Very interesting. I can tell you, as a man who carries a pistol daily, my gun would have been in my hands with the safety off (1911) as the man approached my truck with a gun in his hands. The difference, I believe I would have thrown down on him before he got anywhere close to my door. He’d be the one having to make a very quick decision.
“I believe I would have thrown down on him before he got anywhere close to my door.”
Brandishing for protection is still always a questioning act as the law paints it with blurred vision. If you drop him, you never gave him a chance to display aggression. So was he intending aggression? For you, it would be obvious just like the person in the vehicle in this one. And that’s where the question lies. I never said I liked or dislike the required response to approach. But the law is very explicit. If the person is not an aggressor, and he is shot, they will go after the shooter. And from what we’ve seen in this one, there wasn’t enough to display a need for force up to that point. And the responsibility for proof there was would be up to the shooter’s lawyers as we got a dead guy laying there and someone has to be exonerated for the death rather than prove it was needed.
wy69.