TexasCHLforum.com

I was refreshing my memory the other night on when justified to use force/deadly force and while reading I didn't notice anything mentioning a case of assault. Did I miss something? I mean I can see that people don't want gun fights arising from physical fights, but we all know that assault can turn into murder quickly if you get beat bad enough. So can anyone clarify and advice on how to handle properly? Calling the police comes to mind but if you are getting pummeled that might be hard to do. Thanks guys

If you believe that the only way to prevent yourself from being killed or badly injured is to use your weapon, it is likely justified.

The very first use of Deadly Force by a CHL holder in Texas occurred in Dallas when a gentlemen was physically attacked during an incident of road rage. As he was being beaten through the open window of his vehicle he stated that he feared for his life and shot the suspect who later died. The CHL holder was referred to a Grand Jury and was no-billed.

The media and everyone else thought that he would get convicted because he was only the victim of a physical assault. He had a very good defense attorney who if I recall correctly asked the Dallas ME if she had ever performed an autopsy on anyone that had been beat to death. The ME replied that she had performed several due to people being severely beaten and then dying. That was the end of that case.

Venus Pax wrote:If you believe that the only way to prevent yourself from being killed or badly injured is to use your weapon, it is likely justified.

I would add to that "yourself or any other person". Say you are stroling along, minding your own business and turn a corner to find a BG beating a cop, elderly person, child, other CHL holder, etc over the head with a club, and refuses your verbal order to cease, then you would be justified in using whatever force is nessesary stop the threat.

While I see your point, if I were to come upon any of the above, I would draw and give a command to stop. Chances are, if someone is beating a cop with a club, he is the BG. If the person in question is not a BG, hopefully they will have the sense to stop the beating and comply.

I do worry about me and mine first, but I believe as Americans, we have a duty to act in certain situations such as the one I listed.

I believe there is a good-faith type clause in that situation as well.

asleepatthereel wrote:While I see your point, if I were to come upon any of the above, I would draw and give a command to stop. Chances are, if someone is beating a cop with a club, he is the BG. If the person in question is not a BG, hopefully they will have the sense to stop the beating and comply.

I do worry about me and mine first, but I believe as Americans, we have a duty to act in certain situations such as the one I listed.

I asked a CHL instructor some time ago what I should say if I was in a park and saw an obvious sexual assault going on. He said to shoot the offender and try not to hit the victim. By statute, Sexual Assault is on the list of offenses for which Deadly Force is allowable. His point was there is no LEGAl requirement to warn anyone when something is occuring that is defined by statute as being a defense against prosecution for the use of Deadly Force. I personally would issue some sort of warning, but apparently one isn't required.

Russell wrote:. The only way to keep yourself from getting in trouble is worry about yourself and your family, that's it.

...and all that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.

Here's the deal, if you round that proverbial corner and come upon the administration of a beat down, you will have both the beater and the beatee covered with your gun. If the beater is the good guy, then he needs to stop giving the beating and wait for the cops to get there, and the beatee needs to lay still or risk getting shot. If the beater is the bad guy, then he needs to stop, lay down, and wait for the cops to get there, and the beatee needs to get up and get away from the creep - and wait for the cops to get there. If the person giving the beating is an under cover cop, then he needs to stop long enough to show you his badge and ask you to call 911 for backup. He is also likely to stop the beating, now that he has a witness. If the beater is a bad guy, and the beatee is a cop, then you've just saved a cop's life, and that is never a bad thing to have on your "permanent record."

I understand the primary responsibility to our loved ones, and there are certain scenarios, like mall shootings for instance, where that has to factor heavily into your decision to beat feet out of there. But in an isolated instance of stumbling across a beating in progress, on planet TAM you have a moral obligation to at least interrupt the beating until you know that justice is being served. I would want that done for me if I were the victim, and that is why I would feel the obligation to act accordingly.

...but that's just my 2¢.

kalipsocs wrote:I was refreshing my memory the other night on when justified to use force/deadly force and while reading I didn't notice anything mentioning a case of assault. Did I miss something? I mean I can see that people don't want gun fights arising from physical fights, but we all know that assault can turn into murder quickly if you get beat bad enough. So can anyone clarify and advice on how to handle properly? Calling the police comes to mind but if you are getting pummeled that might be hard to do. Thanks guys

Simple assault, no. Aggravated assault, yes. Why? Because simple assault is any unwanted forceful physical contact; it does not even have to result in injury. If a solicitor at a mall grabbed and held you to try to give his pitch, he's committed assault. Not a circumstance in which you would be justified in shooting him.

