[William Tell]

dirtboy said: "That is the salient point you refuse to acknowledge. Had the shooter instead brandished and there wasn't legal grounds to do such, Reeves would be facing misdemeanor charges, instead of life in prison. "

I do acknowledge that.

Now do you acknowledge that it is not reasonable to suggest brandishing the firearm as an alternative to leaving it concealed?

Either the justification existed or it did not. I'm not aware of any distinction. Those that point out that brandishment is sometimes sufficient lose sight of the fact that it is a decision made by a person that, although they fear great bodily harm or death, they have time to decide whether the shot must be fired.

Did the popcorn thrower say, as he was assaulting the ex-cop, "I'm gonna punch your lights out"? What did the popcorn thrower's wife know that made her try to restrain her husband? If you know the answers to those questions, tell me what you know.

[dirtboy]

Now do you acknowledge that it is not reasonable to suggest brandishing the firearm as an alternative to leaving it concealed?

I give up. Debating you is like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree.

Any sane, reasonable CCW proponent would prefer brandishment as an alternative escalation in that situation. And brandishment suffices in over 90 percent of self-defense uses of firearms.

And here you are nit-picking away that CCW success story and feeding right into the gun grabber talking points that only fearful, rage-crazed loons who cannot control themselves CCW. Hope you are proud.