TexasCHLforum.com

Short of my family I would probably stand back and observe the situation as long as possible, should the perp actually start attacking the guard then the price of poker goes up. Should that happen my first choice would be OC if readily available, then deadly force.

Being a 3rd party not attached to me somehow (family, friend, etc) I'm would be a little slower getting invloved. Is that right? Probably not. But I've got a family to provide for and can't do that if some over zealous DA (Ronnie Earl for example) decides to prosecute. May not get convicted, but would end up having a huge pile of legal bills.

Russell wrote:.

I'm assuming pulling a knife on somebody is unlawful deadly force,

Pulling a knife is not, in and of itself, the use of deadly force. However, remember that you can use deadly force to protect from the unlawful use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. I would say in the situation you described, you are thoroughly justified in presenting your weapon.

and as such if warrented, and the teenager doesn't drop the knife by verbal commands alone, you can move to displaying your weapon if the teenager continues to make threatening gestures towards you or the security guard.

If I was going to intervene, I would not do so without presenting my firearm. A person can easily kill you or the guard with an edged weapon. If he is within 21 feet he can easily cross that distance and cut the other person before you can draw and fire. The teens distance from the guard and you will dicate what action is next.

I personally would try to OC the punk first and let him be in pain for a while until the cops arrive if the guard is obviously not able to take care of the teenager himself, but if I am reading the law correctly drawing your weapon is lawful.

I would never attempt to use OC on a person armed with a knife if I have a firearm. When I was sprayed I could have cut the instructor if I had had an edged weapon in hand.

This scenario could be problematic for you if you do not have ALL of the facts. However, even if the teen was legally defending himself from the guard (stranger things have happened) your presentation of a firearm would allow the teen to escape.






-

If the guard obviously needs help and is not able to handle the situation himself, I would be willing to help to keep him from getting stabbed, even if it involves drawing down on the knife-weilding teenager.




What do you guys think? Would you get involved immediately, wait to see if the guard can handle the situation himself first (my vote), or just call the cops and hope for the best since it is a bit of a slippery slope in dealing with underage punks?

The fact that the person is underage makes no difference in defending yourself or a third person. Teens can and do kill.

I don't carry OC so that's not an option. I also wouldn't dream of using OC on a person armed with a knife, that's like using a knife against someone with a gun. I've been hit with OC in training and I can tell you that if I have a deadly weapon and intend to kill you with that weapon that OC will not stop me from killing you. A determined person can work through the pain of the OC without too much trouble.

If it were me I'd make sure I'm out of harm's way and use my cell phone (if I had it on me) to call 911 while I observed from safety. The security guard should either (a) have an option for dealing with deadly force or (b) let the guy run away. If the guard chooses to engage someone armed with a knife when the guard doesn't have a weapon then I'd say he made a bad choice.

The only way I'd consider getting involved would be if the guy was actually physically assaulting the guard with the knife, and even then I'd prefer picking up something and beating the guy with an object over shooting the guy. You might hit the guard, you might miss all together. I don't want to fire off a gun in a mall (can you imagine the ricochet potential) with all those people in there, and a good hard bashing on the head (repeat as necessary to stop the attack) with a metal chair or some other large object picked up from a store display would do the trick as long as the attacker was focusing on the guard and didn't see me coming up behind him.

That's just me, but if I don't know you and I'm not being paid to protect you then I'm most likely not going to wade into a gunfight on your behalf. I don't need the legal woes that are sure to follow, and I don't want to risk the potential of a bullet that I fire going somewhere I didn't intend for it to go.

That's a tough one. I would be more inclined along the lines of letting things sort out and seeing what happens. If an attack took place, I would probably lean more towards Odin's plan of cracking his skull with a well placed blow to the noggin if I could do so without being cut.

I would think the odds of the kid actually attacking would be pretty slim and that he is probably just using the knife as a delay while looking for an escape route.

I haven't done any research on it, but was told during CHL class that it will cost you about 10 grand in legal fees minimum to deal with a fully justified shooting.

My two cents anyway.

One guy in my CHL class had a bunch of what-if questions similar to this. The instructor said our CHL gives us the ability to protect ourselves. It does not make us police officers.

To answer the question, I would probably not get involved. If it was a bad guy and a possible rape victim in the parking lot, maybe. But the scenario presented is between a bad guy and a security person. It's that person's job to control the situation. Not mine.

texas297 wrote:Short of my family I would probably stand back and observe the situation as long as possible, should the perp actually start attacking the guard then the price of poker goes up. Should that happen my first choice would be OC if readily available, then deadly force.

Being a 3rd party not attached to me somehow (family, friend, etc) I'm would be a little slower getting invloved. Is that right? Probably not. But I've got a family to provide for and can't do that if some over zealous DA (Ronnie Earl for example) decides to prosecute. May not get convicted, but would end up having a huge pile of legal bills.

propellerhead wrote:One guy in my CHL class had a bunch of what-if questions similar to this. The instructor said our CHL gives us the ability to protect ourselves. It does not make us police officers.

No it doesn't. We are already there. Officers don't have to protect you. They only have to try to get the bad guy.
As TXI said, if he has a knife and is threatening the guard with it, I would have my gun in hand and order him to get the (heck) out of there. Presenting your gun in a situation where another's life is being threatened with a deadly weapon does not mean that you have to pull the trigger. Your threat of deadly force, if necessary, will most likely be enough for a mentally competent person to realize that they won't win, and should leave. You have stayed within the confines of the law, nobody got hurt, and maybe that punk learned something valuable. Or he learned to have a gun instead of a knife next time. But hopefully not.

kauboy wrote:

propellerhead wrote:One guy in my CHL class had a bunch of what-if questions similar to this. The instructor said our CHL gives us the ability to protect ourselves. It does not make us police officers.

