probably not the best move, but your situation may be different, so don't apply our answer to this situation to every situation that could arise. We arent saying every time you expose your weapon you plan to use it. If you are wearing a coat, and an OWB holster, go to dinner and take the coat off, you arent robbing the place. You are simply taking your coat off.

 

[twoguns?]

In the original post, the firearm is purposely displayed, so intent is there. But to reitterate Michael Brown, it is situational and based on intent. If a gust of wind blew a jacket open, there is no intent. If it was open carried the whole time, and he just noticed, there is no intent. And yes, there are times that exposing the weapon can prevent a crime, but again, when you expose the weapon you are displaying the intent to use it. So the justification of your intented use or actual use has to be "reasonable". If the guy had stepped out of the truck with a tire iron, or wrench, or the pedestrian were a midget, handicapped, or a woman, and the driver a sasquatch, or something, it would be different, as there is a disparity of force, and a reasonable person would be in fear of death or Great bodily harm exists. So in the OP's original post, with the info provided in that post, its probably not the best move, but your situation may be different, so don't apply our answer to this situation to every situation that could arise. We arent saying every time you expose your weapon you plan to use it. If you are wearing a coat, and an OWB holster, go to dinner and take the coat off, you arent robbing the place. You are simply taking your coat off.

Just sayin