Display Of Firearm Deemed ‘Reasonable Response’ In Truck Parking Dispute

[GOYABEAN]

A confrontation between two truck drivers over parking protocol sparked police intervention in Sarasota, Florida on June 14th. The situation unfolded at the North Washington Boulevard and 20th Street crossroads.

The conflict began when one driver was unloading his trailer and another driver requested him to move his vehicle from the pathway. In response, the first driver brandished a baseball bat, leading the second driver to reveal his legally owned firearm without aiming it at anyone.

Display Of Firearm Deemed 'Reasonable Response' In Truck Parking Dispute | Concealed Nation

A confrontation between two truck drivers over parking protocol sparked police intervention in Sarasota, Florida on June 14th. The situation unfolded at the

concealednation.org

 

[Apeman]

I'd say they got it right. Unfortunately in NY even if the first guy pulled out a machete the guy with the gun who was just protecting himself would go to jail.

 

[subsonic]

I'd say they got it right. Unfortunately in NY even if the first guy pulled out a machete the guy with the gun who was just protecting himself would go to jail.

Taking the description as-is I don't think he should go to jail, but it sounds like he could use some more training. Displaying a gun from a truck without aiming it, at a guy on foot with a bat, and shouting at him to back off is a pretty dumb approach to "deescalate" the situation. Assuming he has no way to simply drive off, the gun should normally only be coming out in public when he's aiming it and prepared to shoot immediately at the deadly threat, not to show it off.

Granted the way these situations play out is fast, fluid and fueled by adrenaline, but this doesn't sound smart at all from the description.

 

[Apeman]

Taking the description as-is I don't think he should go to jail, but it sounds like he could use some more training. Displaying a gun from a truck without aiming it, at a guy on foot with a bat, and shouting at him to back off is a pretty dumb approach to "deescalate" the situation. Assuming he has no way to simply drive off, the gun should normally only be coming out in public when he's aiming it and prepared to shoot immediately at the deadly threat, not to show it off.

Granted the way these situations play out is fast, fluid and fueled by adrenaline, but this doesn't sound smart at all from the description.

If it played out that way I see your point, but the article doesn't say if the guy with the gun was in his truck or not. It just says he asked him to move. If the second guy was out of his truck he doesn't have the option to just drive away

 

[ManualF150]

 

[Xae289]

Taking the description as-is I don't think he should go to jail, but it sounds like he could use some more training. Displaying a gun from a truck without aiming it, at a guy on foot with a bat, and shouting at him to back off is a pretty dumb approach to "deescalate" the situation. Assuming he has no way to simply drive off, the gun should normally only be coming out in public when he's aiming it and prepared to shoot immediately at the deadly threat, not to show it off.

Granted the way these situations play out is fast, fluid and fueled by adrenaline, but this doesn't sound smart at all from the description.

I gotta say that I disagree. I think that drawing a firearm could be an excellent way to de-escalate a situation like this. If the first guy instigated the violent threats by pulling up with the baseball bat, showing the firearm and that the defender had fire superiority defused the situation to the point where they didn't fight and the police showed up.

Now that in places like NY where doing that would be against the law, that's obviously a bad choice. Without those laws though, it was the right move and saved both of those men from a violent encounter.

 

[Acer-m14]

in some states he pulled a base ball bat first. ... so i shot him .. legal shoot ..

how it should be ..

no license for a base ball bat ..

and you shouldn't need one for a pistol either ..

both are deadly ... FACT!!!!

 

[subsonic]

I gotta say that I disagree. I think that drawing a firearm could be an excellent way to de-escalate a situation like this. If the first guy instigated the violent threats by pulling up with the baseball bat, showing the firearm and that the defender had fire superiority defused the situation to the point where they didn't fight and the police showed up.

Now that in places like NY where doing that would be against the law, that's obviously a bad choice. Without those laws though, it was the right move and saved both of those men from a violent encounter.

I mean it's easy to armchair quarter-back these situations with incomplete information and all, and it worked out here, but as a general rule, when you're using a gun for self defense out in public, you had better be prepared to testify you were in fear for your life and had no alternative, regardless of the state you live in or the finer points of law on brandishing, stand-your-ground, and more importantly, the attitudes of local cops and prosecutors.

Someone who is carrying out in public had better be trained to draw right into shooting stance on target in one quick fluid motion when the threat arrives. Someone charging at you with a baseball bat is a deadly threat. Flashing your holster or drawing to your side while hollering impotently doesn't exactly signal an immediate necessity for deadly force and I don't know a credible trainer who advocates this approach. What do you do next, fire two Biden-style warning shots in the air? Why are you giving a credible deadly threat time to close the distance or disarm you?

The time to yell commands or warnings in a self-defense situation is before deadly force is needed and before using the gun. If you have to use your gun, then you shouldn't be wasting time getting it on the target where it belongs. Maybe at that point they will retreat and you won't have to pull the trigger, but you will be ready to. And if you do, and it does end up in court, don't give the state an Uno reverse card to play on you and make you the aggressive bad guy who was strutting around with a gun and presenting the first lethal threat in an altercation.

 

[Acer-m14]

at least you can open carry a base ball bat LOL ..

 

[spat]

There are only 2 categories of force that the law recognizes.

Deadly and less than deadly.

