CCW Permit Holder Drew His Firearm to Stop a Fight.

[artb]

Found this article about an incident in Florida where a CCW permit holder drew his firearm to stop a fight.
Please read and if you have an opinion about how this would be handled by California law enforcement, please share.
Thanks

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-north-pinellas/largo/good-samaritan-draws-gun-to-break-up-fight

[epilepticninja]

You don't draw your gun for intimidation (regardless of what the CoP for Emeryville says.) What happens if the person you point it at looks at you and says "shoot me!" You draw it when you are going to use it.

[Untamed1972]

You don't draw your gun for intimidation (regardless of what the CoP for Emeryville says.) What happens if the person you point it at looks at you and says "shoot me!" You draw it when you are going to use it.

More like you draw it when you COULD be legally justified in using it. But just because you COULD use it.....doesn't me you have to or you will. If pulling it is enough to end the threat.....then it's served it purpose, and to use it at that point (attacker has disengaged or surrendered) then you're in deep do-do.

Walking around with the mentality that "if I clear the holster I must pull the trigger" is just bad, bad, bad mental preparation.

Because something else to think about is......what if you perceived something as a threat, but as you clear the holster you realize it's not? What's gonna happen if you've trained yourself to "clear holster...pull trigger"?

You need to be training yourself to CONSTANTLY be evaluating the situation/threat and be ready to disengage/deescalate at a split seconds notice.

[SNBI]

Too little information is given about the nature of the fight. Was it a felony assault that he was observing. How did the altercation begin? Who was the initial aggressor? Would 12 randomly selected residents of that county have believed it was reasonable to initiate the use of deadly force in that situation? What he did was very possibly a mistake, and had it happened in Kalifornistan he would have taken a ride. Outcome uncertain. Fortunately for him he lives in Florida.

[Arrieta578]

I think the CCW holder got real lucky. In my mind, this situation could have gone south at any moment and it sure seems like he did not have much information in order to assess whether or not intervening was appropriate and/or could make a difference. There sure seems to be a lot of unknowns and far too many "what 'if's?"

It also seems to me that if the CCW wanted to intervene it would have been more prudent to move to a safe distance with cover to create a reactionary gap, call for police, and then notify the perpetrator that LE is in route. I personally have seen this work when two rival gangs were getting ready to fight on private property and my partner and I did just that in order to prevent mayhem.

If the perpetrator ignored repeated announcements to stop the attack after being advised that LE was in route (again, from a safe distance with cover) and it was clear that perpetrator was unleashing deadly force, then I think the CCW holder needs to make the decision as to whether or not to intervene and enter into harms way. Again, it seems best to engage the threat from a distance with cover in order to have the advantage, and since deadly force is being used, the use of deadly force is justified if needed. At that point, it's a crap shoot as to what happens next and we hope that good situational awareness, good decisions, good training, and luck is on our side.

[epilepticninja]

More like you draw it when you COULD be legally justified in using it. But just because you COULD use it.....doesn't me you have to or you will. If pulling it is enough to end the threat.....then it's served it purpose, and to use it at that point (attacker has disengaged or surrendered) then you're in deep do-do.

Walking around with the mentality that "if I clear the holster I must pull the trigger" is just bad, bad, bad mental preparation.

Because something else to think about is......what if you perceived something as a threat, but as you clear the holster you realize it's not? What's gonna happen if you've trained yourself to "clear holster...pull trigger"?

You need to be training yourself to CONSTANTLY be evaluating the situation/threat and be ready to disengage/deescalate at a split seconds notice.

You need to read my post. I said you don't present your firearm (as a CCW permit holder) to use as intimidation in relation to the OP's article. Maybe you do that **** in other states, but not here. The CCW is for "self defense" not to wave around to get people to stop kicking some other person's @$$. But you do what you want and see where it lands you. I mean, its not like I never worked in Law Enforcement or have been a CCW holder for over 20 years. I guess I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Decoligny]

You don't draw your gun for intimidation (regardless of what the CoP for Emeryville says.) What happens if the person you point it at looks at you and says "shoot me!" You draw it when you are going to use it.

If you make the decision to defend the life of a stranger, you take the whole ball of wax.

If the attacker is beating another person to the point where you are in genuinely in fear for their life, you draw you firearm and yell for the attacker to stop or you will shoot. You hope the individual realizes that they will indeed be shot if they continue to beat the person on the ground.

If the attacker stops beating the victim, and then redirects their attention to you and confronts you saying "Go Ahead, Shoot Me!", and attempts to make it a physical attack on you, you drop him in his tracks. He has already beaten someone half to death, and is now attacking an armed man. Obviously a psychotic individual who means to beat you, possibly take your firearm away from you and kill you with it.

The vast majority of defensive use of firearms never result in the discharge of the firearm. Most people realize when they have a gun pointed at them, that they had better comply with the person holding the gun, or they at least have enough of the self-preservation instict to run away.

You don't draw a gun with the INTENT to use is to intimidate, but if the mere drawing of the gun causes the threat to cease, all the better.

[Decoligny]

I think the CCW holder got real lucky. In my mind, this situation could have gone south at any moment and it sure seems like he did not have much information in order to assess whether or not intervening was appropriate and/or could make a difference. There sure seems to be a lot of unknowns and far too many "what 'if's?"

It also seems to me that if the CCW wanted to intervene it would have been more prudent to move to a safe distance with cover to create a reactionary gap, call for police, and then notify the perpetrator that LE is in route. I personally have seen this work when two rival gangs were getting ready to fight on private property and my partner and I did just that in order to prevent mayhem.

