Question concerning the laws

[fastscooby01]

I am still in the lovely “processing application” phase and just have a couple of questions regarding the actual various laws. Over the last month or so I have been reading through this forum very regularly, and reading through the CHL booklet. The one thing that I have been mildly worried about is how vague a lot of the laws are, and how they are described. My first question is are there any previous post from people that give a more cut and dried straightforward list of the laws. One example is that you are justified to use deadly force against theft of your property during the nighttime, whereas not during the day time. It is hardly to fully understand when you are justified and when you are not depending on the circumstances. I constantly read situations to where people post a scenario, and ask what they should have done and some people believe this and some people believe that. So bottom line what would be the best way for me to try and get clarification on these stipulations? Should I go have a little chat with my attorney? I understand the basics behind the laws, but before I carry I want to feel fully competent in regard to my knowledge of the law.

[joe817]

The responses you read in this forum are opinions expressed by the forum members. One has to be VERY careful in expressing an opinion and avoid at all costs "legal advice" or face the possibility of being charged with practicing law without a license. That's why you see all the time in a post "IANAL" (I am not a lawyer).

I share your concern and frustration about not being able to find concrete answers to your questions. But it's the nature of the beast. The laws ARE vague sometimes. And they don't address what you CAN do, but what you CANNOT do, and the penalties involved if you do. IMO they are written that way to fit the infinite scenarios that can happen.

Talking to an attorney about your concerns is the best recommendation I can give you.

Barring that, I CAN recommend that you attend Charles' seminar called "Self-Defense and Deadly Force Laws Seminar".

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... ar#p315094" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That may address some of your concerns. I sure plan on attending one, if I ever have the opportunity.

I'm sure others will chime in shortly with their opinions as well.

[Zee]

I keep this quote in mind:

This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[fastscooby01]

That is most defiantly true about forums.. What is the old saying? "Take what you read on a forum with a grain of salt" lol.... There is a lot of good information on here if you can just sort through the bad. I think ultimately the end result is going to be having a chat with my attorney. Thanks for the replies.

[Purplehood]

I thought everything you guys told me was gospel.

[joe817]

I thought everything you guys told me was gospel.

What's with the "you guys"? You is part of us guys too!

[Keith B]

That is most defiantly true about forums.. What is the old saying? "Take what you read on a forum with a grain of salt" lol.... There is a lot of good information on here if you can just sort through the bad. I think ultimately the end result is going to be having a chat with my attorney. Thanks for the replies.

The only thing is, if you chat with another attorney, you are likely to get a different answer than your attorney gave you.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of gray areas in the laws on use of force and deadly force, CHL, etc. Even though the law states you are justified in using deadly force to protect property at night, circumstances leading up to the shoot, how you conducted yourself prior, during and after the shoot, how the shootee conducted themselves, ad infinitum (maybe ad nauseum for the forum ) are going to play into the decision of a prosecutor and grand jury if the shooting was justified or not.

Bottom line is when you use a firearm to defend yourself, it may not be as cut and dry as the law states, so they end up being a guideline for the people to use as a ruler to measure where you fall with your actions. AND it will more than likely cost you a large amount of money with your lawyer to make sure things go the right direction in you proving you were justified.

[Purplehood]

I thought everything you guys told me was gospel.

What's with the "you guys"? You is part of us guys too!

No, I are special.

[joe817]

I thought everything you guys told me was gospel.

What's with the "you guys"? You is part of us guys too!

No, I are special.

Yes you is. I is too. I'm not out of step, it's everyone else!

[Drewthetexan]

Sage advice I received once: Shooting someone will cost you at least $5,000.50. 50¢ for the bullet, and $5,000 for the legal retainer.

[drjoker]

The law is purposely vague in order to keep attorneys in business. In order to get a concrete answer, it would help to ask a question that is not vague. Your question is vague, "... are there any previous post from people that give a more cut and dried straightforward list of the laws." Wow, you want several years of law school in a "cut and dried straightforward list". No, it is NEVER "cut and dried" when you shoot someone. I am NOT a lawyer, but my best advice to you is to practice restraint. As I've been explaining to my wife and female friend who are currently taking CHL classes, your CHL is a license to carry a deadly weapon for the purpose of defense from imminent and immediate deadly force. It is not a license to be Batman, a hero, a vigilante, a security guard, a cop, judge, jury, and executioner. Why should you practice restraint? Well, death is irreversible so if you make a mistake, you cannot correct your mistake. Therefore, if you use deadly force, you have to be 100% sure that you're doing the right thing.

