Dan Gryder banned from Airventure

Status
Not open for further replies.
What are the laws pertaining to brandishment? Seems like if you have a CCW, then warning someone, displaying the gun, and pointing the gun are necessary and logical escalation steps in a self defense scenario.
 
Ed Haywood said:
What are the laws pertaining to brandishment? Seems like if you have a CCW, then warning someone, displaying the gun, and pointing the gun are necessary and logical escalation steps in a self defense scenario.
Click to expand...
That would be logical for sure, but in almost every state it is considered brandishing, and illegal, to display a concealed weapon unless you fear for your life to the point you need to use it.

There have been cases where the fact that the weapon was *not* used was considered evidence that the event did not rise to the standard of an imminent danger, and therefore the weapon should not have been displayed.
 
Ed Haywood said:
What are the laws pertaining to brandishment? Seems like if you have a CCW, then warning someone, displaying the gun, and pointing the gun are necessary and logical escalation steps in a self defense scenario.
Click to expand...

State dependent. In Texas, threatening the use of deadly force usually falls under disorderly conduct with a firearm; six months (up to 12) and $2000-$4000 fine. It can turn to aggravated assault and that’s felon time.

To justify threat of deadly force, which is what displaying a firearm is doing, several things must be true, to include that
1. You didn’t start the incident
2. You have a legal right to be where you are
3. You’re not already committing another crime, and
4. Reasonable belief you’re about to be raped, kidnapped, murdered, robbed, or assaulted by someone with a deadly weapon.
 
Salty said:
That would be logical for sure, but in almost every state it is considered brandishing, and illegal, to display a concealed weapon unless you fear for your life to the point you need to use it.

There have been cases where the fact that the weapon was *not* used was considered evidence that the event did not rise to the standard of an imminent danger, and therefore the weapon should not have been displayed.
Click to expand...

That just sounds wrong. Displaying a weapon to deter the attackers I would think is proper use. What are you supposed to do? Shoot them to prove you were in imminent danger??
 
1RTK1 said:
That just sounds wrong. Displaying a weapon to deter the attackers I would think is proper use. What are you supposed to do? Shoot them to prove you were in imminent danger??
Click to expand...
I agree that it sounds wrong. Unfortunately it is not wrong.
 
Did a little googling:

In Florida, brandishing a firearm is illegal under Florida Statute §790.10 and is considered a first-degree misdemeanor. It is unlawful to exhibit a firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in the presence of one or more people, unless it is in necessary self-defense. ​
 
Ed Haywood said:
Did a little googling:

In Florida, brandishing a firearm is illegal under Florida Statute §790.10 and is considered a first-degree misdemeanor. It is unlawful to exhibit a firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in the presence of one or more people, unless it is in necessary self-defense. ​
Click to expand...
Yes. and if you didn't shoot it and also were not injured, that has been used as evidence that the gun was not necessary for self-defense. I'm not saying it makes sense.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Did a little googling:

In Florida, brandishing a firearm is illegal under Florida Statute §790.10 and is considered a first-degree misdemeanor. It is unlawful to exhibit a firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in the presence of one or more people, unless it is in necessary self-defense. ​
Click to expand...

So open carry it is!
 
Salty said:
Yes. and if you didn't shoot it and also were not injured, that has been used as evidence that the gun was not necessary for self-defense. I'm not saying it makes sense.
Click to expand...
So in this scenario, saying, “I’ve got a gun and ill shoot you if you come closer,” isn’t brandishing, but pulling the gun out far enough to see it while saying that is? Or even pulling your jacket aside to show a holstered weapon?
 
kell490 said:
Police report linked below whoever wrote this mixed up the names.

https://jetcareers.com/forums/threads/shocking-news-dan-gryder-is-a-pos.336554/page-15#post-3372794
Click to expand...
Yeah, those mix-ups are rather confusing.