If the perpetrator ignored repeated announcements to stop the attack after being advised that LE was in route (again, from a safe distance with cover) and it was clear that perpetrator was unleashing deadly force, then I think the CCW holder needs to make the decision as to whether or not to intervene and enter into harms way. Again, it seems best to engage the threat from a distance with cover in order to have the advantage, and since deadly force is being used, the use of deadly force is justified if needed. At that point, it's a crap shoot as to what happens next and we hope that good situational awareness, good decisions, good training, and luck is on our side.

From the news story, the "victim" was on the ground being beaten, stomped, and kicked by the attacker who was standing over him. The attacker was attempting to stomp the victims head. The result of stomping someone's head is usually a skull fracture, severe head trauma/brain injury, and possibly death. This is most definitely use of deadly force by the attacker.

If it was a case of two guy rolling around on the ground in mutual combat, then you are correct, he doesn't know who is "the attacker".

The CCW holder did 100% correct actions to save the victim's life.

[e90bmw]

From what I read.
It wasn't really a fight but a guy beating the crap out of another on the ground.

The CCW guy fully believed the guy being beat was in a life or death situation.
He drew with the intent to stop the threat.

Police said it was okay.

[hermosabeach]

Look a lt the allowable use for a firearm.
Protecting life is the CA answer


In a typical even fun fight where two people are rolling around, I would call 9-1-1 and record the event.


If someone if out and the other keeps hitting and stomping, that is when people suffer serious injuries.

A 20 year old man and a 50 year old man would make me want to intervene sooner.


It really does not matter who started the fight, it is about protecting life.

[ConcealedKalifornia]

From the news story, the "victim" was on the ground being beaten, stomped, and kicked by the attacker who was standing over him. The attacker was attempting to stomp the victims head. The result of stomping someone's head is usually a skull fracture, severe head trauma/brain injury, and possibly death. This is most definitely use of deadly force by the attacker.

If it was a case of two guy rolling around on the ground in mutual combat, then you are correct, he doesn't know who is "the attacker".

The CCW holder did 100% correct actions to save the victim's life.

This is what I am leaning towards right now. Its hard to tell for sure because there is some missing info, but just from what I have to go off of, it seems like it wasn't so much a fist fight as it was an assault/attack.

If two guys are squaring off in the parking lot, I'm not going to do anything. Probably won't even call the cops. But if one guy is on the ground and the other is curb stomping his face in..... that's a whole different story....

[Get3CoffinsReady]

We either have or had arrest powers in the state of California so in that instance it might be legal. (there could be some additional legalese some where that would prevent it)

I remember reading this while reading through the many gun laws in California.

This is an exemption for carrying a loaded firearm in public:

26050. Nothing in Section 25850 is intended to preclude the
carrying of a loaded firearm by any person while engaged in the act
of making or attempting to make a lawful arrest.

[Get3CoffinsReady]

Penal code section 837

837 A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

[Arrieta578]

From the news story, the "victim" was on the ground being beaten, stomped, and kicked by the attacker who was standing over him. The attacker was attempting to stomp the victims head. The result of stomping someone's head is usually a skull fracture, severe head trauma/brain injury, and possibly death. This is most definitely use of deadly force by the attacker.

If it was a case of two guy rolling around on the ground in mutual combat, then you are correct, he doesn't know who is "the attacker".

The CCW holder did 100% correct actions to save the victim's life.

Oh... when I said, "it sure seems like he did not have much information in order to assess whether or not intervening was appropriate and/or could make a difference..." I was thinking more about unknowns such as how the perpetrator arrived on scene, how the assault began, whether or not the perpetrator was alone, whether or not he had accomplices waiting for him in a nearby car, if the perpetrator was armed, or a dozen other unforeseen unknowns.

In my opinion, the CCW holder blindly inserted himself into a highly volatile, unpredictable, and dangerous situation and got lucky. Granted, luck always plays a key role in any dangerous encounter, but I would think that most of us would want to try and minimize luck as much as possible. In this instance, the CCW holder could have very easily ended up dead if the perpetrator had armed friends waiting nearby or if he was armed and just turned and fired upon someone else trying to intervene. My just thinking that inserting yourself alone and blindly into highly volatile, unpredictable, rapidly developing, and dangerous situations is something I think someone would want to avoid if possible. Engaging from a safe distance with cover (again, allowing you to take advantage of a reaction gap) allows you in this situation to better assess what is happening, accomplish many of the same objectives, and if necessary anchor the bad guy. In a gun battle, small decisions can have big consequences.

[SkyHawk]

So do you just wait, watch someone get beaten to death in front of your eyes while you keep your gun holstered, and then go home and go to sleep?

You weren't there, don't second guess the guy. Too much Monday morning quarterbacking going on...

Tell me what you would do here, and how it is any different:
Police Say Man Beaten To Death In Front Of Crowd At Amtrak Station

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/07/08/i-feel-like-killing-someone-police-say-man-beaten-to-death-in-front-of-crowd-at-amtrak-station/

The only difference is nobody stepped up to help, now a man is dead. If you were in that crowd with your gun, watching, taking the 'do nothing' approach, and knew he died, that grandkids would never see a granddad alive, son and daughter had to bury dad, wife is left behind a widow, what would you think of yourself today? 'Merica - which one do you want to live in...