Thoughts on this sutuation

[SMS]

I guess I missed the part of the law that defines having a visable weapon represents a threat of deadly force...oh yeah its not in there.

The first part says it all. This is your opinion and you are entitled to it however incorrect it might be.

Did I say it was law? No, I said it is questionable and irresponsible. If you get into an altercation with someone and they pull their shirt up to reveal a gun, how will you take it? As an invitation to dinner?

Open carry was not passed so that we can all pull our shirts up and flash our guns everytime we get spooked or someone scary looks in our direction.

 

[RussellR]

Problem? Yes, I think so. Person A purposefully and intentionally displayed a firearm, whether in a holster or not, during a completely avoidable verbal, non-life threatening confrontation....that meets my personal definition of brandishing and I think it is irresponsible.

While Person B needs to learn how to drive. Person A, if he choses to go about the world armed, needs to learn to keep his mouth shut and not instigate confrontations and then attempt to use the display of a deadly weapon to get him out of a situation that he created.

That about sums it up.

 

[Phildo64]

I know at least with me, If this person where to reach for a gun where as a scare tactic BS trying to call a bluff or something HE/SHE/THEY have now escalated the situation beyond verbal altercation, they are now displaying a lethal weapon with probable intent to use it(otherwise why show it) a reasonable person with any common sense and training can assume that if you brandish a weapon in a heated situation thats intent(do that crap to a cop and see how it works out), **** got real and well that guy/gal/they are getting shot in the face-FIN. But hey thats just me, my weapon is only coming out to party not for peep shows period.

 

[AKguy1985]

Person A shouldnt have said anything. Person B should have kept on driving.

 

[spd67]

I guess I missed the part of the law that defines having a visable weapon represents a threat of deadly force...oh yeah its not in there.

The first part says it all. This is your opinion and you are entitled to it however incorrect it might be.

Really?...So I got a bet for you...why don't you conceal carry and then go find the first cop you can find...get into an argument with him and in that argument pull up your shirt and show him your gun....what do you think would really happen. How do you think that cop would take that. In the what if the woman pulls up her shirt exposing her gun, the intent is clear...if you don't leave me alone I will shoot and kill you...the threat is there and implicit and is against the law under Oklahoma law.

 

[okiebryan]

I would argue that an aggressive man advancing on a woman after she has told him to stop IS a threat of deadly force with or without any weapons.

Agreed.

 

[bigfug]

OKlahoma's SDA states that displaying or flashing a firearm is considered a use of force. So in my opinion the pedestrian escalated use of force. Anytime a firearm is involved, even when not fired,by drawing it, plaing a hand on it, etc, its considered deadly force. By OK law, you can never use deadly force against a non-deadly threat (Castle Doctrine differs from the SDA). Unnecessary force is not lawful. Unreasonable force may also subject the actor to criminal and/or civil liability. A person can never use deadly force against a non-deadly threat. If a cop, or the drivers family member were nearby, like maybe he just pulled out of his drive way, and his wife saw it, even the driver himself would be probably have reasonable justification to draw down on you or worse.

 

[gillman7]

I would argue that an aggressive man advancing on a woman after she has told him to stop IS a threat of deadly force with or without any weapons.

OKlahoma's SDA states that displaying or flashing a firearm is considered a use of force. So in my opinion the pedestrian escalated use of force. Anytime a firearm is involved, even when not fired,by drawing it, plaing a hand on it, etc, its considered deadly force. By OK law, you can never use deadly force against a non-deadly threat (Castle Doctrine differs from the SDA). Unnecessary force is not lawful. Unreasonable force may also subject the actor to criminal and/or civil liability. A person can never use deadly force against a non-deadly threat. If a cop, or the drivers family member were nearby, like maybe he just pulled out of his drive way, and his wife saw it, even the driver himself would be probably have reasonable justification to draw down on you or worse.

Define non deadly force. The difference lies and a disparity of force in the conflict. Every worthwhile CCL instruct the class that man on woman, two men on one, adult on child is always an automatic disparity of force. Personally if I am Person A, and Person B was driving wildly, then responded in a road rage manner, and he was still in his truck with it running, I am clearing any obstacle that I might have in the event I need to protect myself.

 

[okiebryan]

I'll just leave this here.

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

[okiebryan]

OKlahoma's SDA states that displaying or flashing a firearm is considered a use of force.

Help me out here. I don't see this language anywhere in the SDA. Please cite.