TexasCHLforum.com

roff wrote:i just learn more and more everyday from everyones responses

I truly hope you're sincere in your desire to learn more. A good start would be to stop posting what seems to be an attempt to defend your actions from the previous thread about shooting at the car (see my responses above). Next would be to stop "looking for trouble" in your daily life. Yeah, it's maddening when other people treat you poorly, don't respect you and/or your property, etc. But as a CHL holder it is YOUR responsibility to DE-ESCALATE any situation if at all possible. Confronting someone who you believe damaged your car is not a good de-escalation technique. Not saying you can't/shouldn't ever confront anyone, but it's best to avoid confrontations over "little stuff" - and damage to your car that does not also include an ongoing imminent threat of additional damage to you is "little stuff" in the big picture. Best to "be a good witness" - get the license plate number, call the police, file an insurance claim, whatever the situation calls for that avoids direct confrontation.

roff wrote:you guys are confusing my previous thread with this thread
i did not pull my gun
i put my hand on the butt of the gun whenever i saw him lift up his shirt to tighten his pants

I"m not confusing anything. I'm responding directly to your post above discussing your previous "incident" when you admitted firing multiple rounds at a fleeing vehicle following what amounts to a) a vehicle collision and/or b) a road rage incident.

As for putting your hand on the butt of your gun in response to your OP in this thread, I've already responded to that. If you weren't justified in shooting your gun then unconcealing your gun in that manner could be enough to charge you with intentionally unconcealing your weapon in violation of PC 46.035 (to be justified in unconcealing your weapon while carrying as a CHL, you also must be justified in USING deadly force).

Did you have justification because the guy lifted his shirt? I dunno, ask a LEO, prosecutor, or judge.

Did you do anything to possibly provoke the aggressive response you received from the other individual? I dunno, I wasn't there, but now knowing your history it wouldn't surprise me if you chose a) picking a fight instead of b) DE-ESCALATING the situation and responding to it in a much more mature manner.

roff wrote:when I shot at the car that hit me and took off I did not have a chl

Thank God

roff wrote:it was my first car that I paid for myself

So what. I don't care if it was a gold-plated Bentley, you don't fire shots at a fleeing vehicle. Period.

roff wrote:the police probably would not have done anything about it

Wanna bet? Ask a few of the LEOs on this forum if firing shots at a fleeing vehicle is just A-OK? Then ask them the myriad charges they could file against you for doing that. Then ask them about the top-level felonies you WOULD be charged with if your haphazardly fired rounds had struck an innocent person.

roff wrote:yea it was a dumb idea but I was angry

And you think that makes it OK?!?!?! Are you out of your mind?!?!?! Being angry when you fired the gun makes it 100 times WORSE!!!

roff wrote:this happened about 4 1/2 years ago

When are you eligible for parole?

roff wrote:I don't go around shooting at people now that i have my chl

If you ever did actually "go around shooting at people" then you never should have been issued a CHL in the first place.

roff wrote:I think I've matured a bit since then

and yet you're still defending the obviously irresponsible actions ...

roff wrote:just because of my previous posts and past doesn't make me trigger happy now

maybe, maybe not - but your past actions are an indicator of your future potential ... this is why ex-felons can't buy guns or get CHLs

roff wrote:you guys are making it seem like if I came up to yalls car and kicked a big dent in it y'all would be ok with it

I wouldn't be OK with it. But I wouldn't pull my gun because of it. Most here wouldn't. And that's the real point you keep missing. No one agrees with you. Someone denting your car DOES NOT meet the criteria to pull a gun. At the point your car was dented you could NOT reasonably believe you were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, thus pulling a gun was not immediately necessary, thus pulling a gun was not JUSTIFIED under the law.

I honestly don't know whether you're some weird form of long-term troll, or you just really don't fully understand your responsibilities when carrying a weapon. If it's the former, then hope you had fun. If it's the latter, then sincerely, you need to carefully re-examine your attitude before you and/or someone else is seriously injured or killed or you're arrested. Right now, from the information you've provided on this forum, you're the textbook example espoused by anti-gunners of why "regular people" should not be allowed to own, much less carry, firearms.

Wow, you guys have better memories than me. I took OP's post at face value and after reading his "history" now wish I hadn't. Oh well ... good luck to you OP, yer gonna need it ...

The term "less-than-lethal" force is preferred now it seems over "non-lethal" (DPS officers in CHL instructor school are careful to use the term "less-than-lethal" to describe pepper spray, tasers, etc) because depending on the concoction sprayed and the individual receiving the spray it can cause "death or serious bodily injury" ... example, you spray something at someone who has a serious allergic reaction to it, to the the point of asphyxiation.

Also, you're not required by any law I know of to give an oral warning before using deadly force - but it may be a good idea to establish your mental/emotional state and the mental/emotional state and intent of your attacker.

So is using genericly termed "pepper spray" merely "force" or is is "deadly force"? I dunno, ask the judge/jury

Also was the other party in this story threatening the OP with "force" or "deadly force"? I dunno, what did he say/do to make the OP think a use of force/deadly force response was appropriate? Did he say, "I'm gonna bash your face in!" then tighten his fist and walk toward the OP? Did he just get up out of his car and make menacing facial gestures?

As with most of these "what if" scenarios, there is not enough information to make a clear-cut black-n-white determination.

As a general rule, just like using a gun, you better have a darn good explanation why you spray someone with pepper spray. Hopefully if you do so the person will only be mildly harmed and upset and not seriously injured or dead. But you still need to have an iron-clad justification that avoids an assault charge.

Lastly, another way to view this, if this situation concerned OP enough to reach for a gun (which is not a "use of deadly force" under Chapter 9 Penal Code, but could be "failure to conceal" under Chapter 46 Penal Code without a justification to use deadly force) then I would think reaching for pepper spray would also be justified. Using peppery spray? Again, if reaching for and unconcealing a gun is justified under PC 46.035 then a use of deadly force must be justified, so using pepper spray would assumably be justified.

please note, none of the above is to disparage or question the OP's action/reaction/questions about this incident. It's very worthwhile and commendable to come here asking these questions and I'm glad the OP escaped this situation without escalation of force - which may or may not have been justified.