TexasCHLforum.com

Ok, we heard your side of the story!

The other night I went out to midtown (which I don’t but let’s assume). As I was walking back to my car with my friend and noticed that I had lost my car key. We started walking back looking for the key everywhere and try to find it. We spent some time trying to locate it next to the corner of a building and noticed there’s this guy coming with his girlfriend. We decided to ask his help if he happened to see my car key on his way and started walking towards them. All of the sudden this dude started pushing his girlfriend to his other side pulled out his gun and points his laser at us.

And what could have happened:

1. If I’m armed:
a. I have a clear escape path I’d take it.
b. I have no escape path, I pull out my weapon and protect myself.

2. If I’m not armed:
a. I have a clear escape path I’d take it.
b. I have no escape path, I throw my arms in the air and give him my money.

In all cases I call 911 to report that there is a “man with a gun” and pointed at me. Police will look for you and if they find you I am pretty sure they will charge you with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or making terroristic threat or something like this.

In this case the 2 guys did nothing unlawful, they were in a public place, they did not say a word to you, they did not threaten you or made any verbal comment or demand. However you pulled out your weapon and pointed at them.

BTW: The word "finally" indicates that you were waiting for this to happen ???

Too clarify a bit more of the situation the two would be attackers were not on on the same sidewalk as we were they cut across th street as they were coming towards us which to me seems that their intent was towards me so yea

zbordas wrote:Ok, we heard your side of the story!

The other night I went out to midtown (which I don’t but let’s assume). As I was walking back to my car with my friend and noticed that I had lost my car key. <SNIP>

Well, we can play this mental exercise with any encounter. But of what use is it? In logic it is a "Red Herring".

Consider you are isolated, with a loved one and two guys hanging around a shadowed area decide at that moment to start toward you and if looking for help, are also refusing to answer the challenge. We have the account of the one person who was actually there, his analysis and tactically sound solution as employed. But I guess we should wait and eliminate any possible ulterior motives before we react. A major cause of people becoming victims of violent crime is the denial of instinct, "This can't be happening," syndrome. Perhaps if the OP or his GF were injured or killed we would then know his reaction was appropriate albeit too late.

Saying these guys were doing "nothing wrong" and had the same right to be there as the OP is an extremely arrogant assumption and one that can get one killed.

zbordas wrote:BTW: The word "finally" indicates that you were waiting for this to happen ???

So we can discern the OP aspired to employ his weapon from the thread title, that he was waiting with baited breath to show how much of a gunslinger he was? Perhaps the protracted title, "After X years of carrying with no incident i was compelled to draw my weapon to counter a perceived threat" would have been more to your liking.

zbordas wrote:We decided to ask his help if he happened to see my car key on his way and started walking towards them.

If that's true, why did you ignore him when he asked what you wanted? Your story doesn't add up.

Let me put a little less arrogant. The only one in this group of four people that broke the law was "Jtran987"

Cosmo 9 wrote:Let me put a little less arrogant. The only one in this group of four people that broke the law was "Jtran987"

When do you think he'll get arrested for "breaking the law"? It was reported to the cops.

Cosmo 9 wrote:Let me put a little less arrogant. The only one in this group of four people that broke the law was "Jtran987"

Did you read the PC citations I pasted?

Cosmo 9 wrote:Let me put a little less arrogant. The only one in this group of four people that broke the law was "Jtran987"

I'm sure he'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6.

Cosmo 9 wrote:Let me put a little less arrogant. The only one in this group of four people that broke the law was "Jtran987"

Agreed the law was broken - I haven't seen any post a justification from the PC that I think would fly. That said I don't think 12 would convict him.

juggernaut wrote:

Cosmo 9 wrote:Let me put a little less arrogant. The only one in this group of four people that broke the law was "Jtran987"

When do you think he'll get arrested for "breaking the law"? It was reported to the cops.

All law violators reported are not arrested and charged. Just because the officer chose not to file it as a Agg Asslt does not mean that OP was fully legal per Texas Penal Code.

Dragonfighter wrote:

Cosmo 9 wrote:Let me put a little less arrogant. The only one in this group of four people that broke the law was "Jtran987"

Did you read the PC citations I pasted?

I didn't see any when I just skimmed the thread - what did you post? I think I'm missing something.

Thank you Gigag04 for saving me a lot of typing. This is why my post count is low but I'm here everyday.

Something for y'all to ponder. Pulling the trigger is never the end, the story goes on very very long time after.

My Bad...posted on the Walmart thread here: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 1&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Too little sleep and to much time on duty, things are starting to run together ...but you did

That said I don't believe the law was broken. If I were defending him (a disaster to be sure) I would cite:

§ 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.

