TexasCHLforum.com

Morgan wrote:That's what I said... "you may have to prove that." :)

You need to prove more than that you felt threatened. To stay out of the greybar hotel, you need to prove that your perception was objectively reasonable.

This is a critical distinction that is often misunderstood.

Morgan wrote:But he DID answer your question, and you have seemed to ignore the answer.

The act of the criminal grabbing your gun triggers (pardon the pun) a reaction from you. If that reaction falls under the deadly force provisions, then you're justified in using deadly force. There isn't anything hypothetical about most situations that can't be answered with the law. If the (insert whatever wild or mild hypothetical situation you care to contrive) makes you feel deadly force is legally justified, then deadly force is legally justified. You may have to PROVE that.

Heck, I could come up with a scenario where it may be justified to shoot a 5 year old... but it wouldn't be likely to HAPPEN.

Well, not exactly.

Your perceptions of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy need to be in accordance with those of a reasonable man to fall within the law. A person who sees a deadly threat where there is none and responds with deadly force will find himself living rent free in the greybar hotel for quite some time to come.

In over 20 years of major city law enforcement and over 35 years of studying violent encounters, I have yet to see or read of a case where someone attempted to disarm a civilian CHL holder whose gun was in the holster and concealed. Attempted disarms of police officers, particularly those with openly carried weapons or drawn ones, happen all the time, but those usually occur in arrest situations that CHL holders aren't involved in. When a bad guy puts his hands on a police officer's gun and attempts to gain control of it, that is a life threatening situation and it is managed accordingly.

I find discussing the legal and tactical aspects of real life incidents to be very worthwhile. However, I find little value in hashing over made up hypothetical situations because, like the one in the original post, they are based on unrealistic incident dynamics.

While I understand and encourage thinking potential situations through before they actually happen and don't disparage anyone for their efforts in this regard, in my experience discussions on how to resolve imagined issues tend to lead to posited solutions that work best in the imagination but don't translate nearly as well into the real world.

I think discussing real world incidents,with all their complexity, to sort out what was done well and what could have been done better is a much more productive exercise.

Just my 2 cents.