Search found 10 matches

by flintknapper
Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:31 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Almost had to draw on someone today.
Replies: 104
Views: 20884

txinvestigator wrote:
one eyed fatman wrote:
Show Killer wrote:
JohnKSa wrote: The legal use of force and deadly force are to allow you to PREVENT and PROTECT. Both of those are about stopping something from happening--NOT about retaliating for something that has ALREADY happened.
So, let's go back to my original post that started this thread.

The guy was walking back to my truck, I prepared to draw by gripping my pistol. Had the guy made it to my vehicle and started pounding on the glass I could've drawn down on him, right? I mean, at this point I don't know what his intentions are. Maybe he wants to do me bodily harm, maybe not. By drawing down on him I would be PREVENTING a possible attack. Would I have been in the wrong? Up till now all he would've done was assault my truck, not me.
If I gotta take a face slapping you gotta take someone beating on your window. With that said I also gotta say BULLTORK! If you can't at least pull your weapon to stop a possible attack against you then the law is not on our side. The reason we have trouble understanding the law is because the law is on the side of the lawyers. They want money, they create vague laws, they get to take you to court. That's what it's really about.
Ya'll have to stop using non-specific words like "attack".

You can use deadly force when you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the others use of unlawful deadly force.

You can use a degree of force (not deadly force) when you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the other use of unlawful force (not deadly force) against you.

The law does not allow for things like "he could have a weapon" or "you don't know what his intentions are".

Agreed.
by flintknapper
Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:07 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Almost had to draw on someone today.
Replies: 104
Views: 20884

Kyle Brown wrote:Flint,

I don't know if you have read the discussion buried in the history of this forum wherein several of us discussed 9.31 and 9.04. It is found here:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... highlight=

Now, it's a long read but well worth it. Long story short, Charles had a view of 9.04 not unlike yours. Mine was then as it is now. .


Just read it all (every word). One thing is for certain: If I had known this had already been discussed..I would not have wasted anyones time rehashing it.

I can see your point of view more clearly now, so it was well worth my effort. I disagree with the "broad view", or at least I'm unwilling to be the test case for it, but I can see how someone might arrive at the conclusion.

I am all the more convinced that the "narrow view" better portrays the true intent of code..and is certainly a safer model to follow IMO. Nonetheless, it remains sufficiently unclear.. such that good argument can still be made of it.

My apologies for dragging everyone back through this. I was horrified to discover that all my points of contention had already been covered, and in a more eloquent fashion than I am able to muster.

I resolve myself to read more and post less in the future. :smile:

My parting shot: (I'm pretty set on the "narrow view" interpretation) but not "dead set"!

Thanks, Flint.
by flintknapper
Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:50 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Almost had to draw on someone today.
Replies: 104
Views: 20884

Kyle,

I will make time to read the posts you referenced.

Thanks again.

Flint.
by flintknapper
Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:51 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Almost had to draw on someone today.
Replies: 104
Views: 20884

Kyle Brown wrote:
flintknapper wrote:
Kyle Brown wrote:
flintknapper wrote:
Kyle Brown wrote:§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

After reading that you cannot legally pull that "hog leg" just because you are about to take a "butt whipping" (after someone has slapped you across the face with an open hand), I thought it was time to revisit 9.04.

Now, I am not saying that all slaps across the face justify the production of a weapon under 9.04. Likewise, I don't believe that it is correct to state/imply the production of a weapon is not justified if you are about to take a butt whipping after someone has slapped you across the face with an open hand.

I don't know what else to tell you except... "give it a whirl" and good luck.

Simple (lawful) fact: In defense of yourself, you may only use the same amount of force as that being used against you (unless you are LE).

By "butt whipping", I'm referring to your common everyday fight between two unskilled people. Pushing, shoving, slapping, even striking with a closed fist (to a limited degree) is not likely to result in serious bodily injury or death. There are exceptions of course , and that is why the law allows for the use/threat of deadly force when there exists "disparity" of force.
Flint.
Let me start by saying that I am not trying to be argumentative...but...well, for instance, you state that it is a "simple (lawful) fact" that a person may only use the same amount of force as that being used against them (unless you are an LE). Again, not trying to be argumentative, but exactly where did you read this...can you point me to a statute???

