TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Is the threat of beating someone is an assault? justifying producing a deadly weapon as a threat to terminate the threat of physical assault? Not sure in this scenario we CHLer can prematurely draw. Now if the assailant proceed to throw punch whether landed or otherwise, it is another story. Talking tough is just that talking tough and kind of verbal intimidation.

That's a good question. gigag04 told me in another thread a couple of months ago that producing your weapon in anticipation of needing it might be prosecutable as an "aggravated assault."

Here was the scenario in that thread, best as I can remember them: OP said he and girlfriend were departing theater/event/bar late at night in downtown Dallas. While they were in the parking lot walking toward their car, 2 males appear from shadows of adjacent building and start to walk rapidly toward OP and GF. As they draw closer, OP verbally challenges 2 males, who both fail to acknowledge or respond to challenge and continue to advance rapidly toward OP and GF. OP draws weapon (a Keltec or LCP if I recall) with a laser light mounted on it and plays beam across the chests of both advancing males. They both stop, turn around, and discover pressing business elsewhere. Neither of the two men ever responded verbally or acknowledged in any way the OP's verbal challenges. They just kept walking forward toward OP & GF at rapid walk. When confronted with laser beam, both turned and walked rapidly away. OP & GF jump in car and make rapid getaway, leaving cloud of burned rubber and acrid scent in the air. Calm returns.

OP's question in the above event was whether or not he was legally justified in drawing his weapon. He said it all happened very quickly, and he was extremely frightened at the time, and drawing his weapon seemed to be the appropriate response. His question was directed at the LEOs on the forum, and was to the effect of, "if you responded to my 911 call and I told you what I had done, would you arrest me or let me go?"

gigag04, who is a LEO, responded that, since both males never said a word, never spoke any threats, never produced a weapon, and never acted aggressively except in walking toward OP & GF at a rapid and purposeful pace, that OP's actions rose to the level of aggravated assault against the 2 males. Consensus reached in the thread was that whether or not OP would be arrested depended on whether he or the 2 males called 911 first. gigag04 pointed out, quite rightly, that for all the OP knew, the 2 males were just as afraid of the dark as OP, and were trying to get to their own car as quickly as possible. IIRC, OP & GF were not of the same race as the 2 males, and some of OP's fear may have been based on that factor.

If anyone else remembers that thread and can add to or correct what I've written here, I would appreciate it.

My own response to the above scenario, and to the original question in this thread is that the legality of one's response in drawing your weapon prophylactically might be reasonably tied to your own physical condition. I, as are several other members here, am not in the best physical condition and I am hobbled by various medical conditions which reduce the responses available to me. I cannot run to save my life. If walking away is not an option available to me, then the other person's threat toward me rises exponentially. I refuse to allow someone to administer a beating to me because my inability to respond in kind places my life at risk. A fist can kill, and it has happened. Since I cannot respond in kind, a threat to beat me is a threat to take my life. The fact that I have fewer options available to me escalates the situation quite rapidly. I do not believe that my gun is some kind of magical talisman, and I do believe that drawing it or using it is a last resort. But my point is that, for me, "last resort" approaches more quickly because of having fewer other options available to me.

In yet another thread a while back, the OP asked, do we have any kind of responsibility to permit physical contact or even go to ground with the opponent before drawing and firing the weapon. My response to that was absolutely not. I cannot afford your contact. If you get physical with me, that is a real-world threat to my life, and I will draw and shoot. I recall that Crossfire quoted my words at the time and answer in wry humor, "In other words, never pick a fight with an old man. If he's too tired, he'll just have to kill you." I still chuckle at that, but that does essentially cover how I feel about it.

The sections of the law about use of force and deadly force justifications include words like "actor reasonably believes...." I don't by any means believe that this will help me to beat the ride, but it might well beat the rap, and given physical disparities, I'll just have to trust in the justice system, and hope that the court takes into account my age and condition versus the other guy's in rendering a decision as to whether or not my producing a firearm rose to the level of an appropriate response to the threat. And, what we need to remember is that LEOs see a lot of different kinds of human behavior, and they are often very good impartial judges of what they observe. Consequently, there may not be any ride at all to beat if he/she is convinced that your response was the appropriate one.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Is the threat of beating someone is an assault? justifying producing a deadly weapon as a threat to terminate the threat of physical assault? Not sure in this scenario we CHLer can prematurely draw. Now if the assailant proceed to throw punch whether landed or otherwise, it is another story. Talking tough is just that talking tough and kind of verbal intimidation.

