Impossible.

in SC the person who drew the gun would be in jail right now.  

the state law states if you pull the gun in self defense or defense of another you have to pull the trigger or face charges of brandishing a weapon.  the idea is if you don't have the pull the trigger then a gun isn't really needed and no ones life is in danger, and it also keeps people from pulling a gun on people and hoping that deters them without ever having the intention of pulling the trigger.  also taking someone "into custody" after pulling a gun on them can be ruled as kidnapping no matter why you did it, its just not likely that you would actually get charged with that as no jury would uphold those charges given the circumstance, just some warnings i was given in my CWP class.

i do think this is a great example of why firearms are important in the hands of individuals and should remain there.  i feel like most crimes with firearms are committed by people who can't get them through legal mean anyway, so tightening restrictions on people who legally obtain them is useless as it does nothing to fix the issue.  

That does not pass the smell test at all. I mean you are just posting and you didn't write it and I'm going off what you say... but that makes no sense what so ever.... Police officers pull their weapon ona regular basis...is that brandishing.... and citizens arrest is not kidnapping no matter how you slice it. If what you say is true I can't even comprehend how that actually became law.... I mean heck just don't allow CC.

And I mean you kind of said it... if no reasonable jury would ever convict anyone of it... then the law is meaningless... even look at vigilanteism.... lots of people understand it, but it is illegal, and most people understand that, and will convict.

Ya... there are laws on the books, but when someone's life is in danger.... then it is a different story.

Even here in Colorado, as everywhere a felon can not own, posses, or use a firearm. However, if the felon's life is in dander, the felon CAN NOT be charged with a crime if that person uses a firearm to protect their life, or the lives of others.

The law is the law and it's in the books.  Justified.  But now it's a different story.

In one thread, if the law supports the shooting, it's the law and justified, if it doesn't sopport a shooting, it's up for debate?

That's fine.  Understandable.  Everyone will adjust an arugment to support their case as needed.  Seems a bit confusing at times though.

Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

Carrying a gun on school property, he should be thrown in jail for packing heat in a "gun free zone" Dude with the knife should be offered a plea deal to walk free if he testifies against the guy brandishing a gun on school property.

I guess that depends on the laws in that state.  In Michigan we have gun free school zones.  You can still carry in them as long as you stay in your car.  So a parent can drop off thier child and carry thier weapon.  They cannot get out of the car and open the door or anything, then they are in violation of the law.  If for some odd reason I was carrying when I dropped off my kid and seen someone being stabbed.  I think I woudl take my chances with the violation to help the person being stabbed. 

However I don't carry on school grounds.  I don't feel the need and I would hate to forget and step out of the car.  Oh and my wife that works for the school district would probabley somehow loose her job.

The person being punched was pined back in his seat, seat belt still on the attacker opened the door and was forcing himself inot the truck beating on the guy.  A little more then punching him though the open window.

Did that statement really need the sarc font? Appears that's an affirmative.

I said it in jest, but if you think because you have a CCW you can go anywhere, even when there are signs or laws sating otherwise I would encourage you to do a little more research.

What is a "Gun Free Zone", well if you want my description, it's a place that people who want to commit mass murder target because law abiding citizens are prohibited from having a firearm.

Even the part about the perp being given a pass for testifying? I thought that was the part that made it obvious, obviously I was wrong.

What circles are saying he should be charged?