You then add that the law allows for the use/threat of deadly force when there exists "disparity" of force. Again, is this your interpretation of 9.04???...or...can you direct us to a statute???

IF you are right, then I have been mislead by those who are paid to know.

Kyle,

I do not regard your reply as argumentative. Even if it were, that is your privilege. I have never experienced anything other than civil discussions on this site. There is no requirement for us to agree on everything said here.

My post/position is not derived from an interpretation of PC 9.04, nor does it have a specific chapter devoted to it. It comes from the wording in PC 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 he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

The key words here are (reasonably, necessary, and unlawful). A topical reading of this chapter could lead one to believe that all that is necessary is to believe that you were in danger. In fact, what you must prove...is that your conduct was "reasonable". Additionally, "unlawful force" is a term that applies both ways.

Where is the chapter on unlawful force, where are we told conclusively what "reasonable" is. These are principles that will be examined as component parts of a "total" situation. Likewise, "disparity of force" and "proportionate force" are principles subject to the scrutiny of case law and the defense. This is where I get it from, and my purpose for bringing it up in the first place.

Should your case go to court
It appears this discussion revolves around two questions:

1. Wheather a person justified in the use of force is also justified in the threat of deadly force by and through the production of a weapon per TPC 9.04.

I say absolutely, he is. I say "absolutely" because that is the exact requirement per the statute.

2. Wheather a person is justified in the use of force after he has been slapped in the face with an open hand.

I say more than likely, but will admit that in some cases such action does not justify the use of force.

But clearly (pun intended...lol), if a person is "about to take a butt whipping" then obviously the person has the right to defend himself. If the person has the right to defend himself (per TPC 9.31), then the person has the right to threaten to use deadly force by and through the production of a weapon per TPC 9.04



Sorry it took so long to respond, I've had some computer problems. :sad:

Kyle,

Nowhere in my posts will you find me arguing that you have no right to defend yourself. How you defend yourself, and to what degree you can defend yourself are my only questions. I thought I had made that abundantly clear.

IMO, you are reading too much into PC9.04, I am getting the impression that you interpret it to mean: That if force of any nature is justified.. then "deadly force" (or the threat thereof) is also available to you.

Something for all to consider is that "the law" really gets it's teeth when it gets to court. This is where things can get incredibly complicated...and if PC 9.04 even got honorable mention, you'd be lucky.

Fortunately, the court will consider what a "reasonable" and "prudent" person might have done under the same or similar circumstances. This means that a person's fears, confusion, and excitement will be considered to the degree that such emotions may reasonably be expected to influence ones behavior. Even so, you'll want to have all of you ducks in a row. Personally, I want to appear extra reasonable, but not at the cost of life or limb.

If I have misinterpreted your meaning in any way, then please indulge me and give it one more shot. It wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood someone. :shock: I certainly respect and value your opinion/position in this matter and hope to learn something from it.

Thanks,

Flint.
by flintknapper
Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:22 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Almost had to draw on someone today.
Replies: 104
Views: 20884

Kyle Brown wrote:
flintknapper wrote:
Kyle Brown wrote:§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

After reading that you cannot legally pull that "hog leg" just because you are about to take a "butt whipping" (after someone has slapped you across the face with an open hand), I thought it was time to revisit 9.04.

Now, I am not saying that all slaps across the face justify the production of a weapon under 9.04. Likewise, I don't believe that it is correct to state/imply the production of a weapon is not justified if you are about to take a butt whipping after someone has slapped you across the face with an open hand.

I don't know what else to tell you except... "give it a whirl" and good luck.

Simple (lawful) fact: In defense of yourself, you may only use the same amount of force as that being used against you (unless you are LE).

