I am relatively new to this forum, but have taken a fair amount of time looking for an answer for this question (without any luck). And I know it's a bit towards the hypothetical (if too far, feel free to put me in my place).

If reasonable force (in the form of a drawn weapon pointed at the ground) was being used to prevent an attack, could continued agression (running towards the gun) suggest that they intend to inflict great bodily harm or death?

I can reason that they would only do this to take my gun and continue the attack, but would I be to blame for exposing the gun?

Thanks--

Glkguy

I am of the belief that if I decided to draw my weapon, the ground is the last place I'd point it. Why have one? If you decide to draw your weapon you had better be ready to use it or it doesn't belong out.

You might get an answer to that question following this case in Moorhead. http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=394717

Been a big story here. Kid went into an open apartment, HO pulled out the shotgun and said get out, kid advanced and struggled for the gun. There has been outcry of the dead kids family this could have all been prevented. Stories in the paper said the HO should have maybe just struck the kid with the butt of the weapon. I would bet a civil trial will take shape around the distortion of the HO escalating with a gun. Stay tuned!

Absolutely it could have been prevented. The kid could have stayed sober and not invaded someone's home! That's prevention.

-Mark

+1 If I'm pulling it, it's the last step before firing it.

No doubt. I would like to see the newspaper ninja's skills too for stopping an attacker, give me a break. Been pretty odd, kids parents on tv calling for justice. Local TV running the shooter's picture and name. I think soon we should hear the toxicology report. I understand from the tv he was a good kid, did anything for anyone, just got too excited invading peoples homes one night and bumped into somone willing to protect themselves.

Im sure the dead kids family would have been much happier if he would have just assulted/killed the HO.

I think the answers to these kinds of questions come from a mixture, half of which is knowledge of the statutes, and the rest being a working knowledge of the attitudes of area courts.

As for me, sure, I can see taking it out of my pocket and cheeking it. If I had perceived the whole GBH package to be present, then letting the the gun hang out by my thigh is just a stop on the way to taking aim. And if the situation happens to diffuse before I get to firing, well, good for me. Even better for the attacker.

Keep in mind too that there is no brandishing in Minnesota. Technically you can have a gun in your hand and as long as it’s not leveled at anyone or anything and you aren’t making any reference to it as a threat, or displaying it intentionally as such, you’re just a permit holder carrying a pistol.

Also keep in mind that I’ve never tested this theory.

Personally, I think it's a very valid question. I don't think I have the answer but it is something to wonder about. I'm of the mindset that fear of death or GBH should pretty much already be present before drawing the weapon. However, like someone else stated, just [i]because[i] you've drawn doesn't meant you have to fire. If the circumstances change before you fire, great, don't fire. If you have that luxury. This is just my opinion but I happen to agree and I think it's reasonable to assume that if I have a gun out, have commanded the person to stop and they continue to advance, I could assume they mean to either take my gun away and/or cause GBH or death. But again, I think they valid threat has to be there first. But, you can throw all kinds of things into the mix and make it a gray area. What if you are in a parking lot and that someone who is advancing toward you despite your verbal commands to stop happens to be parked right behind you and happens to be hearing impaired so they can't hear your commands to stop. I don't mean to muddy the waters by adding 'what ifs' to your comment but I think it's a gray area that can go many ways. Personally, I like hypothetical questions as they make you think about issues that make in fact, come up.

If someone is trying to take your gun, I believe it is reasonable to presume that you would experience "reasonable fear of immediate death or great bodily harm." What will happen to you if they are successful in taking your gun away?

While others have made this point, it merits repeating: if you carry, be prepared to use it.

+1. That is something ALL permit holders should do on a regular basis. Mental preparation is a large portion of the responsibility of carrying a firearm.

glkguy asks a reasonable hypothetical question here. My question would be - why is the firearm being pulled in the first place? If GBH is feared, an armed person's first step is to pull their weapon. If the aggressor continues to pose a threat of GBH (i.e. advancing on the would-be victim), step 2 (taking aim along with loud verbal warning if not already issued) comes next, possibly followed very quickly by step 3 (bang).

Absolutly, kind of the golden question for armed citizens. Our instructor had a great comment, he said if you ever pull the trigger pointing at another human your life is going to change weather your right or wrong.

I think the Moorhead case if it goes that far will be pretty interesting. The DA said no charges, but civil could always roll forward.

To paraphrase Marc MacYoung (whose lessons, along with a little luck, have saved my life twice):

Don't carry a weapon unless you are willing to pull it.
Don't pull it unless you are willing to use it.
Don't use it unless you are willing to kill with it.
And don't kill unless you are willing to spend the rest of your life in prison -- or die.

-Mark

VERY well put. I'm going to copy that and save it.

Marc is the real deal, and what he teaches isn't about pussyfooting around. He is direct to the point of blunt, but makes excellent points.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/

-Mark

Thanks for the link, I'm going to check it out.