Drawing but not pulling the trigger

[Brother_Hesekiel]

I'm posting this quote here, as it nails the issue on the head:

"In reality most people will never have to pull their EDC, the very small percentage that do will never have to fire a round, and the very small percentage of the very small percentage that do, typically fire around 3 rounds."

The moment you draw your weapon, you are using deadly force. Drawing is legally not different from shooting, so you only draw when you are ready to shoot. That's how I learned it. However, the quote points out that indeed many folks draw in light of an imminent attack, yet the moment the attacker sees the gun, he runs away.

Discuss, as it's a really important issue for all of us who carry.

[Librarian]

I
The moment you draw your weapon, you are using deadly force. Drawing is legally not different from shooting, so you only draw when you are ready to shoot. That's how I learned it. However, the quote points out that indeed many folks draw in light of an imminent attack, yet the moment the attacker sees the gun, he runs away.

If the person runs away, they are no longer an imminent threat; conditions change, so justified responses change.

[broadside]

Every CCW course I have been through never says that drawing means you have to shoot. Even my initial course had draw and yell stop training. Drawing can be a deterrent.

Please post the law that says drawing a gun is "legally not different from shooting". You made the claim, now defend it

[sbo80]

Every CCW course I have been through never says that drawing means you have to shoot. Even my initial course had draw and yell stop training. Drawing can be a deterrent.

Please post the law that says drawing a gun is "legally not different from shooting". You made the claim, now defend it

Of course you don't have to shoot. But you have to have been legally allowed to shoot, at the moment you decide to draw. More accurately - the legal justification for drawing, is the same as for shooting. If you can draw, you can shoot. There's no middle ground where you are allowed to draw but not allowed to shoot. Unless as pointed out, the act of drawing changes the circumstances. But it's not legal to draw simply as a preemptive deterrent though. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Brother_Hesekiel]

The way I understand it, a civilian can only draw, threaten deadly force, when faced with imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Presenting a gun for a lesser reason would be "brandishing of a firearm," a crime.

Therefore, when drawing, there's just enough time to aim and pull the trigger, under the best of circumstances. Waiting for the attacker to react, to drop his weapon, turn around, and run away, seems contrary to the idea of "imminent," yet common sense would tell us that one of the best ways to prevent having to pull the trigger is to draw the weapon. My CCW instructor way back when told me that it's okay to say "stay away, I am armed!" but not to draw until it's time to actually shoot.

I'm no dummy. I understand the implications here. I just like to discuss this from a legal perspective.

[Mute]

The important thing is to be able to articulate your reasons for drawing your gun. Even if your intended attackers runs away, you'd be wise to contact law enforcement and file a report as soon as it is safe to do so. When you do so, if your reasons for drawing your gun is not reasonable, you could potentially get into trouble. So then why chance it and file a report at all? There have been instances where the thwarted attacker called law enforcement on the person who defended themselves. Better to be the person who reported the incident than the one who was identified as the instigator. In addition, I believe many IAs require permit holders to make a report of any incidents where the permit holder had to deploy their firearm.

[seaweedsoyboy]

Someone needs to @SharedShots in this thread

[Bert Gamble]

Not to split hairs, but there is a difference between “imminent” and “immediate “. Isn’t it required that the threat be immediate? An imminent threat can still be a period of time away.

[robert101]

There is no Samurai law here of, if I unsheathe my sword I need to use it to kill. That might actually lead to a murder charge. The above posts are really good advice especially the notations of "actual conditions may change" thereby not warranting the defense of your life or eminent danger may no longer exist. First rule is, if possible, walk away. In the heat of the moment this can be difficult but so necessary. Remember the words "Self Defense" as it is not "Offense".

[Jeepergeo]

The way I understand it, a civilian can only draw, threaten deadly force, when faced with imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Presenting a gun for a lesser reason would be "brandishing of a firearm," a crime.

Therefore, when drawing, there's just enough time to aim and pull the trigger, under the best of circumstances. Waiting for the attacker to react, to drop his weapon, turn around, and run away, seems contrary to the idea of "imminent," yet common sense would tell us that one of the best ways to prevent having to pull the trigger is to draw the weapon. My CCW instructor way back when told me that it's okay to say "stay away, I am armed!" but not to draw until it's time to actually shoot.

I'm no dummy. I understand the implications here. I just like to discuss this from a legal perspective.

Almost everyone on Calguns is a legal scholar....the discussion should be interesting.

[Tango_Down]

I'm pretty good at gun drawing.

[Librarian]

Not to split hairs, but there is a difference between “imminent” and “immediate “. Isn’t it required that the threat be immediate? An imminent threat can still be a period of time away.

Good point, but the on-point CA Penal Code uses 'imminent' :

197.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

(1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.

(2) When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein.

(3) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a spouse, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he or she was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed.

(4) When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

The Oregon text, for me, is

ORS 161.219
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person

Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use

and 161.209 is

ORS 161.209
Use of physical force in defense of a person

Except as provided in ORS 161.215 (Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person) and 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person), a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use

Calcrim uses both :

B. JUSTIFICATIONS AND EXCUSES
505.Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another

The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:
1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/
[or] <insert name or description of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime>)];
2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;
AND
3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the [attempted] killing was not justified.

Some courts in other places have opted to distinguish immediate/imminent, but the context I have seen was 'imminent' was not in the next short period of time but in future.

But you do not have to wait until you actually experience the "death or great bodily injury" before you can act.

[SilveradoColt21]

From what I understand about this subject is that at least here in California law, drawing your gun is one thing but you have to tread carefully what you do after you draw, what can really get someone in travel is discharging a weapon on a threat that wasnt "immanent". What defines "immanent"? Well that is up to the courts to decide here in most cases.

[Mute]

From what I understand about this subject is that at least here in California law, drawing your gun is one thing but you have to tread carefully what you do after you draw, what can really get someone in travel is discharging a weapon on a threat that wasnt "immanent". What defines "immanent"? Well that is up to the courts to decide here in most cases.

Actually, any responding officers, investigating officers and the DA's office will likely be making a determination on this long before it makes it to a court room. And these determinations will be made whether or not you fired your gun so your decision to deploy a weapon is no less important than if and how you use it. Regardless, lawyer up. In fact having one on retention and speed dial might be wise if you plan on being a regular carrier.

[broadside]

The way I understand it, a civilian can only draw, threaten deadly force, when faced with imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Presenting a gun for a lesser reason would be "brandishing of a firearm," a crime.

Therefore, when drawing, there's just enough time to aim and pull the trigger, under the best of circumstances. Waiting for the attacker to react, to drop his weapon, turn around, and run away, seems contrary to the idea of "imminent," yet common sense would tell us that one of the best ways to prevent having to pull the trigger is to draw the weapon. My CCW instructor way back when told me that it's okay to say "stay away, I am armed!" but not to draw until it's time to actually shoot.

I'm no dummy. I understand the implications here. I just like to discuss this from a legal perspective.

You said in your original post:

The moment you draw your weapon, you are using deadly force. Drawing is legally not different from shooting,

It is not the same as shooting and it is not using deadly force. Shooting is using deadly force (justifiable or otherwise). Drawing your gun may or may NOT be brandishing.

Using deadly force and brandishing are different crimes with different statutory classes and different treatment under the law.

If a bad guy is charging you in a parking lot and you don't have the ability to flee then you can draw your firearm. Shoot if he doesn't stop or he articulates a threat or produces a weapon. If he stops then you were justified.

Go read PC 417 and see how it articulates what brandishing means. You need to be the aggressor for drawing a gun to be brandishing.