If you brabd/take out a gun...then you have to use it?
 

a friend of mine was at local bar when confronted with a drunk women who decided on her own that he was disrespectful to her. He forgot about it. 45 minutes later two large men ( her 2 sons) walk in bar and ask him to step outside. He does. the son punches him in the face, and asked.."What do you got..tough gay?"

Now there are 5 or so people outside the club..the mother shouting shit like "kick his ass"'

His truck was right there and he went inside a took of his 9MM....and pointed at the the dude.

Situation under control. He left.

He came back the next day to arrange a sit down, but was told...never brandish unless you are going to us it and held strong to the theory.


No option right? Reason is because I am going to try and debate this with a friend.

why would you have to use it? you should be prepared to but firing a gun with intent to injure someone should be a last resort, after brandishing the gun in an attempt to get the person to submit or at least get the person to let you leave the situation

I've pulled out my weapon twice without having to fire it. If it de escalates a situation, and you don't have to use it, it did it's job.

Having a gun is more important as a deterrent, imho. But be always prepared to use it. If they still attacked, then by all means discharge it.

Thanks that the first response was he wanted to read. I hope I get more agrees for him.

He was told Never brandish a gun unless you mean to use it. He did not Fire.

i shoot first and worry about it later

Truthfully, it sounds like he was ready to use it. And if you go by force escalation, two versus 1, bigger, younger, and already assaulted him, then he was clear to use the weapon in my eyes. When he took out the weapon, he was clearly ready to use it, or those two would have kept on coming. Hopefully this is a right to carry state, with a good stand your ground law to back him up.

Good job on knowing when to brandish, and when not to fire.

For personal defense a gun should protect your safety. Sounds like your friend used his gun correctly. If he would have shot it unnecessarily he might be in jail right now and how safe is that?

A few people will read above. Simple outline. Thanks. USA

I agree that he did the right thing.

But to play devils advocate here... With a family mental enough for the mother to purposely send her children into violence while cheering them on, the next time they 'run' into your friend at the bar they wont give him a chance to grab for a weapon and he'll never see it coming.

I think pulling a gun IS using it. If it diffuses the situation and lets you walk away intact it did its job in this case. You don't need to fire it to "use" it.

And a strange thing is attacking someone then allowing him to go to his vehicle to retrieve God knows what. Dumb on the attackers part ... Attacking someone then allowing him to arm himself?

.

Cops do it all the time,it stops or tries to a situation before it escalates

agreed,,

ROCK. btw i know Duke cool kat:pimp

Situation like that, you are probably going to jail if you use the gun against unarmed men. Except, of course, in Florida. Then, if you have to pull a gun, you can just go ahead and kill them.

That's the key point right there and that is EXACTLY why what he did was wrong. No need to pull a gun if you are already at your car. Get in and drive away.

That being said, if he had the gun on him and pulled it because he could not get away, very different story.

He brandished a weapon after he had already stepped away from the situation. That is illegal in most cases.

Stepping out.

What I surmised from the feedback was a thug vs a responcible mind.:warning

A responsible mind would have got in his car and driven away.

You'd have a tough time selling this situation as self-defense I'm afraid.

First off, your friend waws inside a club. A legal place of business. Presumably the club has employees, phones and these type of things. Your friend knew what the two guys meant when they asked him to step outside, and he went ahead and did that of his own free will.

Secondly, as already mentioned, he was able to remove himself from the situation to his vehicle and then chose to RETURN with a weapon.

There were at least two opportunities for your friend to avoid the whole situation. From a prosecutors point of view, I think you'd have some serious problems. Remove the personal connection and look at the situation objectively:

Your friend, while drinking at a club, accepted the invitation to step outside, got in a fight and lost. He then gets a weapon from his vehicle and returns to the scene.

Does that sound like defense to you? If he had of pulled that trigger, he might well be facing a manslaughter charge. We he have been convicted? Who knows.

I think the best argument you can make to or for your friend is that if he's going to go out drinking, maybe he should leave the guns at home period.

Guns kill people. :2 cents:

Without knowing the exact circumstances, how far his car was, if he was still being attacked while going to his car, etc. it's all arm chair lawyers at this point.

