TexasCHLforum.com

carlson1 wrote: The DA almost ALWAYS gets what he ask for (from the Grand Jury)

...And if he doesn't , he convenes a different grand jury. Remember Saustrup? What did that take, three GJs before Ronnie Earle could get a true-bill?

"Lastly, I'm resonably sure the LAW has not changed. That does not mean that someone didn't get a goofy jury and a poor lawyer that allowed some crap like that to happen in a specific case. But that said, I'm going to ensure.... "

The shooting drill has changed somewhat. They now let you return to a "Low Ready" that is actually still pointed at the target so that you can observe effect and continue shooting as necessary without loosing target acquisition during practice.
They have always advised to shoot until the threat is no longer present and then stop. In the first training session in 1999, the Comandant advised against routine doubletaps or " always shoot twice and observe effect." He eg:'ed that shooting twice is not a good piece of advise if the target is already on the ground an neutralized. Particularly bad if the shooter tells the jury that his instructor told him to always shoot twice.

"My instructor said" is about as potentially embarassing as " My Instructor Didn't say."
One of my students said he was pulled over on a traffic violation and handed the officer his DL with his chl clearlyvisible in the wallet. The PD started in on him about whether or not he intended to show his chl " Didn't your instructor tell you that you have to show your chl when asked for ID???"
The poor guy thought that he HAD displayed his chl and got flustered so, he blurterd out that his instructor (Me) Had Not told him that. This was a perfect example of a res gestae blurt going bad as I had told him and every body else several times that they had to show the chl and Dl both when id'ed by law enforcement.

mec wrote:The shooting drill has changed somewhat. They now let you return to a "Low Ready" that is actually still pointed at the target so that you can observe effect and continue shooting as necessary without loosing target acquisition during practice.

Please clarify who "they" are and to what drill you are referring.

What you post is NOT law.

Dps. two years ago, just before they actually switched to the new target, the training staff had us keep the gun on target after each shot (or shots), just slightly lowered instead of pointing it below the target as was the earlier practice.

mec wrote:Dps. two years ago, just before they actually switched to the new target, the training staff had us keep the gun on target after each shot (or shots), just slightly lowered instead of pointing it below the target as was the earlier practice.

I'll clarify. at the CHL insructor's class DPS ALLOWS you to keep your handgun on target after firing the required number of rounds at any given command. They do not "require" it.

I agree with the reasoning. If you train to "bang-bang, lower the gun" you will likely do that in an actual self-defense situation. You could lower the gun as a result of your training, yet the bad guy could still be shooting at you. You should fire HOWEVER many shots is needed to stop the threat, then be sure he is no longer a threat, then scan for other threats.

I also don't understand this

mec wrote: He eg:'ed that shooting twice is not a good piece of advise if the target is already on the ground an neutralized. Particularly bad if the shooter tells the jury that his instructor told him to always shoot twice.

Shooting ONCE is not a good piece of advice if the target is already on the ground or nuetralized.

If I am justified in using deadly force, there will be at least 2 shots from me in most cases. I am referring to a hammer or a controlled pair, not "bang" one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three, "Bang".

Sorry I entered your thread. My purpose was to not to produce confusion but to agree with you that there had not been any change in law regarding double taps, pairs or multiple shots.

Regarding the two-shot thing, somebody brought that up years ago at one of the Academy sessions. the Commandant stressed that instructors should be careful about giving blanket recommendations like " always fire two shots and observe effect." He said the individual circumstances of each encounter determine whether or not a particular action is justified.

I suspect there is not a lot of consistency from class to class. You'd think they could get it better.

I remember him saying we could stay on target, did not have to come to a low ready or put the guns on safe between strings.

mec wrote:Sorry I entered your thread. My purpose was to not to produce confusion but to agree with you that there had not been any change in law regarding double taps, pairs or multiple shots.

Regarding the two-shot thing, somebody brought that up years ago at one of the Academy sessions. the Commandant stressed that instructors should be careful about giving blanket recommendations like " always fire two shots and observe effect." He said the individual circumstances of each encounter determine whether or not a particular action is justified.

Don't be sorry. Its a discussion.

flintknapper wrote:

HighVelocity wrote:

A reader wrote that he agreed. In his last CHL renewal he learned the law had be interpreted that you have to wait after every shot to see if your opponent has been incapacitated, no more double taps.

To blink your eyes takes 4 milliseconds. If you practice, you can put follow up shots on target in less than 1/2 second each (or even faster).
That means you could blink 125 times between shots.
I feel that's more than enough time to recognize whether or not the attacker is incapacitated.

Anyway, if a TX CHL instructor really said that, we definitely need to clear it up.

Not to argue but... maybe Superman's eyes blink in 4 milliseconds. The average human blinks in 300-400 milliseconds which is 3-4 tenths of a second. So, even if you could blink in 200 milliseconds....you would only be able to manage 5 blinks per second.

WHEEEW I thought my blinker was broke,lol if you blink that fast you could create enough wind resistance to blow a bad guy backwards