One thing interesting is Gryder's antagonist claiming he "...wanted to apologize about the situation and clear the air...." Easy enough to claim, afterwards, with no outside witnesses.....

Haven't had a concealed weapons permit for ~35 years, but wonder if a bodycam might not be a good accessory when you're packing with the expectation of conflict. While I'm not a fan of open carry, I wonder if this would have been a good situation to do so. Stating "I'm armed" should be sufficient, if it's already in plain sight.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Haven't had a concealed weapons permit for ~35 years, but wonder if a bodycam might not be a good accessory when you're packing with the expectation of conflict. While I'm not a fan of open carry, I wonder if this would have been a good situation to do so. Stating "I'm armed" should be sufficient, if it's already in plain sight.
Click to expand...
From what I was reading, even saying "i'm carrying" is brandishing unless you are acting in self defense. You don't have to actually show the gun, just use it to threaten or intimidate.

It seems like there were two sketchy people involved in this incident. So who knows what the truth is. But I do think we have to consider the possibility that maybe the fact that dan got arrested and the other dude didn't reflects that dan did something wrong and the other guy didn't. And that it's possible dan isn't telling the whole story of the incident in his video, he does have a reputation for being an unreliable narrator.
 
If dan was assaulted would not the other guy have been arrested too? If I was beaten up I think I would have made a police report on that after it happened.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So in this scenario, saying, “I’ve got a gun and ill shoot you if you come closer,” isn’t brandishing, but pulling the gun out far enough to see it while saying that is? Or even pulling your jacket aside to show a holstered weapon?
Click to expand...

Again, depends on the state. The bottom line is most states require the same standard exist to threaten use of deadly force as to actually use deadly force.

Most of that comes down to how well each party can articulate that the use of deadly force was necessary and legal. A lot easier to do when one side can’t tell a tale, but in this instance, there are two sides to the tale.

Side 1 is saying “I was trying to make amends for a sour conversation yesterday”. Side 2 is saying “No, he got out of the car with no weapon and threatened to kill me, so I pulled a gun first”. On its face, side 1 has no weapons on his body or in his car, so it’s kind of hard to believe side 2’s version of the events.

Since nobody was around that could validate what either side is saying, you just charge them all and let each case be decided in court.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Did a little googling:

In Florida, brandishing a firearm is illegal under Florida Statute §790.10 and is considered a first-degree misdemeanor. It is unlawful to exhibit a firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in the presence of one or more people, unless it is in necessary self-defense. ​
Click to expand...

Florida's self-defense laws have evolved over time and the various statutes have never been coordinated. As a result, things are a bit wonky and there seem to be some contradictions.

FS 790.10 reads,
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.​

However, the laws regulating the use of deadly force (which itself has been held to include brandishing) do not limit it to "necessary self-defense." For example, deadly force may be used in the defense of another person. Florida Statute Chapter 796 contains the regulations for using deadly force. Note especially FS 796.012(2):
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.​

The list of forcible felonies is given in 776.08:
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.​

So a person is justified in using deadly force for a number of things other than self defense, such as the imminent commision of treason (which opens up all sorts of possibilities) or carjacking or kidnapping or aircraft piracy (hey!) or arson, etc.

If you take all these together, a sleazy prosecutor and a compliant judge could gig you for displaying a gun to stop someone from committing a burglary, but if you actually shoot them you might be in the clear.

Weird, huh? I'm not aware of it working that way in real life, but @Salty seems to know of an example, so I'd like to hear more about it.

There's an old saying that the first time the bad guy should be aware you have a gun is when he sees a foot of flame coming out of the muzzle. There might be a grain of truth in that.
 
If prosecuted for brandishing, ultimately the jury decides whether all elements of the charge have been proven. The burden would be on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.
 
Half Fast said:
…
If you take all these together, a sleazy prosecutor and a compliant judge could gig you for displaying a gun to stop someone from committing a burglary, but if you actually shoot them you might be in the clear.

Weird, huh? I'm not aware of it working that way in real life,...
Click to expand...

