Brother needs advice about near altercation...

[seamusTX]

As soon as you push me thats intent to carry out that threat. Therefore I am justified in stopping the threat

'Nuff said.

Ask Pete Kanakidis how that worked out for him.

- Jim

[karder]

It seems like we are debating "when" it is okay to draw our guns, and there is no clear answer. It is a judgment call as every situation will be entirely unique. If you believe that you are in real danger and that you have exhausted all options, you have to draw and defend yourself. That is why we got our CHLs. We have to remember though, we don't carry our guns to save face in an argument. If the gentleman described in this post had drawn or displayed his weapon, IMO, that is what he would have been doing--trying to save face in front of a bully who was attempting to intimidate him. He was obviously too smart to play into that game.
If any of us are ever in the terrible situation where we have to pull the trigger on someone, we know that there are very real and serious consequences. If our lives, or the lives of our loved ones are on the line, I think everyone here would agree that the consequences of not acting are greater than the consequences of shooting an attacker. I will protect myself and my loved ones, and if I lose my material property, or possibly my freedom, so be it, but I would not risk those things because some drunk made me angry. These are good conversations to have because it helps us think about the issue. We each have to trust our gut and act accordingly, but let your actions be guided by wisdom, not your temper or pride. Just my thoughts.

[Y2bad4u]

Let me share my experience and thoughts. I have worked in the state prison system for 9 years. I have read alot of inmates cards, which state their criminal history and current charge, and there are MANY that have careers in crime. I have read of some awful things that they do and I have read of alot of lives that were taken over nothing. Over a look, 5 bucks, just because they had it and I wanted it. If you guys want to wait till you get that first punch or whatever so be it. I know for a fact how much these bullies care about others. NONE, nilch, nada, very little. I have seen these guys in person stab and beat to almost death over nothing. And there are many more on the streets that are similar. Add in alcohol, and its 10 times worse. He may be unarmed, but when that jerk is threatening you or pushing you he assumes you are too. You can get knocked out in one hit, put in a comma or even killed over a "beat down" and I for one won't chance it. So if I feel that this BG is going hurt me or my loved one, then I will do what's necessary. There's a video of a female cop who pulled a guy over and he sucker punched her and beat her bad, into a coma.

SO in the OP original situation, your brother did well being able to deescalate the situation, but if the BG persists and pushes me, and I CAN'T back off or away, after making a scene and showing how this BG is after me, then I would "brandish" if I had to to get him to stop. In public you got to make sure your are the biggest chicken there. You have to be the victim. Or you will be screwed. Its called fear for your life, and you better make sure you can state that you were scared. If you are scared for YOUR LIFE, then you can justify using force, including deadly.

The public would be in shock if you new what some of these people are capable of. The brutality that some have done. I was shocked, and disgusted. Stuff you would expect in a movie. FYI people.

[dewayneward]

@ Y2bad4u

And that is why I think of most people. I think that most people are out to mess me and mine over for no good reason.

When I see people talk about he shouldnt have done this or done that, I just think that they are trying to think that this person is a reasonable person or something. It is someone who would kill you rather than look at you. There are a lot of whacko's out there and I dont want me or my family to fall victim to them.

Based on SeamusTX's analysis of the current laws, I think we need to get a fund together to get those laws changed.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I want to note that I am not nor do I go out looking to shoot someone. I think some of my posts here may have given off that impression. I want to clarify that I hope to NEVER have to use my weapon. I am simply trying to figure out when I would be justified in "brandishing" or using force/deadly force. This way I can be as prepared as possible. I think that we can all agree that when stuff hits the fan we will not think as clearly as we would like and that any and all information we have prior to an incident will be helpful.

I am not an alpha male. I do not like a lot of things people do and I cannot stand how many people act and treat others these days. However, I do not go out looking for trouble. I do not think my guns make me a big bad man. I think that they give my family and I an advantage in this world in the case that something goes wrong. With that being said. As I stated before and is stated above. I will not hesitate to defend my family or myself if I feel a real threat is present. There are many "people" and I use that term loosely, that want nothing more than to do severe harm to others and will not think twice about it.

[seamusTX]

There already is a fund: http://tsrapac.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles Cotton is well aware of this issue, and I trust his ability to do something about it.

Y2bad4u, I know there are people who would kill me for the contents of my wallet (which are actually pretty pathetic most of the time) and barbeque me for lunch if they thought they could get away with it.

The problem is that the "system" can be unkind to people who use deadly force in self defense.

- Jim

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

As soon as you push me thats intent to carry out that threat. Therefore I am justified in stopping the threat

'Nuff said.

Ask Pete Kanakidis how that worked out for him.

