"my CHL instructor said the law has changed"

[switch]

In the last issue of Guns and Ammo mag, there was an article praising the SAA revolver for self-defense use.

A reader wrote that he agreed. In his last CHL renewal he learned the law had be interpreted that you have to wait after every shot to see if your opponent has been incapacitated, no more double taps.

I'm wonder if the instructor really said that. I do not recall any such instruction from DPS. I do tell students that when the agressor stops agressing, we need to stop shooting.

[JLaw]

Which issue of G&A is this? I'll look through mine to find it. But that surely does not sound right to me, I've never heard of such a thing. I can understand shoot until the threat is stopped, then stop shooting...but fire one shot, then wait to see if he's disabled or going to come 3 feet closer to you with that knife in his hand before you fire a second shot?!?!?!?! I don't think so. But then again, I'm not an instructor. Sorry if my opinion is bogus, but I don't understand how this could be part of the law.

JLaw

[switch]

I am going to try to contact the author (Dallas). Sure hope he was not one of MY students.

[Liberty]

Which issue of G&A is this? I'll look through mine to find it. But that surely does not sound right to me, I've never heard of such a thing. I can understand shoot until the threat is stopped, then stop shooting...but fire one shot, then wait to see if he's disabled or going to come 3 feet closer to you with that knife in his hand before you fire a second shot?!?!?!?! I don't think so. But then again, I'm not an instructor. Sorry if my opinion is bogus, but I don't understand how this could be part of the law.

JLaw

November 2006; Page 10 Title Single Actions, pro

I've seen enough statements here that begin with, "My CHL instructer told me .... " , That i didn't give this letter to the editor much weight. I do hope it gets clarified though.

[HighVelocity]

A reader wrote that he agreed. In his last CHL renewal he learned the law had be interpreted that you have to wait after every shot to see if your opponent has been incapacitated, no more double taps.

To blink your eyes takes 4 milliseconds. If you practice, you can put follow up shots on target in less than 1/2 second each (or even faster).
That means you could blink 125 times between shots.
I feel that's more than enough time to recognize whether or not the attacker is incapacitated.

Anyway, if a TX CHL instructor really said that, we definitely need to clear it up.

[flintknapper]

A reader wrote that he agreed. In his last CHL renewal he learned the law had be interpreted that you have to wait after every shot to see if your opponent has been incapacitated, no more double taps.

To blink your eyes takes 4 milliseconds. If you practice, you can put follow up shots on target in less than 1/2 second each (or even faster).
That means you could blink 125 times between shots.
I feel that's more than enough time to recognize whether or not the attacker is incapacitated.

Anyway, if a TX CHL instructor really said that, we definitely need to clear it up.

Not to argue but... maybe Superman's eyes blink in 4 milliseconds. The average human blinks in 300-400 milliseconds which is 3-4 tenths of a second. So, even if you could blink in 200 milliseconds....you would only be able to manage 5 blinks per second.

[HighVelocity]

Ok, so a math wiz I am not. Regardless, even if a person can blink 5 times, that's more than enough time to recognize incapacitation imo.

[txinvestigator]

Eye blinking?

Texas use of force Laws, Chapter 9 is where the laws are regarding using deadly force.


Texas Penal Code
§9.32. Deadly force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not
have retreated; and

(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Regardless of any letter to the editor or the speed of the human blink, you may use deadly force until it is no longer immediately necessary.

You may blink in milliseconds, but people do not react that quickly.

There is no law, rule or reason to fire one shot and stop. In fact, that is contrary to sound tactics and the manner we know people respond to being shot.

[flintknapper]

.
You may blink in milliseconds, but people do not react that quickly.

There is no law, rule or reason to fire one shot and stop. In fact, that is contrary to sound tactics and the manner we know people respond to being shot.

No argument here.

Because this could cause a problem too:


Tachypsychia is a neurological condition that distorts the perception of time, usually induced by physical exertion, drug use, or a traumatic event. It is sometimes referred to by martial arts instructors and self defense experts as the Tachy Psyche effect. For someone affected by tachypsychia, time perceived by the individual either lengthens, making events appear to slow down, or contracts, objects appearing as moving in a speeding blur. It is believed that tachypsychia is induced by a combination of high levels of dopamine and norepinephrine, usually during periods of great physical stress and/or in violent confrontation.

[Liberty]

Eye blinking?
There is no law, rule or reason to fire one shot and stop. In fact, that is contrary to sound tactics and the manner we know people respond to being shot.

Pretty much agree with TX on this one. Personally I'm gonna unload everything I have until there is no threat.
The original letter to the editor went like this.

... At my last Texas concealed carry license class, I learned that the interpetationof laws in Texas has changed in the last four years; a citizen firing in self-defense must fire once at an atttacker, then wait to determine the effectiveness of the shot and fire again only if the attacker is not incapacitated. ...