Under a deadly force situation, you are under high stress and you don't have the luxury of carefully thinking things through. Hindsight is always 20/20 and juries have the luxury of sitting in their comfortable armchairs to make their judgements in safety. Therefore, it helps to have a very simple rule to follow that requires ZERO thinking when you are in a deadly force situation. My personal rule of thumb is to wait until I see a gun or knife before I make my move. There are advantages and disadvantages to this rule. The advantage is that it will make the shooting more "cut and dried" rather than vague. For example, if you saw a BG start to pull something that you suspect was a weapon out of his/her pocket and it turns out to be a cell phone, how are you going to explain that to the D.A. if you shot the BG? But don't take my word for it. I invite you to use the search feature on this website and look for Harold Fish, Jerome Ersland (one thug was armed, but the guy he shot wasn't), Paul Saustrup, Louis Fuentes, etc. The list goes on and on. Many of the self-defense shooters who got in trouble shot an unarmed assailant. No matter how justified, shooting an unarmed assailant is always NOT "cut and dried." That's why I carry pepper spray AND a gun. Therefore, if force is justified but not deadly force, I would not be left with only a deadly weapon for the job. However, waiting for a gun or knife to appear before making your move is a tactical disadvantage. My personal rule of thumb (never shoot an unarmed man) puts me at a moral/legal advantage but a tactical disadvantage. If you disagree with my rule of thumb, fine, but make sure you come up with your own easy rule of thumb because trying to make complicated decisions in a hurry while someone is trying to kill you will only cause you to freeze up and do nothing. In an emergency situation, people either tend to fight, run, or freeze.

For example this happened to me when I was in Austin on business with my dad; I was in an elevator and some drunken muscle head twice my size throws a punch at me but I dodge it. "What're yew lookin' at?" he slurred. "Nothing, sir," I replied. Wham! He takes another punch at me but I dodge it. "I don't like the way yew're lookin' at me! Ya wanna die?" he fumbled. "I apologize, sir," I replied. He starts to pull something out of his hoodie pocket with his hand. My hand is already inside my pants, wrapped around the gun. It is halfway out of the holster already, but still concealed. My eyeballs are superglued to his hand. Dink! The elevator door opens and he suddenly pulls out a... cell phone. I leave quickly. Would I have been justified in shooting him? Yes. Would I end up with over $100k in legal bills and end up in jail like Harold Fish? Probably. That was a particularly bad situation because it was a small enclosed elevator so I couldn't even use pepper spray.

In conclusion, make up a "cut and dried" rule for yourself to follow. Although the law is never "cut and dried", your personal rule can be. If you do not have a simple rule to follow in an emergency situation, you could end up freezing and doing nothing. Everyone has a different personal rule. I will only use deadly force if I see a gun or knife. My wife will run away from everything. One of my female friends will yield to thugs unless it is rape. My Indian doctor friend will yield to thugs because defending yourself will put a thug's life in danger and all life is sacred. My liberal co-worker friend says that guns are evil instruments that are only meant to kill so he will deal with any threat only with his fists. My security guard friend talks tough and says that he'll beat up and/or shoot all thugs, but I suspect that he'll probably run faster than my wife. So, come up with your own simple rule of thumb, but I suggest that your rule of thumb incorporates some restraint.

Note: I am NOT a lawyer.

[fastscooby01]

I agree with drjoker on this. I view it basically as a very last resort, and a resort that I hopefully never have to take. I would rather be prepared and not need it than not be prepared and wish I had it.

[A-R]

Great post, drjoker. I don't necessarily agree with exactly what the "cut and dry" event would be that would cause me to draw my weapon, but I very much like your thinking here. Everyone needs to pre-envision exactly when/why they would draw and stick to it. Your reasoning is very well thought out and explained. Exactly what CHL was intended for.

[57Coastie]

drjoker,

Your post was undoubtedly the most impressive one I have read on this forum, and I have been here awhile. It should be part of the CHL course for newbies, and merits being read by all CHL holders, particularly those who think they know it all, when, I assure you, nobody knows it all. At risk of flames from all sides I am compelled to observe that many questions on this forum are bloodthirsty, if only between the lines, looking for a way to use deadly force, and that is not why we have our CHL. Your post puts in a nutshell why we have a CHL.

Thank you, sir.

Jim

[kP380]

Two years later, and I just now read your last post, drjoker - very well written, and great advice.....

Thanks!