TexasCHLforum.com

After hearing just a little bit ago about the gunman that shot a few people at a church (not sure where, I'm sure a link will be put on this thread soon)

I had this thought,

What is the requirement (if any) before you would engage (i.e. shoot) a hostile person who may have already discharged his weapon?

would you have to announce "I have a gun, drop your weapon"
would you just fire at him in order to stop the hostility?


My thinking is that if the aforementioned BG is firing his weapon, there shouldn't be any reason why you would have to announce your intent

which, in my view, would make YOU a target and possibly make a bad situation even worse

any thoughts?

Good questions. IANAL, but there is no requirement to announce anything. IMO you do what you can do legally do to stop the threat of the BG. Your safety and the safety of innocents come before those of the BG. After all, he's the one who started the hostility.

I'm not absolutely certain what the law would say, but I can tell you what my own moral inclinations would be...

In a situation like the one you postulate, if the other guy is already shooting, then you are already in the gunfight whether or not you want to be. In fact, I don't think you have any moral obligation to confront him before drawing your weapon and shooting him. I would go further and add that, if shooting him down from behind without any warning to him is what it takes to stop his assault, and you can do it without endangering any other people, then do it without reservation or hesitation. I am not a lawyer, but I think that your moral obligations derive from whether or not your actions, or lack of action, will further endanger other people or yourself. If shooting at him places others (besides the BG) at risk, then you must hold your fire. If not shooting at him allows others (besides the BG) to be injured or killed, then you must shoot.

If he's shooting people I'm not going to waste time talking.

Me too. After shooting starts the only rule is get you & yours out alive.

There was a case in a mall in Washington state where a guy walked up behind a shooter and announced himself. He was shot and severly injured for his mistake. He had the drop on the shooter and just should have shot him.

If I am by myself, then I might manuver to engage the shooter if all I have is a pistol. I keep a scoped rifle in my truck and that is my go to weapon if I can get to it.

If I am with my family, then my duty is to get them as far away as possible.

It is not enough to avoid evil, evil must be confronted and defeated when possible.

I was wondering the same thing about the attempted carjacking last night at a mall in Dallas.

Specifically, I was wondering about when the woman had been armed, when would she know she needed to react? It sounds like she was trying to evade him when he shot her.

If they are shooting or even about to shoot someone in my opinion they are bought and paid for.

I have received some training (from an otherwise well-regarded training organization) that advocates yelling at the assailant while shooting at him. However, I refused to incorporate that doctrine into my own. High-volume verbiage is unlikely to be understood amid the noise of gunfire and distracts from accurate shooting. Verbally challenging an assailant before shooting puts you in a reactive mode where you wait to see whether the assailant continues to attack or complies. This strengthens the assailant's position and weakens yours, both of which are undesirable. Furthermore, I believe the other circumstances surrounding the use of deadly force are more important than whether/how you verbally warned him before (or while ) you fired your weapon, or other artificial attempts to prepare witnesses.

As I see things, if a fight is on, it is time to win it, not to debate it.

There's no such thing as a fair fight. If the shooting is justified, it is justified regardless of what warning you may or may not have given beforehand.

When the time comes for action, act and act swiftly and decicively. Don't talk about it, do it.

go directly to work.
Stop,
Control,
Neutralize.....

Smile, Wait for the Flash.

bdickens wrote:There's no such thing as a fair fight. If the shooting is justified, it is justified regardless of what warning you may or may not have given beforehand.

When the time comes for action, act and act swiftly and decicively. Don't talk about it, do it.

There are some times when you are justified drawing, and other more extreme situations where you are justified in firing. If you need to shoot, you do so without hesitation or you could end up dead. Usually if you do not need to shoot you should not draw.

#1 Rule of Engagement"..............

WIN THE ENGAGEMENT!

After reading the posts on this subject I think there is a need here for refresher training on the laws. I read them and reread them to keep them fresh in my mind because in an emergency I cannot afford to hesitate. To answer the question on this thread "What is the requirement (if any) before you would engage (i.e. shoot) a hostile person who may have already discharged his weapon?" Let's go straight to the written laws concerning a gunman that is shooting at people. Use of deadly force in defense of person (yourself) or in defense of another (the people that the gunman is shooting at). In this case a gunman is using what is called unlawful deadly force. The Texas law allows you to use deadly force against the gunman if you reasonbly believe you have to do so to protect yourself or others from the use or even attempted use of deadly force (shooting or attempting to shoot) directed at you or other people. Nothing in the law says you have to announce yourself. Like a camera, just point and shoot. Mind you, you need to make sure you're not shooting an off duty cop or another CHL legally defnding himself.
Please visit this link to read the laws and avoid hesitating should the need to protect yourself arise. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf