TexasCHLforum.com

After participating in this thread from the beginning, and based on the responses from some, I decided I needed to check my "Man Card." Obviously I don't have the best one. I called "Man Card" toll free number, and asked what options were available, and was told the following:

Basic Man Card - Issued to those men who are willing to exercise care when using. Must be willing to evaluate situations, weigh options, diffuse as necessary, and only use when there is no other prudent alternative. I believe I have this card.

Gold Man Card - Issued to those with low tolerance for others behavior. Willing to act quickly, with little thought of consequences, and retreat in only the most severe cases.

Platinum Man Card - Issued only to those with zero tolerance for others behavior, act out of reflex, and absolutely refuse to diffuse or retreat. May be issued simultaneously with the "Batman" license upon request.

When asked if I'd like to apply for a Man Card upgrade, I weighed my options, and said, "no thanks." Guess I'm just a wimp.

TAM: I believe your situation is vastly different from the OP's. We had a discussion a while back about this (I'm the senior citizen with many of the same issues you have). But the OP is not either of us. He also stated he had a martial arts background. I simply find it hard to believe that someone would shoot the so-called marine for simply, "moving my cart," which he plainly stated in multiple posts. Legalities, what ifs, etc. aside, I also find it hard to believe that he would expose his son, and all the patrons of a crowded Walmart, to a possible multiple party shoot out for such a minor altercation. If a CHL is not a 'Batman License," which we know it isn't, I believe it is also not a, "I can shoot you if you scare me" license either. And yes, I plan to take Charles' seminar when it comes to the DFW area. Would be foolish not to. Respectfully, MHO.

PeteCamp wrote:I agree with TAM's analysis and comments. Excellent advice. I want to make an armchair call here that no one has mentioned. Before I start a gunfight with one, and possibly four, assailants with my child present, I am going to do everything I possibly can to defuse the situation. No...I am not advocating "running away" from every challenge. Just using my brain to beat my assailant, if I can.

OP you have overlooked the very real possibility that one, or all, of these guys might have been armed? Would you be willing to see your son shot or gravely injured in an exchange of gunfire? Over what? Cussing and grabbing a shopping cart, or staring at you? Challenging your manhood? A friend of mine always says, "Choose carefully the hill you are willing to die upon."

One of the fundamental truths of carrying a weapon legally is that sometimes you will have to swallow your pride and even back away from a possible fight. I want to suggest that you go back and read what bronco78 posted and carefully consider that as a future course of action. His are excelllent thoughts.

My opinion here, but you seem way too eager to pull your weapon and shoot someone. Consider carefully the terrible consequences of a "bad shoot." That is a far more painful lesson for your son to learn than anything he might have experienced that day. I have seen the aftermath of far too many gunfights, and almost without exception it is bad, very bad. If you have to shoot, be as sure as you can that you are in the right and try as hard as humanly possible to avoid it.

I am not a lawyer. Just a guy who wears a badge. Good luck and may God watch over you as you raise your children.

This post says it all! I wish I was this eloquent

I'm not saying you can't defend yourself against assault (actually, Battery is the more correct term I believe) . I'm just saying that the lack of clearly stating "battery" in PC9.32 is a mistake in my opinion. It's just that the scenario you described when you said if he moved the cart or raised his hands you would have "stopped him"(meaning shot?) that gave me pause. I don't think that would rise to the level necessary to use your weapon against him. I'm not saying you should take a beating either. There are many on this forum that would agree more with you than with me. They will link PC 9.32 with 9.31 and 9.22 to justify their actions, even though battery is not one of the conditions in 9.32. I just didn't think your supposition of what you might do IF he moved the cart or raised his hands, and you "stopped him" would be seen by a jury as justified on your part. I am not a lawyer, and this is just MHO.

dewayneward wrote:thanks for the posts. I do appreciate the discussion. I have read and reread the information and I am just shocked at what is covered and what isnt. I am surprised that assault is not covered. I passed the test, listened to the instructor. I know that I cant (and shouldnt) pull my gun on a loudmouth. I know that I should de-escalate, but I see a glaring hole in the law.