There is no continuum. A 3" pocket knife is a deadly weapon, as is a baseball bat. So is an M240B. Do not make the mistake of bringing one to a fight against the other, but as far as the law is concerned they are the same class of weapon.

 

[dsdmmat]

Baseball bat is a deadly close quarter weapon. The guy who had the gun did the right thing IMO. The asshole with the bat was a bully and thought he could get his way by threatening people to give in to his demands. The second guy basically told the first guy, “fuck around and find out.” If more people gave the same message to the thugs there would be less of those cowardly thugs pulling crap.

 

[GOPerfect]

As the laws are written in NY State, the same ruling would be made. If the DA followed the law.

 

[spat]

As the laws are written in NY State, the same ruling would be made. If the DA followed the law.

You're right, but in NY that's a big "if".

 

[GOPerfect]

You're right, but in NY that's a big "if".

Sure, depending on which County in the State and if you get a good attorney

 

[subsonic]

Here’s the language in the original article, linked from the news:

The first driver then got a baseball bat and approached the second truck. The second driver responded to the threat by showing, but not pointing, his gun to the first driver and told him to back away. The first driver then backed off and police were called.

Does that really sound like the best approach? It sounds to me like he’s still in his truck. It doesn’t sound like a gun being “drawn” at all, but either way, is “showing off” your gun without aiming something you train for and advise others to do in a public self defense situation?

 

[Pale Rider]

I don't think you should feel obligated to shoot no matter what once you have drawn your gun.

 

[spat]

I don't think you should feel obligated to shoot no matter what once you have drawn your gun.

No, of course not.

But, you should not draw until you have already decided you need to shoot.

So unless something changes drastically in the 1 second it takes to draw and acquire the target, rounds should be headed down range.

Note that 1 second is probably not even enough time for an assailant to recognize that you have drawn and decide to drop a weapon, let alone to do it and have it apparent that it's happened.

 

[Pale Rider]

I've taken plenty of felons into custody at gun point. That wasn't because I had already decided that I needed to shoot them.

 

[spat]

I've taken plenty of felons into custody at gun point. That wasn't because I had already decided that I needed to shoot them.

You brandished a firearm at them.


That's illegal for the rest of us.

 

[Celt]

I'd say they got it right. Unfortunately in NY even if the first guy pulled out a machete the guy with the gun who was just protecting himself would go to jail.

Only if the gun only was a conservative, legal ccw holder. If he was a gangbanger he'd get an appearance ticket and no bail.

 

[Pale Rider]

Here is an excerpt from Armed Citizen Criminal Defense Networks Journal which illustrates why I am happy to have their coverage:

"We will provide funding to defend any act of self defense, so it doesn’t matter whether or not you’re using a firearm. We will provide funding to defend brandishing, also known as unlawful display. In fact, we encourage people to not shoot immediately but perhaps warn the person at gunpoint to stop doing what they were doing. If you’re in a grand jury state, we will also provide funding before you have to go to a grand jury. We want you to be represented immediately after an incident, not just after you’re charged with a crime. We will provide funding for an attorney immediately, so your legal rights are protected."

 

[subsonic]

Here is an excerpt from Armed Citizen Criminal Defense Networks Journal which illustrates why I am happy to have their coverage:

"We will provide funding to defend any act of self defense, so it doesn’t matter whether or not you’re using a firearm. We will provide funding to defend brandishing, also known as unlawful display. In fact, we encourage people to not shoot immediately but perhaps warn the person at gunpoint to stop doing what they were doing. If you’re in a grand jury state, we will also provide funding before you have to go to a grand jury. We want you to be represented immediately after an incident, not just after you’re charged with a crime. We will provide funding for an attorney immediately, so your legal rights are protected."

I took a look at them, and it looks like:
1. They are not insurance,
2. They don’t cover your defense, they just provide an unspecified amount toward your initial retainer,
3. You have to convince them you are innocent before they will assist you in getting an attorney to defend your innocence,
4. I can’t find where they actually have a track record of assisting anyone criminally acaused anything.

if any of that is wrong it’s not easy to find otherwise on their website or anywhere else. I’m not convinced they are worth the price of membership.

 

[Pale Rider]

1. They are not insurance

They don't claim to be insurance. If the were insurance, they would not be able to do business in New York, just like all the self defense insures who had to leave the state.

2. They don’t cover your defense, they just provide an unspecified amount toward your initial retainer

" If we choose to fund the defense, we will pick up the tab for all the costs: attorney’s fees, expert’s fees, investigator’s fees, court costs, and any other expenses necessary for the best legal defense possible."

3. You have to convince them you are innocent before they will assist you in getting an attorney to defend your innocence

"How do we determine if a member has a valid claim of self defense? We use the standard that the courts use when giving jury instructions. If there is just a scintilla of credible, admissible evidence of self defense and the member was not the initial aggressor (started the fight) or committed a separate crime (like armed robbery), we are very likely going to fund the defense"

4. I can’t find where they actually have a track record of assisting anyone criminally acaused anything.

"To date, we have assisted in 29 requests for funding. We have turned down three or four more because there was no evidence of self defense. We talked to the member and after getting the story, asked, “Well, where is the act of self defense?” Typically, the answer is something like, “Hey, I had to try!” Usually, though, there is at least the member’s testimony that he acted in self defense and that is enough for us to fund the defense.

 

[Acer-m14]

i think it was State Farm that denied insurance claims from a hurricane ..

because they didn't have flood insurance ..