TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote: Have I thought about the possible downsides? Sure. If we have to move in with my folks because i'm bankrupt after paying some insane judgement, sure, life will suck, but we'll still have each other. That's whats important to me.

Much less chance of this since SEP 1.

casingpoint wrote:"Tom Cruise's job is to go back in time and arrest people who are going to kill people."

My kind of thinking.

Obviously, folks, my posts is a bit of a stretch. But if the enemy approaches you in uniform (baggy pants, certain colored clothes) and signals (makes hand signs) identifying himself as the enemy, just how long do you hold your fire?

(hint--'til you see the whites of his eyes)

No. Until you perceive a grave threat of unlawful deadly force being directed towards you.

casingpoint wrote:The time is fast approaching when shooters of apparent gang members who aggress on them should have an affirmative defense on that specific basis alone. This is effectively what occurs when prosecutors look the other way, and the same principle is in effect in the State of Florida with it's Castle Doctrine extended to cover incidents outside one's dwelling. But it needs to be codified. Object to such a vauge and broad strategy? And who are you depending on to solve the problem, the cops? Hahahahahahaha. Dream on. You see what an intractable mess the cops have on their hands where gangs have really taken hold.

1) TX also has Castle Doctrine to cover incidents outside the home.

2) Oh boy! Just who defines what an "apparent gang member" looks like?

I think that if you ask 6 different people, you will get 6 different answers. How do you tell the real thing from wannabes making some kind of stupid fashion (or even attitude) statement?

Most current legal standards for the legitimate use of deadly force relate it to what a "reasonable person" would do, "knowing what they know at the time". (Note: I am speaking in very general terms here. I already know that these exact words do not appear in any TX DF statute that I am aware of.)

So if someone was a gang member, but you had no way of knowing it at the time that they posed a grave threat to you, that fact would not be a factor in determining whether your actions were those of a reasonable person.

cpix wrote: I don’t think a lot of Texans are really aware of what gang activity is. If you kill a gang member, you’re a dead man. I don’t care where you go, how many guns you’ve got, or how good a shot you are — you’re a dead man. Let me repeat again — you’re a dead man.

I appreciate the points you are making. I have thought about similar things myself, even though gang activity is non-existent around where I live.

The following are some of my own thoughts and opinions on the subject, which may be worthless or not. See how they fit in with your experiences.

As a practical matter, if you had to kill a gang member in self defense there are a couple of things that come into play. One is that you become "harder to kill" (with any hope of getting away with it) because of your new status as a witness (to the crime attempted against you) and self defense actor. Somebody whacks you and the cops pretty much know where to look for them and who they might be. Would you also need to relocate, including your family? Most likely. And FWIW, I doubt gang members are especially sophisticated at finding people outside of their "turf". Not like the Mafia for instance.

If it is a clean self defense shooting, your other guns will not (should not at least) be taken away from you, so you will still have the self defense option open. (The gun you used will be taken as "evidence" while the incident is investigated and you won't get it back for a while.) Taking Chas' class is one way to increase the chances that any shooting you might be involved in is "clean" (and that you don't blab your way into jail afterward). The new 'stand your ground' law is a help here too.

I know of a few cases in RI (where I'm from) where people involved as witnesses to gang crimes have been killed, in spite of state-provided "protection". But these people did not have CHL's available nor did they relocate. FWIW, the 'bangers were easily identified, caught, and sent up for life.

Finally, "Death Wish" was a good movie, but I wouldn't want to live it out for real. I still think that the best option for you is to "pre-emptively" relocate. Financial concerns would be secondary to me, even if I was earning minimum wage. (I should be able to earn that almost anywhere, right?) But in any event, I would rather have the ability to defend myself and face the consequences, both legal and practical. If I am dead, I'm not around to face anything.

And who protects my family then?

cpix wrote:I have been carrying for over 3 years in the Southwest portion of Houston. I never go out of my house without being armed. This area is ripe with gang members, pimps, and prostitutes.

I would be looking for some better place to live.