TexasCHLforum.com

Yes, good points!

By using "mugger", I was trying to describe a loser who seems to want to get something from me, but has not shown any sort of weapon. Or even a drunk hothead who comes up to you to start a fight because he thinks I'm flirting with "his woman" or something.

I guess I still don't understand what constitutes use of force vs. deady force, i.e. if he hits you in the gut with a fist or pushes you to the ground, that doesn't seem "deadly" to me, but where do you draw that line?

My point is that I would like to be able draw on a guy BEFORE he starts using deadly force, and that is exactly what I thought section 9.04 allowed for by stating that threatening to use deadly force is NOT using deadly force.

The thing about the McDermott case that sticks out to me is that he had no justification to use ANY force whatsoever. I like to think that if I was justified in using force for self defense when the BG strikes me or tries to strike me, my displaying my gun would constitute a threat to use deadly force, which is not in itself the use of deadly force.

I just don't want to have to think about it too long if that scenario ever comes up!

Forgive me for resurrecting this old thread. I just read it for the first time and found it interesting.

The problem I have with the "narrow" view is this - To me, it implies that, if some mugger approaches me, and does not back off after I warn him to keep away, but gets close and takes a swing at me (which is the use of non-deadly force), I can only try to defend myself hand-to-hand (non-deadly force) until the point that I feel he's going to beat me to death (justifying my use of deadly force). Then and only them can I show him that I'm armed. But at that point, I'm not going to just show him my gun, or just point it at him, I'll be at the point where I will have to shoot him.

This just doesn't make sense, because if I had been lawfully allowed to show him my gun when he first used non-deadly force by swinging at me, he now wouldn't be dead or injured, I wouldn't be facing charges for trying to de-escalate a potentially deadly situation, and we'd both have gone our separate ways and each learned something that might keep both of us alive in the future.

I really hope that this gets cleared up before I get my CHL, along with the equally absurd prosecution of CHL holders who are found to be carrying in places which are not posted with the correct 30.06 signs, or at places with the 51% sign that don't meet its requirement but don't have a clue as to the correct signage they should be using!

OK, I'm done ranting now. Have a nice day!