Florida Concealed Carry banner
21 - 34 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,800 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Whenever there's confrontation, there's a solution, many times there's several tactical solutions. What tactics one uses is dependent on their knowledge, skills levels, experience etc. It could be simply doing nothing, but that's still a tactical decision.
Yup! Just like in my biz... No treatment is a "treatment option."

Back to the parking lot scenario... it's a dynamic situation, so decisions are made and re-made on the fly. Another way of saying, "It depends."

But, it today's legal environment, I think the legal aspects of these hypothetical scenarios are as important in the mental exercise as the tactical aspects. Good to get it thought out beforehand. I think it increases understanding of the legal considerations, which can guide us in avoidance and which tactics may be up for consideration.

In the end, it comes down to whether you reasonably fear for your life... and how important it is to you to go home at the end of the day... alive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,262 Posts
I’d drive away. If unable to do so; I’d shoot them.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
30,988 Posts
I'm wondering if one can have a high level of confidence in a prima facia claim of self defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing IAW f.s. 776.032(4) that the courts would surely rule in one's favor IF the perceived threat only displayed the handle of an un-drawn gun in a pocket?

To me they are open carrying in that situation since I can see what anyone would reasonably assume was a actual gun (doesn't matter if real or not).

If confronted out in the open like that I won't be thinking about that one damn bit and I'm going to "bring it" to her with all due violence! However, considering scenarios in the comfort of my living room, with all the craziness in the world now, I'm not so sure. What do the legal eagles think? :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,800 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
I'm wondering if one can have a high level of confidence in a prima facia claim of self defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing IAW f.s. 776.032(4) that the courts would surely rule in one's favor IF the perceived threat only displayed the handle of an un-drawn gun in a pocket?

To me they are open carrying in that situation since I can see what anyone would reasonably assume was a actual gun (doesn't matter if real or not).

If confronted out in the open like that I won't be thinking about that one damn bit and I'm going to "bring it" to her with all due violence! However, considering scenarios in the comfort of my living room, with all the craziness in the world now, I'm not so sure. What do the legal eagles think? :unsure:
It's brandishing in a threatening manner. Go into a convenience store or a bank and intentionally draw attention to the pistol grip emerging from your waistband while demanding "all the money." See what happens. It's armed robbery. Armed robbery doesn't stipulate that a gun is aimed at your face.

Similarly, armed robbery does not stipulate the victim must first assess whether the gun (or other weapon) is "real." Robbery with an airsoft or Mattel gun is Armed Robbery.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
30,988 Posts
As I wrote, real or not doesn't matter one damn bit in my decision making and actions. Based on how this was described and making the assumption I'm outside the vehicle on foot, I will be raining down hell on that beotch. I'm just wondering aloud, if you will, what the courts would likely do if I (correctly IMHO) assumed the perps action to that point was an reasonable threat of GBH or death? I think "yes" but was asking the legal eagles here for their thoughts. :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: bladenbullet

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,800 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
I'm just wondering aloud, if you will, what the courts would likely do if I (correctly IMHO) assumed the perps action to that point was an reasonable threat of GBH or death? :unsure:
First... have a good attorney, familiar with self-defense law, of course. And, ain't nothin' guaranteed.

But, merely brandishing a gun during a robbery in any other circumstance (bank, convenience store, etc.) is "Armed Robbery," right? A bank robbery can't claim, "Well, I just SHOWED the teller the grip of my gun. I didn't draw it. I wasn't gonna really shoot her."

In the end, like you... if a perp is brandishing (threatening) while demanding my stuff, the implication is, "Give me your sh*t / car / phone / wallet, or Imma gonna use this here gun I just showed you." I'd say that it would be "reasonable" to BELIEVE that perp means it.

And, let the chips fall where they may. I'll be alive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
262 Posts
I've often thought about that when entering my car. I have a key fob and inside, with a small slide button outside, you can release a silver key. I think the key fits the drivers door and the glove box. I think I would try to give them that key, trick them into thinking it is the ignition key and run like hell between cars to distance myself from the perp. By the time they figure out there is no ignition for a key, I would hope to be safe. If they pursued me, I am armed. Could be just a lot of wishful thinking too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,073 Posts
BH

In direct answer to your question, you would probably be cleared under a “stand your ground“ hearing. The focus of that hearing is your reasonable belief under the circumstances. The burden is on the state to prove that you are not entitled to immunity, that was the initial big change to the law that makes it much harder to lose one of these hearings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,073 Posts
It's brandishing in a threatening manner. Go into a convenience store or a bank and intentionally draw attention to the pistol grip emerging from your waistband while demanding "all the money." See what happens. It's armed robbery. Armed robbery doesn't stipulate that a gun is aimed at your face.

Similarly, armed robbery does not stipulate the victim must first assess whether the gun (or other weapon) is "real." Robbery with an airsoft or Mattel gun is Armed Robbery.
To address Florida law , it’s helpful to know a little bit about Florida law and they actual terminologies. There is no charge of “brandishing” in Florida statutes. That’s a Layman's term, the statute is “improper exhibition of a firearm” It’s a jury question whether or not showing the handle is covered by the statute. The statute does not say “improper exhibition of the handle of a firearm“ so it’s up to a jury to make that call. Was it an exhibition of a firearm if you show the handle? That’s a jury question. Some states and websites may call it brandishing but I’m trying to address real Florida law since that’s where we all live and what you asked about.

Likewise, “armed robbery“ is a Layman's term and not a real charge under Florida law. Florida law defines robbery and there are different levels. There is robbery, there is robbery with a weapon and robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon. It makes a big difference with respect to prison sentences.

Robbery with an airsoft or Mattel gun is not armed robbery under Florida law. A firearm is defined under Florida statutes so there’s no debate under the highest level of robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon. An airsoft or toy gun would clearly not be a firearm. There was an unusual 2018 supreme court case which held that a BB gun was a deadly weapon (not a firearm) under the statue. ( for the gun folks, it was a BB gun which was a duplicate of a Beretta 92) The way it works is that the jury is given the discretion which must be based on competent evidence to determine whether or not a BB gun under the circumstances was a deadly weapon. Cases have gone both ways, it depends on how it was used. That finding will not be disturbed if there was competent evidence for them to make that decision. As I said before, juries decisions are hard to overturn because they are the ones that determine the facts in a case. Judges are the ones who determine the law that applies.

The assertion that a Mattel or toy gun is armed robbery or robbery with a firearm or a deadly weapon is wrong. There have been cases discussing whether or not a toy gun was a weapon (not firearm) during a robbery. The big difference of course is whether or not certain sentencing guidelines apply under certain levels of robbery. I recall one highly unusual case where a toy gun was determined to constitute a robbery with a deadly weapon when it was used to beat someone over the head. Otherwise, it’s clearly not a deadly weapon, it’s clearly not a firearm, it’s clearly not an armed robbery with a toy gun even if we use layman’s understanding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,476 Posts
A Mattel gun may not be a show of deadly force or considered a firearm....but I assure you it will result in an armed response depending on the time and visual availability for evaluation...a reasonable person's impression of jeopardy trumps hindsight...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,073 Posts
Exactly, that’s what I referred to in Post number 28 in directly answering the question posed by Bravo Hotel. That would clearly be the focus in an immunity hearing not layman’s interpretations of whether toy guns constitute armed robbery in Florida.

The focus in a stand your ground hearing is the mental state of the victim/shooter and the government has the burden of proof of overcoming a presumption. If it were a sophisticated victim like you and you knew that a BB gun had the muzzle painted red you might just stick it up the assailants nose. A normal victim might be in reasonable fear for their life.
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top