TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:

Sangiovese wrote:First, if the person is not trying to do something bad... he will probably be shocked by your response. He might even think you are crazy for reacting that way.

There's nothing wrong with seeming crazy. I fended off a possible mugger doing just what I said.

I know I steer clear of people who seem crazy.

- Jim

I hope I didn't sound as if I thought it was a bad thing for someone to "think you're crazy" in that situation. The important thing is that if they don't intend to harm you, then they will stop advancing. That prevents you from misconstruing their motives and prevents them from getting shot. Having them think you might be a little bit nuts is a small price to pay for that result.

And if they DID mean to do you harm... well, they might reconsider (as your mugger did). They might continue anyway. If they do continue, then you at least are sure of their intentions. As an added bonus, all the witnesses are aware that you tried to avoid the situation and they continued with it. Again... someone thinking you're a bit looney is a small price to pay.

seamusTX wrote:That's why I said she should have yelled, specifically, "DON'T COME NEAR ME! DON'T HURT ME!," followed by variations such as "GET AWAY FROM ME AND MY KIDS" until she had an audience.

In that case, if the guy kept advancing, he definitely would have been a threat.

- Jim

I agree 100% with this.

I don't subscribe to the school of, "if someone makes you feel uncomfortable, draw your gun immediately so you can feel safe" that seems to be more and more common on various messageboards... but I also don't think you should just wait around and hope that if they DO attack you, you'll be able to respond fast enough.

Making a scene so that the person approaching you and any bystanders know that you feel threatened serves a couple purposes.

First, if the person is not trying to do something bad... he will probably be shocked by your response. He might even think you are crazy for reacting that way. But he will stop. If he does mean to cause you harm, then he will continue to advance. You now have a good idea if this is a real threat or not and nobody's life has been placed in danger and nobody has potential legal troubles.

Second, if he continues advancing against your verbal orders, he is now an overt threat. Most sheep won't believe that you were able to tell someone who was "just walking toward you" in a parking lot was a threat. But nearly everyone will agree that someone who advances on you when you are screaming at them to back off is up to no good. You have now established for yourself AND for the witnesses that there is a real threat. Any actions you take to defend yourself from this point on are much more likely to be viewed as reasonable and necessary than if you had just jumped straight to the defense.

HighVelocity wrote:If you're walking in a parking lot and a stranger is approaching you, that is a threat until proven otherwise.

Had she produced a pistol before he got to her and the man backed off, would she have found herself in legal trouble if the man turned out to be anything but a threat?
I am not being sarcastic, that is a serious question.

Yes, she would have been in trouble. Here is the applicable law:

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

Drawing it would fall under, "intentionally failing to conceal" it. The only time you can display your handgun is when you would be justified in pulling the trigger.

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the
actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the
handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

PhilR. wrote:

tallmike wrote: She had no idea that he was a threat until he hit her, and even then it was not a deadly force situation.

That would be incorrect. Being assaulted by someone with the capability to cause permanent damage or death with their fists -- and I'll wager that the person doing the assaulting was bigger than the victim -- is indeed a deadly force situation.

PhilR.

Male attacker vs female defender is always enough disparity of force to justify deadly force... doesn't matter if he was bigger than her or not.

However, even though she would have most likely been justified to use deadly force to defend herself, I believe that OC spray would have been the most appropriate response.