Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,632 Posts
Not a good move. Nevertheless, unless our duly elected officials grow a backbone and put a stop to mob rule, people are going to take the law into their own hands. Ill advised, but inevitable. If this continues, it is only a matter of time before we have several serious incidents. Most haven't thought things through and will over react (as it appears this couple has done).

The article on Fox states the mob broke through a gate to enter the community, and was headed to the mayor's house to demand she resign because she made public the names of 'protesters' who demanded the police be de-funded. Funny how these protesters are the first to publicize, 'out' and call on social media for the destruction of anyone they view as transgressors. I guess what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,291 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,524 Posts
Terrible muzzle discipline, fingers on triggers, etc. All it takes is one misstep or stumble. Big Blondie looks like the mad dog of the two. There’s another shot on Instagram where the wife is out in the yard with her finger on the trigger and hubby is back on the porch. That’s a perfect set up for a nightmare scenario.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,299 Posts
Terrible muzzle discipline, fingers on triggers, etc. All it takes is one misstep or stumble. Big Blondie looks like the mad dog of the two. There’s another shot on Instagram where the wife is out in the yard with her finger on the trigger and hubby is back on the porch. That’s a perfect set up for a nightmare scenario.
First thing I noticed was his lack of muzzle discipline. Low ready, already, please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,628 Posts
Wifey and I went to Ozello yesterday - went out to a little restaurant near the end of West Ozello Trail. Just beyond that is a very short causeway/bridge and then a little island with maybe two dozen houses on it.

I remarked at the time that would be a great place to live during times of social unrest, or a zombie apocalypse, or whatever.

First off, the whole thing is at the end of a 10 mile long twisty road that is one way in and one way out. Not really much reason for ne'er-do-wells to go back that far in the first place. But in the event of zombies, or determined cretins, just set up a couple concrete barricades and put a couple sentries with rifles on the causeway/bridge, and nobody is getting out there unless they swim or approach by boat.

I don't know what state the video in the OP occurred in. I think I'd want to be outside so I could keep an eye on the dirtbags and make sure none of them come up into the property and approach the house. I don't want to be holed up inside and the first awareness I have of serious doodoo is when a Molotov cocktail comes through one of the windows.

That said, I wouldn't be outside threatening people. I think I'd just sit in a chair on my front porch with the M16, a Beta-C mag, and a couple spares, hanging out, watching the menagerie. Have Wifey inside with the MP5, and lots of magazines, running video. They want to walk by on the street, OK, have a good day.

If they come up on the property, oopsie, damn, the Doberman got out again. Sorry, you shouldn't have been trespassing. Didn't you see the "Bad Dog" sign?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,218 Posts
Protecting their "OWN" property from a bunch of thugs trespassing in a private community is OK with me.
I sure do not see any police or the security there.
Disgusting thugs promising to burn America down and walking into a private gated community.
What are the home owners supposed to do, ?????
If it is like the private community my cousin lives in, You can not call the police, You have to call security if a situation arises and they will contact the Police if they deem it necessary.
You can call 911 if it is that serious and pray the Police will show up.
Ronnie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,055 Posts
Dumber and Dumber, and I don't know which is which?
The idiots brandishing weapons, or the idiots filming it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,251 Posts
i'm all for the visual deterrent...although a bit more subtle as brian suggested...but i would be strapped with a sidearm and a gaggle of mags to let them know i mean real business if they decide to press their luck...

we dont have the advantage of being there and seeing the actual threat to them from their perspective, so brandishing isnt really on the table...other than the actual careless muzzle and trigger discipline they display toward each other...

we are not far from a response to their "revolution"...they have been pampered up to this point with little resistance...they have become more and more emboldened and eventually they will find out what the true definition of a revolution is...they keep citing the revolutionary war but fail to see the use of opposing overwhelming force they will encounter when pressed to the edge...they are flirting with disastrous consequences and it will not be pretty if law enforcement does not get a grip on it before they poke the bear to the limits of tolerance....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,251 Posts
and i have to say...from the same forum that multiple members supported a man jumping out of a pickup truck in the path of another, who posed no immediate threat, with a shotgun as legal and ok open carry, this thread is enlightening...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
i'm all for the visual deterrent...although a bit more subtle as brian suggested...but i would be strapped with a sidearm and a gaggle of mags to let them know i mean real business if they decide to press their luck...

we dont have the advantage of being there and seeing the actual threat to them from their perspective, so brandishing isnt really on the table...other than the actual careless muzzle and trigger discipline they display toward each other...

we are not far from a response to their "revolution"...they have been pampered up to this point with little resistance...they have become more and more emboldened and eventually they will find out what the true definition of a revolution is...they keep citing the revolutionary war but fail to see the use of opposing overwhelming force they will encounter when pressed to the edge...they are flirting with disastrous consequences and it will not be pretty if law enforcement does not get a grip on it before they poke the bear to the limits of tolerance....
It's definitely brandishing by the very definition of it.

Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.”

Presumably, each state may have its own definition, but they're usually quite similar.

Note that it does not stipulate circumstances nor exemptions.

There's a difference between open carry and brandishing. I would say that it could be argued the man wasn't brandishing, though it's a bit of a stretch. But, without any doubt (by my estimation), the woman was brandishing. She was actively pointing her gun at people (like a sprinkler!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,251 Posts
It's definitely brandishing by the very definition of it.

Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.”

Presumably, each state may have its own definition, but they're usually quite similar.

Note that it does not stipulate circumstances nor exemptions.

There's a difference between open carry and brandishing. I would say that it could be argued the man wasn't brandishing, though it's a bit of a stretch. But, without any doubt (by my estimation), the woman was brandishing. She was actively pointing her gun at people (like a sprinkler!).
once again...we do not have the advantage of being there...if the mob was advancing and the display stopped them then it is a self defense use of a firearm....how many times have stated that statistics arent quoted for the number of times a firearm stopped a crime without a shot being fired...i stand by both my statements in that post...if you believe that you cannot display a firearm until it has to be fired to stop a crime then you are several steps behind at the get go...one does not have to hide the fact that they can defend themselves when threatened...the evening news is enough to prove that a mob of enraged protesters can very well be a physical threat to your property or well being...

the entirety of the situation has to be taken into account...
 
  • Like
Reactions: C&R and 7.62Kolectr

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,628 Posts
It's definitely brandishing by the very definition of it.

Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.”

Presumably, each state may have its own definition, but they're usually quite similar.

Note that it does not stipulate circumstances nor exemptions.

There's a difference between open carry and brandishing. I would say that it could be argued the man wasn't brandishing, though it's a bit of a stretch. But, without any doubt (by my estimation), the woman was brandishing. She was actively pointing her gun at people (like a sprinkler!).
The federal definition of "brandish" that you referenced does not occur as a freestanding crime. It is a sentence enhancer used in 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and defined in 18 USC 924(c)(4). In order for this definition to matter you must have already done this part:

Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime
So in order to bring this penalizing statute into play the person involved would need to be guilty of a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Most of the federal assault statutes deal with federal enclaves or federal agents, actors, or processes.

I might be wrong but I don't think these two have any need to worry about federal charges here. This is a state matter.

Generally speaking I would expect most states' "brandishing" or "unlawful display" statues to be similar to Florida's and to exempt display done in necessary self-defense.

Whether or not what these two did was in necessary self-defense is a question for the jury.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,628 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,299 Posts
Brandishing usually is a charge based on intent to intimidate with the weapon. How anyone established "intent" without asking the person in question is beyond me. Now leo might ask him why he was displaying a rifle, and his answer could give reason to believe he was trying to intimidate them or his answer may be he was simply armed due to the imminent threat that group posed to him and his wife and armed himself up to prevent any member of the uninvited trespassers from causing property damage or becoming a threat to him or his wife.

Based on known past performances of protestors turning violent, and based on the obvious disparity of force that could be brought within seconds from those uninvited trespassers to their person, a prudent person MIGHT just arm themselves up in anticipation of a potential imminent threat to their person. A threat may take the form of a molotov cocktail being thrown at the house [ as it's happened, a prudent judicious person might relay that fear as a reason to arm up. The threat may come in the form of several rushing the couple, making their own verbal threats as evidenced in many other videos that have involved those "protestors".

The time it takes to go from protestor to looter/rioter/arsonist/criminal is a mere second in time. I'd have to believe if, based on past performance and documented in videos across various states cities, that anyone with a little common logic could make a case for arming up to protect themselves while on their property at that point, due to protestors who've already violated the law of trespassing closing in on one's castle, while crossing the moat [ the gates to the private community of castles ].

What was his intent? Listen to the video again, and decide for yourself.
 
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
Top