By "butt whipping", I'm referring to your common everyday fight between two unskilled people. Pushing, shoving, slapping, even striking with a closed fist (to a limited degree) is not likely to result in serious bodily injury or death. There are exceptions of course , and that is why the law allows for the use/threat of deadly force when there exists "disparity" of force.
Flint.
Let me start by saying that I am not trying to be argumentative...but...well, for instance, you state that it is a "simple (lawful) fact" that a person may only use the same amount of force as that being used against them (unless you are an LE). Again, not trying to be argumentative, but exactly where did you read this...can you point me to a statute???

You then add that the law allows for the use/threat of deadly force when there exists "disparity" of force. Again, is this your interpretation of 9.04???...or...can you direct us to a statute???

IF you are right, then I have been mislead by those who are paid to know.

Kyle,

I do not regard your reply as argumentative. Even if it were, that is your privilege. I have never experienced anything other than civil discussions on this site. There is no requirement for us to agree on everything said here. Differing view points are welcome.

My post/position is not derived from an interpretation of PC 9.04, nor does it have a specific chapter devoted to it. It comes from the wording in PC 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 he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

The key words here are (reasonably, necessary, and unlawful). A topical reading of this chapter could lead one to believe that all that is necessary is for one to believe that you are in danger. In fact, what you must prove...is that your belief was "reasonable". Additionally, "unlawful force" is a term that applies both ways.

Where is the chapter on unlawful force, where are we told conclusively what "reasonable" is. These are actually principles.. that will be examined as component parts of the "total" situation. Likewise, "disparity of force" and "proportionate force" are principles subject to the same scrutiny of case law and the defense. This is where I get it from, and my purpose for bringing it up in the first place.

Should your case go to court I think you'll find that generally they tend to frown on the use of force. Yes, courts recognize the right of persons to protect themselves from physical attack, it is such a clear breach of the peace. Even so, you'll need to be able to justify the necessity for the violence and the level used.

Most legal problems will involve the amount of force used during your defense. Common sense tells us that this amount should be reasonable under the circumstances.

With this in mind, we can use the following guidelines: The force used by the defender must not be significantly greater than, and must be proportionate to, the unlawful force threatened or used against the the defender. Keep in mind, you will not be judged by 75 words you found in Penal Code so and so. A judge and a jury will ultimately decide what was "lawful", not selected statutes from the handgun laws.

As for "disparity of force", one of the most noted incidents occurred in Irving, TX. in 2000. I'm sure we're all familiar with that one.

Thanks for the exchange of ideas.

Flint.
by flintknapper
Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:10 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Almost had to draw on someone today.
Replies: 104
Views: 20884

lrb111 wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
Hit in the face? If I slap you across the face are you going to shoot me?
Suppose i am female and get slapped. Is this the first act of an abduction, a rape, a severe beating?
Of course many things could follow if I were male, too.
It is also possible that many CHLs are of an age that they no longerr have the high levels of testosterone, to "Take a butt whipping".

I sure wish my peeps at the "Psychic Friends network" would get out of prison, so they could tell me when to defend myself or loved ones.

All responses should be dictated by the totality of the situation. Every situation will be different. We could not possibly discuss and correctly identify every variable that could possibly come into play. We can.. however, "role play" and examine reasonable responses to scenarios with specific information. When we begin to add..what ifs, supposes, and the like...then it gets a little tougher.

As far as females are concerned, I have posted here before my opinion that: There is no single group who is better served by arming themselves. In fact, it is a self imposed burden of mine to contribute all that I can to encourage them to develop self defense skills.

As to your second point, it is well taken..and is already covered under "disparity of force".
by flintknapper
Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:46 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Almost had to draw on someone today.
Replies: 104
Views: 20884

Kyle Brown wrote:§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

After reading that you cannot legally pull that "hog leg" just because you are about to take a "butt whipping" (after someone has slapped you across the face with an open hand), I thought it was time to revisit 9.04.

Now, I am not saying that all slaps across the face justify the production of a weapon under 9.04. Likewise, I don't believe that it is correct to state/imply the production of a weapon is not justified if you are about to take a butt whipping after someone has slapped you across the face with an open hand.