- Jim

Not to offend you but it seems to me that Mr. Kanakidis' case does not fit this scenario. IIRC Mr. Kanakidis shot Mr. Arroyo for no reason. It appears that Mr. Arroyo was not involved in the argument and never threatened Mr. Kanakidis other than being there with his friends...

In Houston, TX, Pete Kanakidis shot and killed Alejandro Cruz Arroyo in May 1996, after a dispute
over the ownership of some tools with two other men. The investigation indicated that Kanakidis
approached Arroyo, who was sitting in his vehicle, and fired point blank into Arroyo's face.[48]
Although Kanakidis indicated that he felt his life in danger, police later determined that Arroyo was
not involved in the argument and was sitting alone in the driver's seat of a truck.

[bdickens]

bdickens ,

I agree with you, but we don't live in the old west where justice could be served piping hot.

That said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said western society is a litigious society - and he's right.

The drunk was obnoxious, but hadn't started anything personal.

As a righteously annoyed person, carrying a gun, you have to be the bigger man when the world annoys/aggravates/displeases you or potentially face being sued if things go bang, when you could've walked away to begin with.

Is that an attractive option to one's ego?

No.

It's the smart one.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being afraid to say something to someone who is off-base.

[Y2bad4u]

I just wanted to point out that we have to be careful and realize the beasts that some of these people can be. My time in the prison gave me a very bad and negative outlook towards people, and I always have my guard up and judge. My fiance gets mad at me because of it, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. I get a bad vibe about someone I stay away. I have learned how to deal with criminals and can deescalate a situation most times, but also can go full blown when needed. The prison was a great experience for me. It taught me restraint, how to read behavior, and many other valuable tools. Just be aware that there are monsters out there and don't hesitate to protect yourself, and unfortunately the law doesn't see it that way as much as it should. It is not getting better either and I mean the criminals.

[seamusTX]

In Houston, TX, Pete Kanakidis shot and killed Alejandro Cruz Arroyo in May 1996, after a dispute over the ownership of some tools with two other men. The investigation indicated that Kanakidis approached Arroyo, who was sitting in his vehicle, and fired point blank into Arroyo's face.[48] Although Kanakidis indicated that he felt his life in danger, police later determined that Arroyo was not involved in the argument and was sitting alone in the driver's seat of a truck.

What you quoted is from a posting on the snopes.com bulletin board that is very anti-RKBA:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ulti ... 000271;p=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A jury found Mr. Kanakidis not guilty, based largely on the fact that Mr. Cruz Arroyo reached for a weapon in his truck.

You really need to read The Concealed Handgun Manual by Chris Bird. The shooting occurred at the end of a protracted assault (not "dispute") inside Mr. Kanakidis's business, in which he was beaten, held down, choked, and had his nose broken.

I can't find an online account of the incident.

- Jim

[C-dub]

46.035 is clear, but it doesn't really account for the need to display to prevent the use of force like 9.04 does. To me it seems like 9.04 is clear in that it also says that the production of a weapon does not constitute the use of deadly force. In that other thread didn't Charles or Steve mention that the lawyer failed to bring 9.04 up and so the judge never considered it.

[A-R]

Fascinating discussion. I think the OP's brother did very well. De-escalate, evade, retreat (unless you're in your home, car, business).

Greatly appreciate Seamus' well-researched viewpoint. Also appreciate the other views as this is a VERY FINE LINE we're dealing with here. Some of the confusion, I feel after reading it all, comes from whether we're talking solely about the OP's incident, or some additional "what if" scenarios spanning from that incident.

I think we all agree that if anyone had revealed a firearm in OP's situation, they would be guilty of violating 46.035, as there was no basis for use of force, much less deadly force simply from an aggressive drunk berating you verbally.

The real question seems to be, if this goes one or two steps further, at one point can you a) "brandish" and b) shoot.

Seamus' point about the disparity between 9.04 and 46.035 is VERY IMPORTANT for us all to know. The court in this case basically put CHLs on a higher level and said we had to wait until we were justified in using DEADLY FORCE before we could legally "unconceal" under 46.035. A non-CHL would not have to live up to this standard, but remember, a non-CHL also is not walking around in public with a gun - they are supposed to only have it in their car, home, etc. So the "Castle Doctrine" and other things come into effect and change the scenario greatly. I agree with Seamus, Charles Cotton, and others that the law should be changed to reflect 9.04 and not 46.035, but until it does, this is the law as upheld by the courts (and a quick thank you to Charles, Seamus etc. for making us aware of this very important distinction).

That being said, I still say there is the VERY FINE LINE between you being justified to use force/deadly force or not in the many versions of the "aggressive jerk" scenario. Let's role play some quick scenarios with a simple "yes" or "no" on whether you can reveal your concealed weapon (still not talking about actually pulling the trigger here, just "brandishing" so to speak).

