TexasCHLforum.com

PeteCamp wrote:The same would be true of a Bowie knife or my mother-in-law's black pepper cake

For $20, I won't tell her you said that.

jamisjockey wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:I'm probaly not going to be the most popular guy around for saying this but.......I would have to say he has as much right to practice his 1st Amendment as you have to practice your 2nd Amendment. I don't use profanity around the kids, in public, or that much in general; however, it is not my job to tell someone else the type of language they can use in public. If a friend or family member chooses to use that type of language in my house around my kids, I would tell them not to IN MY HOUSE. Otherwise, I would take it as an opportunity to teach my child that that type of language is reserved for adults and not appropriate for children. I don't think putting your hand on your piece was out of line given the confrentation, if it had escalated you need every second to count and having your hand at the ready would increase your odds if things went South.

And it was your 1st Amendment right to ask someone to stop exercising theirs. BTW, what is the point of the law prohibiting abusive language if the 1st Amendment is going to allow it anyway?

The first amendment doesn't allow all speech.

Correct. It protects it. But there are consequences for it, none-the-less.

gigag04 wrote:"Fellas, hate to interupt - I know you guys are just trying to have a good time but if you could please keep the cussing to a dull roar around the children here, I would really appreciate it."

It is lighthearted, and simple, and allows me to do the mature thing of "doing something" about the problem. If they choose to escelate, I would excuse myself, and go back to minding my own business.

And that pretty much describes how I have handled things in the past. A little humor goes a long way to defusing things, while still accomplishing the goal. That's why, in my experience, asking someone to mind their manners has never been a bad experience for me. And like I pointed out previously, in the couple of instances where the results were not what I desired, I just smiled and backed away from the confrontation.

When I talk about "guarding the culture," it doesn't mean that we must be willing to die on that particular hill on that particular day, but it does mean that we must be willing to try making a difference in these kinds of situations if a rational risk assessment indicates that the risks are minimal. And it is beyond question that I'm not going to do something spectacularly foolhardy. Almost everything about the way I live my life is about risk avoidance, and I've posted about this facet of my life many times before. I don't go clubbing. I avoid bars. I stay home at night, etc., etc. But I am not going to passively surrender the remaining quality of my life to barbarians without trying to reason with them when I think it is called for; and more often than not, they are usually just engaged in a little boorish horseplay, and they're almost glad that somebody suggested to them that they rein things in a bit.

Anyway, that's just me.

Beiruty wrote:

May I suggest that you take Charles Cotton's use of force seminar at the first opportunity?

Surely will do. The more knowledgeable we are the better decision we can make.

I understand your point, and all the time, the disparity of force plays a great factor to justify the use of deadly force where the actor believes the use of deadly force is necessary and needed for self-defense.
A prosecutor can just throw at your defense, "wasn't the actor aware of availability (on the market) and the use of non-lethal weapon such as pepper spray or a teaser gun? A mere attempt to convince the jury that you deployed an excessive force.

As I mentioned earlier, I may be inclined to carry both my wife's pepper blaster and my EDC.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and one more:
See here : " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sheer pain.

The prosecutor can say what he wants (assuming I don't get no-billed), but CHL law doesn't require me to carry non-lethal alternatives, and neither do 9.31 or 9.32. Now that doesn't mean that I'll never carry pepper spray, but I have worked in an emergency room situation, and I've seen the effect of pepper spray on someone who is in a PCP induced rage... There IS no effect. My point is that pepper spray and other non lethal alternatives are not always going to get you out of trouble, and the time spent deploying them may have been better spent deploying the gun instead. It all comes down to what you, as the person who is being assaulted, reasonably believes to be the nature of the threat, and the reasonable response that it calls for.

Pete, I didn't take that as a criticism, but thanks for the reply anyway.

I also want to add a few things....

First:

• I am not advocating that the OP should have drawn his weapon, and he himself has said that he did not do so. But I also see nothing wrong at all with getting your hand surreptitiously into a position from which you can draw your weapon if you need to. He has said that the offender grabbed his cart, and that he (the OP) moved to keep the cart between him and his son, and the other guy. In other words, the other guy was maneuvering for an assault. It might have been just a bluff, but the only rational response was for the OP to assume the worst, and keep the cart between himself and the aggressor — which is what he did. You can't risk that it isn't a bluff.
  
