Counterpoint: they’re a bad last resort in that they may or may not shoot well (or at all), but in the leadup, where showing you’re armed as intimidation, they’re as good as any other.
You’re not entirely wrong, since in theory these guns can fire and can kill.
However, it should be noted that it’s very dangerous to carry a gun that you can’t or won’t fire, for the purpose of brandishing it. If you encounter someone else that has a gun, brandishing a gun yourself is likely to prompt them to shoot you (and gives them legal cover), when they might not have otherwise done so.
showing you’re armed as intimidation, they’re as good as any other.
IANAL BIPONTV
The circumstances of your concealed firearm not being concealed have to amount to “Imminent threat of great bodily harm or loss of life”.
Revealing you have a gun, placing your hand on where it is, even “printing” as in it being visible under your clothing, has been considered Brandishing, sometimes a felony and likely a “gun crime”.
Specifically, trying to intimidate is very much illegal, so certianly don’t put it like that, lol.
Circumstances may get you out of jail, maybe even with your rights intact, but even showing your gun after being chased with a bat has been ruled aggrivated assault.
even showing your gun after being chased with a bat has been ruled aggrivated assault.
As everyone’s fave TV lawyer, do you have the case this was pulled from?
As for ‘intimidation’, yeah. I was (and still am) struggling to find the right word for ‘am dangerous and could cause everyone here grievous harm, but wont’.
It was in Louisiana, there are vaguely similar cases from few years ago, which is making it harder to find the one I’m referring to. This one was from the 80s.
Both teacher and student were originally convicted of aggrivated assault, teacher was eventually acquitted by the state supreme court.
Similar cases happen somewhat frequently. Without context, all of a sudden having a gun appear can make you look like the aggressor. It’s a very nuanced topic, although that’s probably for a good reason.
Depending on the jurisdiction, other evidence like cameras, and disparity between you and the aggressor, you might just be able to whip it out like a rapper with “lil” in thier name.
Conversely, someone seeing the corner of it when you reach up to grab something from the top shelf at the grocery store might get you arrested and stripped of your ability to carry.
I know there must be some kind of language that would work there, but I’m really not sure what is it would be. “We won’t take this lying down” or “It will be better for you if this ends peacefully” sound good to me, but might not to a jury.
Counterpoint: they’re a bad last resort in that they may or may not shoot well (or at all), but in the leadup, where showing you’re armed as intimidation, they’re as good as any other.
You’re not entirely wrong, since in theory these guns can fire and can kill.
However, it should be noted that it’s very dangerous to carry a gun that you can’t or won’t fire, for the purpose of brandishing it. If you encounter someone else that has a gun, brandishing a gun yourself is likely to prompt them to shoot you (and gives them legal cover), when they might not have otherwise done so.
You’re right. My use case scenario was pretty far down the ‘run, hide, fight’ list of options.
Pepper spray would be much higher on my list of reasonable measures. Basically brandishing these would be limited to effectively a last ditch effort.
IANAL BIPONTV
The circumstances of your concealed firearm not being concealed have to amount to “Imminent threat of great bodily harm or loss of life”.
Revealing you have a gun, placing your hand on where it is, even “printing” as in it being visible under your clothing, has been considered Brandishing, sometimes a felony and likely a “gun crime”.
Specifically, trying to intimidate is very much illegal, so certianly don’t put it like that, lol.
Circumstances may get you out of jail, maybe even with your rights intact, but even showing your gun after being chased with a bat has been ruled aggrivated assault.
As everyone’s fave TV lawyer, do you have the case this was pulled from?
As for ‘intimidation’, yeah. I was (and still am) struggling to find the right word for ‘am dangerous and could cause everyone here grievous harm, but wont’.
It was in Louisiana, there are vaguely similar cases from few years ago, which is making it harder to find the one I’m referring to. This one was from the 80s.
Nevermind I found it:
https://casetext.com/case/landry-v-ascension-parish-school-bd#%3A~%3Atext=In+Landry+v.+Ascension+Parish+School+Board%2C+415%2Cof+a+teacher+on+a+finding+of+incompetency
Both teacher and student were originally convicted of aggrivated assault, teacher was eventually acquitted by the state supreme court.
Similar cases happen somewhat frequently. Without context, all of a sudden having a gun appear can make you look like the aggressor. It’s a very nuanced topic, although that’s probably for a good reason.
Depending on the jurisdiction, other evidence like cameras, and disparity between you and the aggressor, you might just be able to whip it out like a rapper with “lil” in thier name.
Conversely, someone seeing the corner of it when you reach up to grab something from the top shelf at the grocery store might get you arrested and stripped of your ability to carry.
I know there must be some kind of language that would work there, but I’m really not sure what is it would be. “We won’t take this lying down” or “It will be better for you if this ends peacefully” sound good to me, but might not to a jury.
I wouldn’t describe my actions in a self-defense incident as intimidation.
My word choice was a poor fit at best, but i couldn’t find the right words.
It’s closer to aposematism, but still not quite there.