TexasCHLforum.com

Can someone provide me with a handgun related example/senario that I can use in my CHL classes to explain this statute?

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other’s life in an emergency.

TIA!

If a person is attempting suicide, you could shoot them in the arm to prevent them from doing so.

That is the example I use, if pressed to do so.

Crossfire wrote:If a person is attempting suicide, you could shoot them in the arm to prevent them from doing so.

That is the example I use, if pressed to do so.

I have to respectfully but strongly disagree.

In my view (and that of every law enforcement trainer I've ever met or heard of), the concept of using deadly force against a suicidal person whose life you are trying to save is fundamentally flawed and should never be considered. My answer to that question from a student would be that a firearm is not the only or appropriate tool for everything.

Here are a few post firing event sequences that illustrate why using a firearm against a suicidal person is not just a really bad idea but a horrible one:

- The person moved as you fired and the round penetrated the torso and transited major organs; the subject died
- You fire accurately but the round was deflected by bone in the arm and penetrated the torso and transited major organs; the subject died
- Your aim was off by just a bit and the round penetrated the torso and transited major organs; the subject died
- Your aim was good and the round stayed in the arm, but it pierced the brachial artery and the subject bled to death.
- Your aim was good, the round stayed in the arm, the subject didn't die, but he lost use of that arm due to shattered bones and nerve damage. His lawyer is aggressively going after everything you now own and everything you may earn in the future because of the pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inability to work he now faces.

I could go on, but you get the idea, and each of those scenarios is a very definite possibility that you can't reasonably say wouldn't happen after you lose control of the situation at the moment your bullet leaves the barrel.

How well do you think the section of law cited would provide protection for you against the taking of that life, and how do you think that idea would fly with the investigating officer, prosecutor, judge, and jury? The section cited would provide some protection for restraining measures or possibly a chokehold or similar measure. I sure wouldn't bet on it for a gunshot, even though one could make an argument that it would based on the literal wording of the statute. When the "reasonable man" standard is applied by a prosecutor, I don't think shooting a person to keep him from killing himself would look reasonable to a jury at all.

If deadly force is the only way to stop the suicide, as terrible as it sounds, your best option is to recognize you can't stop all bad things from happening, and not stop the suicide at all.

I can't think of a gun-related example. As Excaliber stated: "a firearm is not the only or appropriate tool for everything."

Maybe a better example would be if a person were in a car accident and his arm was smashed between the door and frame.

A medic could amputate his arm [deadly force] so that he wouldn't bleed to death.

WildBill wrote:I can't think of a gun-related example. As Excaliber stated: "a firearm is not the only or appropriate tool for everything."

Maybe a better example would be if a person were in a car accident and his arm was smashed between the door and frame.

A medic could amputate his arm [deadly force] so that he wouldn't bleed to death.

This is the type of example that I have used...but, I am still looking for on that involves a gun...

I specifically referenced part (b) to exclude part (a) which deals with suicide...the statutes regarding (a) are clear enough to me.

Thanks to all who have responded thus far.

I am still looking for an answer to this that involves the use of a handgun.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other’s life in an emergency.

jamcgowan wrote:I am still looking for an answer to this that involves the use of a handgun.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other’s life in an emergency.

This is kind of far-fetched and would probably only happen in a movie or TV show.

A kidnapped person is handcuffed to a pipe.

The kidnapper has left the house and a CHL, who doesn't have a key, enters the room and shoots the handcuffs, allowing the prisoner to escape.

Using your gun to stop a suicide comes under the "we had to destroy it to save it" heading.

WildBill wrote:

jamcgowan wrote:I am still looking for an answer to this that involves the use of a handgun.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other’s life in an emergency.

This is kind of far-fetched and would probably only happen in a movie or TV show.

A kidnapped person is handcuffed to a pipe.

The kidnapper has left the house and a CHL, who doesn't have a key, enters the room and shoots the handcuffs, allowing the prisoner to escape.

I like this example... thanks.

Deadly force (of course) is more than just a handgun.

You are evacuating a house that is on fire. Someone is refusing to leave. You can use force to yank him out of there. If it turns into a struggle and you knock him out with a head tap, say butt of gun, that could be construed as deadly force.

Jumping Frog wrote:Deadly force (of course) is more than just a handgun.

You are evacuating a house that is on fire. Someone is refusing to leave. You can use force to yank him out of there. If it turns into a struggle and you knock him out with a head tap, say butt of gun, that could be construed as deadly force.

Interesting...

Thanks...

