So im a little confused...

[brandon01rt]

(I have been reading the penal codes as I am waiting for my plastic to arrive in the mail)

I realize that if if a person charges you with a knife or shoots at you, one is justified to stop the threat. But what if one or more people charge you with no visible weapon? Lets assume they have every intention of doing serious bodily harm with fists. Do you keep it holstered and fight? I would have a serious concern of my attacker discovering my weapon in the brawl and possibly attempting to use it on me.

Please help!

[G.A. Heath]

Lets assume they have every intention of doing serious bodily harm with fists.

That phrase right there is the key to your situation. In that case the use of deadly force can be considered.

[apostate]

There are two different considerations at work. One is what's legal or, if you prefer, legally justifiable. The other is how to keep yourself alive and out of the hospital. I have my own ideas about these two issues, but one size does not fit all.

My standard advice for the legal aspect is to attend one of Charles Cotton's seminars. That goes double if you left your CHL class without a good understanding of chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code. My advice for the other question would depend on many factors and is something I'm no longer comfortable discussing in a public forum in any case. However, there are a wealth of training opportunities on that subject.

Let me leave you with a comment from Jeff Cooper: "Problem A is staying alive. Problem B is squaring it away with the guys in uniform. Now, Problem B can be bloody serious... But if you don't survive Problem A, you won't have to worry about it."

[boomstick]

Where can I find information on Mr. Cotton's seminars?

[Crossfire]

Right here: https://texasfirearmscoalition.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Purplehood]

(I have been reading the penal codes as I am waiting for my plastic to arrive in the mail)

I realize that if if a person charges you with a knife or shoots at you, one is justified to stop the threat. But what if one or more people charge you with no visible weapon? Lets assume they have every intention of doing serious bodily harm with fists. Do you keep it holstered and fight? I would have a serious concern of my attacker discovering my weapon in the brawl and possibly attempting to use it on me.

Please help!

You knew they had serious intent to harm you. The only catch is convincing a jury of the same thing.

[brandon01rt]

Thanks for the replies. I realize this is a shade of gray and there is no one size fits all answer. Every specific situation is different. It would be hard to explain in court why someone used deadly force on an unarmed man.

[brandon01rt]

comment from Jeff Cooper: "Problem A is staying alive. Problem B is squaring it away with the guys in uniform. Now, Problem B can be bloody serious... But if you don't survive Problem A, you won't have to worry about it."

Thats golden right there.

[esxmarkc]

There are two different considerations at work. One is what's legal or, if you prefer, legally justifiable. The other is how to keep yourself alive and out of the hospital. I have my own ideas about these two issues, but one size does not fit all.

My standard advice for the legal aspect is to attend one of Charles Cotton's seminars. That goes double if you left your CHL class without a good understanding of chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code. My advice for the other question would depend on many factors and is something I'm no longer comfortable discussing in a public forum in any case. However, there are a wealth of training opportunities on that subject.

Let me leave you with a comment from Jeff Cooper: "Problem A is staying alive. Problem B is squaring it away with the guys in uniform. Now, Problem B can be bloody serious... But if you don't survive Problem A, you won't have to worry about it."

I don't think I have ever heard it put so accurately!!

[KRhea02]

My suggestion would be to at least draw and if your attackers continued to come at you then they obviously don't care about living.

[The Annoyed Man]

There have been lots of discussions on this board about this. Here is my own takeaway, both from having attended Charles's seminar a couple of times now, and from my own understanding of the laws of this state - which I admit is relatively limited, and IANAL, and all those caveats....

Texas law incorporates the words "reasonable" and "reasonably" very deliberately. Generally speaking, use of deadly force is justified when both A) use of force is justified; and B) when the actor reasonably believes that he/she needs to act to protect him/herself or others against the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. Texas PC 1.07 (46) says: '"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.' (emphasis mine)

Disparity of force is also a factor. Obviously, if you are charged by a 95 year old granny waving an arthritic fist in your face, lethal force is not justified ( [joke] unless she is incredibly annoying [/joke] ). On the other hand, if you are charged by a relatively young man in relatively good health, you could conceivably be at risk of being beaten to death. I've worked in an ER. People get beaten to death every single day with nothing more than naked fists and a size 10 shoe. If you cannot defend yourself by other means for whatever reason, or if you believe you are outmatched, and you have a reasonable fear of "serious bodily injury" at the least, and death at the worst, then use of deadly force is justified. How you feel about it at the time and what level of response is called for is a subjective determination only you can make; but in Texas, you are not required to retreat before you can defend yourself, and you can justify deadly force if you reasonably believe that the attack would result in death or serious bodily injury as defined by Texas statues, and absent other factors like a personal history of violence or psychiatric adjudication, the law assumes you to be a reasonable person, capable of making reasonable determinations of the dangers inherent in an assaultive situation.

