I have to know!
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:39 pmOkay, i just want to know.
Lets see if there are some same people over here.
It may not be "legal" per the current accepted practice in court, but do you feel it is within your constitutional rights to un-holster your gun, but not point it at the person or show it in a intensionally threatening manner, prior to an elicit act by an individual threatening great bodily harm to you or another person? With your sole reasoning being your perception and suspicion of an individual based on their appearance and location. Appearance not limited to skin color.
Current legal interpretation...
Definitions...
Brandishing.
"1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish."
wave:
Move one's hand to and fro in greeting or as a signal.
flourish:
A bold or extravagant gesture or action, made esp. to attract the attention of others.
menacingly:
The act of threatening.
display:
Make a prominent exhibition of (something) in a place where it can be easily seen.
ostentatiously:
1. characterized by pretentious show in an attempt to impress others.
2. intended to attract notice: ostentatious charity.
Prominent:
Bold or distinctive
So in a situation like this...
If I witness a man I don't know peering through my neighbors window and I approach him with my hand on my pistol grip still holstered or unholstered but pointed at the ground and ask him what he is doing.
Or this...
The guy peering through the window is dressed in gang related clothing and a ski mask, he is carrying a brick, there has been an escalating number of rape/murders using uzies in the neighborhood, my neighbor is an attractive single mother, and it is 2am.
In your opinion...
Did I move it to and fro in a threatening fashion?
Did I make a bold or extravagant action in a threatening fashion?
IMO:
May have been threatening (only if he was doing something wrong), but I did not wave it or flourish it.
I may have displayed the weapon, but not ostentatiously.
I showed my weapon but not in a pretentious way meant to impress or attract attention.
It was only a precaution, against the idea that he may be dangerous.
On the other site the concincus surprisingly was that I did not have right to take this precaution even when baring current legal interpretations.
What do you all think?
Lets see if there are some same people over here.
It may not be "legal" per the current accepted practice in court, but do you feel it is within your constitutional rights to un-holster your gun, but not point it at the person or show it in a intensionally threatening manner, prior to an elicit act by an individual threatening great bodily harm to you or another person? With your sole reasoning being your perception and suspicion of an individual based on their appearance and location. Appearance not limited to skin color.
Current legal interpretation...
BRANDISHING Opinion No. 7101 February 6, 2002: …In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions…..the term brandishing is defined as: "1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish." This definition comports with the meaning ascribed to this term by courts of other jurisdictions…the court recognized that in federal sentencing guidelines, "brandishing" a weapon is defined to mean "that the weapon was pointed or waved about, or displayed in a threatening manner." Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a "peace officer," when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code. It is my opinion, therefore, that…by carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public.
Definitions...
Brandishing.
"1. To wave or flourish menacingly, as a weapon. 2. To display ostentatiously. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish."
wave:
Move one's hand to and fro in greeting or as a signal.
flourish:
A bold or extravagant gesture or action, made esp. to attract the attention of others.
menacingly:
The act of threatening.
display:
Make a prominent exhibition of (something) in a place where it can be easily seen.
ostentatiously:
1. characterized by pretentious show in an attempt to impress others.
2. intended to attract notice: ostentatious charity.
Prominent:
Bold or distinctive
So in a situation like this...
If I witness a man I don't know peering through my neighbors window and I approach him with my hand on my pistol grip still holstered or unholstered but pointed at the ground and ask him what he is doing.
Or this...
The guy peering through the window is dressed in gang related clothing and a ski mask, he is carrying a brick, there has been an escalating number of rape/murders using uzies in the neighborhood, my neighbor is an attractive single mother, and it is 2am.
In your opinion...
Did I move it to and fro in a threatening fashion?
Did I make a bold or extravagant action in a threatening fashion?
IMO:
May have been threatening (only if he was doing something wrong), but I did not wave it or flourish it.
I may have displayed the weapon, but not ostentatiously.
I showed my weapon but not in a pretentious way meant to impress or attract attention.
It was only a precaution, against the idea that he may be dangerous.
On the other site the concincus surprisingly was that I did not have right to take this precaution even when baring current legal interpretations.
What do you all think?