  That begs the question: "What if the aggressor had succeeded in getting around the cart and closed the distance between the OP and himself?" There is no doubt that the OP may reasonably believe at this point, under 9.31, that use of force is going to be justified.This is where a true fork in the road takes place, and which road you take is going to depend on your age and physical capabilities. The OP has stated that he is a martial artist, so he has multiple options. At this point, it would be reasonable and entirely defensible for him to drop into a fighting stance and prepare to deflect the aggressor's attack. But, depending on the size of the other guy, and the volume of crazy, the OP might reasonably blade himself away from the attack and get a hand on his gun, and prepare to shoot from retention. OR, he might (if not burdened by the presence of his son) turn and run like the dickens.
  
  My point in my post immediately above is that the elderly or the infirm do not have all of those options, and therefore the gap between a 9.31 reaction and a 9.32 reaction is greatly diminished, but the actor's "reasonable belief" about the nature of the threat and how they must individually react to it is not diminished just because they have fewer options. In fact, their reasonable belief becomes far more important to their survival. So in my post previous to that one, I was not saying that the OP should have shot the guy. I was putting myself into the situation, and trying to analyze how I would perceive it exactly as described by the OP, not how I thought he should have reacted.

Second:

• I don't believe that politely asking someone who is offending everyone around them to please not use such language in the presence of children rises to the level of a verbal provocation. Had the OP offered to whup the other guy's butt if he didn't pipe down, THAT would be a verbal provocation. If the OP had called the other guy names and defamed his momma, THAT would be a verbal provocation. But simply asking in a polite manner if the guy could refrain from cussing in the presence of children, that is NOT a verbal provocation in my book, and I don't think a jury would think it was either. In fact, the other guy's loud profanity was a verbal provocation and constituted a disturbance of the peace. It was, in short, illegal behavior.
  
  We have a serious problem on our hands, and it is the degradation and coarsening of our culture. I believe that our approach to it should be independent of whether we chose to carry a weapon or not, and it is independent of whether or not our individual morality is based in a particular religious tradition, or simple common decency. The reason that the culture is degrading and coarsening is that it has no more guardians. Those who used to stand in that gap have died off, and adults today have, by and large, abdicated their responsibility to stand as guardians of the culture. This is part of the larger picture of which one symptom is that only a minority of eligible citizens ever actually vote today. Citizens have abdicated their responsibilities to the body politic and to the culture. And by the way, I am not talking about any kind of western cultural chauvinism. Loud, foul-mouthed, and aggressive punks were deemed unacceptable in ancient Rome, in ancient Athens, in Elizabethan England, in Colonial America, in Ming dynasty Beijing, and in modern Tel Aviv. It is true whether your culture is Christian, Muslim, pagan animist, or Buddhist. It is never acceptable.
  
  I ask myself every day, "If not me, then who?" This does not mean that I am Batman or a ninja. I am not that stupid. None of us is. But if a loud and foul-mouthed lout is making life uncomfortable for everyone around, I am going to register my disapproval. I'm not going to threaten. I'm not going to mad-dog him. But I am going to quietly, and with a smile, ask in a friendly manner if they can mind their language in front of the women and children. I have done this any number of times, and without exception, the offender was a little bit embarrassed, apologized, and they modified their behavior... ...and I thanked them for their cooperation.
  
  This is not a provocation. This is an example of a responsible adult, standing in the gap. Edmund Burke is alleged to have said (there is some historical doubt that he actually did) that all that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. Whether he said it or not, it is true. I'm not trying to toot my own horn. I just think that if more people were willing to speak up when confronted with this kind of behavior, we would see less of it. The fact that we see more and more of it is attributable, in part, to the fact that fewer and fewer people are willing to speak up to gently remind someone that their behavior is objectionable. You may not be able to fight the big picture, like crack addicted mothers who don't mother their cubs, and irresponsible men who abandon their children. But each one of us can, in small ways, contribute to the preservation of culture, and politely asking a profane person to tone it down for the audience's sake is one of those ways. Doing so doesn't make you a Batman wannabe. It makes you a guardian of the culture. That is a good thing.

Beiruty wrote:I hate to watch a 6:00 PM news flash, that says "The Annoyed Man' shot and killed a Marines soldier whom he had had a verbal argument with. The marines was not armed.

Surely, enough the news would not elaborate nor indicated that the deceased was verbally and physically aggressive.
It does not sound good no matter the way you look at it. It would cost tons of money to exonerate Mr. The Annoyed Man.

