Drawing weapon vs. firing

[Broge5]

I have misplaced my handy little book. I saw somewhere on here someone mentioning the circumstances necessary for an officer to draw a weapon not being the same as the same as the circumstances necessary to legally fire at a suspect. I am not familiar with LEO rules, but could someone please help me with my memory. I could be wrong (it has happened once before) but I seem to remember that the circumstances necessary [abbreviated profanity deleted] me as a chl'r to draw my weapon are the exact same as those that allow me to legally fire it as well. Intent, Opportunity, Ability, etc. I imagine many situations in that I may not have the need to fire after drawing, but prior to the draw, aren't the rules the same? I do pray however that I never have to do either.

[NcongruNt]

It is a complex issue, but there are laws to address the different circumstances. It is not the same for a CHLer as it is for an LEO, where they have to deal with procedures of escalation of force specific to their situation.

There are distinctions made in the law between Use of Deadly Force and Threat of Deadly Force in specific circumstances. I'm not as up to par on the law to explain it, as it is somewhat complex, but there are distinctions, and I'm sure that there are folks here that will post an in-depth explanation of this area of the law. I know it has been explained here before, so I'll see if I can find the post.

[Furyataurus]

IMO, it all depends on the situation, and there's a load of them! Only you can answer that for yourself.

[NcongruNt]

Here is the section in the TPC regarding Threat Of Deadly force. It is in TPC 9.04.

PC § 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Necessity of Force

PC 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately nec-
essary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly out-
weigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm
sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the
conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Protection of Persons

PC 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately neces-
sary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reason-
able if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehi-
cle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kid-
napping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regu-
lating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(I) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being
made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's
presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is
unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by
the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates
to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely
abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use
unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the
other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person
while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(6) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section
46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or
person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force
than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace of-
ficer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than
necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter
except as provided in Sections 9.32,9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the
force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the
force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time
the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as
described by this section.
(9 For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor
described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force
was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor
failed to retreat.

PC 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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, rob-
bery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force
was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is
presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehi-
cle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regu-
lating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the
deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom
the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at
the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using
deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an
actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of
deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether
the actor failed to retreat.

PC 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
( I ) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes
them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in
using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force
or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the
third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immedi-
ately necessary to protect the third person.

PC 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and
to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately neces-
sary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious
bodily injury to himself.
(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 otheh l i e in an
emergency.

Protection of Property

PC 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possessionof land or tangible, movable property is justified in
using force against another when and to the degree the actor reason-
ably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or termi-
nate the othets trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the
property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immedi-
ately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor
uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession
and:
( I ) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force,
threat, or fraud against the actor.

PC 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangi-
ble, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41 ; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other imminent commission of arson, bur-
glary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or crimi-
nal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after com-
mitting burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night-
time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.

PC 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A per-
son is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the cir-
cumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be
justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference consti-
tutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the
tangible
movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(6) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or prop
erty; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or
deadly force to protect is the actoh spouse, parent, or child, resides
with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

PC 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justifi-
cation afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a de-
vice to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to
create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as
the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

For police officers, there is a myriad of conditions on specific conduct involving deadly for or threat of deadly force:


Deadly Force

PC 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH. (a) A peace officer, or a person
acting in a peace officer's presence and at h direction, is justified in
using force against another when and to the degree the actor reason-
ably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in
making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing
escape after arrest, if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or,
if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes
the warrant is valid; and
(2) before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or
search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a
peace officer's direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose
and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made
known to the person to be arrested.
(b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his direc-
tion) is justified in using force against another when and to the degree
the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent or assist in
preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using force, the actor
manifests his purpose to and the reason for the arrest or reasonably
believes his purpose and the reason are already known by or cannot
reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another
when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent
escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under
Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is
authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that
the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to
the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.
(d) A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace officer's
presence and at his direction is justified in using deadly force against
another when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary to make a lawful arrest, or to
prevent escape after a lawful arrest, if the use of force would have
been justified under Subsection (b) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the felony or offense against the
public peace for which arrest is authorized included the use or at-
tempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that
the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to
another if the arrest is delayed.
(e) There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force justified by
Subsection (c) or (d).
(f) Nothing in this section relating to the actor's manifestation of
purpose or identity shall be construed as conflicting with any other law
relating to the issuance, service, and execution of an arrest or search
warrant either under the laws of this state or the United States.
(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances
enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d).