The bottom line is brandishing his firearm saved him from the least an ass beating, at the most, death. In states like Florida, what he did was not against the law, with stand your ground.

If the ass beating was serious enough to justify him getting a gun then he would not have made it to his car.

Call me an armchair lawyer if you like, what he did was wrong and as warchild and have pointed out, he had other options.

Was he a black man?

With all due respect, you weren't there. So anything you post is purely conjecture. We are hearing a story second hand, how you can make a "judgement" based on a story that law enforcement wouldn't take as credible?

Sorry, leaving the safety of a club negates any stand your ground law I know of. When he was in the club, and accepted the invitation to go outside in private to settle it, you're knowingly putting yourself in harms way. That's not standing your ground, that's being reckless. :2 cents:

Never mind going to the car to get the gun afterwards. He knowingly went outside and put himself in that position.

Am I the only one that thinks regardless how shit turned out in the parking lot, that the guy was a pure fucking idiot for going back there the next day?

Do you know why he was asked to go outside? Where you there? Did they ask him outside to talk or to fight? You are making assumptions at this point. On a story that is being told second hand.

I'm removing everything out that I don't know about except for he got punched in the face, he was close to his car, he pulled out a weapon, de escalated the situation.

Adding anything else is flat out conjecture to bolster your argument.

You're being ridiculous. Of course he knew what going outside meant. Did he think the two big guys scowling at him wanted to play chess outside where it was a little more quiet? It's stupid on the face of the argument and frankly I can't believe you're making it.

I'm honestly quite glad we don't have your gun laws up here in Canada. A gun didn't de-esculate a bad situation. A moron caused a bad situation he was lucky to get out of with his gun. If he was walking out of the bar and the two guys jumped him you'd have a case. Agreeing to go with them was stupid.

I'm using the facts I have, everything else is conjecture. No one here, including the OP knows for sure what happened. You can throw out as many straw man arguments you want, you weren't there. Brandishing his weapon stopped violence on his person. The gun did it's job.

How do you know? You werent there.

No I wasn't, but I read the OP's first post. Did you?

Fortunately morons who get themselves in to situations like this with guns are much more likely to get themself taken out of any further situations. Moron 1 pulled a gun on Moron 2 and 3 over a bar fight. One that was so bad it involved him being punched in the face one time. Hopefully he doesn't run in to Moron 2 and Moron 3 sometime down the road where they decide to "stand their ground" and just shoot him dead.

So very glad to not have these types of laws on the books here. Only other place I've ever run in to similar laws was Third World Countries. I wonder if that's why states like Florida have violent crime and murder rates similar to Third World Countries? Things that make you go hmmm.

We've been asked to give our opinions based on the information provided.

Last I checked, Stand your ground was used twice in the past few years in Florida. Violent crime has ZERO to do with citizens who follow the law. Violent crime is committed by Criminals, and they don't give a fuck about the law. That's a false red herring you threw out there.

Please provide a link to the gun laws specifically anything "stand your ground" from the third world country you have lived in. Without doing the research, I don't believe they exist.

So he was aware the woman was upset with him. She confronted him.
Woman who he knows is angry returns with two large men that ask him to "step outside". The facts as presented already suggest that he knew or should have known he was about to leave a safe location to be outside, in the parking lot, with people that are upset. There's no conjecture here, only common sense.
Certainly sounds like a vicious beating! After the one punch he was willing to kill somebody? I'm not sure that qualifies as grievous injury. Especially given the circumstances (see above).

Are you sure you read it? The whole post? Really?

You were asked the following: Was it okay to pull out a gun, but not use it.

Did you answer that?

You do know you are reading into (poorly) an after action synopsis given second hand, right? Are you sure you want to continue making assumptions? Really?

You are arguing over and above what the OP asked. CONJECTURE. Type it in Google for the definition.

I can say I read it.

What I see is that a guy chose to leave a bar to face a confrontation, got his ass beat, made his way to his car, and instead of driving away, he pulled out a gun so he can feel like a big man.

WHOA NOW!

I missed something earlier...

WTF was a woman doing deciding anything on her own?

And who cares if he's disrespecting her? She's a drunk woman, in a bar, most likely disrespecting herself. :winkwink:

We don't know from the OP if he was able or not to leave with his car. Is his car blocked in, was he being bum rushed, etc. So that's out.