I don't know what else to tell you except... "give it a whirl" and good luck.

Simple (lawful) fact: In defense of yourself, you may only use the same amount of force as that being used against you (unless you are LE).

By "butt whipping", I'm referring to your common everyday fight between two unskilled people. Pushing, shoving, slapping, even striking with a closed fist (to a limited degree) is not likely to result in serious bodily injury or death. There are exceptions of course , and that is why the law allows for the use/threat of deadly force when there exists "disparity" of force. I can easily imagine a person ( of any age) that because of a physical condition, would be seriously injured if pushed/shoved to the ground. But if not, then you'd better plan on protecting yourself in some other manner than pulling your gun. I've been trying to get this through peoples heads for years.

Bottom line: If anyone bought a gun with the purpose of having it be the SOLE answer to ALL your problems, then you got it for the wrong reason.

I'm not suggesting in any way..that having a weapon and going through the process of obtaining a CHL is wasted effort. I won't go into the statistical probabilities of having to use deadly force. We covered that in another discussion. Simply put, if you have to use your weapon even once in your lifetime, you'll be darn glad you had one. (This assumes you were justified).

Yet another aspect of using deadly force involves the idea: What am I willing to "shoot" over. But thats a whole new subject.

Thanks for your perspective and participation.

Flint.
by flintknapper
Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:37 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Almost had to draw on someone today.
Replies: 104
Views: 20884

nitrogen wrote: Part of me thinks that Road Ragers know that they can get away with this stuff with impunity, and that's why they do it. :mad5

Agreed! :mad:
by flintknapper
Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:03 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Almost had to draw on someone today.
Replies: 104
Views: 20884

Re: Almost had to draw on someone today.

Flatland2D wrote:
flintknapper wrote: My trouble with it (the way this is written), is that the CHL holders first thought was to reach for his weapon. Absent any visual clues (weapon in the hand of the other driver, reaching into his pocket, etc..), or lacking a clear verbal threat, then one's first reaction should not be to "prepare to draw".
I'm interested to hear input from other members if they were in a situation like Mr. Hale's. Let's say some other driver is being a jerk and you unknowingly do something to make him mad. He gets out and begins approaching your car unarmed, but his size alone is a little threatening. He doesn't look like he's coming to apologize. At what point would you feel for your gun, or draw (assuming if you don't stop him he will attack you)?

I personally don't see anything wrong with discretely feeling for your gun if you can do so without drawing attention and in a non-threatening manner. If you wait till the attacker is bludgening you to death to feel for your gun you'd probably be lucky to get a shot off. I know retreat should be your first plan of action, but what if you're stuck in traffic, or your car was disabled in an accident with the attacker?

Good points about the OC spray. I really need to look into getting myself and my wife some of that.

Great question, certainly an honest one...and one that most of us have pondered. There could be many variables involved, but for the sake of this scenario, lets just go with what we have. The core question is: When (in this scenario) would you draw your weapon or prepare to do so?

My answer:(When limited to the information above is...) NOT AT ALL.

So far, all we know is that: He's being a "jerk" (in our opinion), he's bigger than us, he's unarmed and he's approaching us. Where you get into trouble is when you "Assume if you don't stop him he will attack you".

Heck, lets just say you were right! We'll go ahead and add to the scenario that: Your wife, girlfriend, children or other loved one(s) are in the vehicle with you. You can not retreat because of traffic all around you. The "jerk" indeed...walks right up to your car window and without saying a word...slaps you across the face with an open hand.

Well..then......., we're "good to go" now right? NOPE! If you "pop" the guy under these circumstances...then you'd better have a pretty slick lawyer, 'cause he's going to need to convince a jury that the definition of "disparity of force" is the same as YOU see it.

Lets change the scenario a little: It's now night time, your vehicle is boxed in, three guys get out of a vehicle and approach from behind you. You can make out a baseball bat in the hands of one of them. The other two split up, one goes to the passenger side of your vehicle, the other hangs back. The one with the bat suddenly shows up at your window, taps on it with the bat, demands that you turn over your wallet or he will "smash your head in".......

