Almost had to draw on someone today.

[lrb111]

Vote: Close/lock

Reason: WAAAAAAAAAY off topic

Oh no! Please, no.

There are two different viewpoints being expressed. Whichever view is closest to correct needs to be identified, for all our sakes.

If it is some sort of nebulus gray area, then it may come down to personal decision. But sourced input is certainly welcome.

[Show Killer]

Wow,

Never thought my little story would create such a long thread.

Continue to discuss.

[txinvestigator]

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.

There is no need for all of that. If you don't know the definition of deadly force, you should not be carrying.

[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?[/quote]

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

[/quote]

And you would go to prison. Seems like a bad decision to me.

[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 good chance. You would see a gun in your face.

And you would go to prison. Seems like a bad decision to me.

[/quote]

You go ahead and quote the law here all you want txinvestigator. It's safe to do that here and the stuff you quote is true and correct. But you better know all that law you talk about won't do a thing to save your life. And all that law is useless if your dead.

[stevie_d_64]

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.

And you would go to prison. Seems like a bad decision to me.

[/quote]

Not if you have a good lawyer...

Zha-Zha Gabor got off for slapping an LEO in the face...She took the ride, but she got off pretty light if I recall correctly...

But all in all, you'd be better off de-escalating the situation by taking the "lick", knowing if it goes further after that, you might consider presenting them an option to stop the assault...

In my younger and woolier days...I climbed over bigger people to get into a scrape, and still got my asterix handed to me...And those people eventually became some of my closest friends who knew they could count on me...I was pretty stupid back then...

My approach these days is to have that little secret that no one knows about, and does not want to find out about...It also keeps me out of trouble more than anything...I guess I have mellowed in my early "middle age", so I just don't see myself getting into little scrapes anymore...

[Kyle Brown]

Vote: Close/lock

Reason: WAAAAAAAAAY off topic

How is this waaaaaaaaay off topic???? I responded to a statement made by Flint...I asked legitimate questions...Flint gave us his take on what is "legal" ... I disagree...Is that a problem???

Actually, this subject matter (TPC 9.04) has been discussed on this board in the past. Here's the link, check it out.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... highlight=

If you read the entire thread, you will see Flint's take on 9.04 isn't beyond question. FWIW, I think it is good to have this discussion periodically.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This discussion points out the difficulty in deciding where to draw the "line in the sand." It also points out the extreme difficulty in trying to "discuss" this subject on a forum. It's hard enough to do the subject justice in a face-to-face setting like a seminar where it's easier to add facts and perimeters to the discussion and "what if" scenarios.

There have been excellent points made by several posters as to how fluid these situations can be and how changing just one fact can change the lawful response dramatically. It's not only critical to know when you can legally use deadly force or even threaten its use, it's equally important to know how to explain your actions under extreme conditions.

This thread shows why the "what if" scenarios are an important part of the deadly force seminars I give. It gives us all the opportunity to discuss various factors one must consider before the need arises. If there is sufficient interest, I'll try to schedule another one in the near future. As always, location is a problem with so many of our members living all over the State, but I can do one at PSC and perhaps in another location or two. I don't know the first thing about video conferencing, but perhaps that would be an option as well.

Chas.

[nitrogen]

If there is sufficient interest, I'll try to schedule another one in the near future. As always, location is a problem with so many of our members living all over the State, but I can do one at PSC and perhaps in another location or two. I don't know the first thing about video conferencing, but perhaps that would be an option as well.

Chas.

I'd be very interested in something like this. This thread really woke me up to the differences in interperetation to the laws.
FYI, There are Kinkos locations in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio that do Videoconferincing if thats an avenue you'd want to take. It's expensive, around 200 bucks an hour per location if I remember correctly.

[lrb111]

There is no need for all of that. If you don't know the definition of deadly force, you should not be carrying.

So, i should just resolve myself to be slapped by some punk? I would hope my conflict resolution skills would be up to par.
Any suggestions toward resolutions are always appreciated.

[JohnKSa]

Shooting someone, or even drawing on someone in response to getting slapped is extremely likely to result in sucessful prosecution of the person with the gun.

There are two CHL cases that I am aware of where someone has shot someone in response to an unarmed assault.

In the one case I am more familiar with, the CHL holder's injuries included severe concussion and permanent hearing loss. Yet he was STILL criminally prosecuted and might have been convicted had he not hired a good lawyer. What eventually made up the juror's minds is not absolutely clear, but the fact that the defender was quite small and the attacker was quite large probably played an important part--autopsy photographs of the attacker showing his impressive size and musculature and a "Born to Kill" tattoo were probably the clincher.

In the second case, the CHL holder took what was described as a "severe beating".

BOTH cases definitely resulted in criminal prosecution in spite of the fact that CHL holder was severely injured.

There are certainly cases where drawing on, or possibly even shooting an unarmed person who is attacking you in public** makes good sense, but it is important to understand that if you shoot in such a situation, criminal prosecution is a certainty. If you have sustained no injuries, and there is no obvious disparity of force (multiple attackers to one defender, large, fit attacker vs small, disabled defender, large male vs small female) then the prosecution is going to be successful.

Remember that you and your lawyer will have to convince a jury that what you did was reasonable and immediately necessary to prevent serious injury or death. That is the ONLY legal justification for using deadly force.

IMO, getting slapped is not justification for drawing on a person, and it is certainly not justification for shooting. Here's my reasoning. If a person has the chance to hit you in the face and they choose to make that blow an open-handed slap rather than a punch, that would almost certainly be viewed by a reasonable person as evidence that severe injury was not the goal of the slapper. If you can't convince a jury that the person was intent on severe injury then you won't be able to convince them that it was legal for you to threaten or use deadly force.