Scenario:

A man is threatening to jump off a very high bridge into a rocky abyss. While you have his attention, a police officer is able to approach unobserved by the jumper, grab him, and yank him away from the edge. Unfortunately, in the struggle, the man breaks free and the officer is knocked to the ground. The jumper, now more intent than ever on dying, sprints toward the other side of the bridge. You're too distant to catch him and the officer will barely be off the ground before the jumper clears the edge - assuredly ending his life. In a split second, you realize that a) you have a pistol, b) you have a clear shot, and c) the scene is backed by nothing but a 40-foot dirt embankment. You draw, aim in the general vicinity of his knees, and fire.

Questions:

Regardless of the outcome, is your action legal under PC 9.34(b)?

dogflight wrote:Scenario:

A man is threatening to jump off a very high bridge into a rocky abyss. While you have his attention, a police officer is able to approach unobserved by the jumper, grab him, and yank him away from the edge. Unfortunately, in the struggle, the man breaks free and the officer is knocked to the ground. The jumper, now more intent than ever on dying, sprints toward the other side of the bridge. You're too distant to catch him and the officer will barely be off the ground before the jumper clears the edge - assuredly ending his life. In a split second, you realize that a) you have a pistol, b) you have a clear shot, and c) the scene is backed by nothing but a 40-foot dirt embankment. You draw, aim in the general vicinity of his knees, and fire.

Questions:

Regardless of the outcome, is your action legal under PC 9.34(b)?

When we have to contort ourselves this far to try to come up with a weak theoretical situation for application, the most likely conclusion is that what we're trying to do isn't a real good idea.

See my earlier comments on the shot to the arm.

Substitute "leg" for arm and "femoral" for "brachial."

The likelihood of the round entering the torso is theoretically lower with a knee shot, but there are still more than enough nightmare endings to this to make it a really bad idea, including bleed out and crippling injury.

In situations like this it's good to remember that just because you're holding a hammer doesn't mean that everything you come across is some version of a nail.

Excaliber wrote: In situations like this it's good to remember that just because you're holding a hammer doesn't mean that everything you come across is some version of a nail.

I am in the Quality Assurance field. We have a similar saying: "When a hammer is the only tool you have in your toolbox, every problem looks like a nail."

WildBill wrote:

Excaliber wrote: In situations like this it's good to remember that just because you're holding a hammer doesn't mean that everything you come across is some version of a nail.

I am in the Quality Assurance field. We have a similar saying: "When a hammer is the only tool you have in your toolbox, every problem looks like a nail."

That's true. However, it can be self limiting when you do have other tools in the toolbox and other decision options, but you only focus on what can be done by using the hammer.

I think that's the situation we're looking at in this discussion.

Excaliber wrote:

dogflight wrote:Scenario:

A man is threatening to jump off a very high bridge into a rocky abyss. While you have his attention, a police officer is able to approach unobserved by the jumper, grab him, and yank him away from the edge. Unfortunately, in the struggle, the man breaks free and the officer is knocked to the ground. The jumper, now more intent than ever on dying, sprints toward the other side of the bridge. You're too distant to catch him and the officer will barely be off the ground before the jumper clears the edge - assuredly ending his life. In a split second, you realize that a) you have a pistol, b) you have a clear shot, and c) the scene is backed by nothing but a 40-foot dirt embankment. You draw, aim in the general vicinity of his knees, and fire.

Questions:

Regardless of the outcome, is your action legal under PC 9.34(b)?

When we have to contort ourselves this far to try to come up with a weak theoretical situation for application, the most likely conclusion is that what we're trying to do isn't a real good idea.

The first half of the story (up to the jumper breaking free), happened a week or so ago in the DFW area. The only important "contortion" in the scenario was the mad dash for the other side of the bridge. The "you" in the scenario was also a police officer, and therefore had a gun, so the scenario's not such a "weak theoretical situation" after all.

(One detail does differ from the real life event: the bridge did not span a rocky abyss, but rather a freeway sporting dense, high-speed traffic. This was changed in order to keep the "Defense of a Third Person" angle out of the equation.)

None of which is to say that the use of a firearm in these circumstances would be a "real good idea". But whether we feel an action is good or bad often carries litle weight in criminal court. I think we can all agree that shooting the man would be an ugly and high-risk proposition. But please do not so casually disregard the fact that the man faces certian death in a jump, versus the (admitedly high-risk) possibility of surviving the bullet of a would-be rescuer.

So, the question remains; would PC 9.34(b) apply to the original scenario?