Forgive the crudeness here(doing it for effect), but I can whack a punk for stealing my stereo (at night), but I cant shoot a guy that is getting ready to punch me? that just makes no sense to me. Why isnt assault not one of the things you can defend against?

I asked the very same question a while back on the forum. I believe that assault (in my case of a senior citizen) beats, say robbery, any day of the week, and should be in PC 9.32. My main point was to remind you of the law as currently written, and hopefully prevent a good guy from ruining his life.

dewayneward wrote: I am glad that we are able to discuss this as I would hate to make a mistake that would have long standing consequences. It does get interesting with what was quoted. Based on this, I need to be beaten up before I can use deadly force....and quite frankly I can take a beating so even if he beat me up, I really shouldnt defend myself because I would survive the attack (he'd probably only punch me a few times). and I couldnt shoot him afterwards since he had broken off the attack.

This just doesnt sit well with me. With what I have read, I am in a no win situation and, legally, should try to find someone to purchase my guns.

Really the only time I can see when I can use my gun is if the other person pulls a gun first. i dnt know, this just doesnt sound right to me. I gotta be missing something.

I don't mean any disrespect here, I'm just doing what you asked - armchair QB-ing. It just struck me from your responses that you "may" believe you can use your gun, not just draw it, to defend yourself if you feel threatened in any way. If so, that's just not the case. Your gun is a last resort, not the first. PC 9.32 is very clear as to when you can use deadly force. Some may not like it, but it's the law as of now. I believe the first obligation is to de-escalate the situation in any way possible, the next is to try and distance yourself from it. Now if you've run out of options and you can get a prosecutor and a jury to believe that the other party was about to use deadly force (gun, knife, or other weapon), or commit one of the actions described in PC 9.32, then the law will cover you, even if you don't retreat. I'm no lawyer, so I only can interpret the statute as I see it. I wouldn't rush out to sell my guns either. It's simply a matter of knowing when you can use deadly force and when you can't. Of course it's not always cut and dried.

i think you are trying to be a very good parent, and also keep your family safe, and I commend you for that. However, perhaps a re-read of the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws booklet would make things clearer to you. I'm sure some might disagree with my position, and you and others may disagree with this part of the penal code. I know I have some issues with them from time to time. But the fact is, that's the law, and I would hate for any CHL holder to ruin their life by acting in a contrary manner. If I'm incorrect, then no doubt others on this forum will correct me. This is absolutely the best place to be when it comes to being a responsible CHL.

dewayneward wrote:

G26ster wrote:OP - I'm curious. What would the guy who put his hand on the cart have to do for you to draw your weapon and fire, while you were between him and your son?

Going back to this scenario, I was close, so I can say that had that cart ceased to be a barrier or it got more aggressive, I would have pulled my gun and depending on the reaction, stopped him (and depending on the circumstances) his friends.

When you say "stopped him" I have to assume you would have used your drawn gun as something other than a thrown object. So then I assume you consider aggressive behavior (removing the cart and raising his hands), as "deadly force" against you? I think if that is the case, I don't believe you would be covered by PC 9.32, as nothing short of the other persons use or attempted use of deadly force would warrant your action under the law. Again, just MHO.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

OP - I'm curious. What would the guy who put his hand on the cart have to do for you to draw your weapon and fire, while you were between him and your son?

I realize you want to protect your self and your child, and you had every right to politely ask the cussing to stop, but I'd review in your mind for a while your threshold for drawing your weapon. Had you drawn your weapon just because of a stare and a hand on your cart, and I was on your jury, I would have to say I would probably not be voting in your favor. Now had you or your child been physically been attacked by one or more of these men, that's a whole other story. And, I have to ask, what did you do to "diffuse" this potential threat? When you say, "put my hand at the ready," do you mean you made it obvious that you were armed? Did you put your hand in a position that a reasonable person would believe you were about to draw a weapon. if so, I'd say you not only made no attempt to diffuse the situation, you escalated the potential for violence.

You and I know that having a CHL is a great responsibility, and our weapons should only be used as last resort. I'm not sure you, and others, will agree with anything I said, but you did ask for armchair QB's, so this is just MHO.