So, if that aggressor, who claims to be a marine (we don't really know for sure) comes around that cart and assaults me, you would prefer that I just take the beating? You've never met me, so you don't know what you're saying. I'm 58 years old, with the skeleton of an arthritic 75 year old. To not defend myself would be a death sentence — particularly if the aggressor really is a combat trained marine. Furthermore, lots of people are beaten to death every year by someone's bare fists. An assailant doesn't have to be armed with a deadly weapon for the victim to reasonably believe that deadly force in self defense is a reasonable response. And try this one on for size.... I don't particularly care if the aggressor is really a marine or not. If he's attacking me, he can be the man from Mars for all I care, but I am going to do whatever I have to do to defend myself — including deadly force if that is what I reasonably believe is called for under 9.32; and the press can go pound sand. A belligerent and drunk marine is not a hero, he's a belligerent and dangerous drunk. Marines put their pants on one leg at a time, just like anybody else. I respect and honor their service, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to let one beat the life out of me in a Walmart. Besides, I don't believe the guy was a marine. He was just trying to impress everyone around him. He was a dirtbag.

You are being unkind if you think that a physically less able person should have the same threshold of response for whenever a situation crosses over from being covered in 9.31 to being covered under 9.32 as would exist for someone more physically able. Physical ability and capacity opens up the gap between those two chapters of the code and affords the actor a greater range of options than exists for someone like me. For instance, I cannot run. Perhaps you can, but I cannot. So that option is no longer available to me. But beyond that, you would be wrong because you're failing to account for the actor's reasonable belief, which nobody but the actor can define for him.

But, placing myself in the OP's situation, there was no verbal argument. The aggressor and his friends were committing a breach of the peace. The OP asked the aggressor not to use that language and then he stopped talking. Everything up to and beyond that point was entirely the aggressor's responsibility.

I take it as an article of faith — and so should every single member of this board, for that matter — that if I am ever involved in a defensive shooting, it won't matter how righteous it is. The media will not tell the truth about what happened. Therefore, I don't spend 2 seconds worrying about what they will report. They. Weren't. There.. Period.

As to the expense of defending one's self in court, well, that is the reality of having a CHL. I am definitely not hoping to ever be involved in a shooting. I couldn't be happier if I live out the rest of my days without ever having to draw my gun. Who needs that kind of stress? But, if any one of us shoots an assailant, it is going to cost a pretty penny. That is simply another reality of CHL, and it isn't particular to just my own situation. So I can't let that worry me either. If the financial cost of self-defense was more important to me than the actual self-defense, then I probably shouldn't bother carrying a gun in the first place. The high cost of legal defense and an unfair press are simply part of the grim realities of having a CHL.

May I suggest that you take Charles Cotton's use of force seminar at the first opportunity?

Here's how I see it...

PC 9.32 ALSO says:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

Let's unpack that...

You cannot really discuss 9.32 without referring to 9.31.

9.31 says:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Now, the subjects were committing a verbal provocation by cussing loudly and offensively, but 9.31(b)(1) prevents the OP from responding with use of force. Instead, OP very reasonably asks the offenders to tone it down. I have done this myself on a number of occasions, and in every single one, the offender was apologetic and did tone it down. Asking the offenders to tone it down is not an escalation, and I don't believe any court is going to view it as such. The OP is very reasonable, and he asks, not orders, the offenders to tone it down. No court will interpret the offenders' initial behavior, or their response to a reasonable request, as anything but belligerent and confrontational.

The next step is the offender placing his hand on the OP's shopping cart and "mad-dogging" him. THAT is an escalation of the confrontation. That was also an unlawful act because it borders on physically detaining the OP during the commission of the offender's aggression. At that point, the OP may reasonably believe [9.31(a)] that the situation is about to become violent. That does not give him permission to escalate into violence, but it certainly doesn't forbid him from preparing for what might be possibly coming by getting his hand near his gun. He cannot yet draw the gun, as at this point that would be considered aggravated assault, but he can certainly prepare himself up to that point. Please note that the OP did not verbally respond to the offender's aggression, so he did not escalate the situation.

Now, 9.32 covers a LOT of ground in the opening phrases:

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or....

OK, so the offender's actions up to this point have not justified the use of force, and the OP's actions up to this point have attempted to defuse the situation by A) asking, not ordering, the offender to pipe down; and B) refusing to further engage the offender verbally; and C) not snatching his cart back out of the offender's grasp (which I might have actually done, myself... I'm an old poop, and I'm not inclined to take that kind of crap off of people). The ball is very much in the offender's court at this point. The OP is not doing anything provocative, and the offender has the choice at this point to back down, or to escalate.

