TexasCHLforum.com

A CHL was driving in Houston and noticed an agitated male driver on his right. The CHL was convinced he saw the driver point a pistol in his direction. The CHL then drew and exposed his pistol in response, just to let the other driver know that the CHL was armed and to keep the incident from escallating - (no shots were fired). The agitated driver called police - the CHL was pulled over, arrested and charged with Aggrivated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. (felony) The police report confirmed the other driver was not a CHL and did, in fact, have an concealed handgun in his possession (kept in his belt). He was not confined.

The CHLer should have nailed the brakes, changed lanes, or otherwise bailed out of the situation, while noting the license number.
First guy to grab the cellphone wins.
When they add "Road rage" to the charges things add up quick.
It's just not worth it.

So how does showing a weapon keep things from escallating?

TxRVer wrote:So how does showing a weapon keep things from escallating?

I'll bet that CHL guy is wondering the same thing...now.

As others have noted, BAD call on the CHL's part.. But I'm sure he knows that by now
Rule ONE, gun only sees the light of day if it is to be used... "Showing" a weapon only places you at a tactical disadvantage.

To the cops, the guy who calls in first is not guilty. The other guy is. A court may see it differently, but that won't help you in the beginning.

bronco78 wrote:As others have noted, BAD call on the CHL's part.. But I'm sure he knows that by now
Rule ONE, gun only sees the light of day if it is to be used... "Showing" a weapon only places you at a tactical disadvantage.

there's no way I woud have pulled my gun to just show
someone...especially drivin down the road.
Just rediculous!

Bonehead decision by the chl holder!

I’ll stir the pot. In the pre-CHL, pre cell phone era, I’ve done something similar twice to good effect. Both occurred in the early morning hours when separate vehicles made repeated attempts to run me off the road.

In the ‘70’s, I picked up the weekend Chronicle and dropped off papers to the neighborhood carriers. The first occurrence happened while doing this. The second occurrence was in the early ‘80s while returning home from a friend’s. Both times it was very early on a weekend morning, so it is quite likely the other party was drunk.

If I sped up or slowed, the aggressor stayed with me. The first was resolved by pointing my M-1 carbine out the window. The second time, I pointed my Rem 870. End of situations.

I don’t fault the CHL for pointing his gun. I fault him for not being the first to report.

Mike1951 wrote: I don’t fault the CHL for pointing his gun. I fault him for not being the first to report.

I Agree with Mike1951- PC9.04 The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter...a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force. In other words, it was perfectly legal to show his weapon - even after he had one pointed at him.

While many in this thread have stated that showing his firearm wasn't the smartest route for the CHL to take and maybe it wasn't, but I submit it was better than some of the alternatives he could have taken and it did end the confrontation. Further, it has been documented time and again that the simple brandishing of a weapon has saved lives.

It's been stated in this thread that the first one to the phone, wins and that's what happened in this case. The perp had a girl in the car that called 911 and the CHL was pulled over by HPD less than 6 minutes later. He knew to make the call, but had not had the opportunity.

The perp in the offending car, in fact, had a .40 cal and was not a CHL - he was charged with unlawfully carrying.

Chisholm wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:
The perp in the offending car, in fact, had a .40 cal and was not a CHL - he was charged with unlawfully carrying.

It's not unlawful to carry in your car unless you're committing some other crime...or a gang member, so what else was the guy doing? If it was pointing the gun at people, then you'd think they'd charge him with that and let the other guy go.

I think its a case of haul 'em in and let the judge sort it out.

Chisholm wrote:The CHL was pulled over, arrested and charged with Aggrivated Assault with a Deadly Weapon.

Correctly. The DA has to negate any "exceptions" in seeking an indictment, but a defendant has to bring to light a defense or affirmative defense.

My two cents aren't much different from others.

1. If you ever have to pull your gun, you should call police. Even if you don't use it, you should call the police. For precisely this reason, that should be done. If the other guy calls and you don't, they will believe him, not you at least at first.

2. I agree it may not have been smart to pull his gun at that time, but I wasn't there. However, he should have pulled over immediately after and called the police.

3. Question: If the guy did not have CHL and was carrying the gun in his BELT, wouldn't that automatically be carrying on his person and not in his car? I'm surprised the cops didn't arrest him.

4. Question: Anyone got a link to an article?