This is interesting...from another forum
I was wondering what the legal repercussions would be if one had to use his concealed weapon (firearm) against a person who only "implies" a weapon, i.e hand in jacket pocket,etc.
A co-worker was carjacked a while back while stopped at a red light. The perp approached and opened the driver's door, and had his hand in his jacket pocket, threatening to shoot if the driver did not get out of the car.
The driver complied, at which time he was pushed to the ground, and the perp jumped into the vehicle and fled. The victim never saw a weapon, but "had reason to believe the suspect was armed".
The weapon here is 'implied' since you never saw it.
Would you be legally justified in running the man down with your car or shoot him? Or if it happened at an ATM machine and you had no weapon...would you be in legal jeopardy if you were to use powerful/destructive karate techniques on the person?
What you call "implied weapon" comes under what is known at law as a "furtive movement" shooting. In the situation you describe, the offender gave his victim good cause to believe that he was armed with a lethal weapon. Within the totality of the circumstances you described, the offender would be seen as armed and dangerous, and a deadly force response by the victim would, in my opinion, be appropriate.
Remember that there are no guarantees.
Now this goes to the pre-emption we have been discussing.
Someone makes a move that you interpret as going for a weapon...would your training have conditioned to 'wait and see' so you can block it and take the weapon away?
This is serious business.