At that point, the thing to do is to withdraw from the confrontation and call the police. With witnessess, you are going to be able to get a criminal and very likely a civil judgement against the slapper. If you choose to pull a gun, the tables are turned and now you're the one likely to be facing criminal charges and civil prosecution.

So, i should just resolve myself to be slapped by some punk?

Your gun is there to defend your life, NOT your honor. You have a legal right not to be slapped--if you are, you can have the slapper prosecuted. But since there is no threat of severe injury or death, that "right not to be slapped" doesn't extend to a justification for you to use or threaten deadly force.

** Note that shooting an unarmed attacker who has broken into your own home is a totally different situation in legal terms. Since this is primarily about CHL specific shootings, my comments relate to things happening in public vs shooting a home invader.

[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.
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.

Kyle,

I do not regard your reply as argumentative. Even if it were, that is your privilege. I have never experienced anything other than civil discussions on this site. There is no requirement for us to agree on everything said here. Differing view points are welcome.

My post/position is not derived from an interpretation of PC 9.04, nor does it have a specific chapter devoted to it. It comes from the wording in PC 9.31. SELF DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

The key words here are (reasonably, necessary, and unlawful). A topical reading of this chapter could lead one to believe that all that is necessary is for one to believe that you are in danger. In fact, what you must prove...is that your belief was "reasonable". Additionally, "unlawful force" is a term that applies both ways.

Where is the chapter on unlawful force, where are we told conclusively what "reasonable" is. These are actually principles.. that will be examined as component parts of the "total" situation. Likewise, "disparity of force" and "proportionate force" are principles subject to the same scrutiny of case law and the defense. This is where I get it from, and my purpose for bringing it up in the first place.

Should your case go to court I think you'll find that generally they tend to frown on the use of force. Yes, courts recognize the right of persons to protect themselves from physical attack, it is such a clear breach of the peace. Even so, you'll need to be able to justify the necessity for the violence and the level used.

Most legal problems will involve the amount of force used during your defense. Common sense tells us that this amount should be reasonable under the circumstances.

With this in mind, we can use the following guidelines: The force used by the defender must not be significantly greater than, and must be proportionate to, the unlawful force threatened or used against the the defender. Keep in mind, you will not be judged by 75 words you found in Penal Code so and so. A judge and a jury will ultimately decide what was "lawful", not selected statutes from the handgun laws.

As for "disparity of force", one of the most noted incidents occurred in Irving, TX. in 2000. I'm sure we're all familiar with that one.

Thanks for the exchange of ideas.

Flint.

[Kyle Brown]

Shooting someone, or even drawing on someone in response to getting slapped is extremely likely to result in sucessful prosecution of the person with the gun.

There are two CHL cases that I am aware of where someone has shot someone in response to an unarmed assault.

In the one case I am more familiar with, the CHL holder's injuries included severe concussion and permanent hearing loss. Yet he was STILL criminally prosecuted and might have been convicted had he not hired a good lawyer. What eventually made up the juror's minds is not absolutely clear, but the fact that the defender was quite small and the attacker was quite large probably played an important part--autopsy photographs of the attacker showing his impressive size and musculature and a "Born to Kill" tattoo were probably the clincher.

In the second case, the CHL holder took what was described as a "severe beating".

BOTH cases definitely resulted in criminal prosecution in spite of the fact that CHL holder was severely injured.

There are certainly cases where drawing on, or possibly even shooting an unarmed person who is attacking you in public** makes good sense, but it is important to understand that if you shoot in such a situation, criminal prosecution is a certainty. If you have sustained no injuries, and there is no obvious disparity of force (multiple attackers to one defender, large, fit attacker vs small, disabled defender, large male vs small female) then the prosecution is going to be successful.

Remember that you and your lawyer will have to convince a jury that what you did was reasonable and immediately necessary to prevent serious injury or death. That is the ONLY legal justification for using deadly force.

IMO, getting slapped is not justification for drawing on a person, and it is certainly not justification for shooting. Here's my reasoning. If a person has the chance to hit you in the face and they choose to make that blow an open-handed slap rather than a punch, that would almost certainly be viewed by a reasonable person as evidence that severe injury was not the goal of the slapper. If you can't convince a jury that the person was intent on severe injury then you won't be able to convince them that it was legal for you to threaten or use deadly force.

At that point, the thing to do is to withdraw from the confrontation and call the police. With witnessess, you are going to be able to get a criminal and very likely a civil judgement against the slapper. If you choose to pull a gun, the tables are turned and now you're the one likely to be facing criminal charges and civil prosecution.

So, i should just resolve myself to be slapped by some punk?

Your gun is there to defend your life, NOT your honor. You have a legal right not to be slapped--if you are, you can have the slapper prosecuted. But since there is no threat of severe injury or death, that "right not to be slapped" doesn't extend to a justification for you to use or threaten deadly force.

** Note that shooting an unarmed attacker who has broken into your own home is a totally different situation in legal terms. Since this is primarily about CHL specific shootings, my comments relate to things happening in public vs shooting a home invader.

If you are justified in the use of force but not deadly force, then you are justified, per TPC 9.04, in the threat of deadly force (which is not the use of deadly force). If someone slaps you, in most cases, you would be justified in the use of force but not deadly force. Therefore, if you are justified in the use of force after the slap, then you are justified in the threat of deadly force per 9.04.

[JohnKSa]

Kyle,

You would probably be justified in threatening deadly force to PREVENT a slap, but pulling a gun on someone because they slapped you (past tense) isn't warranted by anything I see in the law.

We're back to retaliation vs self-defense.

[jbirds1210]

+1 on the seminar.....I would love to learn.
Jason