The letter to the editor writer seems to be refering to some unmentioned court case perhaps a civil case. This also seems to be information handed down 3 or 4 levels. He had heard it from his CHL instructer who had heard it from somewhere else. Something could easily have got distorted along the way.

[switch]

Wonder how long we have to wait? If he hasn't dropped in 2 seconds (during which time I have emptied my Glock), I will wait about 1.5 seconds (while I reload or draw my BUG).

[GlockenHammer]

Wonder how long we have to wait? If he hasn't dropped in 2 seconds (during which time I have emptied my Glock), I will wait about 1.5 seconds (while I reload or draw my BUG).

Way too funny!

I am familiar with an officer involved shooting in which the officer fired eleven shots in less than 1.5 seconds (verified by 911 tapes). When asked why he fired so many times, he replied that he was taught to shoot to stop the threat. The guy did not fall down and still had a gun in his hand and was thus still a threat. Good shoot.

I note, in case it is not obvious, that a gunshot generally starts a little bleeding and it is that loss of blood to the central nevous system (CNS) that stops an attacker. Even a person shot THROUGH THE HEART has enough oxygen in his brain to continue a fight for about 10 seconds. While he may be a dead man walking, that's long enough to inflict fatal damage to you.

No, you need to maximize blood loss and hope for a direct CNS hit to stop that attack. When the perp falls down, he MAY be out of the fight. He may not be. If he has a gun in his hand and he is moving, can he still fire a shot? You bet.

Don't stop firing until the threat is on the ground. Then you may find it safe enough to assess if he continues to be a threat. Like switch, that may be while I'm reloading and moving to cover (if I'm not already there).

Lastly, I'm resonably sure the LAW has not changed. That does not mean that someone didn't get a goofy jury and a poor lawyer that allowed some crap like that to happen in a specific case. But that said, I'm going to ensure that I am alive to stand trial first and foremost and I think firing one shot and assessing is very unsafe for me.

GH

Edited to note that I am not a CHL instructor or lawyer, so use what I say at your own risk.

[KBCraig]

The letter to the editor writer seems to be refering to some unmentioned court case perhaps a civil case. This also seems to be information handed down 3 or 4 levels.

Or, more likely, it's a third- or fourth-hand repetition of something that somebody just flat made up out of thin air.

"I wonder if it would be a good idea..." becomes "I think that..." becomes "I heard someone say that..." becomes "I was taught that..." becomes "The law now says..."

It's like the whispering game you played in grade school.

Kevin

[Mithras61]

The letter to the editor writer seems to be refering to some unmentioned court case perhaps a civil case. This also seems to be information handed down 3 or 4 levels.

Or, more likely, it's a third- or fourth-hand repetition of something that somebody just flat made up out of thin air.

"I wonder if it would be a good idea..." becomes "I think that..." becomes "I heard someone say that..." becomes "I was taught that..." becomes "The law now says..."

It's like the whispering game you played in grade school.

Kevin

This sounds like something made up by the same people that believe in a "one shot stop" gun. Most of us realize that the only "one shot stop" is the one that takes out a significant part of the CNS (the brain, the medulla, etc.) and that those are as often as not a lucky shot.

I pray every time I put the gun on that I won't need it. So far, my prayers have been answered.

[txinvestigator]

Wonder how long we have to wait? If he hasn't dropped in 2 seconds (during which time I have emptied my Glock), I will wait about 1.5 seconds (while I reload or draw my BUG).

Way too funny!

I am familiar with an officer involved shooting in which the officer fired eleven shots in less than 1.5 seconds (verified by 911 tapes). When asked why he fired so many times, he replied that he was taught to shoot to stop the threat. The guy did not fall down and still had a gun in his hand and was thus still a threat. Good shoot.

I note, in case it is not obvious, that a gunshot generally starts a little bleeding and it is that loss of blood to the central nevous system (CNS) that stops an attacker. Even a person shot THROUGH THE HEART has enough oxygen in his brain to continue a fight for about 10 seconds. While he may be a dead man walking, that's long enough to inflict fatal damage to you.

No, you need to maximize blood loss and hope for a direct CNS hit to stop that attack. When the perp falls down, he MAY be out of the fight. He may not be. If he has a gun in his hand and he is moving, can he still fire a shot? You bet.

Don't stop firing until the threat is on the ground. Then you may find it safe enough to assess if he continues to be a threat. Like switch, that may be while I'm reloading and moving to cover (if I'm not already there).

Lastly, I'm resonably sure the LAW has not changed. That does not mean that someone didn't get a goofy jury and a poor lawyer that allowed some crap like that to happen in a specific case. But that said, I'm going to ensure that I am alive to stand trial first and foremost and I think firing one shot and assessing is very unsafe for me.

GH

Edited to note that I am not a CHL instructor or lawyer, so use what I say at your own risk.

Great post