PC 9.52. PREVENTION OF ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY. The use
of force to prevent the escape of an arrested person from custody is
justifiable when the force could have been employed to effect the ar-
rest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard em-
ployed by a correctional facility or a peace officer is justified in using
any force, including deadly force, that he reasonably believes to be im-
mediately necessary to prevent the escape of a person from the cor-
rectional facility.

PC 9.53. MAINTAINING SECURITY IN CORRECTIONAL FACIL-
ITY. An officer or employee of a correctional facility is justified in using
force against a person in custody when and to the degree the officer or
employee reasonably believes the force is necessary to maintain the
security of the correctional facility, the safety or security of other per-
sons in custody or employed by the correctional facility, or his own
safety or security.

Also, general justification for various forms of force for public servants:

PC 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b)
and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct
is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a compe-
tent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal
process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used
against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect prop-
erty (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue
of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless
the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required
by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly
force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.
(d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor
reasonably believes:
(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the pro-
cess is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks ju-
risdiction or the process is unlawful; or
(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant
in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant ex-
ceeds his lawful authority.

[Edited to make formatting more clear.]

[NcongruNt]

IMO, it all depends on the situation, and there's a load of them! Only you can answer that for yourself.

There are relatively clear guidelines within the law as to how one is legally justified in responding. But yes, how one acts within those guidelines is subjective. Knowing the law and what you can specifically do legally in response to situation is imperative to formulating a plan for future response for oneself.

[mr.72]

As I pointed out in another thread on this topic, my reading of "the threat of deadly force is justified when the use of deadly force is justified" means that there is really no distinction in what justifies the threat vs. the use. So in other words, if you are justified in drawing a weapon, you are justified in firing it, as far as I can tell from reading the law. I read threads like this with interest in order to clarify my understanding.

I think that the notion that there are some circumstances wherein you are justified in threatening deadly force (draw a weapon), but are not justified in using deadly force, is a mistaken notion and would likely result in a world of legal trouble if you threaten deadly force without justification.

[Liko81]

As I pointed out in another thread on this topic, my reading of "the threat of deadly force is justified when the use of deadly force is justified" means that there is really no distinction in what justifies the threat vs. the use. So in other words, if you are justified in drawing a weapon, you are justified in firing it, as far as I can tell from reading the law. I read threads like this with interest in order to clarify my understanding.

I think that the notion that there are some circumstances wherein you are justified in threatening deadly force (draw a weapon), but are not justified in using deadly force, is a mistaken notion and would likely result in a world of legal trouble if you threaten deadly force without justification.

No. Read the statute again:

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, 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.

The threat of force is equivalent to the use of force, but the threat of deadly force is not equivalent to the use of deadly force; it is thus equivalent to the use of force other than deadly force (and as there are only two levels of force, it is simply the use of force).

Therefore, if you would be justified in using force, you would be justified in threatening deadly force. If you could punch an assailant in the face, you can draw a gun on him. That does provide for a few situations where you'd be justified in drawing but not firing. For instance:

* You are justified in using force to remove a trespasser from your property. You are NOT justified in using deadly force unless some greater crime was being committed or attempted such as arson or criminal mischief. You can escort a person off your property at gunpoint, but cannot shoot.
* You are justified in using force to restrain someone from committing a crime other than a crime that justifies deadly force. So, if someone's drunk and heading to their car, you can physically restrain them and even hold them at gunpoint, but cannot shoot.
* You are justified in using force, but not deadly force, to discipline, restrain or otherwise control a child or ward (without getting into the specifics of child abuse statutes, there is a difference between the two actions at law). If you think ordering your child to get out of bed at gunpoint is effective parenting, believe it or not you can do so, but your bluff better work because you're going to jail if you shoot.
* You are justified in using force, but not deadly force, to prevent a suicide. If you think it'll make the guy think twice, you can point a gun at him, but you are not justified in taking a "less deadly" shot to disable him, even though you'd end up saving his life, because shooting is use of deadly force whether it causes a death or not.

[mr.72]

Thanks Liko for the clarification!!

[zach]

This is always an interesting discussion, and I would like to add my own question to this mix.

From what I understand, drawing a firearm is considered a threat of force, not deadly force. Realistically though, I cannot think of a situation where I would consider drawing my firearm unless my life was really and truly in danger. I am a proponent of carry and self defense full stop. No debate about it, someone threatens my life or the life of my loved ones etc. I am not going to become a victim without a fight. On the other side, drawing a firearm escalates the conflict to a whole new level. You don't just pull a gun out and say "Hey, now that I have the upper hand, you should leave." We are no longer talking about something you can walk away from without serious consequences in some way. With that in mind, I can't imagine drawing a firearm in a situation that wouldn't require deadly force regardless if the law allows it.