Fortunately, the aggressor backed down. Had he instead chosen to escalate, 9.31 authorizes the OP's use of force to defend himself and his young son. If the other three bad actors even threatened to get involved, then I believe that the OP's response with deadly force would be covered by 9.32(a)(1), 9.32(a)(2)(A), 9.32(b)(2), 9.32(c), and 9.32(d).

Now, all of that applies to a reasonably young, reasonably fit father with a 12 year old son to defend. The phrase "reasonably believes" in 9.31 and 9.32 leaves - in my view - a certain amount of leeway in favor of the actor (as defined in the statutes) and his/her threshold at which use of deadly force is a lawful reaction. I am not physically able to defend myself against a single younger and aggressive assailant. I would therefore reasonably believe that 9.32(a)(1), 9.32(a)(2)(A), 9.32(b)(2), 9.32(c), and 9.32(d) were justification for the use of deadly force if the aggressor escalated beyond grabbing the shopping cart. If he tried to come around the cart at me, I might reasonably believe that drawing my gun was necessary, and if he did not stop, I might reasonably believe that dropping him is called for because he is now actively engaged in physically attacking. If he did stop upon seeing the gun, then I don't have to shoot, and I have met aggressive force with a reasonable response, and drawing the gun (depending on the cops and prosecutors involved) should not be seen as an aggravated assaut.

ALL of that is to say that I would prefer to abandon my purchases at the register and just walk away if I could. But if the aggressor is not going to let me do that, then I have no choice but to react according to the authorization provided by 9.32(a)(1), 9.32(a)(2)(A), 9.32(b)(2), 9.32(c), and 9.32(d)... ...because I am not going to passively submit to a potentially fatal beating; and I am going to go home to my family and live to see another day.

Both the outcome and the consequences are in the aggressor's hands, but I am under no legal obligation to accept a beating and/or death simply because I am physically incapable of fighting off an unarmed attack. Furthermore, as anyone who has ever taken Charles L. Cotton's use of force in Texas seminar can tell you, Texas is a "true man" state, and you are under no legal obligation to retreat or to accept anything less than walking away from the encounter in the same physical condition as you were before it started. That is eminently reasonable.

I actually really appreciate the inclusion of that phrase "reasonable belief" in both 9.31 and 9.32 because it is the exact opposite of stupid "zero tolerance" laws. It credits the citizen who is behaving lawfully with being smart enough and having wisdom enough to know when they are actually in fear for their life. That is a determination that no cop who shows up after the fact, or that any prosecutor who tries to indict you can challenge because they weren't there. Not even a hostile witness can challenge it. The law presumes that you are an upstanding citizen who was behaving lawfully and was confronted by a violent thug, and you reasonably believed that use of force and/or deadly force was a reasonable response. There are plenty of states in the union where "reasonable belief" is not the standard against which a law-abiding citizen is going to be judged. I am not a violent man. I have never been arrested for anything, let alone charged and convicted of anything. I know myself to be a reasonable man and not a trouble-maker. Those who know me also know me to be a reasonable man and not a trouble-maker.

IANAL, YMMV, and all that stuff. This is just how I see it. If any lawyers or LEOs in the bunch want to correct my interpretation of the statutes, I'm open to correction from a qualified source, but I can tell you that Charles' seminar was a eye-opener for me, and I heartily recommend it to anyone if you ever get the chance to hear it.

dewayneward wrote:

jamisjockey wrote:FWIW, IMHO, carrying a gun that has a manual safety in condition 0 is irresponsible.
Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer down.
Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine in place, hammer down.
Condition Two: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer down.
Condition One: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety on.
Condition Zero: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety off.

how is carrying a gun that has a manual safety in condition zero irresponsible?????? I really do want to know because I have assumed for quite awhile that it is perfectly fine to carry my gun in condition zero? Now, mind you, I own a 1911 and carry it in a kholster IWB. The kydex covers the trigger. The only way for it to go off is if the back plate on the grip AND the trigger are pulled at the same time. Am I trusting my gun too much? Should I rethink my carry condition? I dont want to be irresponsible, but I trust my gun and saw nothing wrong with condition zero? What, in your experience has shown you not to carry that way???

The gun is designed to be carried cocked and locked. If you carry it cocked and unlocked, then you are carrying contrary to the method that the designers intended for it, and you're responsible for the results if things go south.

I carry 1911s too, and I've always carried them cocked and locked. There is no loss of drawing time when you flick off the safety with your thumb as you're drawing. It's a perfectly natural action, and the safety can make a great thumb rest if you like. Single action pistols with light triggers - which pretty much describes all 1911s - should not be carried safety off.