We do know that he pulled his weapon and the situation de escalated. That was the gist of the OP's post.

Was he right in brandishing? He got to see another day.

It's not a false red herring because despite being able to "stand your ground", you still have unbelievably high crime rates. At very least, it's simply not working.

Twice in the past few years in Florida? Really? With all due respect, I think you should start with research right at home in Florida.

I honestly think it's kind of sad that you feel the best way to deal with a bad situation is to go out in to a parking lot and pull a gun on somebody at some point during a night of drinking. No gun was required. Declining to go outside, or if need be calling the police would have ended the situation. That you can't see this is amazing to me.

Clearly I have.

The question posed is:

"Was it okay..."

In this case, no, it was not OK.

Had his question been:

"Is it OK..."

Then the answer is yes, depending on other conditions. Conditions which made this particular situation not OK.

OK?

So let me make sure I have this absolutely straight. It's okay for you to quote the original poster when it supports, in your mind, what you're saying but anybody else that uses that same information is making assumptions? Lol. Have you been drinking?

I don't live in Florida anymore, haven't since 2009, when I did, the Stand Your Ground law was used twice. Read my post.

It is a red herring as you have nothing to dispute that the Stand Your Ground law isn't working. I was quoting the stats I had when I lived in Florida that Stand Your Ground was used and passed.

The "Stand Your Ground" law is so not working that what? 14 other states are enacting them?

I'm not emotionally invested in this thread, no do I have to be right that I have to use personal opinions to make my statement. The OP asked, do you have to use a gun if you pull it out. I answered it. Simple. No need to go off the tangent.

I'm off for my night, but there's one thing I'd rather rely on in this world.

"I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6", any day of the week.

Show me where you are doing anything but making assumptions or a straw man argument.

You know I don't drink, and it's a played out ad hominem. I thought better of you.

As presented, it's not an assumption that he agreed to go out in to a parking lot of a club with people he knew were upset with him. The original poster says exactly that. No conjecture, that's how the story has been reported. Either we can believe the basic facts as presented, or we have to discard the entire story.

I'd be right there with you if say, upon leaving the bar he was assaulted out of nowhere by two guys. I might even buy that he needed to get the gun and not drive away. That's clearly not the case here. Again, not an assumption.

No gun was ever required to prevent injury in this situation. The whole situation could have easily been avoided.

Was he legally drunk?

I'm pretty sure shooting someone when legally drunk is going to earn you a murder charge. Maybe not murder, but voluntary manslaughter.

I think that the sons should beat that dumb trouble making god damned worthless bitch half to death and be done with it before the piece of garbage she is gets them both killed with her fucking problem causing... what a horrible woman to put her sons and that innocent man into such a position..... that waste of air should kill itself :thumbsup

If I brandish I am 100% ready to pull a trigger on you.... no one has ever persisted after I've pulled mine, yet.. but pulling it and not having the balls to use it will get your stupid ass killed real fast

"Don't Freeze :1orglaugh"

Fifty guys with guns!


Of course I read it. But you're assuming that the guy pointing his gun at another guy caused the situation to be under control. It doesnt say that. It doesnt say exactly what caused the situation to become under control. And who's control was the situation under, exactly? It doesnt say that either.

Its easy to assume that the guy pointing his gun at another guy caused the situation to be under the gunman's control, but that is not what it says. You're reading a (poorly written) third party account of something that happened and telling other people that they dont know what happened because they werent there, while you yourself dont know what happened either. The story is full of blanks.

I can only say what I would have done, had it been me in the story as presented:

I wouldnt have been in the club in the first place.

I wouldnt have went outside with two guys bigger than me, or even smaller than me, that I did not know. I'd have told them to get lost and stayed in the club.

If two guys assaulted me in a parking lot and I had a gun with me, damn right it would come out. But if the fight stopped at that point I would not shoot anyone.

If I didnt have a gun with me but I could make it to my vehicle, I'd leave. I wouldnt get my gun and come back, and I damn sure wouldnt shoot anyone at that point. Giving my money to attorneys and going to prison over stupid bullshit has never been one of my goals.

I would not have went back to the club the next day. Somebody with their own gun could have been waiting.