Some ‘weird’ use of deadly force scenarios that didn’t end the way you thought it would.

Man shoots trooper and gets away with it.
www.nbcdfw.com

Fort Worth Man Who Shot State Trooper Faces No Charges

A Fort Worth man who shot a Texas State Trooper is facing no charges after learning a plainclothes man outside his front door, and who had followed him home in what he thought was an act of road rage, was a law enforcement officer.
www.nbcdfw.com www.nbcdfw.com

Joe Horn and the first Castle Doctrine case in Texas.

www.texasobserver.org

Joe Horn and Five Years with the Texas Castle Doctrine

It was a 911 call much like the one George Zimmerman dialed in Sanford, Florida, in February—the voice of a defiant man—that announced to the world, back in 2007, that Texas had become a “Stand Your Ground” state, where killing a person is justifiable if you can claim you were afraid. In...
www.texasobserver.org www.texasobserver.org

Deputy Constable fired for brandishing. In uniform.

www.fox26houston.com

Harris County Deputy fired after video shows her brandishing gun

A Harris County Precinct 1 deputy was terminated after an internal investigation determined she violated policy by pointing her gun at a civilian while off-duty but in uniform.
www.fox26houston.com www.fox26houston.com
 
Ed Haywood said:
If prosecuted for brandishing, ultimately the jury decides whether all elements of the charge have been proven. The burden would be on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.
Click to expand...

100% agree, but getting arrested and having to defend oneself can be expen$ive and time consuming, and having a firearm arrest, even if ultimately acquitted, can have other impacts.

I haven't heard of it actually being a problem, but there are regional differences in Florida. I'd be astonished if showing a firearm in a SD situation led to an arrest in Polk county, but Miami? Maybe. I'd like to hear more about the case @Salty mentioned.
 
wanttaja said:
This, for sure. A claim that he'd previously been assaulted, but hadn't reported it, makes the latest incident look like he was trying get revenge.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a universal view. Plenty of people I know would be really bothered about being assaulted, but still wouldn't call the authorities, especially the males. I don't think that sounds like revenge at all. And I hate that I'm defending DG over that, but that's how it is.
 
wanttaja said:
This, for sure. A claim that he'd previously been assaulted, but hadn't reported it, makes the latest incident look like he was trying get revenge.
Click to expand...

I believe he did report it the night before, but no arrest was made.
 
wanttaja said:
Yeah, those mix-ups are rather confusing.

One thing interesting is Gryder's antagonist claiming he "...wanted to apologize about the situation and clear the air...." Easy enough to claim, afterwards, with no outside witnesses.....

Haven't had a concealed weapons permit for ~35 years, but wonder if a bodycam might not be a good accessory when you're packing with the expectation of conflict. While I'm not a fan of open carry, I wonder if this would have been a good situation to do so. Stating "I'm armed" should be sufficient, if it's already in plain sight.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
The report states a judge signed a warrant for his arrest for aggravated assault the officer must have some evidence maybe Dan was dumb enough to admit to what he did on the bodycam. Unless Dan has a video, or a witness comes down to word of both of them. The other guy according to Dan's video has some serious felony convictions. If I had to guess prosecutor will offer some kind of plea deal lesser charge then a felony to Dan. Lot of misunderstanding spread by social media easier then people think to catch a gun charge. These days you better have a body camera on yourself to prove what happend. Just watched a video about another case where someone was accused of same crime as Dan.

(in)Defensible: One man’s fight to prove self-defense against a top small-town fire official, Part 1
 
Maybe instead of a confrontation, one of them should have asked the other if they wanted to star in a new western they were producing. Then they could settle it without anyone having to worry about legal trouble.

