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.

I think that he we pretty stupid to oblige their request to step outside and I don't see why he would put himself back into harms way after he was in his vehicle... He definitely did the right thing not firing his weapon when they retreated

He should be arrested for brandishing the weapon.

You don't pull out a gun unless you are going to shoot. It's like rule #1 with guns, and if he's taken any training / safety courses then he should have known that. He should simply know that since he is a gun owner and is carrying it in public. Oh, and what the hell was he doing with a gun in a bar? I can only assume he hadn't been drinking right? Because otherwise he was breaking the law (a second time).

I dunno, seems like your friend is stupid and or is going to get himself killed. You know the issue with pulling out a gun to deescalate a situation? It doesn't deescalate it, it only escalates it and second it will get you killed. If anyone every pulled out a gun and someone else had theirs on them, they'd be dead if they didn't pull the trigger. Someone pulls out a gun it instantly means the opposition's life is in danger, end of story. Your friend is an idiot.

I carry every day and I'd never pull it out unless it was to use it, and the situation was to the point my life was in danger and someone needed to die for me to live.

Guns are for protection of your life, not scaring people...

So you would only use a gun to kill someone, not anything else? You wouldn't use it as a deterrent? If you pull a gun on someone and that guy starts to run away and you shoot them that isn't self defence.

if he had the opportunity to go to his truck he should have left

needed mine ready 3 separate times, however I didn't pull the gun out... I was able to back the situation down yet I was very, VERY, ready to defend myself.

he fucked up. he should have shot them all then planted the gun in the mom's hand.

lolamerica

THIS.

He had the opportunity to go to his vehicle. He could have, and should have left. His life was not in danger. Pulling the weapon turns him into the aggressor... unless they were chasing him and he barely had time to get it out to make them back off, which doesn't sound like the case here.

Yes, a gun is only used to kill. It is NOT a "scare tactic". Anyone using a gun to scare people is wrong and probably should have their weapons taken from them because they are a danger to themselves and the public.

You guys know what they teach in gun-handling, self-defense, police and military gun training, right?

Don't point the barrel of the gun towards a person unless you are going to shoot, is the rule.

Now, that's an idealized rule, but it is still the rule I was taught, and you will find that rule everywhere.

That means, if you are going to ready a pistol for self defense, you hold it in the down or up position, until you decide to fire. Then you instantly extend the piostol into your chosen firing position. At that point you can still decide not to fire, but you should not extend into firing position until you have already decided you are ready to shoot.

So, it depends a bit on what you mean by brandish. Holding the gun in an up or down position, but visible, is proper technique, and is showing the gun to prevent attack.

Now, nobody expects the typical american gun owner to be properly trained. But it sounds like whoever was telling the guy "don't point" was training in one of the classic schools.

Waving the gun around like a gangster or a fake cop on tv with a plastic gun, is incorrect technique.

6 motnhs ago i had to pull my gun on a mentally ill homeless guy that threw rocks at my dogs and then me..

he approached me with a brick in his hand and i drew down on him.. i told him to stop or i would kill him.. he took a couple more steps towards me then stopped and turned around, called me a faggot :1orglaugh, and walked away..

he was one more step away from getting killed. i could have killed him and was within my right. i called the cops and they showed up quickly and arrested the guy a few blocks away. the cops told me that they had several problems with him in the past..

they also told me i would have been within my right to use deadly force..

i am glad i did not have to shoot the guy, but i was prepared to..

so, i dont think you only pull a gun to kill someone.. sometimes pulling a gun and being prepared to use it is enough to diffuse an extreme situation.. :2 cents:






.

This whole situation reeks to me. The trash causing all the problems isn't worth a shit to me. Clearly those people have little to nothing to lose... so right there IMO it's an unfair advantage on their part. Certainly not even close to running the risk of getting assaulted, arrested, or worse.

Violence should never be used or threatened unless it is absolutely necessary for self defense. The guy had time to go to his car... so there was no need for self defense at that point. Should have just left.

The guy made several mistakes. Whether he "disrespected" that woman or not... she drunk, clearly a violent bitch... you either stay the hell away from her, or apologize quickly to get her off your back and then leave. You tell a bouncer if you feel threatened. What you don't do is agree to step outside with her thug sons. Why even engage those idiots? If you are willing to "step outside" then you better be prepared to throw a punch back.

How the hell would the guy know that if he went to his car to get a gun... that one of these other morons doesn't pull out a gun himself? Or worse, one of his buddies standing 20 yards away and behind him sees everything going down and pulls out a gun? Then you are fucked.

And over WHAT? This situation is just fuckin stupid. Leave with your face and livelihood intact and don't bother returning.

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. I am alive today because my weapons have acted as deterrents. If you're saying that I should have shot people when it wasn't necessary, you couldn't be more wrong. I stand by what I said - don't pull what you won't use - but if you pull and they flee, put it away and leave the situation.

Twice I have held men at gunpoint (business related breakins) until the police arrived. Silly me I should have just shot them instead.

.

As a firearms trainer/instructor/range safety officer, I'd like to say that you don't know WTF you are talking about.

Everything you said in that paragraph is incorrect. I'm licensed to carry in 34 states and I carry every day of my life, in bars, out of bars....No difference in the primary states I carry in.

Like Anthony, I've had the need to pull my gun twice and did not shoot.

Obviously laws will differ from State to State. In Oregon, if a guy is brandishing a weapon and you pull yours then it's all good...BUT, if he then lowers his weapon, you are required by law to lowers yours, not shoot him. Either way, if you do shoot, you're most likely going to end up with a civil if not a criminal case and like Seth Manson said, I'm not trying to spend any time in jail or shell out money for attorneys if I can avoid it.

At 20 yards...I would have the advantage. Most people can't hit shit at half that distance.

BTW, Deej and I just got back from the range where we killed some paper bad guys. :BangBang:

I still have GSR ( thats gun shot residue for all you dumb mother fuckers) all over my hands so obviously I know everything about firearms and especially this incident. The guy was in the wrong and wanted to swang his non existent "manhood" around.

He got beat up so he decided to "show them" and wanted to get the upper hand. He should have left the situation and better yet, not fallen into the "lets go outside" bullshit in the first place.

Oh and AaronM knows a smidge about pee shooters too. I taught him everything he knows.






Photography too!!

Well you deifnitely killed yours.

I just winged mine a couple times and sentem home limpin...

LOL

You and your GSR have jokes. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Go wash your dirty hands and lets grab some sushi.

Scott Gaulke
Casey if you read this please message me! I want to marry you!

you summed it up my mexican friend.