TexasCHLforum.com

howdy wrote: I should have stayed in the house. This particular Glock is not in a holster (downstairs gun) and I carried it outside. I have a unobstructed view of the driveway that usually afords me to be unseen. At the time, I didn't know they were from the cable company.

Next time, I will stay in the house and let them show their true intentions. I will also follow the old rule of "if you think there is going to be a gunfight, bring a long gun".(or something like that) Actually, if you think there is going to be a gun fight, don't go.

I would also be in a WHOLE LOT better position legally if they came inside vs me going outside.

Is there a spot on this forum for "true confessions"? It would be a great learning tool for us to see others mistakes, etc without someone calling your intelligence in question.

Howdy,

I hope you didn't interpret any of my posted remarks as calling your intelligence into question. That certainly was not my intent.

Whenever a real life situation is posted on the forum, it is explored, questioned, whatif'd, and shoulda'd to squeeze every last usable lesson from it. By definition, we all need to keep in mind that this is done in hindsight with the luxury of time and without the pressure of making potentially life altering decisions in a matter of seconds. I think we all realize that's a lot easier than coming up with a plan of action and following it through in real time in the presence of a potential threat.

In my view, you didn't do badly at all - no one was injured, your visitors were not unduly alarmed, you didn't get in any trouble, and you suffered no loss. You had a real life opportunity to go through a potential threat identification and response process, and to reconsider what you would do again and what you would do differently next time. You may even have picked up a couple of good ideas gleaned from the feedback from other forum members. This is a pretty happy situation overall.

I personally thank you for your generosity in sharing the experience so others could think about it, learn from it, and reconsider how they would handle a similar situation. I hope you and the other members will continue to post these incidents for comment to improve everyone's ability to think their way responsibly through a situation and respond in a solid, well thought out manner when they encounter challenges in their own lives.

howdy wrote:03Lightningrocks and joe817:

Obviously I either did not make my post clear or you did not read it correctly.

This little "confession" was meant as a learning tool for readers. The workers did nothing wrong, I misinterpreted the "facts", and there was a good outcome. Things are not always what they seem is the lesson here.

It was now dark, they were not wearing uniforms, they had no business on my driveway (100' long with cars at end), car hatchback up, rattled my door.

When is someone a threat to you...when they have their hands around your throat, knife in your gut, gun in your face. The guy never saw the gun.

The discussion of howdy's post has brought up some great points.

When the hairs on the back of your neck stand straight up and your "spidey sense" tingles, that's good enough reason to make sure your tactical positioning, equipment, next move plan, and coordination with other innocent parties is in order. As folks have correctly pointed out, waiting to see the final outcome before you take any action will put you behind the OODA loop curve when the action starts, but taking too much action too early can put you on the wrong side of the law (and behind bars).

This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that being concerned or even afraid in a situation doesn't in itself constitute justification for the use or threat to use any level of force, let alone deadly force.

From the details howdy provided, he certainly had reason to be suspicious. Saturday evening at dusk is not when cable folks normally clean up loose ends on a cable burial, but these folks are usually subcontractors who work on their own schedule, so it could be legitimate.

Ringing a doorbell is neutral, but trying or shaking a door to see if it opens (if that's what actually caused the sounds howdy heard) is not something well intentioned folks normally do.

Arming oneself under the circumstances described would certainly be prudent to make sure one has appropriate options if the situation deteriorates. However, drawing the gun, even if it isn't seen, is getting really close to the line you don't want to cross without clear justification.

Under circumstances like this my take on a prudent course of action would be to position oneself inside the home to provide distance, physical barriers, and a reactionary gap you can work with, talk to the parties in question either from or through the door, check with the company that sent them to clarify what's really going on, and leave the gun in the holster unless and until the need to deploy it with clear justification arises.

Going outside to check things out is inadvisable. It puts you at unnecessary risk, separates you from family members who may need your protection, and puts you in an exposed position which severely limits your response options. This is especially dangerous in a situation where at least 2 people whose intentions are suspect are known to be present.

dwhitley wrote:My force or his? I think that yes there are LEO's that have a issue of CHL's carring cause they want that all to themselves. I think the law is the law and we have a right to defend our lives and our property to what extent that is on each person to decide. Let me tell you everyone can say what they would have done I did what I felt was right for me at the time and I have to take what comes with it. All I know is drawing my gun for any reason is not something I want to do ever, but will if my life or my familes is in danger. We here a lot of what people think might be the law but not what the real law is because its so not clear which is typical politics called talking out both sides of their mouths. I would not shoot a person for stealing out of my car, but I sure want him to know that yes I could have and I want to be ready in case he pulls out a gun or knife and comes out me. The last thing you want is to try and get ready for the attack you should be ready. D

David,

The discussion of "what ifs" and reexamination of the pertinent laws in light of a real incident related on the forum is a healthy way for everyone to learn from what one person experienced. It should not be taken as criticism of how you acted in real time.

IMHO, you did just fine in the situation you were confronted with.

boomerang wrote:

Excaliber wrote:I spent over 20 years making these decisions as a front line LEO and senior police commander on the streets in real life and real time several times a week in the New York metro area, and I've had a few occasions to make them as a civilian since.

During that time I've observed that some folks who've never had to make these choices for real and have never managed the aftermath of a deadly force incident up close and personal have a much easier time advocating a much lower threshold for resorting to violence than I do. We read about them frequently here on the forum.

Texas and New York are very different. It seems criminals get away with a lot in NYC that they would never survive in Texas, especially rural Texas.