That's a good question. gigag04 told me in another thread a couple of months ago that producing your weapon in anticipation of needing it might be prosecutable as an "aggravated assault."

Here was the scenario in that thread, best as I can remember them: OP said he and girlfriend were departing theater/event/bar late at night in downtown Dallas. While they were in the parking lot walking toward their car, 2 males appear from shadows of adjacent building and start to walk rapidly toward OP and GF. As they draw closer, OP verbally challenges 2 males, who both fail to acknowledge or respond to challenge and continue to advance rapidly toward OP and GF. OP draws weapon (a Keltec or LCP if I recall) with a laser light mounted on it and plays beam across the chests of both advancing males. They both stop, turn around, and discover pressing business elsewhere. Neither of the two men ever responded verbally or acknowledged in any way the OP's verbal challenges. They just kept walking forward toward OP & GF at rapid walk. When confronted with laser beam, both turned and walked rapidly away. OP & GF jump in car and make rapid getaway, leaving cloud of burned rubber and acrid scent in the air. Calm returns.

OP's question in the above event was whether or not he was legally justified in drawing his weapon. He said it all happened very quickly, and he was extremely frightened at the time, and drawing his weapon seemed to be the appropriate response. His question was directed at the LEOs on the forum, and was to the effect of, "if you responded to my 911 call and I told you what I had done, would you arrest me or let me go?"

gigag04, who is a LEO, responded that, since both males never said a word, never spoke any threats, never produced a weapon, and never acted aggressively except in walking toward OP & GF at a rapid and purposeful pace, that OP's actions rose to the level of aggravated assault against the 2 males. Consensus reached in the thread was that whether or not OP would be arrested depended on whether he or the 2 males called 911 first. gigag04 pointed out, quite rightly, that for all the OP knew, the 2 males were just as afraid of the dark as OP, and were trying to get to their own car as quickly as possible. IIRC, OP & GF were not of the same race as the 2 males, and some of OP's fear may have been based on that factor.

If anyone else remembers that thread and can add to or correct what I've written here, I would appreciate it.

My own response to the above scenario, and to the original question in this thread is that the legality of one's response in drawing your weapon prophylactically might be reasonably tied to your own physical condition. I, as are several other members here, am not in the best physical condition and I am hobbled by various medical conditions which reduce the responses available to me. I cannot run to save my life. If walking away is not an option available to me, then the other person's threat toward me rises exponentially. I refuse to allow someone to administer a beating to me because my inability to respond in kind places my life at risk. A fist can kill, and it has happened. Since I cannot respond in kind, a threat to beat me is a threat to take my life. The fact that I have fewer options available to me escalates the situation quite rapidly. I do not believe that my gun is some kind of magical talisman, and I do believe that drawing it or using it is a last resort. But my point is that, for me, "last resort" approaches more quickly because of having fewer other options available to me.

In yet another thread a while back, the OP asked, do we have any kind of responsibility to permit physical contact or even go to ground with the opponent before drawing and firing the weapon. My response to that was absolutely not. I cannot afford your contact. If you get physical with me, that is a real-world threat to my life, and I will draw and shoot. I recall that Crossfire quoted my words at the time and answer in wry humor, "In other words, never pick a fight with an old man. If he's too tired, he'll just have to kill you." I still chuckle at that, but that does essentially cover how I feel about it.

The sections of the law about use of force and deadly force justifications include words like "actor reasonably believes...." I don't by any means believe that this will help me to beat the ride, but it might well beat the rap, and given physical disparities, I'll just have to trust in the justice system, and hope that the court takes into account my age and condition versus the other guy's in rendering a decision as to whether or not my producing a firearm rose to the level of an appropriate response to the threat. And, what we need to remember is that LEOs see a lot of different kinds of human behavior, and they are often very good impartial judges of what they observe. Consequently, there may not be any ride at all to beat if he/she is convinced that your response was the appropriate one.