I hope you can see the difference. In any case, it will boil down to: What would another reasonable and prudent person do...AND whatever case law or precedents apply.

The fact is, carrying a deadly weapon only allows for the use of that weapon in a very narrow set of circumstances. You can't (legally) pull that "hog leg" just because you're about to take a "butt whipping" (as in the first case). There would need to be the threat or reasonable probability of serious bodily injury or death (as in the second case).

You can't (legally) shoot someone...or even display your weapon just because: You're mad, You're feelings are hurt, He was in the wrong, He started it..or because he called you out on the concrete.

Until Texas changes it's laws to make it legal to meet force with force, and no longer requires "duty to retreat" then you're best off leaving your weapon holstered.. except under the gravest of extremes.

One thing I want to make perfectly clear: There is no greater proponent for the "right" to self defense than I. I'm not telling anyone when or when not to protect yourself, I'm just asking that everyone "think it through".

If ever the time comes when you absolutely need to pull your weapon in defense of your life then don't hesitate. Just make sure you're right.

The beauty of a site like this is that it allows us to discuss and contemplate what actions might be appropriate for a given threat. I have come to the conclusion that "day in and day out"...simple awareness, using my head, using verbal skills, common courtesy and respect for my fellow man...serves me best.

A gun is a great tool to have. No doubt, it can add a powerful final layer to ones personal protection plan. It should however, be the last thing employed if circumstance allows.

Thats my take on it. Sorry for the length.

Flint.
by flintknapper
Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:09 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Almost had to draw on someone today.
Replies: 104
Views: 20884

Re: Almost had to draw on someone today.

txinvestigator wrote:
Show Killer wrote:So, I was cruising along in the right hand lane and this guy in a GMC Jimmy starts cutting over into my lane and was about to hit the drivers side front of the truck. I tap the horn to let him know i was there and he corrects. Then he speeds up to get in front of me. We get stopped at a red light, he opens his door, leans out and starts saying stuff. I just pointed to him in a "just stay in your truck" kind of manner. Well, that made him pretty mad. He gets completely out of his truck and starts walking back towards me. I lean forward and grab the pistol grip of my trusty Glock 30 (it was IWB @ about 3:30) and prepare to draw. The guy gets about 3 steps and then stops. The light had turned green and everyone behind me was honking at him. He just turned around and got back in his truck.

I just don't understand some people. This all happened at 3:00 in the afternoon going south on 281 at the Encino Rio Blvd. light.

I've had my CHL for going on 4 years and it's the 1st time i've had to prepare to actually draw down on someone.
Had you drawn your weapon on him you could have incurred a lot of trouble for yourself. I wasn't there, but from your description of the events I don't believe you had a deadly force or threat of deadly force situation.

Do you carry OC? What lane were you in? How much space did you leave between you and him?

Just what I was thinking.

My trouble with it (the way this is written), is that the CHL holders first thought was to reach for his weapon. Absent any visual clues (weapon in the hand of the other driver, reaching into his pocket, etc..), or lacking a clear verbal threat, then one's first reaction should not be to "prepare to draw".

To make matters worse, the whole incident stemmed from a traffic mishap. Anytime I go out into the "general public" armed, I feel an increased responsibility to "let things slide". I know that the CHL holder in this instance...did nothing to instigate the matter, but we need to be careful about making ANY gestures or saying anything that could be misinterpreted.

Next, we see a post from a member stating that if someone made a threating move toward his vehicle he'd respond with "two to center mass, then one to the head" (Mozambique). I'm sorry, but that sounds more like "bravado" than common sense.

Folks, if you can just ignore the other person, drive away, or even say you're sorry (wrong or not)........then you will have done the best thing possible.

Of all of the places you might have to defend yourself from, the confines of a vehicle would be mighty close to the last place you'd want to be.

Hope all this doesn't come across as too harsh, but the actions of every CHL holder reflect upon the rest of us.

Just my .02

Return to “Almost had to draw on someone today.”