Just asked a question about a hooker hooping in my car and some people answered that it was legal to brandish at that point while others said my life wasn't in danger so it was illegal. So it seems like even the average civilian is confused when it comes to self defense (including me) since I got mixed answers. So can any professional clear this up? Any cops or lawyers on here? Because the law is pretty vague about this too, according to the law your life has to be in danger. That literally makes no sense and here is why
In my last question I asked if it was legal to brandish my concealed weapon if the hooker hopped in my car without my permission to solicit sex. Some people said no; so do you mean to tell me a gang of people can hop in my car and all I can do is smile and ask them politely to leave? Hell by that time I would have been stabbed a dozen time and have my car stolen. So why do I have to wait until the threat is deadly if someone is clearly in or on my property without my permission? I understand why its immoral and illegal to just brandish in a mall over a small argument, but why should that rule apply when it comes to someone on your property? I doubt people break into your house to talk about spongebob so why wait until they become hostile to brandish?
Here is a second scenario. What if i was to wake up and just find someone beating my car with a baseball bat? I cant brandish since my car is in danger and not me, I cant strike him since he didnt hit me first..........so must I just call the cops while I watch my car get totaled and him run away? The law just makes no sense at times and it seems like its designed to give the criminal an upper hand.
If I gotta wait for someone who hopped in MY car without my permission to pull out a weapon only to brandish mines then I dont know what kind of world we live in. Even worse if I have a toddler in the car
P.S. Dont mistake brandishing for wanting to shoot, they are two different things according to state law. My state law says "It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance,whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.
So what is excusable or justifiable? Why is it so vague? And why does the law leave it up to us to decide but then throw the book at us if we get it wrong?

