"my CHL instructor said the law has changed"

[ElGato]

In the sixties there was a lot of ''double tap then observe'' taught, that got some people hurt.

[KD5NRH]

Texas Penal Code
§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.
[SNIP]
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:

Is there any legal precedent to calling each shot a separate use of force?

If not, then it seems "the degree" could be said to be determined prior to the first shot in a string; i.e. "I believed that it would take a minimum of [two|three|eight|nine|eighteen] shots to stop the threat in time, and simply did not have the luxury of time to pause and reexamine that assessment until after the full response had been completed."

Besides, the above sounds better than "I loaded my pants and unloaded my gun at the same time and for the same reason, your honor."

[ElGato]

With the above post's And
'' A human when fatally hit will continue to function 50% of the time for one full minute'' My notes from a class with Rodrigues, Tx.DPS Academy

This knowledge can also be used in your defense to over kill and not stoping to observe the results of your first shot's.

[wrt45]

With the above post's And
'' A human when fatally hit will continue to function 50% of the time for one full minute'' My notes from a class with Rodrigues, Tx.DPS Academy

This knowledge can also be used in your defense to over kill and not stoping to observe the results of your first shot's.

He made an exceptional presentation on this at last year's TxCHIA meeting in Corpus Christi. He pointed out the relationship of shooter reaction times and how the remaining functionality (even if only a secod or two) of the BG explains many shootings that are appropriate, but on first, uninformed look seem to be excessive or wrong. It was an excellent presentation, but unfortunately, I don't think its available from TxCHA.

[Roger Howard]

If I have to pull the trigger, I will not stop untill there is a dead body on the ground. Remember this is a life or death situation. I am unwilling to risk the BG continuing to fight.

[txinvestigator]

If I have to pull the trigger, I will not stop untill there is a dead body on the ground. Remember this is a life or death situation. I am unwilling to risk the BG continuing to fight.

So if you justifiably shoot a person, and said person drops the weapon and falls to the ground, alive, you would continue to shoot said person?

[Roger Howard]

If I have to pull the trigger, I will not stop untill there is a dead body on the ground. Remember this is a life or death situation. I am unwilling to risk the BG continuing to fight.

So if you justifiably shoot a person, and said person drops the weapon and falls to the ground, alive, you would continue to shoot said person?

No TX you took it a little out of context. Or more likely, I just was not clear. I would keep shooting until weapon hits ground or both hit ground. If said BG dropped his weapon and ran I wouldn't shoot either. Of course, we hope we are never in that situation. My hope is, that I will never have a reason to clear leather.

[Jes]

I am the guy who wrote the letter to G&A.

Switch,

I am sure your intentions were good as I see you are a CHL instructor, but looking up my phone number and calling my home after seeing my name in G&A was inappropriate. It really scared my wife. You’ve cost me $5.50/month to have my info unlisted. I had not received my issue of G&A and didn’t even know the letter was printed when you called. I see you are passionate about this stuff, but let’s keep our communication to the web here. No more phone calls or mail.

G&A edited what I wrote them, here’s the whole thing:
�I completely agree with Rick Hacker and Bart Skelton that a single action revolver is more than viable as a personal and home defense firearm for the armed citizen. I learned at my last Texas CCL renewal class that the interpretation of laws in Texas had changed in the prior 4 years so that a citizen firing in self defense must fire once at his or her attacker then wait to determine the effectiveness of the bullet strike and only fire again if the attacker is not incapacitated. The traditional “double tap� would now invite prosecution. Citizens firing in self defense are also prosecuted in Texas if they accidentally shoot an innocent party while defending themselves. It would seem the single action revolver should be the legally preferred weapon here in Texas where one deliberate and precise shot at a time is mandated for self defense. I’m also not sure that the slow reload time of a single action revolver is a real issue for an armed citizen. I did a quick search of the NRA’s Armed Citizen Column records and found no reference to a citizen emptying his or her weapon in self defense, reloading, and then firing again. Someone should start marketing lightweight Sheriff’s model single actions with excellent sights to Texans immediately!�

The class was taught at DFW Gun Club & Training Ctr. This topic was the current interpretation of the law and not the law itself. I asked questions about the topic of follow-up shots during the class and it was a major point of the class. The instructor also told us that if a victim used pepper spray, etc to ward off an attacker then left the scene of the attack and the attacker died or was injured from the spray, the original victim who used the spray to protect her/himself would be prosecuted for murder/assault. He taught that ladies who maced a rapist attempting to rape them had to stay with the rapist and call the police until it was determined the guy was OK from being sprayed.

I hope that instructor was wrong on all counts, but I fear he was not. All shootings in Texas have to go before a Grand Jury. We’re gun people. We understand the limitations of handguns in particular. To us it is reasonable that a person shoot an attacker more than once to protect him/herself. I have no confidence that a Grand Jury will include ANY members who have knowledge of this topic. I think it likely that a Grand Jury would not find 2 holes in an attacker to be either reasonable or immediately necessary.

That being said, what idiot would not take a second shot if he remotely thought it necessary to stop an attack? I like what I’ve read on this forum that could be used as legitimate defenses in court, but I haven’t seen anything that proves to me that shooting an attacker twice is not going to be more likely to get me prosecuted by the state. Pulling the trigger again definitely makes it more likely that a bullet will hit an innocent 3rd party.

[lrb111]

I learned at my last Texas CCL renewal class that the interpretation of laws in Texas had changed in the prior 4 years so that a citizen firing in self defense must fire once at his or her attacker then wait to determine the effectiveness of the bullet strike and only fire again if the attacker is not incapacitated. The traditional “double tap� would now invite prosecution.

Just for a simple FYI the DPS is teaching the CHL instructor's this order to stop deadly force.
Double tap COM, (heart, lungs, large arteries)
One to the head, (brain bucket)
Empty the mag in the groin. (hip sockets amd femoral arteries)

Each is a progressive level if the BG isn't stopped, controlled, neutralized...
That was in August.

Training for a "stop, look and listen" assesment after each level of shooting, is not what was recommended. Instead, one must realize that these situations are moving and fluid. Assesment is done on the fly, and while events are in motion.

[KBCraig]

I am the guy who wrote the letter to G&A.

Welcome to the forum, Jes. I hope you'll stick around and participate. As you have no doubt already seen, there is a lot of valuable information here, including the fact that CHL instructors are sometimes downright wrong.

You and Switch can (privately) work out the issue of being contacted by phone, but I'll throw this out there for everyone else: Welcome to 1996. Oh, wait, wasn't that a decade ago? Yes, it was. And it's been at least a decade since you could put your name out in public and not be found by anyone with a scintilla of internet savvy.

When I first got online in 1995, I decided to conduct myself as if everyone knew who and where I was. Dropping delusions of privacy is a hard step, but it's in your best interest to face the reality that there are people out there who can find you no matter what steps you take.

Back to the topic: Anyone doubting the efficacy of the SAA should volunteer to be shot with one. At the same time, anyone advocating "one shot, evaluate" should volunteer for some Tueller drills.

Jes, you really need to challenge that instructor. With the additional details you supplied about his position (namely, that a potential rape victime who uses OC must stick around or face prosecution), it's clear that someone out there is substituting his own made-up opinions for DPS-taught standards.

Again, welcome to the Texas CHL forum!

Kevin

[switch]

I hope the CHL instructor did not teach that a citizen has to wait to see if an attacker was incapacitated before firing a second round. The standard is fire and keep firing until the aggressor stops! Granted, that might take one round or 17. There may have been an anti-gun prosecutor/judge/jury that has ruled double-taps are excessive but I have not heard about it and it is NOT what the DPS teaches instructors. One or two cases do NOT change the interpretation of laws.



As to SAA cowboy guns being slower, I can draw, fire and empty my Vacquero a lot faster than my Glock. Probably because I am a SASS/cowboy shooter and I practice with my cowboy gun more.



As to the 1911 being better than a SA Colt, that’s probably true for an ‘average’ shooter. However, I’d rather see someone carry a gun he likes and shoots well than have a 1911 at home in his sock drawer.



Anyone can practice and get decent times and accuracy with a SAA and a 1911. The old cowboy gun is probably a little more politically correct than a modern ‘automatic’ pistol.



Jack Griffith

817-946-5657



1101 FM 2258

Venus, TX 76084

[switch]

Jes, I am sorry that I worried/upset your wife. That was never my intention. Please apologize to her for me.

I have probably looked up someones name after reading a letter to the editor and called/written them about 10 times. This is the first time anyone has had a negative reaction. (You should see some of the letters I have received when I wrote a letter to the editor - they'd make you get an unlisted number - an move out of state.

