The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Actually, I found out today from a LEO friend (talking about something totally unrelated) that it makes NO
difference if he was armed, or
not, when he was shot.
The neighbors called in that he was threatening them, and “brandishing” a firearm. It makes ZERO
difference if he really had a firearm, if
it was unloaded, a toy, an airgun, etc… If the person that you brandished the “item” at BELIEVES
that you have a firearm, and feels in
fear for their safety, then you have committed a felony
, it falls under being “felony assault with a deadly weapon”, and the police have
the right to treat the suspect like an armed felon.
If you think about this, you should all realize that its true. If someone holds up a store or a bank, even if they used a toy, they are still treated
as though the firearm is REAL
. If the person is caught, and sent to court, they are treated and sentenced EXACTLY
the same way as though
the firearm was real, even if it was fake.
He “brandished” what witnesses felt was a firearm, they were in fear, and the police had the right under the law to treat that as a felony.
Some legal backup for this:
Toy weapn Laws
Also in Chicago, if a toy gun or replica gun is used to commit a crime, then that person is treated as though they had actually used a real
Finally, states such as California have laws that make it a crime to brandish a look-alike gun in public. Furthermore, individuals using an Airsoft or
replica gun to commit crimes will invariably be treated as though they had used an actual firearm.
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling
— Penalty — Exceptions.
RCW 9.41.270 (1)
It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument,
club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests
an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Assault with a deadly weapon is technically termed "aggravated assault" under the Florida statutes. "Simple" assault is defined in the following
An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and
doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
If this threat is accompanied by the brandishing of a deadly weapon, a defendant who is convicted of this charge faces the penalties that accompany
a third-degree felony. A third-degree felony can carry a prison term of up to five years.
Assault and Aggravated Assault
Assault is defined as the intentional act of threatening to injure a person. Brandishing a weapon falls firmly under the definition of assault. If
a firearm or other deadly weapon is used, the charge is elevated to aggravated assault, a felony in Texas. Even if you were acting in self-defense
by brandishing a firearm, you could still be at risk of being convicted for aggravated assault.
Pulling a firearm on someone without firing it suggests that the gun was not necessary and that you did not fear for your life, because if you had you
would have pulled the trigger. Fighting an aggravated assault charge with the self-defense doctrine can therefore be a difficult argument to make in
And finally in Arizona itself:
Arizona Gun Laws Update 2009
Improper display of a firearm can be anything from a class 1 misdemeanor (e.g., disorderly conduct) to a class 3 felony (e.g., aggravated
So if the neighbors reported that he was “brandishing” a deadly weapon, and they felt in fear of their safety, then it’s Felony Aggravated
Assault with a Deadly Weapon, regardless if he was armed at the time the police arrived or not, and he would have been charged with that crime if he
would have gone to court. The police had every right
to treat him as an armed felon. His reluctance to comply with police demands gave the
police the absolute right to treat him as being armed, dangerous, and as a resisting felon, thereby giving them the right to shoot him.[ /mod]
Hey defcon... respectfully, I have reviewed you post above carefully, and although I agree with your research and and respect your opinion I must
disagree with your final stance.
Here I believe it important I add somes facts, I am a life long supporter of police officers and law enforcement.
I can read and understand laws and statues.
I have a grandson who is currently an officer in another state, an uncle who was an FBI agent, a cousin who was a US Marshall and too many close
personal friends who have been and currently are officers of the law.
I might also admit that given my involvement and respect for this position I have always been a little predisposed to err on the side of these hard
working men and women.
Setting this minor predjuidcie aside, I contacted all my trusted police professional contacts in the area of law enforcement, i.e. all my family
members, a close college friend who was one of four state police commanders in a major state in the midwest for severa years, and as many of my other
friends and acquaintances as I couldn, including some current military police officers, and in an effort to get a real legal perspective on the
subject, I contact a good friend who is a former Superior Court Judge and who now teaches law to potential and existing police officers in another
Sum total, these officers and the judge, without question all stated this situation warrants a full investigation, and all stressed the investigation
should be by a department other than the officer's.
I must agree, the situation warrants a full investigation.
edit on 29-2-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Edit
edit on 29-2-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Spelling