I understand not everyone feels this way, but pulling out a gun opens you up to being shot dead. Legal or otherwise (generally otherwise), guns + argument = place I really do not want to be. l I have always wondered why people would even consider drawing on someone without the intent to shoot. What part of human nature am I not understanding?

[srothstein]

From what I understand, drawing a firearm is considered a threat of force, not deadly force.

No, the threat of deadly force is considered the use of force that is less than deadly. In other words, all threats are considered the same level of force. I can threaten to hit you or I can threaten to shoot you and it would be the use of the same level of force.

Realistically though, I cannot think of a situation where I would consider drawing my firearm unless my life was really and truly in danger. I am a proponent of carry and self defense full stop. No debate about it, someone threatens my life or the life of my loved ones etc. I am not going to become a victim without a fight. On the other side, drawing a firearm escalates the conflict to a whole new level. You don't just pull a gun out and say "Hey, now that I have the upper hand, you should leave." We are no longer talking about something you can walk away from without serious consequences in some way. With that in mind, I can't imagine drawing a firearm in a situation that wouldn't require deadly force regardless if the law allows it.

Well, most of the time I drew my weapon without the use of deadly force being justified or intended were preventive cases. For example, I would always draw my weapon to check a building out after a burglary. This would be the same as you drawing a weapon to check your house when your wife wakes you up with the famous "I heard something downstairs". line.

But I also would draw my weapon and threaten to use it when I wanted an overwhelming show of force to get someone to comply with my instructions. If someone was fighting with another person, and was big enough that I was not sure I could separate them, I would draw, aim, and yell for them to freeze. Many times making arrests, we did the same thing. We knew we could not shoot at that point, but the overwhelming show of force could get someone to comply where just telling them would not.

As a civilian, you generally will not be trying to make arrests, but the concept is the same. If you did hear someone breaking into your house, you would be armed and aiming at them when you told them to drop to the floor or leave or whatever you decided to do in that situation.

This is the type of situation the law was allowing for, IMHO. You are correct that if you are arguing and pull a gun, you are wrong most times.

I understand not everyone feels this way, but pulling out a gun opens you up to being shot dead. Legal or otherwise (generally otherwise), guns + argument = place I really do not want to be. l I have always wondered why people would even consider drawing on someone without the intent to shoot. What part of human nature am I not understanding?

I am reminded of the line from the movie "Freebie and the Bean". They were trying to arrest a large drunk football fan and aimed their revolvers at him. He started fighting with them, and the line was "These things are useless if you are not going to shoot" (or words to that effect).

A more accurate assessment is that a pistol is useless if you are not going to shoot AND you cannot convince the other person you are going to shoot. I have learned that if I can convince the other person I am crazy enough to shoot him anyway, I can get compliance even if I know I am not going to shoot.

[zach]

From what I understand, drawing a firearm is considered a threat of force, not deadly force.

No, the threat of deadly force is considered the use of force that is less than deadly. In other words, all threats are considered the same level of force. I can threaten to hit you or I can threaten to shoot you and it would be the use of the same level of force.

Realistically though, I cannot think of a situation where I would consider drawing my firearm unless my life was really and truly in danger. I am a proponent of carry and self defense full stop. No debate about it, someone threatens my life or the life of my loved ones etc. I am not going to become a victim without a fight. On the other side, drawing a firearm escalates the conflict to a whole new level. You don't just pull a gun out and say "Hey, now that I have the upper hand, you should leave." We are no longer talking about something you can walk away from without serious consequences in some way. With that in mind, I can't imagine drawing a firearm in a situation that wouldn't require deadly force regardless if the law allows it.

Well, most of the time I drew my weapon without the use of deadly force being justified or intended were preventive cases. For example, I would always draw my weapon to check a building out after a burglary. This would be the same as you drawing a weapon to check your house when your wife wakes you up with the famous "I heard something downstairs". line.

But I also would draw my weapon and threaten to use it when I wanted an overwhelming show of force to get someone to comply with my instructions. If someone was fighting with another person, and was big enough that I was not sure I could separate them, I would draw, aim, and yell for them to freeze. Many times making arrests, we did the same thing. We knew we could not shoot at that point, but the overwhelming show of force could get someone to comply where just telling them would not.

As a civilian, you generally will not be trying to make arrests, but the concept is the same. If you did hear someone breaking into your house, you would be armed and aiming at them when you told them to drop to the floor or leave or whatever you decided to do in that situation.

