TexasCHLforum.com

In my CHL class, awareness was taught and stressed quite heavily. The idea was to never put yourself in a position that you would have to use a weapon. Part of that training was to make sure you keep you distance because it has been proven that anyone inside of 21 feet or less can get to you before you draw your weapon. This has me thinking about something. Is there a point (distance) at which someone is too far away to use the claim of self defense? Let me give you an example. I am out doing some Christmas shopping. I'm at the mall and it's closing. Because of traffic, I had to park at the very edge of the parking lot. I'm walking to my car carrying several hundred dollars worth of gifts. Out from behind a car 60 yards away a BG that has a gun or knife starts walking towards me telling me to Stop. I feel my life is in danger.

If I draw my weapon, and have to shoot, how close does he have to be before you pull the trigger? I'm not trying to come off like I want to snipe someone across a parking lot. What I'm trying to understand is there a distance where a criminal doesn't pose a deadly threat?

What made me think of this is I was looking through my Utah CFP packet, which contains the notes from the class. Utah says that to use deadly force, an attacker must have intent, opportunity, and ABILITY to do harm to you. I'm just curious at what distance do you think an

1. ARMED (handgun) attacker has the ABILITY to do you deadly harm (for the sake of this argument, let's take out situations where an attacker has a rifle or shotgun on him).
2. ARMED with Hand Weapon (such as knife or bat or any implement that attacker has to reach you with to do harm)
2. UNARMED attacker has the ability to do you deadly harm.

Are there any cases that has established a "reasonable distance" at which someone is justified in shooting?

With a handgun, I'd say if you could tell it's a handgun, it's close enough to do harm, so you'd be justified. Whether that's 20 feet or 200 feet, they have the range to pull it off easily. Knives on the other hand...a guy 200 feet away with a knife isn't as much of a threat as a guy 20 feet away. You'd be justified in drawing and aiming, but at that point, I think you'd have a hard time explaining the trigger pulling to a sympathetic judge.

Now if the guy charged you from that distance, you have the gun out and aimed, so take your time and stop him. Force is pulling the gun and aiming, deadly force is pulling the trigger. Force and deadly force have two different lists of qualifiers for using them.

Twenty one feet is for someone with a contact weapon. There is no exact distance where you are allowed to defend yourself it all depends on you reasonably believing that the force is immediately necessary to protect yourself. Reasonableness is not a number, it is something you have to convince the DA or a jury of when the smoke clears.

I am not a lawyer.

The three distances in the Texas CHL shooting test give you a good idea of what is considered to be a "reasonable threat".

At 3 yards (9 feet) a person without a weapon can be considered a physical contact threat.

At 7 yards (21 feet) a person with a knife can charge and attack you before you can deploy a firearm.

At 15 yards (45 feet) a person with a handgun can be considered a reasonable threat.

Crossfire wrote:The three distances in the Texas CHL shooting test give you a good idea of what is considered to be a "reasonable threat".

At 3 yards (9 feet) a person without a weapon can be considered a physical contact threat.

At 7 yards (21 feet) a person with a knife can charge and attack you before you can deploy a firearm.

At 15 yards (45 feet) a person with a handgun can be considered a reasonable threat.

If you wait for the BG to come within these distances before you respond you will end up dead; they have no correlation to what is considered a reasonable threat. What wil matter is what you can convince a jury was a reasonable threat. IMHO the hardest case is goint to be the case of the unarmed BG; I think there would have to be a marked disparity of force.

Dave B.

First, I wanted to clarify the 21 foot rule. I believe it is properly known as the Tueller Drill, and the scenario was set up to show how quickly a person with a bladed weapon can close and attack. The principle would also apply to other contact weapons such as baseball bats, but they would not necessarily be presumed to be deadly weapons. It is usually easier to convince a jury that a knife is a deadly weapon than a baseball bat, even if a firearm is the only thing so presumed by law.

But the main point is that 21 feet is not a hard and fast rule. If you are older, with slightly slower reflexes, you might be able to argue 25 or 30 feet using the same logic. Since the drill was for a uniformed officer, drawing from cover could also increase the distance. Fixating on 21 feet has already been used against one officer when the distance was measured and found to be 25 feet. How well do you estimate distance under stress?

The second major point is an old infantry rule. If the enemy is in range, so are you. If you can hit him with your handgun, he is in range to place you in danger from his. That is the simple way to judge the distance for an enemy with a handgun - if you can hit him, he could hit you. If you feel comfortable taking the shot, I would be ton your being able to justify it in court.

You did hit on the main point already though. The suspect must have the ability to carry out the threat on you before you are truly in danger. Each case has too many variables to make a hard and fast rule.

Thanks for that explanation, Steve. Again, these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Each case is different.

Crossfire wrote:Thanks for that explanation, Steve. Again, these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Each case is different.

As as been thoroughly addressed, the law (in general) is loaded with gray areas. Otherwise, why would there be any need for lawyers, judges, courts, juries, and etc?
As far as the distance question goes, I believe my CHL instructor put it this way (paraphrased, of course):
If the reasonably-assessed cost/risk of doing nothing is significantly greater (e.g., resulting in my death or that of a loved one) than the potential cost/risk of taking action (e.g., lengthy legal battle, potential arrest, prison time), then take action.
So, basically, if I am completely confident that I can fully support my actions in a court of law, then I will use force or deadly force as absolutely necessary and only as a last resort.
Unfortunately, that's an awful lot of rational thinking going on in a stressful situation, so I sincerely hope I never have to weigh all of those factors together....but make no mistake that I will, if my life or that of a loved one is in the balance.

Crossfire wrote:Thanks for that explanation, Steve. Again, these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Each case is different.

Absolutely these are "guidelines"...And very good ones to apply to our self-defense "mindset"...

But if I recall correctly, that when the law basically says I am encouraged to "reasonably determine" that the use of force or deadly force is immediately needed to stop a threat or the active commission of a crime that is involving bodily injury or risk of death to myself (or a third party in some cases)...

Distances mean very little to me...But with that I am reminded of the old addage:

"Every bullet that leaves your gun has a lawyer on it."

Regarding the case of being threatened by a handgun, if you have any reasonable chance of using yours for defense, wouldn't an assailant be a threat?

About the 21 foot rule, that drill was based on the defender standing still, starting with his pistol in the holster. If he had a chance to pull and point it before the charge started, he would improve his chances. He could also help himself by moving laterally. So if you're able to draw and point at a threat who's standing still with a knife 18 feet away, should you pull the trigger? I think I'd wait (while shouting some suitable suggestions for his behaviour).

Scott

It's impossible to say because there are too many variables. Not only you and the bad guy but also the location. In places like Austin or Houston you might face a pro-criminal DA but in places like West Texas the police and DA probably will give you more latitude for shooting a knife waving criminal with a rap sheet longer than the distance between you.

A bigger question is do you really think a criminal will pull a knife when you're far away or will he wait until you're closer?

srothstein wrote:The second major point is an old infantry rule. If the enemy is in range, so are you.