No it doesn't. We are already there. Officers don't have to protect you. They only have to try to get the bad guy.
As TXI said, if he has a knife and is threatening the guard with it, I would have my gun in hand and order him to get the hell out of there. Presenting your gun in a situation where another's life is being threatened with a deadly weapon does not mean that you have to pull the trigger. Your threat of deadly force, if necessary, will most likely be enough for a mentally competent person to realize that they won't win, and should leave. You have stayed within the confines of the law, nobody got hurt, and maybe that punk learned something valuable. Or he learned to have a gun instead of a knife. But hopefully not.

The problems I see are (a) what if the bad guy doesn't "get the hell out of there" but instead turns his attention to you and (b) people who pull knives on security guards in the mall are probably not "mentally competent" and won't reach the same conclusion that you or I would reach if someone pointed a gun at us.

People are unpredictable and I don't want to roll the dice with a guy holding a knife on someone in a public place and hope that he does what I want him to do when he seems my gun. If he diverts his attention from the guard to me and decides to "test" me then I've pretty much put myself in a situation where I have to shoot the guy (I'm damn sure not going to let him get close to me with that knife). Even if he doesn't attack me, what if the police show up while I'm standing there pointing a gun at a guy with a knife? That's not a situation me or the responding officers want to be in, and it's full of potential problems.

propellerhead wrote: But the scenario presented is between a bad guy and a security person. It's that person's job to control the situation. Not mine.

There you go. It is the responsiblity of the merchant to hire competent security personnel. If the guard can't handle a teenager with a knife, then he should not have confronted him.

Is that cold? Yeah, it is. But, I don't have the $10K or $20K to defend myself in court after "stopping" a teenager from shoplifting. Because that's what this would come down to. All the guard has to do is back off, let the kid go, and it's over. The downside is, the punk kid gets away to steal another day. But everyone lives, and I get to go home to my family.

I am a CHL holder, not a trained law enforcement official; not a vigilante. I carry a firearm to protect my life, my family, and, in the right circumstances, the life of another. This doesn't meet the criteria.

Why do any of us carry then?

If you're worried about getting involved, why carry?

If you're worried about the money, why carry?

If you're not willing to protect the life of another human being, why carry?

If you're not willing to stop a felony in progress, why carry?

It is correct that we're not policemen, but we do have a duty (9.21 (d)(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the perform-ance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.) that is authorized by the statues in our handbooks given to us by the State Department of Public Safety.

Would I???
Each case is different, each has it's own shade of gray, each is to be determined by it's own special circumstances in the heat of the moment.

I'd say tho, if you're not willing to ever come to someone's aid, then leave the weapon at home, and return your license to Austin.

Just my humble opinion.

Russ

Odin wrote:The problems I see are (a) what if the bad guy doesn't "get the hell out of there" but instead turns his attention to you and (b) people who pull knives on security guards in the mall are probably not "mentally competent" and won't reach the same conclusion that you or I would reach if someone pointed a gun at us.

If (a) happens, then I deal with him as his next action dictates. If (b) happens, see answer (a).

In this scenario, I have attempted to intervene and end the problem, hopefully with everybody walking away. I would never be able to carry again if I stood by while talking to 911 and watched this kid stab an 80 year old security guard to death when I could have stopped it. What would be the point? The law gives you the ability to protect another form the unlawful use of deadly force against them. You don't have to know them personally, but soon after scaring the kid enough for him to flee(if he does), you may have very well made a good friend for life in the person you stepped in to help. I stop to help folks on the side of the road now and then for the same reason that I would intervene here. They deserve help. We all need help. If somebody ever pulls a knife on me and I'm not armed, I would certainly want a fellow CHLer to step in and help me. Maybe I'm just weird but I really don't like the idea of dying.

EDIT: Careful Russ, that section only gives you permission if an officer requests your assistance.

llwatson wrote:I am a CHL holder, not a trained law enforcement official; not a vigilante. I carry a firearm to protect my life, my family, and, in the right circumstances, the life of another. This doesn't meet the criteria.

Um, it looks to me like it meets your criteria.
You will NEVER find yourself in the "right circumstances", and if you stop to analyze it to determine if it is, you're already too late.

kw5kw wrote:I'd say tho, if you're not willing to ever come to someone's aid, then leave the weapon at home, and return your license to Austin.

Russ-
I agree with you that every situation is unique and one must know what the circumstances are.

I can't say that I agree with your above statement in most circumstances. Priority for me is to protect :

1. My wife and family
2. Myself

I can't effectively maintain a focus on their safety and who might be coming up behind them if I allow myself to get tunnel vision with what is in front of me. Just remember that the situation could very well be a diversion. I do think each person has to lay their head down at night knowing that the right thing was done. It is very possible to do the right thing and still be hurt or incarcerated.
Jason

One view of the scenario may be the teen wants to hurt the guard. The other view is that the thief is bluffing to get away.

There is an additional threat to be concerned with in the above scenario - the malls are heavily inhabited by teens. They can be wonderful, or they can be dangerous. Groups of teens may rapidly decide to do things that individuals would not ever consider doing. These days, it is prudent to consider teens as potential threats.

These teens may decide to interfere with your efforts, join the fight, try to seek revenge on you at a later date, or follow you later to steal your firearm.