Too soon?
 
wanttaja said:
Haven't had a concealed weapons permit for ~35 years, but wonder if a bodycam might not be a good accessory when you're packing with the expectation of conflict. While I'm not a fan of open carry, I wonder if this would have been a good situation to do so. Stating "I'm armed" should be sufficient, if it's already in plain sight.
Click to expand...
Open carry has it's usefulness. A lot of people claim it makes you a target, but I don't think that's as accurate as they think.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Open carry has it's usefulness. A lot of people claim it makes you a target, but I don't think that's as accurate as they think.
Click to expand...
Fifteen years ago, four armed police officers back where I used to live were attacked by one man who walked into a coffee shop and started shooting. The man killed all four officers, leaving with a single bullet wound.

That's four trained persons engaging in open carry who were unable to save themselves or even cripple their attacker. I find it hard to believe an untrained civilian would do any better. Better to NOT have the weapon in view; surprise is the best weapon you have.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Fifteen years ago, four armed police officers back where I used to live were attacked by one man who walked into a coffee shop and started shooting. The man killed all four officers, leaving with a single bullet wound.

That's four trained persons engaging in open carry who were unable to save themselves or even cripple their attacker. I find it hard to believe an untrained civilian would do any better. Better to NOT have the weapon in view; surprise is the best weapon you have.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I respect you a ton, Ron, but that anecdote isn't a good argument against open carry. If open carrying wasn't enough for those officers to quick-draw and survive, their concealed carry response time would more than likely have been even worse.

In fairness, if a person is determined to specifically kill you, and you practice a LOT, drawing from open carry vs concealed is probably only a second or less faster, but if you lack SA, not a difference-maker. I've always believed that, but in your story there, those guys were officers, so their uniform would've given them away anyway.

I don’t know if you’ve seen the videos of the church shooting in Fort Worth several years back, but I’ll never forget the one guy who tried to pull his concealed carry from his pocket and really didn’t have a chance when he got blasted by the shotgun.

Civilians open carrying don't have to make it obvious. You can open carry with clothing that partially conceals it, and even if it's completely in the open on your belt, you can watch how you stand, where you sit, and often keep it out of view for half the people around you anyway. Nothing will help you, though, if you lack SA, which can happen to anyone from time-to-time. That said, it's a complete unknown how many people might choose to abstain from evil on a particular day because they knew someone was armed and had enough SA to deter them, so it's entirely possible that open carry prevents crimes that less-determined individuals had thought to carry out.
 
Last edited:
Post hoc and all that
 
RyanShort1 said:
that anecdote isn't a good argument against open carry. If open carrying wasn't enough for those officers to quick-draw and survive, their concealed carry response time would more than likely have been even worse.
Click to expand...
At the risk of getting the thread locked, I think you’re missing Ron’s very pragmatic point: open carry makes one a high-priority target in certain situations, as in his example. And even in your example in Ft Worth, I’d bet the guy’s movement to try and pull out a concealed weapon instantly made him a priority.

Before I get blasted erroneously for what some may think are my views, I spent 24 years in the military, qualified in the M-16 and Beretta, and carried when appropriate. I don’t own a gun not for moral reasons but for practical ones. It makes one a target plus, unquestionably increases the rate of suicide and accidental death. Not at all a moral statement - just a practical one.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
... unquestionably increases the rate of suicide and accidental death. Not at all a moral statement - just a practical one.
Click to expand...

compare and contrast firearm ownership in the US and Japan, compare and contrast suicide rates.

your claim of "unquestionably" is flawed.
 
Ed Haywood said:
What are the laws pertaining to brandishment? Seems like if you have a CCW, then warning someone, displaying the gun, and pointing the gun are necessary and logical escalation steps in a self defense scenario.
Click to expand...
Georgia doesn't even have a brandishment statute. The closest you get is pointing guns at people without justification. Just displaying that you have one is not a crime under that state's law. However, it likely can come under the assault statute that makes it a crime to commit an act that places another in reasonsable apprehension of a violent injury.

There is a Federal brandishment statute that is to "display all or part of the firearm, or make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person." However, that only comes into play as an enhancement to certain other crimes (crimes of violence, drug trafficking).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top