TexasCHLforum.com

I have a question that relates to the threat of deadly force. I have heard people say that you can only threaten deadly force if you were in a position where you were justified in using deadly force. However from reading the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws and Selected Statutes 2009-2010, I understand that you can threaten deadly force if you believe it might be necessary in the immediate future to use deadly force. I am referring to PC 9.04.

In an attempt to clarify what I am trying to ask, I will use this example:

Say I am confronted by one or more people who then demand I hand over my possessions. The aggressor is not at the moment showing a weapon, but I feel that if I do not comply I will be physically harmed. At this point am I justified in threatening deadly force by presenting a weapon?

This was not covered very well by my instructor and I would like some clarification.

P.S. for those that read my post on the Daily Toreador concealed carry poll, when they took the poll down we were winning and had 70% of the votes

Actually, in the scenario you give, you're justified in skipping straight to deadly force because it's a robbery, which is automatic justification for deadly force. But, you're right that 9.04 does say you can use the threat of deadly force even if deadly force is not yet justified.

Brian

If you do use the threat of deadly force by producing a weapon, make sure that when the dust settles you are the first one to call the Police and report the incident.

AEA wrote:If you do use the threat of deadly force by producing a weapon, make sure that when the dust settles you are the first one to call the Police and report the incident.

More than that.... Be the first to call, as there is one complainant, and first one to call is it. State you wish to press charges (even if he is dead). Point out all evidence (shell casings, knife, etc) as they can get kicked or blown around. Tell officer they will have your full cooperation within 24 hours, after you have consulted an attorney. Nothing more.

... here's a reference that has it explained right... http://pasadenachl.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and a thread where some lawyer nailed it!!!(Thanks, Boss!!!) viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1262" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's no way for me to explain the scope of Tex. Penal Code §9.04 (threats as [not "of"] force in a post. The thread link in speedsix's reply represented a long quest for the final answer and I was wrong in my first post. (I don't like losing an argument.) Since I won't give an incomplete answer, I can't go into a discussion of this topic, but I suggest you attend one of my Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Laws Seminar where I do cover this topic in detail.

I'll say this much; there is no case law on this aspect of §9.04 in Texas and at least one DPS Lt. agrees that deadly force can be threatened if any level of force can be used. The Lt. I'm talking about discussed this in one of my CHL Instructor renewal classes and he gave an example of showing his handgun to diffuse a situation he experienced when he was off-duty and not in uniform. (I know, he was still a COP with a COP's authority, but he gave it as an example for us to teach.) He would not have been justified in using deadly force, but he would have been justified in using less than lethal force. Again, this was merely his opinion with with I now (reluctantly) agree, but there is no case law!!

Chas.

...well, we've beaten this one up before and I'm not going into it again...guess we'll have to wait and see...but I disagree with the Lt...and I don't think you were wrong...

Thanks for the link speedsix, I was trying to find an already open thread, but was unsuccessful. After reading, its even more mind numbing and confusing than before I think I will just stick to only presenting a weapon if I am justified in using deadly force. Thanks for all the help guys, and I would love to take the Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Laws Seminar, I guess I will just stay tuned for when the next one is.

BrianSW99 wrote:Actually, in the scenario you give, you're justified in skipping straight to deadly force because it's a robbery, which is automatic justification for deadly force.

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