There are a lot of bad guys who get shot in Texas and don't even make a blip on the local news.

I didn't work in NYC itself most of the time, although some of my investigations inevitably required visiting some of the more entertaining areas where, if you were 10 minutes late meeting detectives at the local precinct, they would assume from experience with the neighborhood that you'd been shot on the way in and start looking for you. No, I'm not exaggerating - I saw this happen.

Texas and New York are indeed much different, and that's why I choose to live here. However, it would be a mistake to think that bad guys don't get shot in New York. During my years up there, the bad guys in my city (about 25 miles north of midtown Manhattan), including members of major terrorist groups, decisively lost every gunfight with my officers except in one case where the officer was hit in the leg by a ricochet. Our folks were seriously well trained, and most of the folks who made the mistake of using guns when they tangled with our guys won't be bothering anyone ever again.

Much of upstate New York (which starts about 50 miles north of NYC) is very rural. It's hilly, forested, and sparsely populated. It and rural Texas have much more in common than you might think. Someone in those areas of NY state who called the state police (which patrol much of the unincorporated area) to report a burglary in progress was often told to shoot the intruder if he got inside. The troopers would send a unit as soon as they get one free if the bad guy was still there.

Not everything that happens in either place makes the news. Rural areas are like that in most parts of the country.

HGWC wrote:

Excaliber wrote: My personal rule of thumb that has kept me on the right side of both my conscience and the law for over 35 years of LEO and civilian carry is: Deadly force is used only when there is no other reasonable way to protect an innocent person from serious injury or death. This complies with virtually every use of force law I've ever seen anywhere in the US. Yes, I know it's a stricter standard than the law in some cases, particularly with respect to night time theft in Texas and castle doctrine provisions here and in several other states, but I'm not looking for an excuse to shoot someone, and it's a choice that works for me.

Self defense is not an all or nothing proposition, and my stance should not be misinterpreted to mean that I'm not prepared and willing to take appropriate action to protect myself and my property. It just means that I'll use options other than deadly force to do so whenever they are reasonable and available.

It's a bit off topic, but to me the castle law guarantees us something we can't get in your philosophy above, and that is protection from repeat offenders where the only way to keep them from coming back is to kill them. If a guy is burglarizing your car tonight, and you just run him off, he may very well be back tomorrow or even later tonight. Now, he might not be much of a threat to you or your family's safety, but tomorrow might be a different story. If he's dead, he can't ever come back.

You're absolutely correct that the dead won't come back. Any bullets you send on their way can't be recalled either.

These are good concepts to keep in mind when thinking about the fact that many situations that appear to be one thing at first turn out to be something completely different when all the circumstances become known. Taking unnecessary irrevocable action on what turns out to be a bad interpretation of what was really going on can ruin your whole day, and quite a few days after that. As a general principle, the wise man thinks carefully before committing high consequence acts that can't be undone when simpler and less permanent solutions are available to address the actual need.

Prevention of repeat offenses by killing people who might someday be a threat is not within my civilian responsibility, authority, or understanding of the law, and the castle doctrine legislation you refer to is not intended to support a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" approach to defense of life and property.

If someone doesn't present a deadly threat today, it is my personal choice is to use lawful options other than deadly force unless and until he does so, even if the law says deadly force may be used in those circumstances. Some may feel otherwise and perhaps they're smarter than I am, but that's my considered choice made over time after involvement in and investigation of more violent incidents than I could possibly count.

I spent over 20 years making these decisions as a front line LEO and senior police commander on the streets in real life and real time several times a week in the New York metro area, and I've had a few occasions to make them as a civilian since.

During that time I've observed that some folks who've never had to make these choices for real and have never managed the aftermath of a deadly force incident up close and personal have a much easier time advocating a much lower threshold for resorting to violence than I do. We read about them frequently here on the forum.

dwhitley wrote:Yesterday I was eating at Wendy's and my alarm to my truck went off, I have a notification alarm that beeps the remote when its set off. So I went outside to see and there was a man in my truck trying to steal my Navigation-Radio. I did pull my gun and yelled for him to step away from the truck he looked at me and then ran off and got into another car and they drove off. At one point I was ready to pull the trigger, but I just felt like if he would just lay on the ground until the cops came I would be good. I mean taking a life over a radio I just could not justify though I have always said I would shoot them it just did not feel right. I think most of all it was the legal side would I be justified. The cop that came to do the report said I should have shot him, but he was young and seemed just eager to take a bad guy off the streets. Tell me what you all would have done shoot or not? Would it have been justified? Thanks David

Others have done a good job of outlining the applicable law here, and the circumstances do not appear to support lawful use of deadly force in the situation you described.

Even though you weren't sure exactly what level of force the law allowed under the circumstances, you made a good decision primarily because you have a good moral compass. That paid off in spades because it kept you from using unlawful force that would have changed the rest of your life for the worse.

My personal rule of thumb that has kept me on the right side of both my conscience and the law for over 35 years of LEO and civilian carry is: Deadly force is used only when there is no other reasonable way to protect an innocent person from serious injury or death. This complies with virtually every use of force law I've ever seen anywhere in the US. Yes, I know it's a stricter standard than the law in some cases, particularly with respect to night time theft in Texas and castle doctrine provisions here and in several other states, but I'm not looking for an excuse to shoot someone, and it's a choice that works for me.

Self defense is not an all or nothing proposition, and my stance should not be misinterpreted to mean that I'm not prepared and willing to take appropriate action to protect myself and my property. It just means that I'll use options other than deadly force to do so whenever they are reasonable and available.