Michigan Self Defense case with HUGE implications......

[markm]

This is the problem I have with civilians and weapons mounted lights. If you pull your gun to use the light to "identify a threat"- the usual justification for having a weapons light (shooting accurately secondary) you have just committed aggravated assault in most places unless you actually HAVE a threat that 1. You damn well better be able to articulate 2. You better immediately call the police because smart bad guys WILL and say that you 1. have a gun (How do they know unless you pointed it at them?) and 2. That you menaced them with it.....

Not a big fan of weapons mounted lights for LTC carry.

I agree.. No pistol I have has a light mounted. You need to be able to run your light without aiming at unknowns. Home D carbine is a different scenario... if you're in my house, etc. They charged a guy here in AZ for lighting up an LE officer with a rifle/light down near the border.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

In the everyday CCW world don’t ever draw a weapon unless you intend to use it. Don’t ever try to defuse anything with a weapon, the situation may indeed “defuse” but that would be only a welcome change of pace.

I agree, and that’s what my grandfather taught me. I would like the option that if someone is fixin’ thump me, if I draw and give commands, and they stop and retreat, that i’m Not in legal jeopardy.

I think the key is the conditionality. If someone is coming at you and threatening you, they are in the wrong and you should be in the right to defend yourself even through escalation of force. If a guy is threatening you with grave physical force, agreeing to meet that force isn’t a deterrent- it’s agreeing to his offer. Upping the ante literally gives him a chance to ‘check’ himself. If he wants to pull a gun, that’s his prerogative, but it is not a reaction to your defending itself - it is a continuation of his initial illegal act of unjustly threatening force. At that point he has raised the stakes and the defender should be clear to defend themselves to remove the threat.

As to lights, one on a gun is fine- but just like my EDC knife gets used for all kinds of non-knife stuff, it would be rude to use weapon light to read a menu, so I carry a pocket light. I have that in my hand when i’m walking to my car. 1000 lumens to the snout prophylacticly applied at distance to discourage bad behavior. Gun comes out later and use that light. That way home Home defense and CCW run the same way.

That’s my plan based. I frankly don’t think that most people get much of a chance before the attacker is on them. Sure, SA to try to keep gaps and distance, but it seems most attacks are ambushes or sucker punches.

[SteyrAUG]

I agree.. No pistol I have has a light mounted. You need to be able to run your light without aiming at unknowns. Home D carbine is a different scenario... if you're in my house, etc. They charged a guy here in AZ for lighting up an LE officer with a rifle/light down near the border.

Indoors - weapon light.
Outdoors - handheld light.

A big factor is that you probably already called the police. I don't want to run into local PD at night in my yard and sweep them with a handgun accidentally.

[flenna]

Indoors - weapon light.
Outdoors - handheld light.

A big factor is that you probably already called the police. I don't want to run into local PD at night in my yard and sweep them with a handgun accidentally.

You don't want to be seen inside your house with a gun by the local PD, either.

[BoringGuy45]

I carry both a flashlight and a light on my HD/EDC pistol. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. In terms of which light I would use, it depends on using common sense depending on the situation.

[SteyrAUG]

You don't want to be seen inside your house with a gun by the local PD, either.

A lot of that is zip code dependent. But yeah, it can go wrong and we've seen the YT videos where it has gone wrong. If every cop shot every armed homeowner he saw while responding to an alarm or prowler call, there would be 2 million YT videos.

While always wrong, especially in cases where it's even the wrong house, the instances are pretty low IMO and I'm not trying to excuse it, but I don't think a 100% success rate is possible. Obviously some are more conscientious than others. LAPD would probably shoot you most of the time. I still remember when they came off the rails during the whole Chris Dorner thing. By contrast during the Boston bomber manhunt Boston PD amazingly didn't shoot anyone during their forced "no warrant" house to house searches.

[MountainRaven]

Putting a weapon light on your handgun doesn't mean that the handgun is now a flashlight. If you're using it that way, you're doing it wrong.

[26 Inf]

Deadly Force and use of force are clearly defined by the Supreme Court for Law Enforcement. Not necessarily for private citizens. One thing the courts look at on a case by case is the “ability-opportunity-intent” portion of the case.

That really isn't correct, the intent of the person doing/threatening the harm isn't at issue in most cases, rather it is the reasonableness of the other's perception of their jeopardy.

Absent an overt move to use force, it is difficult to establish a reasonable perception of jeopardy.

As an example, a person matching the description of a robbery suspect is told to stand with their hands in the air and not move. Suddenly they feel a sneeze coming on, without thinking they rapidly drop their hand to their rear pocket to get a handkerchief with the idea of stifling their sneeze. Their intent was clearly not to harm the other person, but in the totality of the circumstances is it possible such a move might be reasonably regarded as a move to harm the other person?

As in most of these cases it depends on whether you are buying or selling. The correct course to take is one that determines how another person, having the same knowledge would have viewed the events without going overboard one way or the other.

[26 Inf]

Well that is another way of looking at it (and on the surface sounds right). The danger in it is that taking away “would a reasonable person have used deadly force” and replacing it with “was it necessary to use deadly force” is that now there will be a government bureaucrat determining if it is “necessary” in the aftermath of a shooting. Well, since the law of the land says LE has no duty to protect then will it ever be “necessary” to use deadly force to protect someone else? And once this is fully established it will be applied to non-LE, too.

The net result will be litigation which, hopefully, quickly reaches the Supreme Court.

On the one hand, the language in Graham v. Connor regarding establishing reasonableness is completely correct: The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

On the other hand, there have been several cases which I think point to a trend of officers being trained to act early to mitigate any risk.

We have lost the perspective of an assumption of reasonable risk to ensure proper decision making. It has been sacrificed on the altar of 'I'm going home at the end of my shift, no matter what' dogma.

[Belmont31R]

Different states have different definitions of battery and assault. I was listening to a podcast with a FL LEO and FL has pretty broad assault laws where just squaring up with someone in assault. Most states don't consider there to be a crime until you make contact with someone. Weapons are a different issue like a mugging and having a weapon present. So I think the crux is the intent if you present a weapon. In fear or personal or 3rd party harm = no crime. Pull a gun to intimidate or perpetuate another crime = crime. The biggest issue is the local DA and police whether they like people carrying or not or using self defense/3rd party defense. State law can clearly say A but local liberal DA says B. Means you get charged anyways because the Soros funded DA wants to scare people out of self defense situations and make up their own law.