The OP reported "You know what, I think I'll just beat you up you little jerk (not exactly what was said, but can't post that language here)". That is sufficient provocation to display your weapon as a warning.dihappy wrote:Im glad things worked out but i have an obervation/question.
Im not so sure your threat of deadly force was justified as he was still in his vehicle.
Showing your handgun was in fact a threat of deadly force, and im not sure it was justified in that situation.
Heck im not even sure if you would have been justified in shooting an unarmed man walking toward you.
Id like to hear some opinions on this.
heres something i found online:
"The use of deadly force may be justified only to defend against force, or the threat of force of nearly equally severity, and is not justifiable unless the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself/herself) against death or serious bodily harm."
I guess if this is true, then the jury would have to be convinced that shooting the man was the only way to prevent death or serious bodily harm.
Followed up by his response, "That depends entirely on what you do next". internetguy's display of his weapon fits the law's intent perfectly and resulted in the desired outcome.Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force. (emphasis mine)
This is textbook lawful behavior. That's why the cops treated him with respect. They knew he had done the right thing and demonstrated restraint in a tense situation.
It just doesn't get any better than that.