This is the type of situation the law was allowing for, IMHO. You are correct that if you are arguing and pull a gun, you are wrong most times.

I understand not everyone feels this way, but pulling out a gun opens you up to being shot dead. Legal or otherwise (generally otherwise), guns + argument = place I really do not want to be. l I have always wondered why people would even consider drawing on someone without the intent to shoot. What part of human nature am I not understanding?

I am reminded of the line from the movie "Freebie and the Bean". They were trying to arrest a large drunk football fan and aimed their revolvers at him. He started fighting with them, and the line was "These things are useless if you are not going to shoot" (or words to that effect).

A more accurate assessment is that a pistol is useless if you are not going to shoot AND you cannot convince the other person you are going to shoot. I have learned that if I can convince the other person I am crazy enough to shoot him anyway, I can get compliance even if I know I am not going to shoot.

As always, I really enjoy reading your responses. You have brought a few things to light for me to consider.

There are a few things that I haven't quite finished running through my head, but most of the cases you presented I would consider proactive gun drawing. The act of drawing a gun for the purpose of controlling someone else instead of defending myself, IMHO is reserved for LEO. Trying to stop a fight, dealing with unruly people on the street, any sort of proactive gun draw will not get a CHL'er anywhere. We can't arrest anyone (except for those with CHL badges), and more importantly I don't want to arrest anyone.

As far as drawing my gun for the early morning wife sponsored check, I am still conflicted, but see it different so far. If someone is actively intruding in my house, that gun is there to defend me. The intruder has actively violated me and mine, and I am in a position in which I have no choice but to defend. In the case of LEO clearing a building after a burglary, their gun serves two purposes. They are defending themselves, yes but they also have that gun out to maintain order and get compliance from the BG if they happen to cross paths. The LEO hasn't personally been intruded upon, so they aren't necessarily defending, but pro actively searching out.

hmm. Still more room for thought I suppose.

[dwhitley]

I can sum this up real simple.... If I have to draw my gun then I will use it. No more no less. I am waiting on my license to carry, but I do carry in my car and at my business that I own. I tell my partners the same carry but if you pull it better be to use it not to show. I am new to this whole thing of owning a gun but I have no issue using it. D

[srothstein]

Zach,

Here is one more thing for you to think about Zach. When you are checking your house, and you have your weapon drawn, and you come across a burglar, what are you going to do? Do you want him to leave or to surrender? If you think about it, you should probably just make him leave, but most of us are going to try to get him to lie down and wait. Even the old lady who recently made the bad guy call the police did this. THIS IS AN ARREST. You can, as a citizen make an arrest.

This is one of the reasons I have strongly recommended that all CHL's should read Chapter 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also. It has the authorities for arrests and you really should know that law. Making a legal arrest will also affect your authorities for force under Chapter 9. Those laws do not apply strictly to police, but to others making arrests also.

More important is to get you (well, everyone) to think in advance to what you will do and how to handle it when something does happen. A very important technique in training is to play out scenarios in your mind so you can know how you will react. You have started the process by realizing a problem exists and getting a CHL. You even went a step further and started thinking about how much force you can use when. Now, if we can get others to start doing the same thing and run scenarios, we have moved us all a step forward.

[txflyer]

I've read the statutes about a person other than peace officer making an arrest. I understand that I as normal everyday joe can arrest for a felony in my view or presence and for a crime that is a "breach of the peace". However, that seems to leave a lot leeway especially with the last term and I haven't found a good definition of "breach of peace"

Does anyone know of a good treatise on the "citizen's arrest" for the everyday person discussing limits (specifically here in Texas since the law is different in each state, but that's where I'll start) and when it would be a good idea and when it would be a bad idea? I'm not looking for "legal advice", I'm looking for an understanding of the law.

[dwhitley]

Each state with the exception of North Carolina permits citizen arrests if the commission of felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.[23]

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizen's arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and apply to both civilians and police officers outside their jurisdiction.[24]

Detention, being different from an arrest in the fact that a detainee may not be transported without consent, is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.[25]

A person who makes a citizen's arrest could risk exposing himself to possible lawsuits or criminal charges (such as charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest) if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated.

The level of responsibility that a person performing a citizen's arrest may bear depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, in France and Germany, a person stopping a criminal from committing a crime, including crimes against belongings, is not criminally responsible as long as the means employed are in proportion to the threat (note, however, that at least in Germany this results from a different legal norm: "self-defense" and "aid to others in immediate danger"—which are concerned with prevention, not prosecution, of crimes).