"I'm gonna kick your butt" no weapons displayed by "attacker" .... NO

"I'm gonna kick your butt" plus a mean stare and a deliberate advance toward you but no weapons ... NO (you should be retreating)

Verbal, mean stare, deliberate advance toward you, no weapons, BUT .. a clinched fist being "readied" ... NO (RETREAT!)

Verbal, mean stare, deliberate advance toward you, no weapons, BUT .. a clinched fist being "readied", and you're back is against a wall with no means of escape ... YES! In fact, in this case, I'd venture to say depending on circumstances you may even be justified in pulling the trigger, but it is going to be an excruciatingly difficult case to prove, going to cost tens even hundreds of thousands of dollars, risk your freedom, etc. If you're a 95-year-old grandma and attacker is a professional boxer, perhaps you have a better case. But for most of us, even if this is a "bigger guy" even if there is more than one attacker, you still have a lot to explain if the attacker(s) had no weapons other than their fist(s). Not saying it's "right", but it apparently is the law right now.

Best course of action is to do everything you can to avoid putting yourself in this situation with your back against the wall and the punch is coming. Apologize, offer to buy his beer, act like every wimp you've ever known, swallow your pride, retreat, and then thank your God that you didn't have to use deadly force.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Call me prideful, call me young and stupid, call me whatever you want. I was taught to stand up for and respect myself. I teach my children the same thing. "apologize and offer to buy his beer" I dont think so. I agree that there are means to de-esculate the situation but I am sorry I cannot agree to that one.

There are a lot of things wrong with this world and the people in it and I believe a lot of it has to do with letting people get away with crap like this and having the good guy back down and apologize. I am not saying to instigate but at least stand up for yourself. It can be done in a respectful manner.

[seamusTX]

Seamus' point about the disparity between 9.04 and 46.035 is VERY IMPORTANT for us all to know. The court in this case basically put CHLs on a higher level and said we had to wait until we were justified in using DEADLY FORCE before we could legally "unconceal" under 46.035. A non-CHL would not have to live up to this standard, but remember, a non-CHL also is not walking around in public with a gun - they are supposed to only have it in their car, home, etc.

Thanks.

Also keep in mind that that MPA evaporates when the person displays a handgun. He is then committing UCW (class A misdemeanor) unless justified by necessity.

The potential weapon violation is separate from the justification for the use of deadly force. This is not so much an issue in Texas, but it frequently is in other states.

Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

- Jim

[A-R]

Call me prideful, call me young and stupid, call me whatever you want. I was taught to stand up for and respect myself. I teach my children the same thing. "apologize and offer to buy his beer" I dont think so. I agree that there are means to de-esculate the situation but I am sorry I cannot agree to that one.

There are a lot of things wrong with this world and the people in it and I believe a lot of it has to do with letting people get away with crap like this and having the good guy back down and apologize. I am not saying to instigate but at least stand up for yourself. It can be done in a respectful manner.

I agree with your sentiment, except when I'm carrying a gun. If you have siblings, especially younger siblings, think of it in those terms. If you ever got in a fight with your younger brother/sister, you mom/dad likely chastised or punished you saying "you're older, you should know better". Well, when you have a CHL you are now the "older brother" and you "should know better". I agree it sucks that there are bullies in the world. But sticks and stones may break my bones ... etc. I'm not a very religious man, but I do know (as most here probably know) that PRIDE is one of those Seven Deadly Sins.

You don't have to buy the bully a beer. Each of us defuses tension in different ways. Previous poster had a great story about offering to let some pushy punks cut in line to avoid confrontation.

Again I agree with you, and wish there was something we could do about the deteriorating civility of our society. But when I signed up for a concealed handgun license, I in effect agreed to "be the better man" at all times. This is the price I pay for the "privilege" of carrying a concealed weapon. And let's not kid ourselves folks, no matter how much we may disagree with it or want realtiy to be more like the basics of the Constitution we all learned in school, carrying a gun in this state is a "privilege" and not a "right". I don't like it any more than the rest of you, but it is what is until we can muster up the majority to change it from a privilege to a right. Charles et al are constantly working to do that as best they can, far as I can tell.

If you want "pride", then go home with the "pride" that you and yours are safe and sound, no one was injured or killed, and YOU are the better man for doing what was necessary to avoid violence.

By the way, I "talk" a good game of de-escalation and non-violence but I have a quick temper and can get my dander up in a hurry myself, so I certainly know where you're coming from. I'd much rather stand up for myself. But when my choices are "fight or flight" and I'm carrying a gun, I'll choose flight unless absolutely forced with no other alternative to use fight.