The difference that makes it aggravated assault, is if the assault results in serious bodily injury (itself defined as "bodily injury that
creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ") or the actor uses or displays a deadly weapon during the assault.

You can use deadly force when, and to the degree necessary, you are acting to prevent aggravated assault. Trouble is you have to act in foresight of serious injury, where a DA would decide if it were simple or aggravated assault in hindsight based on the damage done. To your favor, as long as it reasonably COULD HAVE BEEN aggravated assault, it doesn't matter what it ended up being; if someone swings once and connects, then you draw and they back off, you're pretty well-covered even if you only got bruised. If you shoot, you better have a few witnesses to lend credence to your assertion that he could have, and probably would have, killed you. And remember, provocation negates all; if you said or did something that you should have known was going to get you laid out with a goose egg on your jaw, that pistol better stay holstered or you're in a world of hurt.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Russell wrote:. The only way to keep yourself from getting in trouble is worry about yourself and your family, that's it.

...and all that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.

Here's the deal, if you round that proverbial corner and come upon the administration of a beat down, you will have both the beater and the beatee covered with your gun. If the beater is the good guy, then he needs to stop giving the beating and wait for the cops to get there, and the beatee needs to lay still or risk getting shot. If the beater is the bad guy, then he needs to stop, lay down, and wait for the cops to get there, and the beatee needs to get up and get away from the creep - and wait for the cops to get there. If the person giving the beating is an under cover cop, then he needs to stop long enough to show you his badge and ask you to call 911 for backup. He is also likely to stop the beating, now that he has a witness. If the beater is a bad guy, and the beatee is a cop, then you've just saved a cop's life, and that is never a bad thing to have on your "permanent record."

I understand the primary responsibility to our loved ones, and there are certain scenarios, like mall shootings for instance, where that has to factor heavily into your decision to beat feet out of there. But in an isolated instance of stumbling across a beating in progress, on planet TAM you have a moral obligation to at least interrupt the beating until you know that justice is being served. I would want that done for me if I were the victim, and that is why I would feel the obligation to act accordingly.

...but that's just my 2¢.

Criminals thrive and risk skyrockets in areas where the BG's can count on everyone pretending that nothing's happening when they see a serious attack.

I would agree with The Annoyed Man that directly intervening in situations where innocent life appears to be in immediate danger and failure to intervene would result in a serious injury or death is a moral obligation if you have the ability to do so without unreasonably endangering yourself or others. Doing so is clearly not without significant risks, but neither are most principled actions.

I would certainly hope that if a member of my family was the victim, a bystander would take action to prevent their further injury or death.

This does not mean running around playing cop or living out a vigilante fantasy, and the circumstances I outlined are rarely encountered by citizens. However, when they are encountered, I think we would become lesser men (or women) if we failed to do what we could to help.

Liko81 wrote:if someone swings once and connects, then you draw and they back off, you're pretty well-covered even if you only got bruised. If you shoot, you better have a few witnesses to lend credence to your assertion that he could have, and probably would have, killed you. And remember, provocation negates all; if you said or did something that you should have known was going to get you laid out with a goose egg on your jaw, that pistol better stay holstered or you're in a world of hurt.

It's always a good idea to SCREAM "DON'T HURT ME! LEAVE ME ALONE!" while defending yourself.

Russell wrote: Never assume anything when it comes to using deadly force. The only way to keep yourself from getting in trouble is worry about yourself and your family, that's it.

This is when it comes down to your personal/religious beliefs.
It's a mitzvah to help those in need, so I would probably come to the aid, but not let either party leave until law enforcement arrived.

Russell wrote:But then it turns out the guy just seconds before had tried to go on a shooting rampage and the person beating him over the head was actually the good guy, whom I might add you just drew your weapon on and permitted the bad guy to either continue firing or run away. You didn't know this because you were just turning the corner to see what all the commotion was about.

Hence the phrase "reasonably believes" in pretty much every one of those laws.

Excaliber wrote:Criminals thrive and risk skyrockets in areas where the BG's can count on everyone pretending that nothing's happening when they see a serious attack.

I would agree with The Annoyed Man that directly intervening in situations where innocent life appears to be in immediate danger and failure to intervene would result in a serious injury or death is a moral obligation if you have the ability to do so without unreasonably endangering yourself or others. Doing so is clearly not without significant risks, but neither are most principled actions.

I would certainly hope that if a member of my family was the victim, a bystander would take action to prevent their further injury or death.

This does not mean running around playing cop or living out a vigilante fantasy, and the circumstances I outlined are rarely encountered by citizens. However, when they are encountered, I think we would become lesser men (or women) if we failed to do what we could to help.

I think that just about sums it all up...