AND

Sec. 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.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;* and

I would then describe the encounter as, "Returning to their vehicle in a remote parking location at night when the OP (who was with his GF) noticed two gentlemen apparently concealing themselves in a darkened area. These two men immediately proceeded in their direction with a determined demeanor. The OP being concerned first for the safety of his GF placed himself between her and the approaching men. The OP then challenged in a loud voice, 'What do you want?' letting the men know he saw them and wanted to know their intentions. They refused to respond and continue unabated toward the OP and his girlfriend. Being isolated and outnumbered with the approaching men coming straight on and closing rapidly the OP produced his weapon and activated the installed laser sight with the intent of letting the approaching men know he was armed and had a solution on their person. At this point the two men showed their hands and speaking to one another turned and retreated. The OP immediately disengaged and called for police."

He did not approach them, he did not initiate contact. The other guys decided at that moment to come out from the cover of shadow and approach directly toward the OP and his GF. They didn't respond to his verbal challenge, wave or respond except to keep coming at him. He had limited alternatives and a rapidly diminishing window of opportunity to employ those alternatives. He also immediately disengaged, called LEO and remained at the scene until their arrival. I am sorry, I simply cannot see how he violated the la w. I can see that if he had hollered, "Stop! Don't make me shoot you." or something equally unambiguous it would have gone better should the unthinkable had happened.

Now as I read PC Chapter 22 a simple assault can occur with the "intentional" or knowing threat of imminent bodily harm but for an Aggravated Assault to occur:

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Section 22.01 and the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

He didn't "intentionally or knowingly" seek to harm these guys and he didn't "intentionally or knowingly" set out to threaten them. It was their encroachment and other exigent circumstances that provoked the OP. Given the "reasonableness" standard and justification under PC 9.04 how you can assert he committed aggravated assault, your inclination to detain him aside? Had he been detained then ultimately the judge, grand jury or trial jury would decide his guilt. I think the conclusion in this case was so obvious the LEOs on location did not see the need.

I understand that some have concluded these were poor photosensitive individuals who were just minding their business, avoiding overexposure to the halo of street lamps until the OP "provoked" their relocation. I wish they had decided to respond or otherwise acknowledge the OP rather than come directly at him and ignore his verbal challenges...that could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding.

Jtran987 did fine.

I in turn will bold some wording :)

Sec. 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.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;* and

Dragonfighter wrote:OP produced his weapon and activated the installed laser sight with the intent of letting the approaching men know he was armed and had a solution on their person

Dragonfighter wrote: Now as I read PC Chapter 22 a simple assault can occur with the "intentional" or knowing threat of imminent bodily harm but for an Aggravated Assault to occur:

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Section 22.01 and the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

He didn't "intentionally or knowingly" seek to harm these guys and he didn't "intentionally or knowingly" set out to threaten them.

Dragonfighter wrote:OP produced his weapon and activated the installed laser sight with the intent of letting the approaching men know he was armed and had a solution on their person

Sounds like a threat, intentionally :)

Dragonfighter wrote: It was their encroachment and other exigent circumstances that provoked the OP. Given the "reasonableness" standard and justification under PC 9.04 how you can assert he committed aggravated assault, your inclination to detain him aside. Had he been detained then ultimately the judge, grand jury or trial jury would decide his guilt. I think the conclusion in this case was so obvious the LEOs on location did not see the need.

Threatening deadly force is a use of force. Using force against another is Assault. Displaying a firearm aggravates assault. I agree the cops made the right determination - however, I do think that OP lacks justification for his use of force, per the explicit text of the penal code.

On paper, the actions of the two subjects don't warrant the use of force exhibited by the OP. Now, I as well as anybody, can attest to that hair on the back of your neck feeling....it's just hard to admit that in court.

zbordas wrote:Ok, we heard your side of the story!

The other night I went out to midtown (which I don’t but let’s assume). As I was walking back to my car with my friend and noticed that I had lost my car key. We started walking back looking for the key everywhere and try to find it. We spent some time trying to locate it next to the corner of a building and noticed there’s this guy coming with his girlfriend. We decided to ask his help if he happened to see my car key on his way and started walking towards them. All of the sudden this dude started pushing his girlfriend to his other side pulled out his gun and points his laser at us.

And what could have happened:

1. If I’m armed:
a. I have a clear escape path I’d take it.
b. I have no escape path, I pull out my weapon and protect myself.

2. If I’m not armed:
a. I have a clear escape path I’d take it.
b. I have no escape path, I throw my arms in the air and give him my money.

In all cases I call 911 to report that there is a “man with a gun” and pointed at me. Police will look for you and if they find you I am pretty sure they will charge you with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or making terroristic threat or something like this.

In this case the 2 guys did nothing unlawful, they were in a public place, they did not say a word to you, they did not threaten you or made any verbal comment or demand. However you pulled out your weapon and pointed at them.

BTW: The word "finally" indicates that you were waiting for this to happen ???

Just a suggestion. If you think someone is making a path to you, change your direction. if they follow...OK it is on.... if not... no need in whipping out a gun.

One has to add, that failure to head vocal warnings at night is alarming. Double your attention and change direction and or keep distance. Maybe those shaddy guys were stoned big time.