Why do I need to produce somebody, obviously someone thought it was significant of a problem to need a law. I ain't discussing with you (tomthebaker) anymore.
Awesome!
Is it against the law to do that currently? Or must one shoot, if he draws his firearm?
Do people really believe that you have to shoot? Is this how it was taught?
Wasn't in my class.
There is a law on the books that makes it a felony to point a gun at someone, without being clear when it comes to self defense. Common sense would say that defending yourself is different, BUT knowing politics and most of the politicians I want very clear standards with nothing left to interpretation.
Doesn't that (currently) become somewhat irrelevant in, say, a home defense situation where there's a presumption of intent to cause great bodily harm? And wouldn't this law just provide more lawyer food to challenge those situations?
If you are in a situation where you believe the use of deadly force is both necessary and justified, and you stop the threat by merely drawing your weapon, then that is good. You did use the weapon to stop the threat, and you stopped when the threat was over. You do not have to shoot someone in order to stop them, that is erroneous and totally wrong. That, my friends, is a good situation for not only the still breathing bad guy, but for you as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure that's what the law says which is the heart of this thread.
Actually, that's exactly the state of the law. Let's look at the relevant statutes:
This is judged on a "reasonable man" standard: would the reasonable man believe that you're offering to visit violence upon his person ("create the apprehension that you will..." is the legal term of art). Hold out your hand as if to offer a handshake? No reasonable man would take that as a threat, absent some really strange additional circumstances. Ball up your fist and draw it back? Yeah, I think I'm fixing to get punched.21 O.S. 641 said:
(Do note the difference between assault--the threat--and battery, the actual use of force. 21 O.S. 642: "A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another." It may seem like I'm being pedantic, but if we're going to discuss the law, we need to be precise.)
Now, let's step over to 21 O.S. 645:
So, if your actions cause a reasonable person to believe you're about to hurt him, that's going to be assault. If you reach down and draw your gun, I'm damned sure going to feel threatened, which makes it assault; since it's a gun--a "dangerous weapon" by any measure--it's going to be ADW. So, if you draw in anger, you have committed ADW. Period, end of discussion.21 O.S. 645 said:
Now, here's where it gets interesting. In law, there's a concept called an "affirmative defense." That's a fancy way of saying "yes, I did it, but it was justified (or should be excused)." It doesn't mean you didn't commit the underlying offense, just that the circumstances justified what you did. Self-defense is the classic one: if you shoot a robber who breaks into your house at night, you have committed homicide. Period, end of sentence. Homicide, however, is not per se illegal. Murder and manslaughter are illegal, but homicide is merely the taking of a human life. In our example, the homicide was justified by the threat our uninvited midnight guest presented. Homicide, yes, but justifiable; not murder.
That little bit of subtlety addressed, we can now look at our "brandishing"* situation. Critter threatens you; you draw; he experiences a Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense and either surrenders or runs off; you heroically restrain yourself and don't shoot him. Is it a crime? Well, 645 would seem to say yes, but we have a justification statute in 21 O.S. 643:
(The omitted sections don't apply to this scenario, or really to anything most of us are likely to encounter.)21 O.S. 643 said:
So. We have an ADW, but as long as the force you offer is proportionate (again, by a reasonable man standard), you're covered by the justification statute. Dude comes at you with a ball bat or lead pipe? That could be easily fatal; draw at will. Dude is 6'4", 300lb of muscle, and you're a scrawny little guy with your arm in a sling? Disparity of force says you're in serious danger; slap that leather! (You Kydex guys...you're unredeemable.) Dude is a 98lb weakling with a bright orange squirtgun? Yeah, maybe you'd best leave it in the holster, Quickdraw. At the end of the day, what matters is your ability to articulate to a jury of twelve nominally-reasonable people why you thought you were in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm, which is the same standard as if you actually proceed to "front sight, press," and install some non-OEM ventilation in the critter's corpus.
So...there's the standard, with citation to, and quotation of, the relevant statutes. To put it succintly, if you touch your gun, you don't have to shoot somebody, but you do have to be justified in doing so at the time you touch it/draw. If circumstances evolve such that it's no longer necessary, great; that's a win for everybody. If they don't change, well, having it out of the holster is just going to make the job that much quicker. But you're not justified in offering that force--again, in the eyes of a reasonable man, who is likely to interpret you even putting hand on it as a threat, whether or not it leaves the leather--then you're not justified in drawing.
* Point of interest: "brandishing" is not defined as a crime in the Oklahoma Statutes; in fact, the word (or any derivative of "brandish") occurs exactly once in Title 21 (Crimes and Punishments), at §21-1362.
"Brandishing" only becomes a crime per se when it disturbs the peace, but it's never actually defined in the statutes. I'd guess Black's Law Dictionary probably has a definition for it, but I really don't feel like digging out my copy right now. In any case, it's not relevant; it's the ADW statute that governs here.21 O.S. 1362 said:
Similar threads