[switch]

The instructor also told us that if a victim used pepper spray, etc to ward off an attacker then left the scene of the attack and the attacker died or was injured from the spray, the original victim who used the spray to protect her/himself would be prosecuted for murder/assault. He taught that ladies who maced a rapist attempting to rape them had to stay with the rapist and call the police until it was determined the guy was OK from being sprayed.

I hope that instructor was wrong on all counts, but I fear he was not. All shootings in Texas have to go before a Grand Jury. We’re gun people. We understand the limitations of handguns in particular. To us it is reasonable that a person shoot an attacker more than once to protect him/herself. I have no confidence that a Grand Jury will include ANY members who have knowledge of this topic. I think it likely that a Grand Jury would not find 2 holes in an attacker to be either reasonable or immediately necessary.

That being said, what idiot would not take a second shot if he remotely thought it necessary to stop an attack? I like what I’ve read on this forum that could be used as legitimate defenses in court, but I haven’t seen anything that proves to me that shooting an attacker twice is not going to be more likely to get me prosecuted by the state. Pulling the trigger again definitely makes it more likely that a bullet will hit an innocent 3rd party.

This is NOT what is being taught in Austin by DPS.

First all shootings do NOT 'have to go before a GJ', however they probably will. I doubt if the number of holes will make much difference to the GJ (unless all 17 were in the back ) What will make a difference to the GJ is the DA's representative. If he presents it as a bad shooting and asks for an indictment, he will likely get it. If he presents it as an accident/self-defense and asks for a no-bill, he will likely get that too. If your attorney presents your side and asks for a no-bill, he is likely to get that. (NOTE: the DA is NOT required to allow your attorney to speak to the GJ but Tarrant county will, as a matter of policy.)

I have sat on two GJ and only recall one shooting, an off-duty LEO that accidently shot a drunk laying in the middle of the road. We no-billed him.

It is probably a good idea to call 911 and report ANYTIME you even pull your gun, use pepper spray or a stun gun. Generally, the first person to call the police is the 'victim' until proven otherwise.

PS and SG are non-lethal, intermediate weapons. As such will NOT cause death or serious bodily injury. Per DPS. I would not wait around to see if the aggressor recovered from PS or SG.

I think we worry TOO much about possible negative outcomes - I could be charge criminally, I could be sued civilly, my legal fees will cost $10,000. How many justified, self-defense shootings actually become civil cases in TX? I know, the ones we hear about scare us to death. How many do we not hear about? Anyone have these stats?

I think it is a mistake to concentrate on the statistical outliers. Most CHL's will never have to pull their gun, most of those will NOT have to shoot, most of the shooters will miss per DPS, most hits will be non-lethal, most deaths will be self-defense, and most will not be followed by a civil suit. IMHO, I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV. (However, it looks like my wife and I may be on Cristina's court in then near future. )

A real neat feature of this site is the option to "Notify me when a reply is posted" (see last choice below). Now I do not have to keep checking for responses. Thanks Charles.

[txinvestigator]

I am the guy who wrote the letter to G&A.

Switch,


The class was taught at DFW Gun Club & Training Ctr. This topic was the current interpretation of the law and not the law itself. I asked questions about the topic of follow-up shots during the class and it was a major point of the class. The instructor also told us that if a victim used pepper spray, etc to ward off an attacker then left the scene of the attack and the attacker died or was injured from the spray, the original victim who used the spray to protect her/himself would be prosecuted for murder/assault. He taught that ladies who maced a rapist attempting to rape them had to stay with the rapist and call the police until it was determined the guy was OK from being sprayed.

When did you take the class and who was your instructor? I happen to have been the training director at DFW Gun Range thru last week. I would enjoy having a conversation with your instructor.

[carlson1]

First all shootings do NOT 'have to go before a GJ', however they probably will. I doubt if the number of holes will make much difference to the GJ (unless all 17 were in the back ) What will make a difference to the GJ is the DA's representative. If he presents it as a bad shooting and asks for an indictment, he will likely get it. If he presents it as an accident/self-defense and asks for a no-bill, he will likely get that too. If your attorney presents your side and asks for a no-bill, he is likely to get that.

You are right. I have known several shootings that did not go before the GJ. The officer who shot the Tyler Courthouse Shooter DID NOT go before the GJ. The DA almost ALWAYS gets what he ask for, but that does not mean the Trial Jury sees it his way