Almost had to draw on someone today.

[longtooth]

Can't really guarantee what they will do about it, but a couple or 3 times a yr the Lufkin PD will make some public service anouncements about anyone witnessing aggressive driving to call them & they will answer the call. Usually around Holidays & then in the dog days of summer. They do work trafic here very thouroghly. Especially around our loop. Highway 59 is the cocaine pipeline from Gulf coast to upper midwest.

[Commander]

A couple of years ago Dallas PD bought several all black Crown Vics and put them on the road unmarked. They were supposed to be a "Road Rage Unit" to patrol and "watch" for Road Rage incidents. Wonder what ever happened to them?

[Kyle Brown]

§ 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.

[txinvestigator]

am with Flintknapper here.........a person threatening you with non-deadly force does not justify you to use deadly force, and in most cases would not justify threatening to use deadly force as per TPC 9.04.

And what is non-deadly force? Do I dig out and start reading my book of rules while being threatened or hit in the face? If someone gets out of their car and says I'm going to kill you is that non-deadly force? Face it, if you get into a situation your going to have to figure out on your own if it's non-deadly force or not. Good luck to everyone of us on that one.

The penal code STATES that Force is not justified in response to verbal provication alone. Non deadly force os force that is not capable of causing serious bodily injury or death.

Hit in the face? If I slap you across the face are you going to shoot me?

[txinvestigator]

Amazing.



Anyone ever tried to call the police on someone that's road raged them, or even for some road rage that you see on the highway that doesn't even involve you?

yes I have

Ever get the police to do something about it?

Again, yes ;)

[Commander]

I can speak from professinal experience on this one. We receive calls on a regular basis from motorists that are involved in Road Rage as we have them on the phone. Many times we have a unit that is close enough to intervene. Yes, there have been arrests.

[jbenat]

The one thing that was impressed upon us in CHL training class was to use deadly force only when absolutely neccesary. After taking the course and doing much reading on the subject, I was almost convinced to not carry because of the inevitable legal and emotional consequences of a shooting. Even a justifyable self defense shooting.

There is a case I read about in "The Concealed Handgun Manual" 4th edition, page 301, by Chris Bird about a incident on Hwy 121 in Grapevine. This case is much like the one mentioned here in previous posts. Ralph Williams (a CHL Holder) took a severe beating before shooting his assailant, Uriah Suhr. Williams spent a night in jail. He lost his job at Best Buy where he had worked for 9 years, it cost him $26,000.00 in lawyer and other related costs and took a year of legal wrangling before it was over. The good news is, he's still alive. Uriah Suhr spent 7 months in a coma, suffered injuries to his liver, pancreas, kidney and vena cava, a major blood vessel, but lived. The good news, he will think twice before he attacks any of us again.

I'll carry whenever I'm out of the house but it will take a really threatening situation, not road rage, before I will resort to deadly force. But, if I ever pull my pistol out I will not hesitate to use it.

[lrb111]

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.

[lrb111]

§ 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.

+1
Thank You...

[flintknapper]

§ 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.

[flintknapper]

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".

[lrb111]

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".

That is exactly the way i feel about it. Our daughter is a single mom to our 12 year old grandaughter. Both can shoot qualifying scores for a CHL.

[Kyle Brown]

§ 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.

[gigag04]

Vote: Close/lock

Reason: WAAAAAAAAAY off topic

[one eyed fatman]

am with Flintknapper here.........a person threatening you with non-deadly force does not justify you to use deadly force, and in most cases would not justify threatening to use deadly force as per TPC 9.04.

And what is non-deadly force? Do I dig out and start reading my book of rules while being threatened or hit in the face? If someone gets out of their car and says I'm going to kill you is that non-deadly force? Face it, if you get into a situation your going to have to figure out on your own if it's non-deadly force or not. Good luck to everyone of us on that one.

The penal code STATES that Force is not justified in response to verbal provication alone. Non deadly force os force that is not capable of causing serious bodily injury or death.

Hit in the face? If I slap you across the face are you going to shoot me?[/quote]

Pretty damn good chance. You would see a gun in your face.