In this situation you were right not to present your gun. This is why...At this moment you are not in fear of losing your life or great bodily harm because you didn't believe he had a gun. Now, it could have been a Desert Eagle Baby Eagle which is about the size of a 1911 Commander.
There are three things that must be in place in order for deadly force to be justified:
- There must be a credible threat to life or great bodily harm.
- The threat must be immediate. (In some states imminent is enough.)
- The assailant must be capable of doing it.
For the threat to be credible, another reasonable person must think the same thing. In other words, would another average person have also believed this was really a dangerous threat?
Immediate means the threat is in progress, right now. The assailant can't be standing 50 yards away with a baseball bat. If he's that far away, he's no threat. Change the baseball bat to a gun and it becomes immediate if it's pointed at you.
It's the last one that gets a lot of people in trouble. Was he just saying he had a gun or did he really have a gun? If you have special knowledge about firearms, like a broad familiarity with the brand of gun in question, that will likely come out at the trial. Would it be your undoing? I don't think so, but you never know. If you really believe he doesn't have a gun, then presenting yours makes you the assailant rather than the defender.
Discussions like this are always interesting. It shows how the real world is not black and white like the classroom. It forces us to think hard about why we carry and what we might do give a particular set of circumstances.
On another note, I'm surprised the police didn't search the guys place. I mean, you had two witnesses that knew he was in there and they both heard the threat. That's probable cause. They should have searched for him and questioned him. You should press charges for assault.