A punch in the face that leaves you with a permanently disfigured nose, or a punch to the temple that left you blind in one eye for a protracted period, getting your hand stomped which broke your fingers so you couldn't work, having your teeth knocked out, all of these things qualify as "serious bodily injury" under Texas law - IN MY OPINION - and if your empty handed attacker left you with a reasonable fear that these things could be an outcome of the attack, you would be justified in using deadly force to stop them. In other words, you are not required to accept any kind of serious bodily injury before you can act to to defend yourself with deadly force.

Overriding all of this is whether or not you instigated the situation to begin with. If you verbally threatened to do else death or bodily harm, and they retaliated with preemptory attack against you, you may not be able to justify the deadly force, because the attack is your fault. If you threatened to give someone a whuppin the next time you see him, and he shows up with six of his buddies, you created the situation. However, if you back down and try to verbally extricate yourself from the threat by apologizing, etc., before violence occurs, and they assault you anyway, then technically you can respond with lethal force because there is a disparity of force and a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm. The problem is, you now have six witnesses who are going to swear that you maliciously set them up, drew them into the kill box, and started firing on them without provocation. The point of all of this is that your personal behavior may rob you of a defense, and you may no longer be considered either reasonable, or justified in using deadly force.

Like I said, I am not a lawyer, but these are some of the things I took away from Charles's seminar.

[brandon01rt]

There have been lots of discussions on this board about this. Here is my own takeaway, both from having attended Charles's seminar a couple of times now, and from my own understanding of the laws of this state - which I admit is relatively limited, and IANAL, and all those caveats....

Texas law incorporates the words "reasonable" and "reasonably" very deliberately. Generally speaking, use of deadly force is justified when both A) use of force is justified; and B) when the actor reasonably believes that he/she needs to act to protect him/herself or others against the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. Texas PC 1.07 (46) says: '"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.' (emphasis mine)

Disparity of force is also a factor. Obviously, if you are charged by a 95 year old granny waving an arthritic fist in your face, lethal force is not justified ( [joke] unless she is incredibly annoying [/joke] ). On the other hand, if you are charged by a relatively young man in relatively good health, you could conceivably be at risk of being beaten to death. I've worked in an ER. People get beaten to death every single day with nothing more than naked fists and a size 10 shoe. If you cannot defend yourself by other means for whatever reason, or if you believe you are outmatched, and you have a reasonable fear of "serious bodily injury" at the least, and death at the worst, then use of deadly force is justified. How you feel about it at the time and what level of response is called for is a subjective determination only you can make; but in Texas, you are not required to retreat before you can defend yourself, and you can justify deadly force if you reasonably believe that the attack would result in death or serious bodily injury as defined by Texas statues, and absent other factors like a personal history of violence or psychiatric adjudication, the law assumes you to be a reasonable person, capable of making reasonable determinations of the dangers inherent in an assaultive situation.

A punch in the face that leaves you with a permanently disfigured nose, or a punch to the temple that left you blind in one eye for a protracted period, getting your hand stomped which broke your fingers so you couldn't work, having your teeth knocked out, all of these things qualify as "serious bodily injury" under Texas law - IN MY OPINION - and if your empty handed attacker left you with a reasonable fear that these things could be an outcome of the attack, you would be justified in using deadly force to stop them. In other words, you are not required to accept any kind of serious bodily injury before you can act to to defend yourself with deadly force.

Overriding all of this is whether or not you instigated the situation to begin with. If you verbally threatened to do else death or bodily harm, and they retaliated with preemptory attack against you, you may not be able to justify the deadly force, because the attack is your fault. If you threatened to give someone a whuppin the next time you see him, and he shows up with six of his buddies, you created the situation. However, if you back down and try to verbally extricate yourself from the threat by apologizing, etc., before violence occurs, and they assault you anyway, then technically you can respond with lethal force because there is a disparity of force and a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm. The problem is, you now have six witnesses who are going to swear that you maliciously set them up, drew them into the kill box, and started firing on them without provocation. The point of all of this is that your personal behavior may rob you of a defense, and you may no longer be considered either reasonable, or justified in using deadly force.

Like I said, I am not a lawyer, but these are some of the things I took away from Charles's seminar.

Thanks for taking the time to type that out. It really clears things up. Ill keep all of this in mind as I continue to study the penal codes.

[AustinBoy]

Just something to think about.

Read my post:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34329&p=404266#p404266" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Austinboy